There are 221 users in the forums
Why did we overpay so much for Brooks? And where does that leave us now?
Mar 1, 2012 at 12:33 AM
- schmons
- Veteran
- Posts: 3,145
we're going to have the most expensive group of linebackers in the NFL when navarro bowman is a free agent in 2 or 3 years! he's only making $490,000 next year
Mar 1, 2012 at 12:45 AM
- Youngb
- Veteran
- Posts: 1,257
Originally posted by schmons:
we're going to have the most expensive group of linebackers in the NFL when navarro bowman is a free agent in 2 or 3 years! he's only making $490,000 next year
He's a FA after next year. Everyone else is locked up after that
Mar 1, 2012 at 1:16 AM
- Niners99
- Veteran
- Posts: 43,169
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
He won't be paid $44 Million . . .
He will if he plays out his contract and meets signing bonuses and other bonus money....
NFL players RARELY ever make their full contracts. its all about guaranteed money. he got 17 mil, not 44. in football they have to earn their salary, so the only way he makes all 44 mil is if hes a booming success. in which case hed be worth every penny.
the 49ers know what theyre doing. they just locked up what wouldve been the premier 3-4 OLB on the f/a market for fair value.
Mar 1, 2012 at 2:09 AM
- 49ERSALLDAYEVERYDAY
- Veteran
- Posts: 12
Brooks is a BIG part of what we do.. People forget they didn't even get a playbook to study at all till pretty much the season started. Not like Alex and company. But the D never said a word about it.. I expect him to break out with 10 or more sacks next year! All focus will be on Mr. Aldon coming around the edge, a beast in the middle, and a nasty d-line. He is a big X-factor going into next year.. He's paid now and we gave him his 2nd chance after he got cut. He will be on a mission this year! And I hope he does reach the max on this contract. Because that will mean he's in complete beast mode and we'll be back to winning Championships! No one wants to face this D. They knocked out so many players!
Mar 1, 2012 at 3:29 AM
- antclns
- Veteran
- Posts: 1
york and baalke are not dumb. if brooks gets the 44 million yall better believe he earned it. i am pretty sure there are things such as 10+ sacks, 3int,probowl, 85% of the defensive snaps. things like that. IT WILL BE HARD FOR BROOKS TO MAKE THE 44 MILLION. good deal for both partys.
Mar 1, 2012 at 3:50 AM
- blizzuntz
- Veteran
- Posts: 48,031
Originally posted by SFrush:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Um, he only gets $44 million if he plays like a $44 million dollar player, hence incentives.
If he doesn't, he gets the low end
How is this so difficult to understand how this is a win win situation for us
It's really not. That's the beauty of nfl contracts unlike in the NBA, MLB and NHL. These contracts aren't fully guaranteed.
Exactly, he can get cut at any time
Mar 1, 2012 at 4:14 AM
- GORO
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,248
I donot believe that Brooks deal was alot. 17 million guaranted is not alot. By resigning Brooks the front seven remains intact and with this pass rush once again the 49ers can be a top 3 defensive team for the next few years. When you look at the OLB in this years draft none of them may be better than Brooks, whom is a good rusher but has shown that he can play the run and drop in coverage when needed to.
Cornerback Rodgers may not be resigned but his age is why the 49ers chose brooks over him. Also Culliver is not a probowler but has the physical tools to get there. And their is not an OLB in this years draft that would have started for the 49ers this year.
Cornerback Rodgers may not be resigned but his age is why the 49ers chose brooks over him. Also Culliver is not a probowler but has the physical tools to get there. And their is not an OLB in this years draft that would have started for the 49ers this year.
Mar 1, 2012 at 4:16 AM
- GORO
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,248
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
We already signed Brooks so that's a done deal. Why can't we still get Vincent Jackson? We still have more money available.
Even if we get Jackson will Alex Smith trust him and throw him the ball when he is covered? As long as Vernon is on this team Alex will not trust a WR. Josua Morgan is the only wr we have that gets separation where Alex will throw him the ball.
Mar 1, 2012 at 4:54 AM
- miked1978
- Veteran
- Posts: 11,062
I don't see why you guys think he is going to get 44 million. He signed a freakin 6 year deal. he'll be asked to restructure in 3 years when his production starts to dip or he will be cut.
I thought we had smarter fans?
I thought we had smarter fans?
Mar 1, 2012 at 4:56 AM
- Irish40Niner
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,570
Don't panic, his salary after the signing bonus comes out to around 4 million per year. That's not bad for a very good player. Considering that was our first year running Fangio's defense in an abbreviated offseason, he put up good numbers.
Mar 1, 2012 at 4:59 AM
- zoomcrypt
- Member
- Posts: 115
seems to me they are giving credit to the DLINE and the LB corps for allowing them to not have to blitz to get pressure allowing us to play safety on top of both WR's which allows the CB's to play more agressively. they might be crediting the system for improved secondary play rather than the talent we had back there (goldson/rogers)
Mar 1, 2012 at 5:32 AM
- buck
- Veteran
- Posts: 13,137
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
And I would lose sleep for sure if we lost Ginn. Did you see our return game with Williams?
I would like to keep Ginn, but if, and only if, he is signed as a return man. No use pretending that he has much value, if any, as a wide receiver.
But he has great value as a return man. And that's more valuable to our team than a team like the Saints who can score at will. We rely on our defense and special teams.
Having problems with your reading comprehension,today.
Read what I wrote again: "I would like to keep Ginn, but if, and only if, he is signed as a return man."
Let me try again. I think we should keep Ginn as our return specialist, but not as a wide receiver.
Mar 1, 2012 at 5:34 AM
- SanDiego49er
- Veteran
- Posts: 47,925
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
And I would lose sleep for sure if we lost Ginn. Did you see our return game with Williams?
I would like to keep Ginn, but if, and only if, he is signed as a return man. No use pretending that he has much value, if any, as a wide receiver.
But he has great value as a return man. And that's more valuable to our team than a team like the Saints who can score at will. We rely on our defense and special teams.
Having problems with your reading comprehension,today.
Read what I wrote again: "I would like to keep Ginn, but if, and only if, he is signed as a return man."
Let me try again. I think we should keep Ginn as our return specialist, but not as a wide receiver.
Having problems with your reading comprehension today?
Read again what I wrote: "But he has great value as a return man."
Where did I say I want him as a WR? Show me.
Mar 1, 2012 at 5:40 AM
- buck
- Veteran
- Posts: 13,137
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
And I would lose sleep for sure if we lost Ginn. Did you see our return game with Williams?
I would like to keep Ginn, but if, and only if, he is signed as a return man. No use pretending that he has much value, if any, as a wide receiver.
But he has great value as a return man. And that's more valuable to our team than a team like the Saints who can score at will. We rely on our defense and special teams.
Having problems with your reading comprehension,today.
Read what I wrote again: "I would like to keep Ginn, but if, and only if, he is signed as a return man."
Let me try again. I think we should keep Ginn as our return specialist, but not as a wide receiver.
Having problems with your reading comprehension today?
Read again what I wrote: "But he has great value as a return man."
Where did I say I want him as a WR? Show me.
You started with but which indicates disagreement.
I clearly stated that I wanted him as a returner.
I never said or implied that you wanted him as wide receiver.
My comment about not wanting him as a receiver was no more than a general statement.
Mar 1, 2012 at 5:44 AM
- baltien
- Veteran
- Posts: 6,731
Thirteen pages of flamebait. Wow.
We really need to do better around here.
We really need to do better around here.