Why did we overpay so much for Brooks? And where does that leave us now? | Page 3

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

saniner
Veteran
Posts: 7,724

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....

If he plays up to his bonuses, then he will be well worth it

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

#32

SFrush
Veteran
Posts: 5,050

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Ugh. Here we go.

lol. Don't understand why we can't give Baalke and Fangio the benefit of the doubt after how great the defense played this past season. The guaranteed money is only 17.5 mil. That's really not too bad.

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

#33

elhebrewhammer
Veteran
Posts: 245

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Wimbley: 11 Sacks, 69 Tackles - Career High.

Brooks: 7 Sacks, 49 Tackles - Career High.

And Wimbley got less years, more overall money and a more guaranteed, so what's your point. Wimbley received a better deal than Brooks and he deserves it.

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

#34

SanDiego49er
Veteran
Posts: 47,963

Originally posted by SFrush:

Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Ugh. Here we go.

lol. Don't understand why we can't give Baalke and Fangio the benefit of the doubt after how great the defense played this past season. The guaranteed money is only 17.5 mil. That's really not too bad.

They left themselves exposed if he plays this out. He can earn much more. Too much for an average OLB.

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM

#35

SanDiego49er
Veteran
Posts: 47,963

Originally posted by elhebrewhammer:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Wimbley: 11 Sacks, 69 Tackles - Career High.

Brooks: 7 Sacks, 49 Tackles - Career High.

And Wimbley got less years, more overall money and a more guaranteed, so what's your point. Wimbley received a better deal than Brooks and he deserves it.

Brooks is in the ballpark and doesn't deserve to be. That's my point.

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM

#36

susweel
Hall of Nepal
Posts: 120,278

Get over it its not your money.

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

#37

SanDiego49er
Veteran
Posts: 47,963

Originally posted by susweel:
Get over it its not your money.

Yeah but it effects the future cap and how many guys we can sign. And guys this year like Colston, Vincent Jackson and Dwayne Bowe. All probably out now.

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM

#38

SFrush
Veteran
Posts: 5,050

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
How did he improve? He had 7 sacks 1 time in his career. And he had 49 tackles 1 time in his career.

This was only his first year as a starter for an entire season. I don't think he's reached his ceiling.

[ Edited by SFrush on Feb 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM ]

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM

#39

schmons
Veteran
Posts: 3,145

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by susweel:
Get over it its not your money.

Yeah but it effects the future cap and how many guys we can sign. And guys this year like Colston, Vincent Jackson and Dwayne Bowe. All probably out now.

they were probably never in the running anyways

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:17 PM

#40

RonMexico
Moderator
Posts: 74,748

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by susweel:
Get over it its not your money.

Yeah but it effects the future cap and how many guys we can sign. And guys this year like Colston, Vincent Jackson and Dwayne Bowe. All probably out now.

how much does it effect it

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM

#41

elhebrewhammer
Veteran
Posts: 245

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Brooks is in the ballpark and doesn't deserve to be. That's my point.

He got 11.5 million LESS guaranteed money...if you think 11.5 mil is "in the ballpark" then I don't know what else to really say!

I said it earlier and you didn't respond to that...why don't we wait it out til all the details are released. It's likely that the Niners will be able to cut Brook near the end of the deal and not have to allow him to play it all out. None of us know that at this point, but I'm sure we will find out soon enough. (Remember the Nate Clements contract. he was never going to make 80 Milllion)

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:19 PM

#42

JerryRice1848
Veteran
Posts: 12,224

Because Baalke browsed this forum and read the numerous "Can (Smith, Jennings, Crabtree, Akers, etc.) play OLB" threads and said to himself "To hell with it"

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:19 PM

#43

SanDiego49er
Veteran
Posts: 47,963

Originally posted by SFrush:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
How did he improve? He had 7 sacks 1 time in his career. And he had 49 tackles 1 time in his career.

This was only his first year as a starter for an entire season. I don't think he's reached his ceiling.

Ok so a 1 year starter who had 7 sacks 1 time in his career ever is worth $44 million of cap space?....

The guy never even had 10 sacks in his career ever. NEVER! Aldon Smith came in as a rookie and gave us 14 the first year....

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:19 PM

#44

susweel
Hall of Nepal
Posts: 120,278

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by susweel:
Get over it its not your money.

Yeah but it effects the future cap and how many guys we can sign. And guys this year like Colston, Vincent Jackson and Dwayne Bowe. All probably out now.

Its hard to say how much it effects it because we haven't seen the end product yet. Im giving Baalke a chance to see what he has up his sleeve.

Feb 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM

#45

KegBert
Veteran
Posts: 3,755

Originally posted by saniner:
If he plays up to his bonuses, then he will be well worth it

This. To me, if he maxes out all his incentive money that's a good thing. Means hes playing his butt off and our D will be all the better for it. Plus, GOOD 3-4 outside don't grow on trees.

Also, at the end of the season it was pretty unanimous that we should keep this outstanding D together and it looks like that's what we're doing.

In Harbaalke I trust!