There are 56 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

49ers sign Craig Dahl to 3 year deal

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Originally posted by GBNinerFan:
At this point shouldn't we be fairly confident in the decisions the front office makes? I am.

+1

He was undefeated against us last year, can he suck that bad?
Originally posted by SealTeam6:
He was undefeated against us last year, can he suck that bad?

Lol, that's funny & kinda stings at the same time
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Puckdaddy....


1 ) Kaep and Russell are not good examples. They're both on their rookie contracts. Dahl was a free agent signing for depth. Completely different situations. Kaep will cost a lot to re-sign, as will Crab, Aldon, and others. This factored into the decision to let Goldson and the others go. The team is preparing for future extensions to younger players who are more important to the teams future. Sorry, but YOUR logic is utterly ridiculous.

2 ) Under perfect circumstances, Goldson would be brought back with no regards to money or future sustainability. That's not how the NFL works, that's not how free agency works. You can only carry so many high dollar, long-term contracts. Also, the 49ers felt too much money is being invested in the defense, and that it was not sustainable long-term. They are absolutely right. Goldson could have been re-signed, but it would have had future ramifications in our ability to re-sign other core players. You point to Alex's situation in 2011, which is a very poor example. Alex was on a 1 year prove it deal. Dashon was looking to cash in on a fortune. 1 year $5 mil < 5 years $42 mil. Big difference.

3) Let me ask you....who had the bigger impact in the playoffs, Boldin or Goldson? Losing Goldson hurts, but I'll take Boldin (1 yr $6 mil), and a 1st round safety (4 yr $7 mil), over Goldson (5 yr $42 mil) every time. It's all about maximizing what you can get for your money. Goldson is very good, but he's not THAT superior to what we can get at a fraction of the cost. The team needs to carefully allocate money into the offense and defense, and they have to wisely choose which players get the big money deals. This has nothing to do with rebuilding. This is a very talented team with many players worthy of big money, but it's just impossible to pay them all. Someone has to go, it was inevitable. To me, they've handled this situation brilliantly.

Again, full of assumptions and spectulation.

"Dahl was a free agent signing for depth".

Was Dahl that coveted to where they could not wait and spend money on a stop gap/depth safety AFTER assuring thier starter?? No matter how you cut it, this was an illadvised move. And Kaep and Russell was not a bad example because your stance was that the amount that they paid him was a gauge to determine whether or not he would start. When that can never determine a starter. A starter is determined by a decision by the FO and coaching staff REGARDLESS to the players salary. Its all about the percieved value.

Also, the 49ers felt too much money is being invested in the defense, and that it was not sustainable long-term. They are absolutely right. Goldson could have been re-signed,

Again you miscontrued what im saying. The issue is not necessarily about keeping Goldson, but finding a formidable replacement that will not be detrimental to the identity of the defense. And also being careful not to lose the potential to get back to the big game because the team decides to stray too far away or take too many steps backward to compete at the same level. And for goodness sake, where did you get this "investing too much money in the defense" stuff from? At this point the offense is not the issue. Its the secondary. Therefore special attention is required. I never heard of a team releasing critical pieces due to trying to balance the salaries between the offense and the defense. "Thats not how it works". Its strickly performance based, therefore you may see some balance on some teams, but its orchestrated based on performance and not some superficial measurement.


Let me ask you....who had the bigger impact in the playoffs, Boldin or Goldson? Losing Goldson hurts,

You're asking the wrong question. The correct question would be 'What position are the 9ers more vulnerable at if one of the starters were lost. WR or Safety?'
Thats the point at hand. Its like trading Kaep for JJ Watt because he had a bigger impact regardless to having a player just as good or better at that position and completely ignoring the fact that you leave a hole at the QB spot. Yeah you become a monsteron the dline, but you become a vegetable at QB. What are you thinking man?

Losing Goldson hurts, but I'll take Boldin (1 yr $6 mil), and a 1st round safety (4 yr $7 mil), over Goldson (5 yr $42 mil) every time. It's all about maximizing what you can get for your money.

But at what cost? You play this game when you are in a REBUILDING situation. I understand your point, but not in our current situation. If you cannot keep particular players then you at lease replace them with a veteran presence that has proven to be able and competent. It is not the offseason to take a wild gambles.
Originally posted by fister30:
Originally posted by Puckdaddy:
Ok, I'll solve this easy. Without Goldson's presence and plays made. Do we beat the Saints the last two times we played? Pats? Or any other team that attack the deep middle (where Goldson is majority of the time)? Goldson was the Foundation of our secondary and made it not only difficult, but dangerous to throw in the middle of the field. Does dahl have that ability? What safety at this point has that ability? Where is the logic in subtracting key defensive players in a division that is become stronger offensively by the day, without replacing that player with someone formidable?

"The 49ers didn't spend a ton of money on this guy. This signing is the equivalent of a high priority undrafted free agent. If he makes the team, awesome. It doesn't matter what role he plays on this team. Vic F, Harbaugh and Baalke are much better at evaluating talent for their system than I am"

So was Charles Darwin with evolution, but he has shown to NOT be infallible. Same applies for the 49ers FO that you assume to be immune to mistakes. It seems as though many of you subscribe to every word from the pundits and NFL network. When the truth is that they make bad calls just as you and I.

I am not sure if your point is it was a mistake to let goldson go or to give Dahl the time of day? In either situation, it is what it is and the Dahl move really doesn't stop the 49ers from pursuing any FA they wanted to get in the first place. And the FO of the 49ers does know more about player evaluation than you or I. They are paid professionals who job is to do exactly that. And I am not sure about the pundit stuff. I don't watch nfl network or espn for that matter. Common sense is common sense, if they agree with what I've said then its merely a coincidence, not me parroting their words. I find it hilarious if Dahl ends up starting on this defense next year solely because of how many people it would bother despite whether he plays well for us or not.


Ok........

And the FO of the 49ers does know more about player evaluation than you or I. They are paid professionals who job is to do exactly that.

And they became professionals by deeming those that came before them better because of their resumes? Or do I need to mention all of the players drafted late or not drafted at all and made a fool of your logic? If Dahl plays to the level Dashon played or better it will be a SUPRISE. Meaning that the 9ers organization took a chance that was not in their favor.
[ Edited by Puckdaddy on Mar 17, 2013 at 8:11 PM ]
Originally posted by SealTeam6:
Originally posted by SofaKing:
Originally posted by GBNinerFan:
At this point shouldn't we be fairly confident in the decisions the front office makes? I am.

+1

He was undefeated against us last year, can he suck that bad?

He wasn't the one that forced the bad pitch that lead to the game winning TD. Nor was he the one that allowed Steven Jackson to burn our asses. The guy gets embarrassed a lot I just hope he isn't our answer to losing Goldson and hope we heal this position in the draft.
Originally posted by Magzarillious:
Also this Revis talk just shows why some of you have no business running a football team. Giving up a first round pick and then bringin in a corner w/ knee issues for 12-15 million dollars. Fans are really funny we are all too emotional at times!


Please do not give up a first rounder for a guy that has an injury as such.
Originally posted by Puckdaddy:

Again, full of assumptions and spectulation.


Really? Where? Everything I've stated was 100% fact.


Was Dahl that coveted to where they could not wait and spend money on a stop gap/depth safety AFTER assuring thier starter?? No matter how you cut it, this was an illadvised move. And Kaep and Russell was not a bad example because your stance was that the amount that they paid him was a gauge to determine whether or not he would start. When that can never determine a starter. A starter is determined by a decision by the FO and coaching staff REGARDLESS to the players salary. Its all about the percieved value.

Dahl was not "coveted" at all. Hence the money he signed for. Free agency takes place before the draft, so why wait to grab safety depth? THE STARTER WILL COME THROUGH THE DRAFT. Kaep and Russell are bad examples because they are not eligible for a pay increase right now. They're only underpaid because they are locked into the parameters of their rookie deals until they've been in the league for 3 years. If they could, they would demand a raise right now. When they are eligible for extension, they will be payed accordingly. The two situations don't relate at all.

Again you miscontrued what im saying. The issue is not necessarily about keeping Goldson, but finding a formidable replacement that will not be detrimental to the identity of the defense. And also being careful not to lose the potential to get back to the big game because the team decides to stray too far away or take too many steps backward to compete at the same level. And for goodness sake, where did you get this "investing too much money in the defense" stuff from? At this point the offense is not the issue. Its the secondary. Therefore special attention is required. I never heard of a team releasing critical pieces due to trying to balance the salaries between the offense and the defense. "Thats not how it works". Its strickly performance based, therefore you may see some balance on some teams, but its orchestrated based on
performance and not some superficial measurement.

Again, the formidable replacement you speak of is coming through the draft. If that's not painfully obvious to you at this point, I don't what to say. It's a deep safety class, and we need a long-term solution at FS. Perfect time to pick one in round 1 or 2. We're not close to being done forming the roster yet. At least wait until after the draft, dude. If we don't pick a safety to be the future starter, I'll revisit this post and give you props. But all signs point toward us taking one.

Also, I pulled the quote "investing too much money in the defense" straight from Paraag Marathe. He's the 49ers salary cap guru. I'll post the link to the article if I can find it. *Edit* Here it is: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/92769/nfl-econ-49ers-sustainability-rams-plan. That's all the information I need to know what the team's strategy is.


You're asking the wrong question. The correct question would be 'What position are the 9ers more vulnerable at if one of the starters were lost. WR or Safety?'
Thats the point at hand. Its like trading Kaep for JJ Watt because he had a bigger impact regardless to having a player just as good or better at that position and completely ignoring the fact that you leave a hole at the QB spot. Yeah you become a monsteron the dline, but you become a vegetable at QB. What are you thinking man?

But at what cost? You play this game when you are in a REBUILDING situation. I understand your point, but not in our current situation. If you cannot keep particular players then you at lease replace them with a veteran presence that has proven to be able and competent. It is not the offseason to take a wild gambles.

This argument is so flawed I could hardly believe it. How can you equate losing a franchise QB to losing a starting FS. The starting FS can be replaced with, oh I don't know, A FIRST ROUND SAFETY. The franchise QB is far more difficult to replace. QB's have a higher bust rate than safeties. Safeties are historically one of the easier positions to evaluate.

This has nothing to do with being in rebuilding, or contending mode. It comes down to identifying who the core players are, how much money you have to spend, and signing the top priority guys long-term. Goldson was not as high a priority compared to Kaep, Aldon, Crabtree, Iupati. Big extensions were already given to Willis, Bowman, Brooks, Davis, Staley, McDonald, Rogers. You can't pay everyone. It's the price for success. You're going to lose talent. It can't be avoided. You compensate by drafting well. The draft produces starting quality talent, at affordable prices. If they establish themselves as part of the "core", then you extend them. If not, you draft their replacement. Rinse, wash, repeat. This is how we built an ultra-talented roster in the first place.
[ Edited by SofaKing on Mar 17, 2013 at 8:47 PM ]
I like how we have a 30+ page thread on a guy that will probably not do much besides ST and occasional defense LOL
Originally posted by gold49digger:
I like how we have a 30+ page thread on a guy that will probably not do much besides ST and occasional defense LOL

This thread is filled with so much fail it's hilarious.

You could float a boat on the tears cried by the overreacters in this thread.

Some of y'all act like our season is forfeit because we signed a back S/ST player.
Originally posted by KegBert:
Originally posted by gold49digger:
I like how we have a 30+ page thread on a guy that will probably not do much besides ST and occasional defense LOL

This thread is filled with so much fail it's hilarious.

You could float a boat on the tears cried by the overreacters in this thread.

Some of y'all act like our season is forfeit because we signed a back S/ST player.

That is being a little harsh. It isn't like any of us are acting like Singletary is our couch. At least I hope not....
Matt Maiocco ‏@MaioccoCSN
S Craig Dahl officially signed three-year, $5.25 million contract w/ 49ers, including $700,000 signing bonus, source said. 2013 cap: $1.78M.
Originally posted by gold49digger:
I like how we have a 30+ page thread on a guy that will probably not do much besides ST and occasional defense LOL

You know it's the f**king off-season when there is a 30+ page thread on Craig "f**king" Dahl
Everyone still standing on the ledge over this signing? Wow. Just, WOW.
"The decision to bring in Craig does not rule out anything moving forward," Baalke said. "Craig understands that. We've got a position to fill. We got guys inside, within our own organization prior to signing Craig who will also be competing for that spot. And it's not to say we're not going to bring in another unrestricted free agent or draft picks or college free agents to compete for that spot, as well."

Baalke said the 49ers have not yet considered the possibility of moving Culliver, the third cornerback, who played a lot of safety at South Carolina before the 49ers invested a third-round pick on him in 2011.

"When we drafted him, we understood at that time, his versatility was an attraction to us," Baalke said. "Does that mean we'll be looking to him to move to that position? That has not been discussed at this point."

http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/matt-maiocco/asomugha-remains-option-baalke-builds-49ers-roster
*double post*
[ Edited by slowriot on Mar 19, 2013 at 4:51 PM ]