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 ]