What's with all the "Cut Ahmad Brooks" talk?

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Cut him because his performance isnt coming close to justifying his salary at this point. Cut him because the 49ers can and should do better.


Your defeatist mentality is one that no good GM possesses.


"But this guy was GREAT like 3 years ago....and what if we cant get anyone better....we'll suck, we will just flat out suck!"


Good GMs look to get better rather than settling for okay or so-so. I dont doubt that they could draft a guy like Spence or Lawson and be better off going forwards with a younger, more athletic and explosive player than they are with an aging, overpaid Brooks.

40 tackles and 6.5 sacks LAST YEAR when he was the only pass rusher at times on a pathetic D isn't good enough for you??

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Cut him because his performance isnt coming close to justifying his salary at this point. Cut him because the 49ers can and should do better.


Your defeatist mentality is one that no good GM possesses.


"But this guy was GREAT like 3 years ago....and what if we cant get anyone better....we'll suck, we will just flat out suck!"


Good GMs look to get better rather than settling for okay or so-so. I dont doubt that they could draft a guy like Spence or Lawson and be better off going forwards with a younger, more athletic and explosive player than they are with an aging, overpaid Brooks.

40 tackles and 6.5 sacks LAST YEAR when he was the only pass rusher at times on a pathetic D isn't good enough for you??

He quits on his team, in 2014 and 2015. That doesn't stit well with me

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

If you say so........





You pay guys for what they will do for you going forward, not what they did 2-3 years ago. Regardless of how you try to justify it, Irvin is just a nuch better player at this point than Brooks, a guy who is far less irreplaceable than you seem to believe.


You can keep guzzling the Kool-Aid but I see a player who is on the downside of his career, whose number of impact plays no longer outweighs all the really dumb stuff that he does. With the sheer number of times he was a step too late or caught out of position, the 49ers can and should do better next season.

Care to explain how Irvin was so much better? He had pedestrian stats on a dynamic D with a fantastic secondary and a front 7 full of pass rushers. Brooks had better stats than Irvin, when at times, he was the only pass rusher we had.

And sorry to break it to ya, some team will foolishly give Irvin more than the 6.5 mil that Brooks is getting. Thankfully, it wont be us.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

He quits on his team, in 2014 and 2015. That doesn't stit well with me

He wasn't the only one. That said, are you welcoming Anthony Davis back with open arms?

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by SoCold:
This doesn't even make sense. Even one bit.

So you want Trent to over pay Brooks? Then only cut him if and when they find a better player? That would mean paying for a proven Vet? But Trent won't do that because it's not his style? But he's paying Brooks out the butt for his 6 sacks and 47 offside penalties?

lol

Brooks is 31 years old. Whilhoite 29, Bowman 27, all the other LB are 26-22

If Brooks makes it through another full season I'd be surprised.

Uh dude...you better check the going rate for pass rushers. If you think Ware or Vernon are coming to this dumpster fire for 6.5 a year you will be sadly mistaken.

Vernon is expected to command 13-15 million PER YEAR and stats wise is not that much better than Brooks!!! So ya, I am pretty sure Baalke will stick with Brooks.

Like I said before, 6.5 mil for a 3 down linebacker pretty much guaranteed to get 40 tackles and 6.5 sacks is a STEAL.

I never said any of the pro bowlers are coming to SF. Brooks is not a pro bowler.

You still ignore the fact that Lynch had as many sacks as Brooks last year in the 2nd year of his rookie deal.
A FA or a Rookie or a 2nd or 3rd year guy could combine for the same stats as Brooks at half the price.

Pretty much guarantee lol

And you're not just paying the $6.5m if you kept him. He has roster bonus money and his contract for 2017 that is even bigger. Not worth it.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

He quits on his team, in 2014 and 2015. That doesn't stit well with me

He wasn't the only one. That said, are you welcoming Anthony Davis back with open arms?

No I'm not.

But brooks refusing to play in a game wasn't done by anyone else

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

40 tackles and 6.5 sacks LAST YEAR when he was the only pass rusher at times on a pathetic D isn't good enough for you??

"Stats are for losers"-Justin Smith.


Those #'s arent great by any stretch of the imagination, especially when you consider thst at least 3 of his sacks were basically coverage sacks where the QB had nowhere to go. He had 8 games where he contributed 2 or less tackles, basically being a non-factor.

He was late to the football, he was bad in coverage, he wasnt close to the dominant run-stopping force he hadbeen in 2011 and 2012. He had whole games where he was just flat out invisible. You can look back at the games and see that he wasnt moving anything close to the way he was in 2011. He came in out of shape, his effort was subpar so I think its pretty ridiculous to claim that he is the best that they can do.


He just wasnt very good last year, no reason to think that he'll be any better this year or that the 49ers wont be able to find someone who can perform at the same level as he did last season if not a lot better.

Originally posted by SoCold:

I never said any of the pro bowlers are coming to SF. Brooks is not a pro bowler.

You still ignore the fact that Lynch had as many sacks as Brooks last year in the 2nd year of his rookie deal.
A FA or a Rookie or a 2nd or 3rd year guy could combine for the same stats as Brooks at half the price.

Pretty much guarantee lol

And you're not just paying the $6.5m if you kept him. He has roster bonus money and his contract for 2017 that is even bigger. Not worth it.

Yes. It's that easy isn't it. Eli Harold was great as a rookie. Same as Corey Lemonier. Oh wait....

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Care to explain how Irvin was so much better? He had pedestrian stats on a dynamic D with a fantastic secondary and a front 7 full of pass rushers. Brooks had better stats than Irvin, when at times, he was the only pass rusher we had.

Irvin has been playing as an OLB in a 4-3 scheme. Seattle's DEs are their main pass rushers. Irvin is likely better suited to be an OLB in a 3-4 scheme, allowing him to get after the passer more often.

He is younger, faster and far more athletic than Brooks is at this point in their respective careers. Considering that Baalke reportedly liked him a lot coming out of the draft, I wouldnt be the least bit shocked to see the 49ers make a big push for him.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Yes. It's that easy isn't it. Eli Harold was great as a rookie. Same as Corey Lemonier. Oh wait....

No reason to think Harold cant do well next season. Add a rookie, add a veteran FA, they'll be far better off than trying to milk whatever an over the hill Brooks has left and they certainly could do without his bad mental f**kups.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by SoCold:
I never said any of the pro bowlers are coming to SF. Brooks is not a pro bowler.

You still ignore the fact that Lynch had as many sacks as Brooks last year in the 2nd year of his rookie deal.
A FA or a Rookie or a 2nd or 3rd year guy could combine for the same stats as Brooks at half the price.

Pretty much guarantee lol

And you're not just paying the $6.5m if you kept him. He has roster bonus money and his contract for 2017 that is even bigger. Not worth it.

Yes. It's that easy isn't it. Eli Harold was great as a rookie. Same as Corey Lemonier. Oh wait....

You make it sound easy that Brooks had 6 sacks so he must have 6 more next year. lol Did you actually watch him play?

Will prob be late for a meeting and get benched again. Sound worth it.

Originally posted by SoCold:
Because he's the 2nd highest paid player on the team.

2014 49ers
Brooks 13 games 30 tackles 6 sacks
Skuta 10 games 33 tackles 5 sacks

2015
Brooks 14 games 42 tackles 6.5 sacks
Skuta (JAX) 13 games 40 tackles 1.5 sacks

49ers save over $7m in cap space if they let him go post June 1st.

Team could have cut Brooks last year and locked up Skuta for 4 years with roughly the same production. Skuta is 2 years younger than Brooks.

Now they either keep him and pay his $6.5m base or cut him and use the money to sign one or two other guys? Is he worth $1m a sack?

This. His production doesn't warrant what he's getting paid.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

He quits on his team, in 2014 and 2015. That doesn't stit well with me

He wasn't the only one. That said, are you welcoming Anthony Davis back with open arms?

Yes we need him

One thing is for sure, when he wants to be, Brooks is a key player on our defense. Very athletic and good at closing distances.

Originally posted by SteveYoung:
Uh dude...you better check the going rate for pass rushers. If you think Ware or Vernon are coming to this dumpster fire for 6.5 a year you will be sadly mistaken.

Vernon is expected to command 13-15 million PER YEAR and stats wise is not that much better than Brooks!!! So ya, I am pretty sure Baalke will stick with Brooks.

Like I said before, 6.5 mil for a 3 down linebacker pretty much guaranteed to get 40 tackles and 6.5 sacks is a STEAL.

Why are you trying to glorify 40 tackles in a season that's not even 3 tackles a game