What are we saving our money for?

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

How do you know? We dont even have a CBA yet.

All the teams you mentioned have a few things in commen, they are great from top to bottom (Owners, Coaches, QBs). They dont need a ton of FAs. They have coaches and QBs that give them the edge. We dont have the coaching or qbs. We are trying to run the ball and stop the run, kind of like the Jets. The average teams with average coaches and average QBs probably need to spend a little more money on talent

BTW, I'd rather make a serious run at the Superbowl a few years than be mediocare or less for a decade (Thats my opinion). Besides, I think it's becoming more and more obvious that in this new era of FA and salary cap, the only teams that are competitive for long periods of time are teams that have great/very good QBs. Teams that don't have great quarterbacks only seem to be good for short periods of time.

I was referring to their age, whats the cba got to do with it? Lets take a look at recent superbowl winners, eh? Thats what the NFL's about, winning.
06 Colts - 21 of 22 starters were drafted by the team or signed as UDFA's. The 22nd was a trade for Booger MacFarland during the season.
07 Giant - Burress (4 mil a year) plus Pierce and Mitchell at LB were FA's. Not exactly high priced guys.
08 Steelers - Ryan Clark and James Farrior. Two former journeymen.
09 Saints - Brees, a once in a lifetime FA, Shockey and Vilma were trades, and Fujita and Sharper were scrapheap finds.

See any 80 million dollar corners on those teams?

a FA on this team might buy you one or more win but wouldnt you rather just have a great, solid franchise from top to bottom that is built to contend every year?

Originally posted by jojomellon:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

How do you know? We dont even have a CBA yet.

All the teams you mentioned have a few things in commen, they are great from top to bottom (Owners, Coaches, QBs). They dont need a ton of FAs. They have coaches and QBs that give them the edge. We dont have the coaching or qbs. We are trying to run the ball and stop the run, kind of like the Jets. The average teams with average coaches and average QBs probably need to spend a little more money on talent

BTW, I'd rather make a serious run at the Superbowl a few years than be mediocare or less for a decade (Thats my opinion). Besides, I think it's becoming more and more obvious that in this new era of FA and salary cap, the only teams that are competitive for long periods of time are teams that have great/very good QBs. Teams that don't have great quarterbacks only seem to be good for short periods of time.

I was referring to their age, whats the cba got to do with it? Lets take a look at recent superbowl winners, eh? Thats what the NFL's about, winning.
06 Colts - 21 of 22 starters were drafted by the team or signed as UDFA's. The 22nd was a trade for Booger MacFarland during the season.
07 Giant - Burress (4 mil a year) plus Pierce and Mitchell at LB were FA's. Not exactly high priced guys.
08 Steelers - Ryan Clark and James Farrior. Two former journeymen.
09 Saints - Brees, a once in a lifetime FA, Shockey and Vilma were trades, and Fujita and Sharper were scrapheap finds.

See any 80 million dollar corners on those teams?

a FA on this team might buy you one or more win but wouldnt you rather just have a great, solid franchise from top to bottom that is built to contend every year?

Tell me you didn't just prove my point? Every team you just mentioned had a stud QB and very good coaching.

Every team need youth, but you also need veteran experience and preferrably guys that come from winning teams. We paid for vets like Nate and Justin, but both came from loser teams. We would do well to get good talent from great/good teams and sometimes that's going to cost you a little more.

All I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be afraid to spend money or trade when we are so far under the cap. I'm pretty sure there are some guys that could of helped in the locker room if not a huge upgrade on the field.

[ Edited by Oakland-Niner on Nov 21, 2010 at 10:11:20 ]

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by jojomellon:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

How do you know? We dont even have a CBA yet.

All the teams you mentioned have a few things in commen, they are great from top to bottom (Owners, Coaches, QBs). They dont need a ton of FAs. They have coaches and QBs that give them the edge. We dont have the coaching or qbs. We are trying to run the ball and stop the run, kind of like the Jets. The average teams with average coaches and average QBs probably need to spend a little more money on talent

BTW, I'd rather make a serious run at the Superbowl a few years than be mediocare or less for a decade (Thats my opinion). Besides, I think it's becoming more and more obvious that in this new era of FA and salary cap, the only teams that are competitive for long periods of time are teams that have great/very good QBs. Teams that don't have great quarterbacks only seem to be good for short periods of time.

I was referring to their age, whats the cba got to do with it? Lets take a look at recent superbowl winners, eh? Thats what the NFL's about, winning.
06 Colts - 21 of 22 starters were drafted by the team or signed as UDFA's. The 22nd was a trade for Booger MacFarland during the season.
07 Giant - Burress (4 mil a year) plus Pierce and Mitchell at LB were FA's. Not exactly high priced guys.
08 Steelers - Ryan Clark and James Farrior. Two former journeymen.
09 Saints - Brees, a once in a lifetime FA, Shockey and Vilma were trades, and Fujita and Sharper were scrapheap finds.

See any 80 million dollar corners on those teams?

a FA on this team might buy you one or more win but wouldnt you rather just have a great, solid franchise from top to bottom that is built to contend every year?

Tell me you didn't just prove my point? Every team you just mentioned had a stud QB and very good coaching.

Every team need youth, but you also need veteran experience and preferrably guys that come from winning teams. We paid for vets like Nate and Justin, but both came from loser teams. We would do well to get good talent from great/good teams and sometimes that's going to cost you a little more.

All I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be afraid to spend money or trade when we are so far under the cap. I'm pretty sure there are some guys that could of helped in the locker room if not a huge upgrade on the field.

Tell me you didnt just say could of...... COULD HAVE

I dont even think you know what point you're making. Which players did you want that the 9ers passed on?

We're a cheap team.

Originally posted by 49erRider:

Originally posted by Ajanke:
Maiocca did say that he has heard that when the team goes looking for a new head coach they are going to look for one that has done it before, has experience, and money will not be an issue.

So we're going to hire a retread. Great.

They need to start fresh. GET JIM HARBAUGH!

Yeah!!!!!!!!! College coaches are so much more successful than retreads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd also like to add that Marshawn Lynch still blows and anyone who still thinks we somehow missed out on him should check out his stats in Seattle where he is yet again getting out produced by a UDFA.

Vincent Jackson is nothing special either.. he is a complete and utter product of Phillip Rivers' greatness.

Saving "our" money in case the Cap is re-installed.

How sucky would it be if the organization started signing up guys because the fans were whining, only to have to lose Vernon or Bam Bam as a cap casualty.

I'm not happy either but we already did our penance with the cap cut. Look how long we're taking to bounce back from it.

We lost damned near our entire starting Offense. We don't need to lose any of our core players.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by lamontb:

Originally posted by oldman9er:
I'm annoyed that they seemingly have not spoken with Lawson to get a better feel for what he would accept. Some guess he would demand a lofty and unjust 7+ mil a year deal. I tend to doubt that, think he wants to stay, and would accept far less. he just wants reasonable pay and security in knowing his immediate future. Could be wrong about all of that, and he could be in it for the largest payout... but I doubt it.

Could be that teams are hesitant on signing significant long-term deals with the CBA mess upon them. Otherwise, who would we sign? Signing goes both ways too... who would rather play for the hapless Niners when they can sign with the spotlighted and powerful NY Jets?

We did a great job in locking up Willis and VD. We did a great job in NOT locking up Franklin and Goldson. But other than not touching base with Manny and his agent (that we know of), I see nothing to get bent outta shape over.

What makes you doubt Manny wants to get payed? When have athletes in there primes not wanted to get paid top dollar. If another team would pay him that much he would be a fool to take less pay to play for this team.

Sure Manny wants to get PAID, but all we've heard is speculation from the talking heads. There is nothing out of Manny's camp to suggest that the speculated number is what he really wants. Since he's pretty much the only player playing like his hair is on fire, I say re-sign him. ABF can take a walk at the end of the season as far as I am concerned. I said it back when he was franchised that was a mistake. He held out through Training Camp and his play got off to a slow start. He's good but we've had better impact from McDonald in the middle.

As long as the contract is a smart one re-sign Manny and get it over with. Haralson hasn't done anything since he got that big dollar contract. I doubt Manny sluffs off if and when he gets paid.

~Ceadder

[ Edited by Ceadderman on Nov 21, 2010 at 12:09:54 ]

Originally posted by jojomellon:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by jojomellon:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

How do you know? We dont even have a CBA yet.

All the teams you mentioned have a few things in commen, they are great from top to bottom (Owners, Coaches, QBs). They dont need a ton of FAs. They have coaches and QBs that give them the edge. We dont have the coaching or qbs. We are trying to run the ball and stop the run, kind of like the Jets. The average teams with average coaches and average QBs probably need to spend a little more money on talent

BTW, I'd rather make a serious run at the Superbowl a few years than be mediocare or less for a decade (Thats my opinion). Besides, I think it's becoming more and more obvious that in this new era of FA and salary cap, the only teams that are competitive for long periods of time are teams that have great/very good QBs. Teams that don't have great quarterbacks only seem to be good for short periods of time.

I was referring to their age, whats the cba got to do with it? Lets take a look at recent superbowl winners, eh? Thats what the NFL's about, winning.
06 Colts - 21 of 22 starters were drafted by the team or signed as UDFA's. The 22nd was a trade for Booger MacFarland during the season.
07 Giant - Burress (4 mil a year) plus Pierce and Mitchell at LB were FA's. Not exactly high priced guys.
08 Steelers - Ryan Clark and James Farrior. Two former journeymen.
09 Saints - Brees, a once in a lifetime FA, Shockey and Vilma were trades, and Fujita and Sharper were scrapheap finds.

See any 80 million dollar corners on those teams?

a FA on this team might buy you one or more win but wouldnt you rather just have a great, solid franchise from top to bottom that is built to contend every year?

Tell me you didn't just prove my point? Every team you just mentioned had a stud QB and very good coaching.

Every team need youth, but you also need veteran experience and preferrably guys that come from winning teams. We paid for vets like Nate and Justin, but both came from loser teams. We would do well to get good talent from great/good teams and sometimes that's going to cost you a little more.

All I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be afraid to spend money or trade when we are so far under the cap. I'm pretty sure there are some guys that could of helped in the locker room if not a huge upgrade on the field.

Tell me you didnt just say could of...... COULD HAVE

I dont even think you know what point you're making. Which players did you want that the 9ers passed on?

Sir, I made my main point in the OP. Right now we are on a tangent. If your unsure what I was originally trying to say, read my first few posts.

Originally posted by jojomellon:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by jojomellon:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

How do you know? We dont even have a CBA yet.

All the teams you mentioned have a few things in commen, they are great from top to bottom (Owners, Coaches, QBs). They dont need a ton of FAs. They have coaches and QBs that give them the edge. We dont have the coaching or qbs. We are trying to run the ball and stop the run, kind of like the Jets. The average teams with average coaches and average QBs probably need to spend a little more money on talent

BTW, I'd rather make a serious run at the Superbowl a few years than be mediocare or less for a decade (Thats my opinion). Besides, I think it's becoming more and more obvious that in this new era of FA and salary cap, the only teams that are competitive for long periods of time are teams that have great/very good QBs. Teams that don't have great quarterbacks only seem to be good for short periods of time.

I was referring to their age, whats the cba got to do with it? Lets take a look at recent superbowl winners, eh? Thats what the NFL's about, winning.
06 Colts - 21 of 22 starters were drafted by the team or signed as UDFA's. The 22nd was a trade for Booger MacFarland during the season.
07 Giant - Burress (4 mil a year) plus Pierce and Mitchell at LB were FA's. Not exactly high priced guys.
08 Steelers - Ryan Clark and James Farrior. Two former journeymen.
09 Saints - Brees, a once in a lifetime FA, Shockey and Vilma were trades, and Fujita and Sharper were scrapheap finds.

See any 80 million dollar corners on those teams?

a FA on this team might buy you one or more win but wouldnt you rather just have a great, solid franchise from top to bottom that is built to contend every year?

Tell me you didn't just prove my point? Every team you just mentioned had a stud QB and very good coaching.

Every team need youth, but you also need veteran experience and preferrably guys that come from winning teams. We paid for vets like Nate and Justin, but both came from loser teams. We would do well to get good talent from great/good teams and sometimes that's going to cost you a little more.

All I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be afraid to spend money or trade when we are so far under the cap. I'm pretty sure there are some guys that could of helped in the locker room if not a huge upgrade on the field.

Tell me you didnt just say could of...... COULD HAVE

I dont even think you know what point you're making. Which players did you want that the 9ers passed on?

C'mon, isn't it obvious that he wanted McNabb?

Washington got him instead. Look how that's workin out. And they even gave him a five year extension. WTF is Shannahan thinkin?

~Ceadder

Originally posted by Ceadderman:

Originally posted by jojomellon:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by jojomellon:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

How do you know? We dont even have a CBA yet.

All the teams you mentioned have a few things in commen, they are great from top to bottom (Owners, Coaches, QBs). They dont need a ton of FAs. They have coaches and QBs that give them the edge. We dont have the coaching or qbs. We are trying to run the ball and stop the run, kind of like the Jets. The average teams with average coaches and average QBs probably need to spend a little more money on talent

BTW, I'd rather make a serious run at the Superbowl a few years than be mediocare or less for a decade (Thats my opinion). Besides, I think it's becoming more and more obvious that in this new era of FA and salary cap, the only teams that are competitive for long periods of time are teams that have great/very good QBs. Teams that don't have great quarterbacks only seem to be good for short periods of time.

I was referring to their age, whats the cba got to do with it? Lets take a look at recent superbowl winners, eh? Thats what the NFL's about, winning.
06 Colts - 21 of 22 starters were drafted by the team or signed as UDFA's. The 22nd was a trade for Booger MacFarland during the season.
07 Giant - Burress (4 mil a year) plus Pierce and Mitchell at LB were FA's. Not exactly high priced guys.
08 Steelers - Ryan Clark and James Farrior. Two former journeymen.
09 Saints - Brees, a once in a lifetime FA, Shockey and Vilma were trades, and Fujita and Sharper were scrapheap finds.

See any 80 million dollar corners on those teams?

a FA on this team might buy you one or more win but wouldnt you rather just have a great, solid franchise from top to bottom that is built to contend every year?

Tell me you didn't just prove my point? Every team you just mentioned had a stud QB and very good coaching.

Every team need youth, but you also need veteran experience and preferrably guys that come from winning teams. We paid for vets like Nate and Justin, but both came from loser teams. We would do well to get good talent from great/good teams and sometimes that's going to cost you a little more.

All I'm trying to say is we shouldn't be afraid to spend money or trade when we are so far under the cap. I'm pretty sure there are some guys that could of helped in the locker room if not a huge upgrade on the field.

Tell me you didnt just say could of...... COULD HAVE

I dont even think you know what point you're making. Which players did you want that the 9ers passed on?

C'mon, isn't it obvious that he wanted McNabb?

Washington got him instead. Look how that's workin out. And they even gave him a five year extension. WTF is Shannahan thinkin?

~Ceadder

Yes. I wanted the best available FA. And you wanted Alex Smith. How did that work out for ya? You can't use hindsight. At the time, it looked like the best move. Period.