Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Adios Nate. You had one game changing play in ur career as a 49er and you fumbled it away to the Falcons.
THIS
There are 291 users in the forums
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Adios Nate. You had one game changing play in ur career as a 49er and you fumbled it away to the Falcons.
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Adios Nate. You had one game changing play in ur career as a 49er and you fumbled it away to the Falcons.
Originally posted by NinerGM:Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:Originally posted by NinerGM:
There is no free-agency right now so even there's no "testing the market" until there is a market created by the CBA.
For all those who don't like Nate, this defense is toast if we lose Nate and don't get a top end pass-rusher; even with a rookie CB. Rook CBs rarely come into the league and shutdown NFL receivers from day one. I don't think the 49ers let him go unless they have an alternative. I imagine however the priorities are QB, Pass-rush and center. You need those to play and our starters are "FA"s.
Not trying to pick a fight, but whether the CBA was tomorrow or next year, we have essentially decided to let them "test the market" as beyond March 3/4(?) they will have the ability to solicite other teams before they resign with us. Is that not true?
That's somewhat true. We're not sure if changes made in the agreement may protect teams who from losing all UFAs because of the CBA contracting year. They may agree change what defines (seasons played) an UFA or RFA. I think letting them "test" isn't clear. Those who were tendered today (Manny, Dashon, Ray and CJ) - just ensures under the old rules (that expires Friday), these players were "tendered" so the 49ers won't possibly lose all rights (to match the offer) to them.
As far as Nate is concerned; Nate is under contract and until the 49ers decide to cancel the contract by cutting him he's not going anywhere. I'm not sure when his money is due.
Originally posted by kezar49er:Originally posted by Kolohe:Originally posted by NinerGM:
There is no free-agency right now so even there's no "testing the market" until there is a market created by the CBA.
For all those who don't like Nate, this defense is toast if we lose Nate and don't get a top end pass-rusher; even with a rookie CB. Rook CBs rarely come into the league and shutdown NFL receivers from day one. I don't think the 49ers let him go unless they have an alternative. I imagine however the priorities are QB, Pass-rush and center. You need those to play and our starters are "FA"s.
This.
We are many players away from anything, we need to tear it down some and rebuild it. mtc
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Crazy as it sounds he's one of the better DB's we have abeit in a weak secondary. He's the best run support CB we have and one of the best ones in the NFL. When he doesn't jump routes on every single play he covers pretty good. I don't know where he got the idea to jump 100% of every route all game long? But it started here in SF. If he just plays the routes honest he's not that bad. Not as bad as made out here on the WZ. At a lower salary he'd be good to keep around. At his current cap # I could understand if he is not kept. But what people don't like is his salary and cap #. It's not purely based on play.
We can be worse without him. People forget so easily the days of Mike Rumph. The secondary can be a real disaster too. Not just over paid and average. Which isn't a disaster.
Originally posted by Kolohe:Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Crazy as it sounds he's one of the better DB's we have abeit in a weak secondary. He's the best run support CB we have and one of the best ones in the NFL. When he doesn't jump routes on every single play he covers pretty good. I don't know where he got the idea to jump 100% of every route all game long? But it started here in SF. If he just plays the routes honest he's not that bad. Not as bad as made out here on the WZ. At a lower salary he'd be good to keep around. At his current cap # I could understand if he is not kept. But what people don't like is his salary and cap #. It's not purely based on play.
We can be worse without him. People forget so easily the days of Mike Rumph. The secondary can be a real disaster too. Not just over paid and average. Which isn't a disaster.
Wow I agree with SanDiego......AGAIN!!!!
Originally posted by oldman9er:
Nate deserved better than Manusky's 10 yard off-coverage, and definitely deserves better than the 49ers fanbase. At least he was well compensated for us wrecking what was (at the time of the signing) a good career.
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:Originally posted by crabman82:Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Nate does piss me off sometimes; his sloppiness in technique/coverage is mind-boggling for a veteran CB. But there's no doubt that he could be a mean safety for us, if he was willing to renegotiate his deal, put his pride aside and realize that he doesn't possess CB skills anymore.
Clements at FS, Goldson at SS with Reggie Smith backing up both positions and playing nickel. Then you have Taylor Mays continuing to learn the pro game and blowing fools up on special teams...that would be a damn good safety unit.
damn good is a bit much, its the same unit we had last year plus 1 more guy whos never played the postion before
I was thinking more in terms of athletes, abilities and overall secondary experience.
I guess if you choose to believe Clements can't play FS (even though he seems to have the covers skills, tackling ability and years of general experience in a pro secondary for THAT role) and that the other guys will regress or stay the same, you could be right.
Looking at it positively though, Clements might be a better fit as a safety than a CB at this stage of his career (many former elite/good CBs flawlessly make that transistion), and Goldson has a year under his belt of making the calls, which frees him up to make more plays. Smith is a year removed from finally getting extended playing time (that should serve him well), and Mays is no longer a rookie.
"Damn good" may have been a bit much...but if things fall right (and they do from time-to-time in the NFL), it may be accurate.
Clements doesn't have the mindset to be a FS. He said him that he is "a corner".
Nonetheless, Clements doesn't nearly have the range at FS nor does he have the coverage skills. Having an overaggressive and relatively slow DB who consistently bites on double moves is not really an ideal FS. I think we can do better.
I actually think that having Goldson at SS would be disastrous. He can't blitz very well and he is by far the worst tackler on defense. He may be suited to a more "out-of-the-box" role but his tackling ability still worries me.
-9fA
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:Originally posted by oldman9er:
Nate deserved better than Manusky's 10 yard off-coverage, and definitely deserves better than the 49ers fanbase. At least he was well compensated for us wrecking what was (at the time of the signing) a good career.
I actually read somewhere that the DBs are often given a choice of whether to line up in press or off coverage.
-9fA