**** BREAKING NEWS***** GOLDSON GOT THE FRANCHISE TAG

Originally posted by AB83Rules:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
While I agree abut tagging Goldson over Rogers, based on financial, I think both must be kept.

Without Rogers, we have Brown and Spencer, I'd rather not have to sign or try to sign a #1 in FA, and draft a guy,

Goldson makes sense money wise, 6M compared to 10M for Rogers.

But this is what people aren't getting here too. That's why Goldson makes more sense too. $6 million compared to $10 million and younger. Rogers will be 31 and getting $10 million a year. Do we really want to do that? I take my chances on getting him uncovered (Rogers). He said he wants to be here. Goldson will go if gets money.

I agree. Though I dont think Rogers will be 10M a yr, so that makes him easier to retain, where Goldson will be tougher.

Finally the league needs to take our secondary serious. Whitner was a huge upgrade, Rogers came in and playing lights out, while Goldson has always been solid. Even Brown has him great moments. Culliver is nice young guy to develop.

If we can keep both Rogers and Goldson, we would have a sick Secondary for a while.

I still think CB is a need, but if Rogers is retained, we have a solid 3 guys, Rogers, Brown and Culliver, then Holcomb i like alot, he will compete next yr.

Keep Goldson, whitner, then draft some depth behind them. Keep Spillman, and Jones for STs.

I agree if we keep both we are very solid. Our secondary is underrated. And Whitner has been a tad bit underrated too albeit not as good as the other 2.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
While I agree abut tagging Goldson over Rogers, based on financial, I think both must be kept.

Without Rogers, we have Brown and Spencer, I'd rather not have to sign or try to sign a #1 in FA, and draft a guy,

Goldson makes sense money wise, 6M compared to 10M for Rogers.

But this is what people aren't getting here too. That's why Goldson makes more sense too. $6 million compared to $10 million and younger. Rogers will be 31 and getting $10 million a year. Do we really want to do that? I take my chances on getting him uncovered (Rogers). He said he wants to be here. Goldson will go if gets money.

I agree. Though I dont think Rogers will be 10M a yr, so that makes him easier to retain, where Goldson will be tougher.

Finally the league needs to take our secondary serious. Whitner was a huge upgrade, Rogers came in and playing lights out, while Goldson has always been solid. Even Brown has him great moments. Culliver is nice young guy to develop.

If we can keep both Rogers and Goldson, we would have a sick Secondary for a while.

I still think CB is a need, but if Rogers is retained, we have a solid 3 guys, Rogers, Brown and Culliver, then Holcomb i like alot, he will compete next yr.

Keep Goldson, whitner, then draft some depth behind them. Keep Spillman, and Jones for STs.

I agree if we keep both we are very solid. Our secondary is underrated. And Whitner has been a tad bit underrated too albeit not as good as the other 2.

agreed. Whitner has been our 3rd best DB this yr.

I just get giddy thinking about how we went from terrible defense(really were under manusky) to #1 under fangio, with basically same players. Lose Franklin, Spikes, Clements, Lawsom, and we plug in Sopoaga/McDonald, Bowman, Rogers, Aldon, all of whom would of been thought as below those guys. And we are much better off.

I'm sure the Packer fan's were wondering why they signed Charles Woodson to a 7 year/$52 million deal back in 06 (age 32), with Woodson coming off a broken leg injury the last season he played for the Raiders. Today, everybody realized that it was a genius move. Why? It's not exactly Woodson shadowing the number 1 WR like he did in his prime, it's more that he plays all over the defense and on nickel packages plays in the slot to rush the passer or cover the TE, in which he is excelling at. That is exactly how the Niners can utilize Rogers if they do sign him to a long term deal. He already covers the slot WR on Nickel packages, but once we draft/sign/trade for more CB's, it will let Rogers roam around the D more freely and make our unit that much stronger. For that specific reason, I'm all for them signing Rogers to a long term deal.

Originally posted by AB83Rules:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by AB83Rules:
While I agree abut tagging Goldson over Rogers, based on financial, I think both must be kept.

Without Rogers, we have Brown and Spencer, I'd rather not have to sign or try to sign a #1 in FA, and draft a guy,

Goldson makes sense money wise, 6M compared to 10M for Rogers.

But this is what people aren't getting here too. That's why Goldson makes more sense too. $6 million compared to $10 million and younger. Rogers will be 31 and getting $10 million a year. Do we really want to do that? I take my chances on getting him uncovered (Rogers). He said he wants to be here. Goldson will go if gets money.

I agree. Though I dont think Rogers will be 10M a yr, so that makes him easier to retain, where Goldson will be tougher.

Finally the league needs to take our secondary serious. Whitner was a huge upgrade, Rogers came in and playing lights out, while Goldson has always been solid. Even Brown has him great moments. Culliver is nice young guy to develop.

If we can keep both Rogers and Goldson, we would have a sick Secondary for a while.

I still think CB is a need, but if Rogers is retained, we have a solid 3 guys, Rogers, Brown and Culliver, then Holcomb i like alot, he will compete next yr.

Keep Goldson, whitner, then draft some depth behind them. Keep Spillman, and Jones for STs.

I agree if we keep both we are very solid. Our secondary is underrated. And Whitner has been a tad bit underrated too albeit not as good as the other 2.

agreed. Whitner has been our 3rd best DB this yr.

I just get giddy thinking about how we went from terrible defense(really were under manusky) to #1 under fangio, with basically same players. Lose Franklin, Spikes, Clements, Lawsom, and we plug in Sopoaga/McDonald, Bowman, Rogers, Aldon, all of whom would of been thought as below those guys. And we are much better off.

book on fangio was his D's always get worse each year he is there, if thats the case at least it will be a long drop

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8247df3a/article/franchisetag-values-will-be-down-across-the-board-in-2012

Franchise Tag no's....... 6.2m isn't too costly imo with the intention of working out a long term deal. None of the other players up for FA are worth the Tag number. Work deals out.

I think there's probably a reasonable chance Brooks leaves in FA. Rogers, Smith, Ginn, Morgan & Snyder retained. Bowman gets extended.

Franchise him as a second option see if you can sign him for a 3-4 year contract he and Donte Whitner are beasts in the secondary

There arent many safeties better then him. He didnt have a great season last season but he'll be a hot ticket this season. I think he's a keeper reguardless, sign him to a 4 year deal and get it over with.One of the only McClueless gems.

Originally posted by OtisDriftwood:
There arent many safeties better then him. He didnt have a great season last season but he'll be a hot ticket this season. I think he's a keeper reguardless, sign him to a 4 year deal and get it over with.One of the only McClueless gems.

I agree.

Originally posted by AUniner:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8247df3a/article/franchisetag-values-will-be-down-across-the-board-in-2012

Franchise Tag no's....... 6.2m isn't too costly imo with the intention of working out a long term deal. None of the other players up for FA are worth the Tag number. Work deals out.

I think there's probably a reasonable chance Brooks leaves in FA. Rogers, Smith, Ginn, Morgan & Snyder retained. Bowman gets extended.

That's kind of my point. A lot of those guys will come back anyway IMO. He's the one worth a tag. And a tag isn't too much for a safety. It just makes sense.

Originally posted by OtisDriftwood:
There arent many safeties better then him. He didnt have a great season last season but he'll be a hot ticket this season. I think he's a keeper reguardless, sign him to a 4 year deal and get it over with.One of the only McClueless gems.

ray mcdonald

Originally posted by crabman82:

Originally posted by OtisDriftwood:
There arent many safeties better then him. He didnt have a great season last season but he'll be a hot ticket this season. I think he's a keeper reguardless, sign him to a 4 year deal and get it over with.One of the only McClueless gems.

ray mcdonald

yep, but he wasn't given a chance under nolan and singletary. Thank you Jim and Vic.

4-5 year contract pretty sure he'll ask alot

Are Franchise Tag salaries still based on the average of the top 5 (or is it 10?) players at that position?

Because that's the way it used to work. And if it still works that way then franchising Goldson might actually be an okay idea. Safety is one of the lower paid positions, so top safety money is still pretty reasonable.

Using the franchise tag on a DL, QB, or CB is a pretty expensive move, because those positions are some of the highest paid. So I think financially it could be better to resign Rogers and franchise Goldson.

Goldson over Rodgers for me. The first two weeks prove why

We do NEED both of these guys back though

Originally posted by TheFunkyChicken:
Are Franchise Tag salaries still based on the average of the top 5 (or is it 10?) players at that position?

Because that's the way it used to work. And if it still works that way then franchising Goldson might actually be an okay idea. Safety is one of the lower paid positions, so top safety money is still pretty reasonable.

Using the franchise tag on a DL, QB, or CB is a pretty expensive move, because those positions are some of the highest paid. So I think financially it could be better to resign Rogers and franchise Goldson.

All of that stuff is kind of my point.