Saying Good-Bye to a Legend- The Niners should trade Patrick Willis

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by verb1der:
Good post. I fully agree with this and even got bashed for suggesting it when Borland took over.

Wait a minute. Do you fully agree with this assertion.

Orginally posted by MadDog49er: 3) Willis makes about twice as much money as Bowman (who is four years younger)

I think that assertion makes no sense.



The original post seems to radically distort the cap numbers for Willis and Bowman.

If the numbers that I posted are true, that distortion should produce some doubt as to the validity of the original post.

The numbers are from:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/san-francisco-49ers/

half a million as a "workout bonus"?!?!?! wowwww

Willis is a Freak, he has at least 5 years left you idiot.

LOL, doesn't this thread come up every year? As others have said, Borland SUCKS in coverage and barely lasted half a season. Willis is not done yet.

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

Originally posted by WRATHman44:

Originally posted by jonesadrian:
Willis has been dealing with a nagging injury for the past 2 seasons and still playing at a high level but was a step slow because literally his foot was damaged.

he will be completely healthy finally for the first time in a long time and he will be motivated after what happened this season.

we did not have aldon willis bowman and brooks play a single snap together this entire season

we better not trade willis before we see what a team with all 4 of them completely healthy along with lynch and borland with 1 year of game experience under their belts gets to show just how special they can be for the 49ers on the field.

A new coach might insist on a 4-3 alignment, converting Lynch and Aldon back to DEs, starting WIllis, Bowman, and Borland. We don't know yet. In reality though, based on our current defense, the competition is between Bowman and Borland. WIllis is playing a completely different position.

The coach would be an idiot to change this defense at all.
The scheme is perfect. We saw without multiple all pro players it is still a top 5 defense.
With those players it would probably have been by far the best defense in the nfl this season.
We should not change to a 4-3 for any reason. Aldon is the best OLB in the game. he is NOT a defensive end.
we can rotate players in and out and keep people fresh we don't have to rely on someone playing 60 snaps and that will keep the team better
if we can spell bowman with borland.. how special of a defense would this be?
Don't change it trying to be cute
Next year we'll have aldon and lynch for sure, i hope for brooks but who knows.
we will have pat bow and borland
we will have tank dial ian dorsey raymc probable.
the safety position is locked up reid and bathea.
we will have cook back culliver brock johnson cox maybe by mcfadden along with the other rookies who didn't get to play and ward with a year of experience.
we can almost exclusively draft for the offense this entire draft..

Because of the alignment, pressure, blitz and coverage flexibility of the 3-4 alignment, 3-4 schemes depend more upon the play-calling of the DC than 4-3 alignments do. We do not know that Fangio will be back, nor do we know if the new coach will be able to bring in a game-changing play-caller at DC. 4-3 is a safer defense. 3-4 can be more disruptive. For the record, I'd rather we hold onto Fangio and our 3-4, but my point is that WE DON'T KNOW what is going to happen.

FWIW, Aldon (in addition to Lynch) has been a DL for longer than he has been an OLB, and he gets more snaps as a hand-in-the-dirt DE than a standup OLB in our defense.

Originally posted by 9erReign:
lol a new low for Niner Talk and the HOF.

How about we keep him instead.

/end thread

Originally posted by TheRambler:

Originally posted by 9erReign:
lol a new low for Niner Talk and the HOF.

Seriously, did no one see the Seahawks and freaking RAIDERS murder us by throwing at our ILB coverage? Does anyone think that happens with Willis back there? Do you think teams would stop exploiting that, and can anyone imagine what we'd have to do with our safeties to compensate for that weakness? It's more than tackles and the occasional splash play. No one can Willis but Willis.

Originally posted by verb1der:

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by verb1der:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by verb1der:
Good post. I fully agree with this and even got bashed for suggesting it when Borland took over.

Yes, I remember the huge overreaction when he first started.

I wasn't overreacting, lol

From a business standpoint, how can you argue with MD's post?

Simple. Borland plays a couple of games and people think we can dispense with a Probowler. Trading a guy who has just recovered from a major injury is not sensible business practice, you are likely to be offered a discounted rate.

So we are likely to get less than we could, we have no guarantee that Bowman will return at his previous standard and we are assessing the replacement on half a dozen games.

Rest my case.

Right we're going to trade willis who will be healthy for borland who just got banged up and bet it all that his shoulders he's had surgery on and the reason he dropped in the draft are going to hold up for 10 more years

makes a ton of sense.

But we could get more picks by trading Willis....one thing that Baalke can do that no one can argue with, is draft linebackers!!!!!

C'mon fellas, think longterm!

Again, thinking long term means betting that someone with a history of injuries is a better fit than someone with a history of performing?
We don't need more picks for someone who might not end up being used to draft anyone with the impact of willis?
Where is the willis in any upcoming draft? we don't know. we do know what willis is now for us.
thinking long term we could at least let him get back into form trade him at his height and examine if borland is in fact that guy.
would we get more picks for a willis who comes back into all pro form or would we get one that's out with a toe injury?
it doesn't even make sense to trade him now if it were even a possibility.

Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Because of the alignment, pressure, blitz and coverage flexibility of the 3-4 alignment, 3-4 schemes depend more upon the play-calling of the DC than 4-3 alignments do. We do not know that Fangio will be back, nor do we know if the new coach will be able to bring in a game-changing play-caller at DC. 4-3 is a safer defense. 3-4 can be more disruptive. For the record, I'd rather we hold onto Fangio and our 3-4, but my point is that WE DON'T KNOW what is going to happen.

FWIW, Aldon (in addition to Lynch) has been a DL for longer than he has been an OLB, and he gets more snaps as a hand-in-the-dirt DE than a standup OLB in our defense.

The way we have our guys play the OLB position is perfect for Aldon's skills and it is becoming perfect for Lynch's skills
the organization would be idiotic to see this and then bring in someone who would change what this defense is.
If anything the defense is everything that's right with the 49ers.

Originally posted by WRATHman44:

Originally posted by TheRambler:

Originally posted by 9erReign:
lol a new low for Niner Talk and the HOF.

Seriously, did no one see the Seahawks and freaking RAIDERS murder us by throwing at our ILB coverage? Does anyone think that happens with Willis back there? Do you think teams would stop exploiting that, and can anyone imagine what we'd have to do with our safeties to compensate for that weakness? It's more than tackles and the occasional splash play. No one can Willis but Willis.

Let me see, I remember a previous time we traded a key player on the D. Chap called Haley. That worked out well. We didn't get rid of him a year too late.

Mr Baalke, (in the highly unlikely event you read this) take no notice of us.Thank you.

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by WRATHman44:

Originally posted by TheRambler:

Originally posted by 9erReign:
lol a new low for Niner Talk and the HOF.

Seriously, did no one see the Seahawks and freaking RAIDERS murder us by throwing at our ILB coverage? Does anyone think that happens with Willis back there? Do you think teams would stop exploiting that, and can anyone imagine what we'd have to do with our safeties to compensate for that weakness? It's more than tackles and the occasional splash play. No one can Willis but Willis.

Let me see, I remember a previous time we traded a key player on the D. Chap called Haley. That worked out well. We didn't get rid of him a year too late.

Mr Baalke, (in the highly unlikely event you read this) take no notice of us.Thank you.

Letting go of Julian Peterson worked out for us!

Football just doesn't trade like baseball or basketball and if they do its usually a problem player, bust or player who doesn't fit the contract. Willis falls in neither category

Originally posted by jonesadrian:
yea but 4.8 is pushing it. that diagnosing helps in short coverage, flat coverage and zone coverage
he can't run with tight ends on those longer routes, he's proven that. he's in the right position he knows the route and where it's going he's just literally a step slow and they make the catch. the only thing he could do better on some of those coverages where he was caught against is run faster... and he can't

Agree but I think the combination of limitations matters more than just speed. Comparing him to the two best MLBs in the NFL is a bit unfair, it might be more fair to compare him to a typical old school 4/3 plugger who's taken out on pass defense.

There are areas of concern that I've always ignored but I see him struggle with...wrapping up on tackles seems to be a bit of a shortcoming, pun intended. Arm length always seemed overblown but when you compare Willis' tackling to Borland...there is a world of difference. Arm length is almost 4 inches shorter than Willis and Bowman--8 inch difference in wrapping up. That matters on pass defense as well.

He's definately got some superior aspect to his game, but trading either Willis or Bowman just doesn't make sense unless they received a very dynamic player in return...even then, the loss of leadership would be felt.

Originally posted by verb1der:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by verb1der:
Good post. I fully agree with this and even got bashed for suggesting it when Borland took over.

Yes, I remember the huge overreaction when he first started.

I wasn't overreacting, lol

From a business standpoint, how can you argue with MD's post?

Because trading the best and most versatile middle linebacker in the game for a 2-down linebacker is idiotic.


Borland didn't even make it out of this season healthy and yet people are so sure he can replace a perennial all-pro? Not to mention an all-pro who plays a different position, a position that Borland cannot even attempt to play. Unless you want to watch Borland try to man up on tight ends like Pat does in our scheme. Get a grip people, how many 100 yard rushers did we give up with Borland in the lineup? Making tackles 8 yards down the field does not make you a superstar.

Originally posted by WRATHman44:
Seriously, did no one see the Seahawks and freaking RAIDERS murder us by throwing at our ILB coverage? Does anyone think that happens with Willis back there? Do you think teams would stop exploiting that, and can anyone imagine what we'd have to do with our safeties to compensate for that weakness? It's more than tackles and the occasional splash play. No one can Willis but Willis.

The bigger issue IMO has been the lack of a true NT. Once Williams went down, the floodgates just opened up. Offenses had so many spots to attack it just became too much.