According to former NFL agent Joel Corry, the 49ers are projected to have up to

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Actually, they need to spend money in order to meet the 89% threshold. Folks always say, "don't go after the big names," and then complain when the 49ers don't do that and proceed to play awful football. The truth is, everybody is looking for a deal, that's why they are called deals. Now every player has a price, but you should shy away from the big names either. Teams get bit overpaying for the middling players.

The 49ers should target a top FA WR and OLB and hope Kaepernick stays. Otherwise, you're may end up with a Brock Osweiler type of contract.

The team should have put in a claim on Michael Floyd. It would have given them an opportunity to test the player in their system and evaluate a potential free agent target at WR in the off-season. Also, if he signed elsewhere the team would've got a compensatory pick.

I'd be interested if someone else has info on the subject. It's been awhile since I read up on it. Is there a max (100%?) for each year. If so, my above scenario is impossible.

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Actually, they need to spend money in order to meet the 89% threshold. Folks always say, "don't go after the big names," and then complain when the 49ers didn't do that and proceeded to play awful football. The truth is, everybody is looking for a deal, that's why they are called deals. Now every player has a price, but you should shy away from the big names either. Teams get bit overpaying for the middling players.

The 49ers should target a top FA WR and OLB and hope Kaepernick stays. Otherwise, you're may end up with a Brock Osweiler type of contract.

It's not 89% EACH YEAR, but 89% over the time span cited by the CBA, which is about to start (2017-2020). Like I said, it's been awhile since I read up on it, but front loading contracts within that time period is a standard way to manipulate the mandatory minimum.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong; I'm going by memory here.

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Actually, they need to spend money in order to meet the 89% threshold. Folks always say, "don't go after the big names," and then complain when the 49ers didn't do that and proceeded to play awful football. The truth is, everybody is looking for a deal, that's why they are called deals. Now every player has a price, but you should shy away from the big names either. Teams get bit overpaying for the middling players.

The 49ers should target a top FA WR and OLB and hope Kaepernick stays. Otherwise, you're may end up with a Brock Osweiler type of contract.

It's not 89% EACH YEAR, but 89% over the time span cited by the CBA, which is about to start (2017-2020). Like I said, it's been awhile since I read up on it, but front loading contracts within that time period is a standard way to manipulate the mandatory minimum.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong; I'm going by memory here.

It is also my understanding that the 89% is a cumulative figure over the period of years and not just a single year. Obviously, this year and probably last year we wouldn't be in compliance. I also agree that signing a big name high dollar FA QB is not the way to build the team. Most of the time it doesn't work out, especially if the rest of the team is not playoff ready (i.e. the 49ers). We are not one player away. We are not 5 players away. A guy like Cousins has a shot at being worth the big contract, but I don't see Washington letting him walk and I don't see him wanting to come to SF unless its top shelf money to throw footballs to this JV squad of receivers. Seattle and currently Dallas (and arguably the 49ers a couple years ago when Kap was lighting up the league) are the template to a superbowl team. Have your future franchise QB on a cheap rookie contract and build up around him.

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Actually, they need to spend money in order to meet the 89% threshold. Folks always say, "don't go after the big names," and then complain when the 49ers didn't do that and proceeded to play awful football. The truth is, everybody is looking for a deal, that's why they are called deals. Now every player has a price, but you should shy away from the big names either. Teams get bit overpaying for the middling players.

The 49ers should target a top FA WR and OLB and hope Kaepernick stays. Otherwise, you're may end up with a Brock Osweiler type of contract.

It's not 89% EACH YEAR, but 89% over the time span cited by the CBA, which is about to start (2017-2020). Like I said, it's been awhile since I read up on it, but front loading contracts within that time period is a standard way to manipulate the mandatory minimum.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong; I'm going by memory here.

Okay, consider this. The 49ers core of players won't need extensions for 3-4 years, which means the cost of overpaying (a bit) on a top WR isn't actually going to hurt them either. Even if you keep a Jeffrey for 3 years of a 5 year contract it's not going to hurt their cap situation any. Then add the benefits he'll have to the next QB up (a young draftee?), Hyde and the coaching staff. Teams will have to gameplan for him (and Torrey Smith) and that should open things up underneath for Kerley and Hyde. All beneficial! I think we're on the same page insofar as neither of us want albatross contracts, I just feel more confident that a guy like Jeffrey won't be as big of a bust as you.


The previous poster provided the economic analysis supporting the 49ers spending on one (some) top free agents. Dust off your wallet man! :)

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by NCommand:


Anyone have any updates how many of these FA's did this year commensurate their contracts?

Osemele and Berry standout at the top of this list. Expensive but worth it.

Miller is Miller. Norman has set a tone in Washington but his cost was crazy.

Yeah, I'm trying to remember who my Madden-targets were. Mine were based mostly on age (youth) + second-third level contracts after those top 7 insane ones.

Osemele was the only top 7 player I wanted. Then it was Sean Smith & Danny Trevathan. I wanted Damon Harrison badly (as much as I wanted Osemele). Then Bruce Irvin, McClain, Wisniewski, Thurmond (slot CB), Galette, etc.

Obviously Norman and wanted a trade for Wilkerson (again, not too realistic). It was quite a list but most were young and very reasonably priced and at our key positions that we still need today save for QB/WR.

I also like Trevathan. Would have been a great match with Bowman. Not quite so high on Smith.

Osemele and Cordy Glenn were my top two. Glenn re-signed and that left Osemele with all the money left on the table. I really wanted him. He has proven his worth.

Harrison would have been very nice as well. As we have learned, in a 3-4 if you don't have a solid NT you just cannot stop the run.

We will have the cash if we can get the right guy to head football ops. (stating the obvious)

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Actually, they need to spend money in order to meet the 89% threshold. Folks always say, "don't go after the big names," and then complain when the 49ers didn't do that and proceeded to play awful football. The truth is, everybody is looking for a deal, that's why they are called deals. Now every player has a price, but you should shy away from the big names either. Teams get bit overpaying for the middling players.

The 49ers should target a top FA WR and OLB and hope Kaepernick stays. Otherwise, you're may end up with a Brock Osweiler type of contract.

It's not 89% EACH YEAR, but 89% over the time span cited by the CBA, which is about to start (2017-2020). Like I said, it's been awhile since I read up on it, but front loading contracts within that time period is a standard way to manipulate the mandatory minimum.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong; I'm going by memory here.

Okay, consider this. The 49ers core of players won't need extensions for 3-4 years, which means the cost of overpaying (a bit) on a top WR isn't actually going to hurt them either. Even if you keep a Jeffrey for 3 years of a 5 year contract it's not going to hurt their cap situation any. Then add the benefits he'll have to the next QB up (a young draftee?), Hyde and the coaching staff. Teams will have to gameplan for him (and Torrey Smith) and that should open things up underneath for Kerley and Hyde. All beneficial! I think we're on the same page insofar as neither of us want albatross contracts, I just feel more confident that a guy like Jeffrey won't be as big of a bust as you.


The previous poster provided the economic analysis supporting the 49ers spending on one (some) top free agents. Dust off your wallet man! :)

It would help a lot if we could solve the WR problem in FA. The problem is, until we have a decent QB no good WR is going to come here. Jeffrey in particular has struggled through a bunch of incompetent QBs and is not likely to jump back into another such mess no matter how much the money. At this point he already has a lot of money and now wants to play for a winner. Going from Chicago to SF is a step down. Not what he is going to want.

OL and defense are more likely FA targets, IMO.

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Actually, they need to spend money in order to meet the 89% threshold. Folks always say, "don't go after the big names," and then complain when the 49ers didn't do that and proceeded to play awful football. The truth is, everybody is looking for a deal, that's why they are called deals. Now every player has a price, but you should shy away from the big names either. Teams get bit overpaying for the middling players.

The 49ers should target a top FA WR and OLB and hope Kaepernick stays. Otherwise, you're may end up with a Brock Osweiler type of contract.

It's not 89% EACH YEAR, but 89% over the time span cited by the CBA, which is about to start (2017-2020). Like I said, it's been awhile since I read up on it, but front loading contracts within that time period is a standard way to manipulate the mandatory minimum.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong; I'm going by memory here.

Okay, consider this. The 49ers core of players won't need extensions for 3-4 years, which means the cost of overpaying (a bit) on a top WR isn't actually going to hurt them either. Even if you keep a Jeffrey for 3 years of a 5 year contract it's not going to hurt their cap situation any. Then add the benefits he'll have to the next QB up (a young draftee?), Hyde and the coaching staff. Teams will have to gameplan for him (and Torrey Smith) and that should open things up underneath for Kerley and Hyde. All beneficial! I think we're on the same page insofar as neither of us want albatross contracts, I just feel more confident that a guy like Jeffrey won't be as big of a bust as you.


The previous, I'm poster provided the economic analysis supporting the 49ers spending on one (some) top free agents. Dust off your wallet man! :)

Oh, I'm just doing the inexcusable and trying to think like Paraag.

If it were up to me, we'd get Von Miller and JPP and figure out a way to mesh JPP into our 3-4 (AA to nose tackle?). I've been a JPP fan since I wanted the Niners to draft him.

Originally posted by stonecold590:
This is cap $. Jed can't pocket it. They can choose not to spend it which just leaves $80 just sitting there but it's not like Jed can use it to get a new pair of gold nuts. That is what the PSLs are for.

"Each season all teams combined must spend on average 95 percent of the cap or more on salaries." http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question644.htm
Jed can pocket it as long as the league spends 95% of cap. Both the Browns and 49ers have each pocketed the $40m+ this season.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by McClusky:

I think 'being smart about it' is going for the best FA's available at the top market prices. I argued this last season, but everything as it relates to the 49ers needs to be thought of in the form of opportunity costs and comparative advantages. Right now the 49ers have next to no talent, and the guys they might see as their pipeline talent like Buckner, Robinson, and Garnett are so far away from FA (3-4 years) that virtually no contracts they sign are going to have substantial guaranteed money that can influence the future decisions of those guys. Hence the opportunity cost of going big in FA are lower for the 49ers than any team in the NFL.

Sure a 3 year $24 million contract for a guy like Garcon looks a lot more palatable on paper than lets say a 5 year $65 million contract for Jeffrey. However, you have to consider the comparative advantages the 49ers have over other squads. Garcon might fit in great for a team like Minnesota that Garcon represents an upgrade at receiver that gives them more flexibility to resign guys like Barr, Floyd, and Rhodes. Probably at that price the 900 yard contribution Garcon gives them will look more favorable on a per $ than lets say the 1050 yard contribution Jefferey would give us here at about 60% of the price.

However, the 49ers don't incur the same kind of opportunity cost the Vikings do, and the additional cost incurred hits their cap space which is far and away their most abundant asset from which the 49ers don't have good substitute options for. The additional marginal benefit the 49ers get from Jeffrey (able to match up with more #1 corners, dictate more coverage, be open on a larger variety of routes, and be a quality top option in an offense over-weights the cap savings the 49ers would get for a Garcon vs. Jeffery, even if the production doesn't justify the $ difference in a vacuum. Plus the simple gameplanning advantages for a coach, and the advantages for a young QB to have a #1 receiver that is available in almost all games is huge.

I believe the way the 49ers approached FA last season is economically irrational, and to chase value over talent given where they are right now and the resources available is a fools errand. It's akin to a country like Vietnam turning down factory jobs, because they've looked at the data and have seen that tech based economies have a higher standard of living so they're going to hold out for those jobs. They want to be like the Steelers and the Packers without having any of the elements in place that make the way the Steelers and Packers run their organization operationally efficient.

People want to be that team that has great contracts and abundant talent, but it's not a case of just flipping a switch to get there. The team needs to use the cap space it has, to net the best possible talent.

BTW I really like Zeitler too, but I don't think he's going to be cheap. Probably looking at a Brandon Brooks type contract for him.

So we should just shell out top contracts to top FAs?

With that mindset we should have given Haynesworth $100 million, Byron Maxwell $63 million, Jairus Byrd $54 million, Osweiler $72 million etc?? They were all top FA at some point.

I'll im saying is be smart...Is AJ worth $13 million a yr when realistically he won't play a full season. Do you pay that kind of money when they don't even have a QB on the 2017 roster yet? Would I rather get garçon AND someone like Brandon Williams vs just AJ? I would.

We have a ton of money and that can be used throughout the next 4 yrs (need to spend 89% of cap in the next 4 yrs I believe). There's gonna be good FA coming out every yr, don't bust a nut on the initial FA when we have cash.

I want to make the team better, but those top end guys are gonna want much more to come to this crap pile vs another place...get some solid players get involved with the big FAs, but make sure if you can't land AJ for a stupid amount of money then make sure you can bring in a quality guy like garçon.

In a word yes. Had the current edition of the 49ers existed in the former FA markets that netted those contracts, theoretically they should have been top bidders for those Haynesworth, Maxwell, Byrd, Osweiller, and others. Nobody is saying that dipping into free agency is without risk or that the team shouldn't do some level of due diligence when they make bids on these players, and target guys they think are good overall fits, but they need offer top of the market contracts to top of the market free agents. Based on where they should sit on the demand curve in the market, that is the rational approach for them to take. It could get the next Haynesworth or they could get the next Suh. Not trying or only trying if the value is sensational gets them nothing.

In terms of when to bust the proverbial FA nut, you're always going to incur some level of risk. We're not going to run into a FA when all of a sudden the next JJ Watt, Julio Jones, Andrew Luck, and CHIII are all randomly available. The sooner we spend, the sooner those guarantees are off the books. The inherent risk of the FA market is never going away.

Garcon is an appealing FA, but at the same time his contract is going to be less because he's going to be 31 vs. Jeffery's 27. For a team that is looking for a solution at WR, Jeffery represents a more likely 3-5 year solution at #1 receiver than Garcon which is why the $ amount is going to be much higher.

The QB thing is a red herring too. That is the nature of the opportunity cost argument. Investing in FA doesn't in any way impede us from getting a QB, and therefore is pretty irrelevant to the conversation. Even if we draft the next Prescott next season virtually all of our FA $ would be off the books by the time his contract extension would be relevant.

The salary cap is going up another $10-$15 million next year? The CBA (which is a 2 way agreement so don't sign it if you don't like it) is trying to get some money into the hands of players but some owners just don't want to share. Players have a very short window of opportunity to make money and the owners have a very long window of opportunity.

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Actually, they need to spend money in order to meet the 89% threshold. Folks always say, "don't go after the big names," and then complain when the 49ers didn't do that and proceeded to play awful football. The truth is, everybody is looking for a deal, that's why they are called deals. Now every player has a price, but you should shy away from the big names either. Teams get bit overpaying for the middling players.

The 49ers should target a top FA WR and OLB and hope Kaepernick stays. Otherwise, you're may end up with a Brock Osweiler type of contract.

It's not 89% EACH YEAR, but 89% over the time span cited by the CBA, which is about to start (2017-2020). Like I said, it's been awhile since I read up on it, but front loading contracts within that time period is a standard way to manipulate the mandatory minimum.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong; I'm going by memory here.

Okay, consider this. The 49ers core of players won't need extensions for 3-4 years, which means the cost of overpaying (a bit) on a top WR isn't actually going to hurt them either. Even if you keep a Jeffrey for 3 years of a 5 year contract it's not going to hurt their cap situation any. Then add the benefits he'll have to the next QB up (a young draftee?), Hyde and the coaching staff. Teams will have to gameplan for him (and Torrey Smith) and that should open things up underneath for Kerley and Hyde. All beneficial! I think we're on the same page insofar as neither of us want albatross contracts, I just feel more confident that a guy like Jeffrey won't be as big of a bust as you.


The previous, I'm poster provided the economic analysis supporting the 49ers spending on one (some) top free agents. Dust off your wallet man! :)

Oh, I'm just doing the inexcusable and trying to think like Paraag.

If it were up to me, we'd get Von Miller and JPP and figure out a way to mesh JPP into our 3-4 (AA to nose tackle?). I've been a JPP fan since I wanted the Niners to draft him.

35 tackles, 18 assists, 7 sacks and 3 forced fumbles before he got hurt - yeah JPP would be my 3-4 end and maybe we do like Walsh with Fred Dean and switch to 4-3 for passing downs. JPP would be in there.

Originally posted by father49er:

Originally posted by stonecold590:

This is cap $. Jed can't pocket it. They can choose not to spend it which just leaves $80 just sitting there but it's not like Jed can use it to get a new pair of gold nuts. That is what the PSLs are for.

"Each season all teams combined must spend on average 95 percent of the cap or more on salaries." http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question644.htm
Jed can pocket it as long as the league spends 95% of cap. Both the Browns and 49ers have each pocketed the $40m+ this season.

It doesn't go into his pocket it's not like he gets to keep the money for himself. That money stays Within the cap room. Whether he decides to spend it or not on players or contracts he can't take home whatever is left over. Just because he doesn't spend it doesn't mean it stays in his pocket. The cap room money is not his personal money

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by RTFirefly:

Originally posted by bzborow1:

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
For every successful team overspending in FA there are arguably 10 who don't get the results commensurate with what they spend. I'd say what the Giants did is the exception, not the rule. So, the Niners need to spend some of their bounty...not necessarily for big-name talent, but players who'll be productive and mesh and mentor the rookies and other younger players.

Actually, they need to spend money in order to meet the 89% threshold. Folks always say, "don't go after the big names," and then complain when the 49ers didn't do that and proceeded to play awful football. The truth is, everybody is looking for a deal, that's why they are called deals. Now every player has a price, but you should shy away from the big names either. Teams get bit overpaying for the middling players.

The 49ers should target a top FA WR and OLB and hope Kaepernick stays. Otherwise, you're may end up with a Brock Osweiler type of contract.

It's not 89% EACH YEAR, but 89% over the time span cited by the CBA, which is about to start (2017-2020). Like I said, it's been awhile since I read up on it, but front loading contracts within that time period is a standard way to manipulate the mandatory minimum.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong; I'm going by memory here.

Okay, consider this. The 49ers core of players won't need extensions for 3-4 years, which means the cost of overpaying (a bit) on a top WR isn't actually going to hurt them either. Even if you keep a Jeffrey for 3 years of a 5 year contract it's not going to hurt their cap situation any. Then add the benefits he'll have to the next QB up (a young draftee?), Hyde and the coaching staff. Teams will have to gameplan for him (and Torrey Smith) and that should open things up underneath for Kerley and Hyde. All beneficial! I think we're on the same page insofar as neither of us want albatross contracts, I just feel more confident that a guy like Jeffrey won't be as big of a bust as you.


The previous poster provided the economic analysis supporting the 49ers spending on one (some) top free agents. Dust off your wallet man! :)

It would help a lot if we could solve the WR problem in FA. The problem is, until we have a decent QB no good WR is going to come here. Jeffrey in particular has struggled through a bunch of incompetent QBs and is not likely to jump back into another such mess no matter how much the money. At this point he already has a lot of money and now wants to play for a winner. Going from Chicago to SF is a step down. Not what he is going to want.

OL and defense are more likely FA targets, IMO.

Sure. I think the general argument remains, the 49ers circumstances support them being bigger players in the free agency market wherever they are. If they do not land a top WR and instead look at some of the better OLB's, NT's or OL I would not at all be upset. The 49ers have needs all over the place and they need to start beefing up the talent.

Notes:
- Kilgore can't be relied upon, making C a FA target.
- Is Trent Brown the answer at OT?
- Somebody has to play QB and if it's not CK do we end up with next seasons Osweiler? Tony Romo?
- Anybody at OLB who doesn't believe the phrase QB Sack is in a foreign language.

Originally posted by bzborow1:
The argument the poster was making is that the opportunity cost of signing an Alshon Jeffrey is relatively small for San Francisco. They have cap room and core players (Buckner, Garnett, Robinson, etc.) who's extension won't come up for another 3 years so the team can absorb the contract. Further, he's saying there's a potential upside in it because a true #1 WR is going to make life easier on coaches, the future QB and Carlos Hyde's running room. It's a good argument, actually.

Also, consider that the 49ers must spend at least ~89% of the salary cap on players and are currently well below that mark, meaning they are obliged to spend soon.

I understand his argument but IMHO that's not how you setup a team...just because you have a a ton of money (and can absorb the contract) doesn't mean you have to overspend to get someone like AJ, who's not worth the type of money he will command to come here.

I really don't care if we have a ton of young players not due for extensions for a couple yrs, that still doesn't mean you overspend especially when the new cycle for the 89% rule goes from 2017-2020. Before we bust a nut on 2017 FAs, why not look to see who's gonna be a FA in the next couple yrs around the league?

I have no problem spending cash at all, BUT BE SMART...bad contracts can hurt the team that's trying to rebuild. There's a free agency every yr...how's that Torrey Smith contract doing for us? McClusky's mindset is well his contract didn't hurt us so who cares, but in reality we could have spent that money on other players that actually might be contributing (and we don't have to draft for that said position)....SF has spent (so far) $11.2 million for 930 yards 7 TDs in two season for Smith just because we can "absorb it" doesn't mean it's a smart move to make.

Signing every "big name" FA isn't always the best approach and I've already thrown out some names that prove it.

Here's a example from this past FA:

Would you rather have Casey Hayward at 3 yrs $15 million (currently the 3rd overall CB) or Janoris Jenkins at 5yr $62.5 million ( currently #5 overall CB)

Let's go after some of the big guys (who most likely don't come here unless we grossly overspend), but don't miss out on the "2nd tier" guys who could be a better value.

-we don't get Alshon Jeffery let's roll for Garcon who's gonna hit 1,000 yards this season and is a very well rounded WR (don't care about age one's always hurt and one isn't)
-We don't get Trumaine Johnson let's look at Dre Kirkpatrick (good coverage CB) or A.J. Bouye who's currently the 6th overall CB.
-we don't get Dontari Poe let's look at Nick Fairley, Brandon Williams,or Bennie Logan they all can stop the run (Fairly is a better pass rusher).