Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by jonnydel:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by jonnydel:
Yep. When you look at our DL in 2019, Ford was more integral to our success than DeFo, in OUR scheme. When Ford was on the field our D was legendary when he wasn't, we were ok.
They gave Ford a huge contract. You can't give big contracts to your entire DL.
Our problems on defense last year didn't have anything to do with not having Buckner and had everything to do with not having Bosa and Ford.
So I guess you let Amstead walk and get a player closer to what we wanted Ford to be?
JD not trying to be argumentative, just trying to see the logic, that I was okay with, until the team pulled out the $ for Trent.
The only saving grace for me is the claim that Buck didn't want a cap-friendly deal.
You're conflating things. Refusing to give Buck 21m/year when we had Ford at 19.5/year didn't have to do with not being able to find the money somewhere, but what does it mean as far as where the team values money spent.
Committing almost 29% of your(projected) salary cap into DL means you've spent over half your defensive money on the line. If you value Fred Warner at 10% of the cap, that's now 39%. QB is about 12-13%, roughly, so you've committed 51% of your spending and you still have secondary, OL, RB, TE, WR and other KB and rotational players. Thats too many cap dollars concentrated. Having/not having Trent isn't the point, it's having the money to invest in a premiere LT, whomever it could be, would one become available because you've budgeted for it.
Apologies for the conflation. I think I get what you're saying here.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm okay with those skewed ratios or rather I'm okay with over-spending on the QB, protecting the passer and rushing the passer - and ensuring dollars invested have a good/high return.
Don't get me wrong, I was hoping for every move the FO has made thus far as the bare minimum of what we should do. We are clearly in win-now mode given Mack's deal. I'm just concerned that where our $ are invested won't have high returns when we focus on mid-tier players for 2 - 3 year deals when say a 5 year deal albeit more expensive looks that way today but pays dividends long term.
The plan seems super short term.
I see both sides of the argument/issue and it brings back to mind, that nowadays, it is impossible to be back in Coach Walsh's time where Eddie just kept writing checks. Now we have progressed(???) to where there isn't enough money to get the talent you need at all positions, and a big part of GMing is knowing where to overallocate and where you have to scrimp. The answer to the above is, on today's cap football, there is NO good ANSWER. Do what you think is best , in this case QB, protect him with OL and have a DL that intimidates opposing QBs. The rest just has to be apportioned/ divided according to what we have left to spend.
The real hope is that like in Rd #5 we have hit on two all pros. If your scouting team /F.O can beat everyone else (or most of them, anyway), then you win. But today, if you win, then you are back at square one next yr. Same thing repeats itself yr after yr in cap football....and THAT is NOT news.
[ Edited by pasodoc9er on Mar 17, 2021 at 2:45 PM ]
