Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
49erurtaza

Training Camp Thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, 49erurtaza said:

 

Yes!!!!!!!!! Take rest of training camp off to be honest.

Huge news. Other injuries suck, but not worried about losing Smith. Well, Breida would be a loss but he is a RB and you could overcome that. Thomas will likely be out for a week or two, but that's fine. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldman9er said:

I'm seeing a lot of teams with injury troubles over the recent years. Maybe it's that kids today are just... softer. o.O

Or the opposite - bigger and faster. Mass times velocity and all that stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 49erurtaza said:

 

I was out of town for a while and catching up on 49er news after I got back. I read an article about how Kittle was working his "smaller muscles" to see if he could help avoid the injuries he had last year. We didn't see him miss too much time but they had a whole long list of little injuries he suffered last year. I do hope he goesn't turn into George Brittle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No apparent structural damage on Breida, hoping he'll be fine for week 1. This may help out williams as the uncertainty may cause the staff to keep an additional running back on the roster just in case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if Harold Landry and Dante Pettis become Pro Bowlers, do the 49ers still get an L for passing on him in the draft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

So if Harold Landry and Dante Pettis become Pro Bowlers, do the 49ers still get an L for passing on him in the draft?

Wouldn't be an L any time you get someone of that level of production, but pass rusher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wide receiver. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random note - it's really depressing looking at that Malcolm Smith contract. Even if we cut him next year, his dead cap hit is nearly 4x his savings. Still has 4.2 in dead money next year. That's insane. What a terrible, terrible contract that was LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Forge said:

Random note - it's really depressing looking at that Malcolm Smith contract. Even if we cut him next year, his dead cap hit is nearly 4x his savings. Still has 4.2 in dead money next year. That's insane. What a terrible, terrible contract that was LOL

Never understood giving him more then a one year contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 49erurtaza said:

Never understood giving him more then a one year contract. 

At the time it made a bunch of sense. We needed starting level defensive talent, who were familiar with the scheme. We had Bowman coming off a Achilles tear and nothing much else at LB. Nobody knew how Lynch and Co would fair in the draft. And this was not a appealing destination to many free agents at the time so we did what needed to be done to get guys in here. At that time, most felt like we overpayed for Garcon, Juice, and Smith. They forget though, just how bleek the outlook was on this organization after Chip Kelly was fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are practices closed now to the media and fans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 757-NINER said:

At the time it made a bunch of sense. We needed starting level defensive talent, who were familiar with the scheme. We had Bowman coming off a Achilles tear and nothing much else at LB. Nobody knew how Lynch and Co would fair in the draft. And this was not a appealing destination to many free agents at the time so we did what needed to be done to get guys in here. At that time, most felt like we overpayed for Garcon, Juice, and Smith. They forget though, just how bleek the outlook was on this organization after Chip Kelly was fired.

A contract at that cost never made much sense to me lol

The player made sense, just not the contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Forge said:

A contract at that cost never made much sense to me lol

The player made sense, just not the contract

I'm sure we had to sweeten the pot some to get Smith here. Like I said, we were not the team FAs were looking at back then and I believe Jax and Atlanta were also pursuing Smith that off-season as well if I remember correctly. So again, we did what we had to do get the guy in the building. I believe McKinnon's situation was very similar, as it was between us and another team vying for his services. Your going to overpay for starting-level talent in free agency, 9/10 times....that's just the way it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

I'm sure we had to sweeten the pot some to get Smith here. Like I said, we were not the team FAs were looking at back then and I believe Jax and Atlanta were also pursuing Smith that off-season as well if I remember correctly. So again, we did what we had to do get the guy in the building. I believe McKinnon's situation was very similar, as it was between us and another team vying for his services. Your going to overpay for starting-level talent in free agency, 9/10 times....that's just the way it works.

Some? We didn't sweeten it some. We made him like a top 15 paid 4-3 outside linebacker, which is just asinine. I don't remember him getting any interest from anywhere but here. With Jax, he certainly woudln't have been a starter, and they weren't exactly coming off a great season anyway (and I think to a lot of players, walking in as a starter to improve value is more important than walking in as a back up and being on a good team, particularly for someone at his age group...but maybe Smith isn't like that, I don't know). Nobody was pegging them as a viable super bowl candidate last year.  I remember the Falcons having interest in him 3 years ago when he was leaving Seattle, but not last year. But even if they were interested, I have a hard time fathoming that coming off the awful and dreadful seasons he was coming off of, he was attracting top 15 salaries for 4-3 outside linebackers or a virtually guaranteed starting spot (he wasn't going to start in ATL over Jones). 

And I don't always buy the, "bad teams have to overpay". In 2011, we didn't overpay for Carlos Rogers (we did subsequently overpay on his extension, though that was understandable). This year, the Browns got EJ Gaines for 1 million, and he was one of the best zone corners in the NFL last year. They got Kendricks on the cheap as well. They are 1-31 in their last 32. The bears got Prince for 1 year / 7 mil last year. I can go on. Bad teams can get good free agent deals. It's more about falling the guys who flow through the cracks. 

This is what this FO has shown to repeatedly do in free agency - overpay for specific guys they want. They don't seem to ever want to go with plan B. They are the ones that go house hunting, see a 500K house that they have to have, and hand over 750K when they probably could have gotten it for 525K. They have done it with a lot of the free agent signings. McKinnon (and yes, I would agree that McKinnon had interest from other teams. Interest enough to make him a top 3 paid running back in the NFL, I doubt, but again, the guys we have to have, we have to have). Juice Check. Smith. Hell, you can honestly probably add Earl Mitchell to that. Overpaying for marginal and questionable starting level talent is how bad teams typically stay bad, particularly when you're doing it quite a bit (obviously, if you have a gaping hole somewhere that you want to fix, this makes some degree of sense). 

Thankfully, I think we are drafting well the last two years, and none of these deals are crippling in the least for their money, but it doesn't make them good deals or in some cases (such as Smith's) excusable. They are just bad deals. It's okay to call a spade a spade. I think it was Rudyz whom probably has the best philosophy reagrding these deals in that yes, they can be considered bad deals, but are probably mostly harmless, and that is the merit they probably have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×