Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pandomonium

Kahlil Mack

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, John232 said:

I do think giving them Ward and Armstead actually helps them to some degree. I don't think they are pure "junk". They've shown to be solid players if nothing else WHEN healthy. (Big if). 

 

That said, any trade for Mack is going to involve at least 1 first and a second. Those two guys might just alleviate parting with like a fourth or fifth. And from everything i've read, the Raiders secondary has been ROUGH in camp. Ward might really interest them. 

Not at a 9 mil cap hit though. You can go out and sign a guy like Breeland for less. I think ppl are forgetting that Ward's trade value is affected tremendously by the fact his option was picked up so his price tag is turn-off for alot of teams, considering his injury history and productivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, it only matters if was a multi-year contract. Wardand Armstead both expire after this year. if they can clear the cap (which by trading Mack, I assume those two salaries would match closely) then it shouldn't be a problem. But I do agree, it's something that depending on how up against it they are, they might not want to mess with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John232 said:

Eh, it only matters if was a multi-year contract. Wardand Armstead both expire after this year. if they can clear the cap (which by trading Mack, I assume those two salaries would match closely) then it shouldn't be a problem. But I do agree, it's something that depending on how up against it they are, they might not want to mess with it. 

Cap rollover. 

Share this post


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

Cap rollover. 

Chut up. I forgot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll believe it when I see it on the trade because there is almost no chance in my eyes the raiders do this. (I think one of their guards are more likely to be moved in the event $$ troubles) But I'd trade whatever it takes if he was. 

Another note, Solomon Thomas deserves a shot this season, and not to say he wouldn't get that if we added Mack, but its not out of the question he steps into that tier Buckner did in his 2nd season. He's the same age as Bradley Chubb, still doesnt even have his grown man strength yet! So we might not have this all out dire need for kahlil mack, we may have our own version of him already wearing red. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 48 1/2ers said:

I'll believe it when I see it on the trade because there is almost no chance in my eyes the raiders do this. (I think one of their guards are more likely to be moved in the event $$ troubles) But I'd trade whatever it takes if he was. 

Another note, Solomon Thomas deserves a shot this season, and not to say he wouldn't get that if we added Mack, but its not out of the question he steps into that tier Buckner did in his 2nd season. He's the same age as Bradley Chubb, still doesnt even have his grown man strength yet! So we might not have this all out dire need for kahlil mack, we may have our own version of him already wearing red. 

Well, Thomas will never be a dominant edge rusher though. That just isn't going to happen. Even in college he did majority of his damage on the inside. So getting Mack isn't going to stunt his growth. On base downs, it will force him to play the Big DE spot which he isn't as good at as he is at LEO. And then on nickel downs our pass rush could be ridiculously good with Mack/Thomas/Buckner. Then you have Warner/Foster at LB and our young emerging secondary? Could quickly become a two sided monster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 48 1/2ers said:

I'll believe it when I see it on the trade because there is almost no chance in my eyes the raiders do this. (I think one of their guards are more likely to be moved in the event $$ troubles) But I'd trade whatever it takes if he was. 

 

I actually pondered this too. Osemele's dead money is gone, so if they traded him, they'd clear out 10.5, 10.2 and 11.7 over the next three years and I certainly think that he has some value. I'd love to have him here, though obviously doubt that would happen as well. 

Share this post


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

Not at a 9 mil cap hit though. You can go out and sign a guy like Breeland for less. I think ppl are forgetting that Ward's trade value is affected tremendously by the fact his option was picked up so his price tag is turn-off for alot of teams, considering his injury history and productivity.

Would be a easy hurdle to clear. Restructure the contract to have a 5 million dollar roster bonus for being on the roster today, with 3 million or whatever being divided out on a per game basis. Then trade him tomorrow. 

I'd rather just keep him honestly, what could we really get back that would help us win this year? Our secondary is pretty thin as it is 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, N4L said:

Would be a easy hurdle to clear. Restructure the contract to have a 5 million dollar roster bonus for being on the roster today, with 3 million or whatever being divided out on a per game basis. Then trade him tomorrow. 

I'd rather just keep him honestly, what could we really get back that would help us win this year? Our secondary is pretty thin as it is 

That doesn't really help. Your cap hit is still 9 million for the year if he plays all games, and his play still isn't worth 9 million overall. Also, not sure that you can restructure in that way - the contract is fully guaranteed already. The player would never agree to it,, and honestly, why should he, and I'm not even sure it's allowed on a fifth year option. 

Share this post


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

That doesn't really help. Your cap hit is still 9 million for the year if he plays all games, and his play still isn't worth 9 million overall. Also, not sure that you can restructure in that way - the contract is fully guaranteed already. The player would never agree to it,, and honestly, why should he, and I'm not even sure it's allowed on a fifth year option. 

I did read recently that Ward was a likely trade candidate, but that the 49ers would likely have to take on some of the salary to make a trade work. Cannot recall who wrote the article, but it sounds like restructuring for the purpose of a trade is possible. The guaranteed part wouldn't have to necessarily change either. The restructured deal could guarantee the second part of his contract after his next physical, which would occur in the trade process. 

And I have to imagine a guy in his contract year is going to want to restructure if it means landing on a team where he'll see the field and prove he's worthy of his next contract. I'm sure Ward recognizes his chance at a second contract increases dramatically if he starts and can play a full season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

I did read recently that Ward was a likely trade candidate, but that the 49ers would likely have to take on some of the salary to make a trade work. Cannot recall who wrote the article, but it sounds like restructuring for the purpose of a trade is possible. The guaranteed part wouldn't have to necessarily change either. The restructured deal could guarantee the second part of his contract after his next physical, which would occur in the trade process. 

And I have to imagine a guy in his contract year is going to want to restructure if it means landing on a team where he'll see the field and prove he's worthy of his next contract. I'm sure Ward recognizes his chance at a second contract increases dramatically if he starts and can play a full season. 

Yeah, I don't know that they can't restructure it at all...It may have to be a situation where you convert everything but the minimum salary to a signing bonus (which we would absorb), and then the base salary would still be guaranteed but the new team would absorb that. Again, not sure if that's possible or not, but there's no decrease in the player's actual salary, so I can't imagine that it's against the CBA. 

No way he does a per game bonus, as indicated in the original post however. Even the prospect of getting a better second contract is unlikely to sway them with regards to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Well, Thomas will never be a dominant edge rusher though. That just isn't going to happen. Even in college he did majority of his damage on the inside. So getting Mack isn't going to stunt his growth. On base downs, it will force him to play the Big DE spot which he isn't as good at as he is at LEO. And then on nickel downs our pass rush could be ridiculously good with Mack/Thomas/Buckner. Then you have Warner/Foster at LB and our young emerging secondary? Could quickly become a two sided monster. 

Maybe I'm naive to believe 2 years at Stanford and a rookie season isn't enough to say he'll never be dominant off the edge. His explosive traits and overall strength give me a reason to believe he can develop. Never said Mack will stunt his growth, I think the player x stunting y's growth talk is an overused cliche. This is just a big year for Solomon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Well, Thomas will never be a dominant edge rusher though. That just isn't going to happen. Even in college he did majority of his damage on the inside. So getting Mack isn't going to stunt his growth. On base downs, it will force him to play the Big DE spot which he isn't as good at as he is at LEO. And then on nickel downs our pass rush could be ridiculously good with Mack/Thomas/Buckner. Then you have Warner/Foster at LB and our young emerging secondary? Could quickly become a two sided monster. 

I think Thomas is better suited for the big end on base downs than he is Leo. Whether in base or nickel, the Leo should always be your best outside rusher to maximize this scheme. 

IMO, the only reason Thomas plays Leo in base is because AA is on the roster and they want their four best D-Lineman on the field. But from a skill-set perspective, Thomas is more ideal as a big end than as a Leo. You acquire a more natural edge rusher and it will allow Thomas to play his more natural fit as the big end.

Share this post


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

I think Thomas is better suited for the big end on base downs than he is Leo. Whether in base or nickel, the Leo should always be your best outside rusher to maximize this scheme. 

IMO, the only reason Thomas plays Leo in base is because AA is on the roster and they want their four best D-Lineman on the field. But from a skill-set perspective, Thomas is more ideal as a big end than as a Leo. You acquire a more natural edge rusher and it will allow Thomas to play his more natural fit as the big end.

Could not agree more. 

As much as I love the 43 Under, and had wanted it in SF for years.. it now ironically seems to be forcing a potentially great player into a role that doesn't ideally suit him or us. 

Share this post


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

I think Thomas is better suited for the big end on base downs than he is Leo. Whether in base or nickel, the Leo should always be your best outside rusher to maximize this scheme. 

IMO, the only reason Thomas plays Leo in base is because AA is on the roster and they want their four best D-Lineman on the field. But from a skill-set perspective, Thomas is more ideal as a big end than as a Leo. You acquire a more natural edge rusher and it will allow Thomas to play his more natural fit as the big end.

Disagree. Thomas started at big end spot last year and got handled in run game. Once he moved to LEO, he was isolated and started stopping the run much better. 

But obviously you are in the nickel more anyways, and he wouldn't be playing big end or Leo, so it wouldn't matter. 

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  



×