I Bet Brooks Wants To Kick Akers' Ass!

[TobyTyler]

...If the Niners win 12 games last year he gets another 1.6 Mil in incentives.

 

[bvanthielriceyoung]

really? wow, yeah Brooks probably isnt the greatest of friends with Akers now.

Good news for us is we still got the #2 seed and saved some cap space for this coming year.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

Actually not - he didn't play enough snaps to get the bonus anyway. If Akers didn't cost him the win, then he'd want to kick Fangio's ass for not giving him enough plays.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Even with 12 wins, Brooks still needed to play in 93.2% of the defensive snaps, which he did not reach. Maiocco had him at 92.2% and PFF had him at 92.5%.

What's interesting is that if their play counts are correct, if you were to give Brooks credit for playing in just 10 more plays, it would have bumped him up to 93.3%, 0.1% over what he needed to qualify to reach the mark. That part of it is what is interesting to me.

 

[Bemular]

Even with 12 wins, Brooks still needed to play in 93.2% of the defensive snaps, which he did not reach. Maiocco had him at 92.2% and PFF had him at 92.5%.

What's interesting is that if their play counts are correct, if you were to give Brooks credit for playing in just 10 more plays, it would have bumped him up to 93.3%, 0.1% over what he needed to qualify to reach the mark. That part of it is what is interesting to me.

Do you think the purse holder for the 49ers had a snap count on Brooks?

 

[ChrisPozz]

Do you think the purse holder for the 49ers had a snap count on Brooks?

I wouldn't doubt if someone - Marathe maybe? - would have been able to recall that nugget and may have even knew about where he was at but I wouldn't guess that it was incredibly likely either.

Note: Those numbers were for the regular season only. If it applies to any postseason snaps then that changes everything I've been talking about. Maybe I needed to include those.

 

[Bemular]

I wouldn't doubt if someone - Marathe maybe? - would have been able to recall that nugget and may have even knew about where he was at but I wouldn't guess that it was incredibly likely either.

Note: Those numbers were for the regular season only. If it applies to any postseason snaps then that changes everything I've been talking about. Maybe I needed to include those.

Yeah, I kind of figured we were talking about reg season.

 

[I_am_1z]

Even with 12 wins, Brooks still needed to play in 93.2% of the defensive snaps, which he did not reach. Maiocco had him at 92.2% and PFF had him at 92.5%.

What's interesting is that if their play counts are correct, if you were to give Brooks credit for playing in just 10 more plays, it would have bumped him up to 93.3%, 0.1% over what he needed to qualify to reach the mark. That part of it is what is interesting to me.

I see what you're saying, but at an even deeper level, do you think management might have purposely lost a game to save money?

 

[MHSL82]

Do you think the purse holder for the 49ers had a snap count on Brooks?

I wouldn't doubt if someone - Marathe maybe? - would have been able to recall that nugget and may have even knew about where he was at but I wouldn't guess that it was incredibly likely either.

Note: Those numbers were for the regular season only. If it applies to any postseason snaps then that changes everything I've been talking about. Maybe I needed to include those.

Did his snaps decrease as the year went by? Did they seem low all season? I don't know if there's a breakdown by game or just a total.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Did his snaps decrease as the year went by? Did they seem low all season? I don't know if there's a breakdown by game or just a total.

Percentage of snaps played (PFF) by game:

77.8
92.3
94.9
90.6
87.0
96.9
98.2
91.7
97.7
89.8
91.5
94.7
96.9
89.6
93.8
87.5

Playoffs

93.3
94.0
97.2

 

[MHSL82]

Percentage of snaps played (PFF) by game:

77.8
92.3
94.9
90.6
87.0
96.9
98.2
91.7
97.7
89.8
91.5
94.7
96.9
89.6
93.8
87.5

Playoffs

93.3
94.0
97.2

Thanks.

The last three games were slightly less than the average up to that point and the playoff games were more than that point.

Obviously, I didn't use the actual numbers because I don't know how many snaps each game has, but I treated each as an equal unit, and figured it out that way. Not accurate, but don't bother to type out or link the totals because that's too much work. Thank you for your help.

 

[threelittleturds]

However, Brooks' contract includes language that would decrease his base salary and his base salary guarantee by up to $2.5 million in 2013 depending on the number of sacks he produces in 2012. Brooks had 6.5 sacks in 2012, which has reduced his base salary and base salary guarantee by $1.6 million, dropping his once $4.3 million base salary to $2.7 million for next season.

The 49ers did include a way for Brooks to void the decreases, but all three criteria had to be reached in order to preserve his original salary.

In order to void the de-escalator language, the 49ers needed to win 12 games during the 2012 season. The 49ers only lost only four of their 16 regular season games, but a 24-24 tie to the St. Louis Rams on Nov. 11 and a 16-13 overtime loss to the Rams on Dec. 2 prevented the 49ers from winning the required 12 games.

Brooks was also required to have a playing-time percentage of 93.2 in the regular season. According to official playing-time documents, the 49ers had 1,060 defensive snaps in 2012 and Brooks was on the field for 977 of those plays, resulting in a playing-time percentage of 92.17. Brooks would have needed a dozen more snaps to reach 93.2 percent playing-time.

The last component was reached when the 49ers played in the NFC championship game, but Brooks' salary was already subject to the de-escalators when the other two criteria were not met. The same language applies to the other four seasons (2014-17) in Brooks' current contract.

From what I understand. 1st off he didn't reach the sack total needed to prevent the paycut.

After that 3 other categories had to be met in order to void the sack quota requirement. Of those three, the 12 wins, 93.2% playing time, NFC Championship.

Long story short, if he just got the Sacks he would have got his money... Akers and Fangio were just his backup

 

[TobyTyler]

Actually not - he didn't play enough snaps to get the bonus anyway. If Akers didn't cost him the win, then he'd want to kick Fangio's ass for not giving him enough plays.

Oh. I thought it was if he either played 93% of the snaps or they won 12 games. I didn't know he needed to do both.