Offseason thread, WR hunt, Cap Space now $4.768M not counting JJ and Jacobs

[Flyingiguana]

Updating the cap space with the tag amount for Goldson.

damn, i thought the goldson deal was already factored in. guess we won't be able to bring in both colston and lloyd. might have to push hard for royal and either colston/lloyd

we really need to either resign or replace rogers with a viable starter. then i'd like to see a couple 1 year contracts to guys like john carlson and franklin(as a run stuffer, assuming he gets overlooked for a starter job)

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Although MW has precise (net) target totals for our receivers - I don't, so I am forced to use just what espn publishes and I would tend to infer from those totals that the receiver with the most targets is both the primary target & primary receiver. It simplifies things and avoids an unprovable argument.

I would say whatever receiver on the team receives the most targets was the 'overall' primary target & receiver. Thus Crabtree & Davis shared being the primary target & receiver in both 2009 & 2010

Actually, the basis for the improvement comparison is built-in to the question. As for glossing over your hypothetical, I didn't gloss over it, I simply ignored it and not disrespectfully either but it was an essentially meaningless hypothetical. I could not care less about any other receivers because I am comparing Crabtree to himself.

So if we base the definition "primary target" purely on actual targets, we see Crabtree slightly behind Davis in his first season, slightly ahead of Davis in his second season, and comfortably ahead of Davis in his third season. That would constitute "improvement" if the "primary target" standard is a reliable gauge of improvement. I don't believe it necessarily is, but since you raised, that is one indication that Crabtree has improved.

You clearly are not comparing Crabtree only to himself. Your primary target standard is an explicit comparison to Davis. In fact, you have literally compared them in what amounts to a chart format (btw, I can't help but note that stats are suddenly meaningful again). In your last paragraph in the post above, you begin by commenting on your comparison to Davis, and end by saying you are not comparing Crabtree to anyone but himself. You have completely contradicted yourself within the space of three sentences.

As for the positional ranking, I said I envision Crabtree as our #3 target. You questioned how he could have improved if he falls from our #1 target in 2010 to our #3 target at some point in the future. Your assumption that Crabtree's position relative to other receivers on the roster in some way reveals improvement presents an inherent comparison to whomever is #1 and #2 on the list.

You are the one who explicitly and implicitly compared Crabtree to others, including Davis by name. My point was that such a comparison is meaningless when applied to the question of Crabtree's improvement because Crabtree's improvement is independent of what others do.

Now let's try asking you a question again. I will refrain from answering further questions until you respond to it. Why do you believe that Crabtree has not improved since his rookie year?

 

[Bemular]

So if we base the definition "primary target" purely on actual targets, we see Crabtree slightly behind Davis in his first season, slightly ahead of Davis in his second season, and comfortably ahead of Davis in his third season. That would constitute "improvement" if the "primary target" standard is a reliable gauge of improvement. I don't believe it necessarily is, but since you raised, that is one indication that Crabtree has improved.

You clearly are not comparing Crabtree only to himself. Your primary target standard is an explicit comparison to Davis. In fact, you have literally compared them in what amounts to a chart format (btw, I can't help but note that stats are suddenly meaningful again). In your last paragraph in the post above, you begin by commenting on your comparison to Davis, and end by saying you are not comparing Crabtree to anyone but himself. You have completely contradicted yourself within the space of three sentences.

As for the positional ranking, I said I envision Crabtree as our #3 target. You questioned how he could have improved if he falls from our #1 target in 2010 to our #3 target at some point in the future. Your assumption that Crabtree's position relative to other receivers on the roster in some way reveals improvement presents an inherent comparison to whomever is #1 and #2 on the list.

You are the one who explicitly and implicitly compared Crabtree to others, including Davis by name. My point was that such a comparison is meaningless when applied to the question of Crabtree's improvement because Crabtree's improvement is independent of what others do.

Now let's try asking you a question again. I will refrain from answering further questions until you respond to it. Why do you believe that Crabtree has not improved since his rookie year?

For the sake of this discussion targets are not a measure of improvement and they were not brought up for the purpose you are reflecting - go back and read why targets were brought up in the first place

I am comparing Crabtree only to himself. If Crabtree had improved upon his 2009 performance in 2010, Braylon Edwards would have likely not become a 49er in 2011. Now, contrary to what your confusion will tell you, this is not a comparison to Braylon Edwards.

It seems what is happening here is anytime some new information is discussed you become seriously confused and then you just assume your confusion represents a whole bounty of new facts and suddenly you run off in that direction. I must ask the following question and I do so as respectfully as possible - Is English not your native language?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

For the sake of this discussion targets are not a measure of improvement and they were not brought up for the purpose you are reflecting - go back and read why targets were brought up in the first place

I am comparing Crabtree only to himself. If Crabtree had improved upon his 2009 performance in 2010, Braylon Edwards would have likely not become a 49er in 2011. Now, contrary to what your confusion will tell you, this is not a comparison to Braylon Edwards.

It seems what is happening here is anytime some new information is discussed you become seriously confused and then you just assume your confusion represents a whole bounty of new facts and suddenly you run off in that direction. I must ask the following question and I do so as respectfully as possible - Is English not your native language?

Now you're attributing something to me that I definitely never claimed: that Crabtree improved in 2010. I don't think he did. At least early in the season, he regressed significantly and was a big part of our 0-5 start that year. However, I do believe he was better in 2011 than he was in 2009. You still haven't presented anything to suggest otherwise.

Look, you clearly can't make a clear argument, and I'm frankly tired of trying to pin you down. If you want to say something, say it plainly. If you think I missed your point, clarify your point.

 

[numone9er]

NFL.com news: Niners reportedly want to keep Morgan from free agency

Sorry if i missed this, but i didn't see it posted.

 

[CalamityX11]

Too much cap not to use.

I wonder if we do hit WR via FA or what? Our names have not been associated with high profile FAs ATM.

Do want to get Rogers signed though.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Too much cap not to use.

I wonder if we do hit WR via FA or what? Our names have not been associated with high profile FAs ATM.

Do want to get Rogers signed though.

Wallace for example would take a legit $12+ in the first year so that would leave us with $13 mill for Alex, Rogers, and filler.

 

[CalamityX11]

Wallace for example would take a legit $12+ in the first year so that would leave us with $13 mill for Alex, Rogers, and filler.

Obviously I wouldn't hate bringing over Wallace. I like him as a WR, however, as you just said, his cost PLUS the "draft pick" is killing two birds with one stone and I'm not so sure I'd want that.

What's Alex's deal? 6-7 per yr?(length N/A) so take 7 away, and we're at 16 in free space.

tough cookies so far

 

[Ray_Dogg]

That would be nice if Alex was $6-7 in the first year of the deal.

 

[CalamityX11]

Maybe I'm thinking of it differently, but the contract offer was actually pretty modest if i remembered it correctly.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Maybe I'm thinking of it differently, but the contract offer was actually pretty modest if i remembered it correctly.

Rumor was $8-11 but who knows what per year. If it started at $8 and grew to $11 per in the third year that would be nice.

 

[CalamityX11]

Yeah, not a cap killer IMO.

 

[maniax]

Wallace is good, but my opinion is, if you are going to pay a receiver $10M plus a year, I want that receiver to be a BIG receiver.
Not a Mike Wallace, not a Desean Jackson type.

I want a Andre Johnson, Brandon Marshall, Calvin, Julio Jones type receiver.

Because there are things that those bigger receivers can do that Wallace cannot just because of their physicality. They are better jump ball targets, better getting off the line in press coverage, better at breaking tackles, probably better blockers, and some of those big receivers have close enough speed to Mike Wallace that I believe they are as good of a deep threat as Wallace.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Wallace is good, but my opinion is, if you are going to pay a receiver $10M plus a year, I want that receiver to be a BIG receiver.
Not a Mike Wallace, not a Desean Jackson type.

I want a Andre Johnson, Brandon Marshall, Calvin, Julio Jones type receiver.

Because there are things that those bigger receivers can do that Wallace cannot just because of their physicality. They are better jump ball targets, better getting off the line in press coverage, better at breaking tackles, probably better blockers, and some of those big receivers have close enough speed to Mike Wallace that I believe they are as good of a deep threat as Wallace.

We'd be paying Wallace $10M plus (actually 12) only in the first year to screw over Pitt.

 

[MHSL82]

For the sake of this discussion targets are not a measure of improvement and they were not brought up for the purpose you are reflecting - go back and read why targets were brought up in the first place

I am comparing Crabtree only to himself. If Crabtree had improved upon his 2009 performance in 2010, Braylon Edwards would have likely not become a 49er in 2011. Now, contrary to what your confusion will tell you, this is not a comparison to Braylon Edwards.

It seems what is happening here is anytime some new information is discussed you become seriously confused and then you just assume your confusion represents a whole bounty of new facts and suddenly you run off in that direction. I must ask the following question and I do so as respectfully as possible - Is English not your native language?

Now you're attributing something to me that I definitely never claimed: that Crabtree improved in 2010. I don't think he did. At least early in the season, he regressed significantly and was a big part of our 0-5 start that year. However, I do believe he was better in 2011 than he was in 2009. You still haven't presented anything to suggest otherwise.

Look, you clearly can't make a clear argument, and I'm frankly tired of trying to pin you down. If you want to say something, say it plainly. If you think I missed your point, clarify your point.

Ahh... this reminds me of the good ole days of MW49er5-Crimsoncrew debates. Or was it Crimsoncrew-MW49er5 debates? Hmm...

 

[Ray_Dogg]

March 12, 2012
49ers sign CB Brock to one-year deal

The 49ers today signed cornerback Tramaine Brock to a $540,000 exclusive rights contract, according to Brock's agent Ron Slavin. Brock began the 2011 season as the 49ers' No. 3 cornerback, and he came up with interceptions in the first two games of the season. But he broke his hand in the Week 2 game against Dallas and missed three weeks. That time off allowed rookie Chris Culliver to slide into the No. 3 job, which he held for the rest of the season.

Brock is interesting. He was undrafted out of Belhaven University in 2010 but made the 53-man roster that year instead of fullback Michael Robinson, a controversial move at the time. Now he could have a big role in a defense that will face the likes of Aaron Rodgers and the Packers, Drew Brees and the Saints, Eli Manning and the Giants and Matthew Stafford and the Lions (and Peyton Manning and the Cardinals??) in 2012.

As of now, it appears as if cornerback Carlos Rogers will hit the open market on Tuesday. He could be back if he doesn't get the offer he wants, but the 49ers are prepared to move on without him if he does find the right suitor. Under that scenario, they likely will look for an inexpensive veteran and/or draft a cornerback in April. Without Rogers, Culliver would be penciled in as the starter opposite Tarell Brown while Brock would be penciled in, initially at least, as the No. 3 corner.

Last year, Culliver played 41 percent of the 49ers' defensive snaps. The No. 3 cornerback promises to play at least that amount in 2012.

-- Matt Barrows

Read more here: Sacramento Bee -- 49ers Blog and Q&A

 

[Bemular]

Now you're attributing something to me that I definitely never claimed: that Crabtree improved in 2010. I don't think he did. At least early in the season, he regressed significantly and was a big part of our 0-5 start that year. However, I do believe he was better in 2011 than he was in 2009. You still haven't presented anything to suggest otherwise.

Look, you clearly can't make a clear argument, and I'm frankly tired of trying to pin you down. If you want to say something, say it plainly. If you think I missed your point, clarify your point.

Wow, your insurance rates must be through the roof! I'm sure this hasn't been explained to you enough, but that bright red sign with the white letters that spell STOP means hit the pedal to the left and if you drive a clutch let me know where you live so I can move.

I'm not sure but I kinda think you are 100% wrong about 2010 - Crabtree was clearly better in every phase of his game in 2010 than he was in 2009; the evidence on that is irrefutable - check the stat sheet.

As for his being better in 2011 than he was in 2009, once again the evidence is crystal clear that Michael Crabtree had radically improved every aspect of his game in 2011 and not just above 2009 but above 2010 as well.

While it is tough to let go of my false belief that overall Crabtree hasn't really improved since his 2009 season, in light of the overwhelming evidence what choice do I have.

All I wanted to do in this thread was done 20+ posts ago. How I got sucked into this debate about Crabtree is bewildering and then I would have to pick the two toughest hombre's on the board and geniuses both of you! Fuck me, I'm surprised I still have a pulse.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Ahh... this reminds me of the good ole days of MW49er5-Crimsoncrew debates. Or was it Crimsoncrew-MW49er5 debates? Hmm...

That's because Bemular is MW49ers5.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

For those interested in Colston:
Marques Colston - WR - Saints

According to ESPN's Adam Schefter, the Browns "certainly" will not pursue free agent Marques Colston.
Browns brass has been clear that it won't spend big money in free agency, and that's what it's going to take to acquire Colston, arguably the No. 2 receiver on the free agent market behind Vincent Jackson. Colston wouldn't help the Browns much, anyway. They need a wideout with legitimate separation skills.
Related: Browns
Source: ESPN.com
Mar 12 - 1:14 PM

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Wow, your insurance rates must be through the roof! I'm sure this hasn't been explained to you enough, but that bright red sign with the white letters that spell STOP means hit the pedal to the left and if you drive a clutch let me know where you live so I can move.

I'm not sure but I kinda think you are 100% wrong about 2010 - Crabtree was clearly better in every phase of his game in 2010 than he was in 2009; the evidence on that is irrefutable - check the stat sheet.

As for his being better in 2011 than he was in 2009, once again the evidence is crystal clear that Michael Crabtree had radically improved every aspect of his game in 2011 and not just above 2009 but above 2010 as well.

While it is tough to let go of my false belief that overall Crabtree hasn't really improved since his 2009 season, in light of the overwhelming evidence what choice do I have.

All I wanted to do in this thread was done 20+ posts ago. How I got sucked into this debate about Crabtree is bewildering and then I would have to pick the two toughest hombre's on the board and geniuses both of you! Fuck me, I'm surprised I still have a pulse.

It's not your pulse we're worried about. It's whether the blood is actually getting to your brain. The evidence suggests it's not.