Ted Ginn

[imac_21]

This will be an interesting divide between posters I think.

Would you re-sign him, or, to make it a little more specific, at what price would you re-sign him?

I'd probably let him walk no matter the price.

I feel like everything he brings to the offense could be done by Kyle Williams, or a FA, or a draft pick, likely better than Ginn currently can.

With the return game, I don't know how much of the field position credit goes to him. He's not an explosive return guy. He's fast in a straight line, but doesn't have a lot of wiggle, and I question his balance. He seems to go down very easily when someone makes him change direction. He doesn't even have to be touched. If someone makes him cut, he either comes to a complete stop, or falls.

I don't think the return game gets hit all that much, if at all, if we go with Hunter, Williams or a draft pick.

He's easily the lowest priority for me as a FA that legitimately contributes to the team every Sunday (as opposed to someone that doesn't get on the field).

 

[Hangman]

I agree, Kyle Williams is just as good, but much better hands. id let him walk. But if a contract was offered Id do 3 years 8 mill or so.

 

[shouldakepowens]

Williams is my pick as well nothing worries me more than ginn attempting to field a punt around the 10 yard line

 

[crash]

The 49ers should offer him a 3 year deal worth 6 million that is a fair deal for a guy just to return kicks/punts.We could go another route in sign Desean Jackson but his attitude sucks and not sure how well he would fit into our offense!!

 

[numone9er]

I am fine with letting him walk. It has been nice having him as a solid return man, but that's basically the extent of his value. He just takes up a roster spot as another WR when we could find someone else who may not be able to contribute as much to the return game, but could be a better acquisition at WR. Frankly, I'm not sure why he is listed as a starter.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

I would re-sign him depending on price and who we add. I wouldn't specifically look for someone to replace him. If we happen to add a solid #3 type WR to the mix (with good hands) and that WR also returns kicks at a high level, then Ginn is expendable. But I'm fine with keeping Ginn if that same player doesn't have return ability. I'd go ahead and keep Ginn as a #5 emergency WR behind Williams in that case.

The recent memory of not having a punt returner who could actually catch a football is still traumatizing. We had young role players similar to Williams and Hunter try and step in and it cost us games. Williams and Hunter are probably better, but why take the chance when Ginn's getting the job done? Ginn's been very consistent. If you put a rookie out there, costly mistakes can and will pop up during the season. With our offense any mistake like that is a killer. He's been taken for granted in that role.

The second reason is of course his speed. The threat of his speed has been added yards throughout this year. We all know he won the Seattle game with that speed, but teams are conceding the middle to avoid losing the edge. He hasn't been shying away from contact as much as last year either. He has been kicked away from a few times this year so it is subtly adding field position that you probably don't get from another player.

 

[Flyingiguana]

i think they should have given ginn his money back

 

[Southern9er]

Williams is amazing and a far better player, one of our best overall draft picks in a while...but Ginn at least lets us "double" the speed, opponents still have to respect that he can get behind defenders, that is worth something, but not much more than the "status quo".

He's a good horse to trade...and by that I mean, looking for something else better...no i don't mean trade him. But he could be worth keeping under the right circumstances...

Who was it now that said "Ginn has arrived..." :confused2:

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Spend his money on Meachem.

 

[imac_21]

There are plenty of fast WRs out there. The idea that Ginn, with Williams, gives us "double the speed" is flawed because how often are they both on the field together? Even if we lose Edwards and don't sign a WR, say we go into next year with Crabtree, Morgan, Williams and Ginn. How often do we go 4 wide? We'll spend a lot more time with Crabtree, Morgan, Davis and Walker (or whoever TE2 is) than 4 WR on the field.

With his return ability, my biggest question is how often does he get more than what's blocked for him? Does he make guys miss? Does he break tackles? I think he's the most replaceable player on the roster.

 

[SportsTIPS]

Sign Ginn, sign Williams. The team needs speed

 

[imac_21]

Sign Ginn, sign Williams. The team needs speed

Good argument. Ginn is fast, but can't catch a cold. He's valuable. No one else is fast.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

There are plenty of fast WRs out there. The idea that Ginn, with Williams, gives us "double the speed" is flawed because how often are they both on the field together? Even if we lose Edwards and don't sign a WR, say we go into next year with Crabtree, Morgan, Williams and Ginn. How often do we go 4 wide? We'll spend a lot more time with Crabtree, Morgan, Davis and Walker (or whoever TE2 is) than 4 WR on the field.

With his return ability, my biggest question is how often does he get more than what's blocked for him? Does he make guys miss? Does he break tackles? I think he's the most replaceable player on the roster.

I think Ginn is a better returner than you're giving him credit for. I agree he's not particularly quick or all that decisive as a returner, but if he can get moving parallel to the LOS and stretch the field that way, he can and will find the edge and put together some very nice returns that go beyond just following the blocking. He's had several nice returns where he has used his speed to get around the edge and hug the sidelines that I don't think many other guys on the team could have done. IMO he's not good enough to keep purely for that reason, so no problems with moving on, but I do think he offers something in the return game.

 

[CalamityX11]

Ginn has been our best return man since whenever, even though he hasn't hit a HR lately, he has been able to give us good field position when given space.

Plus with Harbs liking of some designed offensive plays for him, I would definitely welcome Ginn back.

I would like KW to see more action as that 3rd WR, but Ginn as a #4 or our deep threat isn't too shabby.

Plus we don't have a history of good returners IIRC before Ginn arrived on both Punt and KO, so to say he's easily replaceable, i couldn't really agree to that nor would I want to venture something like that(unless there is a fast returner via draft that could make a case etc...)

 

[imac_21]

Using our recent history of poor returners to justify keeping Ginn is flawed thinking.

It's the same as saying that we need to keep Alex Smith just because we've had terrible QBs (Smith included from 05 through 2010) and he's competent now.

It's the same logic that led to signing Ahmad Plummer to that extension.

Just because we've been horrible at the position, doesn't mean we should settle on decent.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Using our recent history of poor returners to justify keeping Ginn is flawed thinking.

It's the same as saying that we need to keep Alex Smith just because we've had terrible QBs (Smith included from 05 through 2010) and he's competent now.

It's the same logic that led to signing Ahmad Plummer to that extension.

Just because we've been horrible at the position, doesn't mean we should settle on decent.

Ugh, don't remind me. And to think we could have shelled out a little bit more and gotten Winfield.

 

[threelittleturds]

I'd re-sign him at around 800k. Maybe I'm out of touch with the price for good PR/KR guys, but since he isn't anywhere close to being as good as Hester or Cribbs, I can't imagine him getting over a million a year when he doesn't even contribute to the passing game. Except for just clearing out the safeties.

Although, the best thing about Ginn returning is that he doesn't fumble. In the last two years he has had 1 KR fumble and 1 PR fumble, which is a hell of a lot better than the 6 fumbles on punts by Battle in 2009. Not to imply that Williams won't prove to have the same ball control as Ginn, just saying that part is an unknown right now. If the team is going to continue to be so low scoring and winning by small margins, not muffing punts will be as important as anything else.

 

[CalamityX11]

Using our recent history of poor returners to justify keeping Ginn is flawed thinking.

It's the same as saying that we need to keep Alex Smith just because we've had terrible QBs (Smith included from 05 through 2010) and he's competent now.

It's the same logic that led to signing Ahmad Plummer to that extension.

Just because we've been horrible at the position, doesn't mean we should settle on decent.

Well then its subjective, of course if you view him as decent then you would look elsewhere for an upgrade, but if one view him as great then why fix whats not broken?

The guy did take a paycut and followed it up with two returns in the game(of course zilch since)

 

[imac_21]

Well then its subjective, of course if you view him as decent then you would look elsewhere for an upgrade, but if one view him as great then why fix whats not broken?

The guy did take a paycut and followed it up with two returns in the game(of course zilch since)

I don't see how anyone can say he's great.

 

[MW49ers5]

Well then its subjective, of course if you view him as decent then you would look elsewhere for an upgrade, but if one view him as great then why fix whats not broken?

The guy did take a paycut and followed it up with two returns in the game (of course zilch since)

Ginn's making a house call today - Book it!