Just for the hell of it: Should the 49ers pursue Alge Crumpler?

Before anybody blows a gasket, consider these the bored musings of a football fan in February. For those that didn't here, Alge Crumpler was released by the Falcons today, along with Byron Leftwich, OT Wayne Gandy, DT Rod Coleman, and three other veterans. Already, ESPN's football blog, "Hashmarks," is reporting that Crumpler could be bound for Carolina. Crumpler is from Greenville, NC and was hoping to get drafted by the Panthers, so a free agency return is a very real possibility.
While we wait for that to happen though, I though it would be fun to at least ponder him as an option in the 49ers new and improved offense. Had we signed almost any other offensive coordinator I'd say go for it, but Mike Martz is not exactly known for prolific tight end performances. But for the purposes of this exercise, we'll just look at this from a more general perspective and consider the good and the bad to it.
Positives
When Eric Johnson was around, I really liked the idea of a 2-tight end set involving him and Vernon Davis. Johnson could catch anything thrown his way while Davis could spread the defense. Crumpler struggled last season, although part of that is due to playing with some craptastic quarterbacks. Crumpler would have been 4th on the 49ers behind DJack, Vernon Davis and Arnaz Battle in receiving yards.
Imagine though what the team could do with a guy like Crumpler. There is of course the traditional 2-tight end formation. But the reason I really like the second tight end is when the Disease is split out wide. Suddenly you've got the supremely athletic Davis as a receiver and the great hands of Crumpler. If Davis is going to be the game-breaker this team has bee searching for, the addition of Crumpler would add another great receiver-type to the offense. I still like the idea of bringing in another young WR through the draft, but I think this would produce some immediate dividends.
Negatives
Two words: Delanie Walker. Walker is still developing, but I think he's on his way to becoming a decent option at tight end. His first year saw him active in only 7 games, making 2 receptions for 30 yards. Last season he played in all 16 games and finished with 21 receptions for 174 yards and 1 touchdown. Why bring in Crumpler who's starting to grow a little long in the teeth, when you've got a guy like Walker who most of us are fans of.
I certainly don't see Crumpler ending up in San Francisco. There are the salary issues and the fact that the team really doesn't need him. However, considering the glory he has brought me in fantasy seasons past, it's always interesting to at least consider the option.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
We should not go for crumbler
Agree
Re. Alge
-Davis is injury prone.
-Alge could be to the Niners what Moss was to the Patriots.
-Crumpler can catch the rock.
Why I think it's a bad idea.
-Crumpler made 5 mil in 2006.
-We have Davis and Walker.
No Way
He was only good because Vick cant complete a legitimate pass to a receiver. Plus vick would buy time and thats why he was always so wide open..... there is no damn reason to sign crumpler.
No on Crumpler
by Rodney79 on Feb 17, 2008 11:28 AM PST reply actions
Eh...
See, I don't get this line of reasoning. By the same token we have a lot of needs to fill and linebacker isn't one of them. We have a lot of holes to fill and backup running back isn't one of them. I don't agree with not making a move that will improve the team because that move doesn't fill a more pressing need. If it improves the team, I mean that's the ultimate objective. It's the "Aaron Rowand sux" argument you hear from disgruntled Giants fans. Now, Giants fans have a lot of reasons to be disgruntled, and a few reasons to be disgruntled over that particular signing, but the fact that he's not a 3B is not on the list of good reasons.
Where this gets dicey is if an Alge Crumpler signing takes cap space that then prevents an acquisition that would have helped the team more. We're in pretty good cap space, and I don't think that would be the case.
Now, personally I don't really care for a Crumpler signing. I think he's a declining "star" who was never an elite player to begin with. His production may likely not be any better than Walker, and if it's not then he's essentially dead money. So nah, I don't think I'd go for Crumpler, but the idea that "don't do it because there are bigger problems" just doesn't make any sense to me. An improved team is an improved team, regardless of the hole it fails to fill (assuming Crumpler would improve the team - which I personally don't, but for the sake of argument only I'm saying it).
by howtheyscored on Feb 17, 2008 4:13 PM PST up reply actions
To fair
I look at it like this. We've got Vernon Davis who by all means should be a hell of a lot better than Crumpler. With that said, Crumpler would be the #2 TE on the team and I'm sure there are teams, Seattle and Carolina (are possibilities just off the top of my head), out there that are going to pay Crumpler #1 TE money and in my opinion he wouldn't be worth that kind of money to the Niners because they do have other needs that I'd rather see the Niners spend their money on.
by methodrampage on Feb 17, 2008 6:37 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with this line of thinking
But I do agree with your argument against Crumpler whole-heartedly.
by howtheyscored on Feb 17, 2008 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
Not saying your right or wrong
by methodrampage on Feb 18, 2008 6:51 AM PST up reply actions
Yes
We do, in fact, have bigger holes to fill on this team than MLB. I didn't say it wasn't a hole. I just said we have bigger holes to fill and that the fact we have bigger holes is no good reason to say "hai guyz don't bother signing a LB wut we need is NT!"
by howtheyscored on Feb 17, 2008 10:13 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree
by methodrampage on Feb 18, 2008 6:54 AM PST up reply actions

by 


























