Maiocco: "Brooks' replacement already on the team"
by f p soft on Feb 22, 2012 5:40 PM PST
Email
PrintIn a newly illogical edition of "49ers Mailbag", Matt Maiocco says that Brooks' replacement this year will be...Aldon Smith. Maiocco's rationale is that, because Aldon Smith will take on a more full-time role this season, with a full offseason to prepare for every-down play, that the 49ers can let Brooks go and not lose anything. Really, Matt? So who's going to replace Aldon Smith?
Maiocco goes on to reason that Parys Haralson could continue to set the edge on first and second down, and the 49ers can just pull a sack specialist in free agency and/or the draft to take on Smith's 2011 role as a pass rush specialist on passing downs. In other words, instead of finding a replacement for Brooks via the draft or free agency, they can replace Brooks with Smith, because it will be easier to find a replacement for Smith than Brooks. Because if Brooks walks, no matter how you look at it, someone has to be replaced.
In 2011, Brooks had 49 tackles, 7 sacks, and one forced fumble, while playing nearly every defensive snap. Smith, meanwhile, recorded 37 tackles, 14 sacks, and 2 forced fumbles, even though he only played part-time, primarily on 3rd downs. And that's much easier to replace.
By Maiocco's logic, the 49ers should just save millions on the huge contract they'll have to give Smith in a few years (and get an extra high-round draft pick or two) simply by trading Smith now, re-signing Brooks, and drafting another sack specialist in April.
Because 14-sack rookies just grow on trees. Thanks for the brilliant insight, Matt.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I hope so; I think he would be good there!
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Feb 22, 2012 9:15 PM PST up reply actions
It's possible they see him as the DE opposite Aldon on 3rd downs...
If that’s the case, then they just need depth that can potentially replace Harrelson for 1st and 2nd down if necessary.
by 9thevolution on Feb 23, 2012 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
why not?
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Feb 24, 2012 2:08 AM PST up reply actions
Is this a serious question?
He’s 6-2 280…
Attack this day with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. ~ Jack Harbaugh
so, look at the chief's olb.
he weights about five pounds less; tamba hali. agility and speed are the factors not weight.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Feb 25, 2012 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
Hali is the exception not the rule. Most guys his size don’t have his quickness and agility…Dobbs, while no slouch from the little we’ve seen, isn’t that similar to Hali.
Attack this day with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. ~ Jack Harbaugh
The other chiefs OLB is similar size.
Justin Houston is 6’2 270 I think.
To me, it all comes down to how you rush the passer and set the edge. Pass coverage isn’t nearly as important in a 3-4 from the OLB position as it’s made out to be.
Stay out of my territory
so is tamba hali
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Feb 25, 2012 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
Hali >>>> Dobbs
That’s why that works
"Bears are crazy, Willie. They'll bite your head off if you're wearing steak on it."
Huh?
By Maiocco’s logic, the 49ers should just save millions on the huge contract they’ll have to give Smith in a few years (and get an extra high-round draft pick or two) simply by trading Smith now, re-signing Brooks, and drafting another sack specialist in April.
Can you explain how you extrapolated that logic? Aldon Smith was drafted to become an every down player. They can see how he develops at a significantly lower cost than a potential Brooks contract might cost them. In turn, if Smith continues showing progress, he conceivably becomes a better option long term than Brooks.
My point is:
what Maiocco is saying is that because Smith can now be an every down player, the 49ers can just let Brooks go, and not have to worry about a drop off in defensive production. But the fact is that if you lose a player, you have to replace that player’s production with something as good or better in order to maintain or improve.
If you replace Brooks’ production with Smith’s production, you have to replace Smith’s production with something as good as or better than Brooks in order to improve the team. So why not just take Smith out of the circular reasoning cycle and just find a replacement for Brooks, which Maiocco is implying the 49ers somehow magically won’t have to do with Smith in the game for more snaps.
That's not what he's saying at all.
We have 2 OLB spots, so the total ratios of each OLB needs to add up to around 2 (possibly higher or lower, because of different sets). Last year, Smith played on about 1/2 of snaps, Haralson played around 2/3 of snaps and Brooks played around 5/6 of snaps. This year, Smith is ready to move up to Brooks’ level, around 5/6, leaving us with a surplus of 1/3. What Maiocco is saying is that instead of paying Brooks a large amount and scaling back both him and Haralson, we would be better off increasing Haralson’s workload and getting a cheaper OLB, who would take less than half of the snaps. This would save us money that we could spend more efficiently, and the drop-off would be less significant than it seems based on numbers alone. That is his argument, and I think he’s right. Brooks should not be a priority this off-season, especially not over Carlos Rogers, Dashon Goldson, or a #1 receiver.
I'm just a simple sports fan trying to make my way in the universe.
Proud adoptive father of perhaps the best long reliever/7th starter in the MLB, Guillermo Mota.
by Tim Lincecum's Bong on Feb 22, 2012 8:22 PM PST up reply actions
so who's on first?
because what’s on second, and I don’t know’s at left outside linebacker.
If the 49ers lose Brooks, Brooks will have to be replaced. Period. Because unless this team won the Super Bowl earlier this month and I just somehow failed to notice, then the 49ers objective should be to get better. Not hold steady, or possibly get worse. Get better.
You fail to see the true meaning of the artical so I will try to explain in simple terms....
Brooks is the everydown player and Smith came in on 3rd downs most of the time. Parys Haralson played on 1st and second down. The 49ers plan to play Smith full time because he is so awsome….but he needs to take one of the two OLB positions to do that. So he will replace either Brooks or Parys Haralson. Brooks will cost more money so the 49ers would be wise to let Brooks leave and have Parys Haralson still play 1st and 2nd downs and bring in a pass rush specialist to rush the QB on 3rd down. That means that the new guy AND Aldon Smith will be in there on 3rd downs to rush the QB.
The part about trading Smith for high picks was just something you invented and wasn’t even close to what he was talking about. They say you should read between the lines, but I think you may have read between the line and the letters on this one. This article was about letting Brooks walk, Smith promoted to eveydown player and finding another guy to run with Smith to rush the QB….
by ericalancanty on Feb 23, 2012 6:36 AM PST up reply actions
freddy p
that was a soft argument, brother.
by Andrew Davidson on Feb 22, 2012 8:46 PM PST reply actions
i c wut u did thurr
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us"
Personally
I think the Niners will draft Brooks or Parys replacement in this years draft and Aldon Smith and the other drafted player will be the long term solution at OLB for the niners.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
Brooks will be missed if he leaves regardless
Brooks was good in tackling rb’s in the backfield and got good push with his bull rush when he did not get sacks.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Feb 22, 2012 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
That is what they intend to get out of Smith...
Smith is the better athlete, so if his recognition can be as good or better than Brooks, we get an upgrade at that position. Smith also has a better bull rush than Brooks.
I’m not sure if you see it or not, but the OP is not getting the point that Smith will be switching sides of the field to be a 3-down OLB. We aren’t going to leave Smith where he was and move Harrelson to the opposite side; it’s the exact opposite, which will improve our OLBs if Harrelson can remain consistent with this season and a new pass rusher can total more sacks and pressures than Brooks.
by 9thevolution on Feb 23, 2012 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
Agree
He was an every down guy, good against the run and pass rushing. So if he leaves, which I expect he will, it’ll be a big loss.
I'd rather have Haralson starting than Brooks. Haralson is a better tackler, uses better angles, is better in coverage and better against the run.
With Aldon growing into an every-down player and pass-rusher, Brooks is expendable because Haralson will be counted on to do the things he accomplishes with quiet consistency.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it. ... Always a ninja
Out of Treble | Twitter
by James Brady on Feb 22, 2012 10:28 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
This one
We can always draft for depth and coach a gold star guy up.
Aldon needs to see the field on 3 downs because against our defense every down is a passing down. Anyone who is dumb enough to run the ball on us is just throwing downs away 90% of the time.
Every time Jamie Dukes says something enlightening and informative about football Jerry Rice and I mount up on our flying grizzly bears and claim pirate treasure from the moon. That's how often it happens.
I love that our defense makes teams one-dimensional
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us"
I would disagree he's better against the run.
Brooks led the team in TFL for a reason.
Stay out of my territory
There’s far more to it than that. Haralson and Justin Smith were deadly on that side against the run. An amazing combo I don’t want to break up.
And then God created Saturn ... and he liked it, so he put a ring on it. ... Always a ninja
Out of Treble | Twitter
by James Brady on Feb 24, 2012 12:54 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, probably because they can bring Whitner into the box to cover for him...
Brooks gets a free run into the backfield and if he misses the tackle, Whitner cleans it up. Understand that we will now have SMith doing this with his massive wingspan; likely leading to less missed tackles in the backfield.
by 9thevolution on Feb 24, 2012 7:05 AM PST up reply actions
Assuming there's 800 defensive snaps...
Aldon Smith would be the every down ROLB, taking about 650 snaps
Harralson would be at LOLB, taking about 500(?) snaps
The ‘Pass Rush Specialist’ at LOLB would take about 300 snaps(?)
Just my rough estimate. I get why they could lose Brooks, but I guess I agree with FP on the idea that it should be about improving.
With Brooks and Smith starting, you’d have Haralson and an added backup (‘pass rush specialist’?) behind them. If either goes down, you have Haralson and the ‘pass rush specialist’ to fill in.
If Haralson is in a handcuff role with a ‘pass rush specialist’, what happens if he goes down, or the ‘pass rush specialist’ goes down? If Smith goes down (separately) , then what?
I get they have guys to re-sign, but Brooks should be of very high priority. Maybe I’ll buy into the idea of Haralson and the ‘pass rush specialist’ replacing Brooks when we start getting more specific about who this specialist is.
The bigger problem is likely the cap...
and Brooks just happens to be an expendable piece because of expectations for Aldon.
True, there will be problems if Smith goes down, but I doubt they enter the season this year with only 3 OLBs. They will have a solution ready to go with depth at OLB to play in case of injury, a pass rush specialist to go in for 3rd downs and likely a D lineman asked to step into the pass rush role if there’s a serious problem (multiple injuries).
We can also always sign FAs during the season if something goes wrong. It’s not the greatest solution, but all teams have to deal with that. Only 53 spots on the roster.
by 9thevolution on Feb 23, 2012 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
Maiocco's scenario is an improvement
or a push at worst. Aldon Smith is a better talent and needs to be on the field more. Plus, Ahmad Brooks had some very ill-timed penalties. Someone help me out with this, NN grade post said that Brooks only had 4 penalties for the season. How can this be possible? I swore he had three straight games in a row with at least one offsides penalty (maybe it was preseason not sure). Whatever the number, his jumping offsides has been a problem and it even reared its ugly head during the NFCCG.
Aldon Smith is younger, more athletic and cheaper. Draft or sign someone to fill in the “loss,” of Brooks.
by throwthedamnball on Feb 24, 2012 2:34 PM PST reply actions
Ok
Google the penalties for this season and per Football Database Brooks did have only 4 penalties and just of those were offsides. Does anyone know of a better penalty stats site? This just seems inaccurate, I know I witness him jumping offsides in three consecutive games.
by throwthedamnball on Feb 24, 2012 2:40 PM PST up reply actions
Teams didn't accept every offside penalty that he made
by BayArea4Life on Feb 24, 2012 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
Probably
All I know is that it’s been a definite issue with Brooks.
by throwthedamnball on Feb 24, 2012 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
not whether aldon is better than brooks; but brooks is much better than parys
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Feb 25, 2012 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
And now with 20/20 hindsight, I say...
Matt Maiocco was right! The Niners do have Brooks’ replacement, his name is Ahmad Brooks. $44.5M for seven years. If Aldon is an every down player in 2012, then Parys gets good money to be a back-up.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Niners Nation
Related FanShots on Niners Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
