That is the question. How important is, Fred Warner to the 49ers defense? Should they pay the man or trade the man? I lean towards trading him, and I say that because they've got, Greenlaw. Reminds me of the Buckner/Armstead situation, and we all know how that turned out. Seems to me, Fred Warner is the most likely trade candidate unless, Ryans factors in as a first time DC. Not sure they'd get as high a 1st rounder as they did for, Buckner but I think they could get a team in the 20's to make a move for him. What say you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Best Supporting Cast
NFL ranks in "Supporting Cast Rating" in terms of average team PFF rush, receiving, pass blocking and run blocking grades (everyth...
-
Hello everyone and welcome to the divisional round of the NFC playoffs. The red hot Packers come into Levi's stadium with a 4 game winn... -
Here is the list of players we know will not be playing in this game: QB Brock Purdy (3rd QB) DT Arik Armstead (foot) RB Christian McCaffr... -
Arik Armstead appreciation post. One of my favorite players who wasn't received well on draft day and started his career off with injur...
Obviously he could be part of a package they could use in a trade for Watson. Aside from that, "Bucknerizing" him (Scooter's term) makes sense from a cap management standpoint. With the pick they might get for him, they could also draft a left tackle if they think he's good enough to start.
ReplyDeleteTwo birds with one stone, as they say.
DeleteRazor, is there some edit function you can activitate, or is there one already I'm just not seeing?
ReplyDeleteNot that I'm aware of, George but I'm not the most computer literate nerd in the room.😎
DeleteNorth Dakota St. vs. Southern Illinois is on. Feels weird to have football games right now, but it fills in for no combine very nicely.
ReplyDeleteDidn't see the game, but based on the result... Trey Lance may have been a pretty important piece of that team, and maybe the rest of the squad wasn't as superior to their opponents as has been made out...
DeleteI didn't see anything special from, Noland but North Dakota St. as a team didn't play well. Which lends credibility to your last sentence.
DeleteIt's a big question they need to answer - is it worth giving out a monster contract at a non-premium position (you imagine Warner would want somewhere in the vicinity of top LB $), or save that money to be used elsewhere and get a high draft pick for him?
ReplyDeleteIf they thought Buckner wasn't worth $20M+, a guy at a position they have emphasized as the key to the D, I have to imagine they will have a $ amount for Warner they won't be interested in going past that would be less than that. I can definitely see a scenario where he is "Bucknerised".
But, I also think the team will be able to afford him if they want to, without crippling themselves. Just comes down to team priorities.
One thing I will say is that top teams need to have some All Pro and Pro Bowl talents on the roster. Can6keep letting them go and not replace them if they want to stay a top team.
Scooter, if the Jets offered #23 for, Warner would you take it? I certainly would.
DeleteI'd be tempted, that's for sure.
DeleteQuestion though is - if Adams was worth two 1sts... why was Buckner only worth 1? Why would Warner be worth only 1? Is it all simply because they both only had 1 year left under contract, while Adams had more? I'd try and get a 1st and 3rd for Warner at least.
Warner's been great, no doubt, but it seems that the team has been pretty good at finding LB talent in the draft - maybe that's because of Ryans. #12 and Warner for the Jets #2 :)
ReplyDeleteWho's, Shanny targeting?
DeleteI was being a bit facetious but I figured somebody would call me out. If that or something close to it would happen, I would target Zach Wilson, unless of course Lawrence by some miracle was available. JG would be let go (i.e. traded or cut). The only thing is, I don't know how it would work if the trade and swapping of draft picks happened well after free agency. By then FAs are pretty much have to be and/or are signed and I'm not sure if Jimmy G has a guaranteed salary on April 1st. In other words, how does the team actually "use" the savings from Jimmy G.?. Seems like they would have to take some risk and trade or cut him at least a month and maybe two before the draft. Could they work out a deal with the Jets by then?
Deletehttps://www.ninersnation.com/2021/2/26/22302320/49ers-bosa-contract-extension-value
ReplyDeleteProjected at around $30 million per year on average. Wow!
Here's an article from NN where a guy tried to plot how important good play at a particular position is to a team's success. Not surprisingly #1 was QB. #2 was CB and #3 OT. LB did not have a positive correlation; i.e. teams with top/elite LBs did not have more success than teams with so-so linebackers. Edge only showed a small correlation of stellar play to team's success. The scatter in his correlations is high and it's very difficult to make judgements based on one position, but the results are still interesting to ponder.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ninersnation.com/2021/2/27/22304031/49ers-offseason-plan-part-3-positional-value
Thanks for this, cubus.
DeleteI would not let Warner go. Warner is an All-Pro and getting rid of a proven player that is still growing at his position for an unknown in hopes of replacing him is a risky reach.
ReplyDeleteWe got the #13 from the Colts for Buckner with the mentality of replacing him with Kinlaw. While Kinlaw had a few flashes, he was far from Buckner.
Of course, Kinlaw was a rookie and there is hope that he becomes a force for years to come. But, Buckner would have really been a stabilizing force to the defense last season.
My question is, who could replace Warner if the 49ers trade him?
We currently have some good talent in our LB stable, but I don't see any of them replacing Warner.
We gave up one of leagues best interior defensive players last year in Buckner. Repeating the same thing this year if the team trades Warner could hurt the defense for a year or two.
The element to this argument you are leaving out is the player(s) the team would be able to retain/ sign by not needing to pay Warner. It is a more complex argument than whether or not the draft pick(s) obtained would adequately replace or compensate for the loss, and a difficult one to demonstrate what the optimal path is. But, in simple terms, it comes down to whether the combination of draft picks and players retained/ signed is worth more or less than losing Warner.
DeleteWRT Buckner, so far the combination of Kinlaw, Armstead and Ward (which most people consider to be the nexus of what trading Buckner allowed the 49ers to get/ keep) have not really shown they are worth more than keeping Buckner. But I think there is a good reason for that, which I will get to shortly.
My general belief is that a team needs a certain number of top tier players to be good. Guys that aren't easily replaced. Guys that elevate average players around them and make them good. My fear with trading Buckner last year then Warner this year is that the team may be losing too many of those top tier guys, especially as they are expected to lose Sherman and may also lose Trent Williams.
But on the flip side, I also believe you need some (most?) of those top tier guys to be playing premium positions. Positions that effect the game the most. Is MLB that position? Not sure. If they lost Warner but were able to use that money to sign/ retain a top tier talent at another, more important position, I would say that is worth it.
Which brings me back to the Buckner situation. They traded Buckner, but used that to bring in/ retain guys that (so far) are just decent to good. That was a mistake. Easy to say in hindsight I know, but IMO they should either have let Armstead go and kept Buckner, or let them both go and used that money saved to sign another top tier guy, either at DT or another position (say, Byron Jones). Paying Armstaed like he was a top tier guy was a big mistake. And I say this knowing that at the time I rationalised the move - I was wrong. The only way it was going to work out in the 49ers favour was if Kinlaw came in and was awesome. Big ask.
Scooter,
DeleteThanks. I always appreciate your keen football knowledge.
I don't always agree (I'm a stubborn old guy), but I do give your comments the attention they deserve.
I definitely have my qualms about letting Warner go. Aside from his All-Pro status, he is literally the QB of the defense and has the attention and respect of the players around him.
These type of players don't come around to often. And I also take Warner' age into account.
His play and leadership would be a huge hole to fill.
Thanks AES. I must admit I am torn when it comes to Warner. I don't want to let him go, but I would also be hesitant to give a MLB huge money. But really comes down to how the team values LBs.
DeleteI thought there was a good chance SF would move Buckner when I heard he wanted in excess of 20 Million. He was a stalwart player and leader of the defense but as good as he was, he wasn't worth that cap number IMO. (The mistake was paying AA like an Edge when he is not) I feel the same way about Fred due to his position. That said I would be more willing to try to resign him due to the flexibility he gives to a DC. His coverage ability allows SF to stay more balanced in their fronts.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, I would try to resign him at a discount this offseason as I think this is their best opportunity to do so. If it doesn't end up being possible fine, franchise tag him or trade him should you get enough. LB's are one of the easier positions to find in the draft IMO.
If they did move off of him, I would use that pick on an edge or corner... it's my belief that a player in that position ranked 8th through 15th is better to have than the very best LB at the position, unless they are transcendent at the position.
I think, Greenlaw allows them some leverage with, Warner just as, Armstead did with, Buckner.
DeleteRaz,
DeleteI agree that Greenlaw is a talented player. But it could be argued that Warner has been a big assest in his development.
And this is where I see one of Warner' biggest strengths -Leadership.
While I understand the importance of letting players walk or being traded for the purpose of saving money or garnering better draft position, using your top players in this type of bartering is risky business IMHO.
In this scenario, (for me) we are plugging a leak while another breaks.
But then again, if Joe Montana could go to another team no player is really safe in the NFL.
2 years of Greenlaw:
ReplyDelete• Tackles: 178
• Tackles for loss: 10
• Missed tackles/attempts: 6/184 (MTkl% 3.2)
• Targets: 92
• Touchdown passes allowed: 0
Thanks. Just amazing for where he was drafted.
ReplyDeleteIt's a tough call but I could see them trading him because they traded a better player and more important position in their defense last season. We know they value DL more than any other area of the defense based on their draft history but they also paid Kwon Alexander big money in FA a couple of years ago. My guess is they will not do anything with Warner this season and try to draft his replacement with the FT being an option if they are unsuccessful but it's really a tough call.
ReplyDeleteThe more I look at it I don't think they are going to pay many of their FA's market value to come back. A because they can't afford it, but also because they don't seem to put a lot of value on the areas they are most in need. Look at CB for example. Sherman was brought in on an incentive laden contract after an injury, Verrett was a cheap scrap heap addition who had missed most of the prior couple of seasons, Williams was a cheap signing, Witherspoon was a 3rd round pick and Mosely was an UDFA. The only one they spent any kind of real value to acquire was Sherman. I think they feel they can find players that fit the secondary without using high picks or resources in FA. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.
I think they've already got his replacement in, Greenlaw. They can target another lb late day 2.
Delete