Alphadawg7

Yup, and Rams couldn't get it done paying Gurley, then actually won the SB a handful of years later with cheap RB's.

Its a what have you done for me lately mentality...and nobody wants to remember we were 8 points away from being undefeated last year despite all the injuries and all the emotionally draining events the team went though on its way to 13 wins and #2 seed (Araiza, Luke Knox passing, store massacre, multiple blizzards and deaths, and of course Hamlin). Instead, they only want to remember the team that last saw the field against Cincy and Diggs frustration on the sideline. Literally thats it...and that is what they are basing it all on.

Going too far back is irrelevant though, it was a different game 20 years ago, and that was a different game than even 10-20 years before that. What matters is what is most effective in the modern NFL, which we all know is both a pass driven league where the QB makes a gazillion dollars if they are even just solid. When you have a team with a rookie contract at QB, more things open up temporarily like in SF where they can afford to have an elite defense, elite RB, and pay their recieving playmakers top dollar too. Because they aren't paying much at all at QB. Just taking a quick look at the last 10 SB winners...none of them had a top 5 paid RB 2023 - Chiefs - 7th round rookie making peanuts 2022 - Rams - RB making peanuts 2021 - Bucs - RB making peanuts 2020 - Chiefs - RB making peanuts 2019 - Pats - RB making peanuts and it was a platoon 2018 - Eagles - RB making peanuts 2017 - Pats - RB making peanuts and a platoon 2016 - Broncos - RB was making peanuts 2015 - Pats - RB was making peanuts 2014 - Seattle - Lynch got $6m, but wouldn't get his $12M per year deal until a year later and because Wilson was still on a rookie deal, although this was also when Seattle would begin to unravel moving forward 2013 - Ravens - Ray Rice was making under a million I mean that is just a quick look only looking at last 10 winners. Point is, teams who pay big money to RB's have not been winning the SB much in the modern era, if at all. I am not even sure how far back you have to go to find a team who had a top 5 paid RB. Does not mean there were not teams who had talented RB's on them, means that they didn't use significant cap space on those positions and either had them on rookie deals or cheap FA deals. TRIVIA: When was the last time a Super Bowl winning team had a 1,000 yard rusher? Answer: 2016 LaGarette Blount. Its an NFL record now for most years in a row that the SB champion did not have a 1,000 yard rusher that season. And Blount was a low budget FA signing. So not only are teams winning SB's without highly paid RB's, they are doing so without RB's who aren't even amassing 1,000 yards in a season anymore. This notion that an elite RB matters so much is factually incorrect in just about every capacity in the modern NFL...which is why talented and elite RB's are getting hosed by the NFL on their contracts despite being some of the most talented players on their rosters. Its just not a proven way to win anymore, in fact, its practically proven to not be effective way to win a Super Bowl. BONUS FUN FACT: The last team to have a RB lead the NFL in rushing that won a Super Bowl that year was the Broncos in the 90's with Terrell Davis.

Lmao, move the goal post? This was my first comment. And second you clearly just don't want to actually talk about reality and rather live in a fantasy world where players dont cost anything or against the cap. So compare apples to apples here. Just saying some lame blanket statement about how adding elite players helps is irrelevant. Any position, adding elite talent helps any team. But one player doesn't make up a roster. So why not stay in the world of reality? My guess is because it doesn't support your opinion, so you rather ignore the reality of investing big around a RB because it doesn't normally work out. Go look up teams who invested top 5 contracts specifically into RB's and show me how many of them made and won the Super Bowl. Show me how spending top tier money on that position makes teams SB winners. Spoiler alert: The list is very short, won't say how short, I will leave that as a surprise for you to find on your own. Oh...and he was dead the whole time

Now go research how much money was invested in RB's that were part of the Super Bowl teams. How is this something people keep missing? When you weaken your team elsewhere to over pay a RB, the overall team success drops considerably. Over the last 20 years, while there have been talented RB's who have been in the SB, the vast majority did not have hefty top of the market RB contracts. So your list is irrelevant in relation to whether its worth paying for a top tier RB

AJE had 6.5 sacks last year as a rotational guy playing for a DC whose defenses are not known for sacking the QB. In 5 seasons with Frazier, Jerry Hughes averaged 4 sacks a season. In 5 seasons without Frazier (4 in Buf before Frazier and last year in Hou) Hughes averaged 8 sacks a season, including 9 last year when everyone here said he was washed up. So I don't get why people would want to trade AJE right now personally who is proving to be good depth right now

Nothing about this logic makes any sense to me. Josh isn't left handed, the LT spot protects his back and blind side, it is significantly more important to a right handed QB to have a quality player at LT. Guys coming off the RT spot are easier for him to see and react to. So I can't see where you logic here is coming from here. Not to mention the challenge of swapping positions for a player.

Yeah, if this is accurate, its a no brainer as it essentially is like upgrading one of our extra 6ths to a 3rd and also upgrades the backup spot. Do you know how well it works cap wise on the trade? I mean he can't be making that much right

Not directing this directly at you, just more commenting on the over the top heat Lynch has been getting since Lance was traded. The fans and media love to dwell on a single move as if it is an indicator of a GM's total track record even though no GM is perfect. While fans and media have been railing on Lynch over Trey Lance, the 49ers have made 3 NFC Conference Championships in the past 4 seasons and one Super Bowl under Lynch. And Lynch took over a bad team, this is what he built. They enter this year as one of the SB favorites again and have one of the most talented rosters and teams in the league that Lynch built. And even though they made a SB and 3 straight NFC Conference Championship games, this is probably their most talented roster yet. They also found what seems to be a starting QB with the very last pick of the draft that is dubbed "Mr. Irrlevant" for a reason as it almost every case has ended up being a pick of a guy that would never do much in the NFL. Pretty sure most teams would kill to have a GM in John Lynch miss on a QB while building one of the best teams in the NFL who have been to a SB and 3 NFC Title games the past 4 seasons. He is legit one of the best GM's currently in the NFL.

I actually thought he had a pretty solid presason too. So maybe it was they already knew they were going to try and trade him given the log jam at DL in general and were getting him more reps to boost trade interest.

Boogie was buried on the depth chart here since his arrival, so hard to tell if he could grow or develop more once given some playing time. For us, it certainly makes sense to move him, we had a deep log jam and Shaq has more of a role here. But I will be interested to see how Boogie does in NY, I do think he still has potential to earn more playing time there than he did here. Don't know if he can develop into a starter level player or not, but he will at least get more opportunities there than he did here. Even though Boogie has been buried, he has had moments where he flashes some potential, even this preseason. Now its on Boogie to see if he can take advantage of more opportunities or not.

This is what I think too, and what I’ve been saying is what I think will happen at CB2 all camp. So totally agree with that

I agree, again was not proposing this, was wondering if this was why Benford started given Dane seemed to be in the lead to start all camp and preseason. I want to keep them all too Yeah all good

I agree, I think people might be over analyzing or overly down on Elam thus far. He was pretty good last year when he played, and got stronger down the stretch. He has had a good camp for the most part, not like this competition is against scrubs, I mean Dane and Benford are having good camps too. They are different players than Elam though and there have been plenty of times where both Dane and Benford were getting cooked out there due to the lack of speed and physicality. So I think its going to be more of a platoon at CB2 and they are going to use Elam more in those situations and Dane/Benford as more the zone schemes and play calls.

Honestly I would call him a lock

I dont disagree with you at all, like I said, I want to keep him and agree with what you are saying here. The main reason I didn't look at Elam as a potential trade candidate is 2 fold: First, they invested more into him just one year ago and Elam played well down the stretch last year including an INT in the playoffs. They knew the areas he needed to improve when they drafted him and doubt they would just give up on him over those one year in after using a 1st and a 4th to get him. Plus, he has had a pretty good camp himself and his rank on the depth chart is less about his struggles and more about all 3 guys have had strong camps. Second, if they were willing to trade him, I think they get him into this last preseason game either earlier or even as the starter to raise his value, especially given what they invested in him. Moving him down to CB4 is going to lower his perceived trade value, and that doesn't seem like a Beane move to me. So I am skeptical Elam went into the final preseason game as someone they were considering trading as it just doesn't make a lot of sense. I still think its most plausible all 3 stay here and there are no trades at CB. Just the late over taking of Dane by Benford in the final start felt odd given how well Dane played and made me wonder if its to see what kind of offers Benford might get given they already were getting calls for him last offseason as Beane stated.

Where did I suggest it as an idea though? I said I don't want to trade him right out the gate. I just simply wondered if there was more to him starting over Dane who has had a great camp and preseason and lead the CB2 race all preseason.

Ha, its all good...I figured most would take this wrong and react like I am saying we should or its for sure happening, which is not at all what I was saying. Im 100% with you, I don't want to trade him and feel the same as you where you can never have too many good corners. And we have a gauntlet of WR's amongst the top contending teams in both AFC and even NFC. This was more about being surprised Dane didn't get the start in the dress rehearsal given he has been leading the race thus far and has had a great camp and preseason, so was a bit surprised to see Benford start over him this final week. Personally, as I have said before, I still think CB2 may be more of a platoon based on scheme and matchups anyway and that the "starter" designation doesn't mean as much as it does for say Tre who dominates the snaps at CB1.

Thanks, had not seen those reports. So if that’s the case, then the start would make more sense. My main thought here was that starting over Dane felt a bit more surprising given how well Dane has also played. So the start felt more out of place on the surface to me because I had heard as much about Benford as Dane personally

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to trade him either. Just seemed like Dane was the clear leader at CB2 all preseason and had played good throughout camp. So Benford making a last minute leap frog just seemed a bit unusual given Dane did nothing to lose it. And Beane has showcased players before in preseason before trading them (as do many GMs), so it made me wonder did he really pass Dane, or were they seeing if he might garner some trade value if they decide to move one. But my personal stance has been keep all of them and that’s what I hope happens.

Interesting, you’ve previously been in the camp that Dane was leading the race prior to this game. What has changed that makes you think it’s Benford now instead of Dane? Was it just his start this week, or has there been other reports or anything prior to the game that makes you think it’s now Benford? I mean if Benford is the starter the. Obviously his start makes a lot more sense this past week. It’s just the fact that it seems like Dane had been in that slot heading into the game and had not done anything to lose it that surprised me about Benfords start this week.

Let me clarify...I am not advocating to trade him or even saying he is for sure being traded. Unlike many others, I am not concerned with the 3 way log jam at CB2 because I love having the depth, especially given the injury issues we have had at times at CB and the number of high level WR groupings we will face both in regular season and playoffs. IMO, you can never have too many good CB's. BUT...we have a roster that isn't easy to make and we may need to make some tough decisions in places on players at various positions. Plus Beane loves and needs more draft capital given our tight cap for the foreseeable future. So, I don't think anyone would be surprised if Beane traded a player or two either for both roster space and gaining more draft capital. So why do I think Benford might be one of those players...2 main reasons: Beane already knows he has trade value and teams are interested given he was getting calls last year for Benford and he has only increased his value since then. His surprising start - In a 3 man battle at CB2, Dane was the clear leader in the race, and in the game where most starters played, Benford gets the start. So this begs the question why did Benford start? Was it because he passed Dane? Doubt it, Dane has not only been leading in the battle, but done nothing to lose his spot either as he has played well all camp and preseason and there is nothing Benford really does that Dane can't do. Was it to just give him his chance to "start" in the 3 CB race? Doubt it because they did not do that with Elam who didn't start any preseason game despite being in the race to "start". So there isn't a pattern of consistency there if they were all going to equally get that chance. OR...Was it to showcase Benford, potentially increase his value as showing him as a possible starter and see what kind of trade interest it might create? Well, for me personally, I think it may be to showcase him to see what kind of trade interest and potential compensation it might create if he showed well, which he did. This also tracks with what Beane has done in the past as well and its a common tactic when teams are considering a trade during preseason as well. So while others are focusing on what Benfords start meant for Elam, I think it may be less about Elam and more about Benford and seeing what kind of trade value a good showing might drum up. I don't think Beane would "dump" any of the CB's for cheap if teams call, so I don't think he is say aggressively shopping him or trying to dump him. But I think Benford starting may have been to try and increase his value for any calls he may get or already have gotten on one of our CB's. To me I think it shows that maybe Benford of the 3 is the one he would be more willing to trade for the right offer. And teams are always lookin for CB's, so I would suspect Beane will get some calls this year on one of them, if he hasn't already. So while I like Benford and personally prefer to keep all 4 CB's (Tre, Dane, Elam, Benford) for depth, this feels like he was just showcased to maybe gauge trade interest and value. And if Beane gets an offer he feels is good value for him, I think it might result in Benford being on the move.

Well questioning to move up to get him is a different conversation than calling his actual career a literal disappointment. If he was as bad as many make him out to be he wouldn’t have gotten paid. Should we have paid him, nope, agree with not resigning him at what the market dictated for him. But he was a better player than some are making him out to be who act like he was a total bust or something. He wasn’t perfect, but he wasn’t a bust either. Fans gross over exaggeration isnt a real fact either, yet that didn’t stop this thread from happening

Not wanting to pay a MLB what the got with our cap space isn’t disappointing after having a player for 5 years with his production at his rookie bargain price. That’s called making sound cap decisions.

You've got an interesting definition of “disappointing”. Multiple Pro-Bowls and top 5 in tackles in the NFL since entering the league…lol. I’ve seen you prop up way worse players but you can’t help but over exaggerate Edmunds cuz he wasn’t the next Ray Lewis lmao