Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

28 Feb 2012

49ers Reach New Deal with Ahmad Brooks

Reported terms: six years, $44.5 million, $17.5 million in guarantees.

So, would you rather have Brooks at this price, or D'Qwell Jackson at his?

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 28 Feb 2012

7 comments, Last at 29 Feb 2012, 3:16pm by Boo-urns

Comments

1
by Thunderbolt of ... :: Tue, 02/28/2012 - 10:11pm

If Brooks gets this contract, and he's their 4th best LB, what are the others worth?

2
by raorao (not verified) :: Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:18am

The move is perplexing, no doubt. Brooks is the 4th most important linebacker on the team (behind Willis, Bowman, Smith), he's the 4th most important free agent to resign (behind Smith, Rogers, and Goldson), and plays the 4th most important position the team needs to address this offseason (behind WR, DB, and OL). So... congrats to Brooks for jumping the line, I guess?

The contact itself seems pretty reasonable, given how little guaranteed money it includes. Just confusing that the team was willing to spend this much on an OLB.

6
by Jimmy :: Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:24am

Brooks played almost every snap for the Niners last year and is a big part of thier success against the run. If you can afford to bring a guy like that back you do. Willis is signed up for a long time, Bowman and Aldon Smith will not be getting new contracts for a year or two due to age, why not keep a very good starter and add talent in the draft instead of replacing it?

I would also argue that the Niners defense's biggest strength is in its front seven and that Rogers and Goldson are the beneficiaries rather than the key cogs.

7
by Boo-urns (not verified) :: Wed, 02/29/2012 - 3:16pm

49ers have shown themselves to be pretty good at internal valuation (see Sopoaga vs. Aubrayo Franklin last year), so I think this reflects a confident internal assessment of Brooks's value.

3
by Mr Shush :: Wed, 02/29/2012 - 6:16am

Well, it's always tough to say without knowing the details of the contracts (guaranteed against what, and how much of the non-guaranteed cash is funny money in the last two years?)

But on the face of it, this is a much better deal for the team: Brooks is a year younger, and has a far less troubling injury history.

4
by David :: Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:41am

I don't think that there are any numbers where I would rather have Jackson than Brooks...

5
by ChuckC (not verified) :: Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:32am

This is a good deal.
Brooks was one of only 3 OLBs on the team and the only one that played all 3 downs while Aldon Smith and Parys Haralson split time. There is no depth behind him so they need him.