Here are some interesting observations that may help one deal with the loss of Hardy:
1. CJ, Star, KK/Dwan, Luke and Davis drew a lot of attention.
2. We faced a lot of teams with LT issues this year, and Hardy often had multiple sacks vs. those teams.
3. Many of Hardy's sacks were "motor" sacks. He found the QB after being forced to navigate around in the pocket. There were a few where he was not the first player to reach the QB.
4. Do you consider Hardy an "elite" player, or did he have a tremendous season due to the pieces around him? I think Hardy is a good player, a very good player--I loved the pick when he was drafted---but there is a lot of risk involved in paying him top dollar.
I agree, especially on 1, 2, and 4. Hardy didn't even sniff the QB last week and for all that alternate persona trash talk he did, he did not produce. I understand the LT was good, but he was supposed to be good too. Let him walk. Alexander had a bigger name and performance record coming out of college. He has played okay when his number Is called. I believe we can be fine with him starting opposite CJ. Alexander has 3 and 1/2 sacks and three fumble recoveries in super limited playing time. Hardy's numbers weren't eye popping his first two years either.
some of these are realistic barring we don't resign hardy or trade him hopefully not...........
WR: Golden tate The guy said he looked up to smitty put him on this damn team if Seattle doesn't sign him back, he can block and has that attitude wr's need in the league.
CB: Brent Grimes easily would sure up the corner position for 3 to 4 years barring injury or better yet Vontae Davis, i know him and smitty had some beef but just like talib you can't pass up guys for that reason alone.
I especially like Maclin and Grimes. Maclin has already went on record saying that he would take a small one year deal to prove his worth. That is Gettleman's bread and butter. This kid will still be explosive. Grimes is disciplined, has talent, tackles well, and is hardly ever out of position. He will come cheap as he doesn't have that hype surrounding him from years back.
I posted in another thread but obviously a 49ers vs Seattle game is way more ratings and has a cooler storyline.
The NFL is set up as an "entertainment" company, not a sport. It's one company, not 32-teams. It can LEGALLY set-up games. Just like the WWE can. Just one, or a couple refs doing things can change the outcome of a game.
Look at last year with the Ravens. One of the MOST penalized teams in the league goes into the playoffs and plays teams like Denver, NE I believe, and 49ers, and all of a sudden they get like no holding penalties or anything? They morphed into another team? No, things started changing when a Ray Lewis retiring story came up and they always had a plan for the "Harbough Bowl"? Then the Super Bowl was a blow out, but here comes a power outage, because if the Super Bowl drops beneath certain ratings they have to give money back to advertisers. So here comes the 49ers after killing Baltimore's momentum to make it more of an even game. There hasn't been a blow out in the super bowl since Tampa vs Raiders, over 10 years. I find that pretty odd, statistically there should have been at least one.
I'm really sour on the NFL/pro sports right now, if you dig deep and read up on some things, it's really disheartening.
No man, you hit the nail on the head. When I seen an article on MSN last night saying that the right two teams were in the NFC championship game, I felt it was a slap in our face. These idiots at the NFL offices don't get it. We can be a huge draw as well as evidenced by the 2003 SuperBowl.