ESPN NFL

Posted by ESPN.com's Mike Sando

Guest 49er from the Bay Area writes: Hey Mike. I wanted to ask this on your chat, but I lost my crib note! I got a debate going with JT O Sullivan.

What is the price of putting a Franchise Tag on a QB? I thought I read it was 10.7 million dollars, but everybody is saying it's not.

Let's say JT gives the 49ers some kind of hope, would the 49ers have to wind up putting a Franchise Tag on him, and if they cut Alex Smith, would that put the team in jeopardy of obtaining Free Agents?

Finally, if Alex Smith got hurt on the job, and if he was cut, isn't it like firing somebody that got hurt on the job? If Nolan wasn't the coach, why couldn't Smith agree to take a pay cut?

Mike Sando: This is one of my favorite questions because it made me pursue the answer to a related question I had never considered. Before we go there, let me confirm that the franchise salary for quarterbacks was $10.73 million in 2008. I do not have the projected number for 2009, but at least you have an idea what type of number we're talking about.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that the franchise tag for O'Sullivan would require a $10 million hit against the 2009 cap.

Then, following your premise, let's say the team parts with Alex Smith. Smith's contract would then count either $2.66 million or $5.3 million against the 2009 cap, depending on how the 49ers decided to expense it. Let's go with the smaller figure. The 49ers would then have $12.6 million wrapped up in the quarterback position, plus the $1.4 million salary owed to Shaun Hill. That works out to $14 million, a high number but not a prohibitive one.

Smith's deal was going to count more than $12 million against the cap if he stayed on the roster in 2009.

Your question led me to ask whether the 49ers could use the franchise tag on O'Sullivan at all. O'Sullivan signed for the veteran's exception, which means his contract counts less against the salary cap than what he'll actually earn. The league and its players approved these contracts to let veterans earn higher minimum salaries without pricing themselves out of the league via inflated cap numbers.

Players signing for the veteran's exception cannot, by rule, sign a new deal with any team until March 2. Yet teams must declare franchise players in February, at which point those players receive mandatory one-year offers. I wondered whether a team could offer a contract to a player before that player was eligible to sign one.

The answer, according to a league spokesman, is that rules would indeed allow teams to use the franchise designation for players with contracts similar to the one O'Sullivan signed.

O'Sullivan hasn't shown enough to become a candidate for the franchise tag just yet, but at least we know the 49ers could do it if their quarterback enjoyed a breakout season.

As for Smith, nothing would stop him from taking a pay cut to return, but I would think he might want to try his luck elsewhere.

---

Dario from parts unknown writes: Mike, I watched every snap of Sundays game between my 49ers and the Seagulls. I watched Manny Lawson make a great play on the punt block and come close to blocking a 51 yard feild goal (not to mention the biggest play of the game by pickin tails -- never fails -- and getting the ball back for OT). But he wasn't in on one defensive snap. Julius Jones running like crazy and the TE Carlson. When you have a player like Lawson who is 6-5, 240 with blazing speed and hops and a wing span from here to there, he can make a difference. Why didn't Nolan use him more as a hybrid like past coaching staffs used Julian Peterson? Lawson might not make all the plays, but put him at DE or MLB he blows plays up and can get to fast running backs and smother TEs. how can they use him to his fullest potential for weeks to come?

Mike Sando: The game plan the 49ers used against the Seahawks was similar to one they used in 2006. The 49ers do not use this plan regularly. I would expect Lawson to be much more involved as the season progresses. If he is not, then we must ask whether Lawson's knee is healthy. If the knee is healthy and the staff still doesn't use Lawson, then we must ask tougher questions about how Mike Nolan and the staff view this seemingly talented 2006 first-round draft choice.

General manager Scot McCloughan has said he thinks Lawson can become a player for which opposing quarterbacks must account prior to the snap. That won't happen with Lawson on the sideline.

---

Chris from parts unknown writes: Hey Mike, here's one for you -- As a former beat reporter, how do you figure out which stories to focus on? The Hawks' top three beat reporters are all doing a fine job, don't get me wrong, but we have seen countless stories about there being two kickers, and nothing on the awful play of our secondary. In the last five games, the Hawks D gave up an average of 33.4 points, largely due to poor secondary play. How do us fans start getting answers on that issue, without a guy or gal on the inside?

Mike Sando: I would generally balance what interested me with what seemed to be on the minds of those without access. The Seattle-area beat reporters have touched on the problems in the secondary (those stories appearing online after you sent this note, perhaps).

---

Jason from San Jose, Calif., writes: Hey Mike, love the blog. Yours and Maiocco's are the only two things I read to find out about the niners anymore. I have a question about the Niner/Seahawk game that I haven't seen anyone ask. Why the hell didn't Mike Nolan center the ball or at least try to run up the middle for a couple more yards at the end of regulation? I can see not wanting to risk a turnover but they could have at least centered it. I feel like the only reason it's being overlooked is because they ended up winning, but what was the logic behind it?
Mike Sando: Thanks much. To set the scene, the 49ers snapped the ball with 32 seconds remaining. J.T. O'Sullivan threw to Frank Gore for 9 yards to the Seattle 23. The 49ers had one timeout remaining.

My thought would be that the 49ers were averse to risking a turnover and averse to losing yardage. This would have been an obvious running situation. Gore had struggled to get going on the ground. Seattle's defensive tackles were winning the one-on-one battles inside. If Seattle drops Gore for a 3-yard loss and Nedney misses from 44, we're all ripping Nolan for giving up a chance to kick a 41-yarder.

I haven't asked Mike Nolan about this, but that would be one possible explanation.

---

Mr. Zero from Alameda, Calif., writes: Hey Mike, I'm I crazy to think that the Seahawks could go 6-10 or worse? The injuries are just killing them. And if Robinson's knee becomes an issue, I can't imagine them winning too many games before they can get healthy. If that even happens this year.
Mike Sando: You're not crazy, but I don't think the injuries are quite that bad. The Seahawks still have a shot at going 4-2 in the division if they sweep the Rams and split with the Cardinals and
49ers. Seattle is fortunate Arizona or another good team isn't on the schedule this week. A loss to the Rams would confirm your fears, however.

---

Stefan from Seattle writes: Lots of talk recently about why the Hawks are keeping 2 kickers on the 53 man roster, apparently one for the long term and one for the short term. why draft a kicker at all? isn't it safe to assume that Coutu would have been available as a non-drafted free agent? not that it matters at this point that they wasted a pick on a kicker i guess, but with all the injuries a team must overcome year in and year out, it seems like drafting for depth, even if it's just someone to stash on the practice squad, is more valuable than drafting a kicker.
Mike Sando: The difference between a seventh-round choice and a free agent can be minimal. Drafting a player that late saves teams from worrying about losing the player to a higher bidder once the free-agent signing process begins after the draft. Josh Brown was a seventh-round pick, so the strategy can pay off.

Teams drafted 45 players in the seventh round in 2008 (counting compensatory picks). Twenty-one of those players are on 53-man rosters right now. Coutu was the only special-teams player drafted in the seventh round this year.

---

Kevin from Mill Valley, Calif., writes: I think Nolan showed the 5 DB package all game against the Hawks because he was setting up for Kitna, Johnson and Rogers in Detroit next week. He and Martz gambled that they could shut down the Hawks offense just enough for the 49er offense to outscore them. Detroit will now only have film of the 5 DB base defense to game plan. The 49ers will unleash an aggressive attack-the-QB strategy led by Lawson and Banta-Cain, two pass rushers who barely played in Seattle.

Mike Sando: Duly noted. Manny Lawson needs to play at some point. Rookie linebacker Jerod Mayo played every snap for the Patriots in their season opener. Seems like the 49ers could find a snap or two for Lawson.

---

Brandon from Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, writes: IMO, [Seahawks president Tim] Ruskell has been a disaster at GM. He has been trying to run a HOF coach out of town since the day he got here. Now that Holmgren has finally capitulated and agreed to leave he signs Mora a year in advance of the opening. That move strikes me as insurance to make certain Holmgren leaves as Mora almost certainly isn't going to be the best candidate available. The prospect of Mora and a couple of Oakland coaches taking over next year scares the hell out of me! I would much rather they promote Gil Haskell.

Ruskell consistently overpays for other teams' free agents (especially those with ties to his years in Tampa and Atlanta) and runs our best free agents out of town. Our free agents don't ever seem to leave over money but over respect issues with the front office. Does this guy have no negotiating skills at all? They all mention how much they love Holmgren, their teammates and playing in Seattle.

Josh Brown took less money to go to a less desirable town when you consider his off the field earnings potential. The only thing that Ruskell has shown some skill at is the college draft and even that has been so lopsided toward the defense that we now have an offense of almost all older players and retreads. I wouldn't trade 10 Ruskells for a single Holmgren. Do you think if we could run Ruskell out of town that Holmgren could be convinced to stay or has that ship already sailed? With this new internet thingy I'll bet we could put together a pretty convincing petition.

Mike Sando: Wow, tell us what you really think, Brandon! I think the Ruskell-Holmgren setup has served the Seahawks well. The team started winning playoff games and even appeared in the Super Bowl only after Ruskell arrived to overhaul the defense and set a new tone for the organization. The bar has been set high for Ruskell and Mora in the post-Holmgren era.

Holmgren has remained a powerful figure within the organization. It's fair to ask how things change once Holmgren leaves and Ruskell no longer must act with Holmgren's interests in mind. Holmgren and Ruskell have created a sort of checks-and-balances system in my view.

Ruskell made lots of changes, yes, but in most cases he wasn't going to make fundamental changes to Seattle's offense without consulting Holmgren. Holmgren made a hard push to make sure Seattle brought back Bobby Engram before the 2007 season, for example, after the organization initially allowed Engram to test free agency.

---

Charlotte from parts unknown writes: relax there skippy - san fran and miami is hardly a valid measurement so far - at best they'll finish 7W - 9L. they will win 95% of their nfc west opponent games, and lose 95% of their non nfc west opponent games.

Mike Sando: I assume we're talking about the Cardinals here. Each team plays six division games. Winning 95 percent of those games would leave Arizona with 5.7 victories and .3 defeats. Losing 95 percent of their non-division games would equate to .5 victories and 9.5 defeats. The Cardinals would then finish with the first 6.2-victory season in NFL history. I would then ask Ken Whisenhunt if he was disappointed in finishing 6.2 and 9.8.

Seriously, though, you might be right in general. The Cardinals' schedule does appear to toughen up down the stretch. I predicted 8-8 before the season. That could improve if Kurt Warner keeps taking care of the football.