QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Again this is not what I'm debating…why you're trying to make it personal is beyond me.

IMO with the way our QB room is setup and with none of them being established as some stud vet. IN MY OPINION I do not think any of them have a long leash. Same goes for Lance and Sam.

you sound like the person that's uncomfortable acknowledging what could very well be a realistic setup.

I wasn't trying to make it personal at all. The point of the 'uncomfortable to acknowledge' line was for all of us fans. The entire football world believed we had a better QB, than what Lance currently was, on the bench. That's why the odds improved.

I have no problem acknowledging that a struggling starter will be replaced by a player the coaches think will give the team a better chance to win. But that's going to have to be shown in some form or fashion in preseason and camp.

If Lance or Darnold start the season because Brock isn't ready, they're going to have to play great to not be replaced by Brock when he's healthy. That's because Brock already showed he's capable of QB'ing a team on a deep playoff run (ie contend for a Super Bowl).

If Brock is playing and he struggles, the coaches will have to believe one of the backups can play better than whatever level Brock is playing at. They're not just going bench him if he's not playing as well without considering what the alternatives are.

*Brock could not play as well and still be our best option*

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
I don't have proof, I'm going by past trends. Like I said he needs to bomb out to he benched imo. On the flip side What proof do you have they are going to bench Purdy at the first sign of any sort of regression or less than stellar play? Seems more like wishful thinking to me . Just my .02

I said any of those QBs not just Brock. I mean what happens if say Lance starts week 1 plays well for a couple games then plays "bad" for a game or two? Does he get benched? Do they go back to Brock?

I don't wish for any QBs to play bad…this is the problem with talking to a lot of you about this stuff. You think everything is personal or I have vendetta. I can think one QB might have a higher upside/ceiling long-term and not be an objective about the position overall. IMO I don't think any of these guys have a long leash to play through growing pains. None of them are established to be that and you'd think they would have allowed that to happen with Lance but never did.

Depends on how bad he plays and where Brock is. They've said he's the starter period. So my guess is the leash is a hell of a lot shorter for Lance than Brock, that's just the reality of the situation whether you like it or not.
What did I say that makes you feel this is such a problem to discuss? They were pretty mellow, unbiased points and questions. No one said tin have a vendetta, but it's clear as day what your angle is when it comes to Lance vs Purdy.

lol my god with the whether I like or not s**t. Stop trying so hard to make it personal.

I don't care who's the QB so long as they're playing well and it's sustainable . Do I think there's different level of what a QB could end up becoming? absolutely. Doesn't mean it will happen.

If Brock goes out there and starts throwing INTs and doesn't have a ridiculous TD% after a couple games…why does he get to play through all that? Because of a couple games last yr? They have nothing invested in him.

you'd think the person they would be the most patience with would be the guy that burned years of 1sts for…that lasted for 100 random passing attempts. I got people in here blabbing about how we can't let a QB develop on a Super Bowl roster ONLY to say we can for another one lol. Sounds to me like people are taking it wayyyy more personal than I am.

Saying I have an angle is stupid as s**t. I'm applying what everyone in here has been saying….ya'll can't handle it being applied to a different QB apparently. None of these dudes have earned the right to get a full season of football to play though development and the ups and downs of it. Especially on a Super Bowl roster. Unless that narrative has changed all of a sudden.

Originally posted by ninerfan4life:
LFG!

The recent vibe coming out of #49ers headquarters suggests a belief Brock Purdy is the favorite to be the team's starting QB when the season opens Sept. 10 at the Steelers.

To read:https://t.co/IaK9QRYKnf

— Matt Maiocco (@MaioccoNBCS) June 5, 2023

Brock Purdy began throwing a regulation NFL football on May 29. If the anticipated 12-week ramp-up program holds true, he would receive full clearance on (or around) on Aug. 21 -- or 20 days before the regular-season opener.

— Matt Maiocco (@MaioccoNBCS) June 5, 2023

damn good news or our QB1

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I wasn't trying to make it personal at all. The point of the 'uncomfortable to acknowledge' line was for all of us fans. The entire football world believed we had a better QB, than what Lance currently was, on the bench. That's why the odds improved.

I have no problem acknowledging that a struggling starter will be replaced by a player the coaches think will give the team a better chance to win. But that's going to have to be shown in some form or fashion in preseason and camp.

If Lance or Darnold start the season because Brock isn't ready, they're going to have to play great to not be replaced by Brock when he's healthy. That's because Brock already showed he's capable of QB'ing a team on a deep playoff run (ie contend for a Super Bowl).

If Brock is playing and he struggles, the coaches will have to believe one of the backups can play better than whatever level Brock is playing at. They're not just going bench him if he's not playing as well without considering what the alternatives are.

*Brock could not play as well and still be our best option*

You said this….

"you sound like the person that's uncomfortable acknowledging what could very well be a realistic setup"

How is that not personal or not directed at me?

Again it's just my opinion based on the structure of the QB room, the lack of a true high end starter that's been paid (and having two high end pick prospects in that room) and just how Kyle has attacked the QB position/doesn't seem to have the patience to develop there (especially with this roster).

Originally posted by NYniner85:
lol my god with the whether I like or not s**t. Stop trying so hard to make it personal.

I don't care who's the QB so long as they're playing well and it's sustainable . Do I think there's different level of what a QB could end up becoming? absolutely. Doesn't mean it will happen.

If Brock goes out there and starts throwing INTs and doesn't have a ridiculous TD% after a couple games…why does he get to play through all that? Because of a couple games last yr? They have nothing invested in him.

you'd think the person they would be the most patient with would be the guy that burned years of 1sts for…that lasted 100 random passing attempts. I got people in here blabbing about how we can't let a QB develop on a Super Bowl roster ONLY to say we can for another one lol. Sounds to me like people are taking it wayyyy more personal than I am.

Saying I have an angle is stupid as s**t. I'm applying what everyone in here has been saying….ya'll can't handle it being applied to a different QB apparently. None of these dudes have earned the right to get a full season of football to play though development and the ups and downs of it. Especially on a Super Bowl roster. Unless that narrative has changed all of a sudden.

Like I said, you're getting all bunched up over some made up future scenario that hasn't even happened yet. We don't even know who is starting week 1. If you want to say we don't have that established vet guy, sure we don't, and this is what you have been asking for, for years. Nature of the beast.

Reminds me of the old saying, careful what you wish for, you just might get it

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
I don't have proof, I'm going by past trends. Like I said he needs to bomb out to he benched imo. On the flip side What proof do you have they are going to bench Purdy at the first sign of any sort of regression or less than stellar play? Seems more like wishful thinking to me . Just my .02

I said any of those QBs not just Brock. I mean what happens if say Lance starts week 1 plays well for a couple games then plays "bad" for a game or two? Does he get benched? Do they go back to Brock?

I don't wish for any QBs to play bad…this is the problem with talking to a lot of you about this stuff. You think everything is personal or I have vendetta. I can think one QB might have a higher upside/ceiling long-term and not be an objective about the position overall. IMO I don't think any of these guys have a long leash to play through growing pains. None of them are established to be that and you'd think they would have allowed that to happen with Lance but never did.

Depends on how bad he plays and where Brock is. They've said he's the starter period. So my guess is the leash is a hell of a lot shorter for Lance than Brock, that's just the reality of the situation whether you like it or not.
What did I say that makes you feel this is such a problem to discuss? They were pretty mellow, unbiased points and questions. No one said tin have a vendetta, but it's clear as day what your angle is when it comes to Lance vs Purdy.

lol my god with the whether I like or not s**t. Stop trying so hard to make it personal.

I don't care who's the QB so long as they're playing well and it's sustainable . Do I think there's different level of what a QB could end up becoming? absolutely. Doesn't mean it will happen.

If Brock goes out there and starts throwing INTs and doesn't have a ridiculous TD% after a couple games…why does he get to play through all that? Because of a couple games last yr? They have nothing invested in him.

you'd think the person they would be the most patient with would be the guy that burned years of 1sts for…that lasted 100 random passing attempts. I got people in here blabbing about how we can't let a QB develop on a Super Bowl roster ONLY to say we can for another one lol. Sounds to me like people are taking it wayyyy more personal than I am.

Saying I have an angle is stupid as s**t. I'm applying what everyone in here has been saying….ya'll can't handle it being applied to a different QB apparently. None of these dudes have earned the right to get a full season of football to play though development and the ups and downs of it. Especially on a Super Bowl roster. Unless that narrative has changed all of a sudden.

Lol Why are you making this so contentious? No one is making anything personal my friend, take a breath.. You've said you don't like it that they aren't going to start and develop Lance . You have also said you don't think Purdy is the guy or will be the guy, you expect him to come back down to earth and last year was an anomaly. These are things you've said. So how am I making anything personal?
This is what appears to have happened. With the Purdy injury you felt like there was a good chance that Lance would have to start and then could seize the starting job. You avoided having to really say anything negative about him because you could point to the injury and say it's a moot point: he's not healthy. now it looks like Purdy is going to be ready and be the starter so now your true feelings on Purdy are starting to come out. Would you say that's a fair assessment?

Originally posted by NYniner85:
You said this….

"you sound like the person that's uncomfortable acknowledging what could very well be a realistic setup"

How is that not personal or not directed at me?

Again it's just my opinion based on the structure of the QB room, the lack of a true high end starter that's been paid (and having two high end pick prospects in that room) and just how Kyle has attacked the QB position/doesn't seem to have the patience to develop there (especially with this roster).

That quote is actually from your post, not mine. You're quoting yourself.

I'll take your apology for making it personal to me though, lol. (I'm playing… I don't care).

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
Lol Why are you making this so contentious? No one is making anything personal my friend, take a breath.. You've said you don't like it that they aren't going to start and develop Lance . You have also said you don't think Purdy is the guy or will be the guy, you expect him to come back down to earth and last year was an anomaly. These are things you've said. So how am I making anything personal?
This is what appears to have happened. With the Purdy injury you felt like there was a good chance that Lance would have to start and then could seize the starting job. You avoided having to really say anything negative about him because you could point to the injury and say it's a moot point: he's not healthy. now it looks like Purdy is going to be ready and be the starter so now your true feelings on Purdy are starting to come out. Would you say that's a fair assessment?

I'll believe Purdy will be ready when he's ready. I'm trying not to get my hopes up until it happens. There is a difference between the arm is 100% back and game readiness, also. He's a long way off still imo.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
You said this….

"you sound like the person that's uncomfortable acknowledging what could very well be a realistic setup"

How is that not personal or not directed at me?

Again it's just my opinion based on the structure of the QB room, the lack of a true high end starter that's been paid (and having two high end pick prospects in that room) and just how Kyle has attacked the QB position/doesn't seem to have the patience to develop there (especially with this roster).

That quote is actually from your post, not mine. You're quoting yourself.

I'll take your apology for making it personal to me though, lol. (I'm playing… I don't care).

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Like I said, you're getting all bunched up over some made up future scenario that hasn't even happened yet. We don't even know who is starting week 1. If you want to say we don't have that established vet guy, sure we don't, and this is what you have been asking for, for years. Nature of the beast.

Reminds me of the old saying, careful what you wish for, you just might get it

I'm having a convo about it….90% of what is talked about in here are future scenarios. You of all people should recognize that.

careful of what? If Brock doesn't play well then he doesn't play well….that has nothing to do with what I said in a fan forum. If he balls out and becomes a HOFer that has nothing to do with what anyone said in here.

I don't think ANY of these QBs have a long leash to play through bad quarterbacking. Especially on a Super Bowl roster. Ya'll told me we weren't allowed to do that with another QB. Now it's acceptable?

I'll root for any of these guys who play. I can have my opinions on a player…doesn't mean I want so and so to play bad ever.

Soon as he's healthy he will be back out there and relegate whoever was starting to the bench.

I think he gets a least half a season or more of sucking before they even consider benching him for poor play.

That's what 2 rookie playoff wins gets you. A long leash.

Especially considering Kyle has had what I would consider to be a longer leash than average on QB play. He may give Brock an entire season of poor play like he did with hoyer.

There is 0 way darnold or lance can win the job from him. He will have to play bad just to consider benching him midway through the season. Not just average but downright bad.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
That quote is actually from your post, not mine. You're quoting yourself.

I'll take your apology for making it personal to me though, lol. (I'm playing… I don't care).

Lol oops my bad. This is what you said

"When Lance went down last season, the 49ers Super Bowl odds improved. That might be uncomfortable to acknowledge but it should tell you something"

my point there is it's not about lance or Brock. I'm saying none of these dudes (imo) will be given a long leash to play poorly.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by ninerfan4life:
LFG!

The recent vibe coming out of #49ers headquarters suggests a belief Brock Purdy is the favorite to be the team's starting QB when the season opens Sept. 10 at the Steelers.

To read:https://t.co/IaK9QRYKnf

— Matt Maiocco (@MaioccoNBCS) June 5, 2023

Brock Purdy began throwing a regulation NFL football on May 29. If the anticipated 12-week ramp-up program holds true, he would receive full clearance on (or around) on Aug. 21 -- or 20 days before the regular-season opener.

— Matt Maiocco (@MaioccoNBCS) June 5, 2023

Great news. Hopefully he stays on track and we can start the season at full strength.

Love it, I never doubted it! I don't think the team did either. To me, it seemed obvious that the team was hoping/expecting him to be QB1 week 1. The rest was just filler stuff you have to say in order to keep the team motivated and focused. You don't want guys like Trey or darnold to have zero faith they can get QB1. They still can, it's not impossible, just improbable IMO. In other words, Brock has to suck or not be ready.

regardless, I hope Trey and darnold show significant improvement and push for the job. More competition and better play, the better for the team. But everything is kind of falling together as I projected, just Brocks a little ahead of schedule.

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
Soon as he's healthy he will be back out there and relegate whoever was starting to the bench.

I think he gets a least half a season or more of sucking before they even consider benching him for poor play.

That's what 2 rookie playoff wins gets you. A long leash.

Especially considering Kyle has had what I would consider to be a longer leash than average on QB play. He may give Brock an entire season of poor play like he did with hoyer.

There is 0 way darnold or lance can win the job from him. He will have to play bad just to consider benching him midway through the season. Not just average but downright bad.

I pretty much agree.

I think the most comparable situation is the '21 season.

We were one loss away from replacing Jimmy with Lance (at 3-5). 3-6 and you're pretty much out of the playoff picture for all intents and purposes. That's what it's going to take to 'see what you have' with one of the backups.

That calculus can change if one or both of Lance/Darnold looks great in camp/preseason but that's realistically unlikely. Darnold may be better here but it's unlikely that he's taking a major leap in one offseason. Lance has always needed playing time to get experience and still won't have at in this scenario.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
You said this….

"you sound like the person that's uncomfortable acknowledging what could very well be a realistic setup"

How is that not personal or not directed at me?

Again it's just my opinion based on the structure of the QB room, the lack of a true high end starter that's been paid (and having two high end pick prospects in that room) and just how Kyle has attacked the QB position/doesn't seem to have the patience to develop there (especially with this roster).

That quote is actually from your post, not mine. You're quoting yourself.

I'll take your apology for making it personal to me though, lol. (I'm playing… I don't care).