QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Incorrect. Has to be part of the 53. Which is dumb.

Not dumb at all. Being able to elevate 2 guys from the practice squad to count in your 55, then being able to choose 48 of them to play, is plenty enough.

Why would a PS guy be instantly playing @ QB anyway? If the guy is that good, then cut someone and elevate him to the 3rd spot.

The 49th guy being able to dress is only as a contingency plan.

This is merely an extra allowance that helps the quality of football in emergencies. It's still on you as a team to try to have 3 solid guys within the 53.

It's dumb.

Agree, it's dumb. I've also always thought it was dumb to have inactive players to begin with; why the hell can't all 53 suit up? But that's another story

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Incorrect. Has to be part of the 53. Which is dumb.

Not dumb at all. Being able to elevate 2 guys from the practice squad to count in your 55, then being able to choose 48 of them to play, is plenty enough.

Why would a PS guy be instantly playing @ QB anyway? If the guy is that good, then cut someone and elevate him to the 3rd spot.

The 49th guy being able to dress is only as a contingency plan.

This is merely an extra allowance that helps the quality of football in emergencies. It's still on you as a team to try to have 3 solid guys within the 53.

It's dumb.

Agree, it's dumb. I've also always thought it was dumb to have inactive players to begin with; why the hell can't all 53 suit up? But that's another story

Furlow -- Your 2-worded, unsupported opinions are valued just as much as they always have been. Thanks.

808 --I think that believing you have everything figured out without thinking very much about it is dumb. Given the same amount of revenue, if it were up to ownership, they'd dress 40 guys. If it were up to fans and players, they'd dress 70 guys. (Then we'd hurriedly disappear once it's time to sign the checks)

The 2 sides meet in the middle for the most part regarding this stuff and strike a balance between providing quality football and saving/earning as much as possible.

"Again, I used to [think all 53 should dress] as well until it was explained to me and when you hear it explained, it makes great sense," [Steelers GM Kevin] Colbert said. "Because if I'm playing your team and we both have 53 guys and you have five guys injured and I only have two, I'm going to have an advantage, because I've got more healthy players than you do it and that's why they did that. They came up with seven as a number that on average, okay, nobody's going to exceed that. So, you go into a given game, you'll both have the same amount of players. And once it was explained to me that way I accepted it."
Colbert also shared a few other thoughts of his on the general construction of an initial 53-man roster and those stemmed from the question/statement below that show co-host Craig Wolfley asked him.
Wolfey said to Colbert: "How much do the circumstances figure into the final two to three guys? I mean, this is got to be incredibly hard. You have a situation where you've got four quarterbacks that are really performing well. I mean, a guy like Josh Dobbs, I look at it and go, wow, that's really hard. When you have circumstances that, you know, like overflowing at one position that creates problems, but yet you can't, like not, you know, one less outside linebacker or something to cover up other positions."
https://steelersdepot.com/2018/08/colbert-explains-fairness-of-46-active-players-on-game-day-rule-roster-construction-principles/

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Incorrect. Has to be part of the 53. Which is dumb.

Not dumb at all. Being able to elevate 2 guys from the practice squad to count in your 55, then being able to choose 48 of them to play, is plenty enough.

Why would a PS guy be instantly playing @ QB anyway? If the guy is that good, then cut someone and elevate him to the 3rd spot.

The 49th guy being able to dress is only as a contingency plan.

This is merely an extra allowance that helps the quality of football in emergencies. It's still on you as a team to try to have 3 solid guys within the 53.

It's dumb.

Agree, it's dumb. I've also always thought it was dumb to have inactive players to begin with; why the hell can't all 53 suit up? But that's another story

Furlow -- Your 2-worded, unsupported opinions are valued just as much as they always have been. Thanks.

808 --I think that believing you have everything figured out without thinking very much about it is dumb. Given the same amount of revenue, if it were up to ownership, they'd dress 40 guys. If it were up to fans and players, they'd dress 70 guys. (Then we'd hurriedly disappear once it's time to sign the checks)

The 2 sides meet in the middle for the most part regarding this stuff and strike a balance between providing quality football and saving/earning as much as possible.

"Again, I used to [think all 53 should dress] as well until it was explained to me and when you hear it explained, it makes great sense," [Steelers GM Kevin] Colbert said. "Because if I'm playing your team and we both have 53 guys and you have five guys injured and I only have two, I'm going to have an advantage, because I've got more healthy players than you do it and that's why they did that. They came up with seven as a number that on average, okay, nobody's going to exceed that. So, you go into a given game, you'll both have the same amount of players. And once it was explained to me that way I accepted it."
Colbert also shared a few other thoughts of his on the general construction of an initial 53-man roster and those stemmed from the question/statement below that show co-host Craig Wolfley asked him.
Wolfey said to Colbert: "How much do the circumstances figure into the final two to three guys? I mean, this is got to be incredibly hard. You have a situation where you've got four quarterbacks that are really performing well. I mean, a guy like Josh Dobbs, I look at it and go, wow, that's really hard. When you have circumstances that, you know, like overflowing at one position that creates problems, but yet you can't, like not, you know, one less outside linebacker or something to cover up other positions."
https://steelersdepot.com/2018/08/colbert-explains-fairness-of-46-active-players-on-game-day-rule-roster-construction-principles/

So having one emergency quarterback be able to suit up and NOT count against the 53 is going to break the bank for the owners? Is this really your argument?

Like I said, it's dumb. There is no good argument in favor of having the 3rd emergency QB count against the 53 man roster.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Incorrect. Has to be part of the 53. Which is dumb.

Not dumb at all. Being able to elevate 2 guys from the practice squad to count in your 55, then being able to choose 48 of them to play, is plenty enough.

Why would a PS guy be instantly playing @ QB anyway? If the guy is that good, then cut someone and elevate him to the 3rd spot.

The 49th guy being able to dress is only as a contingency plan.

This is merely an extra allowance that helps the quality of football in emergencies. It's still on you as a team to try to have 3 solid guys within the 53.

It's dumb.

Agree, it's dumb. I've also always thought it was dumb to have inactive players to begin with; why the hell can't all 53 suit up? But that's another story

Furlow -- Your 2-worded, unsupported opinions are valued just as much as they always have been. Thanks.

808 --I think that believing you have everything figured out without thinking very much about it is dumb. Given the same amount of revenue, if it were up to ownership, they'd dress 40 guys. If it were up to fans and players, they'd dress 70 guys. (Then we'd hurriedly disappear once it's time to sign the checks)

The 2 sides meet in the middle for the most part regarding this stuff and strike a balance between providing quality football and saving/earning as much as possible.

"Again, I used to [think all 53 should dress] as well until it was explained to me and when you hear it explained, it makes great sense," [Steelers GM Kevin] Colbert said. "Because if I'm playing your team and we both have 53 guys and you have five guys injured and I only have two, I'm going to have an advantage, because I've got more healthy players than you do it and that's why they did that. They came up with seven as a number that on average, okay, nobody's going to exceed that. So, you go into a given game, you'll both have the same amount of players. And once it was explained to me that way I accepted it."
Colbert also shared a few other thoughts of his on the general construction of an initial 53-man roster and those stemmed from the question/statement below that show co-host Craig Wolfley asked him.
Wolfey said to Colbert: "How much do the circumstances figure into the final two to three guys? I mean, this is got to be incredibly hard. You have a situation where you've got four quarterbacks that are really performing well. I mean, a guy like Josh Dobbs, I look at it and go, wow, that's really hard. When you have circumstances that, you know, like overflowing at one position that creates problems, but yet you can't, like not, you know, one less outside linebacker or something to cover up other positions."
https://steelersdepot.com/2018/08/colbert-explains-fairness-of-46-active-players-on-game-day-rule-roster-construction-principles/

So having one emergency quarterback be able to suit up and NOT count against the 53 is going to break the bank for the owners? Is this really your argument?

Like I said, it's dumb. There is no good argument in favor of having the 3rd emergency QB count against the 53 man roster.

I'm curious how this will impact the qb3 salaries going forward. I bet it's a position that will get targeted more and spent a little bit more money on. Since it's not as burdensome to have a third qb on gameday

Originally posted by Furlow:
So having one emergency quarterback be able to suit up and NOT count against the 53 is going to break the bank for the owners?

Might as well move it to 54 at that point. Why ask silly questions instead of addressing what's already been said? LoL.

All 3 guys were on the roster when the season began,...so you're out in the forest here.

Originally posted by Furlow:
Is this really your argument?

Like I said, it's dumb. There is no good argument in favor of having the 3rd emergency QB count against the 53 man roster.

IMO it is ignorance that is dumb,...not rules that these professionals are overseeing. You didn't at all address what the guy said regarding the unevenness of injuries. Whether it is 50 guys or 60 guys,...it makes sense to keep a threshold of players available and ready to dress that are already on the current roster, but inactive.

Otherwise,..teams begin to have CLEAR competitive advantages come kickoff due to body counts,...which is something that they would like to stay as far from as possible.

It's not about if it's my argument or not. It's me trying to help you understand what you clearly do not.

Calling something "dumb" with zero insight is simply wasting space.

Doing it over and over doesn't enhance anything.

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Incorrect. Has to be part of the 53. Which is dumb.

Not dumb at all. Being able to elevate 2 guys from the practice squad to count in your 55, then being able to choose 48 of them to play, is plenty enough.

Why would a PS guy be instantly playing @ QB anyway? If the guy is that good, then cut someone and elevate him to the 3rd spot.

The 49th guy being able to dress is only as a contingency plan.

This is merely an extra allowance that helps the quality of football in emergencies. It's still on you as a team to try to have 3 solid guys within the 53.

It's dumb.

Agree, it's dumb. I've also always thought it was dumb to have inactive players to begin with; why the hell can't all 53 suit up? But that's another story

Agree it's dumb. All 53 count against the cap and try hard to fit them under your cap, but only 48 of them can be active. Makes no sense at all.

Sabans recruiting story with Brock is always a good one. Just saw another article on it. Brock knew Saban hadn't studied his tape when he said Brocks accuracy was average. The confidence level you need to have in order to be like "wtf, yes I do" when arguably the greatest college HC Of all time puts you down like that, incredible.

"Brock told me, 'He didn't really know me, coach,'" Preston Jones said. (Saban said), 'You're below average in height. Your arm strength is whatever. Your accuracy is average.' And as soon as he mentioned the accuracy, Brock knew right away: 'This guy doesn't know me.' Because, if anything, that's his strength. He goes, 'Coach, he didn't know who I was.'"

this was a huge reason why he chose to go to Iowa State, can't really blame him. I also ready that he told his dad sometbing along the lines of "I'll help build this program up like I did with the highschool".

to me, he wants to be great but he also wants whatever he is apart of to be great. That is more rare than I think most would expect.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
So having one emergency quarterback be able to suit up and NOT count against the 53 is going to break the bank for the owners?

Might as well move it to 54 at that point. Why ask silly questions instead of addressing what's already been said? LoL.

All 3 guys were on the roster when the season began,...so you're out in the forest here.

Originally posted by Furlow:
Is this really your argument?

Like I said, it's dumb. There is no good argument in favor of having the 3rd emergency QB count against the 53 man roster.

IMO it is ignorance that is dumb,...not rules that these professionals are overseeing. You didn't at all address what the guy said regarding the unevenness of injuries. Whether it is 50 guys or 60 guys,...it makes sense to keep a threshold of players available and ready to dress that are already on the current roster, but inactive.

Otherwise,..teams begin to have CLEAR competitive advantages come kickoff due to body counts,...which is something that they would like to stay as far from as possible.

It's not about if it's my argument or not. It's me trying to help you understand what you clearly do not.

Calling something "dumb" with zero insight is simply wasting space.

Doing it over and over doesn't enhance anything.

Your argument about team injuries and the overall roster has nothing to do with the emergency QB rule. Our point is that the emergency QB rule should exist OUTSIDE of the 53 man roster and 48 active player rules. You going on and on about the 53 man roster, owner profit, competitive balance, etc. has NOTHING to do with what we're saying. Yes, I get that we can't have an unlimited number of players and salaries, duh. We're talking about one player at the most important position. It simply makes no sense for that emergency QB to have to be a part of the 53 man roster. Having a special slot for that player position would add $3M to $5M in salary for the owners; surely you're not arguing that $3M to $5M additional salary is going to break the bank for the owners.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Sabans recruiting story with Brock is always a good one. Just saw another article on it. Brock knew Saban hadn't studied his tape when he said Brocks accuracy was average. The confidence level you need to have in order to be like "wtf, yes I do" when arguably the greatest college HC Of all time puts you down like that, incredible.

"Brock told me, 'He didn't really know me, coach,'" Preston Jones said. (Saban said), 'You're below average in height. Your arm strength is whatever. Your accuracy is average.' And as soon as he mentioned the accuracy, Brock knew right away: 'This guy doesn't know me.' Because, if anything, that's his strength. He goes, 'Coach, he didn't know who I was.'"

this was a huge reason why he chose to go to Iowa State, can't really blame him. I also ready that he told his dad sometbing along the lines of "I'll help build this program up like I did with the highschool".

to me, he wants to be great but he also wants whatever he is apart of to be great. That is more rare than I think most would expect.

He does seem obsessed with the game. Even his IG posts are all about football. Well, one about his engagement but that's understandable. Haven't seen any about vacations, fashion, cars, etc. What Purdy has is a critical component of being a Super Bowl winning NFL QB.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Sabans recruiting story with Brock is always a good one. Just saw another article on it. Brock knew Saban hadn't studied his tape when he said Brocks accuracy was average. The confidence level you need to have in order to be like "wtf, yes I do" when arguably the greatest college HC Of all time puts you down like that, incredible.

"Brock told me, 'He didn't really know me, coach,'" Preston Jones said. (Saban said), 'You're below average in height. Your arm strength is whatever. Your accuracy is average.' And as soon as he mentioned the accuracy, Brock knew right away: 'This guy doesn't know me.' Because, if anything, that's his strength. He goes, 'Coach, he didn't know who I was.'"

this was a huge reason why he chose to go to Iowa State, can't really blame him. I also ready that he told his dad sometbing along the lines of "I'll help build this program up like I did with the highschool".

to me, he wants to be great but he also wants whatever he is apart of to be great. That is more rare than I think most would expect.

He does seem obsessed with the game. Even his IG posts are all about football. Well, one about his engagement but that's understandable. Haven't seen any about vacations, fashion, cars, etc. What Purdy has is a critical component of being a Super Bowl winning NFL QB.

He seems to have an ideal wiring for being an NFL Qb. Another posted the other day mentioned his accuracy and how he seemed to be throwing more advanced than his college WR were (if that makes sense, I'm tryna summarize haha). I think it's interesting that in high school he was super confident about his accuracy and he turns out to be super accurate, so far.

man I can't wait for this guy to be cleared. I don't want to read about a bunk ass lame competition between QB2 & QB3 all the time, I want to know how QB1 looks and how QB2 looks in comparison.

last year Brock stuck out in a very positive way, aka he made the team, players and coaches were talking about him, so I'm really curious how he with QB1 reps and how he reacts when plays aren't going the right way. I think it's important to have a fire in those situations and not just be like "oh okay, we will try it again"

Originally posted by Furlow:
Your argument about team injuries and the overall roster has nothing to do with the emergency QB rule. Our point is that the emergency QB rule should exist OUTSIDE of the 53 man roster and 48 active player rules.

Your point. Stop with the circle-jerk mentality of taking the "our point" thing everywhere around the forum. There's no need for "camps" or "groups" of posters that think exactly the same.

And the emergency QB IS outside of the 48 active player rule, as he is allowed to be the 49th player. #ProblemSolved

But if you want to continue....

With the lack of legit QBs to go around to begin with, I can understand why they wouldn't want teams hiding a 4th QB on the practice squad that can suddenly enter games week after week. Players 54 and 55 -- as I understand it -- are subject to Waivers if you elevate them from the practice squad more than twice.

So how the hell is a QB going to be able to circumvent all of this week after week while on a practice squad, as they are trying to spread talent and keep things as even as possible?

If this really were the case,...then we'd have to call that PS player what he really is, which is the 54th player. Opens up like 100 more problems if you're going to let a QB do this from the PS for 17 games. Are you seeing the "circularity" yet or no? Makes completely no sense.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Your argument about team injuries and the overall roster has nothing to do with the emergency QB rule. Our point is that the emergency QB rule should exist OUTSIDE of the 53 man roster and 48 active player rules.

Your point. Stop with the circle-jerk mentality of taking the "our point" thing everywhere around the forum. There's no need for "camps" or "groups" of posters that think exactly the same.

And the emergency QB IS outside of the 48 active player rule, as he is allowed to be the 49th player. #ProblemSolved

But if you want to continue....

With the lack of legit QBs to go around to begin with, I can understand why they wouldn't want teams hiding a 4th QB on the practice squad that can suddenly enter games week after week. Players 54 and 55 -- as I understand it -- are subject to Waivers if you elevate them from the practice squad more than twice.

So how the hell is a QB going to be able to circumvent all of this week after week while on a practice squad, as they are trying to spread talent and keep things as even as possible?

If this really were the case,...then we'd have to call that PS player what he really is, which is the 54th player. Opens up like 100 more problems if you're going to let a QB do this from the PS for 17 games. Are you seeing the "circularity" yet or no? Makes completely no sense.

The emergency QB can't "suddenly enter games." You yourself quoted the rule. It's only if both QB1 and QB2 both go down. I mean seriously?

There are several people who think it's dumb. But you only choose to respond to me about it. OUR point is, your opinion is dumb and not even on topic. You create arguments that aren't even there. Very strange.

Originally posted by Furlow:
The emergency QB can't "suddenly enter games."

Yea he cant "suddenly enter." The other 2 have to not be medically cleared. An extra allowance now of a 49th player that u previously thought was the 48th player, just judging by your previous post. So why continue a battle you've already lost?

Originally posted by Furlow:
You yourself quoted the rule. It's only if both QB1 and QB2 both go down. I mean seriously?

Yea. If you only go into a game with 1 QB, which I'd guess is not even allowed, wouldn't it be your fault as a team? And cue all of the problems surrounding letting 1 PS QB circumvent a bunch of other rules in the book -- "just because" -- for a 17 full weeks. As a QB, he can already be called up 2 times a year if he's on the PS and fully participate.

Beyond that, you need to make some roster choices as a team if you need a PS QB more. That's per the latest CBA.

So your suggestion of completely scrapping that all of a sudden and going with 17 game allowance for PS QBs only makes completely no sense. I mean, it doesn't even begin to make sense.

Originally posted by Furlow:
There are several people who....

Doesn't mean anything. Let's just stick to reality.

Originally posted by Furlow:
The emergency QB can't "suddenly enter games." You yourself quoted the rule. It's only if both QB1 and QB2 both go down. I mean seriously?

There are several people who think it's dumb. But you only choose to respond to me about it. OUR point is, your opinion is dumb and not even on topic. You create arguments that aren't even there. Very strange.

Or do you mean random??

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Furlow:
The emergency QB can't "suddenly enter games." You yourself quoted the rule. It's only if both QB1 and QB2 both go down. I mean seriously?

There are several people who think it's dumb. But you only choose to respond to me about it. OUR point is, your opinion is dumb and not even on topic. You create arguments that aren't even there. Very strange.

Or do you mean random??

Haha. Yes there's confusion that's going to naturally come when people think things are "dumb" that clearly they don't even begin to understand. I'm confused just as much as he is (about where he's trying to go).