QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by Kolohe:

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.

Especially given its the most expensive position in the NFL.

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??

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

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.

Especially given its the most expensive position in the NFL.

Only the highest paid 51 players count against the cap. Basically it's two "free players", even though the amount is usually in the high 6 figures.

I'm pretty sure Purdy is one player that doesn't count against the the cap.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

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.

Especially given its the most expensive position in the NFL.

So when one team is fully healthy @ 53, and the other team only has 47 healthy, I'm still waiting for the guys that call this stuff dumb to give a reasonable solution?

Would be great if they put it out there, then ascend to the competition committee and show up @ the next owner's meeting.

Originally posted by random49er:

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).

It's very simple. Treat the emergency QB as a special roster spot. Call it the "54th player" if you want, IDGAF. Everyone else is subject to the 53/48 rule, practice squad rules, etc. If they have to "expand" the roster to 54/49, that's fine. But teams should not be penalized for choosing to have 3 QB's on the 53 and have to sacrifice depth at another position.

Originally posted by Furlow:
It's very simple. Treat the emergency QB as a special roster spot. Call it the "54th player" if you want, IDGAF. Everyone else is subject to the 53/48 rule, practice squad rules, etc. If they have to "expand" the roster to 54/49, that's fine. But teams should not be penalized for choosing to have 3 QB's on the 53 and have to sacrifice depth at another position.

Not understanding.

A team that has 3 QBs on the 53 can end up dressing 49 players. So that's already in effect. If you have 2 of them, you are stuck at 48.

2, plus the 3rd one as the emergency QB. (This solves the problem of wanting 2 to be counted in your 48 and having the 3rd be unusable) This is a step in the right direction, and I'm not at all seeing how a team is being penalized for having 3 QBs in the 53. Instead, they are being rewarded. Now they get to use #48 for a different position.

Are you saying you think 4 QBs should dress?

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

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.

Especially given its the most expensive position in the NFL.

Only the highest paid 51 players count against the cap. Basically it's two "free players", even though the amount is usually in the high 6 figures.

I'm pretty sure Purdy is one player that doesn't count against the the cap.

The emergency 3rd QB like ours, most likely would make that 51. For other teams, that 3rd probably wouldn't make it, to your point. Given our injury history, we almost should have a legit 3rd, and that's costly. Maybe even count what 2 other legit players/positions would have cost combined.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
Only the highest paid 51 players count against the cap. Basically it's two "free players", even though the amount is usually in the high 6 figures.

I'm pretty sure Purdy is one player that doesn't count against the the cap.

Before we signed our rooks this year, he didn't count against the top 51 (aka his salary didn't count against the cap, like you said). I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure I read that he will count against the cap once the rooks are signed because we had so many late round picks

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

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.

Especially given its the most expensive position in the NFL.

So when one team is fully healthy @ 53, and the other team only has 47 healthy, I'm still waiting for the guys that call this stuff dumb to give a reasonable solution?

Would be great if they put it out there, then ascend to the competition committee and show up @ the next owner's meeting.

Ok now you need to relax this is a message board not a board meeting.

Originally posted by Furlow:
It's very simple. Treat the emergency QB as a special roster spot. Call it the "54th player" if you want, IDGAF. Everyone else is subject to the 53/48 rule, practice squad rules, etc. If they have to "expand" the roster to 54/49, that's fine. But teams should not be penalized for choosing to have 3 QB's on the 53 and have to sacrifice depth at another position.

Especially since it's for the betterment of the game. The reason the league approved this is because the game was essentially unwatchable after we lost our top 2 guys. It happened so early in the game too - ruined the quality of the game.

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Ok now you need to relax this is a message board not a board meeting.

You are fully in favor of 1 team fielding a 6 or 7 more players than the other?

If yes,...how does this help the "evened" level of competition thing that they're always trying to strike a balance with? That gives 1 team a competitive advantage.

This guy actually was pretty accurate when it came to his strengths, then Brock worked on the other stuff. Very interesting


estimated he would be a third round pick

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
It's very simple. Treat the emergency QB as a special roster spot. Call it the "54th player" if you want, IDGAF. Everyone else is subject to the 53/48 rule, practice squad rules, etc. If they have to "expand" the roster to 54/49, that's fine. But teams should not be penalized for choosing to have 3 QB's on the 53 and have to sacrifice depth at another position.

Not understanding.

A team that has 3 QBs on the 53 can end up dressing 49 players. So that's already in effect. If you have 2 of them, you are stuck at 48.

2, plus the 3rd one as the emergency QB. (This solves the problem of wanting 2 to be counted in your 48 and having the 3rd be unusable) This is a step in the right direction, and I'm not at all seeing how a team is being penalized for having 3 QBs in the 53. Instead, they are being rewarded. Now they get to use #48 for a different position.

Are you saying you think 4 QBs should dress?

If a 3rd QB has to be on the 53, then there is another position that can't be. Do you understand that? THAT is why this is dumb. So like I said, make it 54/49, but only if you use that 54th/49th on a 3rd emergency QB. I suppose a team shouldn't HAVE to go with an emergency QB, so if they want to stick with 53/48, fine.

Originally posted by Furlow:
If a 3rd QB has to be on the 53, then there is another position that can't be. Do you understand that?

You can elevate a 3rd QB to the 55 to play, but then you'd need to dress him as part of the 48. So that's fine. Do you understand that?

Only in your imagination are you going to suddenly create a new rule where a PS guy gets elevated for 17 weeks as a QB but perhaps never plays for the entire season. Not at all necessary, and creates a host of problems with the other 53 guys that have to earn their keep. They're not going to do some "golden boy" designation.

They would much rather you sign and pay the guy as your 3rd QB if you think he's that valuable. If the 3rd guy is on your PS, he can still play in 2 games a year. Still not good enough?

Well if you were so adamant you only needed 2 QBs all year, then live with the possible consequences, as someone probably needs to be fired.

Special rules are not needed for dumb teams that want to play Russian roulette at the QB spot.

If a 3rd or 4th QB is good enough to be needed in that way (as in your dream scenario), the NFL would want that to be waived and taken up by a more QB-needy team. Not 32 guys that are kept under lock and key in this way for a full 17. It helps the quality of competition.

What you've imagined up sounds more like some Tecmo Bowl thing. Not gonna happen.