QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by random49er:
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/

You got me thinking I have everything figured out without thinking about it from that post? Or are you generally speaking with that? What's the difference between 5 guys getting injured from the 48 that are active and only 2 from the other team? Is that not a competitive advantage all the same if we wanna talk injuries? Inactive players on game day makes zero sense, yes random this is my opinion, had that opinion for a long time and nothing you say will change my opinion on that.

Originally posted by 49ers808:
You got me thinking I have everything figured out without thinking about it from that post? Or are you generally speaking with that? What's the difference between 5 guys getting injured from the 48 that are active and only 2 from the other team? Is that not a competitive advantage all the same if we wanna talk injuries? Inactive players on game day makes zero sense, yes random this is my opinion, had that opinion for a long time and nothing you say will change my opinion on that.

Generally speaking.

"From the 48 that are active." --This is a misnomer. if they are injured and unable to play, they are inactive, and wouldn't be in the 48. Maybe you can restate so I understand? But the reasons given for always keeping more "active" a couple hours b4 the game (up to 55 now) than actually "dressed" (47-49) has been spelled out pretty clearly and makes perfect sense from a competition standpoint. Agreeing with it or not is besides the point.

Originally posted by tankle104:
This guy actually was pretty accurate when it came to his strengths, then Brock worked on the other stuff. Very interesting

Here was my evaluation of Brock Purdy before he was drafted.

Definitely one of my best hits😂👇 pic.twitter.com/gtbZ7mcvOW

— Daniel Alameda (@AlamedaViews) July 20, 2023

estimated he would be a third round pick

He's better than that evaluation. But somewhat in the ballpark. Just a lot better IMO.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by tankle104:
This guy actually was pretty accurate when it came to his strengths, then Brock worked on the other stuff. Very interesting

Here was my evaluation of Brock Purdy before he was drafted.

Definitely one of my best hits😂👇 pic.twitter.com/gtbZ7mcvOW

— Daniel Alameda (@AlamedaViews) July 20, 2023

estimated he would be a third round pick

He's better than that evaluation. But somewhat in the ballpark. Just a lot better IMO.

Oh I think he is too. I just find it interesting that some random dude had a much better evaluation on him than any NFL team did. Lol he said third round and everyone else was essentially UDFA. That's sad.

thays why I like to look at other peoples mocks cause you learn some really interesting things and some folks are actually really good at evaluating tape.

Originally posted by random49er:

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.

Having two QB's active on the gameday roster is "playing Russian roulette?" Lol hilarious. That's what 99.99% of teams do. It's only in VERY rare circumstances that a 3rd QB is ever needed. So in my (and many others) opinion it's ridiculous to force teams to have to choose between a 3rd QB and another position. QB is by far the most important position, and not having one in the game degrades the game to the point that it's unwatchable. So yes, I believe it warrants a special designation.

Your opinion is in line with the greedy owners who want to save every possible penny. Because of that mindset, a dumb rule was created.

Originally posted by Furlow:
Having two QB's active on the gameday roster is "playing Russian roulette?" Lol hilarious.

All season when you're concerned with injuries? Yea. You're betting on yourself. Welcome to the world of sports. You aint getting a pass due to ish like that. There are enough allowances as is.

Originally posted by Furlow:
That's what 99.99% of teams do.

Divide 31 by 32 and tell me what you find,...lol. Not into the hyperbole stuff.

The new allowance is a step forward in that it gets an extra guy -- a QB -- on the field that is able to play.

Originally posted by tankle104:
This guy actually was pretty accurate when it came to his strengths, then Brock worked on the other stuff. Very interesting

Here was my evaluation of Brock Purdy before he was drafted.

Definitely one of my best hits😂👇 pic.twitter.com/gtbZ7mcvOW

— Daniel Alameda (@AlamedaViews) July 20, 2023

estimated he would be a third round pick

This guy was absolutely "Dead on balls accurate!"
BCB turned out to be better but hot damn

Originally posted by random49er:
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:
Generally speaking.

"From the 48 that are active." --This is a misnomer. if they are injured and unable to play, they are inactive, and wouldn't be in the 48. Maybe you can restate so I understand? But the reasons given for always keeping more "active" a couple hours b4 the game (up to 55 now) than actually "dressed" (47-49) has been spelled out pretty clearly and makes perfect sense from a competition standpoint. Agreeing with it or not is besides the point.

I meant during the game. If 5 were injured from one team and 2 from the other, isn't that a competitive advantage all the same? That was the reasoning given by Colbert that you posted. That isn't a misnomer. The reasoning given does not make sense from a competition standpoint if the reasoning is injuries when injuries can and often do happen during the games.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by tankle104:
This guy actually was pretty accurate when it came to his strengths, then Brock worked on the other stuff. Very interesting

Here was my evaluation of Brock Purdy before he was drafted.

Definitely one of my best hits😂👇 pic.twitter.com/gtbZ7mcvOW

— Daniel Alameda (@AlamedaViews) July 20, 2023

estimated he would be a third round pick

He's better than that evaluation. But somewhat in the ballpark. Just a lot better IMO.

Oh I think he is too. I just find it interesting that some random dude had a much better evaluation on him than any NFL team did. Lol he said third round and everyone else was essentially UDFA. That's sad.

thays why I like to look at other peoples mocks cause you learn some really interesting things and some folks are actually really good at evaluating tape.

LOL dude watched 3 games from his 2019 Sophomore season, his best season. Maybe NFL teams watched more than that? And included his Junior and Senior seasons when he regressed. Playing captain hindsight is easy. Sometimes you try to hard tankle to prop this guy up everyday. We get it, you like him

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by random49er:

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.

Having two QB's active on the gameday roster is "playing Russian roulette?" Lol hilarious. That's what 99.99% of teams do. It's only in VERY rare circumstances that a 3rd QB is ever needed. So in my (and many others) opinion it's ridiculous to force teams to have to choose between a 3rd QB and another position. QB is by far the most important position, and not having one in the game degrades the game to the point that it's unwatchable. So yes, I believe it warrants a special designation.

Your opinion is in line with the greedy owners who want to save every possible penny. Because of that mindset, a dumb rule was created.

Its Russian roulette when Shanahan is the coach.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Having two QB's active on the gameday roster is "playing Russian roulette?" Lol hilarious.

All season when you're concerned with injuries? Yea. You're betting on yourself. Welcome to the world of sports. You aint getting a pass due to ish like that. There are enough allowances as is.

Originally posted by Furlow:
That's what 99.99% of teams do.

Divide 31 by 32 and tell me what you find,...lol. Not into the hyperbole stuff.

The new allowance is a step forward in that it gets an extra guy -- a QB -- on the field that is able to play.

Take the total number of games and the total number of times that a team has had 3 active QB's. It's 99.99%.

Agree it's a step forward, just dumb that they didn't go as far as they could and should have. But thankfully the owners have regular people like you to feel sorry for them lol.

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by tankle104:
This guy actually was pretty accurate when it came to his strengths, then Brock worked on the other stuff. Very interesting

Here was my evaluation of Brock Purdy before he was drafted.

Definitely one of my best hits😂👇 pic.twitter.com/gtbZ7mcvOW

— Daniel Alameda (@AlamedaViews) July 20, 2023

estimated he would be a third round pick

He's better than that evaluation. But somewhat in the ballpark. Just a lot better IMO.

Oh I think he is too. I just find it interesting that some random dude had a much better evaluation on him than any NFL team did. Lol he said third round and everyone else was essentially UDFA. That's sad.

thays why I like to look at other peoples mocks cause you learn some really interesting things and some folks are actually really good at evaluating tape.

LOL dude watched 3 games from his 2019 Sophomore season, his best season. Maybe NFL teams watched more than that? And included his Junior and Senior seasons when he regressed. Playing captain hindsight is easy. Sometimes you try to hard tankle to prop this guy up everyday. We get it, you like him

Lmao I don't need to prop anyone up. Obviously teams were wrong, so there is nothing to prop up? Brocks body of work speaks for itself. He's QB1 for a reason.

Brock is the last QB on our roster that needs to be propped up. Lol that's why this thread is usually quiet in comparison to darnold/Lance.

it's just cool to see random posts like that where someone was much more accurate than most. Lol some of you guys take this stuff way to serious. Lmao like it's some war between the QBs to see who we can make look better.

anyone in their right mind knows that Brock is by far the best and most accomplished QB we have right now. Now we just let camp play out and see if that changes.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by tankle104:
This guy actually was pretty accurate when it came to his strengths, then Brock worked on the other stuff. Very interesting

Here was my evaluation of Brock Purdy before he was drafted.

Definitely one of my best hits😂👇 pic.twitter.com/gtbZ7mcvOW

— Daniel Alameda (@AlamedaViews) July 20, 2023

estimated he would be a third round pick

He's better than that evaluation. But somewhat in the ballpark. Just a lot better IMO.

Oh I think he is too. I just find it interesting that some random dude had a much better evaluation on him than any NFL team did. Lol he said third round and everyone else was essentially UDFA. That's sad.

thays why I like to look at other peoples mocks cause you learn some really interesting things and some folks are actually really good at evaluating tape.

LOL dude watched 3 games from his 2019 Sophomore season, his best season. Maybe NFL teams watched more than that? And included his Junior and Senior seasons when he regressed. Playing captain hindsight is easy. Sometimes you try to hard tankle to prop this guy up everyday. We get it, you like him

Lmao I don't need to prop anyone up. Obviously teams were wrong, so there is nothing to prop up? Brocks body of work speaks for itself. He's QB1 for a reason.

Brock is the last QB on our roster that needs to be propped up. Lol that's why this thread is usually quiet in comparison to darnold/Lance.

it's just cool to see random posts like that where someone was much more accurate than most. Lol some of you guys take this stuff way to serious. Lmao like it's some war between the QBs to see who we can make look better.

anyone in their right mind knows that Brock is by far the best and most accomplished QB we have right now. Now we just let camp play out and see if that changes.

Lol then don't. You posting stuff everyday in this thread doesn't keep it quiet. You calling every NFL team sad because a random dude put 3rd round grade after watching 3 games from Purdys best college season isn't trying to prop him up above the last pick in the draft where he was actually drafted? Umm yeah okay. And you are one of the main ones participating in these "wars" and taking s**t seriously lol buttering up Purdy everyday like you're related and trying to take subtle jabs at Lance; bro it's easy to see right through it. Who argues with the last point you made?

Originally posted by 49ers808:
I meant during the game. If 5 were injured from one team and 2 from the other, isn't that a competitive advantage all the same?

No no no,... not at all. I hate to bring up betting, point spreads, and stuff of that nature, but they matter greatly.

Once kick-off has occured,...all of that stuff generally goes out the window.

The NFL is heavily invested in trying to pitch their product as "even" and "fair" to both teams for every contest. They go through ALOT of work to try to ensure this because it effects their bottom line greatly.

How uneven they really are after the ball is kicked off is I'm sure every bettor's dream.