QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by D0PEMAN:

Originally posted by jays9ers:
He's making me a believer.. I need to see it over an extended period but the kid is a stud

yep, he needs at least 4 superbowl rings before Im sold

No but needs ONE Super Bowl before I'm sold.

That being said - Brock is giving off serious Montana vibes in terms of poise and calmness within the storm - nothing phases this dude. Accuracy, decision-making, moxie, swag - incredible so far. Just needs that over the top deep-lofting deep posts like Joe/Steve to Jerry and this dude can soar to heights we haven't seen since Steve Young. Top 5 QB in the league imo.

Needs to put us over the top and win the Lombardi - but nothing is saying he can't do just that if he keeps performing like this.

Big test vs Dallas this week as this is the one D that showed Brock could be contained at all. I want to see 27+ points put up on the board - don't care if we win 27-24 or 27-20 or whatever. But I'd like to see him be explosive vs this defense.

Whoever said death, taxes, Brock Purdy ---

Originally posted by Ezekiel38:

Originally posted by D0PEMAN:

Originally posted by jays9ers:
He's making me a believer.. I need to see it over an extended period but the kid is a stud

yep, he needs at least 4 superbowl rings before Im sold

No but needs ONE Super Bowl before I'm sold.

That being said - Brock is giving off serious Montana vibes in terms of poise and calmness within the storm - nothing phases this dude. Accuracy, decision-making, moxie, swag - incredible so far.

Needs to put us over the top and win the Lombardi - but nothing is saying he can't do just that if he keeps performing like this.

Big test vs Dallas this week as this is the one D that showed Brock could be contained at all. I want to see 27+ points put up on the board - don't care if we win 27-24 or 27-20 or whatever. But I'd like to see him be explosive vs this defense.

Whoever said death, taxes, Brock Purdy ---

The big test has always been the Cowboys. If he plays well against them, even just managing the game and not doing anything spectacular, and we win, it's time to start talking about top ten. I know many of our guys here already think that, but I believe next week ought to remove all doubt from everyone if he plays well.

Originally posted by Heroism:

Originally posted by riverrunzthruit:
Purdy is how Kyle would play QB if he could do it

and BCB is only going to get better because the game will start to slow down even more for him

he will get to the point where Brady was at where there is nothing new a DC game show him that he hasn't already seen and know how to handle

BCB making it fun to be a 9er fan again for the next 10 years

I was just about to make this exact post. Every week is a level up for BCB. What a time to be a Niners fan.

B🐔B all the way Baby!

Kyle trusts Brock to call timeouts! That's tremendous trust that Kyle has with Purdy.

The Purdy story is too good for the NFL not to let him win a SB.

From all the experts and haters…Brock should suck really bad this year cause they will have game film on him😆

More Cohn saying Brock Purdy is the guy:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Dshearn:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by 49erKing:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by tankle104:

#49ers QB Brock Purdy has (so far) simultaneously improved in time before throw, air yards per attempt and yards per attempt.

2022: 2.93 seconds, 7.0 air yds/att., 8.4 yds/att.

2023: 2.56 seconds, 7.2 air yds/att., 9.1 yds/att.

Ball out quicker but still gaining more yards.

— Nick Wagoner (@nwagoner) October 2, 2023

Arm is definitely stronger than Montana's.

No not really. They both throw extremely catchable balls on all their different types of throws though. Both elite there.

Disagree, I remember Montana's long balls had more arch to them. Early in Montana's career (Before Rice) he had long ball issues. Which are not a big deal during the early years as he had Wendell Tyler. That Aiyuk 40+ yard throw was a flatter trajectory than Montana's usual deep throws, as I recall it.

Having a lower trajectory on deep balls all the time means your arm isn't as strong, because you have to cut out the wasted motion. You think Russell Wilson has a weak arm? His deep balls are more tear drop than anyone's I've ever seen.

The second the ball leaves your hand, the only forces working on it are gravity and friction. A high arching ball travels a further net distance than a flattened one. It takes more arm to throw more distance. QBs who depend on a flat arc for deep balls probably do not have as strong an arm as those who don't.

HOWEVER, it could also merely be a preference. The QB maybe doesn't anticipate as much as the tear drop guy and has to sling it to get it there in time, or perhaps they're paranoid about the ball taking a long time to get there.

.
.
.
EDIT: before I get tarred and feathered, I'm not talking about Brock. His arm is plenty strong enough to hit every throw you need to wear a gold jacket. I'm just talking theoretically. If you HAVE to have a low trajectory to throw deep, your arm isn't as strong as someone who can easily do either.

Any science behind this? I think if someone wants to throw deep, if they have the time, and it makes sense, they "naturally" conform to throwing with a higher arc/higher trajectory. I mean that's how I feel when I play catch with the guys. If you're trying to laser it while going deep I think that actually means you have a stronger arm than most.

Yeah. Pythagoras (Extended to curves; the same principle applies, you just add up the infinitesimal distances via a line integral, but it's essentially the same thing. In Euclidean geometry, a straight line is the shortest path between two points.). A high arcing ball travels more distance. As the ball is not getting any additional force as it leaves (basic physics), what you put into it upon release is all it has. So throwing with a high arc doesn't give you some boost. That's not how physics work. Draw a free body diagram. Only gravity and friction are of any consequence once it's released.

So, the high arcing ball is thrown further in actual distance traveled than the low arcing one.

Which means, if you MUST throw with a low arc to get it there, your arm is weaker. (By arm strength I mean how far you can throw the ball, but I see no reason why velocity and distance would be different as a measure of arm strength unless the QB has mechanical problems which make one of either his distance or velocity throws more inefficient.)

Yes, but gravity is the main factor here. If a QB threw the ball on the shortest path, a strait line, it would be impossible arm strength to accomplish on a 40 yard throw. Likewise a QB throwing the ball as high as a skyscraper and it traveling 40 yards in distance. The real measure is ball velocity as it leaves his hands a a tight rope tends to have greater velocity than a moon shot.

Humor me. The critical point is 45 degrees, IIRC.

Horizontal distance is 40 meters.

One QB throws the ball with an angle of 45 degrees. The other throws with a height of 75 degrees. Who has the greater velocity?

The formula for horizontal distance is:
R = [v^2 sin(2α)]/(g)
So v = sqrt [Rg/(sin[2α])]

R = 40.

α for the low arc is: 45 degrees (calculated using the same formula)

α for the high arc is: 75 degrees.

So the HORIZONTAL velocities are, respectfully: sqrt [40m *g/(sin[2*45])] = 19.8 m/s, and sqrt [40m*g/(sin[2*75])] = 39.6 m/s.

The interesting thing with sin is that it's a periodic function. That means there are times when a LOWER trajectory would take more initial velocity than a higher one, and there are times when a HIGHER trajectory would take more initial velocity. You brought up the fact that a zero trajectory would take infinite velocity. That's true. So would a 90 degree trajectory.

So, if the QB is throwing with an arc greater than 45 degrees, each additional degree of arc requires more arm strength. If the QB is throwing with an arc less than 45 degrees, each additional degree of arc requires more arm strength. Russell Wilson appears to throw with greater than 45 degree arc, so the higher he throws it, the more arm strength it takes.

I think that the truth of the matter here is that the biggest factor in arc is QB preference, and if there's a weakness or a strength with a QB who chooses one or the other, it has to be related to vision and anticipation, not arm strength.

ok so if you know the math...... Range is equal to velocity acted upon by gravity and ding ding the angle
Range= (velocity2 Sin (2angle) ) / g

Then you know, the stronger arm can throw FARTHER on a flatter line... The less velocity you have, you have to add arc.

That is literally the formula I used. Now compare angles ABOVE 45 degrees. Let range be constant 40 meters. Let's solve for velocity.

Range= (velocity2 Sin (2angle) ) / g

Range * g = velocity^2 * sin (2 angle)
Range * g/sin(2 angle) = velocity ^2

velocity = square root of ((Range * g)/(sin (2 * angle)))

Do you agree with that?

Now let's look at a pass that is 46 degrees of arc and a pass that is 60 degrees of arc. Per your hypothesis, the 46 degrees of arc will have a higher velocity. Let's see:

For arc of 46 degrees:

square root of ((40 meters * 9.8 meters/second^2)/(sin (2 * 46 degrees))) = 19.81 meters/second for 46 degrees of arc.

Now let's see 60 degrees of arc.

square root of ((40 meters * 9.8 meters/second^2)/(sin (2 * 60 degrees))) = 21.27 meters/second for 60 degrees of arc.

This contradictions your claim. The reason it does so because your claim is only correct if the angle of arc is 45 degrees or lower.

Whether the arc of the pass is above or below 45 degrees is the key here.

.
.
.

EDIT: JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'll concede that technically you guys are right because, based on the eye test, I don't think most QBs throw like Russel Wilson. Sam Darnold is probably closer to the norm, which means most guys aren't throwing with an arc angle above 45 degrees for deep passes. I might be wrong on that, but I think it's probably at least 60% of them throwing with lower than 45 degree arc on deep balls.

Oh and it's certainly true that lower trajectory takes more arm for shorter and mid-range passes, because clearly no one is throwing the ball to the moon to complete a slant or a deep in.

It is alll good 5G, dude I am straight up impressed you have this stuff in your head being able to be called on at will.... dude.... impressive

his long ball looked better this week, i think it is taking some time to adjust to the new strength he has now

Originally posted by Dshearn:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Dshearn:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by 49erKing:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by tankle104:

#49ers QB Brock Purdy has (so far) simultaneously improved in time before throw, air yards per attempt and yards per attempt.

2022: 2.93 seconds, 7.0 air yds/att., 8.4 yds/att.

2023: 2.56 seconds, 7.2 air yds/att., 9.1 yds/att.

Ball out quicker but still gaining more yards.

— Nick Wagoner (@nwagoner) October 2, 2023

Arm is definitely stronger than Montana's.

No not really. They both throw extremely catchable balls on all their different types of throws though. Both elite there.

Disagree, I remember Montana's long balls had more arch to them. Early in Montana's career (Before Rice) he had long ball issues. Which are not a big deal during the early years as he had Wendell Tyler. That Aiyuk 40+ yard throw was a flatter trajectory than Montana's usual deep throws, as I recall it.

Having a lower trajectory on deep balls all the time means your arm isn't as strong, because you have to cut out the wasted motion. You think Russell Wilson has a weak arm? His deep balls are more tear drop than anyone's I've ever seen.

The second the ball leaves your hand, the only forces working on it are gravity and friction. A high arching ball travels a further net distance than a flattened one. It takes more arm to throw more distance. QBs who depend on a flat arc for deep balls probably do not have as strong an arm as those who don't.

HOWEVER, it could also merely be a preference. The QB maybe doesn't anticipate as much as the tear drop guy and has to sling it to get it there in time, or perhaps they're paranoid about the ball taking a long time to get there.

.
.
.
EDIT: before I get tarred and feathered, I'm not talking about Brock. His arm is plenty strong enough to hit every throw you need to wear a gold jacket. I'm just talking theoretically. If you HAVE to have a low trajectory to throw deep, your arm isn't as strong as someone who can easily do either.

Any science behind this? I think if someone wants to throw deep, if they have the time, and it makes sense, they "naturally" conform to throwing with a higher arc/higher trajectory. I mean that's how I feel when I play catch with the guys. If you're trying to laser it while going deep I think that actually means you have a stronger arm than most.

Yeah. Pythagoras (Extended to curves; the same principle applies, you just add up the infinitesimal distances via a line integral, but it's essentially the same thing. In Euclidean geometry, a straight line is the shortest path between two points.). A high arcing ball travels more distance. As the ball is not getting any additional force as it leaves (basic physics), what you put into it upon release is all it has. So throwing with a high arc doesn't give you some boost. That's not how physics work. Draw a free body diagram. Only gravity and friction are of any consequence once it's released.

So, the high arcing ball is thrown further in actual distance traveled than the low arcing one.

Which means, if you MUST throw with a low arc to get it there, your arm is weaker. (By arm strength I mean how far you can throw the ball, but I see no reason why velocity and distance would be different as a measure of arm strength unless the QB has mechanical problems which make one of either his distance or velocity throws more inefficient.)

Yes, but gravity is the main factor here. If a QB threw the ball on the shortest path, a strait line, it would be impossible arm strength to accomplish on a 40 yard throw. Likewise a QB throwing the ball as high as a skyscraper and it traveling 40 yards in distance. The real measure is ball velocity as it leaves his hands a a tight rope tends to have greater velocity than a moon shot.

Humor me. The critical point is 45 degrees, IIRC.

Horizontal distance is 40 meters.

One QB throws the ball with an angle of 45 degrees. The other throws with a height of 75 degrees. Who has the greater velocity?

The formula for horizontal distance is:
R = [v^2 sin(2α)]/(g)
So v = sqrt [Rg/(sin[2α])]

R = 40.

α for the low arc is: 45 degrees (calculated using the same formula)

α for the high arc is: 75 degrees.

So the HORIZONTAL velocities are, respectfully: sqrt [40m *g/(sin[2*45])] = 19.8 m/s, and sqrt [40m*g/(sin[2*75])] = 39.6 m/s.

The interesting thing with sin is that it's a periodic function. That means there are times when a LOWER trajectory would take more initial velocity than a higher one, and there are times when a HIGHER trajectory would take more initial velocity. You brought up the fact that a zero trajectory would take infinite velocity. That's true. So would a 90 degree trajectory.

So, if the QB is throwing with an arc greater than 45 degrees, each additional degree of arc requires more arm strength. If the QB is throwing with an arc less than 45 degrees, each additional degree of arc requires more arm strength. Russell Wilson appears to throw with greater than 45 degree arc, so the higher he throws it, the more arm strength it takes.

I think that the truth of the matter here is that the biggest factor in arc is QB preference, and if there's a weakness or a strength with a QB who chooses one or the other, it has to be related to vision and anticipation, not arm strength.

ok so if you know the math...... Range is equal to velocity acted upon by gravity and ding ding the angle
Range= (velocity2 Sin (2angle) ) / g

Then you know, the stronger arm can throw FARTHER on a flatter line... The less velocity you have, you have to add arc.

That is literally the formula I used. Now compare angles ABOVE 45 degrees. Let range be constant 40 meters. Let's solve for velocity.

Range= (velocity2 Sin (2angle) ) / g

Range * g = velocity^2 * sin (2 angle)
Range * g/sin(2 angle) = velocity ^2

velocity = square root of ((Range * g)/(sin (2 * angle)))

Do you agree with that?

Now let's look at a pass that is 46 degrees of arc and a pass that is 60 degrees of arc. Per your hypothesis, the 46 degrees of arc will have a higher velocity. Let's see:

For arc of 46 degrees:

square root of ((40 meters * 9.8 meters/second^2)/(sin (2 * 46 degrees))) = 19.81 meters/second for 46 degrees of arc.

Now let's see 60 degrees of arc.

square root of ((40 meters * 9.8 meters/second^2)/(sin (2 * 60 degrees))) = 21.27 meters/second for 60 degrees of arc.

This contradictions your claim. The reason it does so because your claim is only correct if the angle of arc is 45 degrees or lower.

Whether the arc of the pass is above or below 45 degrees is the key here.

.
.
.

EDIT: JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'll concede that technically you guys are right because, based on the eye test, I don't think most QBs throw like Russel Wilson. Sam Darnold is probably closer to the norm, which means most guys aren't throwing with an arc angle above 45 degrees for deep passes. I might be wrong on that, but I think it's probably at least 60% of them throwing with lower than 45 degree arc on deep balls.

Oh and it's certainly true that lower trajectory takes more arm for shorter and mid-range passes, because clearly no one is throwing the ball to the moon to complete a slant or a deep in.

It is alll good 5G, dude I am straight up impressed you have this stuff in your head being able to be called on at will.... dude.... impressive

LOL nah I just remember the gist and look up the formulas, and a little intuition. Like it's hard to throw a ball far, but it's also hard to throw it high, so logically there's a point where either can take more arm. And as for the math, like, you remember that 45, 90, 0 and 1 degrees are important for trig functions, but you forget which of cos and sin are undefined at 90 degrees and which equals 1 at 90, because why would you remember when they look exactly the same except shifted on a graph? So yeah no, I looked up the formula. But as soon as you see it, it comes back, just like tankle was talking about.

Who is that meathead on Twitter that keeps track of Brock's "almost could have been bad plays?" What will he say this week?

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Who is that meathead on Twitter that keeps track of Brock's "almost could have been bad plays?" What will he say this week?

Probably that he could have completed that pass to McCaffrey lmao. Or that the first deep ball wasn't perfect. But I mean ffs the guy had a 97.2 QBR. Anyone trashing him after a near perfect performance like that loses their football card.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Who is that meathead on Twitter that keeps track of Brock's "almost could have been bad plays?" What will he say this week?

Probably that he could have completed that pass to McCaffrey lmao. Or that the first deep ball wasn't perfect.

Something like that.

I find it interesting that no QB has ever had a 100% game

The cowboys are obviously the next test on the schedule but Brock has already had a solid game manager type game against them in the playoffs. Will it be more telling if he improves upon that performance this Sunday? Of course. For me though, the real test comes 12/3 in Philly against the defense that knocked him and the 49ers out of the playoffs last season. If he can go into Philly and come away with a win, I don't see any opponent getting in our way of #6.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Who is that meathead on Twitter that keeps track of Brock's "almost could have been bad plays?" What will he say this week?

How about the people that kept track of interceptions and Near Interceptions in..... Training Camp!