QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:

Originally posted by dj43:
...and that is the bind.

Brock Purdy has put the 49ers in a bind, a pleasant one, but a bind. They have invested a TON in Lance, thinking they had no other option than to go down that road. Not in their wildest dreams did they see Purdy on the horizon. Unfortunately, or fortunately, whichever side one is on, they now have the quality of QB they wanted. It just isn't the guy in which they invested so much.

So, that is the bind.

What is amazing is that we used up 3 firsts and a third and have gotten virtually very little use out of Trey, and now two yrs later we have a stacked team going into the playoffs with better talent than we had 2 yrs ago, and a red hot QB starting. It is like those picks we gave up for Trey really didn't affect us much because even without Trey, we're doing fine…er, super fine.

To pull something like that off we have to have a smokin' hot F.O as well As studs at HC/GM. Look at Denver w/ a 9 figure QB that didn't work out plus they just fired their HC, and they traded away 6 picks besides. It would be tough being a DEN fan right now, and here we are on a mission to win the SB.

There is actually one simple way looking at this. In hindsight, it would have been worth trading three 1st and one 3rd for Brock Purdy.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Nowhere did I say that's not reality. I acknowledged the exact opposite in your Eagles example. You're not properly reading my positions, and arguing your incorrect interpretations, lol.

The 2021 49ers were a Super Bowl contending team with a veteran who had shown he could be the QB of a Super Bowl contending team. Giving the keys to a raw prospect in order to develop him on the fly COULD potentially hinder that team's ability to contend. The limited evidence indicated just that, and the coach's decision to start Jimmy G from the beginning of the season through multiple injuries in the playoffs also did so.

The 2021 Eagles were NOT a Super Bowl contending team with an established veteran QB. They were a fringe playoff team with a young QB prospect in Hurts, and former starter/backup who had started 20 games in Jacksonville over his two seasons in the NFL. It was not CLEAR who was the better starter between the two, and the consequences/risks for getting that decision wrong, or for prioritizing the development of Hurts, were much lower.

My argument has been the same…players get better when they play. If that player plays on a GOOD roster that only helps that young player get better.

you think SF was winning a SB with Jimmy. This team overall did NOT, hence the Lance pick. So that right there tells you all you need to know about how they felt about him. he had his shot and played some of the worst football (when it mattered) in Super Bowl history. Stop acting like lance was replacing prime Tom Brady.

Guys like Hurts and Allen are examples of players that were given time to develop and didn't play on a piece of s**t roster. Jackson is another. He was not a great passer, they allowed him to do what he's good at ALONG with developing as a passer…crazy they still won games.

I have no idea what you're talking about with hurts and a fringe starter? Wentz was the guy they moved on from…he was at one point a MVP candidate and helped that team win a SB in 2017. Foles was gone by 2018 and Minshew was always a backup. Hurts has been starting in games for Philly since 2020.

Drew Brees thrower. Poor man's Russell Wilson as a runner. A pretty good combination. He also plays like a 10 year veteran. That 47 starts in College makes a difference. 4 year starter at a major College program and it shows.

Originally posted by Wolf_Packer_53:
I know this may be quite a stretch, and the true answer will come next season when the tape is out there on Brock, but I could totally see him developing into a poor man's Brees. Similar build, very smart, great poise and leadership, arm strength is average. Brock definitely is more mobile then Brees, not much of a comparison there.

Can anyone give me the specifics of why he doesn't have the "potential" to developed into someone as good as Drew Brees?

I am only talking about potential since everyone has been talking about how Trey's potential being exponentially higher than Brock, as if Brock has low ceiling.

It's a real shame that Purdy wasn't around back in 2019. If he was our starter back then and in 2021, it's an undeniable fact that we'd have won the Super Bowl in both years.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
My argument has been the same…players get better when they play. If that player plays on a GOOD roster that only helps that young player get better.

you think SF was winning a SB with Jimmy. This team overall did NOT, hence the Lance pick. So that right there tells you all you need to know about how they felt about him. he had his shot and played some of the worst football (when it mattered) in Super Bowl history. Stop acting like lance was replacing prime Tom Brady.

Guys like Hurts and Allen are examples of players that were given time to develop and didn't play on a piece of s**t roster. Jackson is another. He was not a great passer, they allowed him to do what he's good at ALONG with developing as a passer…crazy they still won games.

I have no idea what you're talking about with hurts and a fringe starter? Wentz was the guy they moved on from…he was at one point a MVP candidate and helped that team win a SB in 2017. Foles was gone by 2018 and Minshew was always a backup. Hurts has been starting in games for Philly since 2020.

For the bolded, I was talking about the 2021 Eagles, and who the coaches had to choose between to start at quarterback. It was a young prospect in Hurts, or a fringe starter in Minshew. The Eagles were not expected to contend for a Super Bowl and the consequences for getting the decision wrong, or prioritizing Hurts' development, were lower. It was also not a CLEAR choice between the two for who would win more games in 2021.

As for the underlined, again you are misstating what I said. I did not state SF was winning a Super Bowl with Jimmy. I stated they had proven to be a Super Bowl contending team with Jimmy. That it was POSSIBLE they could win the Super Bowl with Jimmy. I think Jimmy is an average QB. Prioritizing the development of Lance, possibly at the cost of a Super Bowl contending team, given they had a CLEAR better player at the position at the time, is a completely different situation than the one the Eagles were in.

For reference at the start of the 21 season the 49ers were +1400 to win the Super Bowl. The Eagles were +10000. Very different outlooks.

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by Wolf_Packer_53:
I know this may be quite a stretch, and the true answer will come next season when the tape is out there on Brock, but I could totally see him developing into a poor man's Brees. Similar build, very smart, great poise and leadership, arm strength is average. Brock definitely is more mobile then Brees, not much of a comparison there.

Can anyone give me the specifics of why he doesn't have the "potential" to developed into someone as good as Drew Brees?

I am only talking about potential since everyone has been talking about how Trey's potential is exponentially higher than Brock, as if Brock has low ceiling.

Brock's arm is worse than Brees's was in his last year when he realized his arm wasn't good enough to compete anymore. That's why he's a poor man's Drew Brees. That doesn't mean he can't be good in this system with Kyle Shanahan working around his limitations, but there is a definite cap on how great he can be. He'll never be able to compete against the Mahomes and Josh Allens of the world.

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:
What is amazing is that we used up 3 firsts and a third and have gotten virtually very little use out of Trey, and now two yrs later we have a stacked team going into the playoffs with better talent than we had 2 yrs ago, and a red hot QB starting. It is like those picks we gave up for Trey really didn't affect us much because even without Trey, we're doing fine…er, super fine.

To pull something like that off we have to have a smokin' hot F.O as well As studs at HC/GM. Look at Denver w/ a 9 figure QB that didn't work out plus they just fired their HC, and they traded away 6 picks besides. It would be tough being a DEN fan right now, and here we are on a mission to win the SB.

No we need iol and real 2nd edge rusher, a 1v1 winner to complete this team. We could use those picks. A quality back up corner. Yea we could use those picks.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
For the bolded, I was talking about the 2021 Eagles, and who the coaches had to choose between to start at quarterback. It was a young prospect in Hurts, or a fringe starter in Minshew. The Eagles were not expected to contend for a Super Bowl and the consequences for getting the decision wrong, or prioritizing Hurts' development, were lower. It was also not a CLEAR choice between the two for who would win more games in 2021.

As for the underlined, again you are misstating what I said. I did not state SF was winning a Super Bowl with Jimmy. I stated they had proven to be a Super Bowl contending team with Jimmy. That it was POSSIBLE they could win the Super Bowl with Jimmy. I think Jimmy is an average QB. Prioritizing the development of Lance, possibly at the cost of a Super Bowl contending team, given they had a CLEAR better player at the position at the time, is a completely different situation than the one the Eagles were in.

For reference at the start of the 21 season the 49ers were +1400 to win the Super Bowl. The Eagles were +10000. Very different outlooks.

I don't think prioritizing one season over the next decade worth of seasons is a smart way to build a team. Only reason to do that would be if you could get a guy like Rodgers and we're confident he was the last piece to get you over the hump. Jimmy isn't that guy.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by Wolf_Packer_53:
I know this may be quite a stretch, and the true answer will come next season when the tape is out there on Brock, but I could totally see him developing into a poor man's Brees. Similar build, very smart, great poise and leadership, arm strength is average. Brock definitely is more mobile then Brees, not much of a comparison there.

Can anyone give me the specifics of why he doesn't have the "potential" to developed into someone as good as Drew Brees?

I am only talking about potential since everyone has been talking about how Trey's potential is exponentially higher than Brock, as if Brock has low ceiling.

Brock's arm is worse than Brees's was in his last year when he realized his arm wasn't good enough to compete anymore. That's why he's a poor man's Drew Brees. That doesn't mean he can't be good in this system with Kyle Shanahan working around his limitations, but there is a definite cap on how great he can be. He'll never be able to compete against the Mahomes and Josh Allens of the world.

If it is about arm strength, I am not sure about that. Brees was deemed to have a weak arm coming out of college. He got better via mechanical tweaks and training room. It got to a point in which he had an average arm strength for an NFL QB (excluding the late years in his career).

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Brock's arm is worse than Brees's was in his last year when he realized his arm wasn't good enough to compete anymore. That's why he's a poor man's Drew Brees. That doesn't mean he can't be good in this system with Kyle Shanahan working around his limitations, but there is a definite cap on how great he can be. He'll never be able to compete against the Mahomes and Josh Allens of the world.

Was Brees' arm below average?

The answer is important because it has been demonstrated that Purdy's arm is above average.

What would our record be if Purdy played the Chicago, Atlanta, and Bronco's games this year?

Chiefs were just too much for us earlier this year.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
I don't think prioritizing one season over the next decade worth of seasons is a smart way to build a team. Only reason to do that would be if you could get a guy like Rodgers and we're confident he was the last piece to get you over the hump. Jimmy isn't that guy.

I think that's what they should have tried to do, or they should have used assets to improve the team elsewhere. Just because you want something different or better, doesn't mean its actually there to be had.

As for prioritizing the immediate season, or the next couple of seasons which is really what it was, over 'the next decade', for me it depends on where your team is. If it's ready to win the Super Bowl (21 49ers), I think you maximize that teams chances in the now. If it isn't (21 Eagles), you don't.

It would be a no brainer to draft and play Trey Lance so he could develop if the realistic best case outlook for your team is a playoff appearance.

Originally posted by glorydayz:
What would our record be if Purdy played the Chicago, Atlanta, and Bronco's games this year?

Chiefs were just too much for us earlier this year.

I don't know. Purdy actually looked terrible in the KC game in garbage time, reminded me of Trey. Like half of his check downs were way off.

I would not expect him to be this good if he started in the season opener.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
It's a real shame that Purdy wasn't around back in 2019. If he was our starter back then and in 2021, it's an undeniable fact that we'd have won the Super Bowl in both years.

He was a college sophomore - just be glad he's here now and he's ours. Don't worry about stuff that was never a possibility to happen.