QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
9-11 is about right. That's not top 5 which is what I said. I just don't want to see the 49ers pay him like a top 5 QB at this point. If he signs a 4 year deal and preforms well during that time he'll still be young enough to sign a bigger deal. He'sging to get a massive amount of money for sure. Even if he gets $27-$32 mil per year it's an enormous increase for him. I doubt he'll starve over the next few years.

I' know tha tthe league is signing guys for obscene amounts of money but that doen't mean it's right. This escalation can't continue forever.

No matter how much you don't want to see it...it's going to keep happening.

It's all about the details and structure of the contract. Don't get fooled by the APY numbers that will come out first.

Also there is no way in hell he's signing for just $27-32 mil per year. Though his cap hits may be around that level and obviously spread out.

Do you think salaries can keeo rising at the current rate? If they do they'll be getting $100 million per year by 2035. How much do you think tickets will cost then? If salaries for the fans were rising at that rate it wouldn't matter but eventually there has to be a breaking point. My guess is the league and the players association will need to come together and agree on player caps as well as team caps.

What are the players going to do? Go back to looking for a real job working in a store or driving a truck? There's no where else where they can come close to making what they make now. No place. I don't want to hear the old crap about their careers being short. We all know that but they chose to be football players. If they have any type of career at all they end up doing PR work or getting a TV deal as a commentator. The ones that don't go out and find a regular job. Something they would have done anyway if they hadn't been signed by an NFL team.

Tickets cost whatever people are willing to pay, salaries have nothing to do with it.
So much money comes from TV, licensing, gambling etc. NFL revenue has skyrocketed. Only 48% of NFL revenue goes to player salaries, the lowest of the major sports. MLB, by comparison, uses 54% of revenue for salaries.

Yes the NFL gets revenue from many surces. When networks pay the leafgue more to broadcast, they typically raise their rates to the viewers. Ticket prices go up all the time in response to increased costs. Salaries are part of that cost.

The idea that one team can't take a stand is why this continues. Teams can't get together behind closed doors and decide to stop paying big money. That's collusion. That's why I said it will probably take a meeting between the owners and players association to reach some type of agreement. It would bein the players, owners and fans best interest if they did.

Aside from the obscene amount of money they're paying some players I'm concrned that it's going to hurt the game overall. Football is the ultimate team sport and paying too much to 5 or 6 players doesn't allow you to keep talent at key positions . There's no reason they can't develop a pay scale with a min and max for each position like other unions do. The idea that every guy must make more than the last guy is crazy.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Yes the NFL gets revenue from many surces. When networks pay the leafgue more to broadcast, they typically raise their rates to the viewers. Ticket prices go up all the time in response to increased costs. Salaries are part of that cost.

The idea that one team can't take a stand is why this continues. Teams can't get together behind closed doors and decide to stop paying big money. That's collusion. That's why I said it will probably take a meeting between the owners and players association to reach some type of agreement. It would bein the players, owners and fans best interest if they did.

Aside from the obscene amount of money they're paying some players I'm concrned that it's going to hurt the game overall. Football is the ultimate team sport and paying too much to 5 or 6 players doesn't allow you to keep talent at key positions . There's no reason they can't develop a pay scale with a min and max for each position like other unions do. The idea that every guy must make more than the last guy is crazy.

Why do you care? They only pay players 48% of revenue. Premier League players receive over 70% of revenue.
If players suddenly received 10% of revenue, ticket prices would not drop.
You are just advocating more money for billionaire owners.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Yes the NFL gets revenue from many surces. When networks pay the leafgue more to broadcast, they typically raise their rates to the viewers. Ticket prices go up all the time in response to increased costs. Salaries are part of that cost.

The idea that one team can't take a stand is why this continues. Teams can't get together behind closed doors and decide to stop paying big money. That's collusion. That's why I said it will probably take a meeting between the owners and players association to reach some type of agreement. It would bein the players, owners and fans best interest if they did.

Aside from the obscene amount of money they're paying some players I'm concrned that it's going to hurt the game overall. Football is the ultimate team sport and paying too much to 5 or 6 players doesn't allow you to keep talent at key positions . There's no reason they can't develop a pay scale with a min and max for each position like other unions do. The idea that every guy must make more than the last guy is crazy.

Why do you care? They only pay players 48% of revenue. Premier League players receive over 70% of revenue.
If players suddenly received 10% of revenue, ticket prices would not drop.
You are just advocating more money for billionaire owners.

There is a salary cap for a reason. No matter how much you pay your players, you still have to be under the cap. If teams want to pay one player half the cap, so be it.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Yes the NFL gets revenue from many surces. When networks pay the leafgue more to broadcast, they typically raise their rates to the viewers. Ticket prices go up all the time in response to increased costs. Salaries are part of that cost.

The idea that one team can't take a stand is why this continues. Teams can't get together behind closed doors and decide to stop paying big money. That's collusion. That's why I said it will probably take a meeting between the owners and players association to reach some type of agreement. It would bein the players, owners and fans best interest if they did.

Aside from the obscene amount of money they're paying some players I'm concrned that it's going to hurt the game overall. Football is the ultimate team sport and paying too much to 5 or 6 players doesn't allow you to keep talent at key positions . There's no reason they can't develop a pay scale with a min and max for each position like other unions do. The idea that every guy must make more than the last guy is crazy.

Why do you care? They only pay players 48% of revenue. Premier League players receive over 70% of revenue.
If players suddenly received 10% of revenue, ticket prices would not drop.
You are just advocating more money for billionaire owners.

There is a salary cap for a reason. No matter how much you pay your players, you still have to be under the cap. If teams want to pay one player half the cap, so be it.

I'm concerned because I hear it all the time on this forum and on talk radio. The QB is great but he needs better receivers. The QB is great but they need a running game to take some of the pressure off. Most of all I hear he needs a better O line. All of those things are true which is why I don't think overpaying a few players isa good model. Eventually teams end up like the Niners with one good but aging O lineman. They're probably going to lose one of the better reeceivers.

I just hate seeing good chess ieces leave because the team cn't find a way to fit them under the cap.

Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I'm concerned because I hear it all the time on this forum and on talk radio. The QB is great but he needs better receivers. The QB is great but they need a running game to take some of the pressure off. Most of all I hear he needs a better O line. All of those things are true which is why I don't think overpaying a few players isa good model. Eventually teams end up like the Niners with one good but aging O lineman. They're probably going to lose one of the better reeceivers.

I just hate seeing good chess ieces leave because the team cn't find a way to fit them under the cap.

Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

the team cap is effectively a cap on players. kc can't pay mahomes 500m annual for example. or 200m annual. or even 100m annual. if you look at percent of cap given to QB, about the fattest you'll see in nfl history is 25%. meaning if the cap is 272 million, the QB ceiling (25%) is effectively 68m.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Yes the NFL gets revenue from many surces. When networks pay the leafgue more to broadcast, they typically raise their rates to the viewers. Ticket prices go up all the time in response to increased costs. Salaries are part of that cost.

The idea that one team can't take a stand is why this continues. Teams can't get together behind closed doors and decide to stop paying big money. That's collusion. That's why I said it will probably take a meeting between the owners and players association to reach some type of agreement. It would bein the players, owners and fans best interest if they did.

Aside from the obscene amount of money they're paying some players I'm concrned that it's going to hurt the game overall. Football is the ultimate team sport and paying too much to 5 or 6 players doesn't allow you to keep talent at key positions . There's no reason they can't develop a pay scale with a min and max for each position like other unions do. The idea that every guy must make more than the last guy is crazy.

Why do you care? They only pay players 48% of revenue. Premier League players receive over 70% of revenue.
If players suddenly received 10% of revenue, ticket prices would not drop.
You are just advocating more money for billionaire owners.

There is a salary cap for a reason. No matter how much you pay your players, you still have to be under the cap. If teams want to pay one player half the cap, so be it.

I'm concerned because I hear it all the time on this forum and on talk radio. The QB is great but he needs better receivers. The QB is great but they need a running game to take some of the pressure off. Most of all I hear he needs a better O line. All of those things are true which is why I don't think overpaying a few players isa good model. Eventually teams end up like the Niners with one good but aging O lineman. They're probably going to lose one of the better reeceivers.

I just hate seeing good chess ieces leave because the team cn't find a way to fit them under the cap.

Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

Which good chess pieces do you think we've lost because of a high QB contract?

If this season showed us anything is that people's concerns about Brock's deal should fall by the wayside.

You had the best QB in the game play some of his worst football to lose the SB in a blowout because he had poor pass pro and his receivers weren't getting open or would drop passes in key moments.

Meanwhile the other side had a QB with limitations in his game who got the "highest paid QB deal" just two years prior because the team built around him and drafted well, brought in key talent and managed to stay healthy and got the refs to help them out.

The idea that we're going to be bleeding talent is a bit silly. That will happen to any team that doesn't draft well or makes bad decisions in FA. If the 49ers make smart decisions and keep drafting well we'll be just fine with Brock.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

yes it would be a tough sell. one thing i would like to see for the good of the game, is an 18 game season, with 2 preseason games. 2 preseason is enough imo. the season should have an even number of games. 17 gives some teams more home games than others. i understand they even that out over 2 years, but it's still not balanced every season. another idea i had, is you can cap player games. so players can only play 16 or 17 games. they would have to be inactive if they have played a max number of regular season games. that would help ease concerns of an 18 game season. just some ideas

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

yes it would be a tough sell. one thing i would like to see for the good of the game, is an 18 game season, with 2 preseason games. 2 preseason is enough imo. the season should have an even number of games. 17 gives some teams more home games than others. i understand they even that out over 2 years, but it's still not balanced every season. another idea i had, is you can cap player games. so players can only play 16 or 17 games. they would have to be inactive if they have played a max number of regular season games. that would help ease concerns of an 18 game season. just some ideas

lol you know that's crazy right? Imagine having a must win game to get into the playoffs and having your QB have to sit because of a quota.

I'm sure the 18 games will happen eventually but I think it's a big mistake. It's hard enough to see teams not get decimated by injuries and it's pretty rare to see a beat up team no matter how good make it to the SB. Adding another game will just allow for more injury opportunities.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

yes it would be a tough sell. one thing i would like to see for the good of the game, is an 18 game season, with 2 preseason games. 2 preseason is enough imo. the season should have an even number of games. 17 gives some teams more home games than others. i understand they even that out over 2 years, but it's still not balanced every season. another idea i had, is you can cap player games. so players can only play 16 or 17 games. they would have to be inactive if they have played a max number of regular season games. that would help ease concerns of an 18 game season. just some ideas

lol you know that's crazy right? Imagine having a must win game to get into the playoffs and having your QB have to sit because of a quota.

I'm sure the 18 games will happen eventually but I think it's a big mistake. It's hard enough to see teams not get decimated by injuries and it's pretty rare to see a beat up team no matter how good make it to the SB. Adding another game will just allow for more injury opportunities.

should go back to 16 games

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

yes it would be a tough sell. one thing i would like to see for the good of the game, is an 18 game season, with 2 preseason games. 2 preseason is enough imo. the season should have an even number of games. 17 gives some teams more home games than others. i understand they even that out over 2 years, but it's still not balanced every season. another idea i had, is you can cap player games. so players can only play 16 or 17 games. they would have to be inactive if they have played a max number of regular season games. that would help ease concerns of an 18 game season. just some ideas

lol you know that's crazy right? Imagine having a must win game to get into the playoffs and having your QB have to sit because of a quota.

I'm sure the 18 games will happen eventually but I think it's a big mistake. It's hard enough to see teams not get decimated by injuries and it's pretty rare to see a beat up team no matter how good make it to the SB. Adding another game will just allow for more injury opportunities.

it would add an interesting wrinkle for sure. a lot of guys would naturally be inactive for a game or two, simply with injuries that happen over a season. ideally players would simply play 18 games, however, i understand there is a lot of pushback from the players on this front for safety concerns. if this rule existed, maybe we sit down warner when he has the fracture, as he would have to sit at some point anyway. so maybe clubs lean more into player safety, which would not be a bad thing imo. it gives more guys a chance to play also.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

yes it would be a tough sell. one thing i would like to see for the good of the game, is an 18 game season, with 2 preseason games. 2 preseason is enough imo. the season should have an even number of games. 17 gives some teams more home games than others. i understand they even that out over 2 years, but it's still not balanced every season. another idea i had, is you can cap player games. so players can only play 16 or 17 games. they would have to be inactive if they have played a max number of regular season games. that would help ease concerns of an 18 game season. just some ideas

lol you know that's crazy right? Imagine having a must win game to get into the playoffs and having your QB have to sit because of a quota.

I'm sure the 18 games will happen eventually but I think it's a big mistake. It's hard enough to see teams not get decimated by injuries and it's pretty rare to see a beat up team no matter how good make it to the SB. Adding another game will just allow for more injury opportunities.

it would add an interesting wrinkle for sure. a lot of guys would naturally be inactive for a game or two, simply with injuries that happen over a season. ideally players would simply play 18 games, however, i understand there is a lot of pushback from the players on this front for safety concerns. if this rule existed, maybe we sit down warner when he has the fracture, as he would have to sit at some point anyway. so maybe clubs lean more into player safety, which would not be a bad thing imo. it gives more guys a chance to play also.

Since most contracts are incentive based, missing a game or two can lose millions in bonuses

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

yes it would be a tough sell. one thing i would like to see for the good of the game, is an 18 game season, with 2 preseason games. 2 preseason is enough imo. the season should have an even number of games. 17 gives some teams more home games than others. i understand they even that out over 2 years, but it's still not balanced every season. another idea i had, is you can cap player games. so players can only play 16 or 17 games. they would have to be inactive if they have played a max number of regular season games. that would help ease concerns of an 18 game season. just some ideas

I'm on board with only 2 preseason games. That makes sense.

An 18-game schedule has been rejected by the Player's Association in past discussions.

Keep the season as organic as possible. Mandatory inactive restrictions will never fly. Never. Competitive pressure in key games at the end of the year is too great.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

yes it would be a tough sell. one thing i would like to see for the good of the game, is an 18 game season, with 2 preseason games. 2 preseason is enough imo. the season should have an even number of games. 17 gives some teams more home games than others. i understand they even that out over 2 years, but it's still not balanced every season. another idea i had, is you can cap player games. so players can only play 16 or 17 games. they would have to be inactive if they have played a max number of regular season games. that would help ease concerns of an 18 game season. just some ideas

I'm on board with only 2 preseason games. That makes sense.

An 18-game schedule has been rejected by the Player's Association in past discussions.

Keep the season as organic as possible. Mandatory inactive restrictions will never fly. Never. Competitive pressure in key games at the end of the year is too great.

We are required to pay for those games, so yes please eliminate them! Preseason games are no fun.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Teams have a cap so why not have a cap on players.

...because the Player's Association will NEVER approve any plan restricting an individual player from negotiating the best deal they can get.

yes it would be a tough sell. one thing i would like to see for the good of the game, is an 18 game season, with 2 preseason games. 2 preseason is enough imo. the season should have an even number of games. 17 gives some teams more home games than others. i understand they even that out over 2 years, but it's still not balanced every season. another idea i had, is you can cap player games. so players can only play 16 or 17 games. they would have to be inactive if they have played a max number of regular season games. that would help ease concerns of an 18 game season. just some ideas

I'm on board with only 2 preseason games. That makes sense.

An 18-game schedule has been rejected by the Player's Association in past discussions.

Keep the season as organic as possible. Mandatory inactive restrictions will never fly. Never. Competitive pressure in key games at the end of the year is too great.

you are probably correct. the league will have to give concessions to players for them to play the 18, and they will probably agree to play the 18 at the end of the day. brock with 18 games ok, now he has an extra game to put up the numbers. this is why oj is impressive with 2k yards in a 14 game season.