QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by MucketyMuck:
Rumor obviously but some were talking market value

#Rams Matthew Stafford wants $50M per season.

The #Browns #Raiders and #Giants have reached out about a trade. pic.twitter.com/aws9E15trR

— NFL Rumors (@nflrums) February 24, 2025

Market value for an aging QB looking for mostly guaranteed money isn't the same as a young QB who will maybe get 70% guaranteed.

But it makes sense for us to sign Brock to eliminate another QB deal his agents can use to leverage.

If dogs**t teams like the Browns, Raiders and Giants are willing to give Stafford $50m a year, the posters who think there isnt a team out there that would give Purdy $55m+ are clearly wrong. Those teams arent winning anything anytime soon. So if thats the going rate for a QB who is 2 or so years away from retiring, then the rate for Brock logically is much more.

Great point.

Originally posted by 9moon:
Like you said, B-rock is good and solid.. but he seems limited, especially when the weather is bad.. so, if the kid from Notre Dame is there in the 3rd, I'd move UP and draft him..

I wouldn't. First & foremost I'd get an OL , followed by another. Protect your QB is paramount.

Originally posted by genus49:
Great point.

I don't think so, lol. The post boils down to assuming Brock's market value would be higher than Stafford's (I guess primarily due to his age) and that seems pretty fantastical.

Still not signed yet?

Originally posted by glorydayz:
Still not signed yet?

They still got Darnold in the back of their minds.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:
Great point.

I don't think so, lol. The post boils down to assuming Brock's market value would be higher than Stafford's (I guess primarily due to his age) and that seems pretty fantastical.

Why does that seem like that to you? You're paying for what a player will be but obviously have to account for he has done. Stafford's return is limited due to his age and those teams are not setup for quick turnarounds either so the short return you'd get from Stafford doesn't compute.

Originally posted by genus49:
Market value for an aging QB looking for mostly guaranteed money isn't the same as a young QB who will maybe get 70% guaranteed.

But it makes sense for us to sign Brock to eliminate another QB deal his agents can use to leverage.

By all means... let them use it. He's locked in.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by MucketyMuck:
Rumor obviously but some were talking market value

#Rams Matthew Stafford wants $50M per season.

The #Browns #Raiders and #Giants have reached out about a trade. pic.twitter.com/aws9E15trR

— NFL Rumors (@nflrums) February 24, 2025

the problem with stafford is his arm fell off late last year. rams know he's past his prime. otherwise they would pay him. the key takeaway is rams aren't gonna just pay their QB for past performance they are being critical of the recent results and want to be set up for future success.

I'm sure you're trying to make an analogy to Brock's situation here...forgetting the whole 12 year difference between Brock and Stafford.

Like I mentioned before people are quick to say Purdy had a down year...what about Stafford?

One guy's resume is extensively longer than the other's. One guy was (yet another) 1st Overall pick that I think teams are pretty comfortable with as far as whether or not he has the tools.

Those that think a 7th Rd pick can put up good numbers for 1 full year before a down year and have all these teams lined up to fork over $$55M yearly in GTD money are probably living in an alternate universe.

What did you hear about Stafford's performance in games this past season tho? I dont follow the Rams like that and havent heard much.

Originally posted by genus49:
Why does that seem like that to you? You're paying for what a player will be but obviously have to account for he has done. Stafford's return is limited due to his age and those teams are not setup for quick turnarounds either so the short return you'd get from Stafford doesn't compute.

The most basic reason is Stafford is a better player than Purdy. There's zero chance Purdy generates more interest in my mind, regardless of his age.

I'm not sure why you think any of those three teams couldn't become a playoff contender quickly with a high quality QB. A 2-3 window of Stafford is a nice get if you can acquire him for a reasonable trade package.

If Brian Griese is leaving the team that's bad news for Brock right? He's been his coach since day 1. Hopefully Griese stays with the team, but messing with Brock's coaches seems like a gamble.

Originally posted by mitpdub:
If Brian Griese is leaving the team that's bad news for Brock right? He's been his coach since day 1. Hopefully Griese stays with the team, but messing with Brock's coaches seems like a gamble.

Hard to speculate when there's no real information about his departure. Personally doubt it's at all related to Brock, but who knows. It didn't seem like he was going to be in coaching for the long haul from the outside looking in.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:
Why does that seem like that to you? You're paying for what a player will be but obviously have to account for he has done. Stafford's return is limited due to his age and those teams are not setup for quick turnarounds either so the short return you'd get from Stafford doesn't compute.

The most basic reason is Stafford is a better player than Purdy. There's zero chance Purdy generates more interest in my mind, regardless of his age.

I'm not sure why you think any of those three teams couldn't become a playoff contender quickly with a high quality QB. A 2-3 window of Stafford is a nice get if you can acquire him for a reasonable trade package.

This. I think BP is our best option (so long as someone doesn't go full retard on his contract) but he simply lacks the physical tools that Stafford has.

Originally posted by RedGoldSquatch:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:
Why does that seem like that to you? You're paying for what a player will be but obviously have to account for he has done. Stafford's return is limited due to his age and those teams are not setup for quick turnarounds either so the short return you'd get from Stafford doesn't compute.

The most basic reason is Stafford is a better player than Purdy. There's zero chance Purdy generates more interest in my mind, regardless of his age.

I'm not sure why you think any of those three teams couldn't become a playoff contender quickly with a high quality QB. A 2-3 window of Stafford is a nice get if you can acquire him for a reasonable trade package.

This. I think BP is our best option (so long as someone doesn't go full retard on his contract) but he simply lacks the physical tools that Stafford has.

Hope he makes it up with his mental tools.

Originally posted by mitpdub:
If Brian Griese is leaving the team that's bad news for Brock right? He's been his coach since day 1. Hopefully Griese stays with the team, but messing with Brock's coaches seems like a gamble.

I hope Griese stays too, but let's not attribute all of Brock's success on Griese. I think he'll be fine.

haha @ us being so so thankful for all things Brock related. Excited to see what he becomes, but....



We're "loyal" alright. Just not in the order in which people think we are.