QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:
There is no "bad look for the 49ers" for the franchise given his '24 year, as I've heard that alot of analysts out there would be nervous about going too far for a player that still has alot to prove. And even if there was,...if they dont wanna take the high risk of a bloated contract, then that's simply their choice.

Yeah that's not true at all. It may not be to all fans but to players it's a really bad look.

Not true at all? Then the reverse is true....going too far at this juncture and taking on a bloated contract is okay, since it's your QB, Brock?

I think this "bad look" thing is pretty much rhetoric because it takes 2 to tango!

The bad look would perhaps be to tell him and his reps "you know what?! We're not negotiating any extensions this year. We'll wait till next offseason." --- which, they could take a stance on and do if they were really all in on this "bad guy" role.

Saying "not signing Brock is a bad look," on the other hand, is a bad look in itself, because both sides have to agree to terms, and players know this. As they negotiate terms, it's up to Brock to sign.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by genus49:
Purdy was being mocked much earlier in mocks being done well ahead of that draft so at some point people felt he was good enough to go a lot higher than he did.

Here is one article talking about two mocks that had him going in the first round.

https://247sports.com/college/iowa-state/article/iowa-state-football-2021-nfl-draft-brock-purdy-quarterback-showing-up-first-round-selection-146558945/amp/

Obviously things changed after that season but we've seen draft stock fluctuate before but clearly at one point he was showing enough to make people think of him as a mid-late first rounder and it wasn't with him growing an extra few inches or suddenly getting a bazooka for an arm.

Nice find Genus!!!! It's awesome to have a dual threat NUK SU KOW

You bleed like Maile!!

👏👏🤣 "why Dey so pissed at me?!"

"Because I say they no good fighters and their mothers have sex with mules"

Originally posted by PRIMETIME21:
No offense to purdy but Kyle shannahan can make any qb look good , he the real rockstar, give him 40 max

What happened to your " give him 30 m per year take it or leave it"? Now it's 40M.

That's as ridiculous as the post wanting to give him 600M over 10 years.

I think the 49ers and Purdy will agree on something like 5/240. I doubt he gets into the 60m per yr range.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by PRIMETIME21:
No offense to purdy but Kyle shannahan can make any qb look good , he the real rockstar, give him 40 max

What happened to your " give him 30 m per year take it or leave it"? Now it's 40M.

This is just how negotaitions go.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:
He can use it, sure. But there's not some judge that gets to decide a final number or anything. He's under contract and without anywhere near the number of years Geno has in the NFL.

Geno's tenured and since LV's coach knows exactly what they're getting out of him (low risk), I'm sure they already had some general number amounts in mind before any trade happened.

Brock's situation is completely different and unique, actually. Can be seen as a high risk/high reward situation. When you make him automatically better than whatever players u so choose, you've obviously put all your chips in towards the "high reward" scenario.

The 49ers know better than any of us just what level that risk is if we're talking longterm contract RIGHT NOW for Purdy,...and that'll be reflected.

There is no "bad look for the 49ers" for the franchise given his '24 year, as I've heard that alot of analysts out there would be nervous about going to far for a player that still has alot to prove. And even if there was,...if they dont wanna take the high risk of a bloated contract, then that's simply their choice.

The owners colluded to come up with this "Franchise Tag" thing for exact scenarios such as this one.

Yeah that's not true at all. It may not be to all fans but to players it's a really bad look.

Let's take feelings out of it and look at facts.

We don't get to the NFCCG without Brock in 2022. Definitely don't get to the SB without him in 2023.

Without him the Lance deal absolutely guts us.

He's done all this for a fraction of what Lance and virtually every other QB starting anywhere near the amount of games he's started for us.

Virtually every so called Avenger getting paid big $ in the SB underperformed.

Guys like Trent, CMC, Aiyuk got paid huge bucks this past offseason and then didn't deliver anywhere near their worth on the field.

The majority of issues on offense and team record was cuz of decisions the team made.

Sure it's a business so they can do whatever they want but it is a bad look to pay guys who came up lame then take it out on Brock cuz he couldn't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t.

Excellent way to put it.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:
There is no "bad look for the 49ers" for the franchise given his '24 year, as I've heard that alot of analysts out there would be nervous about going too far for a player that still has alot to prove. And even if there was,...if they dont wanna take the high risk of a bloated contract, then that's simply their choice.

Yeah that's not true at all. It may not be to all fans but to players it's a really bad look.

Not true at all? Then the reverse is true....going too far at this juncture and taking on a bloated contract is okay, since it's your QB, Brock?

I think this "bad look" thing is pretty much rhetoric because it takes 2 to tango!

The bad look would perhaps be to tell him and his reps "you know what?! We're not negotiating any extensions this year. We'll wait till next offseason." --- which, they could take a stance on and do if they were really all in on this "bad guy" role.

Saying "not signing Brock is a bad look," on the other hand, is a bad look in itself, because both sides have to agree to terms, and players know this. As they negotiate terms, it's up to Brock to sign.

What are you talking about man? QB contracts are bloated across the league.

However I can't think of many other situations where a team makes a huge swing for a QB that blows up in their face in such an epic way as our Lance move did and a 7th round QB comes in to do what Brock has done.

No matter how much you want to think other teams made mistakes with their QBs it's still something almost every franchise does when they have a QB they believe in and so far the 49ers haven't said or done anything that says they don't believe in Brock as their guy.

Originally posted by Cg9erSF:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:
He can use it, sure. But there's not some judge that gets to decide a final number or anything. He's under contract and without anywhere near the number of years Geno has in the NFL.

Geno's tenured and since LV's coach knows exactly what they're getting out of him (low risk), I'm sure they already had some general number amounts in mind before any trade happened.

Brock's situation is completely different and unique, actually. Can be seen as a high risk/high reward situation. When you make him automatically better than whatever players u so choose, you've obviously put all your chips in towards the "high reward" scenario.

The 49ers know better than any of us just what level that risk is if we're talking longterm contract RIGHT NOW for Purdy,...and that'll be reflected.

There is no "bad look for the 49ers" for the franchise given his '24 year, as I've heard that alot of analysts out there would be nervous about going to far for a player that still has alot to prove. And even if there was,...if they dont wanna take the high risk of a bloated contract, then that's simply their choice.

The owners colluded to come up with this "Franchise Tag" thing for exact scenarios such as this one.

Yeah that's not true at all. It may not be to all fans but to players it's a really bad look.

Let's take feelings out of it and look at facts.

We don't get to the NFCCG without Brock in 2022. Definitely don't get to the SB without him in 2023.

Without him the Lance deal absolutely guts us.

He's done all this for a fraction of what Lance and virtually every other QB starting anywhere near the amount of games he's started for us.

Virtually every so called Avenger getting paid big $ in the SB underperformed.

Guys like Trent, CMC, Aiyuk got paid huge bucks this past offseason and then didn't deliver anywhere near their worth on the field.

The majority of issues on offense and team record was cuz of decisions the team made.

Sure it's a business so they can do whatever they want but it is a bad look to pay guys who came up lame then take it out on Brock cuz he couldn't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t.

Excellent way to put it.

Brock is the man and more than deserves to be paid. He's also the least of our problems.. he's actually one of our better and more stable players.

they need to get this done and move to more pressing team issues. Pay him and fix the gaping holes on the roster

Dat JA contract doe.

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:
Dat JA contract doe.

$55M a year for Allen that far into the future feels… kind of low to me? Massive guarantees though.

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:
Dat JA contract doe.

$55M a year for Allen that far into the future feels… kind of low to me? Massive guarantees though.

How does Allen's new contract compare to Dak's contract? Purdy has to get at least somewhere in between those two deals right?

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:
Dat JA contract doe.

$55M a year for Allen that far into the future feels… kind of low to me? Massive guarantees though.

That's why it's "low".

The APY means nothing. It's all about the gtd money.

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:
Dat JA contract doe.

$55M a year for Allen that far into the future feels… kind of low to me? Massive guarantees though.

How does Allen's new contract compare to Dak's contract? Purdy has to get at least somewhere in between those two deals right?

Dak got $60M a year. The initial headlines are misleading. This is a record in guarantees but not even close in APY

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:
Dat JA contract doe.

$55M a year for Allen that far into the future feels… kind of low to me? Massive guarantees though.

How does Allen's new contract compare to Dak's contract? Purdy has to get at least somewhere in between those two deals right?

Dak got $60M a year. The initial headlines are misleading. This is a record in guarantees but not even close in APY

Thanks, Purdy isn't going to come cheap.

This just in: Purdy didn't get cheaper

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by DRCHOWDER:
Dat JA contract doe.

$55M a year for Allen that far into the future feels… kind of low to me? Massive guarantees though.

How does Allen's new contract compare to Dak's contract? Purdy has to get at least somewhere in between those two deals right?

Dak got $60M a year. The initial headlines are misleading. This is a record in guarantees but not even close in APY

Thanks, Purdy isn't going to come cheap.

$55M became Purdy's ceiling