QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by FunkyChicken:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
Take the 45 yard Adams catch in the raiders game. It was ruled a catch. We all know that ball hit the ground but there wasn't a camera angle that gave the officials indisputable evidence to overrule the original call. He gets credited with a catch for 45 yards. You are saying that his stats are objective because of how that particular play was ruled. But its subjective because we can
explain why it wasn't a catch because neither one of his hands or arms were underneath that ball. Just because a stat is counted on the score sheet doesn't mean its not subjective and up for debate.

You are wrong. It's not debatable whether that play counted or not. It objectively counted, which is THL's point. All you can say is it shouldn't have counted, yet it objectively did. For example in Jeopardy if they asked Adams yardage for the game and you deducted that catch you would be buzzed as giving the wrong answer. Objectively so.

But we aren't on jeopardy and there is room for debate on that play whether you want to be a part of that debate or not.

I am guessing you folks don't spend a lot of time on various stat sites? None of them are identical when it comes to recorded stats. Those "objective stats" vary to some degree from site to site.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by boast:
a bunch of pages arguing "almost INTs"

only in the Romper Room™ and by many of the same people. lol.

It wasn't that bad. At least it's about football and not other posters.

If it were about other posters it would be subjective, just saying.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Oh, God. Please don't tell me we are back to this again. When they become actual turnovers then there might be something to talk about. Until then they're just incomplete passes.

As a rookie dealing with NFL defenses for the first time there is certainly going to be a learning curve. One can only hope that it doesn't happen often enough to make people believe that it is some sort of legitimate form of discussion

Turn over worthy plays is a real thing….if he keeps doing that then yes they will be turnovers at some point. He's a rookie, so that's gonna be expected. Brushing it off as nothing is silly imo.

Sorry it's not. It's just a stupid 'stat' made up to give people like Nina Kimes (is that her name?) something to talk about. Until it reaches the point where they become actual turnovers they have absolutely no more impact on a game than an incomplete pass would.

You can try and argue it anyway you want in the realm of if, and, or maybe but at the end of the day it's like saying, well today might be Wednesday, but it's not. It's Tuesday and no amount of phony projections about how it might really be Wednesday changes the basic fact of the thing.

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Oh, God. Please don't tell me we are back to this again. When they become actual turnovers then there might be something to talk about. Until then they're just incomplete passes.

As a rookie dealing with NFL defenses for the first time there is certainly going to be a learning curve. One can only hope that it doesn't happen often enough to make people believe that it is some sort of legitimate form of discussion

Turn over worthy plays is a real thing….if he keeps doing that then yes they will be turnovers at some point. He's a rookie, so that's gonna be expected. Brushing it off as nothing is silly imo.

Sorry it's not. It's just a stupid 'stat' made up to give people like Nina Kimes (is that her name?) something to talk about. Until it reaches the point where they become actual turnovers they have absolutely no more impact on a game than an incomplete pass would.

You can try and argue it anyway you want in the realm of if, and, or maybe but at the end of the day it's like saying, well today might be Wednesday, but it's not. It's Tuesday and no amount of phony projections about how it might really be Wednesday changes the basic fact of the thing.

If that is the case, I better never see AY/A brought up on the WZ ever again.

Originally posted by thl408:
Yeah, and there's a subjective stat for that "Turnover Worthy Plays".

Sure. However there is a correlation to PFF's TWPR (year after year) resulting in more INTs.

"In 2021, 49.3% of turnover-worthy pass attempts were actually intercepted, while 66.7% of interceptions were determined to be turnover-worthy pass attempts."

makes sense put the ball in harms way more often the higher the chances of INTs.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Sorry it's not. It's just a stupid 'stat' made up to give people like Nina Kimes (is that her name?) something to talk about. Until it reaches the point where they become actual turnovers they have absolutely no more impact on a game than an incomplete pass would.

You can try and argue it anyway you want in the realm of if, and, or maybe but at the end of the day it's like saying, well today might be Wednesday, but it's not. It's Tuesday and no amount of phony projections about how it might really be Wednesday changes the basic fact of the thing.

No it for sure is actually…no need to get upset about it.

common sense, put the ball in harms way more over the course of a large data point…it will turn into more INTs.

What's there to argue lol? You throw a ball into double coverage or throw it inaccurately you have a better chance of the other team intercepting it.

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Oh, God. Please don't tell me we are back to this again. When they become actual turnovers then there might be something to talk about. Until then they're just incomplete passes.

As a rookie dealing with NFL defenses for the first time there is certainly going to be a learning curve. One can only hope that it doesn't happen often enough to make people believe that it is some sort of legitimate form of discussion

Turn over worthy plays is a real thing….if he keeps doing that then yes they will be turnovers at some point. He's a rookie, so that's gonna be expected. Brushing it off as nothing is silly imo.

Sorry it's not. It's just a stupid 'stat' made up to give people like Nina Kimes (is that her name?) something to talk about. Until it reaches the point where they become actual turnovers they have absolutely no more impact on a game than an incomplete pass would.

You can try and argue it anyway you want in the realm of if, and, or maybe but at the end of the day it's like saying, well today might be Wednesday, but it's not. It's Tuesday and no amount of phony projections about how it might really be Wednesday changes the basic fact of the thing.

Do you believe that the QB should only be evaluated based on the result of the play?

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Do you believe that the QB should only be evaluated based on the result of the play?

do you agree "almost INTs" can be the result of the receiver making a mistake?

Originally posted by YACBros85:
If that is the case, I better never see AY/A brought up on the WZ ever again.

Not sure what's so divisive about turn over worthy rate? Do we not believe throwing an inaccurate ball or throwing into double coverage isn't a bad thing? Sweet they didn't pick it off that one time, keep doing it at a high rate over a larger sample size and they will become interceptions.

Originally posted by boast:
do you agree "almost INTs" can be the result of the receiver making a mistake?

Do you agree not all TD passes are because of the QB.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by boast:
a bunch of pages arguing "almost INTs"

only in the Romper Room™ and by many of the same people. lol.

It wasn't that bad. At least it's about football and not other posters.

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Do you believe that the QB should only be evaluated based on the result of the play?

do you agree "almost INTs" can be the result of the receiver making a mistake?

Sure, but so can actual interceptions. TWPs are likely to be more favorable to the QB, because in cases like that someone can make a reasonable assessment that the WR fell down or let it bounce off his hands and thus not count it as a TWP by the QB. It's not perfect because it's not always easy to identify fault, but it's more fair than just assuming every interception is 100% on the QB.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by boast:
do you agree "almost INTs" can be the result of the receiver making a mistake?

Do you agree not all TD passes are because of the QB.

not anywhere near the same clip that "almost INTs" can be attributed to receivers making the mistake

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
If that is the case, I better never see AY/A brought up on the WZ ever again.

Not sure what's so divisive about turn over worthy rate? Do we not believe throwing an inaccurate ball or throwing into double coverage isn't a bad thing? Sweet they didn't pick it off that one time, keep doing it at a high rate over a larger sample size and they will become interceptions.

I agree. It makes no difference to me whether the defender completed the INT or not unless I am evaluating the performance of that defender. If I am evaluating the overall performance of the QB that threw that INT that was dropped, TWP's are a nice stat to have. TWP's give me a little extra insight on the performance of that QB and is no different of a stat than receiver drops imo. If receiver drops are an accepted stat than so are TWP's.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Do you believe that the QB should only be evaluated based on the result of the play?

do you agree "almost INTs" can be the result of the receiver making a mistake?

Sure, but so can actual interceptions. TWPs are likely to be more favorable to the QB, because in cases like that someone can make a reasonable assessment that the WR fell down or let it bounce off his hands and thus not count it as a TWP by the QB. It's not perfect because it's not always easy to identify fault, but it's more fair than just assuming every interception is 100% on the QB.

Great point.