QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by 9erson3:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by bud49:
Well WR's getting 40 million a year 112 million guaranteed and a CB get around 30 million a year 89 million guaranteed. Looks like Brocks gonna be around 55 million or more a year.

Brock could easily get $55M+ if he wanted to push the envelope. Now would the team pay? Who knows. He could play out his contract and force a trade. Someone would pay him dak money IMO.

let's hope it's a win/win agreement. Give the team flexibility for the next couple years and Brock securing generational wealth.

Those examples are the Mahomes/Josh Allen types of their respective positions. You can't randomly say this guy from this non-QB group got this much so Brock should get...

Brock is not in the Mahomes/Allen discussion category for players all positions. Meaning those other examples posted are very top tier.

And I am not Brock hater. Quite the opposite but we paid a certain QB here the tops in the league once. He completely regressed. Have we not learned our lesson? How can a rookie QB picked last in the draft who sat almost an entire year(I don't count that year) had a really really nice year and then an average to below average year so TWO YEARS TWO YEARS be paid $60m a year. BS. This has Jimmy G written all over it. I hope Lynch plays hardball. It seems with this purging year they are finally getting it.

This is nonsense.

Look at the numbers



When you remember the fact that the reigning OPOTY was missing most of the year, that his All Pro WR was out most of the year. The regression by the team overall on defense and special teams and Deebo having another tough season.

Was there regression? Of course, that's going to happen when you're missing key players around you and you're forced to do more with less. That happens to every QB when they lose key players and don't have others who can step up.

Some of you act like Purdy looked like Alex Smith as a rookie for crying out loud.

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by socalfan21:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Izyniner:

Originally posted by random49er:
I dont think past accomplishments are going to move the needle. I think how good you are as a player (your level of play right now) and future projections of how good you're likely to be in the immediate future is what's going to get you alot of this GTD money.

How do you get a future projection without using past accomplishments as your base?

So your projection for how Jalen Hurts will play in the future is mainly based on him winning the SB MVP? What about other QBs that have won it or got there in recent memory.... Nick Foles (MVP), Flacco (MVP), Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme, Matt Hasselbeck, the list goes on. You really doing this?

You go with past "team accomplishments",....I'll go along with the NFL brass,...which is what I actually see regarding how they're playing on the field, the talent I can see or gauge, et. al.

Jalen Hurts latest isn't all about winning the SB. How he played last year overall and how he plays in general when certain situations arise are all part of those evaluations.

Teams don't just pay for SB wins. They're big parts of negotiations of course but teams watch tape, they understand how their own guy is used, how they can hide his deficiencies and how he may look if things aren't perfect around him.

But past accomplishments are certainly a part of the evaluation. If you show you're able to play at a high level and don't completely fall apart when few things are going right that's a good indicator of future success.

Getting to a SB doesn't show you're capable of playing at a high level. Playing at a high level shows you're capable of playing at a high level.

Yep, and we have seen it from Hurts and Purdy.

And plenty of others before them. (Getting to a SB that is)

Sure.

I was agreeing with you about those two proving themselves not by getting to a Superbowl but by playing at a high level.

The playing at a high level thing was a general statement.

Hurts and Purdy both got to Super Bowls. If you think both play at a high level, that is your own individual opinion.

Hurts is a top 20 QB who was playing with an elite defense. I'd compare his play to a Trent dilfer. Purdy actually had to drag that corpse of a team to the Super Bowl, especially in the NFCC. Shanahan f**ked around with the packers and lions and purd pulled them through.

Corps of a team?

He had all pro kittle, cmc, juice, a healthy trent and deebo, jennings vs GB and a fairly healthy and loaded D. He had all pro kittle, cmc, juic3 and aiyuk with a healthy trent and deebo, jennings as well as a loaded D against the lions. Not sure we saw the same games

There is a middle ground between both of you guys.

The team was FAR from a corpse however the defense was not playing well at all in the playoffs. They did get on track but there was a reason coaches had to have the "effort" talk heading into the SB. I'd also saying not having Clelein Ferrell and Hufanga definitely hurt our ability to stop the run. Once Greenlaw got hurt in the SB that was the killer of course.

The OL also was far from anything to write home about. Deebo was also playing hurt from the GB injury.

So like I said...somewhere in the middle is the correct analysis. Certainly when compared to the team Hurts had around him it's not a contest. Eagles were incredibly healthy going into the SB and had studs across the board. Virtually no weaknesses. Hell they even got solid play from Oren Burks because their DL and secondary was so good...also didn't hurt that KC was dealing with major pass pro issues.

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by random49er:
What would be dumb is not recognizing the value of having extra time and reps to truly assess what a player is worth before overdoing a contract you may regret.

That time may not be valuable to you,...but that extra "prove it" year could be enormously evaluable to the team.

Brock has started 36 regular season games (played in some part of 40 games) and started 6 playoff games.

Reg. Season he's a 67.5% passer, and thrown for 9,518 yards, 64 TDs, 27 INTs. His QB rating is 104.9. He's ran for 8 TDs as well.

In those 6 playoff games (including the Eagles game he barely played in) he's a 62.6% passer, and thrown for 1343 yards, 6 TDs, 1 INT. His QB rating is 96.2. He's ran for 1 TD.

That's 42 games started in 3 years. We've seen plenty to know what he's likely to be.

There was a bit of a downturn last year. If you're adding all of those games in,...then you're adding to the argument of "hey...let's wait it out a bit before we throw too much GTD money out there."

Stats are cool and everything, but they aren't going to get him a Super-contract. There was some drop off and he's not as "proven" to be a top QB as you want to believe he currently is.

So a good amount of games showing he can return closer to his 2023 form is something worth waiting for. There's literal value in playing that card.

Yeah, that's not how this business works. That downturn was way too minimal to panic over. There's almost no value in playing that card. You either extend him with a contract worthy of his career experience, or you trade him to a team that will. Anything else is just spinning in circles and wasting time.

He's under contract and locked in for 3 yrs if we want.

Realistically no one uses that option because it's wasteful and contentious less secure.

No players "WANT" that option because it's "LESS SECURE."

You are completely lost if you think the threat of it does not help the owners over and over again. It's used constantly; it's being used with Brock right now, whether we later enact it or not.

It takes 2 sides to agree. If he completely bombs next yr, then maybe we wont use it after all.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Izyniner:

Originally posted by random49er:
I dont think past accomplishments are going to move the needle. I think how good you are as a player (your level of play right now) and future projections of how good you're likely to be in the immediate future is what's going to get you alot of this GTD money.

How do you get a future projection without using past accomplishments as your base?

So your projection for how Jalen Hurts will play in the future is mainly based on him winning the SB MVP? What about other QBs that have won it or got there in recent memory.... Nick Foles (MVP), Flacco (MVP), Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme, Matt Hasselbeck, the list goes on. You really doing this?

You go with past "team accomplishments",....I'll go along with the NFL brass,...which is what I actually see regarding how they're playing on the field, the talent I can see or gauge, et. al.

Jalen Hurts latest isn't all about winning the SB. How he played last year overall and how he plays in general when certain situations arise are all part of those evaluations.

Teams don't just pay for SB wins. They're big parts of negotiations of course but teams watch tape, they understand how their own guy is used, how they can hide his deficiencies and how he may look if things aren't perfect around him.

But past accomplishments are certainly a part of the evaluation. If you show you're able to play at a high level and don't completely fall apart when few things are going right that's a good indicator of future success.

Getting to a SB doesn't show you're capable of playing at a high level. Playing at a high level shows you're capable of playing at a high level.

Yep, and we have seen it from Hurts and Purdy.

And plenty of others before them. (Getting to a SB that is)

Sure.

I was agreeing with you about those two proving themselves not by getting to a Superbowl but by playing at a high level.

The playing at a high level thing was a general statement.

Hurts and Purdy both got to Super Bowls. If you think both play at a high level, that is your own individual opinion.

I do, how about you?

No.

You don't think Purdy has played at a high level?

2023 he was playing elite. He was pretty good last year too IMO.

You 're getting yourself twisted with vocab again. The post says "play",...which infers right now if not continually.

When you sneak in the "-ed" later in the convo, you create a completely different topic. Last year was 2024, not 2023.

We eventually come full-circle: getting to a SB does not etch your name in stone as a "high level" player for the foreseeable future. That's kinda insane to suggest.

Originally posted by bud49:
Well WR's getting 40 million a year 112 million guaranteed and a CB get around 30 million a year 89 million guaranteed. Looks like Brocks gonna be around 55 million or more a year.

Ok but by when?

Originally posted by 9erson3:

Originally posted by BOI49er:

Originally posted by 9erson3:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by bud49:
Well WR's getting 40 million a year 112 million guaranteed and a CB get around 30 million a year 89 million guaranteed. Looks like Brocks gonna be around 55 million or more a year.

Brock could easily get $55M if he wanted to push the envelope. Now would the team pay? Who knows. He could play out his contract and force a trade. Someone would pay him dak money IMO.

let's hope it's a win/win agreement. Give the team flexibility for the next couple years and Brock securing generational wealth.

Those examples are the Mahomes/Josh Allen types of their respective positions. You can't randomly say this guy from this non-QB group got this much so Brock should get...

Brock is not in the Mahomes/Allen discussion category for players all positions. Meaning those other examples posted are very top tier.

And I am not Brock hater. Quite the opposite but we paid a certain QB here the tops in the league once. He completely regressed. Have we not learned our lesson? How can a rookie QB picked last in the draft who sat almost an entire year(I don't count that year) had a really really nice year and then an average to below average year so TWO YEARS TWO YEARS be paid $60m a year. BS. This has Jimmy G written all over it. I hope Lynch plays hardball. It seems with this purging year they are finally getting it.

Yep. Our lesson is don't give the big bucks betting on someone learning something. Our certain quarterback played his best when he just played loose and wasn't expected to run an offense. He never did get better at that. Our current quarterback already has the headwork down and is a sure thing. And he certainly wasn't "below average", even with limited targets available all year. You don't get worse with headwork.

I respect the rebuttal but it's time on the clock that cannot be disputed. I hope he turns out to be the greatest QB we have ever had and we win a SB or two or more!. I really do love Brock in most regards. My only caution to the wind is someone with very little experience still, despite fan projections, still needs another year or two to form an honest opinion. He should not be walking from a couple of years to near highest paid in league. What logic is that? Fans will say next man up, that's what they do, that is the golden rule, I hope John flushes that opinion quickly.

And go Brock- glad you are here. Let's get busy (again)

You say your stated time on the clock can't be disputed, so I've got to do it. You discount his first year entirely. He came off the bench with virtually No reps, at Any time, and won all 6 season games he played. He scored at least 33 points in all but one. Defenses tried the proven strategy of blitizing the cr@p out of the rookie, and he made them pay for it every game. He won both playoff games he played handily, and finished the season with a 107.3 quarterback rating. He had us in the championship game with a very real chance to take us to a Super Bowl in his rookie year when he had the devastating elbow injury. Many of us realized this guy has got it right then and there.

His second year was indeed "really really" nice.

Last year defenses didn't have to cover many competent receivers, but his performance was still pretty good.

I've got a different take on why it wasn't better. Kyle Shanahan was a beaten man. He had just lost the big one again, and this time, his disgraceful blame shifting to his fictitious "analytics department" not withstanding, he knew he'd blown it. He has an 8 year history of very poor performance protecting a lead late in big games, and likewise has a very poor percentage of winning from behind late in games. Kyle looked like he was on autopilot last year. He would never adjust to screens or play action when the defenses were begging for it, and of course he Never allows quarterbacks to change his plays. Brock didn't have a chance.

It's not time on the job that counts. Once you get significant experience, more is marginally beneficial. It's aptitude for the job that separates the men from the boys. That applies to head coaches, as well as quarterbacks. I know Brock has got it.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Izyniner:

Originally posted by random49er:

I dont think past accomplishments are going to move the needle. I think how good you are as a player (your level of play right now) and future projections of how good you're likely to be in the immediate future is what's going to get you alot of this GTD money.

How do you get a future projection without using past accomplishments as your base?

So your projection for how Jalen Hurts will play in the future is mainly based on him winning the SB MVP? What about other QBs that have won it or got there in recent memory.... Nick Foles (MVP), Flacco (MVP), Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme, Matt Hasselbeck, the list goes on. You really doing this?

You go with past "team accomplishments",....I'll go along with the NFL brass,...which is what I actually see regarding how they're playing on the field, the talent I can see or gauge, et. al.

Jalen Hurts latest isn't all about winning the SB. How he played last year overall and how he plays in general when certain situations arise are all part of those evaluations.

Teams don't just pay for SB wins. They're big parts of negotiations of course but teams watch tape, they understand how their own guy is used, how they can hide his deficiencies and how he may look if things aren't perfect around him.

But past accomplishments are certainly a part of the evaluation. If you show you're able to play at a high level and don't completely fall apart when few things are going right that's a good indicator of future success.

Getting to a SB doesn't show you're capable of playing at a high level. Playing at a high level shows you're capable of playing at a high level.

Yep, and we have seen it from Hurts and Purdy.

And plenty of others before them. (Getting to a SB that is)

Sure.

I was agreeing with you about those two proving themselves not by getting to a Superbowl but by playing at a high level.

The playing at a high level thing was a general statement.

Hurts and Purdy both got to Super Bowls. If you think both play at a high level, that is your own individual opinion.

I do, how about you?

No.

You don't think Purdy has played at a high level?

2023 he was playing elite. He was pretty good last year too IMO.

You 're getting yourself twisted with vocab again. The post says "play",...which infers right now if not continually.

When you sneak in the "-ed" later in the convo, you create a completely different topic. Last year was 2024, not 2023.

We eventually come full-circle: getting to a SB does not etch your name in stone as a "high level" player for the foreseeable future. That's kinda insane to suggest.

You said playing at a high level shows you're are capable of playing at a high level. Brock has shown he is capable of playing at a high level. That's what I meant.
Purdy played at an above average.level in 2024 but not elite like 2023 IMO.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
You said playing at a high level shows you're are capable of playing at a high level.

You're confusing yourself further. Aaron Rodgers has "played" at a high level,....it doesn't mean he's worth a new $55M contract right now, though, because he's not "playing" at a high level right now. I hope you stayed with me there.

Past team accomplishments do not gauge your current level of individual ability. 2023 is not current.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
You said playing at a high level shows you're are capable of playing at a high level.

You're confusing yourself further. Aaron Rodgers has "played" at a high level,....it doesn't mean he's worth a new $55M contract right now, though, because he's not "playing" at a high level right now. I hope you stayed with me there.

Past team accomplishments do not gauge your current level of individual ability. 2023 is not current.

If Aaron Rodgers wasn't in his 40s right now he would certainly be getting just that. You know why he's not and it has nothing to do with his ability.

Originally posted by genus49:
If Aaron Rodgers wasn't in his 40s right now he would certainly be getting just that.

If Brock Purdy had more seasons accrued of high level of play without a plethora of weapons like Aaron Rodgers has done, and if 2024 werent half of his full seasons and we could eliminate it and replace it with a couple other great seasons, he would certainly be getting just that as well.

But we cant.

There's a reason for everything. We're right back where we began.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:
If Aaron Rodgers wasn't in his 40s right now he would certainly be getting just that.

If Brock Purdy had more seasons accrued of high level of play without a plethora of weapons like Aaron Rodgers has done, and if 2024 werent half of his full seasons and we could eliminate it and replace it with a couple other great seasons, he would certainly be getting just that as well.

But we cant.

There's a reason for everything. We're right back where we began.

We're also in this spot where people pretend Purdy cannot get better because of his physical limitations which is not the case.

This tweet popped up on my twitter feed earlier so it's good timing to remind some here of what Brock is able to do as a QB


This was in a rain game, in the playoffs with Deebo out early in the game due to injury, 3rd and 10 with a rusher coming in on him. That pass is to Jauan Jennings, we all love him but not exactly Aiyuk or other all pro players people love calling Avengers.

Brock has never had the circumstances Jalen Hurts had last year - great running game, dominant OL, elite weapons who can beat man or zone coverage and dominant defense.

As far as Rodgers playing without a plethora of weapons...when did Rodgers put up one of his elite seasons without a bunch of weapons? 2012 is probably the closest year you can claim that and he still had Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, Randall Cobb, James jones and Jermichael Finley at TE. It may not be what we had in our SB run but Aaron had much better pass pro.

But yes...this is all a moot point. We'll see what happens with the contract situation in a few months if not earlier. Purdy certainly has enough film to show he can ask for the big deal. Whether he does that is the question.

Another tweet that showed up

Includes Brock Purdy's bad year

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by socalfan21:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Izyniner:

Originally posted by random49er:
I dont think past accomplishments are going to move the needle. I think how good you are as a player (your level of play right now) and future projections of how good you're likely to be in the immediate future is what's going to get you alot of this GTD money.

How do you get a future projection without using past accomplishments as your base?

So your projection for how Jalen Hurts will play in the future is mainly based on him winning the SB MVP? What about other QBs that have won it or got there in recent memory.... Nick Foles (MVP), Flacco (MVP), Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme, Matt Hasselbeck, the list goes on. You really doing this?

You go with past "team accomplishments",....I'll go along with the NFL brass,...which is what I actually see regarding how they're playing on the field, the talent I can see or gauge, et. al.

Jalen Hurts latest isn't all about winning the SB. How he played last year overall and how he plays in general when certain situations arise are all part of those evaluations.

Teams don't just pay for SB wins. They're big parts of negotiations of course but teams watch tape, they understand how their own guy is used, how they can hide his deficiencies and how he may look if things aren't perfect around him.

But past accomplishments are certainly a part of the evaluation. If you show you're able to play at a high level and don't completely fall apart when few things are going right that's a good indicator of future success.

Getting to a SB doesn't show you're capable of playing at a high level. Playing at a high level shows you're capable of playing at a high level.

Yep, and we have seen it from Hurts and Purdy.

And plenty of others before them. (Getting to a SB that is)

Sure.

I was agreeing with you about those two proving themselves not by getting to a Superbowl but by playing at a high level.

The playing at a high level thing was a general statement.

Hurts and Purdy both got to Super Bowls. If you think both play at a high level, that is your own individual opinion.

Hurts is a top 20 QB who was playing with an elite defense. I'd compare his play to a Trent dilfer. Purdy actually had to drag that corpse of a team to the Super Bowl, especially in the NFCC. Shanahan f**ked around with the packers and lions and purd pulled them through.

Corps of a team?

He had all pro kittle, cmc, juice, a healthy trent and deebo, jennings vs GB and a fairly healthy and loaded D. He had all pro kittle, cmc, juic3 and aiyuk with a healthy trent and deebo, jennings as well as a loaded D against the lions. Not sure we saw the same games

There is a middle ground between both of you guys.

The team was FAR from a corpse however the defense was not playing well at all in the playoffs. They did get on track but there was a reason coaches had to have the "effort" talk heading into the SB. I'd also saying not having Clelein Ferrell and Hufanga definitely hurt our ability to stop the run. Once Greenlaw got hurt in the SB that was the killer of course.

The OL also was far from anything to write home about. Deebo was also playing hurt from the GB injury.

So like I said...somewhere in the middle is the correct analysis. Certainly when compared to the team Hurts had around him it's not a contest. Eagles were incredibly healthy going into the SB and had studs across the board. Virtually no weaknesses. Hell they even got solid play from Oren Burks because their DL and secondary was so good...also didn't hurt that KC was dealing with major pass pro issues.

That defense in 2023 in the post season was awful. Purdy using his legs and his brain won them two playoff games. If it wasn't for him making clutch plays, they would have never made it to the SB.

Originally posted by socalfan21:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by socalfan21:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Izyniner:

Originally posted by random49er:
I dont think past accomplishments are going to move the needle. I think how good you are as a player (your level of play right now) and future projections of how good you're likely to be in the immediate future is what's going to get you alot of this GTD money.

How do you get a future projection without using past accomplishments as your base?

So your projection for how Jalen Hurts will play in the future is mainly based on him winning the SB MVP? What about other QBs that have won it or got there in recent memory.... Nick Foles (MVP), Flacco (MVP), Trent Dilfer, Jake Delhomme, Matt Hasselbeck, the list goes on. You really doing this?

You go with past "team accomplishments",....I'll go along with the NFL brass,...which is what I actually see regarding how they're playing on the field, the talent I can see or gauge, et. al.

Jalen Hurts latest isn't all about winning the SB. How he played last year overall and how he plays in general when certain situations arise are all part of those evaluations.

Teams don't just pay for SB wins. They're big parts of negotiations of course but teams watch tape, they understand how their own guy is used, how they can hide his deficiencies and how he may look if things aren't perfect around him.

But past accomplishments are certainly a part of the evaluation. If you show you're able to play at a high level and don't completely fall apart when few things are going right that's a good indicator of future success.

Getting to a SB doesn't show you're capable of playing at a high level. Playing at a high level shows you're capable of playing at a high level.

Yep, and we have seen it from Hurts and Purdy.

And plenty of others before them. (Getting to a SB that is)

Sure.

I was agreeing with you about those two proving themselves not by getting to a Superbowl but by playing at a high level.

The playing at a high level thing was a general statement.

Hurts and Purdy both got to Super Bowls. If you think both play at a high level, that is your own individual opinion.

Hurts is a top 20 QB who was playing with an elite defense. I'd compare his play to a Trent dilfer. Purdy actually had to drag that corpse of a team to the Super Bowl, especially in the NFCC. Shanahan f**ked around with the packers and lions and purd pulled them through.

Corps of a team?

He had all pro kittle, cmc, juice, a healthy trent and deebo, jennings vs GB and a fairly healthy and loaded D. He had all pro kittle, cmc, juic3 and aiyuk with a healthy trent and deebo, jennings as well as a loaded D against the lions. Not sure we saw the same games

There is a middle ground between both of you guys.

The team was FAR from a corpse however the defense was not playing well at all in the playoffs. They did get on track but there was a reason coaches had to have the "effort" talk heading into the SB. I'd also saying not having Clelein Ferrell and Hufanga definitely hurt our ability to stop the run. Once Greenlaw got hurt in the SB that was the killer of course.

The OL also was far from anything to write home about. Deebo was also playing hurt from the GB injury.

So like I said...somewhere in the middle is the correct analysis. Certainly when compared to the team Hurts had around him it's not a contest. Eagles were incredibly healthy going into the SB and had studs across the board. Virtually no weaknesses. Hell they even got solid play from Oren Burks because their DL and secondary was so good...also didn't hurt that KC was dealing with major pass pro issues.

That defense in 2023 in the post season was awful. Purdy using his legs and his brain won them two playoff games. If it wasn't for him making clutch plays, they would have never made it to the SB.

That's true but saying the team in 2023 was a corpse was way over the top. The defense was sloppy as hell in that Lions game but came up in big moments and having the skill players we had definitely helped as well.

I think we can easily say Brock didn't have as dominant of a roster around him and had to do a lot more than Hurts did to get to the SB.