QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
one of the most confusing posts of all time right here. dilfer didn't play 'well enough' to get the job done. that's like saying scott burrell played well enough for chicago bulls to win rings. no, jordan played well enough. burrell happened to be on the team with jordan. that's what happened. dilfer happened to be on a team with ray lewis and that defense. he didn't do anything man.

What's confusing about it? Trent Dilfer was the QB of a team that won to the Super Bowl by a score of 34-7, he only completed about 50% of his passes but they won the game going away because of the team's other strengths. Ergo, for one season, Trent Dilfer played well enough for the team to win the game's biggest prize. Doesn't mean he played great and doesn't mean someone else couldn't have done better, it just means his play that year didn't cost them the prize they were after. It's just a simple statement of fact.

On the other hand, while I'm no expert on the history of Lamar Jackson's playoff runs, it seems to me the reason they lost a lot of those games was because he didn't play well. A quick Google search shows that in 2019, when he won his first MVP award, they lost in the Divisional round 28-12 in a game where Jackson threw 2 picks and lost a fumble. So the guy who was deemed the league's most valuable player couldn't help them get it done when it counted. It seems to me that, based on the criteria that a lot of people in here like to apply to the term elite, e.g. a player who can carry his team to wins, that wasn't a very elite like performance, and in the end, he couldn't deliver the Raven's the same result as their journeyman QB did several years before. Again, it's a simple statement of fact.

I voiced my support of Lamar earlier but the bolded above is a great point and stuff like that gets forgotten a lot(clearly myself included)

Also a reminder how the idea of guys lifting the team up all on their own when QBs don't play defense is always too extreme of a point.

Originally posted by genus49:
I voiced my support of Lamar earlier but the bolded above is a great point and stuff like that gets forgotten a lot(clearly myself included)

Also a reminder how the idea of guys lifting the team up all on their own when QBs don't play defense is always too extreme of a point.

It's not a great point at all. It's a strawman argument and 81's points around it show a real lack of understanding what it takes to win in the NFL and a QB's role in it.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of what it takes to win in the NFL. I think you're the one who's missing the point, which is that a lot of people in here like to hold certain QBs up as the gold standard whenever they're trying to make an argument about why Brock isn't this or isn't that, and they always like to make a secondary argument about how "elite" QBs are ones who can carry their teams to victory.

I was only pointing out that for all the times guys like Allen and Jackson are mentioned as being in this elite category, they have precious little to show for it in terms of winning the games that actually count. For all of their fanboy accolades neither Jackson or Allen have ever advanced past the Conference Championship in the years they've been in the league, and sometimes, their play is the reason they haven't advanced. Brock helped get his team to the Conference Championship twice in his first two years and might have helped win them both if he hadn't gotten hurt against Philly.

I'm not saying that being 6'4" and having a rocket arm is a bad thing, but it's not the only thing that goes into playing the position. I think I would take Brock's ability to see the field and process information over what I've seen from either Allen or Jackson but am perfectly willing to acknowledge that those guy's bigger size and running ability do a lot to help them cover up for the fact that maybe they don't process information as well as Brock, who seems like he has to play on time and in rhythm in order to maximize his efficiency.

Although he certainly has some scrambling ability, he's not going to runover guys like Allen can and he's not going to be able to make guys miss like Jackson can. And if the play breaks down he's probably not going to be able to run around and buy time and then heave the ball 60 yards down the field to some receiver who broke open late, though he could probably do that and get it 35 or 40 yards down the field. In a close game between Brock and either of those other two QBs, the individual qualities they possess could certainly a make a difference, but so far, the qualities haven't allowed them to get their teams to a Super Bowl, where Brock's qualities have helped his team get there. Not saying Brock is better, but I'm also not saying that having either of those other guys in Shanahan's offense would have necessarily meant more success for the team.

If Lamar or Allen were in the NFC they'd have been in a SB.

Eagles also just won a SB hiding their QBs inability to play the position.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
I think I have a pretty good understanding of what it takes to win in the NFL. I think you're the one who's missing the point, which is that a lot of people in here like to hold certain QBs up as the gold standard whenever they're trying to make an argument about why Brock isn't this or isn't that, and they always like to make a secondary argument about how "elite" QBs are ones who can carry their teams to victory.

I was only pointing out that for all the times guys like Allen and Jackson are mentioned as being in this elite category, they have precious little to show for it in terms of winning the games that actually count. For all of their fanboy accolades neither Jackson or Allen have ever advanced past the Conference Championship in the years they've been in the league, and sometimes, their play is the reason they haven't advanced. Brock helped get his team to the Conference Championship twice in his first two years and might have helped win them both if he hadn't gotten hurt against Philly.

I'm not saying that being 6'4" and having a rocket arm is a bad thing, but it's not the only thing that goes into playing the position. I think I would take Brock's ability to see the field and process information over what I've seen from either Allen or Jackson but am perfectly willing to acknowledge that those guy's bigger size and running ability do a lot to help them cover up for the fact that maybe they don't process information as well as Brock, who seems like he has to play on time and in rhythm in order to maximize his efficiency.

Although he certainly has some scrambling ability, he's not going to runover guys like Allen can and he's not going to be able to make guys miss like Jackson can. And if the play breaks down he's probably not going to be able to run around and buy time and then heave the ball 60 yards down the field to some receiver who broke open late, though he could probably do that and get it 35 or 40 yards down the field. In a close game between Brock and either of those other two QBs, the individual qualities they possess could certainly a make a difference, but so far, the qualities haven't allowed them to get their teams to a Super Bowl, where Brock's qualities have helped his team get there. Not saying Brock is better, but I'm also not saying that having either of those other guys in Shanahan's offense would have necessarily meant more success for the team.

I didn't miss your point. I labeled it a strawman argument, which it very clearly is.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
I think I have a pretty good understanding of what it takes to win in the NFL. I think you're the one who's missing the point, which is that a lot of people in here like to hold certain QBs up as the gold standard whenever they're trying to make an argument about why Brock isn't this or isn't that, and they always like to make a secondary argument about how "elite" QBs are ones who can carry their teams to victory.

I was only pointing out that for all the times guys like Allen and Jackson are mentioned as being in this elite category, they have precious little to show for it in terms of winning the games that actually count. For all of their fanboy accolades neither Jackson or Allen have ever advanced past the Conference Championship in the years they've been in the league, and sometimes, their play is the reason they haven't advanced. Brock helped get his team to the Conference Championship twice in his first two years and might have helped win them both if he hadn't gotten hurt against Philly.

I'm not saying that being 6'4" and having a rocket arm is a bad thing, but it's not the only thing that goes into playing the position. I think I would take Brock's ability to see the field and process information over what I've seen from either Allen or Jackson but am perfectly willing to acknowledge that those guy's bigger size and running ability do a lot to help them cover up for the fact that maybe they don't process information as well as Brock, who seems like he has to play on time and in rhythm in order to maximize his efficiency.

Although he certainly has some scrambling ability, he's not going to runover guys like Allen can and he's not going to be able to make guys miss like Jackson can. And if the play breaks down he's probably not going to be able to run around and buy time and then heave the ball 60 yards down the field to some receiver who broke open late, though he could probably do that and get it 35 or 40 yards down the field. In a close game between Brock and either of those other two QBs, the individual qualities they possess could certainly a make a difference, but so far, the qualities haven't allowed them to get their teams to a Super Bowl, where Brock's qualities have helped his team get there. Not saying Brock is better, but I'm also not saying that having either of those other guys in Shanahan's offense would have necessarily meant more success for the team.

He's just doing it in a different way. Between the ears. Which is probably the most important at QB. It leads to bias of the fans and media sometimes too. That think he "can't do it." They are wrong. But what they see is 6'4", 6'5", big, bulky, huge, rocket arm, run 4.3, run 4.4. They are looking at physical attributes. Not the mental part of the game where Brock excels. They literally just don't see it. But most ex QB's see it. He's also underrated as an athlete. Although not great he's got short area quickness. Which can buy time to throw or scramble for 1st downs. His arm is really accurate with timing and anticipation. Just not a rocket cannon.

81, what was the difference between Brock and the 49ers performance between 2023 and 2024?

Why did the 49ers make the SB in 2023, but manage a mere 6 wins the following season? Did Brock forget how to process information quickly? Did he lose a step in scrambling ability?

——

There sometimes seem to be a desire among some fans to isolate the physical gifts that some of the great QB's in the league have and compare them to the mental game of a player like Brock Purdy, as if it's an either/or choice between those traits. You don't throw for 40+ td passes and less than 5 interceptions if you can't process NFL defenses and make good decisions. Guys like Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson are not out there simply thriving off their physical traits. They are every bit as smart as Purdy on the field, if not smarter, and they have the physical gifts as an added dimension to their game. That's what makes them two of the best players in the game. They are simply better players than Purdy (at least currently) and if you can't see that, you have a lot to learn.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:
I voiced my support of Lamar earlier but the bolded above is a great point and stuff like that gets forgotten a lot(clearly myself included)

Also a reminder how the idea of guys lifting the team up all on their own when QBs don't play defense is always too extreme of a point.

It's not a great point at all. It's a strawman argument and 81's points around it show a real lack of understanding what it takes to win in the NFL and a QB's role in it.

It's a great point as a counter to the people who act like there are somehow QBs out there who can put the team on their back on their own.

There aren't any QBs out there like that. There are QBs who are simply better for different reasons than the rest but they need teammates to help them win games like every other guy and they can lose games for various reasons.

Originally posted by genus49:
It's a great point as a counter to the people who act like there are somehow QBs out there who can put the team on their back on their own.

There aren't any QBs out there like that. There are QBs who are simply better for different reasons than the rest but they need teammates to help them win games like every other guy and they can lose games for various reasons.

Find an example of somebody actually making that argument in that fashion. From my experience arguments about their outsized roles on their teams are typically a response to people who hold their lack of team accomplishments against them. Are they not?

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:

I voiced my support of Lamar earlier but the bolded above is a great point and stuff like that gets forgotten a lot(clearly myself included)

Also a reminder how the idea of guys lifting the team up all on their own when QBs don't play defense is always too extreme of a point.

It's not a great point at all. It's a strawman argument and 81's points around it show a real lack of understanding what it takes to win in the NFL and a QB's role in it.

It's a great point as a counter to the people who act like there are somehow QBs out there who can put the team on their back on their own.

There aren't any QBs out there like that. There are QBs who are simply better for different reasons than the rest but they need teammates to help them win games like every other guy and they can lose games for various reasons.

Yea for the guys that talk about Brock not being a guy that can carry his team to a championship, their examples of Lamar and Allen fall flat. They are 0/14 combined. 0/14 and some act like winning a chip is as simple as having one of them. Throw Burrow in there and it's 0/19. It's not that simple

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
81, what was the difference between Brock and the 49ers performance between 2023 and 2024?

Why did the 49ers make the SB in 2023, but manage a mere 6 wins the following season? Did Brock forget how to process information quickly? Did he lose a step in scrambling ability?

——

There sometimes seem to be a desire among some fans to isolate the physical gifts that some of the great QB's in the league have and compare them to the mental game of a player like Brock Purdy, as if it's an either/or choice between those traits. You don't throw for 40+ td passes and less than 5 interceptions if you can't process NFL defenses and make good decisions. Guys like Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson are not out there simply thriving off their physical traits. They are every bit as smart as Purdy on the field, if not smarter, and they have the physical gifts as an added dimension to their game. That's what makes them two of the best players in the game. They are simply better players than Purdy (at least currently) and if you can't see that, you have a lot to learn.

I'm in the middle of this argument cuz I think very highly of the top 4 QBs in the NFL but one thing i have to add is I saw a recent post on Twitter(I think coming from Cowherd lame take)calling out Brock for failing to lead the 49ers to the SB with the issues we had but praising CJ Stroud for getting Houston to the divisional round with his play.

Now if we look at each player last year…


You're telling me CJ had it worse with the injuries he had? Cuz I call BS on that.

Could it be the defense and special teams for Houston played much better and secured or protected more wins for CJ? Or did CJ's TDs count for more points?

Which leads me back to your what happened in 2024 question and the answer isn't simply Brock was worse.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:
It's a great point as a counter to the people who act like there are somehow QBs out there who can put the team on their back on their own.

There aren't any QBs out there like that. There are QBs who are simply better for different reasons than the rest but they need teammates to help them win games like every other guy and they can lose games for various reasons.

Find an example of somebody actually making that argument in that fashion. From my experience arguments about their outsized roles on their teams are typically a response to people who hold their lack of team accomplishments against them. Are they not?

I'm getting ready to head to my nieces bday party but I recall some people throwing that type of logic around when discussing how much Brock should make.

if I care enough later I'll check for examples.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by 49ers81:

I think I have a pretty good understanding of what it takes to win in the NFL. I think you're the one who's missing the point, which is that a lot of people in here like to hold certain QBs up as the gold standard whenever they're trying to make an argument about why Brock isn't this or isn't that, and they always like to make a secondary argument about how "elite" QBs are ones who can carry their teams to victory.

I was only pointing out that for all the times guys like Allen and Jackson are mentioned as being in this elite category, they have precious little to show for it in terms of winning the games that actually count. For all of their fanboy accolades neither Jackson or Allen have ever advanced past the Conference Championship in the years they've been in the league, and sometimes, their play is the reason they haven't advanced. Brock helped get his team to the Conference Championship twice in his first two years and might have helped win them both if he hadn't gotten hurt against Philly.

I'm not saying that being 6'4" and having a rocket arm is a bad thing, but it's not the only thing that goes into playing the position. I think I would take Brock's ability to see the field and process information over what I've seen from either Allen or Jackson but am perfectly willing to acknowledge that those guy's bigger size and running ability do a lot to help them cover up for the fact that maybe they don't process information as well as Brock, who seems like he has to play on time and in rhythm in order to maximize his efficiency.

Although he certainly has some scrambling ability, he's not going to runover guys like Allen can and he's not going to be able to make guys miss like Jackson can. And if the play breaks down he's probably not going to be able to run around and buy time and then heave the ball 60 yards down the field to some receiver who broke open late, though he could probably do that and get it 35 or 40 yards down the field. In a close game between Brock and either of those other two QBs, the individual qualities they possess could certainly a make a difference, but so far, the qualities haven't allowed them to get their teams to a Super Bowl, where Brock's qualities have helped his team get there. Not saying Brock is better, but I'm also not saying that having either of those other guys in Shanahan's offense would have necessarily meant more success for the team.

He's just doing it in a different way. Between the ears. Which is probably the most important at QB. It leads to bias of the fans and media sometimes too. That think he "can't do it." They are wrong. But what they see is 6'4", 6'5", big, bulky, huge, rocket arm, run 4.3, run 4.4. They are looking at physical attributes. Not the mental part of the game where Brock excels. They literally just don't see it. But most ex QB's see it. He's also underrated as an athlete. Although not great he's got short area quickness. Which can buy time to throw or scramble for 1st downs. His arm is really accurate with timing and anticipation. Just not a rocket cannon.

Everybody is caught up in what they can see. What made a guy like Brees or Brady great are the things you can't see. Nobody values that anymore, but that style is valuable and can win battles on a contending team

You take a guy like Matt Stafford who was stuck in a bad organization for the bulk of his career. Were the people who argued he was one of the best QBs in the NFL making that case because he brought the Lions to the playoffs once or twice over that period? They were talking about his skillset and production, and it was counter arguments that focused on team accomplishments. It's always been this way. Some fans can't measure the impact of players, obviously QBs especially, beyond looking at a team's overall success as if the players around them simply don't matter.

Originally posted by genus49:
I'm in the middle of this argument cuz I think very highly of the top 4 QBs in the NFL but one thing i have to add is I saw a recent post on Twitter(I think coming from Cowherd lame take)calling out Brock for failing to lead the 49ers to the SB with the issues we had but praising CJ Stroud for getting Houston to the divisional round with his play.

Now if we look at each player last year…


You're telling me CJ had it worse with the injuries he had? Cuz I call BS on that.

Could it be the defense and special teams for Houston played much better and secured or protected more wins for CJ? Or did CJ's TDs count for more points?

Which leads me back to your what happened in 2024 question and the answer isn't simply Brock was worse.

Of course it wasn't. That's the point.