QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Yah where's all the "Mahomes elevates his team" talk!!

uhmmm... he DOES elevate his team tho. He's a bonifide future HOFer still in his 20's.

Losing the final game - which was still historic - doesnt erase a 17-2 run after 2 consecutive titles.

Mahomes elevates his team and don't bother looking at the numbers. Eye test is all we need.

Originally posted by random49er:
Has anyone here ever expected Mahomes to have his #1 WR put up "Tyrique Hill" numbers without Tyrique Hill? A defensive line kicking a$$ can wreck an OL on a team with limited weapons? Something we've known for quite some time too,...so no surprises there.

But from our 6-11 season,...I get nothing from it. That wasn't 11 losses vs. the Eagles.

Well of course Mahomes won't have huge numbers because he doesn't have elite players all over the place. Even a great QB like Mahomes can't overcome poor pass pro.

Originally posted by pd24:

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:

Originally posted by MucketyMuck:

Originally posted by ninerfaninnorcal:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Well Brock isnt going to sign at $45m a year, so there's that.

His only other option is to sit on the bench and make 5 million/year. The 49ers have rights to him this year.

Yeah, he has very very little leverage.

If he sits on the bench we go 5-12 and lynch and shanahans both get fired.

That's a lot of leverage.

He played 15 games last season and it wasn't good enough. If the players around him aren't great, he isn't making up the difference in the Win loss column. A great QB can make up for roster deficiencies.

Just a couple I found while looking back a few hundred pages but let's pretend 81's point earlier was pure strawman and not with some merit given how different people judge the top QBs.

Eye test works great when they're winning. When they lose and the stats don't show their greatness then we start to point out they're playing without their top guys.

Meanwhile the great QBs can make up for roster deficiencies...except when they don't. Does that mean they're not great at that point?

This is why I thought he made a good point. Every QB needs players to make them be great. You will rarely find great QBs winning SBs without a good roster around them. There may be some holes, there may be some players who aren't household names on there but those names will be pretty consistent players and likely been with that franchise for a bit.

The elite players are guys who mirror physical tools and the mental side of the position so well that they're able to make a higher % of plays that other QBs. They may win some games but if their roster is weak no matter how good they are, they're not likely to win the ultimate prize.

There is a middle ground between dismissing those QBs for not being as great as they are because they're literally fighting each other to even make the SB but also downplaying what Purdy has done or somehow holding him to a higher standard than those other guys.

Originally posted by Chance:
I'm not willing to forego the numbers, nor rely on them to completely inform my opinion. The numbers are absolutely relevant though, and as I've said before, one of the few objective insights into the quality of a QBs performance. There's a reason every hall of fame QB has terrific numbers to match their status as a consensus top tier QB. Repeatable success over time will be reflected in the numbers, it's just the nature of how statistics inevitably follow success.

It's legitimately hard to project long-term success from a 2.5 season sample size, as Purdy could just as easily regress towards the mean than he could become the next Drew Brees. But 2.5 seasons (plus playoffs) is not nothing, and his per game numbers show us he's enjoyed success on par with elite QBs. But more data will eventually give us a higher degree of confidence. Until then, I'll choose to be more optimistic in him than you.

That's what everybody does. Nobody argues the numbers are irrelevant but instead point to lack of context and the direct impact of teammates on the bulk of the categories. The QB still contributes as well, lol.

You mentioned a few days ago that you had Stafford (and Brock) just outside the group of the top 5 QBs in the NFL. What statistical case does Matt Stafford have to be anywhere near that high? Go back three years following the Rams' Super Bowl win. Numbers would put him in the 13+ range approximately. To have Stafford ranked as high as 6 would be foregoing the numbers for all intents and purposes and it's not anymore drastic a reliance on a 'nebulous eye-test' than saying Brock might be the 12th best QB in the league instead of the 6th, for example.

*not every hof QB has terrific numbers*

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Yah where's all the "Mahomes elevates his team" talk!!

uhmmm... he DOES elevate his team tho. He's a bonifide future HOFer still in his 20's.

Losing the final game - which was still historic - doesnt erase a 17-2 run after 2 consecutive titles.

Mahomes elevates his team and don't bother looking at the numbers. Eye test is all we need.

Originally posted by random49er:
Has anyone here ever expected Mahomes to have his #1 WR put up "Tyrique Hill" numbers without Tyrique Hill? A defensive line kicking a$$ can wreck an OL on a team with limited weapons? Something we've known for quite some time too,...so no surprises there.

But from our 6-11 season,...I get nothing from it. That wasn't 11 losses vs. the Eagles.

Well of course Mahomes won't have huge numbers because he doesn't have elite players all over the place. Even a great QB like Mahomes can't overcome poor pass pro.

This is just a really bad comparison to the 49ers (if that's what you're still trying to do?)

The dude's a multi-time MVP that's fresh off of 3 straight title appearances. He's overcame bad blocking plenty of times,....it's just that when he puts another ring on time after time, you're naturally looking the other way.

Reality tho is he has 3 SB MVP's as well....which is a record. So as far as the ability to stay cool and get it done when it matters,....his legacy is cemented with that,..regardless whether he wins 3 more or never makes the playoffs again. That's why these things just arent good comparisons and you're not really being fair to Brock to bring up players like him, Josh Allen, and Lamar. People are winning these arguments before you guys finish your sentences.

I'd be much more willing to see some comparisons our guy is in the same zip code with (Trevor Lawrence, Love, et. al.). There's no need to seek out numbers to back this up,...the results we've all seen at this point is plenty enough.

But no,...Philly's DL having success against KC and Mahomes doesn't somehow absolve Brock Purdy of situations late in games where we've observed him not do very well.

Why have we observed such great play this past year in 1st halves (where his passer rating is like 107 in the 1st half) if the blocking has been totally inept and never gave him a chance?

There's just no link (to Mahomes) and this is ad hoc fallacy is a desperate grasp.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Chance:
I'm not willing to forego the numbers, nor rely on them to completely inform my opinion. The numbers are absolutely relevant though, and as I've said before, one of the few objective insights into the quality of a QBs performance. There's a reason every hall of fame QB has terrific numbers to match their status as a consensus top tier QB. Repeatable success over time will be reflected in the numbers, it's just the nature of how statistics inevitably follow success.

It's legitimately hard to project long-term success from a 2.5 season sample size, as Purdy could just as easily regress towards the mean than he could become the next Drew Brees. But 2.5 seasons (plus playoffs) is not nothing, and his per game numbers show us he's enjoyed success on par with elite QBs. But more data will eventually give us a higher degree of confidence. Until then, I'll choose to be more optimistic in him than you.

That's what everybody does. Nobody argues the numbers are irrelevant but instead point to lack of context and the direct impact of teammates on the bulk of the categories. The QB still contributes as well, lol.

You mentioned a few days ago that you had Stafford (and Brock) just outside the group of the top 5 QBs in the NFL. What statistical case does Matt Stafford have to be anywhere near that high? Go back three years following the Rams' Super Bowl win. Numbers would put him in the 13+ range approximately. To have Stafford ranked as high as 6 would be foregoing the numbers for all intents and purposes and it's not anymore drastic a reliance on a 'nebulous eye-test' than saying Brock might be the 12th best QB in the league instead of the 6th, for example.

*not every hof QB has terrific numbers*

Stafford has a career of very good QB play. Not every season, or stretch has been great, but it's a straw man to suggest I make my determination based on outlier seasons (nor is it a purely statistical based evaluation). In fact, my argument was pretty clear in that continued success over time is reflected in the numbers, which Stanford is a great example of a guy who has almost always been just outside the elite guys, kind of where I think he is for now—and his career numbers reflect that reality.

Originally posted by genus49:
Mahomes elevates his team and don't bother looking at the numbers. Eye test is all we need.

Well of course Mahomes won't have huge numbers because he doesn't have elite players all over the place. Even a great QB like Mahomes can't overcome poor pass pro.

Just a couple I found while looking back a few hundred pages but let's pretend 81's point earlier was pure strawman and not with some merit given how different people judge the top QBs.

Eye test works great when they're winning. When they lose and the stats don't show their greatness then we start to point out they're playing without their top guys.

Meanwhile the great QBs can make up for roster deficiencies...except when they don't. Does that mean they're not great at that point?

This is why I thought he made a good point. Every QB needs players to make them be great. You will rarely find great QBs winning SBs without a good roster around them. There may be some holes, there may be some players who aren't household names on there but those names will be pretty consistent players and likely been with that franchise for a bit.

The elite players are guys who mirror physical tools and the mental side of the position so well that they're able to make a higher % of plays that other QBs. They may win some games but if their roster is weak no matter how good they are, they're not likely to win the ultimate prize.

There is a middle ground between dismissing those QBs for not being as great as they are because they're literally fighting each other to even make the SB but also downplaying what Purdy has done or somehow holding him to a higher standard than those other guys.

Lol. The dude flat out said Purdy was a more accomplished QB than Lamar or Allen because the 49ers went to the Super Bowl. There is not even an attempt in that statement to differentiate between the impact of supporting players in line with what you are saying here.

Posts of people commenting about QBs elevating their teammates is a far cry from examples of 81's argument. Every one of those posts shows an indication of thinking in line with what I bolded in your post: that teammates matter.

Originally posted by Chance:
Stafford has a career of very good QB play. Not every season, or stretch has been great, but it's a straw man to suggest I make my determination based on outlier seasons (nor is it a purely statistical based evaluation). In fact, my argument was pretty clear in that continued success over time is reflected in the numbers, which Stanford is a great example of a guy who has almost always been just outside the elite guys, kind of where I think he is for now—and his career numbers reflect that reality.

I didn't cite outlier seasons. I cited his 3 most recent seasons played. If it's a career influenced ranking are Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers in the top 5?

This is getting silly.

(FYI I think you have Stafford ranked appropriately).

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Chance:
Stafford has a career of very good QB play. Not every season, or stretch has been great, but it's a straw man to suggest I make my determination based on outlier seasons (nor is it a purely statistical based evaluation). In fact, my argument was pretty clear in that continued success over time is reflected in the numbers, which Stanford is a great example of a guy who has almost always been just outside the elite guys, kind of where I think he is for now—and his career numbers reflect that reality.

I didn't cite outlier seasons. I cited his 3 most recent seasons played. If it's a career influenced ranking are Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers in the top 5?

This is getting silly.

(FYI I think you have Stafford ranked appropriately).

If it's getting "silly" for you, no one is forcing you to waste your time.

Stafford had a bum shoulder in the season following the SB, so an outlier to include that season in any statistical analysis. The last two years have been solid, but again, I'm not sure what argument I made that a guys' most recent year, or two years, of statistical rankings determine his arbitrary QB tier? No one would look at Mahomes last three years and call him a fringe top ten QB. The stats certainly can help inform a pattern or trajectory, but I'm not arguing that they are the be-all-end-all, nor am I saying they are irrelevant. I have always made my judgement of a QBs quality on a wide range of context, and generally speaking, multi-year statistics will back that up.

Originally posted by Chance:
If it's getting "silly" for you, no one is forcing you to waste your time.

Stafford had a bum shoulder in the season following the SB, so an outlier to include that season in any statistical analysis. The last two years have been solid, but again, I'm not sure what argument I made that a guys' most recent year, or two years, of statistical rankings determine his arbitrary QB tier? No one would look at Mahomes last three years and call him a fringe top ten QB. The stats certainly can help inform a pattern or trajectory, but I'm not arguing that they are the be-all-end-all, nor am I saying they are irrelevant. I have always made my judgement of a QBs quality on a wide range of context, and generally speaking, multi-year statistics will back that up.

Why wouldn't 2 full prior seasons give a good indication of where a player is currently at?

Here's Stafford's ranks among commonly cited metrics* over the last two seasons:

2023:
Passer Rating: 15th
QBR: 6th
EPA/db: 14 (ish)
YPA: 7th

2024:
Passer Rating: 15th
QBR: 12th
EPA/db: 16th (ish)
YPA: 16th

You described statistics as being the only objective measure of a QB's play. But it's still very subjective. Which numbers you choose, for how long the sample is, how the numbers are weighed against each other… all subjective. No less nebulous than a weight of the numbers against an evaluation of what you see. Some of the numbers are simply the product of an evaluation that someone else is making by watching film.

You said:
'But you can't win an argument that dismisses the numbers wholesale in favor of some nebulous eye-test instead.'

Not only are the numbers not dismissed but every single argument is going to be subjective, unless you simply want to pick a stat and list the result free of context.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Chance:
If it's getting "silly" for you, no one is forcing you to waste your time.

Stafford had a bum shoulder in the season following the SB, so an outlier to include that season in any statistical analysis. The last two years have been solid, but again, I'm not sure what argument I made that a guys' most recent year, or two years, of statistical rankings determine his arbitrary QB tier? No one would look at Mahomes last three years and call him a fringe top ten QB. The stats certainly can help inform a pattern or trajectory, but I'm not arguing that they are the be-all-end-all, nor am I saying they are irrelevant. I have always made my judgement of a QBs quality on a wide range of context, and generally speaking, multi-year statistics will back that up.

Why wouldn't 2 full prior seasons give a good indication of where a player is currently at?

Here's Stafford's ranks among commonly cited metrics* over the last two seasons:

2023:
Passer Rating: 15th
QBR: 6th
EPA/db: 14 (ish)
YPA: 7th

2024:
Passer Rating: 15th
QBR: 12th
EPA/db: 16th (ish)
YPA: 16th

You described statistics as being the only objective measure of a QB's play. But it's still very subjective. Which numbers you choose, for how long the sample is, how the numbers are weighed against each other… all subjective. No less nebulous than a weight of the numbers against an evaluation of what you see. Some of the numbers are simply the product of an evaluation that someone else is making by watching film.

You said:
'But you can't win an argument that dismisses the numbers wholesale in favor of some nebulous eye-test instead.'

Not only are the numbers not dismissed but every single argument is going to be subjective, unless you simply want to pick a stat and list the result free of context.

Statistics are objective insofar they provide data points that cannot be disputed. Yes, context can change our analysis of what those statistics mean, inserting subjectivity, but generally speaking, if you want to judge a QB's play over a long period of time, statistics (especially advanced) will match subjective consensus.

When we start ranking players, everything becomes subjective. Which is why we are arguing. But I don't throw out statistics, or diminish their role in helping tell the story, especially over the long-term.

If we can say that since stepping into the football field that Purdy is objectively better than his all or most of his peers in QBR, passer rating, y/attempt, air yards, td%, etc., well those are objective numbers that cannot be disputed, and they aren't meaningless without our subjective analysis. Achieving those numbers over a period of time, means he's enjoyed a tremendous amount of on field success compared to other QBs.

My subjective analysis is that being among the elite in those particular stats weighs heavily toward how he compares to his peers. You think about a dozen other guys (or more?) could do what Purdy has done with this team in the last 2.5 years. I simply disagree, and neither of us could possibly know, cool?

Originally posted by Chance:
Statistics are objective insofar they provide data points that cannot be disputed. Yes, context can change our analysis of what those statistics mean, inserting subjectivity, but generally speaking, if you want to judge a QB's play over a long period of time, statistics (especially advanced) will match subjective consensus.

No,...on multiple layers. 1st off,..statistics can be disputed. I think you really mean raw, numerical data and math calculations? Cause if you don't think statistics can be disputed,...all I can say for the sake of the board is to research that topic.

2ndly,...even if that were accurate, Football has way too many variables at play to where stuff like this can be dumbed down to stats creating a "consensus." Oh boy,...where do we begin? What statistic would there be to account for Megatron or Randy Moss's weight on a game because they constantly attracted double teams, but garnered few numbers?

Now sure,...more accurate, tell-tale statistics could "advance" to the point where 99.99% of football fans don't understand what the hell they're looking at, but what would be the point?

The average fan wants topics dumbed down to a nice, neat number or 2 to compare. Well,...you can't reduce most game-deciding plays in football to a number without a heavy amount of bias.

Lamar Jackson was easily last year's MVP if you were going to do that, but voters thought otherwise.

For the kinds of statistiics you're referring to,...they support judgement. They aren't meant to be the judgement on their own,..and that is where you're failing at.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Lol. The dude flat out said Purdy was a more accomplished QB than Lamar or Allen because the 49ers went to the Super Bowl. There is not even an attempt in that statement to differentiate between the impact of supporting players in line with what you are saying here.

Posts of people commenting about QBs elevating their teammates is a far cry from examples of 81's argument. Every one of those posts shows an indication of thinking in line with what I bolded in your post: that teammates matter.

Anyone trying to s**t on Jackson/allen to prop up Brock has a pretty weak argument. Also we can't keep downplaying the importance of the overall roster for Brock in 23 (to prop up how great he was) then in the same breath complain about how bad the roster was for him last yr.

too much trying to have your cake and eat it too when defending Brock from some imo.

I think you're probably a little more pessimistic with Brock than me. IMO he's a good young QB with some great intangibles along with the ability to move (wish he would use it more). His arm talent and size will always be less than desirable, is what it is.

I think as long as the roster is in a good spot and Brock is with Kyle, we're gonna win a bunch of games.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:
Mahomes elevates his team and don't bother looking at the numbers. Eye test is all we need.

Well of course Mahomes won't have huge numbers because he doesn't have elite players all over the place. Even a great QB like Mahomes can't overcome poor pass pro.

Just a couple I found while looking back a few hundred pages but let's pretend 81's point earlier was pure strawman and not with some merit given how different people judge the top QBs.

Eye test works great when they're winning. When they lose and the stats don't show their greatness then we start to point out they're playing without their top guys.

Meanwhile the great QBs can make up for roster deficiencies...except when they don't. Does that mean they're not great at that point?

This is why I thought he made a good point. Every QB needs players to make them be great. You will rarely find great QBs winning SBs without a good roster around them. There may be some holes, there may be some players who aren't household names on there but those names will be pretty consistent players and likely been with that franchise for a bit.

The elite players are guys who mirror physical tools and the mental side of the position so well that they're able to make a higher % of plays that other QBs. They may win some games but if their roster is weak no matter how good they are, they're not likely to win the ultimate prize.

There is a middle ground between dismissing those QBs for not being as great as they are because they're literally fighting each other to even make the SB but also downplaying what Purdy has done or somehow holding him to a higher standard than those other guys.

Lol. The dude flat out said Purdy was a more accomplished QB than Lamar or Allen because the 49ers went to the Super Bowl. There is not even an attempt in that statement to differentiate between the impact of supporting players in line with what you are saying here.

Posts of people commenting about QBs elevating their teammates is a far cry from examples of 81's argument. Every one of those posts shows an indication of thinking in line with what I bolded in your post: that teammates matter.

I said I disagreed with that part of the point. I highlighted the part that I thought was a good point. There is a difference and it's ok to take a step back and acknowledge it.

Whether it's here or on social media for whatever reason Brock Purdy has had insane expectations and goals that people required of him. Ones that somehow don't exist for players who were drafted much earlier than him.

So I'm not agreeing with 81s overall statement. Mahomes, Allen and Lamar are clearly in a league of their own. However we clearly need to stop hyping those guys up to absurd levels and pretending they can make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t. Joe Burrow is on a league of his own as the #4 QB in the NFL and we just saw him put up a dominant statistical season and miss the playoffs because of the defense.

It's ok to look at things without going to either extreme IMO.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Yah where's all the "Mahomes elevates his team" talk!!

uhmmm... he DOES elevate his team tho. He's a bonifide future HOFer still in his 20's.

Losing the final game - which was still historic - doesnt erase a 17-2 run after 2 consecutive titles.

Mahomes elevates his team and don't bother looking at the numbers. Eye test is all we need.

Originally posted by random49er:
Has anyone here ever expected Mahomes to have his #1 WR put up "Tyrique Hill" numbers without Tyrique Hill? A defensive line kicking a$$ can wreck an OL on a team with limited weapons? Something we've known for quite some time too,...so no surprises there.

But from our 6-11 season,...I get nothing from it. That wasn't 11 losses vs. the Eagles.

Well of course Mahomes won't have huge numbers because he doesn't have elite players all over the place. Even a great QB like Mahomes can't overcome poor pass pro.

This is just a really bad comparison to the 49ers (if that's what you're still trying to do?)

The dude's a multi-time MVP that's fresh off of 3 straight title appearances. He's overcame bad blocking plenty of times,....it's just that when he puts another ring on time after time, you're naturally looking the other way.

Reality tho is he has 3 SB MVP's as well....which is a record. So as far as the ability to stay cool and get it done when it matters,....his legacy is cemented with that,..regardless whether he wins 3 more or never makes the playoffs again. That's why these things just arent good comparisons and you're not really being fair to Brock to bring up players like him, Josh Allen, and Lamar. People are winning these arguments before you guys finish your sentences.

I'd be much more willing to see some comparisons our guy is in the same zip code with (Trevor Lawrence, Love, et. al.). There's no need to seek out numbers to back this up,...the results we've all seen at this point is plenty enough.

But no,...Philly's DL having success against KC and Mahomes doesn't somehow absolve Brock Purdy of situations late in games where we've observed him not do very well.

Why have we observed such great play this past year in 1st halves (where his passer rating is like 107 in the 1st half) if the blocking has been totally inept and never gave him a chance?

There's just no link (to Mahomes) and this is ad hoc fallacy is a desperate grasp.

Once again you cut out parts of the post so you can move the narrative another direction.

Just like our conversations months ago this is not a Purdy is just like Mahomes situation. It's a reminder that arguably the best QB in the sport can't get it done when there are big holes on his roster.

We spent a few pages going over how Purdy's OL is fine and other QBs can play with lesser OLs. Yet the two times we saw Patrick Mahomes in the SB where the refs didn't have blinders to calling holding and his OL was in a state of flux cuz of injuries...the Chiefs got blown out and Mahomes looked nothing like a future HOFer.

So why can't the best QB in the game elevate his roster that was good enough to get to the SB? Why is the narrative well his OL failed him? Why aren't we talking about him throwing atrocious picks?

It's bizarre to me that Purdy has expectations higher than guys like Mahomes, Allen and Lamar. Why? If anything those guys should be looked at under a microscope considering we all(almost) agree they're the top guys in the league who can make every throw in the book, make plays with their legs and also have the mental part of the game down.

As for your doubling down on the poor play down the stretch, does that apply to Purdy in the playoffs as well or just the narrative you wanted to push in a season where few things went right?

How about the simple fact that Shanahan's scheme has a history of poor performance in those situations? When you don't put a lot of resources into the OL and the bread and butter is playaction/run game to keep the pass rush in check, what do you think happens when they know you have to throw the ball? Mahomes can't play well even early in the game vs the Eagles when they're not attacking full on but your expectation that Purdy should be dicing up teams with half his skill guys on IR? Those expectations again...

You can drill into those numbers and pretend there is a Purdy issue there, I'll put more emphasis on the playoff performances in a must have games coming back from behind when he actually has guys he trusts out there.

But yes the team needs to improve in those areas because counting on always being ahead or in situations where you're not forced to throw the ball is bad strategy. Great if you can swing it...but it can bite you in the ass at the worst time.

The other part of it is our roster is better vs zone. It's why we moved the ball well on KC early in the SB, then it was like pulling teeth down the stretch. Eagles run more zone which is why we did better against them(though obviously now it's a vastly different defense)

And FYI Brock's first half career rating is 106.9, his 2nd half career rating is 102.5.

Does that scream a huge problem? Sure it's lower but considering how most of the games in his career have gone it certainly makes sense why it would be lower. Either we're up a lot and there isn't a need for him to throw as much - TDs weigh heavily on QB Rating or we're down and forced to throw and it opens up a lot more INT possibilities. If anything you'd think if it was a clear issue that 2nd half rating would be way lower.

Originally posted by genus49:
Once again you cut out parts of the post so you can move the narrative another direction.

I'm cutting out parts of posts I'm likely not reading because its so personal the 1st sentence and I'm usually responding to that instead of 49er stuff.

Originally posted by genus49:

Just like our conversations months ago this is not a Purdy is just like Mahomes situation. It's a reminder that arguably the best QB in the sport can't get it done when there are big holes on his roster.

We spent a few pages going over how Purdy's OL is fine and other QBs can play with lesser OLs. Yet the two times we saw Patrick Mahomes in the SB where the refs didn't have blinders to calling holding and his OL was in a state of flux cuz of injuries...the Chiefs got blown out and Mahomes looked nothing like a future HOFer.

So why can't the best QB in the game elevate his roster that was good enough to get to the SB? Why is the narrative well his OL failed him? Why aren't we talking about him throwing atrocious picks?

#1: After getting them there for 3 straight seasons, why can't he be guaranteed to win one more on his own, regardless of the competition, the game plans, et. al.?

This is only 1 game,...which is something I'll never key on and ignore all other info, for 1.

What I'm talking about with Brock are patterns,...trends,....not a single game where damn near anything can happen. So I dont know if someone on some recent pages aside from CS was trying to turn a guy's complete career into a game or 2 of relevance, but it certainly wasnt me.

#2: Mahomes doesn't have to carry his team anywhere, any more for the rest of his career. He's already proven. We'd like for our guy to even get halfway there one day. Hope it happens, but again, I'd rather see his name aside his contemporaries for now instead. JMO.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Chance:
Statistics are objective insofar they provide data points that cannot be disputed. Yes, context can change our analysis of what those statistics mean, inserting subjectivity, but generally speaking, if you want to judge a QB's play over a long period of time, statistics (especially advanced) will match subjective consensus.

No,...on multiple layers.

You're getting way too far into the weeds and away from my point, which remains pretty straightforward. I'm not into pursuing your line of argument.