QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

owens his game was off the charts, but as a person this guy was a mess. he was the guy who tried to put down jeff garcia by insinuating he was gay. he then kinda threw his QB under the bus in philly, saying he choked in the big game. so for him of all ppl to be playing the 'that's my QB card', it was another bizarre moment, from a bizarre guy.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

owens his game was off the charts, but as a person this guy was a mess. he was the guy who tried to put down jeff garcia by insinuating he was gay. he then kinda threw his QB under the bus in philly, saying he choked in the big game. so for him of all ppl to be playing the 'that's my QB card', it was another bizarre moment, from a bizarre guy.

TO never said anything wrong...outside of going after Jeff's sexual preferences.

And TO always gave 100% on the field.

Originally posted by genus49:
TO never said anything wrong...outside of going after Jeff's sexual preferences.

And TO always gave 100% on the field.

This x 1000

Most misunderstood player in sports.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Chance:

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.

so long as you know it's extremely flawed and untrue,...we good.

Rhe best QBs statistically are, as a rule, the best QBs.

Stats don't lie when looked at as a set.

I haven't heard which statistic(s) though. Can you please give it so I can know and forward it to voters so they can save some time?

Statistics involve numbers. Name a couple so I can see.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Chance:

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.

so long as you know it's extremely flawed and untrue,...we good.

Rhe best QBs statistically are, as a rule, the best QBs.

Stats don't lie when looked at as a set.

I haven't heard which statistic(s) though. Can you please give it so I can know and forward it to voters so they can save some time?

Statistics involve numbers. Name a couple so I can see.

I named a few in the post you quoted, then erased large portions to suit the argument you were framing. None of the stats I named were of the subjective variety, with the possible exception of QBR, which we don't know how exactly they formulate.

Originally posted by Chance:
I named a few in the post you quoted, then erased large portions to suit the argument you were framing.

You gave up. These aren't names you're giving. Which stat tells me who's the best?

There can be a big difference between the best difference maker and the best stat-collector in a sport like football. Thinking any stat can overcome this is a pipe dream, but I'll still play.

Brock's TD:INT ratio isin't even in the Top 32 for 2024. He still got a contract somehow has a top 12 QB though.

Go ahead and give the stats and how much weight each one should hold so we can "calculate" who's the best...lol. (Hint: I wouldnt waste time with this straw either, cause it'll surely lead to nowhere favorable to your point)

p.s.,...Woo is correlating while I'm asking for causation that you guys simply wont be able to provide with a stat.

Originally posted by genus49:
I gotta say I'd never put money on Chris Simms agreeing with me but seems like I'm not the only one who felt better about Brock after last season.

Chris Simms on Brock Purdy:

"I was encouraged by a lot of stuff I saw from Brock Purdy last year. I feel like he did more off-schedule, more 'wow' plays, more 'wow' throws, making some more happen when it wasn't there to be had than he had the two years previous to that."

via:… pic.twitter.com/4EjuJJvPlc

— Coach Yac 🗣 (@Coach_Yac) June 2, 2025

Man, this guy is an idiot. How the hell does he have a job talking about football? "Brock Purdy is just a system QB, too many limitations." (or similar) "Wow Purdy can really make a lot of off schedule plays, good mobility. He can overcome a not so great playcall." Make up your mind goon.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Chance:
I named a few in the post you quoted, then erased large portions to suit the argument you were framing.

You gave up. These aren't names you're giving. Which stat tells me who's the best?

There can be a big difference between the best difference maker and the best player in a sport like football. Thinking any stat can overcome this is a pipe dream, but I'll still play.

Brock's TD:INT ratio isin't even in the Top 32 for 2024. He still got a contract somehow has a top 12 QB though.

Go ahead and give the stats and how much weight each one should hold so we can "calculate" who's the best...lol. (Hint: I wouldnt waste time with this straw either, cause it'll surely lead to nowhere favorable to your point)

p.s.,...Woo is correlating while I'm asking for causation that you guys simply wont be able to provide with a stat.

I didn't give up. You ignored the entire context of my argument and then reframed a straw man argument using a small portion of my post. I don't entertain bad faith b******t. You want a response? Read what I wrote then form an argument based on that. Otherwise continue to yell at the clouds.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
This x 1000

Most misunderstood player in sports.

I also agree, I really liked TO. He was very fun to watch, gave his all. He has some sass in his personality..who cares? I just like results. Plus, the sass was fun for the most part, like when he teased the Cowboys. Just good fun. A bit theatrical but a great player, he just knew that he was a great player, nothing wrong with that. Ppl are too sensitive these days. I miss the older days of football sometimes. Less fluff..all game.

Originally posted by Chance:
I didn't give up. You ignored the entire context of my argument and then reframed a straw man argument using a small portion of my post. I don't entertain bad faith b******t. You want a response? Read what I wrote then form an argument based on that. Otherwise continue to yell at the clouds.

No need. You know and I know that any couple "stats" you put out there and say "these are the ones",...I could easily defeat. That's why,...as I said....it's a waste. I've given reasons why.

Without some stuff that'd surely look crazy,...we have to actually watch games to know who played better or had more impact on games.



Someone mentioned T.O. Hell,...there's just no way TO isint a 1st ballot HOFer if we go on the numbers. Calvin Johnson (whom I mentioned before) was, though, while Reggie Wayne and Torry Holt are still looking on. Isaac Bruce's yardage numbers dusted Megatron's as well, but he had to wait. And not saying I agree with any of the decisions,...but it's just another prime example of how numbers aren't considered to be everything in this game.

If you wanna just skip what's on tape and go on the numbers you see on a sheet to make decisions between players,...you're simply following the wrong sport.

Watch. Decide on what you see. Look at the numbers (that are VERY important) to see if they support what you believe you saw. This is how it works.

More strawman arguments. Can't say I'm surprised. You wont get engagement from me when you continually misrepresent my argument. Bye now.

Originally posted by Chance:
More strawman arguments. Can't say I'm surprised. You wont get engagement from me when you continually misrepresent my argument. Bye now.

Exactly. No stats listed that I can go view and weight (based on your rules). I'd almost instantly eat them alive.

You voluntarily responded so I gave you a "Chance", though.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Chance:
More strawman arguments. Can't say I'm surprised. You wont get engagement from me when you continually misrepresent my argument. Bye now.

Exactly. No stats listed that I can go view and weight (based on your rules). I'd almost instantly eat them alive.

You voluntarily responded so I gave you a "Chance", though.