QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Young2Owens:
People just say whatever on this forum like it's objective truth…but they're just parroting media takes. Best example is this narrative that Brock has a noodle arm. His arm is fine he can hit any throw that any QB can make sans those occasional rocket throws that pretty much only Josh Allen can make.

I know winning isn't really a QB stat but when it comes down to it, guys like Burrow, Allen and Jackson haven't achieved much more on field success than Brock. They all have certain traits they are better than each other at and weak points. There hasn't been any separation among the QBs in this group. Mahomes separated himself simply because of the hardware he has on his fingers. It's also what set Montana and Brady apart.

No his arm is not a strength. That's not a media take, it's factual and that's okay because he does well with other things.

Allen and Jackson have won MVPS which is a pretty sizable achievement lol. Burrow has been to a SB all the same.

I would take Allen and burrow over Brock and most local fans and folks that are 49er fans would as well. Doesn't mean Brock stinks.

Not sure why we're tossing out extremes or are so defensive here?

Some people get upset when you don't think that our QB is great. For some reason being just very good isn't enough. The fact is if he was great he wouldn't have been available with the last pick in the draft. He was passed up for the obvious physical reasons. Now he's shown that he can play at high level but that doesn't mean the entire NFL was wrong. Teams are reluctant to pick players based on size, athleticism and sometimes who they played against. They overlook good players sometimes but it's been like this forever.

I'm not comparing the two, but you could say the same about Tom Brady or Kurt Warner or a lot of other QBs. As you said, sometimes teams overlook good players, sometimes they overlook great players.

What I meant was he was passed over because of his physical attributes. Brady wasn't selected earlier because he didn't have a great arm and he was really immobile. He ended up being better than the 6 QBs taken ahead of him but they all looked better on paper and at the combine. The combines can make average players look great. Kind of like the way you can drink an average woman into a 10.

Originally posted by boast:
i hope Purdy never chills out on the gunslinger mentality. more good than bad usually comes from it. in the future, will he lose an important game on an YOLO INT? he's bound to! great ones before him have and greats after him will too. you take the good, you take the bad....yadda, yadda, yadda the facts of life or some s**t.

Oh I would rather have someone willing to look downfield vs being check down charlie all game... If the play broke down with JG we were screwed.

My point with Brock is try and be smarter with some of those plays. When it's second down and you're in/near the RZ maybe a check down or scramble is the better option. IMO sometimes he thinks he can rip a pass into a tight window like Allen or Mahomes, but that's not always a thing for him.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
What I meant was he was passed over because of his physical attributes. Brady wasn't selected earlier because he didn't have a great arm and he was really immobile. He ended up being better than the 6 QBs taken ahead of him but they all looked better on paper and at the combine. The combines can make average players look great. Kind of like the way you can drink an average woman into a 10.

I mean you're not drafting a QB in the 1st rd because of the combine. Traits do matter and those gotta be on film, not just running around in shorts.

Brocks film at Iowa state (especially later in his career) was not amazing, toss in the lack of some tangible traits you get a day 3 QB. He went to the perfect place and showed people they were wrong, it's a great story…it's also not a common one.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

JESUS CHRIST LIZARD. pic.twitter.com/rtsiPV4iB3

— KNBR (@KNBR) December 16, 2025

His ability to to scramble/run is overlooked by many. However, he has been very effective throughout his career. Not Josh Allen level but better than most recognize.

PFF rates him right behind CJ Stroud in overall run effectiveness this year.
Allen - 91.9
Herbert - 88.1
Mahomes - 86.1
Mayfield - 82.2
Stroud - 78.9
Purdy - 78.4

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

JESUS CHRIST LIZARD. pic.twitter.com/rtsiPV4iB3

— KNBR (@KNBR) December 16, 2025

His ability to to scramble/run is overlooked by many. However, he has been very effective throughout his career. Not Josh Allen level but better than most recognize.

PFF rates him right behind CJ Stroud in overall run effectiveness this year.
Allen - 91.9
Herbert - 88.1
Mahomes - 86.1
Mayfield - 82.2
Stroud - 78.9
Purdy - 78.4

He is ALWAYS looking to throw, and leaving rushing as his absolute last option. One of my favorite traits he has.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

No his arm is not a strength. That's not a media take, it's factual and that's okay because he does well with other things.

Allen and Jackson have won MVPS which is a pretty sizable achievement lol. Burrow has been to a SB all the same.

I would take Allen and burrow over Brock and most local fans and folks that are 49er fans would as well. Doesn't mean Brock stinks.

Not sure why we're tossing out extremes or are so defensive here?

His arm was good enough to be the best deep ball passer statistically in 2023.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
This thread is comedy.

A month ago, people were legitimately saying that Mac Jones is better than Brock Purdy and now people are legitimately trying to say that Purdy is as good or better than Joe Burrow.

Never change, WZ.

Not sure who you're referring to specifically, but I never said Mac Jones was better than Purdy, and my only point about Purdy being similar to Burrow is results compared to perception.

Nobody can tell me anything Burrow has done that makes him better than Purdy. You can prefer Burrow's physical traits and potential, but he hasn't used those traits to prove he is actually better than Purdy, purely based on results.

The point is that Burrow can have bad games, or entire bad stretches, or get injured, or lose big games, etc, and nobody ever criticizes him. It's because he was the college golden boy and number 1 pick. He always gets the benefit of the doubt. Purdy was a nobody in the draft, so every success he has in the NFL is dismissed as something he gained from privilege.

Im just calling out the fans and media who have that bias.

Originally posted by Niners99:
Not sure who you're referring to specifically, but I never said Mac Jones was better than Purdy, and my only point about Purdy being similar to Burrow is results compared to perception.

Nobody can tell me anything Burrow has done that makes him better than Purdy. You can prefer Burrow's physical traits and potential, but he hasn't used those traits to prove he is actually better than Purdy, purely based on results.

The point is that Burrow can have bad games, or entire bad stretches, or get injured, or lose big games, etc, and nobody ever criticizes him. It's because he was the college golden boy and number 1 pick. He always gets the benefit of the doubt. Purdy was a nobody in the draft, so every success he has in the NFL is dismissed as something he gained from privilege.

Im just calling out the fans and media who have that bias.

Results as in statistics and/or team success? I guess it just depends on what statistics you sample. Team success has been close to a wash, generally. Brock has outright had better efficiency numbers than Burrow over his career, but Burrow has also produced more when healthy. All of this is going to be dramatically impacted by system and teammates for both players.

You're not going to find many people, if any at all, that review film and do not think Burrow is a better player.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Young2Owens:
People just say whatever on this forum like it's objective truth…but they're just parroting media takes. Best example is this narrative that Brock has a noodle arm. His arm is fine he can hit any throw that any QB can make sans those occasional rocket throws that pretty much only Josh Allen can make.

I know winning isn't really a QB stat but when it comes down to it, guys like Burrow, Allen and Jackson haven't achieved much more on field success than Brock. They all have certain traits they are better than each other at and weak points. There hasn't been any separation among the QBs in this group. Mahomes separated himself simply because of the hardware he has on his fingers. It's also what set Montana and Brady apart.

No his arm is not a strength. That's not a media take, it's factual and that's okay because he does well with other things.

Allen and Jackson have won MVPS which is a pretty sizable achievement lol. Burrow has been to a SB all the same.

I would take Allen and burrow over Brock and most local fans and folks that are 49er fans would as well. Doesn't mean Brock stinks.

Not sure why we're tossing out extremes or are so defensive here?

Reading comprehension…get some. I said his arm was "fine" not that it was a strength. But it's not a minus either. Y'all really don't read people's posts do you? You just want to keep up your talking points and disregard anyone who isn't chronically on this forum in the perpetual QB debate. No Brock isn't a "great qb" yet, he still has more to achieve…but so do those other guys not named Patrick Mahomes

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by genus49:
I understand what you're trying to say but the idea does lose steam when the two greatest QBs to ever play the game were a 6th round pick and a 3rd round pick.

Sometimes guys fall for different reasons. Brady had some measurements like height but clearly wasn't considered anything special even by our very own Bill Walsh unfortunately.

I'd say we can admit he was one of the greatest(if some here don't want to put him above Joe) the entire NFL was wrong there.

Now it's up to Brock to prove the same. It doesn't mean he has to be considered the most talented QB ever cuz that is something he will never achieve, much like Brady couldn't achieve that. But the ultimate team as well as individual success regardless of draft position changes perspective.

At the same time people shouldn't use draft slotting in their evaluations when QBs have been in the league 2+ years and yet some people still do that with Brock and it's weird.

See imo that's cherry-picking…for every Joe/brady there's a 1,000 day 3 QB flops. There's a reason most seasons the majority of QBs in the playoffs are 1st rd picks.

They do that because of why he was taken so late…and it had to do with arm talent/height (things that will never change) and the fact that he didn't improve in college. The yolo plays in college, he was trying to play like Marino but didn't have the arm for that…what he does have is the processing to run the offense and is more athletic than some think. Toss in all the hard work and leadership stuff.

If Genus94 was arguing that high draft picks are not more likely to hit, and using Tom Brady and Joe Montana to support his argument...that is cherry-picking.

However, that was not his point. His point was once a player has already hit, going back to draft position to re-litigate why he shouldn't be good anymore is where it stops making sense.

That's the key distinction.

Bringing up Brady or Montana isn't cherry-picking to say "late picks are usually great." It's pointing out that once the outcome is known, the odds that preceded it are irrelevant. If someone wins the lottery, you don't say they didn't really win because the odds were so low — they won. The probability mattered before, not after.

Brock has multiple years of NFL tape, playoff wins, efficiency metrics, and command of the offense. Evaluating him through the lens of "but he was the last pick" at this point is just anchoring bias. Draft slot is a predictive tool, not an evaluative one after starting 40+ games in the NFL.

No one is arguing Brock is the most physically gifted QB ever. Brady wasn't either. Montana wasn't either. That was never the point. The point is sustained team and individual success changes perception regardless of where you were drafted.

So yeah — if we were talking about a rookie or a backup with no body of work, draft position matters. But once a QB has proven he's good at the NFL level, going back to where he was drafted is just refusing to update the evaluation.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Niners99:
Not sure who you're referring to specifically, but I never said Mac Jones was better than Purdy, and my only point about Purdy being similar to Burrow is results compared to perception.

Nobody can tell me anything Burrow has done that makes him better than Purdy. You can prefer Burrow's physical traits and potential, but he hasn't used those traits to prove he is actually better than Purdy, purely based on results.

The point is that Burrow can have bad games, or entire bad stretches, or get injured, or lose big games, etc, and nobody ever criticizes him. It's because he was the college golden boy and number 1 pick. He always gets the benefit of the doubt. Purdy was a nobody in the draft, so every success he has in the NFL is dismissed as something he gained from privilege.

Im just calling out the fans and media who have that bias.

Results as in statistics and/or team success? I guess it just depends on what statistics you sample. Team success has been close to a wash, generally. Brock has outright had better efficiency numbers than Burrow over his career, but Burrow has also produced more when healthy. All of this is going to be dramatically impacted by system and teammates for both players.

You're not going to find many people, if any at all, that review film and do not think Burrow is a better player.

I mean, since Burrow has played almost double the career games, look at non counting stats. Purdy has been as good or better.

Again, Im not saying Purdy is better than Burrow, but you can't justify saying there is much of a gap between the two based on what they've done so far. Burrow plays in a great offense system and has two elite, big time WR who are both better than any WR Purdy has played with. Its not like Burrow doesn't have advantages too.

As far as the "film" argument, Purdy is great on film as well. The people who talk crap about Purdy are the people who don't watch film. The experts who do have been raving about Purdy's film. JTO, Baldy, Kurt Warner, etc. Its not like the film reveals Burrow is great and Purdy is a fluke. Not at all.

The main purpose of my argument is that Burrow is overrated, and totally gets a pass on not being successful because of his pedigree. Theres no two ways about it.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by FL9r:
Brock played well, just a couple a questionable passes that should have been intercepted. Did a ton with his feet and had great reads. More games like this and we should be good..

Which passes were those?

One to kittle across the middle and the other to Ricky. The one to Ricky was more of a sail over everyone but the one to kittle was dangerously close.. one could also argue that it was somewhat catchable. so like I said it was a good day. He helped himself out by using his legs.

If Burrow became available for two 1sts in the offseason - you do it. Period.

Only scenario to not do it is if Brock wins us the Super Bowl this year.

Or we can let the Rams do it again like with Stafford and give up the two 1sts for Burrow and win another Super Bowl for the Rams.

Brock played great on Sunday - but we have not been accustomed to seeing performances like that from him the last 20 games he started. Hopefully he can resurrect 2022-2023 Brock for this stretch run as I've been waiting to see it return consistently.

Let's see how he does against the Bears and Seahawks and in the playoffs and see if the 1st 20 games of his career Brock is back or will he revert to his last 20 game form.

All we want is for him to play like he did on Sunday and do it more often than not. Like his first 20 games starting. If he does nobody will complain.

Originally posted by Ezekiel38:
If Burrow became available for two 1sts in the offseason - you do it. Period.

Only scenario to not do it is if Brock wins us the Super Bowl this year.

Or we can let the Rams do it again like with Stafford and give up the two 1sts for Burrow and win another Super Bowl for the Rams.

Brock played great on Sunday - but we have not been accustomed to seeing performances like that from him the last 20 games he started. Hopefully he can resurrect 2022-2023 Brock for this stretch run as I've been waiting to see it return consistently.

Let's see how he does against the Bears and Seahawks and in the playoffs and see if the 1st 20 games of his career Brock is back or will he revert to his last 20 game form.

All we want is for him to play like he did on Sunday and do it more often than not. Like his first 20 games starting. If he does nobody will complain.

If the Rams offer their 2 1sts the 9ers can't do much about matching.

Bengals would be stupid to move him this offseason. It's an awful QB class.

If Purdy can play and look as comfortable as he did against the Titans for the rest of the season and into the playoffs, I like our chances.