QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You get things like this when people rely on certain statistics, but also don't really understand what the statistics represent. It is what it is…. Never going to change.

It's gonna change.....change for the worse because there will be more stats implemented to further complicate the matter in the years/decades to come. That's not even taking into consideration how the rules will be tweaked to alter stats. After all......you just saw very recently that someone (and there are others on this board) believe that John Elway was an 'average' player.

That's John Elway.....an absolute slam-dunk HOF player BTW. This is how effed up today's NFL viewer is today.

John Elway was not average. Don't lump that take with those of us who think Brock's better than good.

Originally posted by Chance:
John Elway was not average. Don't lump that take with those of us who think Brock's better than good.

Did I apply that take to everyone? No, I did not.

Originally posted by Chance:
John Elway was not average. Don't lump that take with those of us who think Brock's better than good.

It's not lumped in with anybody's arguments about Brock. It just reveals a lack of understanding of the statistics and the position.

Elway is a funny example because even a surface evaluation of his statistics throughout his career should point to questions about the validity of the statistics in the first place. Elway being overrated or average is a really common argument, and it's always centered around a comparison of his numbers (like completion percentage, passer rating, tds, ints etc) against his peers.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by Chance:
John Elway was not average. Don't lump that take with those of us who think Brock's better than good.

Did I apply that take to everyone? No, I did not.

You used it as a cherry-picked example. One guy said that, a guy notorious for saying stupid things.

Originally posted by Chance:
You used it as a cherry-picked example. One guy said that, a guy notorious for saying stupid things.

The basis for the argument is what's important. You're obviously right about Furlow, but he's not the only person who's made that argument here. There is an entire thread about it on the NFL board. The argument is always the same. And that type of argument is very typical for QB conversations generally.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:
John Elway was 'average'.

Agreed

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by Chance:
John Elway was not average. Don't lump that take with those of us who think Brock's better than good.

Did I apply that take to everyone? No, I did not.

You used it as a cherry-picked example. One guy said that, a guy notorious for saying stupid things.

I am not notorious for saying stupid things.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Chance:
John Elway was not average. Don't lump that take with those of us who think Brock's better than good.

It's not lumped in with anybody's arguments about Brock. It just reveals a lack of understanding of the statistics and the position.

Elway is a funny example because even a surface evaluation of his statistics throughout his career should point to questions about the validity of the statistics in the first place. Elway being overrated or average is a really common argument, and it's always centered around a comparison of his numbers (like completion percentage, passer rating, tds, ints etc) against his peers.

I understand your point about statistics, but they aren't meaningless. I've watched enough football to recognize elite QB play, and Brock has played like an elite QB during some long stretches to start his career. The stats buttress the eye test. If Brock and Jimmy were products of the same system, the tape wouldn't show Brock doing things Jimmy couldn't dream of, like throwing with accuracy down the field, delivering strikes outside the hashes, maneuvering the pocket, being a playmaker, and throwing guys open. Their stats were sometimes quite similar, but the tape tells a different story.

Originally posted by Chance:
You used it as a cherry-picked example. One guy said that, a guy notorious for saying stupid things.

There has been more that one person on this board that claimed as such.....in fact, there has been three that I know of.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by Chance:
You used it as a cherry-picked example. One guy said that, a guy notorious for saying stupid things.

There has been more that one person on this board that claimed as such.....in fact, there has been three that I know of.

One guy I saw say that today in this thread, which you used to portray those of us who view Brock more highly in a negative light.

Originally posted by Chance:
One guy I saw say that today in this thread, which you used to portray those of us who view Brock more highly in a negative light.

I just told you that it was more than one. On top of that, it extends to a larger problem......if 'you' think John Elway was average, then your opinion of QB play is irrelevant to me.

The same I'd say with a lot of these Purdy comparisons.

Originally posted by Chance:
I understand your point about statistics, but they aren't meaningless. I've watched enough football to recognize elite QB play, and Brock has played like an elite QB during some long stretches to start his career. The stats buttress the eye test. If Brock and Jimmy were products of the same system, the tape wouldn't show Brock doing things Jimmy couldn't dream of, like throwing with accuracy down the field, delivering strikes outside the hashes, maneuvering the pocket, being a playmaker, and throwing guys open. Their stats were sometimes quite similar, but the tape tells a different story.

I guess a lot of it has to do with what someone means when they say 'elite', or 'good', or 'great' etc. These terms usually are applied when people are ranking QBs against each other. For me, there are probably 5-6 QBs who I think are 'elite'. I don't really have a set definition for what elite means but I guess I'd boil it down to them being likely HoF players.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Chance:
I understand your point about statistics, but they aren't meaningless. I've watched enough football to recognize elite QB play, and Brock has played like an elite QB during some long stretches to start his career. The stats buttress the eye test. If Brock and Jimmy were products of the same system, the tape wouldn't show Brock doing things Jimmy couldn't dream of, like throwing with accuracy down the field, delivering strikes outside the hashes, maneuvering the pocket, being a playmaker, and throwing guys open. Their stats were sometimes quite similar, but the tape tells a different story.

I guess a lot of it has to do with what someone means when they say 'elite', or 'good', or 'great' etc. These terms usually are applied when people are ranking QBs against each other. For me, there are probably 5-6 QBs who I think are 'elite'. I don't really have a set definition for what elite means but I guess I'd boil it down to them being likely HoF players.

I agree with that assessment. For Brock's first season and a half, he was in that group. Last year, pretty far outside of it. So for me, he's on the outside looking in.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by Chance:
One guy I saw say that today in this thread, which you used to portray those of us who view Brock more highly in a negative light.

I just told you that it was more than one. On top of that, it extends to a larger problem......if 'you' think John Elway was average, then your opinion of QB play is irrelevant to me.

The same I'd say with a lot of these Purdy comparisons.

K