QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
I believe I'm correct. Purdy has 0 wasted TOs, no delay penalties, and no procedure penalties. As a rookie. Just outstanding.

Pretty sure they had to burn some timeouts against Miami and TB when they were getting low in the play clock, but overall he's done a commendable job with the clock.

Originally posted by boast:
f**k
s**t
t**t

is WZ censorship.

***************

a reply of "your take is stupid"

is not censorship.

If you call for multiple posters to be banned (who just happen to be people you disagree with) despite the forum having a perfectly fine and fully functional ignore feature, what would you call that?

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:


Pay me if you want me to do the legwork on your ridiculous and arbitrary standard to prove a mild critique (mentioned amongst praise in the context of trying to understand where the author of an article was coming from). Not to mention it also appearing on his scouting report and being mentioned by other 49ers analysts. Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion like you used to do with Jimmy. Only a matter of time before you start accusing people of being in the Purdy Haters Club (if you haven't already).

How are you being "censored"?

Did I say I was? I pointed out what Furlow does and he's openly called for a number of posters to be banned when they've argued with him (and haven't been because they didn't do anything wrong).

It's disingenuous to pull one word out of context and then intentionally use it to misrepresent what someone has said.

wait a second. i just read the entire threaded discussion (the context) your reply was pulled from. nowhere in it does furlow or anyone call for a poster to be banned. you just make this claim out of the blue.

Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by thl408:
Kyle really likes to call designed rollouts to the left with Brock. Not normal for a right handed QB.

This guy.

Can't wait to not see him in a Niners uniform anymore.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Pillorying.

You're right. Purdy is perfect and has played flawlessly on every play. You'll say that you don't believe that, but then whenever someone implies anything other than that you go off the handle.

Pot, meet kettle.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by Furlow:


It's as if Purdy was gesturing to Kyle, Ring, Random, and all of the others pillorying Purdy in here.

Pillorying.

You're right. Purdy is perfect and has played flawlessly on every play. You'll say that you don't believe that, but then whenever someone implies anything other than that you go off the handle.

Why do you always go to the extreme? Why create a position to argue against that no one is taking? This is why you get the types of responses that you get. No, he's not flawless. Again, you stated that he has a tendency to leave the pocket too early. I disagreed. You asked how many examples you needed to provide to prove it's a tendency. I said 8. You said that's too many, so I said 4.

Find 3 more or just admit that it's not an actual tendency.

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:


Pay me if you want me to do the legwork on your ridiculous and arbitrary standard to prove a mild critique (mentioned amongst praise in the context of trying to understand where the author of an article was coming from). Not to mention it also appearing on his scouting report and being mentioned by other 49ers analysts. Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion like you used to do with Jimmy. Only a matter of time before you start accusing people of being in the Purdy Haters Club (if you haven't already).

How are you being "censored"?

Did I say I was? I pointed out what Furlow does and he's openly called for a number of posters to be banned when they've argued with him (and haven't been because they didn't do anything wrong).

It's disingenuous to pull one word out of context and then intentionally use it to misrepresent what someone has said.

wait a second. i just read the entire threaded discussion (the context) your reply was pulled from. nowhere in it does furlow or anyone call for a poster to be banned. you just make this claim out of the blue.

Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion

I'm not going to get into this with you and fill up a thread about Brock Purdy with more absurd nitpicking where you only accept only the most rigid definitions of a word. I think calling for people to be banned in the past does count for attempting to censor them, but in the context of this particular post, censor refers to trying to force people to meet a ridiculous standard of proof whenever they post an opinion that you disagree with in an attempt to discourage discussion or dissenting opinions.

Disagree with that all you like, I'm not going to pursue it any further, but you should ask yourself if it's worth your time to continue going through every post with a fine comb looking for things to be triggered by.

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:


Pay me if you want me to do the legwork on your ridiculous and arbitrary standard to prove a mild critique (mentioned amongst praise in the context of trying to understand where the author of an article was coming from). Not to mention it also appearing on his scouting report and being mentioned by other 49ers analysts. Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion like you used to do with Jimmy. Only a matter of time before you start accusing people of being in the Purdy Haters Club (if you haven't already).

How are you being "censored"?

Did I say I was? I pointed out what Furlow does and he's openly called for a number of posters to be banned when they've argued with him (and haven't been because they didn't do anything wrong).

It's disingenuous to pull one word out of context and then intentionally use it to misrepresent what someone has said.

wait a second. i just read the entire threaded discussion (the context) your reply was pulled from. nowhere in it does furlow or anyone call for a poster to be banned. you just make this claim out of the blue.

Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion

He's referring to a couple of times where I said posters should be banned for saying certain inflammatory things about Jimmy. Coincidentally, one of those posters (Chillinindabay I think?) was banned for such posts, so the mods agreed with that example.

I've never said that Ring nor any Jimmy or Purdy detractor should be banned for making criticisms. What I've said is the threads and conversations would flow better if certain posters weren't allowed to spam post negative BS over and over. I mean we spent an entire week debating whether it was Jimmy or Kittle's fault that Kittle dropped that ball against Green Bay in the playoffs, when clearly Kittle dropped it. Not sure how that "conversation" was beneficial to the thread or forum in general; and exchanges like that likely turn away many potential contributors. I know I've been PM'd many times by people thanking me for calling out the BS, and being told that they stay away because of those types of posters.

Anyway, this latest attempt by Ring to misconstrue what I just described as "censorship" is yet another example of his hyperbolic statements and strawman arguments. It's very simple. Ring's opinion is that Purdy has a "tendency to leave the pocket too early." I disagreed and asked for more examples than just the TD pass to Kittle. Here we are. Lol

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:


Pay me if you want me to do the legwork on your ridiculous and arbitrary standard to prove a mild critique (mentioned amongst praise in the context of trying to understand where the author of an article was coming from). Not to mention it also appearing on his scouting report and being mentioned by other 49ers analysts. Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion like you used to do with Jimmy. Only a matter of time before you start accusing people of being in the Purdy Haters Club (if you haven't already).

How are you being "censored"?

Did I say I was? I pointed out what Furlow does and he's openly called for a number of posters to be banned when they've argued with him (and haven't been because they didn't do anything wrong).

It's disingenuous to pull one word out of context and then intentionally use it to misrepresent what someone has said.

wait a second. i just read the entire threaded discussion (the context) your reply was pulled from. nowhere in it does furlow or anyone call for a poster to be banned. you just make this claim out of the blue.

Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion

I'm not going to get into this with you and fill up a thread about Brock Purdy with more absurd nitpicking where you only accept only the most rigid definitions of a word. I think calling for people to be banned in the past does count for attempting to censor them, but in the context of this particular post, censor refers to trying to force people to meet a ridiculous standard of proof whenever they post an opinion that you disagree with in an attempt to discourage discussion or dissenting opinions.

Disagree with that all you like, I'm not going to pursue it any further, but you should ask yourself if it's worth your time to continue going through every post with a fine comb looking for things to be triggered by.

You're changing the definitions of words now, rather than just admitting you were wrong? Okay.

And again, 8/170 is hardly a "ridiculous standard" for the word "tendency." I even reduced it to 4/170. Still waiting for 3 more examples, or are you also changing the definition of the word tendency?

Call me crazy but we need to at least hold posters accountable to the standard of the dictionary definitions of words. If we don't have that, then these exchanges have no value whatsoever.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:


Pay me if you want me to do the legwork on your ridiculous and arbitrary standard to prove a mild critique (mentioned amongst praise in the context of trying to understand where the author of an article was coming from). Not to mention it also appearing on his scouting report and being mentioned by other 49ers analysts. Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion like you used to do with Jimmy. Only a matter of time before you start accusing people of being in the Purdy Haters Club (if you haven't already).

How are you being "censored"?

Did I say I was? I pointed out what Furlow does and he's openly called for a number of posters to be banned when they've argued with him (and haven't been because they didn't do anything wrong).

It's disingenuous to pull one word out of context and then intentionally use it to misrepresent what someone has said.

wait a second. i just read the entire threaded discussion (the context) your reply was pulled from. nowhere in it does furlow or anyone call for a poster to be banned. you just make this claim out of the blue.

Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion

I'm not going to get into this with you and fill up a thread about Brock Purdy with more absurd nitpicking where you only accept only the most rigid definitions of a word. I think calling for people to be banned in the past does count for attempting to censor them, but in the context of this particular post, censor refers to trying to force people to meet a ridiculous standard of proof whenever they post an opinion that you disagree with in an attempt to discourage discussion or dissenting opinions.

Disagree with that all you like, I'm not going to pursue it any further, but you should ask yourself if it's worth your time to continue going through every post with a fine comb looking for things to be triggered by.

not sure you understand the definition of censor. you also might be too emotional to handle pushback on your opinions when participating in a public discussion forum.

Originally posted by Koldo:

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:

Originally posted by thl408:
Kyle really likes to call designed rollouts to the left with Brock. Not normal for a right handed QB.

This guy.

Can't wait to not see him in a Niners uniform anymore.

he's playing well, actually

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by Furlow:


It's as if Purdy was gesturing to Kyle, Ring, Random, and all of the others pillorying Purdy in here.

Pillorying.

You're right. Purdy is perfect and has played flawlessly on every play. You'll say that you don't believe that, but then whenever someone implies anything other than that you go off the handle.

Why do you always go to the extreme? Why create a position to argue against that no one is taking? This is why you get the types of responses that you get. No, he's not flawless. Again, you stated that he has a tendency to leave the pocket too early. I disagreed. You asked how many examples you needed to provide to prove it's a tendency. I said 8. You said that's too many, so I said 4.

Find 3 more or just admit that it's not an actual tendency.

Prove to me that you're willing to engage in the discussion in good faith by providing me 4% of your total posts that display a willingness to accept evidence that contradicts your current position. Otherwise, why should I spend the time to track down clips just to prove to you that my opinion meets your standards of validity? I already provided you one glaring example that was readily available and you were instantly dismissive of it. I don't see what I'd get out of providing more.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:


Pay me if you want me to do the legwork on your ridiculous and arbitrary standard to prove a mild critique (mentioned amongst praise in the context of trying to understand where the author of an article was coming from). Not to mention it also appearing on his scouting report and being mentioned by other 49ers analysts. Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion like you used to do with Jimmy. Only a matter of time before you start accusing people of being in the Purdy Haters Club (if you haven't already).

How are you being "censored"?

Did I say I was? I pointed out what Furlow does and he's openly called for a number of posters to be banned when they've argued with him (and haven't been because they didn't do anything wrong).

It's disingenuous to pull one word out of context and then intentionally use it to misrepresent what someone has said.

wait a second. i just read the entire threaded discussion (the context) your reply was pulled from. nowhere in it does furlow or anyone call for a poster to be banned. you just make this claim out of the blue.

Just a ridiculous attempt to censor all criticism and discussion

I'm not going to get into this with you and fill up a thread about Brock Purdy with more absurd nitpicking where you only accept only the most rigid definitions of a word. I think calling for people to be banned in the past does count for attempting to censor them, but in the context of this particular post, censor refers to trying to force people to meet a ridiculous standard of proof whenever they post an opinion that you disagree with in an attempt to discourage discussion or dissenting opinions.

Disagree with that all you like, I'm not going to pursue it any further, but you should ask yourself if it's worth your time to continue going through every post with a fine comb looking for things to be triggered by.

You're changing the definitions of words now, rather than just admitting you were wrong? Okay.

And again, 8/170 is hardly a "ridiculous standard" for the word "tendency." I even reduced it to 4/170. Still waiting for 3 more examples, or are you also changing the definition of the word tendency?

Call me crazy but we need to at least hold posters accountable to the standard of the dictionary definitions of words. If we don't have that, then these exchanges have no value whatsoever.

8/170 is a ridiculous standard. Brock Purdy had 1500 college attempts. If I said that he had a tendency to do the same thing in college, would you want 75 different examples?

[tweet

Originally posted by Furlow:
You're changing the definitions of words now, rather than just admitting you were wrong? Okay.

And again, 8/170 is hardly a "ridiculous standard" for the word "tendency." I even reduced it to 4/170. Still waiting for 3 more examples, or are you also changing the definition of the word tendency?

Call me crazy but we need to at least hold posters accountable to the standard of the dictionary definitions of words. If we don't have that, then these exchanges have no value whatsoever.

You'd rather fill up the thread with all of this stuff than discuss football stills with arrows?

Do I have that correct?