QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by tommyncal:
"Quite honestly, if I was giving Brock advice, my advice would be don't prioritize game one. Prioritize the season. Prioritize your career."
Advice from Dr. Jeff Dugas, the orthopedic surgeon who performed the same UCL repair surgery on former Niners QB Nick Mullens.
Makes sense to me.

.

Like I said his deal is to get healthy and focus on the long-term. Go from there.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by tommyncal:
"Quite honestly, if I was giving Brock advice, my advice would be don't prioritize game one. Prioritize the season. Prioritize your career."
Advice from Dr. Jeff Dugas, the orthopedic surgeon who performed the same UCL repair surgery on former Niners QB Nick Mullens.
Makes sense to me.

very smart idea.. I remember when RG3 got hurt.. they had an entire media campaign called 'All In for Week 1'

that dude was never the same, you don't show your toughness by risking your career, there will be a temptation on the part of the player to get back out there, up to team medics, coaches to pull the reigns back a bit

Wasnt the real issue that they played him on a destroyed knee in the playoffs the year Before?

Yes, he should have been out of that game I remember watching as it happened. He played on an injured knee cuz it was playoffs and they jumped on SEA early, then he reaggrevated it and could hardly move around, they kept him in, and then he destroyed it completely..

here's the offseason promos.. spoiler alert.. week 1 and the following weeks did not go so well and led to the rise of Kirk Cousins

Originally posted by NYniner85:
The evidence is 170 passes. 37 QBs threw the ball more than he did last yr. And that's not even including is now lengthy recovery to his throwing arm.

I think this team can win games with either.

It's limited evidence, for sure... especially from a fan's perspective.

And that's fine you think the team can win games with either, but that's not what the limited evidence shows to this point. The limited evidence shows we can win and thrive with Brock. The limited evidence does not show that with Lance.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
The evidence is 170 passes. 37 QBs threw the ball more than he did last yr. And that's not even including is now lengthy recovery to his throwing arm.

I think this team can win games with either.

It's limited evidence, for sure... especially from a fan's perspective.

And that's fine you think the team can win games with either, but that's not what the limited evidence shows to this point. The limited evidence shows we can win and thrive with Brock. The limited evidence does not show that with Lance.

Yeah, but he did more with those 170 passes than about 32 of those QBs. Not overall stat wise but few QBs had a stretch like he did.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, but he did more with those 170 passes than about 32 of those QBs.

You don't have to sell me. To me, unless Trey takes major leaps in the coming offseason, the play is to insert Brock the second he's ready to go and to play whoever we have is the best QB in that offseason program (whether that is Darnold or Lance) until he is ready to go. And I think the writing on the wall shows this is what the team is planning.

I was listening to a reporter who watch's camp on YouTube (his YouTube channel. Lll he is physically at camp) earlier and someone made the comment that you can't say Lance is inaccurate, not enough sample size.

lol dude was like he ABSOLUTELY has an issue. He said that Lance looked almost identical to how he did in the bears game all camp. Overall all camp he was 51% - now I know it's camp and doesn't mean much, but I did find it interesting that it translated into the game. The weather wasn't that bad until the fourth, I REALLY REALLY hope he improves in that this off season. I'd be thrilled

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by elguapo:
I agree can't really argue that but then again here it is….
Now you're bringing up their pass defense specifically. You shouldn't really move the goalposts like that. I was talking about their overall defense. Tampa Bay safeties weren't that great anyway and you're acting like it was a major thing. I would say not having Deebo Samuel for part of the game more than cancels out the effect he would've had on that "injured" defense. TBs defense was very good at the time and Washingtons was very very good. You can't deny that. You should know of all people especially with Washington, their defensive line is amazing and makes their WHOLE defense a top unit.

Defenses play together you know you just can't separate one portion of it to try to prove your point which did not hold any water. If you want to try to twist around this that's fine but we all know those were two very good defenses that Brock Purdy lit the hell up. Nobody is even talking about Seattle so I don't know where you threw that in or why. I guess you're just trying to be right which you are not. It's cool though no big deal. We both want Lance to be awesome.

I want Lance to be a top 10 quarterback like we both thought he would be he just needs the reps. The problem is we are a contender right now and don't have time to lose games that we would've won if Purdy was playing because that could cost us home-field advantage or at least some home games in the playoffs which makes all the difference oftentimes

Hopefully he will do well the first couple games when Purdy is recovering and then he could run with the job from there. If not we still have a qb that has proven to be a top rated qb and can make this offense top 3 easily which he has already proven

I mean Tampa wasn't top 10 overall regardless of pass D or rush D according to football outsiders. They were also down multiple starters on D. You talk about context well there ya go.

Antonio Winfield jr is a pro-bowler so yeah he is actually good and no being down one player on a already stacked list of play makers doesn't make up for missing their pro-bowl edge rusher and pro-bowler DT. Washington is good. I think most agreed Tampa was Brock's best performance overall. Hence why I brought it up.

lol what do you mean no one was talking about Seattle? That's how the convo started. You jumped in and added you thing, apparently you didn't read the post.

the whole we are a super contender thing is silly. What you don't think Brock has to develop all the same? He isn't some prime vet like Rogers out there. He played well in 6 starts. If you don't think he's gonna have ups and downs like damn near every young QB, well you're gonna be let down. He is absolutely developing all the same.

my posts have nothing to do with Brock vs Lance. I want both to be good. I don't care who starts. People act like 170 passing attempts for Brock equals Joe Montana or something. Likewise 100 passing attempts makes Lance Paxton lynch or something. The truth is no one knows yet…

I read the conversation just fine thanks. You actually brought up Seattle to prove a point how Trey was doing well when all of us know that Seattle's defense is absolutely atrocious especially against the run. Don't you remember them allowing 250 and 300 yard games? I guess not.

However, that's another bad example to use to prop up Trey. Just as using Tampa Bay was a bad example to minimize Brock. Anyways, getting past all the b******t which is pretty obvious, I am a huge Lance fan and as long as he does well the first two games or so hopefully he can keep the job. If he falters we have a top quarterback waiting in the wings

Either way I think we will win the Super Bowl this year, I just hope we can get home-field advantage

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, but he did more with those 170 passes than about 32 of those QBs.

You don't have to sell me. To me, unless Trey takes major leaps in the coming offseason, the play is to insert Brock the second he's ready to go and to play whoever we have is the best QB in that offseason program (whether that is Darnold or Lance) until he is ready to go. And I think the writing on the wall shows this is what the team is planning.

I'm not. Lol that wasn't really meant for anyone. I was just throwing it out there to add some context.

i think the team has decided that Lance isn't the future because of Purdy at this point but their mind could quickly change if Lance makes material improvements and Purdys arm has lingering issues (small possibility for lingering issues). That's the tough part about this business, you have all the time in the world until you don't, because someone brings what they're looking for. This is just my opinion.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by elguapo:

I agree can't really argue that but then again here it is….
Now you're bringing up their pass defense specifically. You shouldn't really move the goalposts like that. I was talking about their overall defense. Tampa Bay safeties weren't that great anyway and you're acting like it was a major thing. I would say not having Deebo Samuel for part of the game more than cancels out the effect he would've had on that "injured" defense. TBs defense was very good at the time and Washingtons was very very good. You can't deny that. You should know of all people especially with Washington, their defensive line is amazing and makes their WHOLE defense a top unit.

Defenses play together you know you just can't separate one portion of it to try to prove your point which did not hold any water. If you want to try to twist around this that's fine but we all know those were two very good defenses that Brock Purdy lit the hell up. Nobody is even talking about Seattle so I don't know where you threw that in or why. I guess you're just trying to be right which you are not. It's cool though no big deal. We both want Lance to be awesome.

I want Lance to be a top 10 quarterback like we both thought he would be he just needs the reps. The problem is we are a contender right now and don't have time to lose games that we would've won if Purdy was playing because that could cost us home-field advantage or at least some home games in the playoffs which makes all the difference oftentimes

Hopefully he will do well the first couple games when Purdy is recovering and then he could run with the job from there. If not we still have a qb that has proven to be a top rated qb and can make this offense top 3 easily which he has already proven

I mean Tampa wasn't top 10 overall regardless of pass D or rush D according to football outsiders. They were also down multiple starters on D. You talk about context well there ya go.

Antonio Winfield jr is a pro-bowler so yeah he is actually good and no being down one player on a already stacked list of play makers doesn't make up for missing their pro-bowl edge rusher and pro-bowler DT. Washington is good. I think most agreed Tampa was Brock's best performance overall. Hence why I brought it up.

lol what do you mean no one was talking about Seattle? That's how the convo started. You jumped in and added you thing, apparently you didn't read the post.

the whole we are a super contender thing is silly. What you don't think Brock has to develop all the same? He isn't some prime vet like Rogers out there. He played well in 6 starts. If you don't think he's gonna have ups and downs like damn near every young QB, well you're gonna be let down. He is absolutely developing all the same.

my posts have nothing to do with Brock vs Lance. I want both to be good. I don't care who starts. People act like 170 passing attempts for Brock equals Joe Montana or something. Likewise 100 passing attempts makes Lance Paxton lynch or something. The truth is no one knows yet…

I read the conversation just fine thanks. You actually brought up Seattle to prove a point how Trey was doing well when all of us know that Seattle's defense is absolutely atrocious especially against the run. Don't you remember them allowing 250 and 300 yard games? I guess not.

However, that's another bad example to use to prop up Trey. Just as using Tampa Bay was a bad example to minimize Brock. Anyways, getting past all the b******t which is pretty obvious, I am a huge Lance fan and as long as he does well the first two games or so hopefully he can keep the job. If he falters we have a top quarterback waiting in the wings

Either way I think we will win the Super Bowl this year, I just hope we can get home-field advantage

He gets laughed at for holding on to 17 plays in which Trey honestly did nothing great. Then out of nowhere s**ts on Brock's game against Tampa and says he's flipping our logic on us. Dude is lost lol

Originally posted by tankle104:
I was listening to a reporter who watch's camp on YouTube earlier and someone made the comment that you can't say Lance is inaccurate, not enough sample size.

lol dude was like he ABSOLUTELY has an issue. He said that Lance looked almost identical to how he did in the bears game all camp. Overall all camp he was 51% - now I know it's camp and doesn't mean much, but I did find it interesting that it translated into the game. The weather wasn't that bad until the fourth, I REALLY REALLY hope he improves in that this off season. I'd be thrilled

He's had accuracy issues every time we've seen him play, and there's a plethora of football analysts out there who will break down video and illuminate reasons why he struggles with accuracy based on his fundamentals.

The idea that the sample size is small is a better argument to make in the context of we don't know what he could become with extended playing time. But the argument that we don't have an idea of what he is right now, or at least the last time we saw him play, is a much bigger stretch.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I'm not. Lol that wasn't really meant for anyone. I was just throwing it out there to add some context.

i think the team has decided that Lance isn't the future because of Purdy at this point but their mind could quickly change if Lance makes material improvements and Purdys arm has lingering issues (small possibility for lingering issues). That's the tough part about this business, you have all the time in the world until you don't, because someone brings what they're looking for. This is just my opinion.

Agreed.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I was listening to a reporter who watch's camp on YouTube earlier and someone made the comment that you can't say Lance is inaccurate, not enough sample size.

lol dude was like he ABSOLUTELY has an issue. He said that Lance looked almost identical to how he did in the bears game all camp. Overall all camp he was 51% - now I know it's camp and doesn't mean much, but I did find it interesting that it translated into the game. The weather wasn't that bad until the fourth, I REALLY REALLY hope he improves in that this off season. I'd be thrilled

this was part of the Martz complaint. Martz was asked the #1 thing he looks for in a QB and he says accuracy. I think like any skill the more you do it the better you can get, no reason he can't throw a ton this summer and get better.

Was watching a thing on Randy Johnson, different sport of course, but I didn't realize he was a mediocre pitcher early on apparently he couldn't locate worth crap and had to acquire this. This is the kind of skill you can acquire just out on a field throwing the ball around, or with a coach changing your throw mechanics, you don't need regular season play time to work on this. BP was dotting ppl. It's one thing to complete it, it's another to put it right on guys.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
I'm not. Lol that wasn't really meant for anyone. I was just throwing it out there to add some context.

i think the team has decided that Lance isn't the future because of Purdy at this point but their mind could quickly change if Lance makes material improvements and Purdys arm has lingering issues (small possibility for lingering issues). That's the tough part about this business, you have all the time in the world until you don't, because someone brings what they're looking for. This is just my opinion.

Agreed.

But I don't see them trading him or anything like that. I think he will here as insurance. We are habitual QB destroyers. Lol

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
The evidence is 170 passes. 37 QBs threw the ball more than he did last yr. And that's not even including is now lengthy recovery to his throwing arm.

I think this team can win games with either.

It's limited evidence, for sure... especially from a fan's perspective.

And that's fine you think the team can win games with either, but that's not what the limited evidence shows to this point. The limited evidence shows we can win and thrive with Brock. The limited evidence does not show that with Lance.

Yeah, but he did more with those 170 passes than about 32 of those QBs. Not overall stat wise but few QBs had a stretch like he did.

He was also on a superior team. Compared to most of them. All I'm saying is it's an incredibly small sample size. I got no problem if he "takes the bull by the horns" and becomes that guy. I'm gonna need a lot more football though. Same thing with Lance.

Originally posted by tankle104:
But I don't see them trading him or anything like that. I think he will here as insurance. We are habitual QB destroyers. Lol

There's multiple reasons why we wouldn't want to trade him. I think it's highly likely he will be here at least until the end of his 4 year deal.