QB Brock Purdy Thread

Kyle needs to get better OL and protect BCB... they don't pay for OL except Left Tackle, that needs to change

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Are you seriously saying Dwight Clark was made? Dude is in the HOF......I don't even....ok.

Go look at Brady's stats year 1...
189 YPG
18 TD's to 12 INT's
63.9% comp

That's hardly carrying the team. When Brady's #'s took off(first time he threw for over 3800 yards in a season) wasn't til he got some serious playmakers. It's weird, it's almost like if you have better playmakers, QB's play better.

You're metric for "elite" is just absurd. The guy has to do it with no weapons....C'mon. If a guy has no weapons, the opposing teams will be play man-coverage all game and he has no where to throw because his guys suck.

+1

"scheme does not beat man to man....players do" -Bill Walsh

Originally posted by riverrunzthruit:
Kyle needs to get better OL and protect BCB... they don't pay for OL except Left Tackle, that needs to change

Come join us in the offensive line thread.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Those requirements don't even apply to Montana or....anyone.

"No gunning game, no explosive targets" Ok.....So...Montana is out. He had Craig, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Jerry Rice, Tom Rathman.

Tom? Well, they beat INDY in the playoffs, they ran for over 200 yards. He had Wes Welker, Julian Edelman, Randy Moss, Gronkowski and a slew of other players over the years.

Mahomes - Well, he's had Tyreek Hill, Travis Kelce, MVS, Pacheco, so he's out.

Josh Allen - before he got Diggs his #'s were a big bag of meh and still hasn't won a playoff game down 4+

The requirements listed - I cannot think of a single QB ever who would be labeled, "elite" that has had that situation.....

The only target Montana had early in his career in your list was Clark, and he was hardly an explosive player. He was most certainly made more by Montana than Clark made Montana. Go even look at Montana in KC, when Montana was broken down....JJ Birden? Tim Barnett? Willie Davis? Nothing players. Brady had none of those guys you mentioned in his early days either. Under Belichick, with Drew Bledsoe who was a very good QB, the Pats were 5-13. Bledsoe goes out, Brady comes in and they go on to win the Super Bowl. That's what true, generational talents do. They carry teams.

Jimmy converted a 1-10 team to a 5-0 team, and Brock is *better* than Jimmy.

To be fair, there were some pieces already in place on that team when Jimmy took over. What the team lacked up until that point was a QB who could help put them all together. That was what he brought to the team, and I will always give him his props for that. However, I do believe that Brock is a definite upgrade insofar as, he seems to see the field better and is a much more mobile and instinctive player than Jimmy was, plus I think his deep ball is probably better. The only edge jimmy might have had is that his release really is elite, but that is negated somewhat by how quick Brock makes decisions and gets the ball out of his hands. Sky's the limit with Brock this year. I don't think there is any reason, based on his play so far, that he can't take them over the finish line. Go Niners!

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Montana had the number 1 defense in 1981, and pretty much had a top 5 defense for most of his career, and Brady had a pretty good defense and Troy Brown surrounding him in 2001.

Yes, they both did. That doesn't mean they were the #1 defense game in, game out. There were times when defenses could give up points, and they'd simply have to outscore them. The elite guys have a better chance to carry the team with lesser talent around them offensively.

Personally, one reason so called elite QB's elevate the team around him is the Offensive line. If you have the touch, accuracy, and timing of a Joe or Steve. They will decimate defenses if you give them *time in the pocket.* Even Deion in his prime couldn't cover Jerry when Joe had time to throw to him, when Deion played for Atlanta. Give a very good WR like an Aiyuk or a Ronnie Bell 4 seconds against Deion in his prime, and they will beat him more times than not with a QB like Joe or Steve who have great accuracy, touch, and timing. Now with that passing success - defenses can't key on the run so much, so now the draws, screens, and run plays have more success because defenses are keying on the QB's passing. Then it follows, if the offense is successful in getting lots of time of possession, now the defensive stats are padded because the opposing team can't generate any offensive stats. So that's *how* in my book a QB elevates the team around him. So far so good in my view, with regards to Brock. He has the timing, touch, and accuracy to dominate time of possession and at the same time eleveate a lot of his teammates around him. 🏹🏹🏹 for sure with Brock so far.

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Those requirements don't even apply to Montana or....anyone.

"No gunning game, no explosive targets" Ok.....So...Montana is out. He had Craig, Dwight Clark, John Taylor, Jerry Rice, Tom Rathman.

Tom? Well, they beat INDY in the playoffs, they ran for over 200 yards. He had Wes Welker, Julian Edelman, Randy Moss, Gronkowski and a slew of other players over the years.

Mahomes - Well, he's had Tyreek Hill, Travis Kelce, MVS, Pacheco, so he's out.

Josh Allen - before he got Diggs his #'s were a big bag of meh and still hasn't won a playoff game down 4+

The requirements listed - I cannot think of a single QB ever who would be labeled, "elite" that has had that situation.....

The only target Montana had early in his career in your list was Clark, and he was hardly an explosive player. He was most certainly made more by Montana than Clark made Montana. Go even look at Montana in KC, when Montana was broken down....JJ Birden? Tim Barnett? Willie Davis? Nothing players. Brady had none of those guys you mentioned in his early days either. Under Belichick, with Drew Bledsoe who was a very good QB, the Pats were 5-13. Bledsoe goes out, Brady comes in and they go on to win the Super Bowl. That's what true, generational talents do. They carry teams.

Jimmy converted a 1-10 team to a 5-0 team, and Brock is *better* than Jimmy.

To be fair, there were some pieces already in place on that team when Jimmy took over. What the team lacked up until that point was a QB who could help put them all together. That was what he brought to the team, and I will always give him his props for that. However, I do believe that Brock is a definite upgrade insofar as, he seems to see the field better and is a much more mobile and instinctive player than Jimmy was, plus I think his deep ball is probably better. The only edge jimmy might have had is that his release really is elite, but that is negated somewhat by how quick Brock makes decisions and gets the ball out of his hands. Sky's the limit with Brock this year. I don't think there is any reason, based on his play so far, that he can't take them over the finish line. Go Niners!

Well the argument was Brock isn't elite until he takes a bottom feeding team and wins as the QB. So I gave the example of a 1-10 bottom feeding team being changed into a winner by a QB (Jimmy) and that should meet the argument's criteria of a *elite* QB taking a bottom feeding team and winning. Then I just added that Brock is better that Jimmy, and so my point was to just say that given the criteria of the guy trying to sell his point that Brock is not elite - but in actuality, by the seller's own point, he *is* elite.

Originally posted by Giedi:
Personally, one reason so called elite QB's elevate the team around him is the Offensive line. If you have the touch, accuracy, and timing of a Joe or Steve. They will decimate defenses if you give them *time in the pocket.* Even Deion in his prime couldn't cover Jerry when Joe had time to throw to him, when Deion played for Atlanta. Give a very good WR like an Aiyuk or a Ronnie Bell 4 seconds against Deion in his prime, and they will beat him more times than not with a QB like Joe or Steve who have great accuracy, touch, and timing. Now with that passing success - defenses can't key on the run so much, so now the draws, screens, and run plays have more success because defenses are keying on the QB's passing. Then it follows, if the offense is successful in getting lots of time of possession, now the defensive stats are padded because the opposing team can't generate any offensive stats. So that's *how* in my book a QB elevates the team around him. So far so good in my view, with regards to Brock. He has the timing, touch, and accuracy to dominate time of possession and at the same time eleveate a lot of his teammates around him. 🏹🏹🏹 for sure with Brock so far.

Great QB's can also make the offensive line better substantially. Whether it's getting rid of the ball quickly or maneuvering within the pocket. A great example are the Colts before and then with Peyton Manning. They went from something like 60 sacks prior, and then mid 20's with a rookie PM.

still at the rare 100% approval rating,
life is good

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Are you seriously saying Dwight Clark was made? Dude is in the HOF......I don't even....ok.

Go look at Brady's stats year 1...
189 YPG
18 TD's to 12 INT's
63.9% comp

That's hardly carrying the team. When Brady's #'s took off(first time he threw for over 3800 yards in a season) wasn't til he got some serious playmakers. It's weird, it's almost like if you have better playmakers, QB's play better.

You're metric for "elite" is just absurd. The guy has to do it with no weapons....C'mon. If a guy has no weapons, the opposing teams will be play man-coverage all game and he has no where to throw because his guys suck.

First off, Dwight Clark is not in the Pro Football HOF.

Secondly, it's not a coincidence that the 5-13 team that Belichick had in his first year and 2 games with Drew Bledsoe, became an 11-3 and Super Bowl team with Tom Brady. One was a legit Pro Bowl QB....the other is one of the greatest to ever do it - a true elite player. Brady had the likes of Reche Caldwell and was going to AFC Title games in the middle of that decade. He carried a lot of those guys.

Third, nowhere did I say a guy has to do this game in, game out, deliver every single time. Elite QB's can turn poor receivers into average ones, and average ones into good ones. You seem to think I believe you can drop an all time great QB, like Steve Young, on a terrible mid-80's Bucs team, and he'd turn that turd around. Of course he couldn't, because he was on that dreadful franchise and did nothing. The point, which was obviously lost on most of you, is that truly elite QB's can shoulder the vast majority of the load if he isn't surrounded by incredible playmakers the 49ers have. The point is, given the recent history of the 49ers, Purdy may be asked to carry more of the load because of injuries to guys like Deebo, CMC and Kittle, who have all had their share of missed games.

The best ever, such as the guys I mentioned in Montana, Brady and Elway did so. Because they put up better stats when surrounded by better players is irrelevant. My metric for elite is sound.

Your metric isn't sound. You're making this argument from the perspective of hindsight. You're able to identify QB's who proved to be elite, then back-working to argue they made the players and teams around them.

For example, John Elways was considered pretty good, not elite or great before 1997. He was seen as a guy who lost multiple SB's. He's on the 97 Broncos with Mike Shanahan calling plays and Terrel Davis running for 2k yards and they win a SB and he's great - not saying he's not. But, this idea that they have success without a team is weird.

The 2001 Pats? What were the scores of their playoff wins?
16-13
24-17
20-17.

Yet, you're saying Brady shouldered a lot of the load. Their defense held a record setting offense to 17 points. This is tantamount to us holding KC's 2019 offense to 17 points. If we did that, we win that SB with Jimmy G.

In the regular season they were 1-3 when allowing more than 17 points.

You can check all the stats here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2001.htm

Yet, you say Brady was the reason the 2001 Pats were so much better. Brady become elite as he grew and worked and never stopped. But, let's not sit here and say that Brady shouldered a massive load for that 2001 Pats team.

You're acting as if Brock should have a strike against him because he has a great supporting cast. Ok....we've seen very talented QB's with great supporting casts not be elite. We've also seen elite QB's when they don't have a good supporting cast not looking great - Brady circa 2019 when all the chatter was that Brady had lost it but he lost all his weapons.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Are you seriously saying Dwight Clark was made? Dude is in the HOF......I don't even....ok.

Go look at Brady's stats year 1...
189 YPG
18 TD's to 12 INT's
63.9% comp

That's hardly carrying the team. When Brady's #'s took off(first time he threw for over 3800 yards in a season) wasn't til he got some serious playmakers. It's weird, it's almost like if you have better playmakers, QB's play better.

You're metric for "elite" is just absurd. The guy has to do it with no weapons....C'mon. If a guy has no weapons, the opposing teams will be play man-coverage all game and he has no where to throw because his guys suck.

First off, Dwight Clark is not in the Pro Football HOF.

Secondly, it's not a coincidence that the 5-13 team that Belichick had in his first year and 2 games with Drew Bledsoe, became an 11-3 and Super Bowl team with Tom Brady. One was a legit Pro Bowl QB....the other is one of the greatest to ever do it - a true elite player. Brady had the likes of Reche Caldwell and was going to AFC Title games in the middle of that decade. He carried a lot of those guys.

Third, nowhere did I say a guy has to do this game in, game out, deliver every single time. Elite QB's can turn poor receivers into average ones, and average ones into good ones. You seem to think I believe you can drop an all time great QB, like Steve Young, on a terrible mid-80's Bucs team, and he'd turn that turd around. Of course he couldn't, because he was on that dreadful franchise and did nothing. The point, which was obviously lost on most of you, is that truly elite QB's can shoulder the vast majority of the load if he isn't surrounded by incredible playmakers the 49ers have. The point is, given the recent history of the 49ers, Purdy may be asked to carry more of the load because of injuries to guys like Deebo, CMC and Kittle, who have all had their share of missed games.

The best ever, such as the guys I mentioned in Montana, Brady and Elway did so. Because they put up better stats when surrounded by better players is irrelevant. My metric for elite is sound.

Your metric isn't sound. You're making this argument from the perspective of hindsight. You're able to identify QB's who proved to be elite, then back-working to argue they made the players and teams around them.

For example, John Elways was considered pretty good, not elite or great before 1997. He was seen as a guy who lost multiple SB's. He's on the 97 Broncos with Mike Shanahan calling plays and Terrel Davis running for 2k yards and they win a SB and he's great - not saying he's not. But, this idea that they have success without a team is weird.

The 2001 Pats? What were the scores of their playoff wins?
16-13
24-17
20-17.

Yet, you're saying Brady shouldered a lot of the load. Their defense held a record setting offense to 17 points. This is tantamount to us holding KC's 2019 offense to 17 points. If we did that, we win that SB with Jimmy G.

In the regular season they were 1-3 when allowing more than 17 points.

You can check all the stats here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2001.htm

Yet, you say Brady was the reason the 2001 Pats were so much better. Brady become elite as he grew and worked and never stopped. But, let's not sit here and say that Brady shouldered a massive load for that 2001 Pats team.

You're acting as if Brock should have a strike against him because he has a great supporting cast. Ok....we've seen very talented QB's with great supporting casts not be elite. We've also seen elite QB's when they don't have a good supporting cast not looking great - Brady circa 2019 when all the chatter was that Brady had lost it but he lost all his weapons.

Agreed.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
still at the rare 100% approval rating,
life is good

Should do Niners qb approval ratings poll in the Zone. Put it in sticky

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Your metric isn't sound. You're making this argument from the perspective of hindsight. You're able to identify QB's who proved to be elite, then back-working to argue they made the players and teams around them.

For example, John Elways was considered pretty good, not elite or great before 1997. He was seen as a guy who lost multiple SB's. He's on the 97 Broncos with Mike Shanahan calling plays and Terrel Davis running for 2k yards and they win a SB and he's great - not saying he's not. But, this idea that they have success without a team is weird.

The 2001 Pats? What were the scores of their playoff wins?
16-13
24-17
20-17.

Yet, you're saying Brady shouldered a lot of the load. Their defense held a record setting offense to 17 points. This is tantamount to us holding KC's 2019 offense to 17 points. If we did that, we win that SB with Jimmy G.

In the regular season they were 1-3 when allowing more than 17 points.

You can check all the stats here: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2001.htm

Yet, you say Brady was the reason the 2001 Pats were so much better. Brady become elite as he grew and worked and never stopped. But, let's not sit here and say that Brady shouldered a massive load for that 2001 Pats team.

You're acting as if Brock should have a strike against him because he has a great supporting cast. Ok....we've seen very talented QB's with great supporting casts not be elite. We've also seen elite QB's when they don't have a good supporting cast not looking great - Brady circa 2019 when all the chatter was that Brady had lost it but he lost all his weapons.

The 2001-2004 pats team was littered with stars on the defensive side and special teams. Brady did a great job, no doubt, but that version of Brady was vastly different than what we ended up seeing. It was also a different era of football but anyone old enough knows that those pats teams has awesome defense and just played great complimentary football. Very sound and technical. Great scheme.

brady was clutch and efficient on the offensive side but he wasn't the Brady we came to know about 2006 onward.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by dj43:
Young's concussions are one reason I am not fond of "running QBs." I'll take a Brock Purdy with a couple of good running backs and WRs any day.

I remember cringing every time Steve took any hit of any sort, same with Jerry also after the 97 injury
now it's CMC the torch has been passed
let us have this dude for a full season

You guys should compare the concussion rates between QBs that take off and QBs that don't take off. There's no improvement. This is a tried and true discussion.

The careless manner in which Young scrambles vs. the way Russ has scrambled and gotten down over the years is the real issue there. Not "running." Running's simply a part of the game.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by BOI49er:

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:

Originally posted by random49er:
It's better to just assume all the hand strengths to be "equal" or "even" to each other...to get enough of a spiral by this stage of their careers.

Then compare the real difference, which is arm strength.

But if you again want to go the way of the nerds... I remember this exerpt from an article:

"An article in the American Journal of Physics (2003) that measured the coefficient of drag of a spinning football to be around 0.05 to 0.06."

And so assuming these following things...

The air resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity of the football
The Mass of the ball is 0.42 kg.
The density of air is 1.2 kg/m3.
The coefficient of drag for the football is 0.05 to 0.14 (initial)
Typical initial speed of a thrown football is around 20 m/s

w/ all of these forces acting on the ball:

The furthest throw goes from 45 degrees to

The more you ignore drag/spin/air resistance, the closer it gets back to 45° as the furthest throw.

What if you got the wind at your back? I imagine a higher trajectory would fare better

True. With a tail wind, you would get farther launching at slightly more than 45 degrees, as the ball would be in that wind longer, given gravitational acceleration is constant. Conversely, into a headwind, you would do better launching slightly lower than 45 degrees. If your WR was moving away from you, you would also benefit from a lower trajectory as the ball would get there more quickly.

Since there is air resistance, in a no wind situation, a launch slightly above 45 degrees would help a bit as going more against gravity will lower the speed a bit as the parasite drag varies with the square of velocity. Also, you could expect some aerodynamic lift as long as the angle of attack was positive to the longitudinal axis of the ball.

Better to just go practice and see what works.

Yall start talking about friction and wind resistance and tail winds and you move outside of first and second year physics and have to start opening those big, green, ugly classical mechanics textbooks which force you to deal with impossibly annoying details.

How true that is. But it is still sometimes helpful in life to understand which way changes happen with a variable.

My high school physics teacher asked the question, if you were going to drink your coffee with cream in it, but not for 5 minutes while you read the paper, and still want it as hot as possible, would you put the cream in it right away, or just before you drink it. It was obvious to me you put the cream in right away to lower the temperature differential.

Originally posted by Dshearn:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
Are you seriously saying Dwight Clark was made? Dude is in the HOF......I don't even....ok.

Go look at Brady's stats year 1...
189 YPG
18 TD's to 12 INT's
63.9% comp

That's hardly carrying the team. When Brady's #'s took off(first time he threw for over 3800 yards in a season) wasn't til he got some serious playmakers. It's weird, it's almost like if you have better playmakers, QB's play better.

You're metric for "elite" is just absurd. The guy has to do it with no weapons....C'mon. If a guy has no weapons, the opposing teams will be play man-coverage all game and he has no where to throw because his guys suck.

+1

"scheme does not beat man to man....players do" -Bill Walsh

Good players help everyone. Montana had tons of great players. Young too.