QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by scooterp10:
Trade Brock and a 1st for Caleb Williams?

Can't see either party (us and the potential #1 pick) ever agreeing to such a trade.

We have what seems like a perfect system fit at an absolute bottom barrel price, and Brock's league wide worth probably isn't enough to get up to the 1 spot for another team (in conjunction with 1 likely very low 1st rounder)

It's an interesting question though.

To me, I would consider it. As crazy as it sounds, I don't think I've ever seen a prospect as impressive as Caleb Williams and I was very high on Patrick Mahomes coming out.

I don't think Pat Maholmes was considered a generational top prospect when he came out, otherwise he would have been a number 1 overall pick. People knew he was special in terms of physically throwing the football, but they didn't know whether he can play QB at a high level mentally.

In terms of the candidates coming out, the highest rated in the last 30 years were probably Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf, Andrew Luck, and Joe Burrow.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
The only part of the comment I responded to: "Not only did the team improve in the immediate short term by getting Jimmy in over Trey"

All I asked for was for something meaningful backing up this claim that the team was improved in the "immediate short term" when the team immediately lost a game giving up all of 9 points on defense and was under .500 several weeks later. I'm not that interested in an argument over which piece of trash was better.

Two things:

1. If this was true you wouldn't have questioned what I said, where I clearly claimed there was a difference. A difference that couldn't have been more obvious with the available evidence. This was presented time and time again in the past when the conversation was relevant. Obviously that evidence should be meaningful to someone who is willing to cherry-pick a 3-4 game sample as meaningful (as you're doing right here).

2. Pretty funny to see you pretend I don't like Trey when you describe him as a piece of trash. When emotion gets the better of us…

So you have nothing of substance to backup that claim. You should have just started with that.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by scooterp10:
If he stays healthy all year, what do you think Brock would be worth after this season?

I'm not sure. I'm pretty confident that his value to us will be higher than his asking price in a trade regardless.

Agreed, if he keeps up this pace (or really close to it). I wouldn't even accept four first round picks for him. His value in a sense would be priceless to us because of the category he puts us, and keeps us in, to compete for chips. The odds of replacing it with one of those first would be slim, we would most likely end up back around a Jimmy G caliber qb - which has a big time impact on us competing annually at the level we need to. That's my opinon at least

Especially when you factor in his cap hit and contract timing remaining

Personally, you don't trade a generational talent. Period. That's it.

Specifically at QB. You typically don't trade tackles, DEs, or QBs when they're the best at what they do. They're corner stones and the odds of replacing them are slim. Those are players that you typically try to do anything to get your hands on them.

Usually it's a poorly ran franchise if they're doing stuff like that, like WAS when they traded away Trent Williams for a FIFTH round pick. Lol

Originally posted by libertyforever:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by scooterp10:
Trade Brock and a 1st for Caleb Williams?

Can't see either party (us and the potential #1 pick) ever agreeing to such a trade.

We have what seems like a perfect system fit at an absolute bottom barrel price, and Brock's league wide worth probably isn't enough to get up to the 1 spot for another team (in conjunction with 1 likely very low 1st rounder)

It's an interesting question though.

To me, I would consider it. As crazy as it sounds, I don't think I've ever seen a prospect as impressive as Caleb Williams and I was very high on Patrick Mahomes coming out.

I don't think Pat Maholmes was considered a generational top prospect when he came out, otherwise he would have been a number 1 overall pick. People knew he was special in terms of physically throwing the football, but they didn't know whether he can play QB at a high level mentally.

In terms of the candidates coming out, the highest rated in the last 30 years were probably Peyton Manning, Ryan Leaf, Andrew Luck, and Joe Burrow.

Mahomes def wasn't considered generational. He was considered a first round pick to maybe go in the top 15. He suffered from playing with lesser talent and a lower tier program - I think he had seasons where they didn't even have a winning season.

it's interesting how the guys who usually come from mid tier power 5 programs usually be up being the best:
josh Allen, Mahomes, Lamar, Purdy, russ Wilson, etc

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Here we go again.

Steven Ruiz of The Ringer says the 49ers can't win a Super Bowl with Brock Purdy

🎥 @ringer pic.twitter.com/QmGfMvrwO2

— KNBR (@KNBR) October 5, 2023

Wow. This guy is giving Grant cone a run for his money. He focuses on one throw down field and uses that to judge the whole game. Here is what he says for real. He says no way the 49ers going to win a Super Bowl with Brock Purdy. . BUT SAM DARNOLD YES. THEY HAVE A CHANCE WITH SAM DARNOLD.

Yeah.

An alleged professional football analyst actually said that the 49ers have a chance to win a Super Bowl with Sam darnold. But not Brock purdy. This is for real folks.

Obviously he told a lot of paying clients to skip Brock purdy in the 2022 draft. Lol.

Originally posted by mattster03:
Sorry if this has been answered already, but does anyone know which lineman is Brock's roomie?

Was Zakelj and Alfredo Gutierrez i think. Not sure if one guy moved out.

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Here we go again.

Steven Ruiz of The Ringer says the 49ers can't win a Super Bowl with Brock Purdy

🎥 @ringer pic.twitter.com/QmGfMvrwO2

— KNBR (@KNBR) October 5, 2023

This is the same tactics as Cohn. Say something ridiculous and inflammatory to get responses from passionate fans of the subject. The guy doesn't believe that any more than the most passionate defender of Purdy. He just knows that what you did in sharing his ridiculous post will increase his traffic and revenue. It's a widely used tactic in today's sports media. Nick Wright, Skip Bayliss, the clown who came up with this, etc...

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
So you have nothing of substance to backup that claim. You should have just started with that.

Yea, lol. There isn't evidence to support Jimmy G being a better quarterback than Trey Lance. Just years of film and statistics and their standing in the league.

Much weaker argument than your 'feelings' that the 49ers would have been sub .500 with either one of them. A substance free guess against readily available evidence you are now pretending doesn't exist. The film is wrong, the stats are wrong, GM's around the league are wrong, the bulk of the football watching world is wrong, oddsmakers are wrong…. The guy (you) who was ready to bench Brock for Josh Johnson after a slow start to a game is right.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
So you have nothing of substance to backup that claim. You should have just started with that.

Yea, lol. There isn't evidence to support Jimmy G being a better quarterback than Trey Lance. Just years of film and statistics and their standing in the league.

Much weaker argument than your 'feelings' that the 49ers would have been sub .500 with either one of them. A substance free guess against readily available evidence you are now pretending doesn't exist. The film is wrong, the stats are wrong, GM's around the league are wrong, the bulk of the football watching world is wrong, oddsmakers are wrong…. The guy (you) who was ready to bench Brock for Josh Johnson after a slow start to a game is right.

Right, keep arguing against a claim I haven't made instead of supporting the one you did make. Go back to ChatGPT and ask for yet another essay in the style of a condescending nerd and post it here.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
The only part of the comment I responded to: "Not only did the team improve in the immediate short term by getting Jimmy in over Trey"

All I asked for was for something meaningful backing up this claim that the team was improved in the "immediate short term" when the team immediately lost a game giving up all of 9 points on defense and was under .500 several weeks later. I'm not that interested in an argument over which piece of trash was better.

Two things:

1. If this was true you wouldn't have questioned what I said, where I clearly claimed there was a difference. A difference that couldn't have been more obvious with the available evidence. This was presented time and time again in the past when the conversation was relevant. Obviously that evidence should be meaningful to someone who is willing to cherry-pick a 3-4 game sample as meaningful (as you're doing right here).

2. Pretty funny to see you pretend I don't like Trey when you describe him as a piece of trash. When emotion gets the better of us…

So you have nothing of substance to backup that claim. You should have just started with that.

I guess you'd have to define improving in the immediate short term. In the immediate short term Jimmy lost to the trash ass broncos and ran out of the back of the end zone. 🤣🤣🤣

They did improve after that game, then improved more when Purdy's number was called.

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
I guess you'd have to define improving in the immediate short term. In the immediate short term Jimmy lost to the trash ass broncos and ran out of the back of the end zone. 🤣🤣🤣

They did improve after that game, then improved more when Purdy's number was called.

The immediate short term meaning that particular season obviously. They replaced their starting QB with a better player. This is as basic as it gets but somehow against Ring's latest flavor of the day argument.

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Here we go again.

Steven Ruiz of The Ringer says the 49ers can't win a Super Bowl with Brock Purdy

🎥 @ringer pic.twitter.com/QmGfMvrwO2

— KNBR (@KNBR) October 5, 2023

This guy's QB rankings column is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
It's nearly impossible for anyone to move up or down significantly week to week, so his pre-season ranking essentially stays static for the rest of the year.
He has Brady at 11th still, and he's actually moved up some weeks.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Here we go again.

Steven Ruiz of The Ringer says the 49ers can't win a Super Bowl with Brock Purdy

🎥 @ringer pic.twitter.com/QmGfMvrwO2

— KNBR (@KNBR) October 5, 2023

This is the same tactics as Cohn. Say something ridiculous and inflammatory to get responses from passionate fans of the subject. The guy doesn't believe that any more than the most passionate defender of Purdy. He just knows that what you did in sharing his ridiculous post will increase his traffic and revenue. It's a widely used tactic in today's sports media. Nick Wright, Skip Bayliss, the clown who came up with this, etc...

Why do these losers always turn their head to the side for their twitter pfp?

https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/nick-zakelj-brock-purdy-roommates/1660596/?partner=yahoo&cid=yahoo

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
I guess you'd have to define improving in the immediate short term. In the immediate short term Jimmy lost to the trash ass broncos and ran out of the back of the end zone. 🤣🤣🤣

They did improve after that game, then improved more when Purdy's number was called.

The immediate short term meaning that particular season obviously. They replaced their starting QB with a better player. This is as basic as it gets but somehow against Ring's latest flavor of the day argument.

I don't know how many games he's referring to, but to me immediate would be the next game or 2. We only get 17 per year, but to say things didn't improve under Jimmy overall is disingenuous.