QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Every QB benefits from talent around him. Take Tyron Smith and Ceedee Lamb out of the lineup for 3 games. Now play a great defense like Cleveland in the wind and rain on the road. Is Dak Prescott worse? Duh. Why is this argument only used against Brock Purdy?

Montana and Mahomes had great talent around them throughout their careers. Brady had Gronk, Moss, a great defense backing him up and coach Belichick. He wasn't doing it alone. No way. None of them do. It's always just used against Purdy.

Of course every QB benefits from talent around them....it's also undeniable that the better the QB is, the less talent he needs around him to be successful. With your Smith/Lamb scenario, you are practically insinuating that both Dak and Purdy are surrounded by the equal in talent. Losing those two for Dak is far worse off than losing Williams/Deebo for Purdy because he still has Kittle, BA and CMC.

And elguapo is correct...the first SB for SF, it was Montana and Clark. Freddie Solomon was a serviceable player, but he was clearly propped up by Walsh and Montana. Who else? Earl Cooper? Ricky Patton? Bill Ring? That Super Bowl season came down to a top flight defense, and the beginning of the best QB I've ever seen.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Every QB benefits from talent around him. Take Tyron Smith and Ceedee Lamb out of the lineup for 3 games. Now play a great defense like Cleveland in the wind and rain on the road. Is Dak Prescott worse? Duh. Why is this argument only used against Brock Purdy?

Montana and Mahomes had great talent around them throughout their careers. Brady had Gronk, Moss, a great defense backing him up and coach Belichick. He wasn't doing it alone. No way. None of them do. It's always just used against Purdy.

Of course every QB benefits from talent around them....it's also undeniable that the better the QB is, the less talent he needs around him to be successful. With your Smith/Lamb scenario, you are practically insinuating that both Dak and Purdy are surrounded by the equal in talent. Losing those two for Dak is far worse off than losing Williams/Deebo for Purdy because he still has Kittle, BA and CMC.

And elguapo is correct...the first SB for SF, it was Montana and Clark. Freddie Solomon was a serviceable player, but he was clearly propped up by Walsh and Montana. Who else? Earl Cooper? Ricky Patton? Bill Ring? That Super Bowl season came down to a top flight defense, and the beginning of the best QB I've ever seen.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
The defense lead by Lott had a great deal to do with their success. Lott, Wright, Willamson and Hicks desrtroyed defense that year. The added Dean and the pass rush made the D even better.

After they beat Dallas, HC Tom Landry said "it has to be Montana because there's nothing else there."

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
But you are saying Dak is worse in that scenario. So yeah....

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
The defense lead by Lott had a great deal to do with their success. Lott, Wright, Willamson and Hicks desrtroyed defense that year. The added Dean and the pass rush made the D even better.

After they beat Dallas, HC Tom Landry said "it has to be Montana because there's nothing else there."

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
But you are saying Dak is worse in that scenario. So yeah....

No s**t he is worse, but Dak starts off with less in the first place. You DO understand that? Or do you think the skill set guys from Dallas and SF are equal?

Originally posted by RickyRoma:
Oh I know about the defense....but anybody suggesting Montana had a bunch of all stars on offense in the first couple of years clearly has no business talking 49er football. It's simply not the truth. That is one of greatest examples of what makes a great QB....a guy who can do more with less. Montana is the epitome of that.....we haven't seen that at all from Purdy. I'm not saying he'll never do it, but I need to see it to believe it.

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
its not purdy's fault the roster is built the way it is

he's playing great for a 23 yr old qb, period.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Dallas has a BRICK WALL offensive line. All kinds of premium draft picks on there. 49ers are the 22nd ranked offensive line. That's with Trent Williams. Minus him out and they are a straight up garbage pile. That doesn't help Dak somehow and hurt Purdy? LOL. Of course it does. They aren't starting with equal offensive lines. Thankfully Purdy can process lightning quick, get the ball out fast and throw with accuracy. Because we would be terrible if not for that.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Dallas has a BRICK WALL offensive line. All kinds of premium draft picks on there. 49ers are the 22nd ranked offensive line. That's with Trent Williams. Minus him out and they are a straight up garbage pile. That doesn't help Dak somehow and hurt Purdy? LOL. Of course it does. They aren't starting with equal offensive lines. Thankfully Purdy can process lightning quick, get the ball out fast and throw with accuracy. Because we would be terrible if not for that.

The Cowboys have allowed 4 more sacks on their QB's than the 49ers.....with nearly 100 more attempts. It simply isn't night and day as you want to believe....'premium draft picks' mean jack s**t dude. Your 'Dak minus Smith/Lamb' argument is laughable.

So again.....would you trade the Dallas Cowboy offense minus the QB straight up with the 49ers? Yes or No?

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
You are right.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
You are right. Dak can't process as fast and doesn't read the field as well. A great processer like Purdy does. Your point?

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Here is the full quote since yo didn't quote it. In total context.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Here is the full quote since yo didn't quote it. In total context.

Irrelevant...which further proves my point.