QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
He was so raw. Even now he has far less reps combined between college and the NFL than Purdy does. The Niners never intended on starting him that first yer. JG's injuries kind of forced him into a situation where he was a QB on a playoff ready team. He was way too raw for that.

Brock had more pass attempts in high school than Trey has his entire HS, College, and pro career combined.

brock has had a ridiculous amount of reps but I think what really has separated him, playing time wise, is that he's always had to be the reason his team won.

his high school wasn't competitive until he was their QB - took them to state championship and all that.

college - strung together four consecutive winning seasons for the first time in almost 100 years at Iowa state.

Those kind of reps, the pressure situations, tight games, responsibility etc - that's where you really learn what a qb is made of. I think how they play in those kind of situations is very telling of how they'll do in the pros. The type of throws they have to make in those kind of situations says a lot about the qb.

i remember i was sold on stroud after watching him lose to Georgia in the CFP. The way he played that game told me he could def play at the next level.

thats stuff Trey has never experienced, ever. Specifically leading up to the pros. Everything was about his physical abilities and never his actual production cause he was judged off of like 20 games in his life and 95% of them he was blowing a team out with ease. Really hard to gauge a qb in those situations.

when you look at most successful qbs in the league - they come from middle of the road teams where they had a dog fight every game and had to elevate their program.
Mahommes - Texas tech
Allen - Wyoming
Rodgers - Cal
lamar - louisville
Brock - Iowa state
Big Ben - Miami Ohio
Russ Wilson - NC state/Wisonsin
Rivers - NC state
Dak - Miss St
Etc etc. not all but most of the best qbs in the league come from those kind of situations. They're more primed for the pros imo.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
He was so raw. Even now he has far less reps combined between college and the NFL than Purdy does. The Niners never intended on starting him that first yer. JG's injuries kind of forced him into a situation where he was a QB on a playoff ready team. He was way too raw for that.

Which is dumb in hindsight why they traded those picks and moved up to get him with no intention of playing him knowing how raw he was.

Originally posted by eric_anthony:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
He was so raw. Even now he has far less reps combined between college and the NFL than Purdy does. The Niners never intended on starting him that first yer. JG's injuries kind of forced him into a situation where he was a QB on a playoff ready team. He was way too raw for that.

Which is dumb in hindsight why they traded those picks and moved up to get him with no intention of playing him knowing how raw he was.

Kyle's plan had zero room for error. He wanted Trey to sit for a year behind Jimmy and get playtime throughout the rookie year to get experience. Trey was never fully healthy for a single game the entire time he was here, which is just bad luck.

we know in hindsight that Trey wouldn't of been ready regardless but the injuries compounded an already serious problem of inexperience.
this was something they should of tried in 2017 and not 2021.

The best way to view the situation is that Brock was traded for and used the third overall and Lance was the last pick in the draft. Lol it's not the reality but fortunately sorta worked out that way. We got the cheap, high performing young qb we desired - just ass backwards. Lol

Originally posted by tankle104:
Kyle's plan had zero room for error. He wanted Trey to sit for a year behind Jimmy and get playtime throughout the rookie year to get experience. Trey was never fully healthy for a single game the entire time he was here, which is just bad luck.

we know in hindsight that Trey wouldn't of been ready regardless but the injuries compounded an already serious problem of inexperience.
this was something they should of tried in 2017 and not 2021.

The best way to view the situation is that Brock was traded for and used the third overall and Lance was the last pick in the draft. Lol it's not the reality but fortunately sorta worked out that way. We got the cheap, high performing young qb we desired - just ass backwards. Lol

I agree it was a move that should've been made in 2017 not in 2021 when they still had their championship window. Just really unfortunate for Lance because he needs all the reps he can get and a team that's willing to go through all his lumps. Who knows if he'll ever be able to be a starter in the NFL.

Originally posted by eric_anthony:
I agree it was a move that should've been made in 2017 not in 2021 when they still had their championship window. Just really unfortunate for Lance because he needs all the reps he can get and a team that's willing to go through all his lumps. Who knows if he'll ever be able to be a starter in the NFL.

I've disagreed with a lot of Kyle's decisions regarding qb. I haven't always been right either but some of his have been head scratchers. I really wasn't a fan of not drafting a qb in 2017 - especially for Kirk cousins. I was a big fan of Watson in that draft (which I guess wouldn't have worked out anyways). Lol

i think lance will have a geno smith type career. He'll spend the forseeable future as a backup, getting better hopefully, and then will catch on in like 4-6 years as a good bridge qb thatll provide stability for an org for 4 years or so while they find a young option to develop.

Trey is still really young but he needs to get better quick to keep himself in competition for qb2 spots so he can stay in the race for playing time if anything happens to a Qb1. I can see him in Dallas for the next 4 years - I think they resign him and that stability should be good for him.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by eric_anthony:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
He was so raw. Even now he has far less reps combined between college and the NFL than Purdy does. The Niners never intended on starting him that first yer. JG's injuries kind of forced him into a situation where he was a QB on a playoff ready team. He was way too raw for that.

Which is dumb in hindsight why they traded those picks and moved up to get him with no intention of playing him knowing how raw he was.

Kyle's plan had zero room for error. He wanted Trey to sit for a year behind Jimmy and get playtime throughout the rookie year to get experience. Trey was never fully healthy for a single game the entire time he was here, which is just bad luck.

we know in hindsight that Trey wouldn't of been ready regardless but the injuries compounded an already serious problem of inexperience.
this was something they should of tried in 2017 and not 2021.

The best way to view the situation is that Brock was traded for and used the third overall and Lance was the last pick in the draft. Lol it's not the reality but fortunately sorta worked out that way. We got the cheap, high performing young qb we desired - just ass backwards. Lol

zero room for error?.. We had a down year due to injuries, had a draft spot where we shouldn't really be picking, had all of our main guys coming back. It was a perfect time to make the move for a gamebreaker QB without compromising anything. And it still holds true to today.

Trying this same move in his first year when trying to build a team, would leave no chance for error

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
zero room for error?.. We had a down year due to injuries, had a draft spot where we shouldn't really be picking, had all of our main guys coming back. It was a perfect time to make the move for a gamebreaker QB without compromising anything. And it still holds true to today.

Trying this same move in his first year when trying to build a team, would leave no chance for error

It was clearly a terrible move that was rescued in part by hitting the lottery with a 7th round pick. That's the only reason an argument can be made that it didn't compromise anything. It was a reckless gamble, with predictable results.

Drafting a high pick QB and having a proper runway for that QB to play and develop without compromising short term team goals is a much better plan.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
zero room for error?.. We had a down year due to injuries, had a draft spot where we shouldn't really be picking, had all of our main guys coming back. It was a perfect time to make the move for a gamebreaker QB without compromising anything. And it still holds true to today.

Trying this same move in his first year when trying to build a team, would leave no chance for error

It was clearly a terrible move that was rescued in part by hitting the lottery with a 7th round pick. That's the only reason an argument can be made that it didn't compromise anything. It was a reckless gamble, with predictable results.

Drafting a high pick QB and having a proper runway for that QB to play and develop without compromising short term team goals is a much better plan.

a terrible move would have jeopardized us instantly. but it did not. We still had our entire team and starting QB and still made the NFCCG.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
a terrible move would have jeopardized us instantly. but it did not. We still had our entire team and starting QB and still made the NFCCG.

I'm not sure why you think this is accurate. An analysis of the decision certainly extends beyond a single year and goes deeper than 'we didn't get worse' in year 1. We certainly didn't get better as the result of the decision at any point and wasted three extremely valuable assets and quite a bit of money too.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
a terrible move would have jeopardized us instantly. but it did not. We still had our entire team and starting QB and still made the NFCCG.

I'm not sure why you think this is accurate. An analysis of the decision certainly extends beyond a single year and goes deeper than 'we didn't get worse' in year 1. We certainly didn't get better as the result of the decision at any point and wasted three extremely valuable assets and quite a bit of money too.

you're not sure cause we all went through this in real time. We needed a big time QB and the chance to try to get one and have the time to sit the rookie QB was exactly that time.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
a terrible move would have jeopardized us instantly. but it did not. We still had our entire team and starting QB and still made the NFCCG.

I'm not sure why you think this is accurate. An analysis of the decision certainly extends beyond a single year and goes deeper than 'we didn't get worse' in year 1. We certainly didn't get better as the result of the decision at any point and wasted three extremely valuable assets and quite a bit of money too.

you're not sure cause we all went through this in real time. We needed a big time QB and the chance to try to get one and have the time to sit the rookie QB was exactly that time.

Zero room for error with Lance. We bet the entire franchise for the foreseeable future on possibly the rawest qb prospect ever. We spent three extremely valuable assets and 34$M guaranteed on a qb who's essentially only played high school defenses.

if that prospect wasn't ready to play by year two, or plays poorly, the entire team is effed and has a near zero chance of winning the Super Bowl in todays game.

we NEEDED Lance to stay healthy, develop very quickly, and play really well. ZERO ROOM FOR ERROR. Like Smokey said - it was a wreckless gamble.

no ones arguing about taking a chance for a qb. It's the qb that they selected that was wreckless, IMO.

literally everything that could go wrong, did. We just became unbelievably lucky by hitting on an excellent qb with the most unlikely of draft picks - last one in the draft. Thats the only reason we don't have Sam Darnold or broken down acl cousins as our qb rn.

if we ran this scenario 1000 times through a simulator - 999 times we are in qb hell and team has no set qb. Which in todays game, you won't win the superbowl.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
you're not sure cause we all went through this in real time. We needed a big time QB and the chance to try to get one and have the time to sit the rookie QB was exactly that time.

So you didn't get better at QB year 1, and didn't improve your chances to win the SB at that position or elsewhere while expending valuable resources.

You committed to playing and developing the young QB in year 2 which not only didn't improve your SB chances, but made a SB win less likely.

Then there's the obvious point that Lance needed every rep he could get as a QB who effectively played one year at a lower level of college football, and didn't play at all (except for a one game showcase) his final year.

We should also probably note that we had to play Lance a certain way in his brief playing time year 2 in order to maximize our chances to win and he ended up with a catastrophic injury two games in. This hurt his development in two distinct ways and put us right into the position we spent 3 1st round picks and 30+ million to avoid. Think about what year 3 would have looked like without hitting on Purdy.

It was bad for us and Lance, clearly. All of it predictable given how raw of a prospect he was. One of the most ludicrous draft/trade decisions I've seen.

Smokey - what are you taking regarding Brock
touchdowns: over or under 35
interceptions: over or under 11
yards: over or under 4,100

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
a terrible move would have jeopardized us instantly. but it did not. We still had our entire team and starting QB and still made the NFCCG.

I'm not sure why you think this is accurate. An analysis of the decision certainly extends beyond a single year and goes deeper than 'we didn't get worse' in year 1. We certainly didn't get better as the result of the decision at any point and wasted three extremely valuable assets and quite a bit of money too.

you're not sure cause we all went through this in real time. We needed a big time QB and the chance to try to get one and have the time to sit the rookie QB was exactly that time.

Zero room for error with Lance. We bet the entire franchise for the foreseeable future on possibly the rawest qb prospect ever. We spent three extremely valuable assets and 34$M guaranteed on a qb who's essentially only played high school defenses.

if that prospect wasn't ready to play by year two, or plays poorly, the entire team is effed and has a near zero chance of winning the Super Bowl in todays game.

we NEEDED Lance to stay healthy, develop very quickly, and play really well. ZERO ROOM FOR ERROR. Like Smokey said - it was a wreckless gamble.

no ones arguing about taking a chance for a qb. It's the qb that they selected that was wreckless, IMO.

literally everything that could go wrong, did. We just became unbelievably lucky by hitting on an excellent qb with the most unlikely of draft picks - last one in the draft. Thats the only reason we don't have Sam Darnold or broken down acl cousins as our qb rn.

if we ran this scenario 1000 times through a simulator - 999 times we are in qb hell and team has no set qb. Which in todays game, you won't win the superbowl.

thats all hindsight .. like i said I've and many other have gone through this in real time. After Lance sat for most of the year and showed he could be the guy in the Houston game. no one was saying it was terrible or gambled our future. Why, because it wasn't true at the time. We all couldn't wait for 2022 as once again we all realized the QB was still the weak link.

2 valuable assets is worth hitting on a QB. We were missing a big time QB and nothing else as you can see. The two late late round traded picks still didn't affect us today.

I mean if we can get far with Jimmy, we have a good shot with anyone just as good and why does it have to be lucky to get Brock? We drafted him, we kept him on the roster. Some of you guys are comparing Mordy to a better version of Brock. It's what we do with late round picks who have chips on their shoulders

in no way does a simulation have the QB getting injured 999 times out of 1k

Originally posted by tankle104:
Smokey - what are you taking regarding Brock
touchdowns: over or under 35
interceptions: over or under 11
yards: over or under 4,100

I'd bet the under on the TDs, and I probably wouldn't touch the other two. I might take over 4100 yards, gun to my head.