QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by Furlow:
$40m for QB1 was 4 years ago, bro. Inflation. Exploding salary cap. Value relative to peers. Focus.

Who are his peers? That's where there is disagreement. Also, just because a couple teams agree to stupid contracts with their QB's doesn't mean anybody else has to. I don't give a s**t what Tua was paid by the Dolphins and neither should any other team. It's a prime example of what not to do.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
If he plays well all this will do is make you feel better about signing him. And it will make you pay more. Problem is Brock Purdys 2025 does not decide his career. He could still not pan out. Now you're a year behind and paying more on top of that

If he doesn't play well, you could be the rams shipping Warner out for Bulger. Putting it all on one season puts you at a high chance of getting this wrong

Totally agree, but anyone would feel a lot more confident when the player has looked the part in 3 of 4 opportunities, and has also positively adjusted from the down season.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Furlow:
This is why we're glad you're not the GM.

We already know Purdy is "the guy" because he's performed like it. He's not just the QB in name, managing the game and relying on his teammates (that was Jimmy G and Alex Smith's style). The difference is night and day and it's weird that some of you don't see that.

If you're not convinced that he's the guy, then trade him for what you can get. Use those picks to build up the roster or move up to draft someone tall who can throw it far and hope that he's also "the guy."

It just does not make any sense to make him (and hope he agrees) play a lame duck year and then pay him even more money afterwards. That would close our window so much faster than just extending him now (like the Cowboys).

I also am not sure that he isn't the guy. He looked like it one year, and now I have doubts. It's a fact the team was a mess around him so I'd like to see what it looks like in another season.

I also understand it's a tough ask and ultimately a gamble to expect him to play on the final year of his deal. No matter what moves the 49ers make to try and prevent it, he could ultimately hold out and the season could be in jeopardy.

There are things we can do besides just giving him a Jordan Love/Herbert/Tua contract. We could offer a Mayfield type deal. We could get creative and give him a shorter deal at a high number with more guarantees. It's not black and white, and your evaluation and mine ultimately mean nothing. When it's hundreds of millions of dollars and your job's on the line, people are smart to evaluate all options.

Shorter team deal is fair, but then understand it's less years to prorate any signing bonus, which means much higher cap hits. And they'd have to go on the higher side in terms of salary and guaranteed money in order for Purdy to go for it. Why not do a longer deal (to allow for more years to prorate the signing bonus) with an out after 2-3 years? Seems like a cheaper way of accomplishing the same thing.

Regarding Mayfield, he was coming off of one good season after being below average. So he got a "prove it" deal. Purdy has already proved it, and for longer than one season. He has no bad seasons to answer for. The only leverage the Niners (and detractors in here) have is "measurables," which is just not a strong case at all.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Furlow:
$40m for QB1 was 4 years ago, bro. Inflation. Exploding salary cap. Value relative to peers. Focus.

Who are his peers? That's where there is disagreement. Also, just because a couple teams agree to stupid contracts with their QB's doesn't mean anybody else has to. I don't give a s**t what Tua was paid by the Dolphins and neither should any other team. It's a prime example of what not to do.

I thought this was established. All of the QB's who have recently been paid, minus Mahomes and Burrow. Herbert, Tua, Love, etc. He's at minimum equal to them and in my opinion better than all of them.

Originally posted by Furlow:
Shorter team deal is fair, but then understand it's less years to prorate any signing bonus, which means much higher cap hits. And they'd have to go on the higher side in terms of salary and guaranteed money in order for Purdy to go for it. Why not do a longer deal (to allow for more years to prorate the signing bonus) with an out after 2-3 years? Seems like a cheaper way of accomplishing the same thing.

Regarding Mayfield, he was coming off of one good season after being below average. So he got a "prove it" deal. Purdy has already proved it, and for longer than one season. He has no bad seasons to answer for. The only leverage the Niners (and detractors in here) have is "measurables," which is just not a strong case at all.

This is nonsense. It's simply your misinterpretation of arguments against him.

Originally posted by Furlow:
I thought this was established. All of the QB's who have recently been paid, minus Mahomes and Burrow. Herbert, Tua, Love, etc. He's at minimum equal to them and in my opinion better than all of them.

He's better than Tua in my opinion, and Tua shouldn't have got paid. You can live with a disagreement, or you can pretend I have an ulterior motive related to 'measurables'. Don't really care either way.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

If he plays well all this will do is make you feel better about signing him. And it will make you pay more. Problem is Brock Purdys 2025 does not decide his career. He could still not pan out. Now you're a year behind and paying more on top of that

If he doesn't play well, you could be the rams shipping Warner out for Bulger. Putting it all on one season puts you at a high chance of getting this wrong

Totally agree, but anyone would feel a lot more confident when the player has looked the part in 3 of 4 opportunities, and has also positively adjusted from the down season.

Sure, but that's really all you get out of it. And a higher price tag. And a year behind

I like what I've seen from him. Just the fact that we know he doesn't fold like a Herbert or a Darnold in the playoffs is massive. 2025 is not what I would base his career on

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Furlow:
$40m for QB1 was 4 years ago, bro. Inflation. Exploding salary cap. Value relative to peers. Focus.

Who are his peers? That's where there is disagreement. Also, just because a couple teams agree to stupid contracts with their QB's doesn't mean anybody else has to. I don't give a s**t what Tua was paid by the Dolphins and neither should any other team. It's a prime example of what not to do.

I thought this was established. All of the QB's who have recently been paid, minus Mahomes and Burrow. Herbert, Tua, Love, etc. He's at minimum equal to them and in my opinion better than all of them.

This is a never ending argument because some posters refuse to acknowledge what the QB market is, and what his peers are.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
This is a never ending argument because some posters refuse to acknowledge what the QB market is, and what his peers are.

It's neverending because some never see the other side of the coin with their arguments and don't learn lessons when they're wrong.

Again, nobody is arguing that Brock shouldn't ask for deals in the range of Love, Tua, Lawrence etc. We should at least be open to the idea that these weren't smart moves in the first place.

Tell me how many times you've seen this model work out in SBs for teams?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

This is a never ending argument because some posters refuse to acknowledge what the QB market is, and what his peers are.

It's neverending because some never see the other side of the coin with their arguments and don't learn lessons when they're wrong.

Again, nobody is arguing that Brock shouldn't ask for deals in the range of Love, Tua, Lawrence etc. We should at least be open to the idea that these weren't smart moves in the first place.

Tell me how many times you've seen this model work out in SBs for teams?

At this time there is no real formula other than having the Reid spags Mahomes combo. Lamar Burrow and Allen went through their rookie deals without a ring. They still don't have one. There is no real formula

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
At this time there is no real formula other than having the Reid spags Mahomes combo. Lamar Burrow and Allen went through their rookie deals without a ring. They still don't have one. There is no real formula

I agree, but paying a non elite QB top tier money has rarely worked. You could possibly get an example this year with the Eagles and Lions.

Look at the Bills and the Ravens as examples of what happens when you do pay an elite QB top tier money. Neither team is exactly loaded up and down their roster. The Chiefs have dominated the league because they have the perfect mix of ingredients and it's hard for other teams to land any of those pieces, let alone all of them.

Whatever the formula is, it's not overpaying your assets, or over committing to them. We've arguably already made this mistake at other positions.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

At this time there is no real formula other than having the Reid spags Mahomes combo. Lamar Burrow and Allen went through their rookie deals without a ring. They still don't have one. There is no real formula

I agree, but paying a non elite QB top tier money has rarely worked. You could possibly get an example this year with the Eagles and Lions.

Look at the Bills and the Ravens as examples of what happens when you do pay an elite QB top tier money. Neither team is exactly loaded up and down their roster. The Chiefs have dominated the league because they have the perfect mix of ingredients and it's hard for other teams to land any of those pieces, let alone all of them.

Whatever the formula is, it's not overpaying your assets, or over committing to them. We've arguably already made this mistake at other positions.

I see talent on the Bills and Ravens, but ok. It's not Eagles or Lions loaded, but it's better than we were working with this year and Brock still had a decent year

Maybe if Brock was 4 inches taller he would be worth the 50-60 million

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
I see talent on the Bills and Ravens, but ok. It's not Eagles or Lions loaded, but it's better than we were working with this year and Brock still had a decent year

I'm not sure I agree, but let's say I do for sake of discussion.

How does this help the argument? You are effectively emulating a model with lesser assets across the board (at least in terms of players). Relying on outlier draft success is the only answer going forward in this situation right?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

I see talent on the Bills and Ravens, but ok. It's not Eagles or Lions loaded, but it's better than we were working with this year and Brock still had a decent year

I'm not sure I agree, but let's say I do for sake of discussion.

How does this help the argument? You are effectively emulating a model with lesser assets across the board (at least in terms of players). Relying on outlier draft success is the only answer going forward in this situation right?

The Bills and Ravens didn't have more talent on the field than us this year? How lol?

That's the only answer no matter who you sign. Unless you expect guys like Lamar and Allen to carry you to a SB with less talent. Something they haven't done in 8 tries