There are 299 users in the forums
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:Originally posted by CharlieSheen:Yea it's not easy to win a SB. Boo hoo
Lol. You really nailed it here. Let's make it harder.
Originally posted by Furlow:tl;dr - Purdy will make 5.2M in 2025 if he isn't extended.
Meaning [Purdy's] salary for 2025 is still just $1M.
Originally posted by Furlow:
If we throw a bag at him for say $40m as a signing bonus, that gets prorated over the years of the contract. It's also a way of saying "thanks bro for balling out the past three seasons and saving our jobs for spending three 1st round picks on a QB bust. Oh and getting us to two NFCCG's and a Super Bowl." That would leave a salary of probably $40m-$50m per year but only 1/2 to 3/4 would be guaranteed. We'd have an out for sure after year 2 or 3.
Originally posted by Furlow:
It's just insane how none of them is taking this into account. Making him play out the final year would surely piss him off (if he even agreed to it) and then there would be no discount ever from Purdy (understandable).
Originally posted by Furlow:Yes, all of the spending on the franchise tag route would hit the cap immediately. Cash spending is like 100M (extension route) vs 50M (tag route). The cap hit difference is like 35M (extension route) vs 50M (tag route). The tag route is for the non-exclusive franchise tag. The exclusive franchise tag gets calculated toward the end of April, averaging the top 5 salaries at the position. Based on what the salaries are now and that nothing changed until May 2026, the exclusive franchise tag would be 70.359M next year. The top salaried quarterbacks are going to get restructured though.
Franchise tagging him after that would be even more expensive because that means 100% hits the cap (rather than being able to pro-rate the signing bonus during his rookie contract year. It's much more "team friendly" to extend him now.
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Without stats, what is the best way to evaluate players?
Film.
Very Subjective.
Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Dude we don't have Mahomes and Reid right now. We have to take the hard road just like everyone else. Go cry about it
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:Originally posted by CharlieSheen:Dude we don't have Mahomes and Reid right now. We have to take the hard road just like everyone else. Go cry about it
I'll just continue to point out what I see as flaws in our thinking and hope for the best.
Originally posted by Typecast:
tl;dr - Purdy will make 5.2M in 2025 if he isn't extended.
details: non-first-round draft picks have a proven performance escalator (PPE) in their contracts. The PPE is three levels.
The fourth year salary escalates to the following
- Players qualify for level one if they
- Participate in a minimum of x% of their Club's offensive or defensive plays in any two of their first three seasons. The threshold is 60% for second-round picks and 35% for others.
- Participate in a cumulative average of at least x% of their Club's offensive or defensive plays across their first three seasons. The threshold is 60% for second-round picks and 35% for others.
- Players qualify for level two if they participate in 55% of their Club's offensive or defensive plays in each of their first three seasons.
- Players qualify for level three if they are selected to one or more Pro Bowls on the original ballot in any of their first three seasons.
- Level One - Original Draft Round RFA Tender
- Level Two - Original Draft Round RFA Tender + 250k
- Level Three - 2nd Round RFA Tender
Purdy was an original selection for the 2023 Pro Bowl which would max him out at Level Three PPE. His salary will escalate to around $5.2M in 2025. Burford had snap counts of 67.7%, 79.4%, 10.5% over his first three years, qualifying for Level One PPE. His salary will escalate to around $3.3M in 2025.
For the 2023 drafted players, % snap counts were 36.2%/44.4% for Brown (Level One) and 40.8%/30.0% for Moody.
For the 2024 drafted players, % snap counts were 63.3% for Green, 99.9% for Puni, and 70.9% for Mustapha.
Originally posted by Furlow:
If we throw a bag at him for say $40m as a signing bonus, that gets prorated over the years of the contract. It's also a way of saying "thanks bro for balling out the past three seasons and saving our jobs for spending three 1st round picks on a QB bust. Oh and getting us to two NFCCG's and a Super Bowl." That would leave a salary of probably $40m-$50m per year but only 1/2 to 3/4 would be guaranteed. We'd have an out for sure after year 2 or 3.
Most of the suggested contracts I've seen have a 60M+ signing bonus in 2025, a 30-40M option bonus in 2026, and a 20-30M option bonus in 2027. All compensation through 2027 is guaranteed-at-signing. That would keep it inline with top contracts that have guaranteed-at-signing figures in the 140s. If the three year compensation is short, a portion of the 2028 compensation is guaranteed-at-signing. 2028 compensation would become guaranteed in March 2027. 2029 compensation could possibly become guaranteed in 2028. 2030 compensation is left unguaranteed. That would bring the total guarantees upto the 180s with 4 years guaranteed, or 230s with 5 years guaranteed. 230M total guaranteed on a 305.2M total value contract (300M extension) would be 75%.
Originally posted by Furlow:
It's just insane how none of them is taking this into account. Making him play out the final year would surely piss him off (if he even agreed to it) and then there would be no discount ever from Purdy (understandable).
People need to break themselves of this mindset that Purdy is going to give the team a discount in any scenario. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment.
Originally posted by Furlow:Yes, all of the spending on the franchise tag route would hit the cap immediately. Cash spending is like 100M (extension route) vs 50M (tag route). The cap hit difference is like 35M (extension route) vs 50M (tag route). The tag route is for the non-exclusive franchise tag. The exclusive franchise tag gets calculated toward the end of April, averaging the top 5 salaries at the position. Based on what the salaries are now and that nothing changed until May 2026, the exclusive franchise tag would be 70.359M next year. The top salaried quarterbacks are going to get restructured though.
Franchise tagging him after that would be even more expensive because that means 100% hits the cap (rather than being able to pro-rate the signing bonus during his rookie contract year. It's much more "team friendly" to extend him now.
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
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 SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
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
Exactly!
If you believe those teams are more talented than us, and they have better QBs than us, why would you expect us to be successful when we are attempting to do the same with lesser players?
Look at this team. We have aging superstars, some coming off major injuries, and holes up and down the roster.
Originally posted by Furlow:
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
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
Exactly!
If you believe those teams are more talented than us, and they have better QBs than us, why would you expect us to be successful when we are attempting to do the same with lesser players?
Look at this team. We have aging superstars, some coming off major injuries, and holes up and down the roster.
Then get rid of those guys, and draft better and cheaper replacements for them. Why would we risk pushing Purdy out the door to mask overspending on aging/injured players? Purdy is young, so build around him.
Originally posted by Furlow:
But only Smokey has said (my interpretation anyway) that Herbert and Love are better, and he just said that Purdy is better than Tua. So then why wouldn't Purdy at least get more than Tua? What they're saying is they like Purdy better than Herbert, Love, Tua, Dak, etc - but they just don't want to pay Purdy what those guys got paid. Their argument to me is one against NFL QB contracts, which is a separate discussion.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Ultimately it comes down to this question: Do you want Brock Purdy to be our quarterback for the next 3-4 years at minimum?
If the answer is yes, then you will have to come to grips with the fact that he will be signing a contract similar to his peers. It is really that simple. Myself, Furlow, and others have never once said that we WANT him to sign a $50-60M a year deal. Obviously, we would want him to sign for substantially less. But since we want Brock to be our QB for the foreseeable future, we acknowledge the reality of what it would cost for that to happen.
Speak for yourself. Furlow has made emotion based arguments about humanity, capitalism, and 'owing' Purdy. Absolute inanity.
Regardless, what I see you mainly arguing is that we have to do this because other teams did. We can't possibly attempt to go against the grain in pretty much any capacity because 'this is the way it's done in the NFL'.
Anyway, the top of your post is at least around the point. My answer is I'm not sure, at best.
Originally posted by ninerfaninnorcal:
Even if Brock had won the Super Bowl, he still wouldn't have gotten paid.
Originally posted by Furlow:
He can speak for me on this point, because I've said it many times. My hope is that Purdy does the smart thing for the team, and signs a deal in the low to mid $50m per year range. That would be a discount (relative to his peers) and allow some flexibility to keep/sign other players. But if he does get high $50m to low $60m range, I can accept that as that is the "going rate" for a QB of his caliber.
My point about the human aspect (meaning treatment of the player, not humanity) and capitalism is addressing Faithful's spam posts about $30m-$40m per year being "life changing" and "the richest contract in 49ers history" therefore Purdy should just be happy with that. That is simply not how contract negotiations work. Not one person in here would accept less money at their jobs than their peers simply because it was more than what they used to make.
And I don't hear one person saying we have to do this "because that's how it's done in the NFL." We're saying we want Purdy to be our QB for at least the next 4 season, based on his play while here; and we understand that means paying him a contract relative to his peers. The alternative is to trade him now while he's under his rookie contract to a team that's willing to sign him long term, and then start over looking for a new QB.
You guys are trying to make something happen that is WAY outside of that, that is not based in reality. The only players who play one year or lame duck contracts are fringe players just trying to stay/get on a roster. Not QB's with Purdy's level of ability and accomplishment.