QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
i don't think brock is much better than hurts. this is a 2nd SB for hurts. i think from a DC point of view, hurts brings challenges with RPO and run game that brock doesn't bring. i don't think a lot of philly fans are wishing they had brock purdy. they may wish they had mahomes.

He reads defenses at a clearly superior level. Hurts was completely carried the first two playoff games ala Jimmy.

Hurts should switch to RB. That's what he's known for. They don't really need him now because of saquon, but he can still do his signature move (getting his ass pushed)

As a side note I can't believe how bad the Bills were at QB sneaks in the AFCCG. I mean you have a huge QB and the eagles gave you the blueprint. Are hurts and Allen the same exact size? No, but my God you should easily be able to get a yard with a poor man's tush push with Josh Allen.

I digress. Now that weeks have passed since the end of the season, I am forgiving Brock a little more because of how bad the OLine was. I think I blamed Brock a little too much at times for losses during the season

Originally posted by Typecast:
As been mentioned ad nauseum in this post, franchise quarterbacks do not grow on trees. The current supply of quarterback talent at that level doesn't come close to meeting the demand. Teams without franchise quarterbacks are stuck playing the draft lotto as free agency rarely provides an opportunity to sign a guy at that tier entering or in their prime. The top FA options this year are guys entering retirement soon. Russ, maybe Rodgers, maybe Cousins. The only quarterbacks on the fringe Darnold and maybe Danny Dimes. The rest are firmly in that backup tier. Zach Wilson, Lance, Brissett, Heinicke, Mariota, Lock, Stidham, Dalton, Fields, Flacco, Winston, Mac Jones, Wentz, Jimmy G, Keenum, Rudolph, Brandon Allen, Mullens, Trask, Josh Johnson, Beathard, Huntley, Driskel, Ridder, Zappe, Ehlinger, and Tommy Cutlets. Those in bold have already played for the 49ers under Shanahan. So yes, another team would pay Brock an AAV of 55M+ if he were to somehow end up in free agency. Giants, Raiders, Browns, Titans, Saints, Colts, Steelers, Jets (maybe), Vikings (maybe). The Seahawks and Rams both have to address the position at some point.

If this quarterback draft class is weak, why would that be a bad thing for Brock? Because teams in need are still in need? What he's done so far to be one of the top quarterbacks in the league coupled with that demand is what allows him, and other quarterbacks at that franchise-level tier, to get the money they've been getting. Whether he's the best QB in the league, top 5, or top 10, if you believe you have a franchise QB at the position, you pay them that franchise QB price. It's simply how the league operates.
I've never generalized "The Market" for all quarterbacks. In fact, I've brought up Danny Dimes before in my commentary and specifically said he was a fringe guy, not a franchise qb level talent. Danny Dimes didn't sign a franchise qb tier contract that reset the market. Danny Dimes was never considered a quarterback in that franchise qb tier. He was a fringe guy where his team still wanted him to prove himself as they weren't sold on him. And they put enough money in front of him that he was willing to sign that deal believing he could prove himself. You talk about the guarantees. 50.63% of the total cash on the contract was guaranteed at signing. Only 10 other starting quarterbacks since 2016 have received a higher percentage. The idea behind the Danny Dimes contract was he either proved himself before year 4 to earn an extension or he would be cut at any point after year 2. The team was willing to move on from him after 2 years and he wanted out sooner. Yes, the Giants have 22.2M in dead cap next year, but they also had 13M in dead cap in 2024 because they cut him in November and still owed him that remaining guaranteed salary.

Cap hits are irrelevant in "The Market". When people discuss "The Market", they are typically referring to new cash, signing bonus, guaranteed money, and/or new cash over years added (extension AAV). I was talking about extension AAV. Cap hits are dependent on how the contract is actually structured, combining allocations for new money to be spent with the allocations that carried over from the prior contract (already spent money, and money guaranteed to be spent). Burrow, The Prince, and Love all signed market franchise QB contracts with 55M extension AAVs. However, they all were paid in different ways. Burrow got a minimized salary while the other two got more. Signing bonuses differed at 40M, 37.5M and 75M respectively. Love had a lesser amount of unaccounted for cap hits that carried over into his new contract. The Prince didn't get any other offseason bonus. That led to different cap hits for each player in their first year.

• Burrow - 19.5M = 2023 minimum salary + 2023 signing bonus proration + 2020 signing bonus proration + training camp roster bonus
• The Prince - 15M = 2024 salary + 2024 signing bonus proration + 2021 signing bonus proration
• Love - 20.8M = 2024 Salary + 2024 signing bonus proration + 2023 Signing Bonus Proration + 2024 Workout Bonus

And each following year will have a different cap hit depending on how much they spent in each year and how they allocated that spending. Here are the cap hits over their contract when they signed (italicized represents cap hits in void years):

• Burrow - 19.5M, 29.7M, 46.25M, 48.25M, 52.25M, 53.5M, 68.5M, 9M, 3M, 1M
• The Prince - 15M, 17M, 24M, 35M, 47M, 78.5M, 74.8M, 21M, 7M
• Love - 20.8M, 29.8M, 36.1M, 42.5M, 74.2M, 34.7M, 14.2M, 6.3M

Franchise quarterbacks are treated like royalty. "The Market" does have an effect on franchise quarterbacks because teams do not want to lose them when they find one. Don't take my word for it. Look at the history of franchise qb contracts over the salary cap era, especially following the implementation of the rookie wage scale.

The market price isn't what he can get in 2028 when he becomes an UNRESTRICTED free agent, which would actually be 2029 (1 yr remaining + 3 years of tags). The market price matters when you want to extend him. There is a benefit to getting players extended off an existing contract with years remaining, as it allows newly spent money to be spread into that prior contract. Going back to The Prince. The Jaguars had his 4th year remaining, a 5th year option already picked up, and three years of tag control. They weren't offering him the market deal he could expect to be paid in 2029. They offered him the market price given to franchise quarterbacks in 2024. The Eagles had 1 year remaining and 3 years of tag control on Hurts. They didn't pay him based on what the market price would be in 2027. His cash flow doesn't change after 2026 (51M per year) but his cap hits steadily grow because he has maximized option bonuses in every year of his contract. They paid him the market rate for franchise quarterbacks in 2023. A week later, the Ravens reset the market paying Lamar just a little more.

Edit - About the franchise tag, why would the team not extend him but give him 3 franchise tags? Minimizing the franchise tags applied to Purdy, they would be 45M (non-exclusive 2026), 54M (non-exclusive 2027), and 70M+ ("3rd" tag 2028).

you talk about 'franchise quarterbacks'. that's a very subjective term. it's hard for anyone to say what exactly it means. we may be served by actually defining what you mean by that.

posted this a week ago from X but know some people don't use X for various reasons. Here's the YT link now, I won the appeal against the NFL.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
you talk about 'franchise quarterbacks'. that's a very subjective term. it's hard for anyone to say what exactly it means. we may be served by actually defining what you mean by that.

I've never claimed "franchise quarterback" as being objective. I've maintained that it comes down to the feelings of ownership and those they delegate to. For the 49ers, the term likely reflects a quarterback that the organization believes gives the team a shot to win the super bowl and is someone they can build their "franchise" around for an extended period/across a multiyear plan.

Originally posted by Typecast:
I've never claimed "franchise quarterback" as being objective. I've maintained that it comes down to the feelings of ownership and those they delegate to. For the 49ers, the term likely reflects a quarterback that the organization believes gives the team a shot to win the super bowl and is someone they can build their "franchise" around for an extended period/across a multiyear plan.

For me a "franchise QB" simply refers to a QB who is slated to be the starter now and in the future....with no doubts of whether or not they are looking to replace said QB. Phillip Rivers was a franchise QB for the Chargers, and he never even sniffed a title. So in a sense, my definition and yours are in line because I am sure the Chargers organization believed they could win a title with him. But ultimately, you dont need to be elite to be a franchise QB.

Originally posted by Typecast:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
you talk about 'franchise quarterbacks'. that's a very subjective term. it's hard for anyone to say what exactly it means. we may be served by actually defining what you mean by that.

I've never claimed "franchise quarterback" as being objective. I've maintained that it comes down to the feelings of ownership and those they delegate to. For the 49ers, the term likely reflects a quarterback that the organization believes gives the team a shot to win the super bowl and is someone they can build their "franchise" around for an extended period/across a multiyear plan.

it's just a weird concept and i don't totally buy it. seems made up.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:
Well yes. He wants to discuss humans throwing a football as if they're apples or eggs. No,...they're individuals with individual abilities.

He'll say "The Market" for QBs is a guaranteed $60M per year but ignores that Daniel Jones' extension was $40M per year with alot of window dressing. The Giants protected themselves by only guaranteeing HALF of that contract. They are able to get out of that contract this coming season while absorbing a dead cap hit of just over $22.2 million.

So no, all starting QBs aren't treated like royalty due to some random number a guy on the internet wants to believe.

So "The Market" isint a $60M cap hit for all QBs, as you said. It's the maximum that 32 teams would pay for his individual services.... in 2028 when he can be a FA unrestrained.

Daniel Jones, lol, what a comp.

Just an absurd comp.

We were comparing the new contracts of starters.

He (TypeCast) has stayed away from "Brock will get $60M guaranteed per yr bcuz he's just that good."

He has opted for " starting QBs today are simply going to get this going forward... cause of the MARKET. "

So he has been given an example of a starting QB where the numbers on his relatively-new contract were fluff and after a couple yrs, the team had an out.

I see you want to instead attach the contract offer with the ability of the starter, just as well as I do, right?

Well great. But the OP's argument purposely stays away from this.

So by now, I hope you are following.

Absurd things are being stated (as is the norm here when emotions get high) and I'm simply countering.

Let's see if we can stop bait and switching.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Typecast:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

you talk about 'franchise quarterbacks'. that's a very subjective term. it's hard for anyone to say what exactly it means. we may be served by actually defining what you mean by that.

I've never claimed "franchise quarterback" as being objective. I've maintained that it comes down to the feelings of ownership and those they delegate to. For the 49ers, the term likely reflects a quarterback that the organization believes gives the team a shot to win the super bowl and is someone they can build their "franchise" around for an extended period/across a multiyear plan.

it's just a weird concept and i don't totally buy it. seems made up.

There's nothing to buy. The word itself is made up. You have your made up definition. He has his own

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:
Well yes. He wants to discuss humans throwing a football as if they're apples or eggs. No,...they're individuals with individual abilities.

He'll say "The Market" for QBs is a guaranteed $60M per year but ignores that Daniel Jones' extension was $40M per year with alot of window dressing. The Giants protected themselves by only guaranteeing HALF of that contract. They are able to get out of that contract this coming season while absorbing a dead cap hit of just over $22.2 million.

So no, all starting QBs aren't treated like royalty due to some random number a guy on the internet wants to believe.

So "The Market" isint a $60M cap hit for all QBs, as you said. It's the maximum that 32 teams would pay for his individual services.... in 2028 when he can be a FA unrestrained.

Daniel Jones, lol, what a comp.

Just an absurd comp.

We were comparing the new contracts of starters.

He (TypeCast) has stayed away from "Brock will get $60M guaranteed per yr bcuz he's just that good."

He has opted for " starting QBs today are simply going to get this going forward... cause of the MARKET. "

So he has been given an example of a starting QB where the numbers on his relatively-new contract were fluff and after a couple yrs, the team had an out.

I see you want to instead attach the contract offer with the ability of the starter, just as well as I do, right?

Well great. But the OP's argument purposely stays away from this.

So by now, I hope you are following.

Absurd things are being stated (as is the norm here when emotions get high) and I'm simply countering.

Let's see if we can stop bait and switching.

Daniel Jones is not a starting level QB. Almost everyone would agree with that. So that's where your logic falls flat.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by random49er:
Well yes. He wants to discuss humans throwing a football as if they're apples or eggs. No,...they're individuals with individual abilities.

He'll say "The Market" for QBs is a guaranteed $60M per year but ignores that Daniel Jones' extension was $40M per year with alot of window dressing. The Giants protected themselves by only guaranteeing HALF of that contract. They are able to get out of that contract this coming season while absorbing a dead cap hit of just over $22.2 million.

So no, all starting QBs aren't treated like royalty due to some random number a guy on the internet wants to believe.

So "The Market" isint a $60M cap hit for all QBs, as you said. It's the maximum that 32 teams would pay for his individual services.... in 2028 when he can be a FA unrestrained.

Daniel Jones, lol, what a comp.

Just an absurd comp.

We were comparing the new contracts of starters.

He (TypeCast) has stayed away from "Brock will get $60M guaranteed per yr bcuz he's just that good."

He has opted for " starting QBs today are simply going to get this going forward... cause of the MARKET. "

So he has been given an example of a starting QB where the numbers on his relatively-new contract were fluff and after a couple yrs, the team had an out.

I see you want to instead attach the contract offer with the ability of the starter, just as well as I do, right?

Well great. But the OP's argument purposely stays away from this.

So by now, I hope you are following.

Absurd things are being stated (as is the norm here when emotions get high) and I'm simply countering.

Let's see if we can stop bait and switching.

Daniel Jones is not a starting level QB. Almost everyone would agree with that. So that's where your logic falls flat.

He's not a starting level QB "NOW". I'm referring to when he signed his last new contract before he collapsed. Look at the numbers of his last deal; do you really think that was for a backup position?

Originally posted by random49er:
We were comparing the new contracts of starters.

He (TypeCast) has stayed away from "Brock will get $60M guaranteed per yr bcuz he's just that good."

He has opted for " starting QBs today are simply going to get this going forward... cause of the MARKET. "

So he has been given an example of a starting QB where the numbers on his relatively-new contract were fluff and after a couple yrs, the team had an out.

I see you want to instead attach the contract offer with the ability of the starter, just as well as I do, right?

Well great. But the OP's argument purposely stays away from this.

So by now, I hope you are following.

Absurd things are being stated (as is the norm here when emotions get high) and I'm simply countering.

Let's see if we can stop bait and switching.

You continue to prove that you aren't paying attention to anything actually being said. I have no problem with Purdy getting a market-resetting contract. I think he's earned it. But that is not up to me. It's up to ownership and the people ownership delegate to. They've indicated they are all-in on Purdy. I've never said "starting QBs today are simply going to get this going forward... cause of the MARKET". I've said that quarterbacks fall into tiers and the contracts they get reflect those tiers. Your Daniel Jones example doesn't apply to the conversation because Daniel Jones was never in the tier of quarterback that gets the market-resetting contracts, no matter how hard you protest that he is or could be. So please, make a better effort to follow the conversation if you are going to interject. Stop lashing out because the guy you rooted for didn't pan out and the organization moved on to someone better.

Originally posted by Typecast:

Originally posted by Ezekiel38:
Their worth is what someone will pay. Just because other starters got 50-60m does not necessarily mean another team would pay Brock specifically that amount.

And if we don't want to pay him 55m per year, I'd be curious to see if another team would. We could give him the Aiyuk treatment and say hey you think you're worth that much see what another team will give you that and we are satisfied with the compensation then we'll trade you or agree to sign you for a deal in that range like we did with Aiyuk.

Would a QB-starved team like TEN or OAK or NYG actually give Brock 5 years/275-300m? I'm skeptical.

That being said, with this weak QB class in the draft, the alternatives to Brock are not good. So he better perform like 2022 and 2023 and not like last year going forward.

As been mentioned ad nauseum in this post, franchise quarterbacks do not grow on trees. The current supply of quarterback talent at that level doesn't come close to meeting the demand. Teams without franchise quarterbacks are stuck playing the draft lotto as free agency rarely provides an opportunity to sign a guy at that tier entering or in their prime. The top FA options this year are guys entering retirement soon. Russ, maybe Rodgers, maybe Cousins. The only quarterbacks on the fringe Darnold and maybe Danny Dimes. The rest are firmly in that backup tier. Zach Wilson, Lance, Brissett, Heinicke, Mariota, Lock, Stidham, Dalton, Fields, Flacco, Winston, Mac Jones, Wentz, Jimmy G, Keenum, Rudolph, Brandon Allen, Mullens, Trask, Josh Johnson, Beathard, Huntley, Driskel, Ridder, Zappe, Ehlinger, and Tommy Cutlets. Those in bold have already played for the 49ers under Shanahan. So yes, another team would pay Brock an AAV of 55M+ if he were to somehow end up in free agency. Giants, Raiders, Browns, Titans, Saints, Colts, Steelers, Jets (maybe), Vikings (maybe). The Seahawks and Rams both have to address the position at some point.

If this quarterback draft class is weak, why would that be a bad thing for Brock? Because teams in need are still in need? What he's done so far to be one of the top quarterbacks in the league coupled with that demand is what allows him, and other quarterbacks at that franchise-level tier, to get the money they've been getting. Whether he's the best QB in the league, top 5, or top 10, if you believe you have a franchise QB at the position, you pay them that franchise QB price. It's simply how the league operates.

Originally posted by random49er:
He'll say "The Market" for QBs is a guaranteed $60M per year but ignores that Daniel Jones' extension was $40M per year with alot of window dressing. The Giants protected themselves by only guaranteeing HALF of that contract. They are able to get out of that contract this coming season while absorbing a dead cap hit of just over $22.2 million.

So no, all starting QBs aren't treated like royalty due to some random number a guy on the internet wants to believe.

So "The Market" isint a $60M cap hit for all QBs, as you said. It's the maximum that 32 teams would pay for his individual services.... in 2028 when he can be a FA unrestrained.

I've never generalized "The Market" for all quarterbacks. In fact, I've brought up Danny Dimes before in my commentary and specifically said he was a fringe guy, not a franchise qb level talent. Danny Dimes didn't sign a franchise qb tier contract that reset the market. Danny Dimes was never considered a quarterback in that franchise qb tier. He was a fringe guy where his team still wanted him to prove himself as they weren't sold on him. And they put enough money in front of him that he was willing to sign that deal believing he could prove himself. You talk about the guarantees. 50.63% of the total cash on the contract was guaranteed at signing. Only 10 other starting quarterbacks since 2016 have received a higher percentage. The idea behind the Danny Dimes contract was he either proved himself before year 4 to earn an extension or he would be cut at any point after year 2. The team was willing to move on from him after 2 years and he wanted out sooner. Yes, the Giants have 22.2M in dead cap next year, but they also had 13M in dead cap in 2024 because they cut him in November and still owed him that remaining guaranteed salary.

Cap hits are irrelevant in "The Market". When people discuss "The Market", they are typically referring to new cash, signing bonus, guaranteed money, and/or new cash over years added (extension AAV). I was talking about extension AAV. Cap hits are dependent on how the contract is actually structured, combining allocations for new money to be spent with the allocations that carried over from the prior contract (already spent money, and money guaranteed to be spent). Burrow, The Prince, and Love all signed market franchise QB contracts with 55M extension AAVs. However, they all were paid in different ways. Burrow got a minimized salary while the other two got more. Signing bonuses differed at 40M, 37.5M and 75M respectively. Love had a lesser amount of unaccounted for cap hits that carried over into his new contract. The Prince didn't get any other offseason bonus. That led to different cap hits for each player in their first year.

• Burrow - 19.5M = 2023 minimum salary + 2023 signing bonus proration + 2020 signing bonus proration + training camp roster bonus
• The Prince - 15M = 2024 salary + 2024 signing bonus proration + 2021 signing bonus proration
• Love - 20.8M = 2024 Salary + 2024 signing bonus proration + 2023 Signing Bonus Proration + 2024 Workout Bonus

And each following year will have a different cap hit depending on how much they spent in each year and how they allocated that spending. Here are the cap hits over their contract when they signed (italicized represents cap hits in void years):

• Burrow - 19.5M, 29.7M, 46.25M, 48.25M, 52.25M, 53.5M, 68.5M, 9M, 3M, 1M
• The Prince - 15M, 17M, 24M, 35M, 47M, 78.5M, 74.8M, 21M, 7M
• Love - 20.8M, 29.8M, 36.1M, 42.5M, 74.2M, 34.7M, 14.2M, 6.3M

Franchise quarterbacks are treated like royalty. "The Market" does have an effect on franchise quarterbacks because teams do not want to lose them when they find one. Don't take my word for it. Look at the history of franchise qb contracts over the salary cap era, especially following the implementation of the rookie wage scale.

The market price isn't what he can get in 2028 when he becomes an UNRESTRICTED free agent, if we were playing the franchise tag game would actually be 2029 (1 yr remaining + 3 years of tags). The market price matters when you want to extend him. There is a benefit to getting players extended off an existing contract with years remaining, as it allows newly spent money to be spread into that prior contract. Going back to The Prince. The Jaguars had his 4th year remaining, a 5th year option already picked up, and three years of tag control. They weren't offering him the market deal he could expect to be paid in 2029. They offered him the market price given to franchise quarterbacks in 2024. The Eagles had 1 year remaining and 3 years of tag control on Hurts. They didn't pay him based on what the market price would be in 2027. His cash flow doesn't change after 2026 (51M per year) but his cap hits steadily grow because he has maximized option bonuses in every year of his contract. They paid him the market rate for franchise quarterbacks in 2023. A week later, the Ravens reset the market paying Lamar just a little more.

Edit - About the franchise tag, why would the team not extend him but give him 3 franchise tags? Minimizing the franchise tags applied to Purdy, they would be 45M (non-exclusive 2026), 54M (non-exclusive 2027), and 70M+ ("3rd" tag 2028).

Yes

Originally posted by random49er:
He's not a starting level QB "NOW". I'm referring to when he signed his last new contract before he collapsed. Look at the numbers of his last deal; do you really think that was for a backup position?

Daniel Jones 40M AAV was nothing special when he signed it. Dak had already achieved 160M/4 two years prior. The quarterback market when Jones signed his deal was already at 50M AAV. You keep constructing strawmen and arguing against them. I didn't claim Daniel Jones was a backup when he signed his deal. I said he was a fringe franchise QB who hadn't done enough to convince his team he was worth building around. If Daniel Jones actually had the confidence of the franchise, he would have been paid like every other franchise QB in the league.

Originally posted by random49er:
He's not a starting level QB "NOW". I'm referring to when he signed his last new contract before he collapsed. Look at the numbers of his last deal; do you really think that was for a backup position?

I am aware of the timeframe you were referring to. He wasnt a starting level QB then either. He got a new deal based on some perceived potential because that most recent season was better than the first 3 and his team actually won games.

Originally posted by Typecast:
You continue to prove that you aren't paying attention to anything actually being said. I have no problem with Purdy getting a market-resetting contract. I think he's earned it. But that is not up to me. It's up to ownership and the people ownership delegate to. They've indicated they are all-in on Purdy. I've never said "starting QBs today are simply going to get this going forward... cause of the MARKET". I've said that quarterbacks fall into tiers and the contracts they get reflect those tiers. Your Daniel Jones example doesn't apply to the conversation because Daniel Jones was never in the tier of quarterback that gets the market-resetting contracts, no matter how hard you protest that he is or could be. So please, make a better effort to follow the conversation if you are going to interject. Stop lashing out because the guy you rooted for didn't pan out and the organization moved on to someone better.

This x1000