QB Brock Purdy Thread

Based on Brock's regression last year, we don't know if Brock is a franchise QB.

Originally posted by BOI49er:
Why is it hard to address what I actually said? He's going to play this year. If he didn't, it wouldn't be to raise his stock, but to preserve his health and earning power. And You, of All people, who's been derisively calling Jones "McCorkle" for half a decade now and railing against him, are now suggesting he's a threat to Brock? His comparative ability to avoid the rush alone takes him out of that competition. Yes, there is always the tag next year. In fact, while they can't tag him this year, they Could offer him that money on a one year contract, which would be a very large raise over $5m, and would certainly keep Brock from sitting out. If they did that, and I was Kyle, I'd be looking for a job. And yes, I did predict he would get signed, and merely suggested it would be for more than you want because he does have leverage you will not acknowledge.

How is him not playing raising his earning power? He loses money that he will never recoup by not signing now. Again if McCorkle doesn't play like total trash, that doesn't "help" Brock in regards to getting MORE money….thats the whole damn point of him NOT playing. He's not satisfied with the offer on the table.

Now IF SF simply doesn't offer him a deal and is telling him to play out his contract, that different…but as far as I've read, you haven't said that was the situation you're referring too.

His leverage is simply not as great as you think. Like I said go let him test the market out if he thinks his value is more than SF is willing to pay him. You think someone is gonna pay Brock Dak/Allen money? If so, we will disagree there all day. You talk about "market value" welllll if no one is willing to pay you that amount of cash, guess what? Thats NOT your market value. SF doesn't need to make a bad contract because other teams have. That's horrible business. At some point Brock and SF will have to meet in the middle. Period

FWIW: im not a McCorkle fan. We all know this. I think a backup level talent at QB, but I think he can run this offense adequately. That's massively different than wanting to giving up yrs of picks for his talent level. That was always my problem with him, along with his character.

Originally posted by Typecast:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Are you guys arguing about two different things? One is talking about cap space, the other is talking about cash flow?

No. He claims he copied and pasted Hurts' earnings through three years when the 2023 number was the cap hit. I pointed out that the 2023 number was the cap hit and not his earnings (cash flow) for that year. Then he got upset about that.

Gotcha

Guys can we get back to talking about Brock Purdy? I've brought up the Jalen Hurts contract as a comparison to what I believe Brock will get(accounting for NFL inflation) but we don't need pages of back and forth digging into the details of Jalen's contract just because there is a disagreement about what was said.

Originally posted by ninerfaninnorcal:
Based on Brock's regression last year, I don't know if Brock is a franchise QB.

Fixed it for you. Because to me I saw more telling me he is a franchise QB than I did in 2023.

My dude get all those Dirty Dollaz yet?

Gonna post this here cuz I thought it came up on my feed and I know we had some discussions on whether Purdy would've been a fit with Ben Johnson/Chicago and found this funny

Create a custom 49ers jersey ⇨
Just a reminder for some where Purdy's regression season puts him in EPA

Originally posted by ninerfaninnorcal:
Based on Brock's regression last year, we don't know if Brock is a franchise QB.

yes. but he will be paid like one. an expensive brock and then you have mac jones. brock made sense at 900k and he could play, albeit with some arm limitations. it's about to make less sense.

the team outright said the roster trimdown is brock related. sacrifices had to be made, something to that effect.

brock has earned a deal, but it should reflect 6 wins and a regression last year.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by ninerfaninnorcal:
Based on Brock's regression last year, we don't know if Brock is a franchise QB.

yes. but he will be paid like one. an expensive brock and then you have mac jones. brock made sense at 900k and he could play, albeit with some arm limitations. it's about to make less sense.

the team outright said the roster trimdown is brock related. sacrifices had to be made, something to that effect.

brock has earned a deal, but it should reflect 6 wins and a regression last year.

You really gotta learn to read between the lines with what the team says sometimes.

That's an excuse AND a negotiating tactic by the team.

That roster trimdown reflects the 6 wins and regression a lot more than Brock's contract will. If you think Brock's agent will fall for that crap then you're crazy.

They brought in the players who didn't play well. They paid several guys who regressed or missed critical time last season. Now the one guy who has been playing WELL above his contract you think the team has any leg to stand on saying "well you only won 6 games last year and your stats didn't look as good so you don't get as much money"

Nobody would take that seriously. That's why they're playing the "we had to trim the roster to pay Brock" so they can give Brock the "listen we can't give you a good roster unless you take less"

Originally posted by genus49:
You really gotta learn to read between the lines with what the team says sometimes.

That's an excuse AND a negotiating tactic by the team.

That roster trimdown reflects the 6 wins and regression a lot more than Brock's contract will. If you think Brock's agent will fall for that crap then you're crazy.

They brought in the players who didn't play well. They paid several guys who regressed or missed critical time last season. Now the one guy who has been playing WELL above his contract you think the team has any leg to stand on saying "well you only won 6 games last year and your stats didn't look as good so you don't get as much money"

Nobody would take that seriously. That's why they're playing the "we had to trim the roster to pay Brock" so they can give Brock the "listen we can't give you a good roster unless you take less"

i think being QB1 and making the biggest deal in club history is a win for brock and the agent. anything that starts with a 2 and 8 zeroes. ppl talk about dak, dak has had 5-6 great complete seasons. brock has had 1.

the more i see it being a $45m aav type deal with incentives that can get this higher. that's a win for team and player imo. if he wants the 60m aav ok, go find some club that would pay you that. no other team will do it. maybe only us by bidding ourselves to the moon and back.

this is from front page, and all makes sense to me
mike sando with nfl executive:

"People forget with Purdy, the guy has made nothing," the executive told The Athletic's Mike Sando. "If you are Brock Purdy, you are staring two years of franchise tags in the face and $5 million (in 2025 salary)."

In other words, San Francisco controls Purdy's contract situation for the next three seasons at an estimated total cost of $97 million—likely his "best-case scenario" without an extension.

Despite leading the 49ers to two NFC Championship Games and a Super Bowl in his first two seasons, Purdy's critics point to the team's struggles when injuries piled up, arguing that he couldn't elevate the roster beyond six wins in that stretch.

That perceived limitation could work in the 49ers' favor at the negotiating table.

"I am not saying they would pound him, but I have never understood how people think he gets to $60 million (per year on an extension)," the executive added.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:

You really gotta learn to read between the lines with what the team says sometimes.

That's an excuse AND a negotiating tactic by the team.

That roster trimdown reflects the 6 wins and regression a lot more than Brock's contract will. If you think Brock's agent will fall for that crap then you're crazy.

They brought in the players who didn't play well. They paid several guys who regressed or missed critical time last season. Now the one guy who has been playing WELL above his contract you think the team has any leg to stand on saying "well you only won 6 games last year and your stats didn't look as good so you don't get as much money"

Nobody would take that seriously. That's why they're playing the "we had to trim the roster to pay Brock" so they can give Brock the "listen we can't give you a good roster unless you take less"

i think being QB1 and making the biggest deal in club history is a win for brock and the agent. anything that starts with a 2 and 8 zeroes. ppl talk about dak, dak has had 5-6 great complete seasons. brock has had 1.

the more i see it being a $45m aav type deal with incentives that can get this higher. that's a win for team and player imo. if he wants the 60m aav ok, go find some club that would pay you that. no other team will do it. maybe only us by bidding ourselves to the moon and back.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

this is from front page, and all makes sense to me
mike sando with nfl executive:

"People forget with Purdy, the guy has made nothing," the executive told The Athletic's Mike Sando. "If you are Brock Purdy, you are staring two years of franchise tags in the face and $5 million (in 2025 salary)."

In other words, San Francisco controls Purdy's contract situation for the next three seasons at an estimated total cost of $97 million—likely his "best-case scenario" without an extension.

Despite leading the 49ers to two NFC Championship Games and a Super Bowl in his first two seasons, Purdy's critics point to the team's struggles when injuries piled up, arguing that he couldn't elevate the roster beyond six wins in that stretch.

That perceived limitation could work in the 49ers' favor at the negotiating table.

"I am not saying they would pound him, but I have never understood how people think he gets to $60 million (per year on an extension)," the executive added.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Hurts takes the worst sacks behind the best line, and he's afraid to use the middle of the field. He would get benched in Kyle's offense. He could bring his whole loaded offense with him and Kyle would still have to change everything for him

This. His first year was atrocious, very good second year (not 1 pass w/o a rb in formation) and got somewhat exposed vs us. Cannot pass well at all from inside the pocket, very poor pocket presence, questionable accuracy and the BEST surrounding cast in the NFL. Hurts isn't even close to a top 15-20 passer but overall due to his mobility barely a top10-15 qb.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
i think being QB1 and making the biggest deal in club history is a win for brock and the agent. anything that starts with a 2 and 8 zeroes. ppl talk about dak, dak has had 5-6 great complete seasons. brock has had 1.

the more i see it being a $45m aav type deal with incentives that can get this higher. that's a win for team and player imo. if he wants the 60m aav ok, go find some club that would pay you that. no other team will do it. maybe only us by bidding ourselves to the moon and back.

Once again I feel like us discussing AAV/APY whatver you want to call it but the average number talk in general isn't worthwhile.

This is why the Hurts' deal keeps being brought up. It had the "highest deal in NFL history" headline at the time of it being made...the details however revealed a super team friendly deal where the cap hits never even hit the average salary announced. And obviously the Eagles managed to win a SB with him on that contract so it can be done.

I realize random's big contention was technically Jalen won it before he officially became a $50 million per year QB but that point is overblown since we all know once these guys sign these deals that's how people refer to them but either way if the 49ers wanted to mimic the structure of Jalen's deal you could still have the "Brock signs highest deal in NFL history" without the contract cutting us off at our knees.

That's the main thing and why we shouldn't be as concerned about the average numbers. Sure it would be absolutely amazing if Brock would take a deal averaging in the 40s because the same things I said apply above but everything is lessened across the contract.

However when Jalen Hurts(another limited QB) gets an average of $51 million, then how can you honestly claim Brock should settle for less 2 whole years later? The salary cap has jumped BIG time in these last 2 years also. It's not realistic.