QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by Typecast:

Originally posted by 9erson3:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
55 mil aav is not a big contract for a 25 year old franchise qb though. The next round of young QBs like Stroud and Daniels will make it look like nothing. Just like when we signed Jimmy to the highest contract, it quickly became a bargain. Mahomes was the highest paid on average when he signed and it's not even top 10 at this point. That's how qb contracts work. 55 mil isn't even 20% of this years cap. It's not a lot lol

Brock is coming off a rookie contract, in fact he is still on one. Many of the QB compares are on third contract or more. There is no "players won't want to come here crap" if Brock doesn't reset the market.
2nd contract-shorter three year deal if possible and $45m to $50m a year. Third contract-more play time. You have 100% wiped away any questions, the skies the limit.
The QB market is BS.

I'm amazed to see how "the skies the limit" if we paid him 45-50M a year, but once we hit 51M a year, the team is going into the dumpster... Paying a quarterback 50-60M per year (TOTAL AAV, not extension AAV) isn't going to inhibit the front office from building a team around Purdy. The average cash he's going to get paid DOES NOT MATTER for building the team. Cap hits matter for the team. You can assuage the spending through bonus proration on the accounting, like most teams already do.

The QB market is what it is and it was exacerbated by owners wanting incoming players to prove themselves on a wage scale before getting their first big contract. When those players prove themselves, you pay them. Purdy has proven himself.

Originally posted by Typecast:
I'm amazed to see how "the skies the limit" if we paid him 45-50M a year, but once we hit 51M a year, the team is going into the dumpster... Paying a quarterback 50-60M per year (TOTAL AAV, not extension AAV) isn't going to inhibit the front office from building a team around Purdy. The average cash he's going to get paid DOES NOT MATTER for building the team. Cap hits matter for the team. You can assuage the spending through bonus proration on the accounting, like most teams already do.

The QB market is what it is and it was exacerbated by owners wanting incoming players to prove themselves on a wage scale before getting their first big contract. When those players prove themselves, you pay them. Purdy has proven himself.

Originally posted by 9erson3:
Remember at $60m our window is closed according to a certain Ram so no higher that $59,999,999

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Typecast:
I'm amazed to see how "the skies the limit" if we paid him 45-50M a year, but once we hit 51M a year, the team is going into the dumpster... Paying a quarterback 50-60M per year (TOTAL AAV, not extension AAV) isn't going to inhibit the front office from building a team around Purdy. The average cash he's going to get paid DOES NOT MATTER for building the team. Cap hits matter for the team. You can assuage the spending through bonus proration on the accounting, like most teams already do.

The QB market is what it is and it was exacerbated by owners wanting incoming players to prove themselves on a wage scale before getting their first big contract. When those players prove themselves, you pay them. Purdy has proven himself.

I go back to the Jed comments you cited, where he clearly was deflecting a question about a reduction in spending by pointing to Brock's incoming contract.

To be clear, I agree with your point here… but it's an example of why people should be skeptical when public comments are made.

Originally posted by Typecast:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by random49er:

Okay. I disagree. Balance is necessary. Signing everyone to big contracts can even turn "good players" into average ones. You become attractive to guys maybe willing to retire but want one last good check,...like they gave with Brock, Aiyuk, et. al.

That kinda stuff is the opposite of a competitive advantage, IMO.

55 mil aav is not a big contract for a 25 year old franchise qb though. The next round of young QBs like Stroud and Daniels will make it look like nothing. Just like when we signed Jimmy to the highest contract, it quickly became a bargain. Mahomes was the highest paid on average when he signed and it's not even top 10 at this point. That's how qb contracts work. 55 mil isn't even 20% of this years cap. It's not a lot lol

55 aav mil is a "big contract" for a 25 year old franchise qb. 55M/yr (275M/5) would be T-3rd in extension AAV, 5th in total AAV. %cap, like extension AAV, is a terrible metric as the cap does not grow the same year-to-year. In 2021, the cap went down instead of up due to COVID.

Mahomes contract is a tricky contract. Yes, he signed a 450M/10 year extension in 2020. Yes, it dumpstered previous top contracts on averages. It was #1 in extension AAV until Rodgers (2022, 50.3M) and total AAV until Watson (2022, 46M). Mahomes and the Chiefs agreed that they would bring his money inline with the top QBs when COVID was over. In 2023, they did just that by adjusting the 417M/9 he had remaining. The Chiefs moved 45M in compensation from 2028-31 to pay out over 2023-26, ballooning his 2023 5-year cash flow from 216M to 261M (52.2M/yr). Compared to other total AAVs, that 52.2M/yr would be #3 (Allen 55M, Dak 53.8M, and Lamar 52M). In 2028, 156M and 4 years remain on his contract (39M/yr). Either the Chiefs will extend Mahomes or they will move more cash to juice Mahomes' 2028 cash before extending him in 2029. The Bills did the latter last season, moving up cash from 2025 to payout in 2024 before handing him a market-resetting contract in 2025.

Originally posted by Typecast:
Jed wasn't wrong. Paying Purdy isn't going to inhibit us from building a team around him that could have its own Super Bowl window. What he said is you need a quarterback first-and-foremost. You surround that quarterback with a core group of players. The tangential players around that core are going to have a lower expectation because you aren't spending as much money on them. You are cherry-picking still.

Originally posted by eastie:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
Yeah I loved when we got him in 17. I wanted to move on after he lost in 19 lol.

Are you not high on Brock? What do you think they should do? (Sorry I haven't kept up in this thread)

i was high on brock and 2024 was a rough season. he had nothing on his passes. he held the ball longer than needed at times, and wasn't that accurate. other teams are now camping the middle of the field, sitting on our in breaking routes that we love to throw with brock. i can't say i like our QB room that much, especially if we do some huge contract on brock. his arm is an issue. there's really not a lot he does well. he's unflappable and he's got short area quickness to make a guy miss. that's about his skill set. i wouldn't say he throws outside the numbers well, or downfield well or is a designed run threat or anything like that. i would have tried to get a more dynamic playmaker QB2 on roster to see how the O looks with that guy, if brock is not available or not performing. this O is run oriented, why not get a QB who can add to that, and have the arm to back off safeties. i would draw a line in the sand on the contract, and say we're not gonna dramatically outbid the rest of the nfl in terms of his deal.

Ouch, last year was rough, but I more question Kyle since the years before that Purdy was better and aggressive throwing downfield etc. Kyles scheme emphasizes the middle of the field so I think defenses play those tendencies now. Same could be said of Jimmy G's tenure here tbh.

I think with improved protection Purdy is fine. His arm isn't anything great, but that's why he needs time for his timing etc. If we see the same trend, then we have to look at what the coach is coaching them.

Who was Brock throwing to last season? Who was he handing the ball to on running plays? What sort of shape was the O-line in? You guys seem to be saying all that doesn't matter, Brock is weak. I'm sure glad that you fellas aren't in charge of personnel.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Im talking in terms of percent the cap we'll be paying Brock at 55 mil aav. It's not enough to say we can't build a team. It's just an excuse that haters hide behind

Originally posted by Cisco0623:
I assume you're talking faithful since I never said Brock is weak. Everyone knows his arm is mediocre. I pretty much said everything around him last season contributed to a down season. I'm glad you weren't my English teacher.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Im talking in terms of percent the cap we'll be paying Brock at 55 mil aav. It's not enough to say we can't build a team. It's just an excuse that haters hide behind

Cross out "can't." The haters want it to be "more likely" to be able to build a team. And it's all due to loving their team.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
brock just isn't worth what is being discussed. go back and watch 2024 and let me know if that guy is worth 50m. 2024 was a train wreck and he was on his rook deal which was a cheat code. bidding ourselves up on brock, paying more than any other club would pay for this player, it's a big reason the arrow is pointing down for the first time under shanny. we'll need to crush the upcoming draft.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
You get elite players through the draft. Your idea of building a contender with a bunch of FA money is a fantasy. Elite players rarely hit the market, you gotta draft them

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
You get elite players through the draft. Your idea of building a contender with a bunch of FA money is a fantasy. Elite players rarely hit the market, you gotta draft them

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
just watch the games. brock's passes were softballs, and we got last place in a weak division. i'm not saying brock is a bad player. he is to QB what jennings is to WR. good player, overachiever, hard worker. if you are paying that guy a top of his position contract, or close to it, you are messing up.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

You get elite players through the draft. Your idea of building a contender with a bunch of FA money is a fantasy. Elite players rarely hit the market, you gotta draft them

You're narrowing the argument down to something it isn't. It isn't just about the inability to sign great players in FA. It also applies to paying your own players (that you drafted for example) and spending any money in free agency to supplement the roster. They don't have to be elite players.

That said, I wouldn't make this argument because I believe that you pay for a great QB regardless of how it may inhibit your flexibility with roster building.