QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Agreed. The key part of your post being he's worth more to us than his trade value.

I concur at this stage. Only reason to trade him at this point is some kind of outright refusal to play for the 49ers,...which has like less than a 1% chance of happening.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Grant Cohn like to stir the pot. If you follow him for anything other than comedy, you won't get good information or analysis.

lol...why anybody replies to his stuff here is beyond me. I'd think it's pretty easy to ignore his pot stirring if it's a trigger and focus on others that actually add and support what they are saying.

Originally posted by random49er:
I concur at this stage. Only reason to trade him at this point is some kind of outright refusal to play for the 49ers,...which has like less than a 1% chance of happening.

I think it's pretty safe to assume we're going to extend him. Most are arguing about what the money will look like, but I'm more concerned with structure and outs as a means of insurance. The team is in a good position to protect themselves and get a team friendly-ish deal on both fronts (money and outs).

Since Jimmy got there @ 10.9% or so and Brock did at well under 1%,....thought I should add that no winner as yet has reached 18% or more of their team's salary cap.

1) Patrick Mahomes -- 17.2% (2022)

2) Patrick Mahomes -- 16.5% (2023)

3) Steve Young -- 13.1% (1994)

Peyton Manning got there @ a 18.8% hit, but lost to the Saints.

All HOF Level QBs in the prime of their careers.

Tom Brady follows up on that list a few times and the only QB that's not an All-Time great in the Top 10 of that list is Eli Manning, a HOF finalist.

If this doesn't show that the amount you allot to your QB and the level he plays at can dictate your SB Window,...well....I dont know what does. IT MATTERS.

Originally posted by random49er:
State the parts that are largely incorrect then.

1) limited time with great results

He's got 43 games played through three years. That is in no way "limited time".

Originally posted by random49er:
2) avg to below avg last year with a few less weapons

Claiming he was "avg to below avg last year"... I've yet to see an actual argument for why Purdy was "avg to below avg" that stands up to scrutiny. It's just feelings or overemphasizing one statistic (Interceptions Thrown). And tacking on "with a few less weapons" HAHAHAHAHAHA. His RB1 out with achilles tendinitis, RB2 out with a severe hamstring injury, WR1 out with a ACL/MCL, WR2 struggling with the after-effects of pneumonia. We're not even going to talk about how bad the defensive front was and the special teams.

What's hilarious about you trying to double-down for the previous commenter on this point is that they weren't attributing Purdy's decline to the players around him. They were attributing the decline directly to Purdy himself. So it seems like you don't even agree with the original commenter.

Originally posted by random49er:
3) Teams with more film making more adjustments to his game

Oh wow, teams made adjustments?!?! Maybe they'll start doing that with other quarterbacks!!!!! This can't be a serious point...

Originally posted by random49er:
4) Small sample sizes garner less reasoning to commit long term.

Quarterbacks extended in their extension-eligible year (Games Started)

• The Prince (52)
• Burrow (49)
• Herbert (50)
• Hurts (38)
• Murray (47)
• Allen (47)
• Watson (40)
• Mahomes (36)
• Goff (42)
• Carr (48)
• Wilson (56)
• Kaepernick (29)

We're the franchise that handed Jimmy G a market-resetting contract after 5 games started for us and 7 games started in total. Again, Purdy is at 42 games at this point. The sample size is fine.

Originally posted by Typecast:

Originally posted by random49er:
State the parts that are largely incorrect then.

1) limited time with great results

He's got 43 games played through three years. That is in no way "limited time".

I underlined what you may have missed. If the discussion is # of games instead of time for you, how many games of those 43 would you claim garnered great play from the QB position?

Great is a strong word. I didn't see great QB play for much of last year,....so we obviously disagree heavily on what we're seeing.

Originally posted by Typecast:
Quarterbacks extended in their extension-eligible year (Games Started):

FWIW,...never have I argued to not extend and in fact, I've wanted them to extend Brock all along. So I have no idea about the substance of the list you followed with.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Typecast:

Originally posted by random49er:
State the parts that are largely incorrect then.

1) limited time with great results

He's got 43 games played through three years. That is in no way "limited time".

I underlined what you may have missed. If the discussion is # of games instead of time for you, how many games of those 43 would you claim garnered great play from the QB position?

Great is a strong word. I didn't see great QB play for much of last year,....so we obviously disagree heavily on what we're seeing.

If we're going by the dictionary definition "great", then yea, he still played "great".

Great - of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.

There are around 35 quarterbacks in any given season that get an opportunity to play. Being in the top-10 would put him "considerably above the normal or average". But hey, I don't know how you define "great" as it's become clear you don't follow contemporary definitions for english words. So please, school everyone on your definition of "great".

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by Typecast:
Quarterbacks extended in their extension-eligible year (Games Started):

FWIW,...never have I argued to not extend and in fact, I've wanted them to extend Brock all along. So I have no idea about the substance of the list you followed with.

1. I don't care what you've argued, I was answering you. 2. You actually did argue when you cosigned the original commenter and then took up the commenters argument.

You aren't even following your own posts here anymore.

Originally posted by Typecast:
If we're going by the dictionary definition "great", then yea, he still played "great".

Great - of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.

I'm in extreme disagreement that he was a great player for much of the 2024 season. Carry on tho.

Originally posted by Typecast:

1. I don't care what you've argued, I was answering you. 2. You actually did argue when you cosigned the original commenter and then took up the commenters argument.

You aren't even following your own posts here anymore.

Agreeing with a section of someone's post isint agreeing to every single thing they've ever said. You're just making up stuff now. I've always wanted us to extend Purdy,....just for alot less money than you do in regards to cap space, obviously.

A list of players that have been extended in response is far out in left field as far as context is concerned. Zero relation.

Originally posted by random49er:
Agreeing with a section of someone's post isint agreeing to every single thing they've ever said. You're just making up stuff now.

You didn't just agree with them, you took their argument and argued for it.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by maxsmart:
Purdy only has 1 and 1/3 very good years when he had great weapons and teams didn't know him.
And then last year he had an average to below average year. So he's getting worse instead of better with more experience as teams learn his weaknesses and how to defend him.
This is too small a sample size to commit too much money to.

Excellent summary,..and it has been stated here ad nauseum. They're not listening, though.

You can keep stating the world is flat, doesn't make you right.

Not to mention you're talking out both sides of your mouth with this.

Either Brock has to show more or the 49ers extend him this offseason. Can't have it both ways.

State the parts that are largely incorrect then.

1) limited time with great results
2) avg to below avg last year with a few less weapons
3) Teams with more film making more adjustments to his game
4) Small sample sizes garner less reasoning to commit long term.

World flat, 2 mouths, etc. Leave that stuff out and tell us what here doesn't make sense?

Is this not you?

Originally posted by random49er:
I've always wanted us to extend Purdy,....just for alot less money than you do in regards to cap space, obviously.

You always move the goalposts whenever someone points out that you are wrong in your arguments. This has nothing to do with you trying to argue someone else's point.

Originally posted by random49er:
A list of players that have been extended in response is far out in left field as far as context is concerned. Zero relation.

Just a reminder, this is what I was responding to

Originally posted by Typecast:.

Originally posted by random49er:
4) Small sample sizes garner less reasoning to commit long term.

Quarterbacks extended in their extension-eligible year (Games Started)

• The Prince (52)
• Burrow (49)
• Herbert (50)
• Hurts (38)
• Murray (47)
• Allen (47)
• Watson (40)
• Mahomes (36)
• Goff (42)
• Carr (48)
• Wilson (56)
• Kaepernick (29)

We're the franchise that handed Jimmy G a market-resetting contract after 5 games started for us and 7 games started in total. Again, Purdy is at 42 games at this point. The sample size is fine.

Seems like a list showing the number of games started for quarterbacks extended to long-term deals in their extension eligible year directly relates to the claim you wanted people to refute, no?

Originally posted by Typecast:
Seems like a list showing the number of games started for quarterbacks extended to long-term deals in their extension eligible year directly relates to the claim you wanted people to refute, no?

I never referred to the number of games started, for 1. Let me screenshot it since you're hellbent on changing it up out of desperation:



Time involves years as well,...not simply a number of games. And even with that..

For 2, I've never suggested that players with limited amounts of games played don't deserve contract extensions. This is just a flat out stupid thing to say or suggest, lol. There are players with NO Games played that work their way into contract offers/signings. Even if they've only played 3 or 4 games, that's up to the team doing the extension, and any other suggestion's just asinine. Context is everything, Type-C.

If you've been here for more than a week, you know the point of dissension all along: HOW MUCH of an amount, GTD Money-wise and Cap-wise, that extension should have, given his limited time with great results as an NFL Player. A list of players that have received contract extensions with a minimal amount of games played was simply a waste of a ChatGPT question that you got answered and brought back. That's why human thinking is still important.

You think he was great in 2024,...I think he was far from it.

He had 3 nominations for NFC Offensive Player of the Week in 2023,...including that phenomenal game against Tampa Bay where he won it.

Zero nominations for the award in 2024. His year as a whole was far from horrible...far from great.

At this point with these queries you bring answers to back, you're throwing alot of sh** on the wall, looking forward to something eventually sticking. This is a big reason why I don't read or respond to everything. If you're off the rails after a couple sentences, there's no need to flood the board with multiple paragraphs of responses.

I dont think the factual look-ups are going to convince the masses that Brock will pretty much fully get what he wants in the end, because there are a bunch of humans here that actually watched the games last year. They have their own judgement, and you obviously have made up your mind on yours.

Originally posted by random49er:
Since Jimmy got there @ 10.9% or so and Brock did at well under 1%,....thought I should add that no winner as yet has reached 18% or more of their team's salary cap.

1) Patrick Mahomes -- 17.2% (2022)

2) Patrick Mahomes -- 16.5% (2023)

3) Steve Young -- 13.1% (1994)

Peyton Manning got there @ a 18.8% hit, but lost to the Saints.

All HOF Level QBs in the prime of their careers.

Tom Brady follows up on that list a few times and the only QB that's not an All-Time great in the Top 10 of that list is Eli Manning, a HOF finalist.

If this doesn't show that the amount you allot to your QB and the level he plays at can dictate your SB Window,...well....I dont know what does. IT MATTERS.

Here is a crazy thought…the salary cap goes up, the % of cap going to the QB goes down.

This is a lazy discussion because the whole narrative is once they give Brock that deal the window is closed.

Did it close for the Eagles? Did it close for us when we paid Jimmy?

The window closes with poor drafting and bad FA moves regardless of how much your QB makes. If you keep drafting well you can stay ahead of any closed window easily. The hard part is doing it of course but QB play fixes a lot of ailments.

The whole narrative is stupid and you yourself keep jumping around at what seems to matter. Is it the APY that gets thrown around? I'm pretty sure you understand that just cuz a QB gets that so called X amount per year it doesn't mean they have that cap hit every season since you've made the post above.

So why does it matter here? You can keep honing in on the specifics of how much cap % Hurts accounted for last season when they won…why do we want to pretend the 49ers can't mimic that contract structure? Purdy wouldn't hit your % to fear for a good 3+ seasons.

Originally posted by genus49:
Here is a crazy thought…the salary cap goes up, the % of cap going to the QB goes down.

Why would it go down? I dont get the logic. Many more-recent QBs flood the list of higher percentages, starting with Mahomes. It's been just the opposite, as the salary cap has been going up forever.

Originally posted by genus49:
This is a lazy discussion because the whole narrative is once they give Brock that deal the window is closed.

Naah. Looking at the QBs that have won and the percentage of the cap the commanded for the year adds context. It's inquisitive,...not lazy. Interpret the stuff as you wish,...but they are factual. Dollar amounts change, but we still have 11 guys lining up on each side of the ball every list. Here's the rest of it:

4. Tom Brady (2022) – 12.61%

5. Tom Brady (2018) – 12.42%

6. Peyton Manning (2015) – 12.21%

7. Eli Manning (2011) – 11.71%

8. Tom Brady (2014) – 11.13%

9. Eli Manning (2011) – 10.75%

10. Big Ben (2005) – 10.7%

The times it has been in the 13%+ range, they were phenomenal players over 2 decades apart. So I dont see any trend, percentage-wise. Mahomes is just a stud.

Dak will be @ about a 19% clip this coming season. Let's see how they do.

But yea the list,...it's a bunch of All-Time HOFers and a guy that was a finalist but just missed on his 1st attempt (Eli Manning). As of now,...those are the guys that have won it all with the highest %'s of the salary cap.

There's a plethora of deals they could give Brock. We'll just have to wait to see what actually gets done.

Originally posted by random49er:

Why would it go down? I dont get the logic. Many more-recent QBs flood the list of higher percentages, starting with Mahomes. It's been just the opposite, as the salary cap has been going up forever.

Originally posted by genus49:
This is a lazy discussion because the whole narrative is once they give Brock that deal the window is closed.

Naah. Looking at the QBs that have won and the percentage of the cap the commanded for the year adds context. It's inquisitive,...not lazy. Interpret the stuff as you wish,...but they are factual. Dollar amounts change, but we still have 11 guys lining up on each side of the ball every list. Here's the rest of it:

4. Tom Brady (2022) – 12.61%

5. Tom Brady (2018) – 12.42%

6. Peyton Manning (2015) – 12.21%

7. Eli Manning (2011) – 11.71%

8. Tom Brady (2014) – 11.13%

9. Eli Manning (2011) – 10.75%

10. Big Ben (2005) – 10.7%

The times it has been in the 13%+ range, they were phenomenal players over 2 decades apart. So I dont see any trend, percentage-wise. Mahomes is just a stud.

But yea the list,...it's a bunch of All-Time HOFers and a guy that was a finalist but just missed on his 1st attempt (Eli Manning). As of now,...those are the guys that have won it all with the highest %'s of the salary cap.

There's a plethora of deals they could give Brock. We'll just have to wait to see what actually gets done.

We can talk about details once we see Brock's contract. Until then it's pointless dude. You just pull this crap out because you are constantly taking Ls trying to say Brock shouldn't get 50 mil aav

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
We can talk about details once we see Brock's contract. Until then it's pointless dude. You just pull this crap out because you are constantly taking Ls trying to say Brock shouldn't get 50 mil aav

This refers to cap hit percentages,...not AAV. I dont really care about the AAV. I guess telling you that Hurt's cap hit wasnt anywhere near 20% is an L? Okay then, fella.

Originally posted by random49er:
I never referred to the number of games started, for 1. Let me screenshot it since you're hellbent on changing it up out of desperation:



Time involves years as well,...not simply a number of games. And even with that..

Did you just circle "with great results" and not explain what that means? And yes, I was the one that brought up games started. It turns out to be a solid way of comparing time between players that were extended in their 3rd year. 42 games started is enough time.

Originally posted by random49er:
For 2, I've never suggested that players with limited amounts of games played don't deserve contract extensions. This is just a flat out stupid thing to say or suggest, lol. There are players with NO Games played that work their way into contract offers/signings. Even if they've only played 3 or 4 games, that's up to the team doing the extension, and any other suggestion's just asinine. Context is everything, Type-C.

I don't care what you've ever suggested in the past or how you actually feel. You wanted an argument about what was wrong with the original commenters point. I answered that. Now you are moving goalposts again. I don't care about quarterbacks getting minimum contracts. I never brought them up. Every quarterback I listed got an extension off their rookie wage-scale contract in their extension eligible year and were paid very well on a long-term deal.

Originally posted by random49er:
If you've been here for more than a week, you know the point of dissension all along: HOW MUCH of an amount, GTD Money-wise and Cap-wise, that extension should have, given his limited time with great results as an NFL Player. A list of players that have received contract extensions with a minimal amount of games played was simply a waste of a ChatGPT question that you got answered and brought back. That's why human thinking is still important.

This is funny because a week ago, you didn't even know the difference between a cap hit and cash paid. You still talk about Hurts' contract and refuse to acknowledge why his cap hits are so low. He didn't take a team friendly deal so they could sign a bunch of players. The Eagles didn't have the cap space to take on a huge signing bonus. They had to roll out a trash defense in 2023 because they couldn't afford to spend money on it WITH Hurts' cap friendly contract. They had ~65M in dead money in 2023 and ~64M in dead money in 2024. The Eagles structured the contract with minimum salaries and bonuses that were prorated to the full 5 years for each year of that contract. The Eagles are borrowing heavily from future salary caps as there is nearly 100M in dead money just on Hurts' 4 void years.

The list isn't a minimum amount of games. It's a list to show that teams will extend guys with a similar amount of evaluation time, using games played as the metric.

Wow. A chatGPT accusation from the guy that admitted he copies-and-pastes arguments from clickbait sites lol...

Originally posted by random49er:
You think he was great in 2024,...I think he was far from it.

He had 3 nominations for NFC Offensive Player of the Week in 2023,...including that phenomenal game against Tampa Bay where he won it.

Zero nominations for the award in 2024. His year as a whole was far from horrible...far from great.

Your measure of greatness is whether or not he received a weekly award?

Mahomes didn't get awarded last year. He's obviously not a great quarterback.

Jalen Hurts didn't win offensive player of the week. Wasn't named to the pro-bowl. Wasn't named to the AP teams. Didn't finish in the top-5 of the yearly AP awards. Jalen Hurts didn't even get a Slimetime NVP award in 2024 but Brock Purdy did! According to your standards for "great", Brock Purdy > Jalen Hurts in 2024!

Kirk Cousins was offensive player of the week 1 time, pay him 60M!!!!! Mayfield won the it twice last year! 75M! You aren't a serious person if you really offensive player of the week awards as the definition of "great".

Originally posted by random49er:
At this point with these queries you bring answers to back, you're throwing alot of sh** on the wall, looking forward to something eventually sticking. This is a big reason why I don't read or respond to everything. If you're off the rails after a couple sentences, there's no need to flood the board with multiple paragraphs of responses.

I dont think the factual look-ups are going to convince the masses that Brock will pretty much fully get what he wants in the end, because there are a bunch of humans here that actually watched the games last year. They have their own judgement, and you obviously have made up your mind on yours.

Throwing sh** at the wall and looking to see what sticks? That's a lot of projection. You kinda do respond to everything because you need to let everyone know you are right about something, anything. And sure there is a reason to respond with paragraphs. This isn't a private conversation. It's a public forum. If you are going to post bad information, it should be called out and corrected.

I too watched the football games. Personally, I'm a facts > feelings person. You're obviously not.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

We can talk about details once we see Brock's contract. Until then it's pointless dude. You just pull this crap out because you are constantly taking Ls trying to say Brock shouldn't get 50 mil aav

This refers to cap hit percentages,...not AAV. I dont really care about the AAV. I guess telling you that Hurt's cap hit wasnt anywhere near 20% is an L? Okay then, fella.

Then you should probably leave this discussion to the big boys, because it's over your head. You will not waste one bit of my time anymore