Brock Purdy vs Sam Darnold

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:

Maybe Justin Fields would be a better alternative?

For #1 Pick

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:
Maybe Justin Fields would be a better alternative?

For #1 Pick

No - instead of Darnold.

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:

Originally posted by Strwy2Hevn:

Originally posted by LasVegasWally:

Maybe Justin Fields would be a better alternative?

For #1 Pick

No - instead of Darnold.

Both are moronic

Looks like people missed the point of this thread. It was never about who's a better quarterback. Obviously Brock Purdy is leagues better than Sam Darnold. The question was whether the 49ers…IF they decided Brock was not the future of this team, and were not willing to pay him 60-65m per year….would they rather sign a cheaper stop gap QB like Darnold or Cousins while looking for a franchise QB instead of signing Brock to a lucrative contract and in essence having to make roster moves to absorb that contract.

Krueger and Bruce brought that point up during a discussion, and it was a valid point during that part of the season. Of course, the team has pretty much announced they are committed to Brock no matter what, so the argument is moot. Personally I don't think Brock is worth 60-65m. I don't think Dak, Trevor, Love are worth what they were paid, and I'm not one to use the "well that's what the market dictates so we just have to pay them no matter what" excuse. Especially on a quarterback that has limitations eg can't play in inclement weather.

Originally posted by DrEll:

Looks like people missed the point of this thread. It was never about who's a better quarterback. Obviously Brock Purdy is leagues better than Sam Darnold. The question was whether the 49ers…IF they decided Brock was not the future of this team, and were not willing to pay him 60-65m per year….would they rather sign a cheaper stop gap QB like Darnold or Cousins while looking for a franchise QB instead of signing Brock to a lucrative contract and in essence having to make roster moves to absorb that contract.

Krueger and Bruce brought that point up during a discussion, and it was a valid point during that part of the season. Of course, the team has pretty much announced they are committed to Brock no matter what, so the argument is moot. Personally I don't think Brock is worth 60-65m. I don't think Dak, Trevor, Love are worth what they were paid, and I'm not one to use the "well that's what the market dictates so we just have to pay them no matter what" excuse. Especially on a quarterback that has limitations eg can't play in inclement weather.

Absolutely not.

Originally posted by DrEll:

Looks like people missed the point of this thread. It was never about who's a better quarterback. Obviously Brock Purdy is leagues better than Sam Darnold. The question was whether the 49ers…IF they decided Brock was not the future of this team, and were not willing to pay him 60-65m per year….would they rather sign a cheaper stop gap QB like Darnold or Cousins while looking for a franchise QB instead of signing Brock to a lucrative contract and in essence having to make roster moves to absorb that contract.

Krueger and Bruce brought that point up during a discussion, and it was a valid point during that part of the season. Of course, the team has pretty much announced they are committed to Brock no matter what, so the argument is moot. Personally I don't think Brock is worth 60-65m. I don't think Dak, Trevor, Love are worth what they were paid, and I'm not one to use the "well that's what the market dictates so we just have to pay them no matter what" excuse. Especially on a quarterback that has limitations eg can't play in inclement weather.

Everyone understands it's just a moronic question.

This thread should have been locked forever ago. Darnold is not on the niners hence shouldn't be in niner talk and there is a Purdy thread already.