The Brock Purdy Thread

[thesack12]

Here is an example of why flexing nuts about Purdy's QB stats is idiotic.

There are a lot of "idiotic" posts in this thread. The ones that post Purdy's tangible, factual stats don't fall under that category.

[CrimsonCrew]

Here is an example of why flexing nuts about Purdy's QB stats is idiotic.

I mean, sure, but Wilson has been playing catchup constantly (or in just pure garbage time) trying to make up for a historically bad D. Context matters, which is, I believe, a point you are trying to make here. Purdy isn't playing catchup. On the contrary, he's missing out on passing opportunities because his strong play has led to us being up decisively late in games.

[thesack12]

Re: Geno and the Seahawks, the Hawks are a legit concern, this year and going forward. They have a young roster with some really talented guys. I think they will be a major problem for us in the years ahead, as our stars age out and theirs come into their own. That said, it's hard to argue that Geno has been better than Purdy. The only thing he has on Brock is about 13 starts for his current team.

Purdy has 12 starts including the playoffs, though I'm actually counting the Miami game, which he played most of, and not the NFCCG where he barely played. Smith has 25 starts including the playoffs. He only has one partial game, 2021 against the Rams when he came in only for the fourth quarter, so I'm not going to count that one (he did put up solid stats, for the record, though the team lost by the same point differential as when he entered the game).

In that span, Purdy as a rookie and second-year player is 12-0. He is 228 of 332 (68.7%) for 239.4 YPG with passing 21 TDs (1.75 per game), 4 rushing TDs (0.2 per game), and 3 INTs (0.14 per game). He has taken 21 sacks (1.75 per game), and has four fumbles (0.2 per game). In the regular season, his team has averaged 32.6 PPG, and in total they have averaged 32.2 points.

Meanwhile, Geno the grizzled vet has gone 13-12, admittedly for a team that has not been as talented (though, I would argue, has offensive pieces that are at least in the ballpark). His completion percentage is 69.6 (taking these from the stats in the X post, and he was 71% against us in the playoffs) for 238.1 YPG with 41 passing TDs (1.64 per game), 1 rushing TD (0.04 per game), and 12 INTs (0.48 per game). He has taken 69 sacks (2.76 per game) and has 10 fumbles (0.4 per game). His team has scored 24.1 PPG in the regular season and in regular season and playoffs (23 points against us).

Oh, forgot about YPA. Purdy's is 8.49. Smith's is 7.4 in the regular season (not doing the math to add in the playoff game).

There is literally no metric except completion percentage, in which Geno Smith has been better than Purdy. You can also consider performance against similar opponents this year. Against the Rams, Purdy put up 206 yards for 0 TDs (one rushing, and one barely backward pass that counted as a rush) on 68% passing and the team scored 30. Smith put up 112 yards for 1 TD on 61.5% passing and the team scored 13. Against the Giants, Purdy put up 310 yards for two TDs (and a dropped/extremely well defended PB to McCaffrey) on 67.6% passing and the team scored 30. Smith put up 110 yards and one TD on 65% passing and the team scored 24, including a pick-six.

To me, as well as Geno has played of late, it's a really tough sell to say he's better than Purdy.

Apparently Stats are "idiotic" now. So we shouldn't care about factual data like this...

On a serious note, thanks for this write up.

[CrimsonCrew]

Daniel Jones sucks, but he has a better arm and legs than Purdy, so I get why he's ranked above him. He also won a playoff game last year with that terrible Giants team.

Except that's an objectively dumb way to evaluate QBs. It is absolutely fair to question Purdy's ultimate upside because of his limited physical tools. But any ranking of a QB's present ability should prioritize other things (accuracy, awareness, vision, pocket presence, etc.) well ahead of just plain "arm strength." For example, Matt Stafford is a very good QB, but the thought of putting him in the Brady/Manning category is laughable despite his clearly superior arm strength.

Once you meet a certain threshold of physical ability, other things became far more important to elite QB play. So far, Purdy appears to check pretty much every one of those boxes. At present, he is playing like a top-10 QB easily. Frankly quite a bit higher than that. Ranking him at 25 is pretty indefensible.

Oh, and if he is ranking based on arm strength and running ability, Justin Fields should probably be top-5 instead of 28.

Who does Jones have to throw to on his team? Who is running without Saquan? Their blocking is absolutely terrible. If we stuck Purdy on that Giants team he wouldn't look any better than Jones does right now.

Maybe. Or maybe Jones is dragging his team down, and making his young receivers look worse than they truly are. There's no doubt the Giants lack the players on offense we have, but whatever the circumstances, it's hard to argue that Jones is better than Purdy.

A player can only play with the team he has. "Well, he wouldn't be this good on another team" is a silly argument because there's no way to prove or disprove it. We can't say. Maybe the Giants would look better with Purdy under center. Maybe the Niners wouldn't look nearly as good with Jones. Lord knows Lance wasn't looking so hot on this team.

[Big J]

The whole discussion around Purdy is ridiculous. He's neither just "some dude" off the street held up by a really good team, nor is he Mahomes/Allen. I'd say he's a very good QB in a great situation. 49ers can absolutely win a SB with him playing QB. Whether or not they will win isn't totally up to him. Tons of factors come into play. Matchups, health, momentum and lady luck.

I think he'd look really bad in a bad situation. How many other teams would trade their QB for him straight up if the salaries were the same? I would say less than 1/3 of the league.

Who wouldn't look bad in a bad situation?

Please tell me what quarterbacks have had sustained success while playing in bad situations? I'll wait

Lots of guys have done it. Peyton Manning, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, even Tom Brady. Those guys were in the playoffs every single year no matter who was on their team or coaching them. Look at their teams before they joined, and what happened after they left. There are lots of guys who elevate teams into contenders that would be mediocre or bad otherwise. If you replaced Mahomes with Purdy right now the Chiefs would be a .500 squad.

[CrimsonCrew]

I think he'd look really bad in a bad situation. How many other teams would trade their QB for him straight up if the salaries were the same? I would say less than 1/3 of the league.

Who wouldn't look bad in a bad situation?

Please tell me what quarterbacks have had sustained success while playing in bad situations? I'll wait

Lots of guys have done it. Peyton Manning, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, even Tom Brady. Those guys were in the playoffs every single year no matter who was on their team or coaching them. Look at their teams before they joined, and what happened after they left. There are lots of guys who elevate teams into contenders that would be mediocre or bad otherwise. If you replaced Mahomes with Purdy right now the Chiefs would be a .500 squad.

The Chiefs are 3/4 and were tied with the Jets in the 4th quarter and won by three, so....

And absolutely no one is arguing Purdy is Mahomes.

[thesack12]

I think he'd look really bad in a bad situation. How many other teams would trade their QB for him straight up if the salaries were the same? I would say less than 1/3 of the league.

Who wouldn't look bad in a bad situation?

Please tell me what quarterbacks have had sustained success while playing in bad situations? I'll wait

Lots of guys have done it. Peyton Manning, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, even Tom Brady. Those guys were in the playoffs every single year no matter who was on their team or coaching them. Then look at what happened to their teams after they left. There are lots of guys who elevate teams into contenders that would be mediocre or bad otherwise. If you replaced Mahomes with Purdy right now the Chiefs would be a .500 squad.

Yeah, Manning and his trio of hall of fame caliber weapons in Harrison/James/Wayne and elite pash rushers on the other side of the ball in Freeney and Mathis. Along with a HOF caliber coach in Tony Dungy.

Marino was 8-10 all time in the playoffs. Oh and he also played under an all time great coach in Don Shula

And LOL, you are trying to claim that Tom Brady played in "bad situations?"Even still, look at what happened when Brady got Randy Moss, dude had a historic season.

It seems that you don't know what a "bad situation" looks like...

Every QB plays better with better talent around them and under better coaching. I don't know why that even needs to be said, but here we are.

You also changed the metric with that last sentence. Elevating a team, is not the same thing as having sustained success in a bad situation.

[Big J]

Who wouldn't look bad in a bad situation?

Please tell me what quarterbacks have had sustained success while playing in bad situations? I'll wait

Lots of guys have done it. Peyton Manning, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, even Tom Brady. Those guys were in the playoffs every single year no matter who was on their team or coaching them. Then look at what happened to their teams after they left. There are lots of guys who elevate teams into contenders that would be mediocre or bad otherwise. If you replaced Mahomes with Purdy right now the Chiefs would be a .500 squad.

Yeah, Manning and his trio of hall of fame caliber weapons in Harrison/James/Wayne and elite pash rushers on the other side of the ball in Freeney and Mathis. Along with a HOF caliber coach in Tony Dungy.

Marino was 8-10 all time in the playoffs. Oh and he also played under an all time great coach in Don Shula

And LOL, you are trying to claim that Tom Brady played in "bad situations?"Even still, look at what happened when Brady got Randy Moss, dude had a historic season.

It seems that you don't know what a "bad situation" looks like...

Every QB plays better with better talent around them and under better coaching. I don't know why that even needs to be said, but here we are.

You also changed the metric with that last sentence. Elevating a team, is not the same thing as having sustained success in a bad situation.

Brady never won a single superbowl when Randy Moss was on the team. Moss wasn't the reason for their success. Doesn't look like it was Belichick either after what we've witnessed over the last 3 years.

[thesack12]

Lots of guys have done it. Peyton Manning, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, even Tom Brady. Those guys were in the playoffs every single year no matter who was on their team or coaching them. Then look at what happened to their teams after they left. There are lots of guys who elevate teams into contenders that would be mediocre or bad otherwise. If you replaced Mahomes with Purdy right now the Chiefs would be a .500 squad.

Yeah, Manning and his trio of hall of fame caliber weapons in Harrison/James/Wayne and elite pash rushers on the other side of the ball in Freeney and Mathis. Along with a HOF caliber coach in Tony Dungy.

Marino was 8-10 all time in the playoffs. Oh and he also played under an all time great coach in Don Shula

And LOL, you are trying to claim that Tom Brady played in "bad situations?"Even still, look at what happened when Brady got Randy Moss, dude had a historic season.

It seems that you don't know what a "bad situation" looks like...

Every QB plays better with better talent around them and under better coaching. I don't know why that even needs to be said, but here we are.

You also changed the metric with that last sentence. Elevating a team, is not the same thing as having sustained success in a bad situation.

Brady never won a single superbowl when Randy Moss was on the team. Moss wasn't the reason for their success. Doesn't look like it was Belichick either after what we've witnessed over the last 3 years.

Oh my badd, I forgot that stats are "idiotic" and going 18-0 only to lose in the super bowl was a failure of a season that's not worth taking anything + out of.

Going back to QB play, have you seen the QB play the Patriots have gotten the last few years?

[CrimsonCrew]

Lots of guys have done it. Peyton Manning, Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, even Tom Brady. Those guys were in the playoffs every single year no matter who was on their team or coaching them. Then look at what happened to their teams after they left. There are lots of guys who elevate teams into contenders that would be mediocre or bad otherwise. If you replaced Mahomes with Purdy right now the Chiefs would be a .500 squad.

Yeah, Manning and his trio of hall of fame caliber weapons in Harrison/James/Wayne and elite pash rushers on the other side of the ball in Freeney and Mathis. Along with a HOF caliber coach in Tony Dungy.

Marino was 8-10 all time in the playoffs. Oh and he also played under an all time great coach in Don Shula

And LOL, you are trying to claim that Tom Brady played in "bad situations?"Even still, look at what happened when Brady got Randy Moss, dude had a historic season.

It seems that you don't know what a "bad situation" looks like...

Every QB plays better with better talent around them and under better coaching. I don't know why that even needs to be said, but here we are.

You also changed the metric with that last sentence. Elevating a team, is not the same thing as having sustained success in a bad situation.

Brady never won a single superbowl when Randy Moss was on the team. Moss wasn't the reason for their success. Doesn't look like it was Belichick either after what we've witnessed over the last 3 years.

Objectively, you can't call the Pats a bad situation. Sure, Brady elevated the hell out of that team, but their defense was great for almost his entire career with them. Was he the difference maker? (Despite, I'll note again, having literally no identifiable physical skill that was even NFL average.) Absolutely. But it wasn't a "bad" situation. It just wasn't an amazing situation without his contributions.

[Big J]

Yeah, Manning and his trio of hall of fame caliber weapons in Harrison/James/Wayne and elite pash rushers on the other side of the ball in Freeney and Mathis. Along with a HOF caliber coach in Tony Dungy.

Marino was 8-10 all time in the playoffs. Oh and he also played under an all time great coach in Don Shula

And LOL, you are trying to claim that Tom Brady played in "bad situations?"Even still, look at what happened when Brady got Randy Moss, dude had a historic season.

It seems that you don't know what a "bad situation" looks like...

Every QB plays better with better talent around them and under better coaching. I don't know why that even needs to be said, but here we are.

You also changed the metric with that last sentence. Elevating a team, is not the same thing as having sustained success in a bad situation.

Brady never won a single superbowl when Randy Moss was on the team. Moss wasn't the reason for their success. Doesn't look like it was Belichick either after what we've witnessed over the last 3 years.

Oh my badd, I forgot that stats are "idiotic" and going 18-0 only to lose in the super bowl was a failure of a season that's not worth taking anything + out of.

Going back to QB play, have you seen the QB play the Patriots have gotten the last few years?

Yes, and I don't think that Mac Jones & Purdy are that different of players. One is just in a much better situation, and that's not even debatable.

[thesack12]

Brady never won a single superbowl when Randy Moss was on the team. Moss wasn't the reason for their success. Doesn't look like it was Belichick either after what we've witnessed over the last 3 years.

Oh my badd, I forgot that stats are "idiotic" and going 18-0 only to lose in the super bowl was a failure of a season that's not worth taking anything + out of.

Going back to QB play, have you seen the QB play the Patriots have gotten the last few years?

Yes, and I don't think that Mac Jones & Purdy are that different of players. One is just in a much better situation, and that's not even debatable.

Sure Purdy is in a better situation.

However Jones is highly turnover prone, and has been benched like 4 times already in his career and frequently fights with coaches and teammates . He also seems to be a dirty player who has more than once tried to hurt an opposing player and even grabbed a dude's sack. So he might just be Dbag of a person.

[CrimsonCrew]

Brady never won a single superbowl when Randy Moss was on the team. Moss wasn't the reason for their success. Doesn't look like it was Belichick either after what we've witnessed over the last 3 years.

Oh my badd, I forgot that stats are "idiotic" and going 18-0 only to lose in the super bowl was a failure of a season that's not worth taking anything + out of.

Going back to QB play, have you seen the QB play the Patriots have gotten the last few years?

Yes, and I don't think that Mac Jones & Purdy are that different of players. One is just in a much better situation, and that's not even debatable.

They're physically similar in that they are smaller players (though Jones is two inches taller) with below average arm strength and somewhat limited mobility (though Purdy clearly better and Jones a bit better than advertised coming out). But that's a gross oversimplification of these guys and the QB position in general. Purdy sure seems to have better vision, awareness, pocket presence, decision-making, processing and reaction speed. Those are the things that are ultimately crucial to playing QB effectively in this league.

As said about a thousand times now, it's possible that even with those things at an elite level (which we still can't say for certain with Purdy), Purdy can't reach the elite level because of his physical shortcomings. But I'd rather have a guy I know is elite or close to it in those areas with league minimum physical skills than a guy with elite physical skills who is below average in the mental aspect of the game.

[CrimsonCrew]

Oh my badd, I forgot that stats are "idiotic" and going 18-0 only to lose in the super bowl was a failure of a season that's not worth taking anything + out of.

Going back to QB play, have you seen the QB play the Patriots have gotten the last few years?

Yes, and I don't think that Mac Jones & Purdy are that different of players. One is just in a much better situation, and that's not even debatable.

Sure Purdy is in a better situation.

However Jones is highly turnover prone, and has been benched like 4 times already in his career and frequently fights with coaches and teammates . He also seems to be a dirty player who has more than once tried to hurt an opposing player and even grabbed a dude's sack. So he might just be Dbag of a person.

I liked Jones more than Lance coming out based on their film, but I think we're getting very close to the point where we can remove the "might." He's definitely a dirty player, who takes cheap shots whenever he can, then runs and hides behind his OL.

[CrimsonCrew]

This is something Ruiz said in an interview with KNBR:

Can the 49ers win the Super Bowl with Purdy as the quarterback?

"They can't. No," Ruiz responded. "If they do, I'm not covering the sport again. If they win it with Brock Purdy ... Sam Darnold, sure. I can get on board with Sam Darnold, not Brock Purdy."

So much for his credibility. No rational person could consider taking Darnold over Purdy based on what the two have put on film in their careers to date.

[CharityStripe34]

The whole discussion around Purdy is ridiculous. He's neither just "some dude" off the street held up by a really good team, nor is he Mahomes/Allen. I'd say he's a very good QB in a great situation. 49ers can absolutely win a SB with him playing QB. Whether or not they will win isn't totally up to him. Tons of factors come into play. Matchups, health, momentum and lady luck.

I think he'd look really bad in a bad situation. How many other teams would trade their QB for him straight up if the salaries were the same? I would say less than 1/3 of the league.

I have no idea what Purdy would be like on a bad team (nor do I really care), but the notion that there are more than maybe two QBs who would thrive (individually) on a talent-bare roster is a bit suspect, IMO. Most, if not all, of the good QBs are successful because they're complimented by good players. Even Manning and Brady started really winning once their teams flanked them with very good defenses (especially NE) and a decent running game. And literally NO ONE is saying Purdy comes close to that level of elite QB play.

It's kind of an ironic way to try and enjoy the sport as well. I personally don't think Purdy is an elite talent as far as arm strength, speed, height or overall athleticism. What he's totally great at is reading the defense, going through his progressions, his mechanics/footwork and his timing. It absolutely helps that he was drafted to a great situation and as a 49er fan I'm not going to lament his lack of height or a rocket-arm, nor am I going to discredit his successful play based on media-driven hypotheticals like "WHAT IF WE TRADED HIM, OR WHAT IF HALF THE TEAM GOT HURT AND HE WAS DOWN 3 TDs ON THE ROAD?!!"

That's just a general observation, not personally calling you out. I just think that there are way too many extreme viewpoints as far as Purdy goes, and it's quite bizarre. My guess is that it gives the sports infotainment industry an incessant talking-point since polarizing debates garner attention.

Best way I can summarize Purdy is that he's most definitely better than Garoppolo was in Shanahan's system with this team. And I think had Purdy been the QB in 2019, we'd have beaten KC. Shanahan would not have tried to "hide" Purdy the way he did Jimmy during those playoffs. And Purdy, IMO, would've found a way to lead 1 or 2 more scoring drives to keep KC at bay.

[Big J]

The whole discussion around Purdy is ridiculous. He's neither just "some dude" off the street held up by a really good team, nor is he Mahomes/Allen. I'd say he's a very good QB in a great situation. 49ers can absolutely win a SB with him playing QB. Whether or not they will win isn't totally up to him. Tons of factors come into play. Matchups, health, momentum and lady luck.

I think he'd look really bad in a bad situation. How many other teams would trade their QB for him straight up if the salaries were the same? I would say less than 1/3 of the league.

I have no idea what Purdy would be like on a bad team (nor do I really care), but the notion that there are more than maybe two QBs who would thrive (individually) on a talent-bare roster is a bit suspect, IMO. Most, if not all, of the good QBs are successful because they're complimented by good players. Even Manning and Brady started really winning once their teams flanked them with very good defenses (especially NE) and a decent running game. And literally NO ONE is saying Purdy comes close to that level of elite QB play.

It's kind of an ironic way to try and enjoy the sport as well. I personally don't think Purdy is an elite talent as far as arm strength, speed, height or overall athleticism. What he's totally great at is reading the defense, going through his progressions, his mechanics/footwork and his timing. It absolutely helps that he was drafted to a great situation and as a 49er fan I'm not going to lament his lack of height or a rocket-arm, nor am I going to discredit his successful play based on media-driven hypotheticals like "WHAT IF WE TRADED HIM, OR WHAT IF HALF THE TEAM GOT HURT AND HE WAS DOWN 3 TDs ON THE ROAD?!!"

That's just a general observation, not personally calling you out. I just think that there are way too many extreme viewpoints as far as Purdy goes, and it's quite bizarre. My guess is that it gives the sports infotainment industry an incessant talking-point since polarizing debates garner attention.

Best way I can summarize Purdy is that he's most definitely better than Garoppolo was in Shanahan's system with this team. And I think had Purdy been the QB in 2019, we'd have beaten KC. Shanahan would not have tried to "hide" Purdy the way he did Jimmy during those playoffs. And Purdy, IMO, would've found a way to lead 1 or 2 more scoring drives to keep KC at bay.

So you shoot down people using hypotheticals, but then make up your own hypothetical of what if Purdy was the QB instead of Jimmy?It's possible that if Kyle had Purdy and didn't try to hide him he would have ended up turning the ball over more than Jimmy did in those games and the team would have lost.

[CrimsonCrew]

I think he'd look really bad in a bad situation. How many other teams would trade their QB for him straight up if the salaries were the same? I would say less than 1/3 of the league.

I have no idea what Purdy would be like on a bad team (nor do I really care), but the notion that there are more than maybe two QBs who would thrive (individually) on a talent-bare roster is a bit suspect, IMO. Most, if not all, of the good QBs are successful because they're complimented by good players. Even Manning and Brady started really winning once their teams flanked them with very good defenses (especially NE) and a decent running game. And literally NO ONE is saying Purdy comes close to that level of elite QB play.

It's kind of an ironic way to try and enjoy the sport as well. I personally don't think Purdy is an elite talent as far as arm strength, speed, height or overall athleticism. What he's totally great at is reading the defense, going through his progressions, his mechanics/footwork and his timing. It absolutely helps that he was drafted to a great situation and as a 49er fan I'm not going to lament his lack of height or a rocket-arm, nor am I going to discredit his successful play based on media-driven hypotheticals like "WHAT IF WE TRADED HIM, OR WHAT IF HALF THE TEAM GOT HURT AND HE WAS DOWN 3 TDs ON THE ROAD?!!"

That's just a general observation, not personally calling you out. I just think that there are way too many extreme viewpoints as far as Purdy goes, and it's quite bizarre. My guess is that it gives the sports infotainment industry an incessant talking-point since polarizing debates garner attention.

Best way I can summarize Purdy is that he's most definitely better than Garoppolo was in Shanahan's system with this team. And I think had Purdy been the QB in 2019, we'd have beaten KC. Shanahan would not have tried to "hide" Purdy the way he did Jimmy during those playoffs. And Purdy, IMO, would've found a way to lead 1 or 2 more scoring drives to keep KC at bay.

So you shoot down people using hypotheticals, but then make up your own hypothetical of what if Purdy was the QB instead of Jimmy?It's possible that if Kyle had Purdy and didn't try to hide him he would have ended up turning the ball over more than Jimmy did in those games and the team would have lost.

It is a hypothetical, but it's a reasonable one as we've seen both guys playing in the same system and with the same or very similar supporting casts. And first- and second-year Brock has objectively been better than ninth-year Jimmy was (last season). And I'll note that ninth-year Jimmy was playing the best football of his career.

You are effectively trying to counter that by saying, "Well the coach - who I've already argued is such a superior offensive mind that his players have a decisive advantage over the rest of the league based on that fact alone - clearly prefers Brock Purdy at QB, so he might have been more aggressive and cost them the game," which is a pretty perverse argument on several levels. Including that Brock has shown much less tendency to put the ball in danger than Jimmy did.

[Big J]

I'm curious to see how Purdy looks this weekend. It feels like it will be his first "real" test since the Eagles game last year. If he plays well and gets the win it will go a long way toward earning my respect.

[CrimsonCrew]

I'm curious to see how Purdy looks this weekend. It feels like it will be his first "real" test since the Eagles game last year. If he plays well and gets the win it will go a long way toward earning my respect.

No doubt it's a big game. He played pretty well against Dallas in the playoffs, but it was almost certainly his worst game to date. He got the job done, but was clearly affected by the pass rush and the offense didn't click the way it has in pretty much every other game he's started (I'm giving him a bit of a pass on the Seahawks game in Seattle as he was obviously playing hurt). I'm very interested to see who makes better adjustments for this round.