The Brock Purdy Thread

[Pattersonca65]

Brock Purdy is better than Mayfield. IMO. And with Detroit's O-line and weapons he'd be successful. It's easy to play the hypothetical game.

We don't know what Purdy would look like on either of those teams. He might be good in Detroit, but Goff has better height and a better arm than Purdy.

So Mayfield would be doing the same thing in SF, but we can't possibly say what Purdy would be doing in Detroit? That's just the sort of argument I've come to expect from you. And look! You've even followed it up with "tall and strong arm = better" at the QB position. You're just killing it today.

Same stupidity different day

[Pattersonca65]

Mayfield would be doing the same damn thing as Purdy in this offense. They are actually pretty similar skillset wise. That's not a knock on Purdy, just a testament to the skill guys around him and Kyle's system. Kyle took freaking Jimmy G to within a play of winning the damn superbowl.

Total bullcrap. Jimmy G didn't come close to posting the same numbers. You are sull full of crap

[Jikkle]

Looking at Purdy's hand size it is below average but the same size as Mahomes and bigger than Burrow so the size of his hands really shouldn't be causing him problems in the rain.

It's going to be a major problem if he struggles in the rain because this past game and the Cleveland games it really rained but it's not like it rained like it did last year against the Bears.

[Pattersonca65]

Looking at Purdy's hand size it is below average but the same size as Mahomes and bigger than Burrow so the size of his hands really shouldn't be causing him problems in the rain.

It's going to be a major problem if he struggles in the rain because this past game and the Cleveland games it really rained but it's not like it rained like it did last year against the Bears.

Mahomes hand size is surprising.

[CrimsonCrew]

There are other things that go into it... like having the leagues best weapons and offensive coach.

Offensive line matter?

Oh yea, we've all seen how Purdy looks without Trent.

That's because the only reason our OL is even semi-competent is because we have perhaps the best OT in the league. None of the other guys rate in the top-30 at their position except maybe Brendel (because there are only 32), and he's probably firmly in the back-half among starters. Our interior OL is bad, particularly at pass-blocking.

As I've noted before, for all the talk about supporting cast, people just mention Trent and then leave it as if the rest of the OL is similarly impressive. They're not. They're bad. Goff, on the other hand, has perhaps the best OL in the league, with four of the five playing very well this season.

Quick review of PFF grades for these units:

LT: Trent (89.7) vs. Taylor Decker (77.3)
LG: Banks (54.9) vs. Jonah Jackson (59.7)
C: Brendel (63.9) vs. Frank Ragnow (88.1)
RG: Burford (50.4) vs. Graham Glasgow (75.1)
RT: McKivitz (65.1) vs. Penei Sewell (90.7)

They have the #1 player at both OT and OC. Their OL averages a 78.18. Ours averages a 64.8 even with Trent's 90. They have four guys with grades that are ten points higher than our SECOND guy, and they have three positions where they outscore our respective guy by almost 25 points. They have four stellar guys, and one relatively weak guy. We have one stellar guy and four borderline starters (frankly, Banks and Burford haven't even been that this season).

If you don't think that sort of difference in the supporting cast affects a QB's play, you don't know football.

[CrimsonCrew]

Oh, and feel compelled to note that the games missing Trent this season also happened to be the games missing Deebo. Obviously taht absence makes just a tiny difference in our coach's approach to the game.

[CrimsonCrew]

And just for the record, after Brock's performance last night, I think there are very legitimate questions about him being the long-term answer for this team. He's got one or two more games this year, and all next year, to show what he can do. But the struggles to throw anything like an accurate ball in the rain - in both rainy games this season - is a major concern.

You can't rely on good weather in January, even in the Bay Area. God forbid we have to go to Green Bay or Seattle or Chicago (no time soon for that, seemingly) in the playoffs at some point. But still having questions is worlds different from arguing at this point that he's just a run-of-the-mill QB.

[CrimsonCrew]

Oh, and since Goff came up specifically, I'll point out that he had games with a QBR (not perfect, but I prefer it to the rating) of 16.1 (loss to Baltimore), 13.8 (loss to GB), 28.7 (loss to Chicago), and 32.3 (loss to Dallas) this year. He had four additional games (eight total) where he didn't crack 60. He's put up good season-long numbers, but he's also laid his fair share of eggs.

Brock has four games in total this year in which he didn't crack 60, and two of those were in the 50s.

[CrimsonCrew]

Purdy is going to have to figure out how he wants to deal with a wet ball. He can say it doesn't impact him all he wants but you don't try a glove and conveniently have two of your worst throwing days of the season when it rains.

He was spot on with a few of his throws so I gotta believe he can throw in the rain but he needs to figure out a system that works for him. Maybe some offseason homework for him to do is practice throwing wet balls and figuring out if you want a glove or not and just figuring out a better approach when it rains.

I'm no throwing expert but just feels like when you know it's going to rain you'd just want practice to be with a wet ball the entire time. Mainly for the QB but for the receivers and RB as well.

Yeah, I was pretty shocked at how badly affected he was by the weather. It was a pretty rainy week last week. I figured they'd have him out throwing lots of passes in the wet conditions to get him used to it. Not sure if they did that or not, but it sure didn't look like he was ready for the conditions. That was inexcusable.

In terms of his numbers alone, there were four or five outright drops by WRs, which hurt the stats and the scoring output a bit (the most glaring was Kittle's drop on the final drive, which didn't turn out to matter), but he was WAY off on quite a few passes. Just not even close. Looked positively Trey Lance-esque at times.

[CrimsonCrew]

Posted this in the game thread, but figured I'd throw it in here, too.

Didn't notice this at the time as I was so stressed, but Jordan Love was awful down the stretch. He threw the TD to Kraft with about 5 minutes remaining in the third quarter - and the wide open conversion to Aaron Jones. From that point on, he completed 6 of 12 passes for 30 yards and two INTs.

The first INT he threw behind an open receiver on 3rd and 11 and the ball was deflected into the air. Later, on 3rd and 2, he threw behind an open Aaron Jones who had the conversion. That ball was almost intercepted, too. Just prior to the FG attempt, he just heaved a ball off his back foot into the middle of the field. Not too close to anyone, but Thomas might have had a shot at an INT if he had any eye for the football at all.

I think Love is a promising young player, and that Packers team could be a headache for years to come. But for all the folks who are piling on Purdy after the game, I'd rather have the dude who buckles down and gets it done in crunch time than the guy who falls apart. Granted this is a single-game sample size, and I'm not saying Purdy and Love ARE those guys, just that they were those guys on this particular night.

[arich35]

Posted this in the game thread, but figured I'd throw it in here, too.

Didn't notice this at the time as I was so stressed, but Jordan Love was awful down the stretch. He threw the TD to Kraft with about 5 minutes remaining in the third quarter - and the wide open conversion to Aaron Jones. From that point on, he completed 6 of 12 passes for 30 yards and two INTs.

The first INT he threw behind an open receiver on 3rd and 11 and the ball was deflected into the air. Later, on 3rd and 2, he threw behind an open Aaron Jones who had the conversion. That ball was almost intercepted, too. Just prior to the FG attempt, he just heaved a ball off his back foot into the middle of the field. Not too close to anyone, but Thomas might have had a shot at an INT if he had any eye for the football at all.

I think Love is a promising young player, and that Packers team could be a headache for years to come. But for all the folks who are piling on Purdy after the game, I'd rather have the dude who buckles down and gets it done in crunch time than the guy who falls apart. Granted this is a single-game sample size, and I'm not saying Purdy and Love ARE those guys, just that they were those guys on this particular night.

You just did this a few posts up saying he might not be the long term answer because he doesn't play that well in the rain. There aren't a lot of QBs that are going to look great in down pouring rain.

[CrimsonCrew]

Posted this in the game thread, but figured I'd throw it in here, too.

Didn't notice this at the time as I was so stressed, but Jordan Love was awful down the stretch. He threw the TD to Kraft with about 5 minutes remaining in the third quarter - and the wide open conversion to Aaron Jones. From that point on, he completed 6 of 12 passes for 30 yards and two INTs.

The first INT he threw behind an open receiver on 3rd and 11 and the ball was deflected into the air. Later, on 3rd and 2, he threw behind an open Aaron Jones who had the conversion. That ball was almost intercepted, too. Just prior to the FG attempt, he just heaved a ball off his back foot into the middle of the field. Not too close to anyone, but Thomas might have had a shot at an INT if he had any eye for the football at all.

I think Love is a promising young player, and that Packers team could be a headache for years to come. But for all the folks who are piling on Purdy after the game, I'd rather have the dude who buckles down and gets it done in crunch time than the guy who falls apart. Granted this is a single-game sample size, and I'm not saying Purdy and Love ARE those guys, just that they were those guys on this particular night.

You just did this a few posts up saying he might not be the long term answer because he doesn't play that well in the rain. There aren't a lot of QBs that are going to look great in down pouring rain.

I think that was in the game thread, but same difference.

I don't view that as piling on, per se. Purdy really struggled to throw the ball in this one, and it's the second time we've seen major accuracy concerns in the rain - in basically a two-game sample. I think Purdy is a very good QB. I think there are still legitimate questions about how good he is, and whether he is worth a top-of-the-market contract. As I've said repeatedly, the good news is that we get more of a sample size from him before the FO needs to make that decision. But to me, he's got to answer questions about playing in weather.

I'm not saying he's a fraud, I'm not saying he's worse than Mayfield or, as a caller on 95.7 said yesterday, Zach Wilson. That's a dumb take, and he's better than those guys in almost every situation. But playoff football means winning in the elements at times, and that's a legitimate area of concern.

[CharityStripe34]

Came up clutch when he had to. That's a key area of growth in a grimy game where things aren't going their way, and arguably their most dynamic playmaker out of the game.

[CrimsonCrew]

Since we're talking about it, frank appraisal of Brock Purdy as a QB:

Purdy has been a revelation at the QB position. Expectations were in the gutter when he came in, and he immediately played like a seven-year vet. He has poise, confidence, vision, feel, accuracy, anticipation. He checks off a lot of boxes that separate great QBs from simply good QBs, and that's less than two full years of starting into his career. You would expect a guy like that to continue to improve, possibly even achieving a Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees level of ability to manipulate a defense and exploit them regularly.

However, there is a reason why he fell so far in the draft. He has a relatively weak arm. He's more athletic than you might think, but it's serviceable, not really a strength. He's a risk taker, which often works out great, but he really walks the line and gets pretty lucky not to throw more INTs than he does. Part of that is the offense, but he makes some really ballsy plays sometimes. To date, with the exception of the Ravens game, they've worked out more often than not. But over the long term, you would expect to see some INT regression in a bad way.

And we've now seen him play in two rainy games, and he's really struggled with accuracy in both. At the end of this one, he bounced back and figured it out. Can he maintain that? We may not find out until late next season. But it's a reason for some concern.

To me, there's no doubt that Purdy is an excellent QB, within the top-10 in the league. But within that grouping, you get into issues if you aren't a Mahomes, Allen, or Jackson who has the physical tools to take over games and will their teams to victory. Purdy will always be limited in that area. But you have to pay top QBs top money, regardless of where they fall in that hierarchy. That's the big issue. I think teams cripple themselves by paying a guy like Kirk Cousins top dollar. He's a really good QB. But if the rest of his team is comparable to the team surrounding those other guys, it's going to be really hard for him to get over the hump. So do you cut bait on a guy who is top-10 to avoid paying him top-5 money? Or do you stick with him? That's one of the toughest questions to answer in the sport IMO.

And something that's probably worth pointing out: one of the reasons Brady was so great is because he routinely took less money and agreed to favorable restructures relative to other QBs to give his team more cap flexibility and put a stronger team around him, at least until the last few years of his career when he really cashed in. Would Purdy be willing to do that? We'll see....

[CrimsonCrew]

Came up clutch when he had to. That's a key area of growth in a grimy game where things aren't going their way, and arguably their most dynamic playmaker out of the game.

Absolutely. As in the Cleveland game, he did enough to win this one despite struggling most of the game. Fortunately, he got the bounces he needed to in order to pull this one out. And that's absolutely something. Even the best in the history of the sport have had plenty of games when they've struggled for three quarters and needed to make something happen down the stretch. This time, Purdy did it.

But he also owes the D a big thank you for keeping the game in contact in both instances. Packers easily could have won this one by several scores based on how Purdy played through three quarters.

[CrimsonCrew]

Posted this in the game thread, but figured I'd throw it in here, too.

Didn't notice this at the time as I was so stressed, but Jordan Love was awful down the stretch. He threw the TD to Kraft with about 5 minutes remaining in the third quarter - and the wide open conversion to Aaron Jones. From that point on, he completed 6 of 12 passes for 30 yards and two INTs.

The first INT he threw behind an open receiver on 3rd and 11 and the ball was deflected into the air. Later, on 3rd and 2, he threw behind an open Aaron Jones who had the conversion. That ball was almost intercepted, too. Just prior to the FG attempt, he just heaved a ball off his back foot into the middle of the field. Not too close to anyone, but Thomas might have had a shot at an INT if he had any eye for the football at all.

I think Love is a promising young player, and that Packers team could be a headache for years to come. But for all the folks who are piling on Purdy after the game, I'd rather have the dude who buckles down and gets it done in crunch time than the guy who falls apart. Granted this is a single-game sample size, and I'm not saying Purdy and Love ARE those guys, just that they were those guys on this particular night.

You just did this a few posts up saying he might not be the long term answer because he doesn't play that well in the rain. There aren't a lot of QBs that are going to look great in down pouring rain.

Oh, and the conditions weren't all that bad. It was raining, but it wasn't raining hard for most of the game. It was relatively warm. It wasn't particularly windy. These weren't awful conditions for playoff football, it was really just wet.

[Pattersonca65]

Came up clutch when he had to. That's a key area of growth in a grimy game where things aren't going their way, and arguably their most dynamic playmaker out of the game.

Absolutely. As in the Cleveland game, he did enough to win this one despite struggling most of the game. Fortunately, he got the bounces he needed to in order to pull this one out. And that's absolutely something. Even the best in the history of the sport have had plenty of games when they've struggled for three quarters and needed to make something happen down the stretch. This time, Purdy did it.

But he also owes the D a big thank you for keeping the game in contact in both instances. Packers easily could have won this one by several scores based on how Purdy played through three quarters.

I agree with this except pwing the D a big thank you. The D did good in the red zone. I would give them that but during the first half let Green Bay take long drives that consumed much of the clock. Too many easy third down conversions. Think if the could have stopped them sooner and forced a couple of punts. If you really want to see a defense keeping a team I'in the game check out the 49ers 1988 Super Bowl on Youtube. The 49ers offense under Montana could only.muster two field goals until the 4th quarter. Had the defense not played so well that game could have been a loss also.

[CrimsonCrew]

Came up clutch when he had to. That's a key area of growth in a grimy game where things aren't going their way, and arguably their most dynamic playmaker out of the game.

Absolutely. As in the Cleveland game, he did enough to win this one despite struggling most of the game. Fortunately, he got the bounces he needed to in order to pull this one out. And that's absolutely something. Even the best in the history of the sport have had plenty of games when they've struggled for three quarters and needed to make something happen down the stretch. This time, Purdy did it.

But he also owes the D a big thank you for keeping the game in contact in both instances. Packers easily could have won this one by several scores based on how Purdy played through three quarters.

I agree with this except pwing the D a big thank you. The D did good in the red zone. I would give them that but during the first half let Green Bay take long drives that consumed much of the clock. Too many easy third down conversions. Think if the could have stopped them sooner and forced a couple of punts. If you really want to see a defense keeping a team I'in the game check out the 49ers 1988 Super Bowl on Youtube. The 49ers offense under Montana could only.muster two field goals until the 4th quarter. Had the defense not played so well that game could have been a loss also.

Sure. The D is not beyond reproach in any way. Although they held the points down in general, they only forced one punt. They got really lucky with a fourth-down stop that easily could have been called the other way, and the opposing kicker missed a very makeable kick. And as much as they held Love to a really shaky fourth quarter, he just missed open guys several times for what should have been easy, drive-prolonging receptions. One of those was the first INT, which was just a bad pass behind an open receiver that he knocked up into the air. Pretty darn lucky.

But, at the end of the day, Cleveland scored 19 and Green Bay scored 21 despite offensive futility for much of the game. That's a pretty good defensive output whatever the circumstances.

[CrimsonCrew]

Re: the defense, they allowed some uncharacteristic big plays, but mostly they did a pretty good job. If you think about this game, you can point to a handful of plays that really bit us on that side of the ball.

The first TD drive, they got bailed out by Thomas' PI on a play that simply did not require that. Then Gipson slipped and fell down in coverage, leading to an easy TD. Not sure their offense should get a ton of credit for that.

The next TD came immediately after the long KO return completely took the wind out of our sails. A good pass by Love to move the chains, and then a good play design to free up Kraft for the TD. Nice play on the TD, and on the ensuing two-point conversion, but they didn't drive the field.

Then on the missed FG, they broke that 53-yard run. That was more a credit to the Packers' offense than the TD drives IMO, but still a little fluky.

Absent the huge penalty and STs play, this game looks really different for the Packers' offense.

[zman1]

A little perspective: I read an article yesterday reminding us that our epic "The Catch" game sending us to our first super bowl, Montana had 3 interceptions.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk