Brock Purdy

[Pullo Vision]

Albert Breer- Shanahan said that Purdy "would have to melt in practice" to lose starting job
Footballguys- "It's a ridiculous notion to think that Purdy's job would not be safe."

[CGW]

Albert Breer- Shanahan said that Purdy "would have to melt in practice" to lose starting job
Footballguys- "It's a ridiculous notion to think that Purdy's job would not be safe."

Oh it's absolutely safe, unless he turns back into a pumpkin. If he strings together some poor games and the result isn't strong playoff run, there will at least be the conversation of bringing in a FA or trade.

[Anteaters]

If Purdy fails, I'd bet Shanny goes with Kyler as his 2024 opening day QB. But I expect Purdy to do well enough to keep the job for the next couple of years.

[trc]

If Purdy fails, I'd bet Shanny goes with Kyler as his 2024 opening day QB. But I expect Purdy to do well enough to keep the job for the next couple of years.

If he just can be better than a healthy Jimmy G (I think he was last season), Purdy is a very cheap option and they can use their cap elsewhere. And still be strong enough to push for a Super Bowl.

[FantasyFreak]

If Purdy fails, I'd bet Shanny goes with Kyler as his 2024 opening day QB. But I expect Purdy to do well enough to keep the job for the next couple of years.

Could they afford that? His cap hit is 51 million next year.

[killer_of_giants]

If Purdy fails, I'd bet Shanny goes with Kyler as his 2024 opening day QB. But I expect Purdy to do well enough to keep the job for the next couple of years.

Could they afford that? His cap hit is 51 million next year.

that seems a lot even for the cap wizards, but you never know (i don't think it'll happen tho).

[Anteaters]

If Purdy fails, I'd bet Shanny goes with Kyler as his 2024 opening day QB. But I expect Purdy to do well enough to keep the job for the next couple of years.

Could they afford that? His cap hit is 51 million next year.

that seems a lot even for the cap wizards, but you never know (i don't think it'll happen tho).

I stopped worrying about the cap when it comes to teams adding players that move the needle on top-end contention. The cap is a red-herring mechanism created by the owners to limit player compensation in the 98% of the cases where it does not involve a top-end player and a true SB contender. The teams yell "CAP" like someone yelling "fire" in a movie theater, and fans/media/players accept that as an excuse.

As far as I can tell, the cap has never prevented any SB contending team from adding whatever high-end piece they thought they needed to chase a SB.

If Shanny thought Murray was the piece that would take SF to the SB, the cap would not stop that process.

[FantasyFreak]

Could they afford that? His cap hit is 51 million next year.

that seems a lot even for the cap wizards, but you never know (i don't think it'll happen tho).

I never worry about the cap when it comes to teams adding players that move the needle on top-end contention. The cap is a red-herring mechanism created by the owners to limit player compensation. As far as I can tell, the cap has never prevented any SB contending team from adding whatever high-end piece they thought they needed to chase a SB.

If Shanny thought Murray was the piece that would take SF to the SB, the cap would not stop that process.

There are limitations to what you can do. You would have to lose players, or have players take pay cuts, or re-structures. I agree you can make it work, but not without cost to the rest of your roster.

[Anteaters]

that seems a lot even for the cap wizards, but you never know (i don't think it'll happen tho).

I never worry about the cap when it comes to teams adding players that move the needle on top-end contention. The cap is a red-herring mechanism created by the owners to limit player compensation. As far as I can tell, the cap has never prevented any SB contending team from adding whatever high-end piece they thought they needed to chase a SB.

If Shanny thought Murray was the piece that would take SF to the SB, the cap would not stop that process.

There are limitations to what you can do. You would have to lose players, or have players take pay cuts, or re-structures. I agree you can make it work, but not without cost to the rest of your roster.

Yeah, but that cost never stops teams from winning. And there are says to push the Cap hit to future years. That's the proof that the league isn't serious about the cap. That's the relief valve that allows teams to go over the cap to contend. And it can be kicked down the road for as long as a team wants. Then when the team doesn't feel it can contend, it fires/cuts a lot of expensive players, loses games with a low budget roster, then starts over again.

SF got CMC and they'll get Murray (or Cousins, or ...) if Purdy flops.

[FantasyFreak]

I never worry about the cap when it comes to teams adding players that move the needle on top-end contention. The cap is a red-herring mechanism created by the owners to limit player compensation. As far as I can tell, the cap has never prevented any SB contending team from adding whatever high-end piece they thought they needed to chase a SB.

If Shanny thought Murray was the piece that would take SF to the SB, the cap would not stop that process.

There are limitations to what you can do. You would have to lose players, or have players take pay cuts, or re-structures. I agree you can make it work, but not without cost to the rest of your roster.

Yeah, but that cost never stops teams from winning. And there are says to push the Cap hit to future years. That's the proof that the league isn't serious about the cap. That's the relief valve that allows teams to go over the cap to contend. And it can be kicked down the road for as long as a team wants. Then when the team doesn't feel it can contend, it fires/cuts a lot of expensive players, loses games with a low budget roster, then starts over again.

SF got CMC and they'll get Murray (or Cousins, or ...) if Purdy flops.

Yes, but players have to be willing to adjust their contracts in order to push it to future years, and there is dead cap in regards to guaranteed money. The 49ers would have to make adjustments and likely lose some talent elsewhere, or other players would have to be willing to take money later on to facilitate it.

Also, the cap was instituted when free agency became part of the league, so that a handful of teams which richer owners couldn't simply buy up all the talent. Pro soccer is the worst for this. At the beginning of each season, in all the major leagues, there are only a handful of teams who even remotely have a chance of competing for a title. The same 5 or so teams are the only teams that ever have a realistic shot. It's not really very good.

The cap coincides with revenue, so the players always make an agreed percentage based on a CBA. It's not there to prevent player compensation. Player compensation is negotiated based on league revenue. The cap floor/ceiling is a direct reflection of that.

[Anteaters]

Yes, but players have to be willing to adjust their contracts in order to push it to future years, and there is dead cap in regards to guaranteed money. The 49ers would have to make adjustments and likely lose some talent elsewhere, or other players would have to be willing to take money later on to facilitate it.

Also, the cap was instituted when free agency became part of the league, so that a handful of teams which richer owners couldn't simply buy up all the talent. Pro soccer is the worst for this. At the beginning of each season, in all the major leagues, there are only a handful of teams who even remotely have a chance of competing for a title. The same 5 or so teams are the only teams that ever have a realistic shot. It's not really very good.

The cap coincides with revenue, so the players always make an agreed percentage based on a CBA. It's not there to prevent player compensation. Player compensation is negotiated based on league revenue. The cap floor/ceiling is a direct reflection of that.

Players don't switch from getting paid this year to getting paid next year. The usual alteration is to add a dead year to the contract and reduce the cap hit for the current year by spreading a current player's salary/bonus across a later year - then when the hit for that player is about to hit, the team can do that again with the same player or with other players. It's just a game of musical chairs but using salaries.

The current cap system does not prevent the wealthier owners from outspending the other owners. The most it does is force teams to eventually take a "cap hit" year like the Rams are doing. But even that only helps the teams earn more profit during the year they are forced to pay lower salaries. Then the Rams (or whoever else) just come back out the next season spending as much as they want until the next "cap hit" year about 8 years down the line.

the soccer analogy doesn't quite get there. For one thing, the bottom line is profits, and the Premiere League consistently earns tremendous profits. However many teams' fans feel their team doesn't stand a real chance doesn't affect how much the league makes. And it wouldn't in the NFL. Fans want games. Sure they'd like to win championships, but most of the time it's good enough to go .700 every once in a while and look decent in the playoffs.

The Green Bay Packers have sold out every game in almost 60 years, and they've won, what, 1 SB in the last 30 years. Seattle, SF and Pittsburgh have already sole out every game this season and there's one title among them in the past 13 seasons. These teams are making money regardless of whether or not they win titles, or even if they truly have a chance to best the best teams in their leagues.

KC tried to use the salary cap boogie man to get Tyreek to take a pay cut because they didn't want to kick the salary cap can down the road for him. He wisely went elsewhere and got his money. KC won the SB anyway, and they knew they could contend without him so that's why they let him go. Dallas knows it needs Zack to have a shot at a title, so they signed him and kicked the can. Musical chairs.

The so-called restrictions of the salary cap are nothing but a boogie-man story made up by the NFL. I used to believe most of what the NFL fed us, but nothing they say holds up under scrutiny. I still enjoy the games, but I see the dirt going on behind the curtain.

[MFundercover]

Purdy has thrown 10 INTs in practice. Starting to worry about him and his elbow.

[cazzie33]

Purdy has thrown 10 INTs in practice. Starting to worry about him and his elbow.

Elbow not helping but I wasn't & am not sold that Purdy is the 2nd coming of Brady / Warner feel good story of rags to riches.

He had easy reads & throws which defenses were overpaying the run and underplaying a Mr. Irrelevant. Last year pre-injury predicted that once NFL D's get a book on you they will make you do more of the uncomfortable things. Whether that's handle more pressure blitzs or force you to throw deep or underneath. Then is when we will know if he has "IT"

Purdy wasn't "purdy" against the Eagles albeit a really small sample before getting injured. I see him as much less arm talent but a smart processor. That limits what can be done by offense. Brady & Warner had both.

Purdy is today's Chad Pennington. Capable of some big games but not a big threat to takeover games because he doesn't have the elite arm or even close to it. Neither does he have good escape mobility. Montana was never going to be mistaken for Steve Young but he was an above avg athlete that could consistently extend plays. Kinda like Aaron Rodgers. Can move chains when the situation calls for it by running around. Purdy is more Jared Goff. That's not a compliment in this context

[killer_of_giants]

purdy's mobility is good. not a rushing QB by any means but can scramble here and there and can extend plays. more of a brain QB than an arm QB for sure, but that's a good fit for shanahan.

[SoftwoodGrampian]

Job is safe