Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Imagine this team with slater and Samuel and two extra first rounders and a 3rd.

It's unbelievable.

Imagine this team next year when Jimmy's salary could in principle buy us two Pro-Bowl caliber cornerbacks, while the offense can attack more of the field and the running game is harder to defend.

And who would these pro bowl corners be? There aint a single pro bowl corner, who'll be on the right side of 31 available next off-season. You gonna give a multi-year, big guaranteed contract to Chris Harris or Joe Haden or Patrick Peterson? Gilmore will be 33 next season and Kyle Fuller 31 - if he even makes it to FA.

https://overthecap.com/free-agency/

Point is there will be 27 million dollars extra.

MANY of those players would greatly help this team, and surely some of them will be available.

I get the point. My point is, you really think we'd be better off with 33 year old corners over Jimmy G??? I'd rather they find a guy in the 2nd round, give Verrett another chance for cheap and look for another guy in the 4th or look for a cheap trade.

Originally posted by frenchmov:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Imagine this team with slater and Samuel and two extra first rounders and a 3rd.

It's unbelievable.

Imagine thinking Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino

I get the point your making.

But aside from that...all things being equal, what career outcome would you prefer....1 SB with Trent Dilfer along with his mediocre career or witnessing a Dan Marino great career but 0 SB?

TBh, after our 25 year drought, I think I would go Trent Dilfer and 1 SB over Dan Marino and 0 SB.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I get the point. My point is, you really think we'd be better off with 33 year old corners over Jimmy G??? I'd rather they find a guy in the 2nd round, give Verrett another chance for cheap and look for another guy in the 4th or look for a cheap trade.

Since when have 4th round corners worked out for us?

Game 1: 4 snaps (1 throw, 3 runs)
Game 2: ?

my guess: 8 snaps (3 throws, 5 runs)

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Game 1: 4 snaps (1 throw, 3 runs)
Game 2: ?

my guess: 8 snaps (3 throws, 5 runs)

,

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Imagine this team with slater and Samuel and two extra first rounders and a 3rd.

It's unbelievable.

Imagine this team next year when Jimmy's salary could in principle buy us two Pro-Bowl caliber cornerbacks, while the offense can attack more of the field and the running game is harder to defend.

And who would these pro bowl corners be? There aint a single pro bowl corner, who'll be on the right side of 31 available next off-season. You gonna give a multi-year, big guaranteed contract to Chris Harris or Joe Haden or Patrick Peterson? Gilmore will be 33 next season and Kyle Fuller 31 - if he even makes it to FA.

https://overthecap.com/free-agency/

Point is there will be 27 million dollars extra.

MANY of those players would greatly help this team, and surely some of them will be available.

I get the point. My point is, you really think we'd be better off with 33 year old corners over Jimmy G??? I'd rather they find a guy in the 2nd round, give Verrett another chance for cheap and look for another guy in the 4th or look for a cheap trade.

Use the money on an edge rusher. There's a lot of good ones potentially available. Draft corners - it's a deep class. And keep your fingers crossed that Trey is that guy, pal.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
All this while being 19th in offensive plays ran - so let's just put to bed the idea that the defense was giving the offense so many more plays as the reason why we had such a good offense.

Doesn't really address that though. I'd need to literally see the amount of plays other teams ran and their time of possession to really clue me in on how well the defense did in having the offense get the ball.

As you know,...a drive can be 5 plays or 15 plays, which can really throw those #s you mentioned out of whack, yet not give me a clue how well the defense did in getting me the ball back throughout.

That's where Yards per play and total yards would come in....which I mentioned but you deleted.....
If a team were scoring points because the defense was giving them short fields or constantly getting the ball back you would expect them to be tops in plays ran, lower in yards per play and lower in total yards.
That's not the case. Lower in plays ran, higher in yards per play and tops in total yards along with tops in points would show that the offense was productive as a product unto itself.

Again, all those stats were posted but you deleted.......

Sorry for cropping,....I was just focusing on the 19th in plays ran while not having a clue where that comes in to even begin to relate.

Was just about to ask you once again but ahh what the heck, I'll post what I see:

We were 19th in offensive plays ran and 2nd in rushing attempts.

On defense,...unsurprisingly we were 6th in fewest total defensive plays (or in other words, 27th compared to 19th on offense), 8th in points against, 6th in takeaways...and 4th in fewest 1st downs allowed.

As anyone knows, if you aren't allowing 1st downs, you're certainly getting the offense the ball back at a high clip.

Whether the offense then goes on to produce 5 play drives or chew up clock with 15 play drives doesn't really speak to how much the offense getting it back to begin with. So a defense doesn't "give offenses plays",...they give them the ball.

That's why I wouldnt have much focus on offensive #s like plays if I really want to see how well the defense helped out. I'd naturally look at defensive #s for that.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I get the point. My point is, you really think we'd be better off with 33 year old corners over Jimmy G??? I'd rather they find a guy in the 2nd round, give Verrett another chance for cheap and look for another guy in the 4th or look for a cheap trade.

Hold on, you think we keeping Jimmy for next season too JD?

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by frenchmov:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Imagine this team with slater and Samuel and two extra first rounders and a 3rd.

It's unbelievable.

Imagine thinking Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino

I get the point your making.

But aside from that...all things being equal, what career outcome would you prefer....1 SB with Trent Dilfer along with his mediocre career or witnessing a Dan Marino great career but 0 SB?

TBh, after our 25 year drought, I think I would go Trent Dilfer and 1 SB over Dan Marino and 0 SB.

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I get the point. My point is, you really think we'd be better off with 33 year old corners over Jimmy G??? I'd rather they find a guy in the 2nd round, give Verrett another chance for cheap and look for another guy in the 4th or look for a cheap trade.

Hold on, you think we keeping Jimmy for next season too JD?

Just chiming in but I think it's a possibility if he stays healthy and plays well. Even after 4 seasons Jimmy says he's just completely grasped the playbook and we know it took a while with Ryan too. If I had to bet on it, I'd say no but I think there is a chance.

Originally posted by DAstateCal85:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I get the point. My point is, you really think we'd be better off with 33 year old corners over Jimmy G??? I'd rather they find a guy in the 2nd round, give Verrett another chance for cheap and look for another guy in the 4th or look for a cheap trade.

Hold on, you think we keeping Jimmy for next season too JD?

Just chiming in but I think it's a possibility if he stays healthy and plays well. Even after 4 seasons Jimmy says he's just completely grasped the playbook and we know it took a while with Ryan too. If I had to bet on it, I'd say no but I think there is a chance.

I mean there's always a chance, but for me that chance is slim to none. One of the biggest benefits of having a rookie QB is because of the contract, I highly doubt they would want two years of that wasted on the bench. I'm not even sure Jimmy stays the starter for this whole season and that isn't only due to health.

Originally posted by DAstateCal85:
Just chiming in but I think it's a possibility if he stays healthy and plays well. Even after 4 seasons Jimmy says he's just completely grasped the playbook and we know it took a while with Ryan too. If I had to bet on it, I'd say no but I think there is a chance.

If Jimmy wins the chip we will be in no hurry to unload him but we will get calls from other clubs at which we will put them into a bidding war vs each other and then we'll have the opportunity to recoup some of our draft capital investment into Trey

Originally posted by Pillbusta:
If Jimmy wins the chip we will be in no hurry to unload him but we will get calls from other clubs at which we will put them into a bidding war vs each other and then we'll have the opportunity to recoup some of our draft capital investment into Trey

Exactly this and that's literally the best case scenario lol. Jimmy needs to make it past half a season before we start thinking next season since he's only done that once.

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by DAstateCal85:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I get the point. My point is, you really think we'd be better off with 33 year old corners over Jimmy G??? I'd rather they find a guy in the 2nd round, give Verrett another chance for cheap and look for another guy in the 4th or look for a cheap trade.

Hold on, you think we keeping Jimmy for next season too JD?

Just chiming in but I think it's a possibility if he stays healthy and plays well. Even after 4 seasons Jimmy says he's just completely grasped the playbook and we know it took a while with Ryan too. If I had to bet on it, I'd say no but I think there is a chance.

I mean there's always a chance, but for me that chance is slim to none. One of the biggest benefits of having a rookie QB is because of the contract, I highly doubt they would want two years of that wasted on the bench. I'm not even sure Jimmy stays the starter for this whole season and that isn't only due to health.

That qb on the rookie deal has to actually be capable and good. This one has a ways to go

Originally posted by BamaNiner:
That qb on the rookie deal has to actually be capable and good. This one has a ways to go

That would be an opinion since you and everyone else has only seen him play a handful of snaps, one of which resulting in a TD pass. I have no doubt in my mind he'd be ready, at the least, by next season.