Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
It has more to do with pressure than anything else. Teams drafting in the top 10 are more likely to be less talented and have a new coaching staff and/or gm. The pressure to win now is higher than ever. Top 10 qb draft picks tend to get thrown to the wolves their rookie year and then take the brunt of the blame when they don't have the pieces around them to succeed. More times than not when their confidence goes, its gone forever. After 2-3 years the coach/gm that drafted the qb is gone and the qb either gets one more chance with the new coaching regime and having to learn a new system or they get traded/let go and the cycle repeats itself. Just look at the dolphins and jets for example.

Meh I feel like bad teams with bad rosters aren't expected to win…the coach of those teams are more than likely gonna be gone regardless of what that rookie QB does. They're part of the reason they they're drafting high too begin with.

teams with top end expensive rosters are the ones that have more pressure imo.

You would be hard pressed to find many top 10 qb draft picks drafted into a favorable situation. That was the main point I was trying to make.

There isn't any evidence to support better qb development by starting them day 1 vs letting them sit a year or 2.

The only situation I can go off of is When Aaron Rodgers fell to GB late in the first round. GB had the luxury of sitting Rodgers because Brett Favre was still playing at a high level. While I cannot say that Rodgers sitting for, correct me if I'm wrong, 4 years helped his development. It certainly didn't hinder it.

While Jimmy is no Brett Favre, I still see Trey landing in a similar situation where there isn't a need to rush him in.

If you stretch it to 1st round QBs that didn't start until after their 3rd season or later, you're at 3 with 0 busts.

Originally posted by a49erfan77:
If you stretch it to 1st round QBs that didn't start until after their 3rd season or later, you're at 3 with 0 busts.

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Top 5 picks that dont play at all in year one I believe.

So I'm seeing two, maybe I'm wrong there. Rivers who had Brees in front of him and Palmer?

Correct.

Gotcha

Originally posted by YACBros85:
You would be hard pressed to find many top 10 qb draft picks drafted into a favorable situation. That was the main point I was trying to make.

There isn't any evidence to support better qb development by starting them day 1 vs letting them sit a year or 2.

The only situation I can go off of is When Aaron Rodgers fell to GB late in the first round. GB had the luxury of sitting Rodgers because Brett Favre was still playing at a high level. While I cannot say that Rodgers sitting for, correct me if I'm wrong, 4 years helped his development. It certainly didn't hinder it.

While Jimmy is no Brett Favre, I still see Trey landing in a similar situation where there isn't a need to rush him in.

Again I've never said start them day 1, why do people keep trying to debate that with me….stop.

all I've said is the best way to develop any football player is to actually play football. Some in here think sitting for a yr will equal a more successful QB and the best possible situation for them to be great and I will disagree with that.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Top 5 picks that dont play at all in year one I believe.

So I'm seeing two, maybe I'm wrong there. Rivers who had Brees in front of him and Palmer?

Correct.

Gotcha

If you expand it to top 10, you gotta throw in Locker. I'd argue that Mahomes and Russell should also be included as their only starts were meaningless games and both would have sat otherwise.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
You would be hard pressed to find many top 10 qb draft picks drafted into a favorable situation. That was the main point I was trying to make.

There isn't any evidence to support better qb development by starting them day 1 vs letting them sit a year or 2.

The only situation I can go off of is When Aaron Rodgers fell to GB late in the first round. GB had the luxury of sitting Rodgers because Brett Favre was still playing at a high level. While I cannot say that Rodgers sitting for, correct me if I'm wrong, 4 years helped his development. It certainly didn't hinder it.

While Jimmy is no Brett Favre, I still see Trey landing in a similar situation where there isn't a need to rush him in.

Again I've never said start them day 1, why do people keep trying to debate that with me….stop.

all I've said is the best way to develop any football player is to actually play football. Some in here think sitting for a yr will equal a more successful QB and the best possible situation for them to be great and I will disagree with that.

If anyone knew the best way to develop QBs, we'd have far fewer busts. It is dependent on too many factors to say with any certainty which way is the best.

Originally posted by a49erfan77:
If anyone knew the best way to develop QBs, we'd have far fewer busts. It is dependent on too many factors to say with any certainty which way is the best.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Which is too small of a sample size to really infer anything from. There's no clear trend that QBs that sit have better careers or vice versa. The biggest external factor of whether a QB succeeds or not seems to be the quality of the team around them.

The question that should be asked is how starting vs sitting impacts the speed of development. Do QBs that start in year one and play well perform better in week one of year two than QBs that are making their first start ever in week one of year two?

This…do we think Mahomes wouldn't be Mahomes if he played yr 1? Would all the guys that busted that played early be great if they sat for a yr?

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Which is too small of a sample size to really infer anything from. There's no clear trend that QBs that sit have better careers or vice versa. The biggest external factor of whether a QB succeeds or not seems to be the quality of the team around them.

The question that should be asked is how starting vs sitting impacts the speed of development. Do QBs that start in year one and play well perform better in week one of year two than QBs that are making their first start ever in week one of year two?

This…do we think Mahomes wouldn't be Mahomes if he played yr 1? Would all the guys that busted that played early be great if they sat for a yr?

All of them? Absolutely not. More of them, I'd say definitely.

Originally posted by a49erfan77:
If anyone knew the best way to develop QBs, we'd have far fewer busts. It is dependent on too many factors to say with any certainty which way is the best.

Well just looking at how numerous NFL teams have been with their 1st rd rookie QBs, it seems like they believe playing helps with development vs sitting.

we will see

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Which is too small of a sample size to really infer anything from. There's no clear trend that QBs that sit have better careers or vice versa. The biggest external factor of whether a QB succeeds or not seems to be the quality of the team around them.

The question that should be asked is how starting vs sitting impacts the speed of development. Do QBs that start in year one and play well perform better in week one of year two than QBs that are making their first start ever in week one of year two?

This…do we think Mahomes wouldn't be Mahomes if he played yr 1? Would all the guys that busted that played early be great if they sat for a yr?

All of them? Absolutely not. More of them, I'd say definitely.

I think starting a 21 year old raw Alex Smith completely altered his career.

Originally posted by CaseyJones49:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Which is too small of a sample size to really infer anything from. There's no clear trend that QBs that sit have better careers or vice versa. The biggest external factor of whether a QB succeeds or not seems to be the quality of the team around them.

The question that should be asked is how starting vs sitting impacts the speed of development. Do QBs that start in year one and play well perform better in week one of year two than QBs that are making their first start ever in week one of year two?

This…do we think Mahomes wouldn't be Mahomes if he played yr 1? Would all the guys that busted that played early be great if they sat for a yr?

All of them? Absolutely not. More of them, I'd say definitely.

I think starting a 21 year old raw Alex Smith completely altered his career.

I don't think Alex would have played better in his second year if he had sat the entirety of his rookie year. Alex was hurt more by being on a bad team with bad coaches.

Look at Sam Darnold. Did starting as a rookie cause him to bust or was it being drafted by the Jets? Based on how he's played so far for the Panthers, it seems more like the latter. I don't think he would have been significantly better for the Jets if he had sat his first year, because the Jets would still be a bad, poorly coached team.

Originally posted by CaseyJones49:
I think starting a 21 year old raw Alex Smith completely altered his career.

Being part of a team with no talent and bad coaching didn't exactly help either.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
I don't think Alex would have played better in his second year if he had sat the entirety of his rookie year. Alex was hurt more by being on a bad team with bad coaches.

Look at Sam Darnold. Did starting as a rookie cause him to bust or was it being drafted by the Jets? Based on how he's played so far for the Panthers, it seems more like the latter. I don't think he would have been significantly better for the Jets if he had sat his first year, because the Jets would still be a bad, poorly coached team.

Let's see Darnold do it vs teams tougher than the Jets and Texans before we start saying he has turned his career around.