Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by a49erfan77:
All of them? Absolutely not. More of them, I'd say definitely.

Based off what? I would said roster and coaching plays a bigger part then if a guy sits the bench for a yr.

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

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.

You're right, it is early, but he also played well against the Saints. I doubt he's had a better 3 game stretch in his career.

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

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.

He looked a lot better vs Saints than Aaron Rodgers did….

Originally posted by a49erfan77:
Let's see Darnold do it vs teams tougher than the Jets and Texans before we start saying he has turned his career around.

or the Saints? He's a prime example of being put in a impossible position forced to make plays every week just to have a chance. Now he has a damn good roster around him and a great play-caller. Talent was always there but like every QB you need everything around you to be better than dogs**t, which is what it was in NJ.

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

Do you think sitting him for a yr would have made him a totally different QB? I don't…he was part of a crap roster and crap coaching staff all the same. Crazy how much he got better as he actually played football and had a decent roster around him.

Originally posted by ronniefreakinlott42:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

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.

He looked a lot better vs Saints than Aaron Rodgers did….

Darnold "just wins" man. Forget the defense, the opponents, and all the other variables. Dude is just a winner!

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

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.

You're right, it is early, but he also played well against the Saints. I doubt he's had a better 3 game stretch in his career.

We don't know what the Saints are yet on defense. That week 1 game could have been a fluke. He's had two other pretty good 3 game stretches.

2018: Weeks 14-16 - 66%, 764 yards, 6 TD, 1 INT, 106.2 rating
2019: Weeks 10-12 - 65%, 838 yards, 7 TD, 1 INT, 117.2 rating (2 rush TDs)

Originally posted by Sickaa:

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.

he was a bit physically raw(needed some bulk) but this was the primary issue

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

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.

You're right, it is early, but he also played well against the Saints. I doubt he's had a better 3 game stretch in his career.

i always though Darnold was pretty decent and its tough to argue with his first 3 games with the panthers

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.

I wasn't trying to debate you on that subject. I was just stating both ends of the spectum. But since you decided to highlight that one sentence out of my entire post. If you believe the best way for a football player to develop is to actually play football than why weren't you an advocate of Trey starting day one?

Originally posted by YACBros85:
I wasn't trying to debate you on that subject. I was just stating both ends of the spectum. But since you decided to highlight that one sentence out of my entire post. If you believe the best way for a football player to develop is to actually play football than why weren't you an advocate of Trey starting day one?

Because we have a QB that knows the offense and can win games right now…and who's getting paid top money. This is separate from assuming sitting a rookie QB for a yr gives him his best chance to develop and be successful.

im fine with the way things are right now, but people thinking Lance is gonna come into 2022 ready to ball out because he held a clipboard for a yr, well you're gonna be disappointed. It's a process and part of that process is letting the kid play football to improve. This FO knew that when they drafted him and I hope fan's understand this.

FWIW I would like to see him get some meaningful snaps throughout the year, not a couple ZRs on 3rd in long or in the RZ…legit in the pocket series. He needs that.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Because we have a QB that knows the offense and can win games right now…and who's getting paid too money. This is separate from assuming sitting a rookie QB for a yr gives him his best chance to develop and be successful.

im fine with the way things are right now, but people thinking Lance is gonna come into 2022 ready to ball out because he held a clipboard for a yr, well you're gonna be disappointed. It's a process and part of that process is letting the kid play football to improve. This FO knew that when they drafted him and I hope fan's understand this.

FWIW I would like to see him get some meaningful snaps throughout the year, not a couple ZRs on 3rd in long or in the RZ…legit in the pocket series. He needs that.

I dont htink thats the case but the bumps and lows will be a lot different than if he started this year imo

He will still have bumps early and if we were a rebuilding team i do see the benefit of him starting early but this isnt a rebuilding team this is a borderline/potential SB level team

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Silky:
Alright just looking at that list, the following QBs did not get better after starting early or within 10 games or whatever that ridiculous image is showing:

- Ramsey, Harrington, David Carr, Grossman, Boller, Losman, Campbell, Alex Smith (this one will be debated but he did not benefit from starting day 1), Leinart, Quinn, Russell, Freeman, Tebow, Ponder, Wheeden, Manuel, Manziel, Mariota (?), Winston (?), Lynch, Trubiski, Rosen, Darnold (good QB I think but didn't benefit being started day 1), Haskins, Jones, Tua (imo)

Because they suck to begin with…you think oif all those guys sat for a yr they'd be marginally better or great? I don't…they simple were overdraft, had s**tty coaching/rosters, dealt with injures or simple were never gonna be good.

sitting a player for a yr is not some recipe for success and not the best way to develop a player that actually needs to play football. Now that doesn't mean you need to start him day 1, but don't expect Lance to be some rock star in 2022 if he doesn't play at all this yr. there's a process and a big part of that is playing football & dealing with all the bumps in the road, it will happen this yr or next yr regardless.

Right but we go back to this circular argument. I'll play devil's advocate to my original post. Here are the QBs that did benefit from starting day 1. Actually a lot of them started way later:

- Pennington (41st game), Vick, Palmer (18th game), Big Ben, Rivers (33rd game), Eli, Rodgers (49th game), Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Tannehill, Luck, RG3, Teddy, Wentz, Goff, Watson, Mahomes, Jackson, Allen, Baker, Murray, Herbert, Burrow (?)

So that's about 25 minus about 4 of them because they started year 2 and beyond. That's 21 QBs that benefitted from starting early. And 26 QBs that were trash from day 1. My point is, your point and my point can both be proven at once. You can't say definitively one way or the other that sitting vs starting right away is the correct choice. We should stop attacking each other over this specific point and just agree to disagree.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by YACBros85:
I wasn't trying to debate you on that subject. I was just stating both ends of the spectum. But since you decided to highlight that one sentence out of my entire post. If you believe the best way for a football player to develop is to actually play football than why weren't you an advocate of Trey starting day one?

Because we have a QB that knows the offense and can win games right now…and who's getting paid too money. This is separate from assuming sitting a rookie QB for a yr gives him his best chance to develop and be successful.

im fine with the way things are right now, but people thinking Lance is gonna come into 2022 ready to ball out because he held a clipboard for a yr, well you're gonna be disappointed. It's a process and part of that process is letting the kid play football to improve. This FO knew that when they drafted him and I hope fan's understand this.

FWIW I would like to see him get some meaningful snaps throughout the year, not a couple ZRs on 3rd in long or in the RZ…legit in the pocket series. He needs that.

Thank you for this response. Now I see where you stand and I agree with everything you stated.

Originally posted by Silky:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Silky:
Alright just looking at that list, the following QBs did not get better after starting early or within 10 games or whatever that ridiculous image is showing:

- Ramsey, Harrington, David Carr, Grossman, Boller, Losman, Campbell, Alex Smith (this one will be debated but he did not benefit from starting day 1), Leinart, Quinn, Russell, Freeman, Tebow, Ponder, Wheeden, Manuel, Manziel, Mariota (?), Winston (?), Lynch, Trubiski, Rosen, Darnold (good QB I think but didn't benefit being started day 1), Haskins, Jones, Tua (imo)

Because they suck to begin with…you think oif all those guys sat for a yr they'd be marginally better or great? I don't…they simple were overdraft, had s**tty coaching/rosters, dealt with injures or simple were never gonna be good.

sitting a player for a yr is not some recipe for success and not the best way to develop a player that actually needs to play football. Now that doesn't mean you need to start him day 1, but don't expect Lance to be some rock star in 2022 if he doesn't play at all this yr. there's a process and a big part of that is playing football & dealing with all the bumps in the road, it will happen this yr or next yr regardless.

Right but we go back to this circular argument. I'll play devil's advocate to my original post. Here are the QBs that did benefit from starting day 1. Actually a lot of them started way later:

- Pennington (41st game), Vick, Palmer (18th game), Big Ben, Rivers (33rd game), Eli, Rodgers (49th game), Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Tannehill, Luck, RG3, Teddy, Wentz, Goff, Watson, Mahomes, Jackson, Allen, Baker, Murray, Herbert, Burrow (?)

So that's about 25 minus about 4 of them because they started year 2 and beyond. That's 21 QBs that benefitted from starting early. And 26 QBs that were trash from day 1. My point is, your point and my point can both be proven at once. You can't say definitively one way or the other that sitting vs starting right away is the correct choice. We should stop attacking each other over this specific point and just agree to disagree.

a lot of those arent fair to compare.

Lance is an unsual prospect no one has been drafted in top 10 and i may be willing to bet in the first round that has had as little pass attempts as him and he wasnt even seen as a qb prospect by colleges ( he was seen more as a DB or WR)

All those QB listed above have a lot more experience at playing QB than Lance