LISTEN: What's Up With The 49ers DC Search? →

There are 235 users in the forums

Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Shop 49ers game tickets
Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
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

To be fair, most of those teams don't have a better option. Who else are the Jets, Patriots, and Jags going to start? The Bears were going with Dalton until he got hurt so it looks like Fields will start.

Cam??

I can see it now.

" niners ruined trey by not playing him!" They sat him for a year and he didn't get any valuable playing time!"


I don't think the 49ers are going to ruin Trey by not playing him. If he's capable of being a good QB, and the team around him is still talented and well coached, then he'll be a good QB whether he sits or not. I just don't think that if he sits this entire year that he'll be as good in year 2 and possibly year 3 as he would have been if he gets some starting experience this year. He'll still get to the same point eventually, it's just a matter of how soon he gets there. That matters when we're in a 4-5 year window to maximize the benefit of having him on a rookie deal.
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
To be fair, most of those teams don't have a better option. Who else are the Jets, Patriots, and Jags going to start? The Bears were going with Dalton until he got hurt so it looks like Fields will start.

This. Most rookie QBs start out of a lack of a better option on the roster. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

What I've yet to see is anyone making a compelling case for why sitting a QB for their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
To be fair, most of those teams don't have a better option. Who else are the Jets, Patriots, and Jags going to start? The Bears were going with Dalton until he got hurt so it looks like Fields will start.

This. Most rookie QBs start out of a lack of a better option on the roster. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

What I've yet to see is anyone making a compelling case for why sitting a QB for their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development.

This.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
To be fair, most of those teams don't have a better option. Who else are the Jets, Patriots, and Jags going to start? The Bears were going with Dalton until he got hurt so it looks like Fields will start.

This. Most rookie QBs start out of a lack of a better option on the roster. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

What I've yet to see is anyone making a compelling case for why sitting a QB for their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development.

No one has made a compelling case that starting a QB their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development either.
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
To be fair, most of those teams don't have a better option. Who else are the Jets, Patriots, and Jags going to start? The Bears were going with Dalton until he got hurt so it looks like Fields will start.

This. Most rookie QBs start out of a lack of a better option on the roster. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

What I've yet to see is anyone making a compelling case for why sitting a QB for their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development.

I believe that argument that coincidentally will be used as his excuse next year if he struggles is that "he doesn't have the in game experience"
Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
To be fair, most of those teams don't have a better option. Who else are the Jets, Patriots, and Jags going to start? The Bears were going with Dalton until he got hurt so it looks like Fields will start.

This. Most rookie QBs start out of a lack of a better option on the roster. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

What I've yet to see is anyone making a compelling case for why sitting a QB for their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development.

I believe that argument that coincidentally will be used as his excuse next year if he struggles is that "he doesn't have the in game experience"

People still make that argument for why Jimmy struggles, so that excuse will be valid for Trey for the next 7-8 years.
[ Edited by 49ersRing on Sep 24, 2021 at 11:21 AM ]
Originally posted by 49ersRing:
People still make that argument for why Jimmy struggles, so that excuse will be valid for Trey for the next 7-8 years.

And I will be the first to say Trey blew it if he dumps the ball to a running back while a receiver is running wide open down the field. Not giving him 7 years like some people did Alex and Jimmy.
[ Edited by SteveWallacesHelmet on Sep 24, 2021 at 11:31 AM ]
Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Originally posted by Hysterikal:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
To be fair, most of those teams don't have a better option. Who else are the Jets, Patriots, and Jags going to start? The Bears were going with Dalton until he got hurt so it looks like Fields will start.

This. Most rookie QBs start out of a lack of a better option on the roster. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

What I've yet to see is anyone making a compelling case for why sitting a QB for their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development.

I believe that argument that coincidentally will be used as his excuse next year if he struggles is that "he doesn't have the in game experience"

People still make that argument for why Jimmy struggles, so that excuse will be valid for Trey for the next 7-8 years.

I need the gif of this holding in laughter moment from hoodie
Originally posted by Hysterikal:

I need the gif of this holding in laughter moment from hoodie

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

I'm confused.. what the hell are yall still arguing about?
Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
To be fair, most of those teams don't have a better option. Who else are the Jets, Patriots, and Jags going to start? The Bears were going with Dalton until he got hurt so it looks like Fields will start.

This. Most rookie QBs start out of a lack of a better option on the roster. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

What I've yet to see is anyone making a compelling case for why sitting a QB for their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development.

No one has made a compelling case that starting a QB their rookie year is going to hurt their long term development either.

Is it possible that the best approach could differ by player. Aaron Rodgers and Mahomes sure seemed to benefit from sitting a bit. Murray, Herbert, and Watson all seemed to benefit from game experience. Now, in all of these cases, we can't know what would have happened if the other approach was taken.

Additionally, there are plenty of other players that have an opportunity to get better with Jimmy at QB. Our young WRs and RBs almost certainly benefit and improve from having a veteran QB that can put them into position to succeed. Of course QB growth and performance is a huge contributor to team success, but there are a lot of other players that we also want to see get better.
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by Scooper1:
Funny how you come to that conclusion. How could you possibly know that.

Please show me all the Mahomes before him? Kid has crusty the clown footwork, his mechanics overall aren't good. He played in a air raid in school that was not even close to what Reid runs (but he still had 1,400 passing attempts in college) He said he couldn't read defenses during his MVP yr…he just has stupid talent overall. NOW he has an understanding of how to play QB and how to run that offense, on top of elite skill set. IMO kid would have came in yr 1 and still done fine with Reid and that roster.

You are exactly right and proving everyone's point mahomes needed the year on the bench. The best coach and qb in the nfl right now did exactly what Kyle's plan is but it doesn't fit your narrative. Your opinion on what mahomes could do year one is absolutely irrelevant. Andy Reid's opinion was he needed to sit for a year and that's exactly what he did. Our coach who IMO is a top 5 coach in the league believes sitting Trey to start the season is beat for him and the team period. Does that mean he will come in sometime this season? Sure might would love to see what he can do, but right now Kyle thinks he needs to learn. This is why you catch so much heat as a poster. It is a fact that Andy Reid thought it was appropriate for mahomes to sit for a year and you somehow try and argue your way around it.
Originally posted by DAstateCal85:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
If a team isn't going to win more games by starting someone else, it is easy to decide to develop a guy by fire with the justification that he gives the team the best chance to win.

You mean just develop him like most teams do with 1st rd picks by playing them?


Again if the best way to get a QB to be successful was to not play them yr one then..They. Would. Not. Play. Them. Period.

Care to post the win/loss on these players? I can 100% guarantee you they lost a lot more than they won. A majority of those are guys who bust. Also a majority of these guys were forced in to either injury or bad QB play... Outside of a few... they.did.not.start.the.season....

Why not?

Outside of a few? The previous 10 drafts (prior to this one), 9 of the 14 QBs who were drafted in the top 5 of a draft started week one. That's substantially more than "outside of a few."
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by DAstateCal85:
Originally posted by NYniner85:
Originally posted by TheWooLick:
If a team isn't going to win more games by starting someone else, it is easy to decide to develop a guy by fire with the justification that he gives the team the best chance to win.

You mean just develop him like most teams do with 1st rd picks by playing them?


Again if the best way to get a QB to be successful was to not play them yr one then..They. Would. Not. Play. Them. Period.

Care to post the win/loss on these players? I can 100% guarantee you they lost a lot more than they won. A majority of those are guys who bust. Also a majority of these guys were forced in to either injury or bad QB play... Outside of a few... they.did.not.start.the.season....

Why not?

Outside of a few? The previous 10 drafts (prior to this one), 9 of the 14 QBs who were drafted in the top 5 of a draft started week one. That's substantially more than "outside of a few."

Jake Locker is the only QB taken in the top 10 in the last 10 years to not be their team's starter by midway through their rookie season.

It is super rare for the rookie QBs taken at the top of the draft to not start at least some games as a rookie.
[ Edited by 49ersRing on Sep 24, 2021 at 1:13 PM ]
Search Share 49ersWebzone