Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by krizay:
FWIW

https://www.fantasypoints.com/nfl/articles/season/2021/mobile-quarterbacks-and-injury-rates

Posted this along with about 10 other links and they were a ignored because of "common sense."

Lol thought I was on ignore as you let everyone know every single post for whatever attention grabbing reason.

That article is terribly written imo and doesn't explain anything really though.

"At first, it might seem like staying in the pocket is safest. To a degree, that's an accurate assessment."

"To summarize, passing that doesn't end in a scramble or a spike has a 0.28% injury rate, designed runs 0.64%, scrambles 0.87%, sacks 1.4%, and knockdowns are 1.56%."

I like to eat he sneakily uses Alex Smith pocket injury yet doesn't use this one...

Or this one

Very very disingenuous article. The severity of said injury is not the only factor, the likeliness which even the article admits is higher than a QB untouched(common sense) is just as much if not more. An untouched QB rarely gets injured. Of course getting sacked is bad but throwing the ball untouched, which happens a vast majority of the time, is the safest. The idea is to not get hit...

Yeah I think the common sense in all this discussion is not taking unnecessary hits wether it's in the pocket or not. He should only be running as a last resort. When he does run he better slide etc.

Aslong as we don't see a repeat of what we saw against the Cardinals, we should be good.

I doubt Kyle would want his star pupil running the ball that much anyway unless its absolutely necessary.

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by krizay:
FWIW

https://www.fantasypoints.com/nfl/articles/season/2021/mobile-quarterbacks-and-injury-rates

Posted this along with about 10 other links and they were a ignored because of "common sense."

Lol thought I was on ignore as you let everyone know every single post for whatever attention grabbing reason.

That article is terribly written imo and doesn't explain anything really though.

"At first, it might seem like staying in the pocket is safest. To a degree, that's an accurate assessment."

"To summarize, passing that doesn't end in a scramble or a spike has a 0.28% injury rate, designed runs 0.64%, scrambles 0.87%, sacks 1.4%, and knockdowns are 1.56%."

I like to eat he sneakily uses Alex Smith pocket injury yet doesn't use this one...

Or this one

Very very disingenuous article. The severity of said injury is not the only factor, the likeliness which even the article admits is higher than a QB untouched(common sense) is just as much if not more. An untouched QB rarely gets injured. Of course getting sacked is bad but throwing the ball untouched, which happens a vast majority of the time, is the safest. The idea is to not get hit...

Thank you, kind sir.

Originally posted by TownNiner:
Head coach wants the team to win, shock.

Even if it means putting his QB in harm's way.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Dsoto87:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm with you 100%. The people saying "he can also get hurt in the pocket" are like people who justify the risks of skydiving or bungie jumping by saying "you can die driving your car or walking across the street." Lol

Not sure what the post you replied to said, but there is zero evidence to support the opinion that QBs who run get injured more than QBs who don't.

There is no justifying anything.

It's common sense. Unless he's scoring every time he carries the ball he is more than likely getting tackled and once he's a runner he is devoid of the protections afforded QB's.

No evidence lol.. look at the careers of a QB vs the career length of a RB.. RBs are very old at 30..

one of the longer careers in the NFL on average.. kicker.

Exactly this. Dude used the argument that RG3's injury was non-contact even though he was running while injured. Hell Jimmy was too. Is playing QB from the pocket 100% safe? Of course not that's ridiculous and no one is saying that. But it's a helluva lot safer then running, cutting, and taking cumulative hits from defenders.

What's ridiculous is honing on a singular argument when a mountain of evidence was provided and subsequently ignored.

The evidence is clear. You can look at every RB that has played the game and every QB. QBs last much longer. Kickers last even longer than QBs. You have to answer the question why that is. It's obvious. RBs take more contact than QB.. QBs take more contact than kickers.. contact is the variable. The more you are contacted.. the more you expose yourself to hits.. hits shorten your career..

It's undeniable and statistical fact that RBs have shorter career than QBs... sure you can be a running QB and play a long career and a pocket QB that gets injured all day.. this is anecdotal.. when you aggregate all RBs and all QBs.. clear difference. The more you treat your QB like and RB the less he will last on the average.

Avg length of career by position in number of seasons:

• Kickers/Punters — 4.87
• Quarterbacks — 4.44
• Offensive Linemen — 3.63
• Defensive Linemen — 3.24
• Linebackers — 2.97
• Cornerbacks — 2.94
• Tight Ends — 2.85
• Wide Receivers — 2.81
• Running Backs — 2.57
• League average — 3.3

Thank you for blowing the **** out of the fools who state running QB's aren't more likely to be injured. It is obvious common sense except to those fools who want to blah blah blah. RB's have a shorter career because they receive more contact. The more contact your QB takes the more likely he is to be injured. The more you run your QB the more likely he is to receive contact which results in a more likelihood that he is injured. Anyone arguing otherwise lacks any amount of common sense.

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Dsoto87:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm with you 100%. The people saying "he can also get hurt in the pocket" are like people who justify the risks of skydiving or bungie jumping by saying "you can die driving your car or walking across the street." Lol

Not sure what the post you replied to said, but there is zero evidence to support the opinion that QBs who run get injured more than QBs who don't.

There is no justifying anything.

It's common sense. Unless he's scoring every time he carries the ball he is more than likely getting tackled and once he's a runner he is devoid of the protections afforded QB's.

No evidence lol.. look at the careers of a QB vs the career length of a RB.. RBs are very old at 30..

one of the longer careers in the NFL on average.. kicker.

Exactly this. Dude used the argument that RG3's injury was non-contact even though he was running while injured. Hell Jimmy was too. Is playing QB from the pocket 100% safe? Of course not that's ridiculous and no one is saying that. But it's a helluva lot safer then running, cutting, and taking cumulative hits from defenders.

What's ridiculous is honing on a singular argument when a mountain of evidence was provided and subsequently ignored.

The evidence is clear. You can look at every RB that has played the game and every QB. QBs last much longer. Kickers last even longer than QBs. You have to answer the question why that is. It's obvious. RBs take more contact than QB.. QBs take more contact than kickers.. contact is the variable. The more you are contacted.. the more you expose yourself to hits.. hits shorten your career..

It's undeniable and statistical fact that RBs have shorter career than QBs... sure you can be a running QB and play a long career and a pocket QB that gets injured all day.. this is anecdotal.. when you aggregate all RBs and all QBs.. clear difference. The more you treat your QB like and RB the less he will last on the average.

Avg length of career by position in number of seasons:

• Kickers/Punters — 4.87
• Quarterbacks — 4.44
• Offensive Linemen — 3.63
• Defensive Linemen — 3.24
• Linebackers — 2.97
• Cornerbacks — 2.94
• Tight Ends — 2.85
• Wide Receivers — 2.81
• Running Backs — 2.57
• League average — 3.3

Thank you for blowing the **** out of the fools who state running QB's aren't more likely to be injured. It is obvious common sense except to those fools who want to blah blah blah. RB's have a shorter career because they receive more contact. The more contact your QB takes the more likely he is to be injured. The more you run your QB the more likely he is to receive contact which results in a more likelihood that he is injured. Anyone arguing otherwise lacks any amount of common sense.

So by those numbers, Offensive Linemen and Defensive Linemen have the third and fourth longest careers, but they take on far more contact in a game than WRs do and yet WRs have the second shortest careers. Is it possible that there are more factors involved than just more contact = shorter career?

Common sense indeed.

Originally posted by Sickaa:
Aslong as we don't see a repeat of what we saw against the Cardinals, we should be good.

I doubt Kyle would want his star pupil running the ball that much anyway unless its absolutely necessary.

I want to believe that what we saw against the Cardinals was because Trey himself was hurt and still couldn't throw it well.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
So by those numbers, Offensive Linemen and Defensive Linemen have the third and fourth longest careers, but they take on far more contact in a game than WRs do and yet WRs have the second shortest careers. Is it possible that there are more factors involved than just more contact = shorter career?

Common sense indeed.

Also can't compare RB's to even the most running QB's in the league. RB's are getting 20+ carries a game on most days and are also getting hit, bumped, tackled, and piled on by multiple guys. Majority of the time the QB is getting brought down by 1 guy. Lamar runs a ton but you rarely see him taking a big hit. RB's can't really avoid that kind of physical contact. Aslong as Trey is smart about it and doesn't try to constantly run over people and also knows when to just slide or run out of bounds he should be ok.

Originally posted by krizay:
FWIW

https://www.fantasypoints.com/nfl/articles/season/2021/mobile-quarterbacks-and-injury-rates

Great read Kriz, thank you

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Dsoto87:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm with you 100%. The people saying "he can also get hurt in the pocket" are like people who justify the risks of skydiving or bungie jumping by saying "you can die driving your car or walking across the street." Lol

Not sure what the post you replied to said, but there is zero evidence to support the opinion that QBs who run get injured more than QBs who don't.

There is no justifying anything.

It's common sense. Unless he's scoring every time he carries the ball he is more than likely getting tackled and once he's a runner he is devoid of the protections afforded QB's.

No evidence lol.. look at the careers of a QB vs the career length of a RB.. RBs are very old at 30..

one of the longer careers in the NFL on average.. kicker.

Exactly this. Dude used the argument that RG3's injury was non-contact even though he was running while injured. Hell Jimmy was too. Is playing QB from the pocket 100% safe? Of course not that's ridiculous and no one is saying that. But it's a helluva lot safer then running, cutting, and taking cumulative hits from defenders.

What's ridiculous is honing on a singular argument when a mountain of evidence was provided and subsequently ignored.

The evidence is clear. You can look at every RB that has played the game and every QB. QBs last much longer. Kickers last even longer than QBs. You have to answer the question why that is. It's obvious. RBs take more contact than QB.. QBs take more contact than kickers.. contact is the variable. The more you are contacted.. the more you expose yourself to hits.. hits shorten your career..

It's undeniable and statistical fact that RBs have shorter career than QBs... sure you can be a running QB and play a long career and a pocket QB that gets injured all day.. this is anecdotal.. when you aggregate all RBs and all QBs.. clear difference. The more you treat your QB like and RB the less he will last on the average.

Avg length of career by position in number of seasons:

• Kickers/Punters — 4.87
• Quarterbacks — 4.44
• Offensive Linemen — 3.63
• Defensive Linemen — 3.24
• Linebackers — 2.97
• Cornerbacks — 2.94
• Tight Ends — 2.85
• Wide Receivers — 2.81
• Running Backs — 2.57
• League average — 3.3

Thank you for blowing the **** out of the fools who state running QB's aren't more likely to be injured. It is obvious common sense except to those fools who want to blah blah blah. RB's have a shorter career because they receive more contact. The more contact your QB takes the more likely he is to be injured. The more you run your QB the more likely he is to receive contact which results in a more likelihood that he is injured. Anyone arguing otherwise lacks any amount of common sense.

This is mostly BS, the average career length is a stupid stat as many more careers are ended by lack of ability (being replaced) than injury, also backup QB is the safest position in all of sport.

You're much more likely to be injured when you aren't preparing for contact. If you're sacked, but see it coming, you can turtle shell, and you probably won't be injured. If you're blindsided or in the motion of throwing you'll probably get hurt.

If you're running and you enter contact lowering your surface area, you probably won't be hurt. It's getting blindsided or hit by multiple defenders that leads to injury.

It might be more likely you get injured cutting, but that could happen avoiding defenders in the pocket anyway.

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:
Here's a guy more to Lances agility and speed. Josh Allen. It's not rocket science.

Nowhere near fact either. All conjecture.

I mean there's nothing easier than being extremely adamant on a messageboard about things that neither side can really prove.

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Dsoto87:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by Furlow:
I'm with you 100%. The people saying "he can also get hurt in the pocket" are like people who justify the risks of skydiving or bungie jumping by saying "you can die driving your car or walking across the street." Lol

Not sure what the post you replied to said, but there is zero evidence to support the opinion that QBs who run get injured more than QBs who don't.

There is no justifying anything.

It's common sense. Unless he's scoring every time he carries the ball he is more than likely getting tackled and once he's a runner he is devoid of the protections afforded QB's.

No evidence lol.. look at the careers of a QB vs the career length of a RB.. RBs are very old at 30..

one of the longer careers in the NFL on average.. kicker.

Exactly this. Dude used the argument that RG3's injury was non-contact even though he was running while injured. Hell Jimmy was too. Is playing QB from the pocket 100% safe? Of course not that's ridiculous and no one is saying that. But it's a helluva lot safer then running, cutting, and taking cumulative hits from defenders.

What's ridiculous is honing on a singular argument when a mountain of evidence was provided and subsequently ignored.

The evidence is clear. You can look at every RB that has played the game and every QB. QBs last much longer. Kickers last even longer than QBs. You have to answer the question why that is. It's obvious. RBs take more contact than QB.. QBs take more contact than kickers.. contact is the variable. The more you are contacted.. the more you expose yourself to hits.. hits shorten your career..

It's undeniable and statistical fact that RBs have shorter career than QBs... sure you can be a running QB and play a long career and a pocket QB that gets injured all day.. this is anecdotal.. when you aggregate all RBs and all QBs.. clear difference. The more you treat your QB like and RB the less he will last on the average.

Avg length of career by position in number of seasons:

• Kickers/Punters — 4.87
• Quarterbacks — 4.44
• Offensive Linemen — 3.63
• Defensive Linemen — 3.24
• Linebackers — 2.97
• Cornerbacks — 2.94
• Tight Ends — 2.85
• Wide Receivers — 2.81
• Running Backs — 2.57
• League average — 3.3

Thank you for blowing the **** out of the fools who state running QB's aren't more likely to be injured. It is obvious common sense except to those fools who want to blah blah blah. RB's have a shorter career because they receive more contact. The more contact your QB takes the more likely he is to be injured. The more you run your QB the more likely he is to receive contact which results in a more likelihood that he is injured. Anyone arguing otherwise lacks any amount of common sense.

It's a witch hunt!

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by Sickaa:
Aslong as we don't see a repeat of what we saw against the Cardinals, we should be good.

I doubt Kyle would want his star pupil running the ball that much anyway unless its absolutely necessary.

I want to believe that what we saw against the Cardinals was because Trey himself was hurt and still couldn't throw it well.

It's pretty obvious it was a couple things…lack of playing time, lack of reps with the 1st team and actually practicing the actual playbook with them. You can add hurt hand to the list.

it's stupid to actually think Kyle's master plan with Lance is to run him 15 times a game like some in here (with a narrative to push) are trying to proclaim.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by TownNiner:
Head coach wants the team to win, shock.

Even if it means putting his QB in harm's way.

Football's football. Harm will be in your way regardless.

I'll tell u right now,...he's still going to scramble and run the ball from time to time.

Originally posted by random49er:
Football's football. Harm will be in your way regardless.

I'll tell u right now,...he's still going to scramble and run the ball from time to time.

Right? It's part of the reason he was drafted here. You want a guy that can run your offense AND is athletic enough to be a threat on the ground. How anyone is upset at that thought is beyond me. There's free yards on the ground and easy 3rd down completions because of his ability to be a threat there.

NFL is protecting it's QBs like never before.