Originally posted by YACBros85:
Agreed. The trade was a cap move as much as it was a need to upgrade the QB position. The fans who say they hate the trade never see the cap savings side of it. It would be completely different if this roster wasn't so stacked.
It's not a matter of not seeing the cap saving side of the argument, but more of a matter of prioritizing quality play at the position over cap savings.
It's a nuanced discussion with many angles, but look at the overall picture to this point. You drafted a project player with the plan to sit him for a year behind your costly veteran. Year one resulted in no improvement at the position, no savings at the position, and in fact additional costs. Year two you had savings at the position, but you still paid an expensive amount for insurance at the position and ended up relying on that insurance for a good chunk of the season. Additionally in year two, between those two options, you had no improvement in quality of play at the position.
There was however a significant development in year two, and that was the emergence of Purdy. When he entered you did see improvement at the position. Unfortunately he suffered an extremely serious injury which casts doubt on his future on a variety of fronts.
So entering year 3, the only thing the team has reaped from the Trey Lance trade to this point is a cheaper QB room. You don't have an established QB, which is the most critical position on an NFL roster especially when you're in a Super Bowl window. On top of that, the decisions put you in a position to lose a reliable veteran that you could at least count on for winning play at the position.
This is not an ideal situation to be in given we're in a Super Bowl window. We all want good QB play at bargain prices, but we've only seen one side of that so far. Purdy's emergence is a wild card in the situation... a possible out from the team boxing itself in.