Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by genus49:
Going with a rookie as QB2 when you have a proven vet as QB1 and that QB2 is 3rd overall pick you traded so much for after a 6-10 season is VASTLY different than going into another season with a rookie you likely take no earlier than bottom of the 3rd round with QB1 potentially being a guy coming off a broken ankle injury having only 4ish NFL starts under his belt and being 3 years YOUNGER than that rookie QB after back to back NFCCG seasons.

You're right Lance is no where near the caliber of Jimmy as QB1. But, Lance was raw AF (way more than Bennett coming out even if he's picked up in 4th rd or later) Jimmy was known to have injury history. He could've gone been out WK 1 in 2021 and Kyle felt comfortable enough to roll with him as QB2.

having said all that, if Purdys surgery goes well than a rookie Qb would be relegated to QB3, why spend money on that position when it can be used elsewhere.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
That's just my preference. I'd rather go with the unknown than a known 'meh' vet that will cost a lot more money as QB3. in your opinion, it was "incredibly stupid" to go with a rookie as QB2 in 2021, but Kyle thought otherwise.

It would be a hell of a lot more reasonable to allow a top 5 pick at QB to be an unknown QB2, than it would a rookie drafted later than the 3rd round. And that's also not addressing the fact that in 21, we knew we had a QB1 to start the season we could win with, and that's not necessarily the case now.

He would be QB3. Under extremely bad circumstances he would be QB2 I guess. I know Lance is no where near the caliber of Jimmy as QB1 going into the season but I'd rather use money on other positions on team than spend it on a Vet QB to be QB3. That's just my preference. I know you've been advocating for a Vet to compete as QB1 because you don't feel comfortable with Lance as the unquestioned starter. I would still rather go the draft route than pay big money to a known 'meh' vet. If we can get Brady or Rodgers than hell yeah I'm down with that. But to that's highly unlikely, at very best lol

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
He would be QB3. Under extremely bad circumstances he would be QB2 I guess. I know Lance is no where near the caliber of Jimmy as QB1 going into the season but I'd rather use money on other positions on team than spend it on a Vet QB to be QB3. That's just my preference. I know you've been advocating for a Vet to compete as QB1 because you don't feel comfortable with Lance as the unquestioned starter. I would still rather go the draft route than pay big money to a known 'meh' vet. If we can get Brady or Rodgers than hell yeah I'm down with that. But to that's highly unlikely, at very best lol

He'd only be QB3 if/when Brock is healthy, and if Trey Lance beat him out in camp.

I totally understand the desire to not spend on a 'meh' vet when we could use the money elsewhere, but my opinion is we have way too many questions at the position, from health to ability, to not have a contingency. The position is just too important. If Trey plays well, and Brock comes back healthy and plays well (if Trey doesn't keep the job) we can attack the 24 offseason with a different plan.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
He would be QB3. Under extremely bad circumstances he would be QB2 I guess. I know Lance is no where near the caliber of Jimmy as QB1 going into the season but I'd rather use money on other positions on team than spend it on a Vet QB to be QB3. That's just my preference. I know you've been advocating for a Vet to compete as QB1 because you don't feel comfortable with Lance as the unquestioned starter. I would still rather go the draft route than pay big money to a known 'meh' vet. If we can get Brady or Rodgers than hell yeah I'm down with that. But to that's highly unlikely, at very best lol

He'd only be QB3 if/when Brock is healthy, and if Trey Lance beat him out in camp.

I totally understand the desire to not spend on a 'meh' vet when we could use the money elsewhere, but my opinion is we have way too many questions at the position, from health to ability, to not have a contingency. The position is just too important. If Trey plays well, and Brock comes back healthy and plays well (if Trey doesn't keep the job) we can attack the 24 offseason with a different plan.

That's understandable too. Like I said, that's just my preference. We'll see what Kyle and John decide to do.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
That's understandable too. Like I said, that's just my preference. We'll see what Kyle and John decide to do.

Definitely. I will say that if they don't acquire a vet FA I would hope they target a rookie that has multiple years of experience and could feasibly step in right away to play in spots if necessary, instead of a higher ceiling developmental type. I'd imagine they would. The chances of hitting on another pick like Purdy are beyond thin, but finding someone who can manage an offense without giving the game away is a realistic possibility.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
That's understandable too. Like I said, that's just my preference. We'll see what Kyle and John decide to do.

Definitely. I will say that if they don't acquire a vet FA I would hope they target a rookie that has multiple years of experience and could feasibly step in right away to play in spots if necessary, instead of a higher ceiling developmental type. I'd imagine they would. The chances of hitting on another pick like Purdy are beyond thin, but finding someone who can manage an offense without giving the game away is a realistic possibility.

That's why when someone else mentioned Bennett I said I wouldn't mind. He should be available in later rounds. Played two years in SEC. won two chips. Played his role on a big time team distributing to his playmakers. but also made plays when called upon in high pressure moments. Sound familiar.

If Purdys outcome is bad and will miss a ton of time and or the season, then yes bring in the best Vet available to compete with Lance. If not, use that money on OL, DL, or Safety (hearing Bates).

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
just realized we have not shot at Lamar cuz we don't own the rights to our first in the upcoming draft so we can't even offer
only teams that own their original 1st in this and next years draft can offer

the TL trade cancels out our first this year, next year we could offer on a non exclusive tagged player, provided we retain our ones.

They can after the draft.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
That's why when someone else mentioned Bennett I said I wouldn't mind. He should be available in later rounds. Played two years in SEC. won two chips. Played his role on a big time team distributing to his playmakers. but also made plays when called upon in high pressure moments. Sound familiar.

If Purdys outcome is bad and will miss a ton of time and or the season, then yes bring in the best Vet available to compete with Lance. If not, use that money on OL, DL, or Safety (hearing Bates).

Sounds like Colt McCoy to me. I'd spend a 7th on him and toss him on the PS. He's gonna be 26 and just got arrested.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
That's why when someone else mentioned Bennett I said I wouldn't mind. He should be available in later rounds. Played two years in SEC. won two chips. Played his role on a big time team distributing to his playmakers. but also made plays when called upon in high pressure moments. Sound familiar.

If Purdys outcome is bad and will miss a ton of time and or the season, then yes bring in the best Vet available to compete with Lance. If not, use that money on OL, DL, or Safety (hearing Bates).

It's funny but I really see this in reverse. We'd want the vet moreso because we'd want the best short term bridge to when Purdy returns. I mentioned this back in the thread, but let's pretend Purdy was able to return by week 3 or 4. Would 2-3 games really be a good look at Lance or a chance for him to develop? Not at all in my opinion. So you might as well put that aside and just play the best camp performer you have (which may be Trey anyway... we'll see).

If Purdy were to miss all or most of 23, the calculus changes for me. It's unlikely you're going to sign a vet who can successfully QB a contending team over the full course, or bulk, of the season, with maybe a couple longshot exceptions. It could be worthwhile to play Trey over that veteran, even if he doesn't look as good in camp, because Trey would be in line to get enough starts for a chance to improve and for us to evaluate him.

Another issue Is Brock's recovery will be a gray area when we have to make a decision on which direction to go in acquiring a 3rd qb. Obviously we'll know if they open him up and have to do more than planned, but if he comes out on the six month timetable like we all hope, there's still room for setbacks and other issues.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
That's why when someone else mentioned Bennett I said I wouldn't mind. He should be available in later rounds. Played two years in SEC. won two chips. Played his role on a big time team distributing to his playmakers. but also made plays when called upon in high pressure moments. Sound familiar.

If Purdys outcome is bad and will miss a ton of time and or the season, then yes bring in the best Vet available to compete with Lance. If not, use that money on OL, DL, or Safety (hearing Bates).

Sounds like Colt McCoy to me. I'd spend a 7th on him and toss him on the PS. He's gonna be 26 and just got arrested.

It can sound like whatever player you want it to sound like. That's the whole thing with an unknown. I would definitely spend a 7th on him.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
just realized we have not shot at Lamar cuz we don't own the rights to our first in the upcoming draft so we can't even offer
only teams that own their original 1st in this and next years draft can offer

the TL trade cancels out our first this year, next year we could offer on a non exclusive tagged player, provided we retain our ones.

They can after the draft.

sure but I don't think Lamar is gonna be hanging in the breeze that long

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
That's why when someone else mentioned Bennett I said I wouldn't mind. He should be available in later rounds. Played two years in SEC. won two chips. Played his role on a big time team distributing to his playmakers. but also made plays when called upon in high pressure moments. Sound familiar.

If Purdys outcome is bad and will miss a ton of time and or the season, then yes bring in the best Vet available to compete with Lance. If not, use that money on OL, DL, or Safety (hearing Bates).

It's funny but I really see this in reverse. We'd want the vet moreso because we'd want the best short term bridge to when Purdy returns. I mentioned this back in the thread, but let's pretend Purdy was able to return by week 3 or 4. Would 2-3 games really be a good look at Lance or a chance for him to develop? Not at all in my opinion. So you might as well put that aside and just play the best camp performer you have (which may be Trey anyway... we'll see).

If Purdy were to miss all or most of 23, the calculus changes for me. It's unlikely you're going to sign a vet who can successfully QB a contending team over the full course, or bulk, of the season, with maybe a couple longshot exceptions. It could be worthwhile to play Trey over that veteran, even if he doesn't look as good in camp, because Trey would be in line to get enough starts for a chance to improve and for us to evaluate him.

Another issue Is Brock's recovery will be a gray area when we have to make a decision on which direction to go in acquiring a 3rd qb. Obviously we'll know if they open him up and have to do more than planned, but if he comes out on the six month timetable like we all hope, there's still room for setbacks and other issues.

So 4 games is enough to determine Trey's not worth starting but 2-3 games is not enough time to get a good look at him?

PLEASE SOMEONE MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

Originally posted by Waterbear:
So 4 games is enough to determine Trey's not worth starting but 2-3 games is not enough time to get a good look at him?

PLEASE SOMEONE MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

Does anyone make sense in the TL thread?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
just realized we have not shot at Lamar cuz we don't own the rights to our first in the upcoming draft so we can't even offer
only teams that own their original 1st in this and next years draft can offer

the TL trade cancels out our first this year, next year we could offer on a non exclusive tagged player, provided we retain our ones.

They can after the draft.

sure but I don't think Lamar is gonna be hanging in the breeze that long

Lamar has the IQ of a breadstick and he isnt a very good QB either thus the non exclusive tag.

Trey was worth 3 first round picks in the eyes of our HC & GM, so he is just beginning. The good thing is we also have Purdy!

What makes the good great; They are both on rookie deals