LISTEN: Purdy, Pearsall, And The 49ers Second Half →

There are 108 users in the forums

Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Shop 49ers game tickets
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

It seems you're really missing the point of the argument, but in any case it's not four games. By the time the season starts it would be three full offseasons including training camps and preseasons, and four starts.

Start with the fact that my argument doesn't prioritize Trey's long term development, because we have an alternative long term answer in Purdy.

Our primary goal if Purdy is going to miss a small amount of time is to put our team in the best position to win until he returns. Let's say we sign Jacoby Brissett. Is it reasonable to think Brissett could be a better option to start for that small amount of time than Trey Lance, based on what they look like in camp? Yes it is. Why would you play Trey Lance if Brissett is outperforming him, when you're going to start Purdy shortly anyway? It's not enough games for him to meaningfully improve, and it's not enough games for us to make a decision on his future either.

Now let's say we sign Jacoby Brissett and Purdy is going miss all or the bulk of the '23 season. Is it still reasonable to think Brissett could be a better option at the start of the year than Trey Lance? Yes it still is. But! Is it reasonable to think that Brissett could QB this team for the full length or bulk of the season and we'd still be Super Bowl contenders? I'd say no in all likelihood. In this scenario you should probably play Trey Lance because it would be enough time for him to develop and for us to evaluate his future with the team. His development can become higher priority both because you don't have as realistic a shot of winning the Super Bowl anyway (with your other QBs), and your best shot would be him improving over the length of a full season.

Hopefully you can see how these points are intertwined and dependent on circumstances we aren't sure of. And that includes what Trey Lance looks like in camp. Notice I didn't actually say that Trey isn't worth starting. In it's simplest form my argument is advocating for competition in camp, especially if Purdy is targeted for a return early in the season.
[ Edited by SmokeyJoe on Mar 7, 2023 at 4:12 PM ]
Originally posted by TD49ers:
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 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.

I'd rather not spend money on a vet for 2-3 games. Only to have him be QB3 when Purdy gets back. I'd prefer they spend it on other positions. Unless you really think that Vet QB can unseat Lance or Purdy as QB2, depending on how Lance is doing at that point.
Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
I'd rather not spend money on a vet for 2-3 games. Only to have him be QB3 when Purdy gets back. I'd prefer they spend it on other positions. Unless you really think that Vet QB can unseat Lance or Purdy as QB2, depending on how Lance is doing at that point.

Simply put I do.

Even if that QB ended up being number 3 on the depth chart, I'd still think you'd live with 'wasting' the money because you protected yourself (and would have some protection if everyone dies again).
We aren't spending big money on a vet to come when we have 2 young, capable starters and other actual needs on the team. I'm sure everyone is a bit gun shy after last year, but that's about as rare an occurrence as you'll find in the league. Has any team in league history blown through 3 QBs in one season before? I'd have to check, but doubt it. That is why I would prefer to draft a quarterback, especially who is likely to end the year on the practice one. Maybe Kyle can turn the organization into a quarterback factory, and we can trade them for other capital.
[ Edited by SLCNiner on Mar 7, 2023 at 4:21 PM ]
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Simply put I do.

Even if that QB ended up being number 3 on the depth chart, I'd still think you'd live with 'wasting' the money because you protected yourself (and would have some protection if everyone dies again).

Ain't nobody spending anything over $5M annually on a vet QB. We are gonna get a vet minimum QB and draft another. I already told you how this was gonna go after we lost the NFCCG

We will add a CHEAP vet and draft a CHEAP rookie. We will extend Bosa and pick up another FA on the OL and DL and resign Eman. We are going to focus on all the team around Trey and Brock. We are going all in on those two guys and they're relatively CHEAP!!
Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
No they'll have someone else. But it's not going to be someone EXPENSIVE enough to have a real shot at taking the job (until Purdy comes back).

I don't think ppl are maybe understanding what is going on here. BP there is some chance he misses 2023. TL hasn't been able to stay on the field year 1 or year 2. JL knows this and broadcast to everyone that we are actively searching for a QB.

Whoever we add has a real shot at starting games in 2023, due to possible BP or TL unavailability.

Stop speaking that bad JuJu Smith-Schuster into existence.
Originally posted by SLCNiner:
We aren't spending big money on a vet to come when we have 2 young, capable starters and other actual needs on the team. I'm sure everyone is a bit gun shy after last year, but that's about as rare an occurrence as you'll find in the league. Has any team in league history blown through 3 QBs in one season before? I'd have to check, but doubt it.
I concur with this
Originally posted by SLCNiner:
We aren't spending big money on a vet to come when we have 2 young, capable starters and other actual needs on the team. I'm sure everyone is a bit gun shy after last year, but that's about as rare an occurrence as you'll find in the league. Has any team in league history blown through 3 QBs in one season before? I'd have to check, but doubt it.

Do you consider 5-10 million dollars big money? We would effectively be spending the same amount of money at the position as last year.
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
Ain't nobody spending anything over $5M annually on a vet QB. We are gonna get a vet minimum QB and draft another. I already told you how this was gonna go after we lost the NFCCG

We will add a CHEAP vet and draft a CHEAP rookie. We will extend Bosa and pick up another FA on the OL and DL and resign Eman. We are going to focus on all the team around Trey and Brock. We are going all in on those two guys and they're relatively CHEAP!!

All of this. Doesn't make any sense to take it advantage of quarterbacks on rookie deals, only to sign a veteran to money that could be spent elsewhere.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by SLCNiner:
We aren't spending big money on a vet to come when we have 2 young, capable starters and other actual needs on the team. I'm sure everyone is a bit gun shy after last year, but that's about as rare an occurrence as you'll find in the league. Has any team in league history blown through 3 QBs in one season before? I'd have to check, but doubt it.

Do you consider 5-10 million dollars big money? We would effectively be spending the same amount of money at the position as last year.

How much will a kicker cost? Probably in that range. We need a kicker.
Originally posted by SLCNiner:
How much will a kicker cost? Probably in that range. We need a kicker.

High end kickers cost about 5 million. Average 2.5.

We spent almost 4 at the kicker position with a QB salary structure very similar to what I'm suggesting we could spend this year. It's not one or the other ;)
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by SLCNiner:
How much will a kicker cost? Probably in that range. We need a kicker.

High end kickers cost about 5 million. Average 2.5.

We spent almost 4 at the kicker position with a QB salary structure very similar to what I'm suggesting we could spend this year. It's not one or the other ;)

Yeah, not saying it's one or the other with regards to the kicker. Just highlighting the fact that we have needs on the team and holes to fill that take a lot higher priority than a guy who will likely spend the year on the practice squad.

edit: The outcome of Purdy's procedure will likely be the determining factor on whether or not it would be wise to spend the money there.
[ Edited by SLCNiner on Mar 7, 2023 at 4:32 PM ]
Originally posted by SLCNiner:
Yeah, not saying it's one or the other with regards to the kicker. Just highlighting the fact that we have needs on the team and holes to fill that take a lot higher priority than a guy who will likely spend the year on the practice squad.

edit: The outcome of Purdy's procedure will likely be the determining factor on whether or not, we would need one.

I know you weren't, lol.

I understand the team has holes to fill too. What I don't understand is how anyone would look at our QB position and think we don't have a potential hole there. We have unknown at best. At the most important position, on a Super Bowl contender.

Regardless, I obviously agree we'll have a lot better idea after Purdy's procedure.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
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

It seems you're really missing the point of the argument, but in any case it's not four games. By the time the season starts it would be three full offseasons including training camps and preseasons, and four starts.

Start with the fact that my argument doesn't prioritize Trey's long term development, because we have an alternative long term answer in Purdy.

Our primary goal if Purdy is going to miss a small amount of time is to put our team in the best position to win until he returns. Let's say we sign Jacoby Brissett. Is it reasonable to think Brissett could be a better option to start for that small amount of time than Trey Lance, based on what they look like in camp? Yes it is. Why would you play Trey Lance if Brissett is outperforming him, when you're going to start Purdy shortly anyway? It's not enough games for him to meaningfully improve, and it's not enough games for us to make a decision on his future either.

Now let's say we sign Jacoby Brissett and Purdy is going miss all or the bulk of the '23 season. Is it still reasonable to think Brissett could be a better option at the start of the year than Trey Lance? Yes it still is. But! Is it reasonable to think that Brissett could QB this team for the full length or bulk of the season and we'd still be Super Bowl contenders? I'd say no in all likelihood. In this scenario you should probably play Trey Lance because it would be enough time for him to develop and for us to evaluate his future with the team. His development can become higher priority both because you don't have as realistic a shot of winning the Super Bowl anyway (with your other QBs), and your best shot would be him improving over the length of a full season.

Hopefully you can see how these points are intertwined and dependent on circumstances we aren't sure of. And that includes what Trey Lance looks like in camp. Notice I didn't actually say that Trey isn't worth starting. In it's simplest form my argument is advocating for competition in camp, especially if Purdy is targeted for a return early in the season.

Way too much to read here based off what Waterbear said so clearly.
Share 49ersWebzone