Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

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?

HA this fan base can't handle drafting a QB high…expectations are stupid and patience is non existent. You can honestly tell a lot of people in here haven't experienced dealing with the ups/downs of drafting one high. It's been what over 15 yrs?

Originally posted by NYniner85:
HA this fan base can't handle drafting a QB high…expectations are stupid and patience is non existent. You can honestly tell a lot of people in here haven't experienced dealing with the ups/downs of drafting one high. It's been what over 15 yrs?

By all means, don't read posts and just assume the basis for arguments you don't agree with.

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.

Several points need to be made here:

1. Having a QB competition means you're splitting 1st team reps. Splitting reps means both QBs would suffer due to lack of continuity with the offense… as opposed to giving one QB first team reps. It appears the posters who make this point repeatedly forget that it could hurt both potential starters while they act like it's all upside. Splitting first team reps with a young player like Lance is essentially sabotaging his season. IMO, it's completely reasonable to assume that a QB competition means it's more likely we lose one of our first few games, while no QB competition means we have a better chance to win them.

2. You also said that it's likely that Brisset would perform better than Trey. And that you've been able to judge Trey's ability outside of his 4 starts. I call BS on that. There have been plenty positive reports about Trey as well as negative ones. Jimmy G once threw 5 straight interceptions in practice and we went to the NFC championship that season. Unless you're actually at the practices, there's no reliable way to know how competent a player is through practice. Que Allen Iverson meme.

3. Even if you're fully on board with Purdy as your long term starter, there's value in giving Trey every opportunity to show his talent as opposed to starting a FA. If Trey plays well, he's back in contention of being the future. Any FA you bring in doesn't have that chance. Or, if Trey plays well, we can get some trade value in return for him. Again, no one is giving us any significant trade value for a FA QB we sign as QB3.

4. Signing a FA QB also hurts our ability to sign other players. So it's not Brissett vs Trey. It's Brissett and his 5-8m cap hit vs Trey. If Purdy is the guy for 90% of next season, wouldn't you think our best chance to win is to have the best roster possible? 5-8m is a starting player. You're not just sabotaging Trey at that point, you're sabotaging Purdy as well.

You haven't said it outright, but your offseason "plan" has a lot of assumptions in it where Trey is an awful QB. Because, only an awful QB would have trouble holding down the fort for 3 games, when the alternative is a FA QB who comes cheap and that QB has a worse career QB rating… not to mention, Jacoby lost 12 of his first 17 starts. I like JB, but any QB willing to be QB3 has serious holes to his game.

I'm willing to bet anyone who thinks there will be a QB competition with Trey this offseason. If you're willing to take the bet, great, if no one comes forward, maybe reevaluate your logic because KS and JL aren't stupid.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Several points need to be made here:

1. Having a QB competition means you're splitting 1st team reps. Splitting reps means both QBs would suffer due to lack of continuity with the offense… as opposed to giving one QB first team reps. It appears the posters who make this point repeatedly forget that it could hurt both potential starters while they act like it's all upside. Splitting first team reps with a young player like Lance is essentially sabotaging his season. IMO, it's completely reasonable to assume that a QB competition means it's more likely we lose one of our first few games, while no QB competition means we have a better chance to win them.

2. You also said that it's likely that Brisset would perform better than Trey. And that you've been able to judge Trey's ability outside of his 4 starts. I call BS on that. There have been plenty positive reports about Trey as well as negative ones. Jimmy G once threw 5 straight interceptions in practice and we went to the NFC championship that season. Unless you're actually at the practices, there's no reliable way to know how competent a player is through practice. Que Allen Iverson meme.

3. Even if you're fully on board with Purdy as your long term starter, there's value in giving Trey every opportunity to show his talent as opposed to starting a FA. If Trey plays well, he's back in contention of being the future. Any FA you bring in doesn't have that chance. Or, if Trey plays well, we can get some trade value in return for him. Again, no one is giving us any significant trade value for a FA QB we sign as QB3.

4. Signing a FA QB also hurts our ability to sign other players. So it's not Brissett vs Trey. It's Brissett and his 5-8m cap hit vs Trey. If Purdy is the guy for 90% of next season, wouldn't you think our best chance to win is to have the best roster possible? 5-8m is a starting player. You're not just sabotaging Trey at that point, you're sabotaging Purdy as well.

You haven't said it outright, but your offseason "plan" has a lot of assumptions in it where Trey is an awful QB. Because, only an awful QB would have trouble holding down the fort for 3 games, when the alternative is a FA QB who comes cheap and that QB has a worse career QB rating… not to mention, Jacoby lost 12 of his first 17 starts. I like JB, but any QB willing to be QB3 has serious holes to his game.

I'm willing to bet anyone who thinks there will be a QB competition with Trey this offseason. If you're willing to take the bet, great, if no one comes forward, maybe reevaluate your logic because KS and JL aren't stupid.

I did not say it was likely that Brissett (or any player in his tier) would outperform Trey. I said it was reasonable to assume it's possible. If you disagree with that, so be it... but at least address it as it is.

As far as splitting reps, it really doesn't make a big difference if you're giving the starter's job to Purdy if/when he returns in the short term, and I think this point is further complicated by the fact that you have to build an offense around different strengths if you're going with Lance. Not sure that's a great plan for less than a handful of starts. I do agree it's better to give your presumptive starter all the reps you can, but our presumptive starter is actually injured.

I think i've addressed the issues with spending this money enough, but I'd rather spend 5-10 million and assure we have a viable QB2 who's capable of spot starting, than taking an open ended gamble at the most important position on the field and adding a player elsewhere.

Again, this argument can change based on Purdy's outlook, and also on what Trey's looking like in camp.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I did not say it was likely that Brissett (or any player in his tier) would outperform Trey. I said it was reasonable to assume it's possible. If you disagree with that, so be it... but at least address it as it is.

As far as splitting reps, it really doesn't make a big difference if you're giving the starter's job to Purdy if/when he returns in the short term, and I think this point is further complicated by the fact that you have to build an offense around different strengths if you're going with Lance. Not sure that's a great plan for less than a handful of starts. I do agree it's better to give your presumptive starter all the reps you can, but our presumptive starter is actually injured.

I think i've addressed the issues with spending this money enough, but I'd rather spend 5-10 million and assure we have a viable QB2 who's capable of spot starting, than taking an open ended gamble at the most important position on the field and adding a player elsewhere.

Again, this argument can change based on Purdy's outlook, and also on what Trey's looking like in camp.

Just going to quote the above, instead of the entire chain.

It seems your entire argument rests on the claim Purdy is the presumptive starter in the eyes of the coaches. Maybe this is true. Based on how Purdy played, it's certainly a reasonable, even highly likely, take. But, there is the other side of the coin that the coaches feel Trey can perform better than Purdy. If that's the case, you must give Trey the keys to the castle. 100%. Does this mean the team potentially loses games early in the 2023 season? Does the team actually perform worse in 2023 with Trey at the helm? Both of these outcomes are possible...perhaps even likely. But if the team feels the long term better player is Trey, then they have to go all in on that belief...and they have the perfert situation to go in that direction.

Of course, if the coaching staff feels Purdy is the long term answer, then by all means, follow the schedule / ideas you've put forth. The only issue I have with your claims is they rest on the idea Purdy is the presumptive starter / long term solution, and if he is, you are basically throwing in the towel on Trey. Because while you will keep Trey due to his cost, you are not picking up his 5th year option nor signing him long term.

And, I don't see how that / any decision can be made based on four starts for Trey, and a dozen or so for Brock. Trey could fall on his face, or could soar. So too could Brock. Further, I am totally against bringing in a vet for anything more than a camp body. Draft a young guy late, or pick up some other young kid as rosters are trimmed, then toss him on the PS.

I think the team goes all in on Trey. I think he both starts, and finishes, the season. If there is an injury, well f**k, talk to NC about that.

Originally posted by Polkadots:
Just going to quote the above, instead of the entire chain.

It seems your entire argument rests on the claim Purdy is the presumptive starter in the eyes of the coaches. Maybe this is true. Based on how Purdy played, it's certainly a reasonable, even highly likely, take. But, there is the other side of the coin that the coaches feel Trey can perform better than Purdy. If that's the case, you must give Trey the keys to the castle. 100%. Does this mean the team potentially loses games early in the 2023 season? Does the team actually perform worse in 2023 with Trey at the helm? Both of these outcomes are possible...perhaps even likely. But if the team feels the long term better player is Trey, then they have to go all in on that belief...and they have the perfert situation to go in that direction.

Of course, if the coaching staff feels Purdy is the long term answer, then by all means, follow the schedule / ideas you've put forth. The only issue I have with your claims is they rest on the idea Purdy is the presumptive starter / long term solution, and if he is, you are basically throwing in the towel on Trey. Because while you will keep Trey due to his cost, you are not picking up his 5th year option nor signing him long term.

And, I don't see how that / any decision can be made based on four starts for Trey, and a dozen or so for Brock. Trey could fall on his face, or could soar. So too could Brock. Further, I am totally against bringing in a vet for anything more than a camp body. Draft a young guy late, or pick up some other young kid as rosters are trimmed, then toss him on the PS.

I think the team goes all in on Trey. I think he both starts, and finishes, the season. If there is an injury, well f**k, talk to NC about that.

I think you're pretty close here. What I would say is looking at Purdy as the presumptive starter isn't actually throwing in the towel on Trey. Purdy is injured and will not be healthy until right up against the start of the season, at best. Trey is going to have an opportunity here, whether we sign a vet or not. The opportunity comes in camp and preseason and potentially into the season for some unknown length. I think a better description of my argument is that I don't think the team is going to cater everything around the opportunity Trey has now. He can become the long term answer, but they aren't going to plan for him to be it. They're not going to design an offense around him, especially if Purdy is on the shorter timeline. They're not going to roll with him if he struggles and they have a viable replacement, especially if Purdy is healthy or his return is imminent.

If Trey comes out and is playing great in camp, he's going to be QB1. If he's QB1, playing well, and the team is winning... he's going to stay QB1, even when Purdy returns.

I'm also not sold on Purdy being a shoe-in franchise QB. He looked great but it was a small sample and now he has major injury. What I'm sold on is if Trey and Purdy were both healthy now the team would take their chances with Purdy. When they are both healthy, if Trey hasn't taken the job by force, they will gamble on Purdy instead.

We're focused on Trey here but I'd also add we need insurance at the position because Brock's timeline is unknown. Even if Trey is awesome, we would want a quality #2 behind him and wouldn't have it until Purdy returns. Trey also suffered major injury last year.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
By all means, don't read posts and just assume the basis for arguments you don't agree with.

I posted a general statement, not just directed at you….if you don't believe it that's fine. I would call you naïve and a poster that doesn't read what people have been saying in here (and other SM outlets) since we moved up for a QB.

Regardless of who you want, with Purdys injury this team is Treys job to lose.

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:
Regardless of who you want, with Purdys injury this team is Treys job to lose.

With BP potentially out 2023, we will add a guy who is a real guy. I liked Suds. But it will be a guy > Suds. They will then get em on the field at camp and see what is what.

TL has to be putting in the work now, to outclass this player to be named later. TL is woefully behind schedule thanks to missed 2020 and 2022.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
With BP potentially out 2023, we will add a guy who is a real guy. I liked Suds. But it will be a guy > Suds. They will then get em on the field at camp and see what is what.

TL has to be putting in the work now, to outclass this player to be named later. TL is woefully behind schedule thanks to missed 2020 and 2022.

What "real" guy? These magical FA QBs that are gonna come in and save the day…for peanuts don't exist.

Tossing in the Dalton's of the world as the QB1 doesn't do a damn thing. For the love of god you have to let the kid play. Good/bad whatever its gotta happen.

Lance is the QB1 unless they land Rogers/Brady (which is not likely at all). There's nothing different from last yr to this yr in regards to SF making him the starter. Nothing changed, it's not like he put up a years worth of s**t film. His last start he had SF putting up 150 yards of offense in 17 plays vs a playoff team (without Kittle/Mitchell/CMC).

go get a vet QB that's cheap and knows they're not gonna be getting starting reps through camp. You still have to see what Lance is and can be. Whatever with Brock he can't play and imo won't be for a while. He's not part of the discussion. Rehab and recovery is in his future.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
With BP potentially out 2023, we will add a guy who is a real guy. I liked Suds. But it will be a guy > Suds. They will then get em on the field at camp and see what is what.

TL has to be putting in the work now, to outclass this player to be named later. TL is woefully behind schedule thanks to missed 2020 and 2022.

What "real" guy? These magical FA QBs that are gonna come in and save the day…for peanuts don't exist.

Tossing in the Dalton's of the world as the QB1 doesn't do a damn thing. For the love of god you have to let the kid play. Good/bad whatever its gotta happen.

Lance is the QB1 unless they land Rogers/Brady (which is not likely at all). There's nothing different from last yr to this yr in regards to SF making him the starter. Nothing changed, it's not like he put up a years worth of s**t film. His last start he had SF putting up 150 yards of offense in 17 plays vs a playoff team (without Kittle/Mitchell/CMC).

go get a vet QB that's cheap and knows they're not gonna be getting starting reps through camp. You still have to see what Lance is and can be. Whatever with Brock he can't play and imo won't be for a while. He's not part of the discussion. Rehab and recovery is in his future.

Trust me they will be with TL every single day all summer and they will know who he is
we won't as fans we will be guessing from 'camp reports'
but KS you don't think he's gonna have any clue what he's got after seeing TL this summer?

he will

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:
Regardless of who you want, with Purdys injury this team is Treys job to lose.

With BP potentially out 2023, we will add a guy who is a real guy. I liked Suds. But it will be a guy > Suds. They will then get em on the field at camp and see what is what.

TL has to be putting in the work now, to outclass this player to be named later. TL is woefully behind schedule thanks to missed 2020 and 2022.

You think the team will sign a #3 that will compete for the #1? Absolutely zero chance of that happening. Maybe if Lance is injured again and Purdy's recovery takes longer the #3 will see the field but it's going to likely be around Josh Johnson talent level, so let's just hope that doesn't happen again.

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by ItsX4Number6:
Regardless of who you want, with Purdys injury this team is Treys job to lose.

With BP potentially out 2023, we will add a guy who is a real guy. I liked Suds. But it will be a guy > Suds. They will then get em on the field at camp and see what is what.

TL has to be putting in the work now, to outclass this player to be named later. TL is woefully behind schedule thanks to missed 2020 and 2022.

You think the team will sign a #3 that will compete for the #1? Absolutely zero chance of that happening. Maybe if Lance is injured again and Purdy's recovery takes longer the #3 will see the field but it's going to likely be around Josh Johnson talent level, so let's just hope that doesn't happen again.

It won't be around Josh Johnson level not even close. He was a QB4. Like you mention, Purdy's recovery could run long and TL has been injured 2 of 2 seasons.

JL and KS know this. You think they will put themselves in a spot where the season rides on Josh Johnson again, or someone similar? No way in bleep.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Trust me they will be with TL every single day all summer and they will know who he is
we won't as fans we will be guessing from 'camp reports'
but KS you don't think he's gonna have any clue what he's got after seeing TL this summer?

he will

huh? What you said had nothing to do with what I said lol.

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
You think the team will sign a #3 that will compete for the #1? Absolutely zero chance of that happening. Maybe if Lance is injured again and Purdy's recovery takes longer the #3 will see the field but it's going to likely be around Josh Johnson talent level, so let's just hope that doesn't happen again.

Pretty much this. I don't even know what "real" QB there is in FA that's gonna play for peanuts and understand they're not getting starting reps.

it's Lance and Brock, unless Brady or Rogers magically end up here……….THEN QB3 that can start for a game or two. Someone like Keenum or Minshew make sense.