Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
The problem with your thinking here in my opinion is you're not recognizing that Lance is no longer their plan for the future. There is no need for, or desire to, develop him. Brock Purdy may not be ready to go in the early part of the season, but you are still planning around his return. In the meantime, you play the best player right now.

And I really don't think this hurts his trade value because they wouldn't be selling him as a non developmental player to other teams. They would pitch the idea that they believe he can be a good quarterback but they can't afford to develop him with the team ready to win now and with another option (Purdy) who they are committed to. Listen to the comments from Lynch and Shanahan with this context in mind. Try to understand that they are very clearly presenting this argument publicly.

This does exactly the opposite. If the 49ers cannot afford to develop Lance, that implies they have no use for him (or little use--we would be mincing words here). That, for all intents and purposes, kills any leverage the 49ers have at the bargaining table.

What Lynch et. al. would be saying is they view Lance as a lesser (future) prospect than Brock, Mr. Irrelevant, who has played in less than a dozen NFL games. Brock has looked great in the games he has played, no doubt about it. But, this is a movie we have seen before, and a handful of games does not a franchise QB make.

Now, I am not saying you are wrong regarding the situation at hand, nor am I saying you are wrong regarding how events may unfold. However, I am saying your position regarding trade value is completely wrong. And while Lynch may be posturing publicly, the professionals know better....Deep down, I think you see through the posturing as well.

Right now Trey has no real value unless plays and puts up numbers and shows potential. Especially with his limited time not only in the NFL but also college.

Originally posted by Polkadots:
This does exactly the opposite. If the 49ers cannot afford to develop Lance, that implies they have no use for him (or little use--we would be mincing words here). That, for all intents and purposes, kills any leverage the 49ers have at the bargaining table.

What Lynch et. al. would be saying is they view Lance as a lesser (future) prospect than Brock, Mr. Irrelevant, who has played in less than a dozen NFL games. Brock has looked great in the games he has played, no doubt about it. But, this is a movie we have seen before, and a handful of games does not a franchise QB make.

Now, I am not saying you are wrong regarding the situation at hand, nor am I saying you are wrong regarding how events may unfold. However, I am saying your position regarding trade value is completely wrong. And while Lynch may be posturing publicly, the professionals know better....Deep down, I think you see through the posturing as well.

I'm not sure what leverage you think we have at this moment, but it's next to nothing. That's why I don't think a trade is going to happen. We're not going to get a worthwhile offer, and we're not going to offload him for peanuts either. Not to mention that Lance's trade value is not going to be prioritized over putting the team in the best possible position to win.

The other 31 teams in the league aren't blind to our situation. It's not a secret that Mr Irrelevant has jumped Trey Lance as our plan A going forward. The team is broadcasting it. We're not going to dupe a team into believing we aren't trading Lance for any other reason other than we don't have a use for him, and that he needs PT. The only possible pitch that would be successful, hypothetically, would be that we can't prioritize developing him. Team's would buy that, because it's the actual truth. No team is going to buy that we're shopping the player we think is the better future prospect. That idea only currently exists among 49ers fans and some media.

Originally posted by WildBill:
Right now Trey has no real value unless plays and puts up numbers and shows potential. Especially with his limited time not only in the NFL but also college.

Pretty much. And if he does those things, we aren't going to trade him.

Originally posted by Polkadots:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
The problem with your thinking here in my opinion is you're not recognizing that Lance is no longer their plan for the future. There is no need for, or desire to, develop him. Brock Purdy may not be ready to go in the early part of the season, but you are still planning around his return. In the meantime, you play the best player right now.

And I really don't think this hurts his trade value because they wouldn't be selling him as a non developmental player to other teams. They would pitch the idea that they believe he can be a good quarterback but they can't afford to develop him with the team ready to win now and with another option (Purdy) who they are committed to. Listen to the comments from Lynch and Shanahan with this context in mind. Try to understand that they are very clearly presenting this argument publicly.

This does exactly the opposite. If the 49ers cannot afford to develop Lance, that implies they have no use for him (or little use--we would be mincing words here). That, for all intents and purposes, kills any leverage the 49ers have at the bargaining table.

What Lynch et. al. would be saying is they view Lance as a lesser (future) prospect than Brock, Mr. Irrelevant, who has played in less than a dozen NFL games. Brock has looked great in the games he has played, no doubt about it. But, this is a movie we have seen before, and a handful of games does not a franchise QB make.

Now, I am not saying you are wrong regarding the situation at hand, nor am I saying you are wrong regarding how events may unfold. However, I am saying your position regarding trade value is completely wrong. And while Lynch may be posturing publicly, the professionals know better....Deep down, I think you see through the posturing as well.

I'm saying I expect them to play to win games to get to the SB and win it. I don't think trade value is a consideration. That will take care of itself in due time.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
In fairness faithful, I repeatedly said that there's not going to be an open competition, as in, splitting first team reps. Because I was responding to this post you made:

"ask yourself if Trey Lance in offseason #3 can't beat out Sam Freakin Darnold what business does he have getting the keys to our franchise?"

From the way you describe this competition, you make it seem like Trey and Sam will have an equal shot to be the starter, and that they will be equally judged on their offseason performance. But I tried to be clear to you that IMO camp doesn't work that way. I believe Kyle will give Trey every opportunity to be the starter (assuming Purdy is not healthy), mainly because giving Trey less reps with the first team offense makes Kyle look even more foolish, it hurts his chance to become the franchise QB we drafted him to be, and it hurts his trade value immensely. You just don't sign a FA backup and start him over a QB we traded 3 first rounders for, unless he's far far FAR and away the better player. But I removed that last part from my reasoning as I'm predicting it won't happen.

I have no issue with being wrong, and have admitted when I'm wrong plenty, but I would just be completely stunned if we didn't still try to develop a top 3 overall pick.

Kyle in the media can say they're competing all he wants, but it's not the same unless they're literally taking opportunities/reps away from Lance in camp and inserting Sam.

Then you said I was moaning about a little competition for Trey, or that I should call people Trey haters but you're missing the point. I'm not saying there's no chance Sam Darnold could be the better option to start the season, I'm saying he won't have a chance to.

The problem with your thinking here in my opinion is you're not recognizing that Lance is no longer their plan for the future. There is no need for, or desire to, develop him. Brock Purdy may not be ready to go in the early part of the season, but you are still planning around his return. In the meantime, you play the best player right now.

And I really don't think this hurts his trade value because they wouldn't be selling him as a non developmental player to other teams. They would pitch the idea that they believe he can be a good quarterback but they can't afford to develop him with the team ready to win now and with another option (Purdy) who they are committed to. Listen to the comments from Lynch and Shanahan with this context in mind. Try to understand that they are very clearly presenting this argument publicly.

Yeah I just don't see how the objective take here is that Kyle should give up on Trey after 3 games, and fully commit to Purdy after 9, especially when Purdy has a serious injury himself.

Trey showing something on the field is absolutely important. I don't see how anyone can argue differently. It's not like he has to be Joe Montana to have serious trade value either, he just has to show some improvement and play within the offense.

If he does that, it wouldn't shock me to see some significant trade interest.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Yeah I just don't see how the objective take here is that Kyle should give up on Trey after 3 games, and fully commit to Purdy after 9, especially when Purdy has a serious injury himself.

Trey showing something on the field is absolutely important. I don't see how anyone can argue differently. It's not like he has to be Joe Montana to have serious trade value either, he just has to show some improvement and play within the offense.

If he does that, it wouldn't shock me to see some significant trade interest.

I have no problem with you thinking it's not the right call to plan around Brock instead of Trey, but I think you should acknowledge that's what is actually happening. It's obvious.

Trey can change those plans, but he has to do it immediately. He has to force it. If he comes in to camp and preseason and the light bulb has gone off and he's playing great, they'll stay with him. That would especially be the case if Brock's return is delayed at all and Trey transfers a great camp and preseason into regular season games.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Yeah I just don't see how the objective take here is that Kyle should give up on Trey after 3 games, and fully commit to Purdy after 9, especially when Purdy has a serious injury himself.

Trey showing something on the field is absolutely important. I don't see how anyone can argue differently. It's not like he has to be Joe Montana to have serious trade value either, he just has to show some improvement and play within the offense.

If he does that, it wouldn't shock me to see some significant trade interest.

I have no problem with you thinking it's not the right call to plan around Brock instead of Trey, but I think you should acknowledge that's what is actually happening. It's obvious.

Trey can change those plans, but he has to do it immediately. He has to force it. If he comes in to camp and preseason and the light bulb has gone off and he's playing great, they'll stay with him. That would especially be the case if Brock's return is delayed at all and Trey transfers a great camp and preseason into regular season games.

I think there's some disconnect here. I'm fully aware that Brock is currently in the lead to be our future at QB, and I'm 100% on board if that is the case. I like his skill set and his personality a lot. Nothing about my stance should be taken as I don't believe in Purdy.

But if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying there's no reason to pursue developing Trey.
You said there's no need for or desire to develop him, right?

I can't get on board with all that, especially since QB1's elbow is seriously injured atm.

The best case scenario would be that we have two high level QBs, that way we could trade one and keep one, but it sounds like you've already determined Brock has won and Trey will never prove anything here meaning he'll never have any value. Which is shocking because we've seen so much turnover at the QB position, it would be par for the course to see both players play a lot next season.

I don't want to put limits on Trey, maybe that's where we differ.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
I think there's some disconnect here. I'm fully aware that Brock is currently in the lead to be our future at QB, and I'm 100% on board if that is the case. I like his skill set and his personality a lot. Nothing about my stance should be taken as I don't believe in Purdy.

But if I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying there's no reason to pursue developing Trey.
You said there's no need for or desire to develop him, right?

I can't get on board with all that, especially since QB1's elbow is seriously injured atm.

The best case scenario would be that we have two high level QBs, that way we could trade one and keep one, but it sounds like you've already determined Brock has won and Trey will never prove anything here meaning he'll never have any value. Which is shocking because we've seen so much turnover at the QB position, it would be par for the course to see both players play a lot next season.

I don't want to put limits on Trey, maybe that's where we differ.

I'm talking about what the current plan is. Not what might happen in the future. I clearly left room for Trey to alter the team's plans based on his performance in camp/preseason, and potentially in to the regular season. I also would leave room for Brock returning and not being the same player, or suffering another injury, which could also alter the team's current plan.

My argument is that Trey's development is not a priority. There's no space for him to develop under our current plan and team situation. If Trey doesn't take major leaps in camp and preseason and Brock returns and assumes the starting role, how does Trey develop? It is pretty much universally understood that he needs playing time to get better. We won't have playing time for him with our current plan. We play one quarterback. Even if Brock suffers another serious injury, we may not turn back to prioritizing Trey's development (by actually playing him in meaningful games) if we have another option in Darnold that the team feels gives them a better chance to win now.

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:
Lol I remember when Jimmy was being hated on.....

....No,...actually.

Has Trey had any setbacks With his ankle? I thought he was supposed to be cleared in March? I haven't seen anything but wasn't sure if I missed it.

I'm sure he will be available for OTAs, I'm just more so interested if this will have some sort of impact on his mobility.

it's not an apples to apples comparison, but both my shoulders have dislocated and it's definitely impacted my range of motion. I didn't have surgery though. It's just made me curious if it will make his ankle mobility stiffer. For me, it's not so much I can't move my arms in a certain way, but they dislocate easier and easier Everytime it happens. I imagine he won't have any major issues like I do, since he had surgery.

The Trey Lance situation is unique if he is on the trading block. I have never seen a QB drafted this high traded without ever assessing his talent. Of course he's been injured, but that is not a good enough excuse. There are past high draft picks that sat until they got their chance. The message, I kind of feel, is that the organization has come to a decision about him and his level of QB play. If he is traded the Zone will short circuit with responses.

Originally posted by RishikeshA:
The Trey Lance situation is unique if he is on the trading block. I have never seen a QB drafted this high traded without ever assessing his talent. Of course he's been injured, but that is not a good enough excuse. There are past high draft picks that sat until they got their chance. The message, I kind of feel, is that the organization has come to a decision about him and his level of QB play. If he is traded the Zone will short circuit with responses.

Well, shanahan and our coaches HAVE been assessing his talent. How he practices, how he picks up the playbook, his understanding, etc.

I'm against trading Trey because they really haven't seen enough of him. However, if they did say he was available it's hard to predict what they could get. Look at how teams move up in the draft to pick QBs that had sketchy college careers. The Niners did it when they drafted Trey. Every year QBs are drafted too high based on combine results. There may be teams out there that need a QB and can afford to let him play if they aren't in contention.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
So as long as Kyle's here we will never have an elite level QB. Well that really blows…still don't believe that and then making a move for Lance kinda disproves all of it.

also they could have had Josh Allen as well (massive 49er fan growing up)

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/49ers/adam-schefter-tells-wild-story-how-49ers-could-have-drafted-josh-allen

Then benching him for Purdy, does that prove anything?

Having so much conviction to make the biggest move in franchise history…how does that not prove anything?

he never got benched. He got hurt. Brock played well, got hurt and now lance is back up…

This needs to be in all caps and pinned at the top of this thread lol.

There is a difference in a guy playing like trash and being replaced and simply getting injured and then someone comes in and looks too good for the team to keep off the field. That's exactly how Tom Brady replaced Drew Bledsoe.

Now the question is what happens now that Brock also got hurt. Will Lance take the opportunity to steal the job back? Time will tell.

It's why once again the idea of trading Trey is bonkers to me.