Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Darnold has something BP and TL don't, experience. He's on JGs level in terms of career starts. He's seen a lot in this league. I do believe experience matters. TL as you mention, has more years in the KS offense.

Bad experience matters too. Bad habits you have developed. Bad coaching you have received. It takes a lot of work to break all of that. Took Steve a lot of time.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Comments like those are why I'm always cautious of believing what players say about teammates. I watch their body language and secondary words to try and get a feel for their actual opinion. Subconscious says a lot. Whoever called him baby Wilson is a moron. Hahah bet he doesn't want to be baby Wilson now, outside of cashing checks.

It was a former teammate of Wilson's that was in DC…I think McKissic. Some called him baby Farve as well. His teammates loved him. Propped him up all the same.

im not saying that's who Brock is. I'm pointing out there's been QBs that most wouldn't call elite QBs that played well for 7+ games. Where the play matters a ton. We will see with Brock.

Please list all of the QBs whose first 7 starts matched Brock's.

You'd have to first start by listing all of the teams that had as much talent as last year's team (coaching and players) which might already be a list with 0 peers.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of darnold either. I think we are in a tough spot W/L wise either either, for sure.

only positive I can say that darnold has is regarding game planning because you know what he isn't good at. You can gameplan around it, still not a good situation though.

Darnold is an insurance policy. You could substitute him with a plethora of other veteran QB's who have talent but haven't been successful. He's just another potential option. He might be better here, worse, or the same.

When you have elite talent up and down your roster and you are in the middle of a Super Bowl window you owe it to the team to play the players that give you the best chance to win at every position, especially QB. If you have 3 s**t quarterbacks you still play the best one. You don't prioritize development when you have better options because it is unfair to the rest of the team... and they know this.

That's why you had a reported meeting with Lynch and Shanahan and 15 team leaders regarding supporting Lance when they restructured Jimmy G last year. It's a hard sell to convince players that are busting their ass to win and make the most of their careers that you are playing somebody based on potential who hasn't necessarily earned it, especially when you have someone better available.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of darnold either. I think we are in a tough spot W/L wise either either, for sure.

only positive I can say that darnold has is regarding game planning because you know what he isn't good at. You can gameplan around it, still not a good situation though.

Darnold is an insurance policy. You could substitute him with a plethora of other veteran QB's who have talent but haven't been successful. He's just another potential option. He might be better here, worse, or the same.

When you have elite talent up and down your roster and you are in the middle of a Super Bowl window you owe it to the team to play the players that give you the best chance to win at every position, especially QB. If you have 3 s**t quarterbacks you still play the best one. You don't prioritize development when you have better options because it is unfair to the rest of the team... and they know this.

That's why you had a reported meeting with Lynch and Shanahan and 15 team leaders regarding supporting Lance when they restructured Jimmy G last year. It's a hard sell to convince players that are busting their ass to win and make the most of their careers that you are playing somebody based on potential who hasn't necessarily earned it, especially when you have someone better available.

Yes sir. I also think regarding the whole trade Lance things - I don't think it's an accident that lances post first trade savings would be $5.1M, the exact cap hit of darnold.

i think they're all going to closely monitor Lance and if he doesn't have the improvement they're seeking, they'll consider trading him. If he does, no harm no foul.

to me, it looks like they're putting the team in a position to keep him if he improved and to move on if he isn't improved. I don't think they want to move on from Lance, just putting themselves in position to make a decision without overly hurting the team.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of darnold either. I think we are in a tough spot W/L wise either either, for sure.

only positive I can say that darnold has is regarding game planning because you know what he isn't good at. You can gameplan around it, still not a good situation though.

Darnold is an insurance policy. You could substitute him with a plethora of other veteran QB's who have talent but haven't been successful. He's just another potential option. He might be better here, worse, or the same.

When you have elite talent up and down your roster and you are in the middle of a Super Bowl window you owe it to the team to play the players that give you the best chance to win at every position, especially QB. If you have 3 s**t quarterbacks you still play the best one. You don't prioritize development when you have better options because it is unfair to the rest of the team... and they know this.

That's why you had a reported meeting with Lynch and Shanahan and 15 team leaders regarding supporting Lance when they restructured Jimmy G last year. It's a hard sell to convince players that are busting their ass to win and make the most of their careers that you are playing somebody based on potential who hasn't necessarily earned it, especially when you have someone better available.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of darnold either. I think we are in a tough spot W/L wise either either, for sure.

only positive I can say that darnold has is regarding game planning because you know what he isn't good at. You can gameplan around it, still not a good situation though.

Darnold is an insurance policy. You could substitute him with a plethora of other veteran QB's who have talent but haven't been successful. He's just another potential option. He might be better here, worse, or the same.

When you have elite talent up and down your roster and you are in the middle of a Super Bowl window you owe it to the team to play the players that give you the best chance to win at every position, especially QB. If you have 3 s**t quarterbacks you still play the best one. You don't prioritize development when you have better options because it is unfair to the rest of the team... and they know this.

That's why you had a reported meeting with Lynch and Shanahan and 15 team leaders regarding supporting Lance when they restructured Jimmy G last year. It's a hard sell to convince players that are busting their ass to win and make the most of their careers that you are playing somebody based on potential who hasn't necessarily earned it, especially when you have someone better available.

Yes sir. I also think regarding the whole trade Lance things - I don't think it's an accident that lances post first trade savings would be $5.1M, the exact cap hit of darnold.

i think they're all going to closely monitor Lance and if he doesn't have the improvement they're seeking, they'll consider trading him. If he does, no harm no foul.

to me, it looks like they're putting the team in a position to keep him if he improved and to move on if he isn't improved. I don't think they want to move on from Lance, just putting themselves in position to make a decision without overly hurting the team.

This is the most likely scenario in which he gets traded.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
What the hell is happening in here?

And I thought Jimmy was dividing the fans.

Brock's stellar play is even more devisive

I don't think that's the case. Even hardcore Jimmy cultists admit he was better.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Development should always be the priority. The best way to compete long term in the NFL is to have a top level QB. That should always be the focus if you don't have one.

I think the disagreement here lies in how people judge who will, or can, be an elite QB. It's how you view ceilings and floors of QBs and how you apply that to whatever player(s) are being talked about.

That said our situation at QB in the context of how our team is positioned is effectively unprecedented... and I think we believe we have a top QB on the roster (Purdy) until proven otherwise. Is he Mahomes, Allen, or Herbert in terms of talent... no. Does he need to be? No. Do guys like that come around often? No.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, I'm not a fan of darnold either. I think we are in a tough spot W/L wise either either, for sure.

only positive I can say that darnold has is regarding game planning because you know what he isn't good at. You can gameplan around it, still not a good situation though.

Darnold is an insurance policy. You could substitute him with a plethora of other veteran QB's who have talent but haven't been successful. He's just another potential option. He might be better here, worse, or the same.

When you have elite talent up and down your roster and you are in the middle of a Super Bowl window you owe it to the team to play the players that give you the best chance to win at every position, especially QB. If you have 3 s**t quarterbacks you still play the best one. You don't prioritize development when you have better options because it is unfair to the rest of the team... and they know this.

That's why you had a reported meeting with Lynch and Shanahan and 15 team leaders regarding supporting Lance when they restructured Jimmy G last year. It's a hard sell to convince players that are busting their ass to win and make the most of their careers that you are playing somebody based on potential who hasn't necessarily earned it, especially when you have someone better available.

Yes sir. I also think regarding the whole trade Lance things - I don't think it's an accident that lances post first trade savings would be $5.1M, the exact cap hit of darnold.

i think they're all going to closely monitor Lance and if he doesn't have the improvement they're seeking, they'll consider trading him. If he does, no harm no foul.

to me, it looks like they're putting the team in a position to keep him if he improved and to move on if he isn't improved. I don't think they want to move on from Lance, just putting themselves in position to make a decision without overly hurting the team.

This is the most likely scenario in which he gets traded.

Darnold really does have a really nice skill set. If he can clean up his decision making, big if, but he could get a legitimate shot as QB1 with another team. He's more athletic than some realize as well.

i always viewed him as coming here in an effort to revitalize his career with the coaching. I just don't see us keeping 3 QBs on the active roster - that's a crucial roster spot.

does anyone know if he would qualify for practice squad? I can't see him staying there, but Idk if he even qualifies.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Darnold really does have a really nice skill set. If he can clean up his decision making, big if, but he could get a legitimate shot as QB1 with another team. He's more athletic than some realize as well.

i always viewed him as coming here in an effort to revitalize his career with the coaching. I just don't see us keeping 3 QBs on the active roster - that's a crucial roster spot.

does anyone know if he would qualify for practice squad? I can't see him staying there, but Idk if he even qualifies.

Pretty sure he qualifies, but there's no way that's going to happen. We'll likely carry 3 quarterbacks like last season. Not ideal maybe, but still going to happen.

I don't think a Lance trade is going to happen but I would put that as a higher likelihood than Darnold being on the practice squad. Feel like cutting Darnold outright is more realistic (though also not going to happen).

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Heinicke had a 7 game stretch of top 5 ball. So that's his ceiling? Keenum had a whole season of playing at a top level QB. Is that his ceiling?

even Jimmy had a couple games stretches of top 5 play. That doesn't conclude that that's their ceiling imo. Joe blow can go out and score 40pts in a NBA game a couple times…that's not who they are as a NBA though….It's a couple games of good football on a really good roster. If Lance goes out and plays top 5 ball for a couple games…I'm sure you will be running around tossing out every doubt you could possibly find. Every bad play. Every well he didn't him him in stride here blah blah blah.

no I don't think Brock's skill set is that of a top 5 QB and I'm talking about sustainable. Not for a couple games. hopefully he proves me wrong because unlike the Trey hater club I don't give a s**t who's the guy. I just want there to be a guy. I don't want Jimmy G 2.0. I don't want Kirk 2.0. I want a bona fide elite QB. I want the league to think well SF has *insert name* at QB so they're gonna be favorites to win it all every yr for the next decade.

"I don't care who the guy is, but Brock isn't it" - NY

what happened to you can't make declarative statements about a guy... based on limited starts, when BP has 5 career starts

why does that logic apply to TL but not BP?

Why do you always misquote people on purpose? This is like the 4th or 5th person I've seen call you out for this recently. I see valid criticisms of NY's post, so by all means criticize the logic. But there's no need to make up lies like this.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Darnold really does have a really nice skill set. If he can clean up his decision making, big if, but he could get a legitimate shot as QB1 with another team. He's more athletic than some realize as well.

i always viewed him as coming here in an effort to revitalize his career with the coaching. I just don't see us keeping 3 QBs on the active roster - that's a crucial roster spot.

does anyone know if he would qualify for practice squad? I can't see him staying there, but Idk if he even qualifies.

Pretty sure he qualifies, but there's no way that's going to happen. We'll likely carry 3 quarterbacks like last season. Not ideal maybe, but still going to happen.

I don't think a Lance trade is going to happen but I would put that as a higher likelihood than Darnold being on the practice squad. Feel like cutting Darnold outright is more realistic (though also not going to happen).

You're probably right. Maybe we do rock with 3 QBs again.

i genuinely think it's a low likelihood Lance is traded, we need as many QBs familiar with our system as possible.

the good news is that between Lance and darnold, our scout team will be awesome to prep our defense for any kind of offense.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
What the hell is happening in here?

And I thought Jimmy was dividing the fans.

Brock's stellar play is even more devisive

My issue isn't choosing between either player - it's the fact that some refuse to admit that Lance hasn't played well at all, yet they're quick to make every excuse for him, including minimizing what Purdy did. It doesn't make any sense.

just say Trey has sucked but you believe he can become awesome with more play time. Admit he will be a liability for the team as a starter until he has a season or two under his belt, since he's only started approximately 30 games (including high school varsity, college, and NFL). Admit he has accuracy issues. Admit he doesn't do really anything excellent, yet. Say you like his skill set and think he can become better or that you prefer Lance because you like QBs that run and have big arms. When all your arguments are based on cherry picking all time greats stats and ignoring 99% of the rest of the people that failed, admit that you think he can be the 1% to overcome certain issues.

its not a big deal. At all. Anyone rational can understand that you're optimistic about a player but to act like none of that exists? He hasn't led the offense on a TD drive 90% of his drives as a starter?

i just don't understand it. we can't have any sort of constructive conversation when some are just saying flat out non sense.

Exactly!

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:
What the hell is happening in here?

And I thought Jimmy was dividing the fans.

Brock's stellar play is even more devisive

My issue isn't choosing between either player - it's the fact that some refuse to admit that Lance hasn't played well at all, yet they're quick to make every excuse for him, including minimizing what Purdy did. It doesn't make any sense.

just say Trey has sucked but you believe he can become awesome with more play time. Admit he will be a liability for the team as a starter until he has a season or two under his belt, since he's only started approximately 30 games (including high school varsity, college, and NFL). Admit he has accuracy issues. Admit he doesn't do really anything excellent, yet. Say you like his skill set and think he can become better or that you prefer Lance because you like QBs that run and have big arms. When all your arguments are based on cherry picking all time greats stats and ignoring 99% of the rest of the people that failed, admit that you think he can be the 1% to overcome certain issues.

its not a big deal. At all. Anyone rational can understand that you're optimistic about a player but to act like none of that exists? He hasn't led the offense on a TD drive 90% of his drives as a starter?

i just don't understand it. we can't have any sort of constructive conversation when some are just saying flat out non sense.

Exactly!

I was a big fan of Jimmy, still really like him, but he failed to improve on certain aspects of his game - especially consistently, and he never turned out how I hoped. He had a lot of great aspects to his game, but stopped improving in certain areas and that held us back. I was wrong that I thought he would improve in those parts of his games if he played more - sucks.

Lance absolutely has a ton of potential, but for all the potential he has, he has a ton of things he needs to improve upon. I know he hasn't played much and that sucks/isn't all his fault, but his play has sucked too for the most part.

I'm really hoping he is a much better player and has learned a lot, because even though playing is the best experience, he should be able to improve his game through training/coaching. At least to some degree.

i want Lance to whoop darnolds ass in camp and come after Purdy, making him have to worry about being the starter when he is healthy. maybe I am too critical of Lance too often. So let me try and make that better so we can be more constructive in our convos.

- Lance has a great arm and has made some really nice throws. I want to see him do that more consistently because if he can, we could put some serious pressure on defenses. He made some really nice corner fade throws in the preseason (and I think he did it again in a regular season game but can't remember which one)

- yes, Lance should benefit a lot by playing with CMC, but I don't think it's an excuse to not play well without him. What I mean by that is, I want a qb who elevates everyone around him and doesn't need pro bowlers at every position to be good. CMC should help Lance a lot as a safety blanket/weapon - just like he did for jimmy and Brock. I think CMC could help make him feel comfortable out there when plays break down.

- I hope we run a similar system with Lance as we do Purdy, because if Lance can operate that efficiently, his athleticism/speed should become a dynamic weapon.

- I'm hoping that Lance picked purdys brain during the season on how he digest and reads plays as they're happening, helping him get mental reps regarding how to be more efficient. Because if Lance can improve on that, this would be a much more lethal offense and help us get where we want to be with Lance.

- I hope Lance has the intangibles that the team believes he has because when that's coupled with a physical talent like Lance? It would be a freakin blast to watch him play and he could be dominant. He would be capable of special plays.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:
Still waiting Mr Tiger Blood.

You don't need him to answer this question, because the answer is obvious. You would trade him to gain assets that you can use to help your team elsewhere.

Whether they get a worthwhile offer is a different question. I believe that's really unlikely (as you do).

You don't need to speak for him, either way you didn't answer the question.

Getting something is not a logical reason to trade a young QB and take a cap hit in the process.

Especially because that something is likely to be an unproven draft pick. Aka something can quickly become less than nothing.