Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by dj43:
After six years of Lynch/Shanahan and York making a big deal of no leaks, this info did NOT come from the 49ers.

At this time of the year, teams are expected to put up all kinds of smokescreens to conceal their true intentions. There are too many scenarios to list on one page of why a team would want to tell Rap that they are calling the 49ers to ask about TL. Of course, Lynch will listen if only because he is diligent about maintaining a cordial relationship with other GMs around the league.

Yep, I flat out disagree with you. The inclusion of language that they were fielding calls but not making them, beyond the information that multiple teams are interested, serves nobody but SF. It is exactly the type of information a team would put out in the hopes of generating interest, or a bidding war, for a player they were willing to move.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
Dude, until someone, ANYONE has been named the starter, all QBs by definition will complete against each other. Did you really need the team to announce that?

Didn't you offer a bet, similar to Waterbear, that a free agent QB wouldn't be competing with Lance prior to us signing Darnold?

I'd say there is more to this whole situation than what us fans are aware of. I don't really care if we keep Lance or trade him, it's just weird that some people are in denial about the reality of this situation. It's very real that he may be traded and it's also very real that we keep him. Based on numerous reports, sounds like it just comes down to the 49ers getting the compensation they desire for him.

its pretty clear to me that the team has been putting themselves in position for this. I'll be surprised if it's during the draft though. If he is traded, I'd imagine it would be after June 2 because it'll give a good update in regards to Purdys recovery.

Originally posted by Polkadots:
This is another thing I take issue with.

So, you think teams put it out there a player is on the trading block to get leverage? Let's assume that is true. Other teams would know this is the case, since it stands to reason they too would have acted in this way in the past. As such, any perceived leverage doesn't actually exist, because other teams would understand the strategy. And if a team were to act in the way you have described, it would do for the 49ers the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are putting forth as the benefit of said action.

I have said before, I question if we have many peolpe who have ever been involved in high risk trading. Because it just doesn't work this way. There are no secrets, everything is known. It simply comes down to who will, either voluntarily or involuntarily, give in first.

Further, history tells us reporters such as Rapoport are wrong just as often, if not more so, than they are right.

I'm not sure I was making the argument that this type of strategy would be effective. I don't think it will be, lol.

If you think our team isn't capable of misreading the trade market, or mismanaging an asset they don't feel they have a need for, you don't have to look past last offseason to see a perfect example with Jimmy G.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Some teams can afford to let Trey try to learn without blowing a SB window. If it doesn't work out, oh well they were going to suck anyways. We can't afford that

Blowing that same window with Sam Darnold however. Perfectly acceptable.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Some teams can afford to let Trey try to learn without blowing a SB window. If it doesn't work out, oh well they were going to suck anyways. We can't afford that

Blowing that same window with Sam Darnold however. Perfectly acceptable.

We aren't putting Darnold on the field to learn, he's just a backup. If he plays it's because Brock is injured. Trey literally needs a team that can stumble around for a few years just to see if he can be competent. That's not here at the moment

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
We aren't putting Darnold on the field to learn, he's just a backup. If he plays it's because Brock is injured. Trey literally needs a team that can stumble around for a few years just to see if he can be competent. That's not here at the moment

He might not be a backup this year. Don't know how the rehab will go. So he could very well be stumbling around this season during the 9ers window with no real threat to unseat him.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by dj43:
After six years of Lynch/Shanahan and York making a big deal of no leaks, this info did NOT come from the 49ers.

At this time of the year, teams are expected to put up all kinds of smokescreens to conceal their true intentions. There are too many scenarios to list on one page of why a team would want to tell Rap that they are calling the 49ers to ask about TL. Of course, Lynch will listen if only because he is diligent about maintaining a cordial relationship with other GMs around the league.

Yep, I flat out disagree with you. The inclusion of language that they were fielding calls but not making them, beyond the information that multiple teams are interested, serves nobody but SF. It is exactly the type of information a team would put out in the hopes of generating interest, or a bidding war, for a player they were willing to move.

I stand by the observation that the FO would not break with a major point of Lynch coming on board in the first place - STOP THE LEAKS. Remember the chaos of the Baalke days?

All it takes is for an agent, perhaps even Lance's agent, to call Rapaport and say the 49ers have been fielding calls about Lance. It puts pressure on other teams to try to make a deal for his (Lance's) client. That would fit with Lynch having said they will always talk about improving the team but it does not mean he is affirming the rumor.

I'll stay with that until proven otherwise.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

We aren't putting Darnold on the field to learn, he's just a backup. If he plays it's because Brock is injured. Trey literally needs a team that can stumble around for a few years just to see if he can be competent. That's not here at the moment

He might not be a backup this year. Don't know how the rehab will go. So he could very well be stumbling around this season during the 9ers window with no real threat to unseat him.

Darnold stumbling around, Trey stumbling around, what's the difference? Why pass the opportunity up to get value for Trey because you wanna see his circus act instead of Darnolds if Brock can't play?

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by dj43:

After six years of Lynch/Shanahan and York making a big deal of no leaks, this info did NOT come from the 49ers.

At this time of the year, teams are expected to put up all kinds of smokescreens to conceal their true intentions. There are too many scenarios to list on one page of why a team would want to tell Rap that they are calling the 49ers to ask about TL. Of course, Lynch will listen if only because he is diligent about maintaining a cordial relationship with other GMs around the league.

Yep, I flat out disagree with you. The inclusion of language that they were fielding calls but not making them, beyond the information that multiple teams are interested, serves nobody but SF. It is exactly the type of information a team would put out in the hopes of generating interest, or a bidding war, for a player they were willing to move.

I stand by the observation that the FO would not break with a major point of Lynch coming on board in the first place - STOP THE LEAKS. Remember the chaos of the Baalke days?

All it takes is for an agent, perhaps even Lance's agent, to call Rapaport and say the 49ers have been fielding calls about Lance. It puts pressure on other teams to try to make a deal for his (Lance's) client. That would fit with Lynch having said they will always talk about improving the team but it does not mean he is affirming the rumor.

I'll stay with that until proven otherwise.

The leaks are a good thing when you're trying to drive up player interest and trade value. The front office is playing this right

Originally posted by dj43:
I stand by the observation that the FO would not break with a major point of Lynch coming on board in the first place - STOP THE LEAKS. Remember the chaos of the Baalke days?

All it takes is for an agent, perhaps even Lance's agent, to call Rapaport and say the 49ers have been fielding calls about Lance. It puts pressure on other teams to try to make a deal for his (Lance's) client. That would fit with Lynch having said they will always talk about improving the team but it does not mean he is affirming the rumor.

I'll stay with that until proven otherwise.

Even during the Baalke days Harbaugh was leaking things to Kawakami on the regular.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by dj43:

I stand by the observation that the FO would not break with a major point of Lynch coming on board in the first place - STOP THE LEAKS. Remember the chaos of the Baalke days?

All it takes is for an agent, perhaps even Lance's agent, to call Rapaport and say the 49ers have been fielding calls about Lance. It puts pressure on other teams to try to make a deal for his (Lance's) client. That would fit with Lynch having said they will always talk about improving the team but it does not mean he is affirming the rumor.

I'll stay with that until proven otherwise.

Even during the Baalke days Harbaugh was leaking things to Kawakami on the regular.

He was doing it for the wrong things. He wanted to push his narrative and get the fans behind it. This Fo is using the media correctly, and that does not mean 0 leaks

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Darnold stumbling around, Trey stumbling around, what's the difference? Why pass the opportunity up to get value for Trey because you wanna see his circus act instead of Darnolds if Brock can't play?

Don't say the 9ers can't afford Trey stumbling around when that's exactly what will happen with Darnold.

Personally I don't see value in handing the reigns unopposed to Darnold for less than a deal you can't refuse situation.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Darnold stumbling around, Trey stumbling around, what's the difference? Why pass the opportunity up to get value for Trey because you wanna see his circus act instead of Darnolds if Brock can't play?

Don't say the 9ers can't afford Trey stumbling around when that's exactly what will happen with Darnold.

Personally I don't see value in handing the reigns unopposed to Darnold for less than a deal you can't refuse situation.

It's the same thing as having them battle, we get bad QB play. I think a 2 at least needs to be involved, but why would you need a deal you can't refuse when the end result is the same?

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Don't say the 9ers can't afford Trey stumbling around when that's exactly what will happen with Darnold.

Personally I don't see value in handing the reigns unopposed to Darnold for less than a deal you can't refuse situation.

And you are now taking this out of context. The guy I was replying to said why would a team give anything up for Trey and I told him why - They can afford to develop him and we can't. Now you're coming after me about Darnold when I'm not in favor of developing him either

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
It's the same thing as having them battle, we get bad QB play. I think a 2 at least needs to be involved, but why would you need a deal you can't refuse when the end result is the same?

As Waterbear has pointed out repeatedly it is conjecture to assume that as we have too small a sample on the guy to know.

With Darnold we have a large sample of bad play coupled with having to learn a whole new offense to know he's unlikely to be very good week 1.

Not the same at all.