Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I don't think TL is screwed, yet maybe that is because I don't think regular season reps are a necessary part of the equation. The whole KS concept was he develops from the bench for the most part, year 1.

So he has all summer to make a push, and if he needs to sit year 3, others have done that and been fine. We typically need 1-2 or more QBs to get through a campaign. I doubt he's played his last snap with SF, he'll get chances as we go forward, will he be ready and showcase his ability?

That's fair enough. I disagree with it though, and I think many others would as well. He hasn't played football and he needs to get out there.

There's lots of examples of QB's sitting multiple years but the vast majority of them had much more college experience coming in. And that's not to mention the problem he faces of there being another guy here who we are now planning around. Maybe that changes if Brock doesn't fully recover or regresses. I would think we go in a totally different direction altogether in that case though.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Furlow:

I disagree that he had to call the game that way. Was it what was best to give us the best chance to win? Probably, and that's why Kyle called it the way he did. But for what we invested to get Trey, it would be nice to find out if he has it or not. Some players simply perform better in games than they do in practice, so I wish Trey had been given that chance; even if it meant a greater chance at the team losing. More than likely he wouldn't have gotten hurt, and more than likely after 4-5 games we'd be much closer to having our answer if he's a QB1.

I do agree that Kyle is not going to start Trey if he's not able to run the offense the way he wants. Assuming Purdy is healthy and Darnold is able to run it in practice.

I'm not sure he had to either. I'm just saying it was clear he felt that way, otherwise he wouldn't have done it. Again, Kyle did not forget how to run a good offense because Trey was his QB. There's no f'ing way the offense we saw with Trey was Kyle's ideal offensive strategy.

If it was Brock wouldn't be the 'leader in the clubhouse' and we wouldn't have signed a QB to compete with Trey for QB2 who also isn't going to run an offense that looked like what we saw with Trey.

Kyle mismanaged the QB spot big time going into last season. He seemingly hit a home run with Purdy and bailed us out of a potential disaster. Meanwhile Trey as an individual is absolutely screwed here unless he very quickly and miraculously makes a huge leap without something nearly everyone thinks he needs: real playing experience.

Where did this Kyle wants Cam Newton style offense come from? He explained the advantages of 11 on 11 football to a reporter asking about how the option got figured out (don't know why that was a theme when it's done nothing but gain traction)

Then he said he wanted a Brees/Lamar mix. To me that meant a precision pocket passer that could run like Lamar if needed

I've never gotten the idea that Kyle wants a Cam or to run the Cam offense. He's willing to run that offense while a QB develops, but I don't think that's ultimately what he wants

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I didn't remember your post. I went to the day he was injured in the thread to see what I could find. I definitely know how you post... so I figured I would find something useful.

You can stop lying with the rest of your post. I sarcastically called you a genius one time when you insulted my reading comprehension. Anybody who reads this back and forth can judge it for themselves. Feel free to mute me, lol.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Buddy, I'm done with this conversation. I'm not here to argue about posters and reading others do it constantly is annoying… that's why I said something. He didn't initially claim you said Trey was good a runner as Hurts, or better. He said lord help you if you think he is, and I think that could be reasonably inferred from your very vague comment. I understood what you were saying the first time. That's why I had my own response to your post.

Not even two days apart

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Not even two days apart

Read the interaction. I was answering his question. Another poster even came in and laughed at it and I explained I wasn't trying to make a point in 'that way'.

The discussion was about whether Kyle ran Trey too much because he wasn't comfortable with Trey executing in the pass game. When SLC argued my position, I showed him he also had the same position at one time. At any point SLC could have provided evidence for his new position and not made it personal... but he clearly chose not to.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Where did this Kyle wants Cam Newton style offense come from? He explained the advantages of 11 on 11 football to a reporter asking about how the option got figured out (don't know why that was a theme when it's done nothing but gain traction)

Then he said he wanted a Brees/Lamar mix. To me that meant a precision pocket passer that could run like Lamar if needed

I've never gotten the idea that Kyle wants a Cam or to run the Cam offense. He's willing to run that offense while a QB develops, but I don't think that's ultimately what he wants

It's clearly not.

We'd have Justin Fields right now if it was.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Where did this Kyle wants Cam Newton style offense come from? He explained the advantages of 11 on 11 football to a reporter asking about how the option got figured out (don't know why that was a theme when it's done nothing but gain traction)

Then he said he wanted a Brees/Lamar mix. To me that meant a precision pocket passer that could run like Lamar if needed

I've never gotten the idea that Kyle wants a Cam or to run the Cam offense. He's willing to run that offense while a QB develops, but I don't think that's ultimately what he wants

It's clearly not.

We'd have Justin Fields right now if it was.

True. The fact that Fields wasn't considered an option and Mac was is pretty telling

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Read the interaction. I was answering his question. Another poster even came in and laughed at it and I explained I wasn't trying to make a point in 'that way'.

The discussion was about whether Kyle ran Trey too much because he wasn't comfortable with Trey executing in the pass game. When SLC argued my position, I showed him he also had the same position at one time. At any point SLC could have provided evidence for his new position and not made it personal... but he clearly chose not to.

His question was to "you guys". You made it a point to look up his posts to try and embarrass him with his own words. Could've just articulated your own position instead.

I got no problem with using someones words against them but own why you did it.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
True. The fact that Fields wasn't considered an option and Mac was is pretty telling

100 percent. The differences between them being Lance's athleticism and the ability to attack defenses with his legs as a bonus.

The core similarities were football intelligence and a basis for solid fundamental play from the pocket. Which is priority #1.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Not even two days apart

Read the interaction. I was answering his question. Another poster even came in and laughed at it and I explained I wasn't trying to make a point in 'that way'.

The discussion was about whether Kyle ran Trey too much because he wasn't comfortable with Trey executing in the pass game. When SLC argued my position, I showed him he also had the same position at one time. At any point SLC could have provided evidence for his new position and not made it personal... but he clearly chose not to.

Answering my question? LMFAO, that's rich. You jumped into a discussion I was having with someone else, dug up a post of mine from a year ago when I had a different opinion, then demanded evidence on why I changed said opinion. Grow up man.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
His question was to "you guys". You made it a point to look up his posts to try and embarrass him with his own words. Could've just articulated your own position instead.

I got no problem with using someones words against them but own why you did it.

I flat out explained I wasn't trying to embarrass him in a post to someone who took it that way, and I articulated my position in more than one post. Grow up man.

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
Answering my question? LMFAO, that's rich. You jumped into a discussion I was having with someone else, dug up a post of mine from a year ago when I had a different opinion, then demanded evidence on why I changed said opinion. Grow up man.

This is a public message board where people freely jump into conversations. We had already had one back and forth before I cited your own words as a mirror image of my answer to your question.

You guys are absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I flat out explained I wasn't trying to embarrass him in a post to someone who took it that way, and I articulated my position in more than one post. Grow up man.

It was a gotcha moment on slc and Waterbear. All it was. Rationalize it how ya like.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
It was a gotcha moment on slc and Waterbear. All it was. Rationalize it how ya like.

This has nothing to do with Waterbear. His post was provided with SLC's reply for context.

I have no idea whether Waterbear has changed his mind on this idea, and he wasn't involved in this conversation. I'm not going to 'gotcha' Waterbear on a post I nearly completely agree with.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
Answering my question? LMFAO, that's rich. You jumped into a discussion I was having with someone else, dug up a post of mine from a year ago when I had a different opinion, then demanded evidence on why I changed said opinion. Grow up man.

This is a public message board where people freely jump into conversations. We had already had one back and forth before I cited your own words as a mirror image of my answer to your question.

You guys are absolutely ridiculous.

You are NOT free to demand evidence from anyone on why they change their opinion. Why is that concept so alien to you anyway? I come here because there are so many posters who bring a ton of information that I wouldn't get elsewhere, and yes, sometimes when debating with those who know more it causes me to change my mind. The fact that you are so riled up over such a thought leaves no reason to discuss anything with you. You have no intention of ever changing your position, so you must be here simply for confrontational purposes. That makes you superfluous. Like a 3rd nipple.

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
You are NOT free to demand evidence from anyone on why they change their opinion. I actually come here because there are so many posters who bring a ton of information that I wouldn't get elsewhere, and yes, sometimes when debating with those who know more it causes me to change my mind. The fact that you are so riled up over such a thought leaves no reason to discuss anything with you. You have no intention of ever changing your position, so you must be here simply for confrontational purposes. That makes you superfluous. Like a 3rd nipple.

Guy, you can provide evidence for your position and maybe you can change my mind. That's it. Very simple.

I have the same thought now as you had when Lance got injured and in my opinion the new evidence doesn't do anything but reinforce that position.

I'm not demanding a thing from you. But again, this is how points are successfully made. Make a claim… support it. If you don't want to that's fine. You're just not providing a convincing argument without doing so.

I'm telling you now, just as I told Jeepzilla, I did not bring up your post to embarrass you. I brought it up to answer your question. You asked which games I wanted Lance to air it out more, and I argued that airing it out more was not the solution if Kyle didn't think he could, and that instead he shouldn't have been playing. I used your post in conjunction with that idea. I made other posts in response to other posters that followed with the exact same theme.

I'm moving on. Block me if you need to.