Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Not Trey, he's at no fault really, but the TL pick, yes I view it that way. Look how MIA flexed their draft picks, they got T Hill and you can listen to the Mike McD convo about getting Hill, it is a pretty funny story, and a good listen. That's how they chose to flex their picks, and they probably added a handful of wins, and made postseason because of it. I'm not saying add T Hill necessarily, but there were a bunch of players we could have added, via draft or trade, and any added production, may have gotten us over the line both years, we were that close. This isn't hindsight, as I had this view prior to moving up, I didn't want to move up tbh.

It's kinda all in the rear view now, but TL needs to blow away Sam like right now, force the issue, get the QB comp to vs BP, not vs Sam.

Only way the 9ers win a ring in 2021 with those picked flexed is if they would've gotten an elite QB somehow. Or somehow we got Brock a year early.

I disagree man, we had a 10 point 4th quarter lead. Any pass rusher that gets home on a big 3rd down to end a drive and we are probably on our way to the SB. It was a 3 point ball game. You can't imagine any non QB who adds 3 pts over a 60 min game?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I disagree man, we had a 10 point 4th quarter lead. Any pass rusher that gets home on a big 3rd down to end a drive and we are probably on our way to the SB. It was a 3 point ball game. You can't imagine any non QB who adds 3 pts over a 60 min game?

Could Parsons have made a difference? Perhaps. Could a DB? Perhaps. But to say with certainty that trade cost us anything is disingenuous. As NY said theres no way to know if that pick is Parsons or not.

If we wanna play the what if game then imagine we don't sign Jimmy in 2018, take the comp pick and trade up a couple spots for Josh Allen. Look how great we'd be today.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I disagree man, we had a 10 point 4th quarter lead. Any pass rusher that gets home on a big 3rd down to end a drive and we are probably on our way to the SB. It was a 3 point ball game. You can't imagine any non QB who adds 3 pts over a 60 min game?

Could Parson have made a difference? Perhaps. Could a DB? Perhaps. But to say with certainty that trade cost us anything is disingenuous. As NY said theres no way to know if that pick is Parsons or not.

If we wanna play the what if game then imagine we don't sign Jimmy in 2018, take the comp pick and trade up a couple spots for Josh Allen. Look how great we'd be today.

Sure there is no way to know, and notice I am not posting with certainty, I am simply saying, it may have cost us #6 already, depending on how we utilized those picks.

The difference with your Allen scenario is that is using hindsight, now if you posted that prior to it happening, sure.. A lot of folks didn't want to move up to pick 3 at the time, and go all in on a project QB, who didn't even play ball in 2020, with a win now club. There is a difference between playing the hindsight game, and advocating something all along.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Are you really comparing a $3.5M free agent acquisition to a draft pick that took three 1sts to obtain? His point is spot on, it was high risk to take Trey and give all of that up. Who knows where we'd be if we had stayed where we were at and taken BPA at each of those slots. It was a bad trade and so far a bad pick. He could still turn it around.

No i'm comparing his attitudes between the two guys. Nothing wrong with the contract on Darnold. But he's sold on the guy being a legit contender to win the QB position based on no production whatsoever. I have no idea what Trey can be. Have a pretty good idea on Darnold.

Attitude? So you're reading into his emotions and feelings? Lol stop. His opinion is the possible upside from Darnold is a better "bet" than the possible upside from Trey. That is 100% fact. Doesn't mean that Trey can't be better, it just means that we gave up A LOT less to get Darnold. Going off of talent alone, one could make a case for either one as to who has more. Darnold has a ton more experience. There is a lot to like with him, but you have to dig deeper than surface level "analysis" of looking at his career stats.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Sure there is no way to know, and notice I am not posting with certainty, I am simply saying, it may have cost us #6 already, depending on how we utilized those picks.

The difference with your Allen scenario is that is using hindsight, now if you posted that prior to it happening, sure.. A lot of folks didn't want to move up to pick 3 at the time, and go all in on a project QB, who didn't even play ball in 2020, with a win now club. There is a difference between playing the hindsight game, and advocating something all along.

So you were advocating for Micah Parsons at 12 all along?

It's disingenuous to say I argued for staying pat and look who we could've gotten. That's still hindsight.

Originally posted by Furlow:
Attitude? So you're reading into his emotions and feelings? Lol stop. His opinion is the possible upside from Darnold is a better "bet" than the possible upside from Trey. That is 100% fact. Doesn't mean that Trey can't be better, it just means that we gave up A LOT less to get Darnold. Going off of talent alone, one could make a case for either one as to who has more. Darnold has a ton more experience. There is a lot to like with him, but you have to dig deeper than surface level "analysis" of looking at his career stats.

How is a guy who has been objectively terrible for the majority of his career a better bet than a complete unknown? Not 100% fact at all.

Bad experience isn't good. Seeing ghosts isn't good. Those aren't net positives at all.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Are you really comparing a $3.5M free agent acquisition to a draft pick that took three 1sts to obtain? His point is spot on, it was high risk to take Trey and give all of that up. Who knows where we'd be if we had stayed where we were at and taken BPA at each of those slots. It was a bad trade and so far a bad pick. He could still turn it around.

No i'm comparing his attitudes between the two guys. Nothing wrong with the contract on Darnold. But he's sold on the guy being a legit contender to win the QB position based on no production whatsoever. I have no idea what Trey can be. Have a pretty good idea on Darnold.

So basically you have an open mind on TL, and a closed mind on Sam. I have an open mind on both. I have been critical on TL, as we invested a ton, and that influences expectations. You expect more from a high end round 1, than you do from a later rounder. So he's been pretty injured, and not really effective to date, but that doesn't mean he can't have a great year 3. I would encourage an open mind on both QBs. KS brought in Sam for a reason, and it's not cuz KS thinks he sucks, or will turn it over a ton here, quite the opposite.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Sure there is no way to know, and notice I am not posting with certainty, I am simply saying, it may have cost us #6 already, depending on how we utilized those picks.

The difference with your Allen scenario is that is using hindsight, now if you posted that prior to it happening, sure.. A lot of folks didn't want to move up to pick 3 at the time, and go all in on a project QB, who didn't even play ball in 2020, with a win now club. There is a difference between playing the hindsight game, and advocating something all along.

So you were advocating for Micah Parsons at 12 all along?

It's disingenuous to say I argued for staying pat and look who we could've gotten. That's still hindsight.

Nobody was. And to be honest, I doubt Parsons (or his football position) was even a possibility in the first round. Our team was loaded with linebackers. Parsons was not thought of by anyone to be the pass rushing threat that he is now. Even the Cowboys didnt play him in that role until Demarcus Lawrence got injured.

Anyone talking about Parsons is using 100% hindsight. Not even 99. 100.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
So basically you have an open mind on TL, and a closed mind on Sam. I have an open mind on both. I have been critical on TL, as we invested a ton, and that influences expectations. You expect more from a high end round 1, than you do from a later rounder. So he's been pretty injured, and not really effective to date, but that doesn't mean he can't have a great year 3. I would encourage an open mind on both QBs. KS brought in Sam for a reason, and it's not cuz KS thinks he sucks, or will turn it over a ton here, quite the opposite.

You don't have an open mind on Trey though. You don't. It's clear. Open minded people don't get upset about an off hand comment about how Trey is a good kid.

I have open minds on two quarterbacks who don't have have a large enough sample to know what they can be. I am very dubious of a guy who's played a lot of football and never been very good. I'd be the same about any player who struggled that we acquired. Not expecting Clelin Farrell to come right in and be a 10 sack guy either.

Sam will need a lot of work to get where we would need him to be.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
You don't have an open mind on Trey though. You don't. It's clear. Open minded people don't get upset about an off hand comment about how Trey is a good kid.

I have open minds on two quarterbacks who don't have have a large enough sample to know what they can be. I am very dubious of a guy who's played a lot of football and never been very good. I'd be the same about any player who struggled that we acquired. Not expecting Clelin Farrell to come right in and be a 10 sack guy either.

Sam will need a lot of work to get where we would need him to be.

Not really. He's already shown he can be what we need him to be in a situation with much less help then he has here. He has shown that he can play well in spots.

If someone is expecting him to be anything other than a capable backup/spot starter, that's another story. And if we need him to be more than that, our plans are already sideways.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Not really. He's already shown he can be what we need him to be in a situation with much less help then he has here. He has shown that he can play well in spots.

If someone is expecting him to be anything other than a capable backup/spot starter, that's another story. And if we need him to be more than that, our plans are already sideways.

I was referring to being the starter Faithful thinks he can be. You don't post comparisons to Steve Young or Mike Martz quotes about how he should be the 9ers starter if your expectation is he's a backup.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:
I think it's funny how people dogging Trey love to downplay the Chicago weather but at the same time have no problem overlooking the fact that arguably Brock's worst performance(as in bad throws without people hitting him or being in his face) was early on in the Seattle game when the rain was coming down and yet nowhere close to what it was in Chicago.

There is a reason those mud games are ugly. You can easily make a case why Brock should be starting over Trey without laughing off the Chicago weather.

ya'll still talking about the weather from however many months ago

Every game happened many months ago... should we stop discussing previous football games all together?

I just hope to come in here and see good news maybe some recent developments not the rain forecast from 214 however many days ago

Then talk to your boy who brought it up as if it meant nothing. I noticed you replied to me and not him...

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Attitude? So you're reading into his emotions and feelings? Lol stop. His opinion is the possible upside from Darnold is a better "bet" than the possible upside from Trey. That is 100% fact. Doesn't mean that Trey can't be better, it just means that we gave up A LOT less to get Darnold. Going off of talent alone, one could make a case for either one as to who has more. Darnold has a ton more experience. There is a lot to like with him, but you have to dig deeper than surface level "analysis" of looking at his career stats.

How is a guy who has been objectively terrible for the majority of his career a better bet than a complete unknown? Not 100% fact at all.

Bad experience isn't good. Seeing ghosts isn't good. Those aren't net positives at all.

Because we had to give up so much less to get him. Do you understand how bets work?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
lol your mischaracterizations.. Sam I've said he's a bust, but he's not our bust, we didn't whiff on him in the draft. The Sam deal is low risk, potential high reward. The TL deal was extreme high risk, high reward. Sam's deal isn't setting us back as a franchise, if he fails to produce. Notice the difference.

2 NFC title game appearances suggest the Trey move hasn't set us back at all.

You spend all day talking about how he can be an elite QB for us with nothing to back it up. But someone dare suggest Trey is a good kid who could make something for himself and it upsets you. NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE

yeah i disagree, 2 NFC champ games, with TL producing next to nothing, it's not hard to imagine flexing those picks for more production, and having #6 in the bag, or #7 even. the TL pick may have already cost us a ring, depending on how else we utilized those picks. i'm not upset at all, certainly not about TL being a 'good kid' frankly who cares about a good kid, Solomon Thomas was a good kid by all measures, we are talking about production here, and realizing return on investment

Picks such as Solomon Thomas or Reuben Foster? Perhaps Javon Kinlaw?

Those are all first rounders, two of them very high ones who were no better than rotational players and outplayed by later selections.

Say all you will about Trey Lance but at the very minimum he stepped in to start vs Houston in a game which was a must win. We don't win that game and we don't make the playoffs in 21 and I would make a strong bet if we don't make the playoffs we aren't likely to make the NFCCG that season.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Furlow:
Attitude? So you're reading into his emotions and feelings? Lol stop. His opinion is the possible upside from Darnold is a better "bet" than the possible upside from Trey. That is 100% fact. Doesn't mean that Trey can't be better, it just means that we gave up A LOT less to get Darnold. Going off of talent alone, one could make a case for either one as to who has more. Darnold has a ton more experience. There is a lot to like with him, but you have to dig deeper than surface level "analysis" of looking at his career stats.

How is a guy who has been objectively terrible for the majority of his career a better bet than a complete unknown? Not 100% fact at all.

Bad experience isn't good. Seeing ghosts isn't good. Those aren't net positives at all.

Because we had to give up so much less to get him. Do you understand how bets work?

Who cares about how much we ha to give up to get them? They're both here now. The future is unwritten. If Lance finds a way onto the field and stays healthy and ends up turning into a top tier QB like many expected IF he got reps does anyone care what we gave up for him?

Trade is in the books. 10+ years from now nobody will care about how much was given up for him if he ends up being a good player. They only care if you're not good and so far it's simply unfair to claim Lance hasn't been good and unknown doesn't guarantee bad things. Aaron Banks is a perfect example of that. Everyone assumed since the guy was barely even active let alone playing that he was a bust. People cried about us getting rid of LT...can anyone say we honestly missed Tomlinson?

So let's forget the trade and the unknowns that come with "they could've had Parsons!!!" when they could've also had Alex Leatherwood or more likely Najee Harris for all we know.