Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
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

So now Trey cost us a ring? Good Lord

The only way that cost us a ring is if those picks could've been moved for Stafford instead.

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.

Miami flexed their picks to a 9 win season, one and done in the playoffs, and hardly anyone would be surprised if they finished no higher than 3rd in their division in 2023.

Originally posted by genus49:

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.

I agree with you. I was simply addressing 49erFaithful's point that Darnold was a low risk, high reward signing and that drafting Trey was high risk, high reward. 9ers4eva is disputing that very obvious fact because he doesn't seem to understand that what a team gives up to get a player is part of the calculation and discussion. Trey has much higher expectations because of what we gave up and is thus going to get more criticism.

Originally posted by genus49:
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.

You act like it's okay for guys to not perform, cuz hey it's the draft, bleep happens. Sure. Yet the difference between hitting on picks, especially the big trade up maneuvers, and whiffing, is dynasty / championships. That's what we are talking about here. You can pretend getting no ROI in 2021 or 2022, simply didn't cost us a thing. I don't pretend that. And btw, Suds or whoever else is QB2, should TL not have been the pick, probably gets us past the worst team in football, in a home game. I don't view year 3 as welp he's not Ryan Leaf at least, as a positive. I view it as he needs to get the rear in gear, asap.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Only it's not bust or he's great. There's soooo much avg QB play that gets paid way too much. Teams get stuck overpaying for QBs all the time

Including the 9ers. Can't afford to have it happen again and maintain a competitive team.

Agreed!

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by genus49:

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.

I agree with you. I was simply addressing 49erFaithful's point that Darnold was a low risk, high reward signing and that drafting Trey was high risk, high reward. 9ers4eva is disputing that very obvious fact because he doesn't seem to understand that what a team gives up to get a player is part of the calculation and discussion. Trey has much higher expectations because of what we gave up and is thus going to get more criticism.

Yeah. Trey was put in a really tough spot because not only was he drafted third overall, which comes with a high expectations and tons of pressure in and of itself, but we used three first round picks.

I can only speak for myself, but when you do something like that, you expect a top 5/HOF caliber player. Anything less is a failure. I'm not saying that means he is a bad QB, but would be considered a bust.

which I've always kind of felt bad for him in that regard cause that's a lot to handle. Then the injuries and the quality of the team (which comes with super high expectations). That's a lot for a very raw and inexperienced QB. Which is always what boggled me about the selection, not that he can't be a quality qb, but the timeline was a risk.

i honestly just think Kyle isn't a very good talent evaluator when it comes to QBs in a draft. He said something like "I think Trey is the most ready qb to start out of the draft class" and if he really believes that, he has absolutely no idea how to evaluate draft prospects. Lol which I think he's shown time and time again at many positions. I don't think anyone thought he was the most ready to start in this class.

trey will get his chance, it may not be here, but he will. I love Brock and want him to start, but I really would like to see Lance have a good career. I don't want him to fail at all. I've been vocal about my concerns with him but I think he's a great person and hard worker, I definitely don't want to see him fail at all.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by genus49:

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.

I agree with you. I was simply addressing 49erFaithful's point that Darnold was a low risk, high reward signing and that drafting Trey was high risk, high reward. 9ers4eva is disputing that very obvious fact because he doesn't seem to understand that what a team gives up to get a player is part of the calculation and discussion. Trey has much higher expectations because of what we gave up and is thus going to get more criticism.

Yeah. Trey was put in a really tough spot because not only was he drafted third overall, which comes with a high expectations and tons of pressure in and of itself, but we used three first round picks.

I can only speak for myself, but when you do something like that, you expect a top 5/HOF caliber player. Anything less is a failure. I'm not saying that means he is a bad QB, but would be considered a bust.

which I've always kind of felt bad for him in that regard cause that's a lot to handle. Then the injuries and the quality of the team (which comes with super high expectations). That's a lot for a very raw and inexperienced QB. Which is always what boggled me about the selection, not that he can't be a quality qb, but the timeline was a risk.

i honestly just think Kyle isn't a very good talent evaluator when it comes to QBs in a draft. He said something like "I think Trey is the most ready qb to start out of the draft class" and if he really believes that, he has absolutely no idea how to evaluate draft prospects. Lol which I think he's shown time and time again at many positions. I don't think anyone thought he was the most ready to start in this class.

trey will get his chance, it may not be here, but he will. I love Brock and want him to start, but I really would like to see Lance have a good career. I don't want him to fail at all. I've been vocal about my concerns with him but I think he's a great person and hard worker, I definitely don't want to see him fail at all.

I would settle for a starter as a top 5 selection, but when you add in what was given up - yes, that has to be a generational talent and pick. A ton of pressure for anyone in that spot. I've repeatedly said I feel bad for Trey because he was put in a really tough spot.

100% agree with the bolded, well said.

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.

This.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
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.

Jimmy's stats in 4th QR playoffs

Garoppolo has been an abomination in the fourth quarter of playoff games. In fact, in six postseason starts, the former second-round pick has completed 48.6% of his passes for 178 yards, zero touchdowns and three interceptions.

Those numbers equate to a 28.0 QB rating.

But yes let's blame the D. Meanwhile we got Mahomes/Stafford making elite plays WHEN it mattered. THATS what you want your QB to do.

why can't we have that? Why is it, everyone else needs to play out of their minds and the QB just needs to manage? OH and we will have to pay them more cash than anyone else. Give me a break. Fans shouldn't be settling for that s**t. I'm not saying that's what Brock will be, we have no clue yet.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:
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.

You act like it's okay for guys to not perform, cuz hey it's the draft, bleep happens. Sure. Yet the difference between hitting on picks, especially the big trade up maneuvers, and whiffing, is dynasty / championships. That's what we are talking about here. You can pretend getting no ROI in 2021 or 2022, simply didn't cost us a thing. I don't pretend that. And btw, Suds or whoever else is QB2, should TL not have been the pick, probably gets us past the worst team in football, in a home game. I don't view year 3 as welp he's not Ryan Leaf at least, as a positive. I view it as he needs to get the rear in gear, asap.

No, my point is that hypothetical situations about how much better we could've been without making that Lance trade are simply that - hypothetical.

Having first round draft picks doesn't guarantee anything even if you address non QB positions.

And IF you get the QB pick right then whatever you spent to get the pick is all that matters. Lance hasn't been able to prove the pick was wrong or right given his situation and Brock winning QB1 job is also not indication that Lance sucks or he was a bust. It's just that he was unlucky in his injury timing - had we seen him play 5-6 games and then he got hurt at least we'd be better able to say what he is or isn't.

The circumstances with Trey are super unique, both in how the team was expecting to develop him, to how they used him, who was available and the circumstances in those games and that's on top of his incredibly limited throwing experience across all levels.

The kid is a unicorn as far as analysis goes. I can't think of a similar prospect to evaluate him against.

As far as the second bolded point once again...you love your hypotheticals. I got one for you, how about that worst team in the league(btw there is a way to research this to see if was Jacksonville battling it out with Detroit) playing the #1 seed in the AFC that same season and beating them? How about they play the Chargers with some scrub named Justin Herbert at QB? Surely the Chargers win right?

Not sure why it's so difficult for you to give the kid credit where it's merited. You'd rather come up with hypotheticals that cannot be proven.

Then again that's not surprising given you history in this thread.

Originally posted by genus49:
No, my point is that hypothetical situations about how much better we could've been without making that Lance trade are simply that - hypothetical.

Having first round draft picks doesn't guarantee anything even if you address non QB positions.

And IF you get the QB pick right then whatever you spent to get the pick is all that matters. Lance hasn't been able to prove the pick was wrong or right given his situation and Brock winning QB1 job is also not indication that Lance sucks or he was a bust. It's just that he was unlucky in his injury timing - had we seen him play 5-6 games and then he got hurt at least we'd be better able to say what he is or isn't.

The circumstances with Trey are super unique, both in how the team was expecting to develop him, to how they used him, who was available and the circumstances in those games and that's on top of his incredibly limited throwing experience across all levels.

The kid is a unicorn as far as analysis goes. I can't think of a similar prospect to evaluate him against.

As far as the second bolded point once again...you love your hypotheticals. I got one for you, how about that worst team in the league(btw there is a way to research this to see if was Jacksonville battling it out with Detroit) playing the #1 seed in the AFC that same season and beating them? How about they play the Chargers with some scrub named Justin Herbert at QB? Surely the Chargers win right?

Not sure why it's so difficult for you to give the kid credit where it's merited. You'd rather come up with hypotheticals that cannot be proven.

Then again that's not surprising given you history in this thread.

Credit for what exactly? I said he played well vs HOU. I'm just not blowing smoke like he's the lone QB capable of beating the Houston Texans, who themselves had a rook QB iirc, and a far inferior roster all around. We could sign guys off the street and win that game. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
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

So now Trey cost us a ring? Good Lord

The only way that cost us a ring is if those picks could've been moved for Stafford instead.

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.

Miami flexed their picks to a 9 win season, one and done in the playoffs, and hardly anyone would be surprised if they finished no higher than 3rd in their division in 2023.

They had one of the most exciting offenses in the game, and were a legit contender save for them going down to 3rd QB, and their rook 3rd on the depth chart guy, didn't play like Purdy, he played like a rook 7th rounder, which he was.

I think the point that they got serious ROI from using their ones is demonstrable. In ways we have yet to see from the TL pick.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
You act like it's okay for guys to not perform, cuz hey it's the draft, bleep happens. Sure. Yet the difference between hitting on picks, especially the big trade up maneuvers, and whiffing, is dynasty / championships. That's what we are talking about here. You can pretend getting no ROI in 2021 or 2022, simply didn't cost us a thing. I don't pretend that. And btw, Suds or whoever else is QB2, should TL not have been the pick, probably gets us past the worst team in football, in a home game. I don't view year 3 as welp he's not Ryan Leaf at least, as a positive. I view it as he needs to get the rear in gear, asap.

It's not okay that guys don't perform. But realizing the draft is a crapshoot is a real thing. So as long as Brock becomes an elite player you live with it just like we lived with JJ Stokes because of TO. On balance the 9ers are hitting more than they miss, that's all you can ask.

Free Agency however is not a crapshoot so when you pay a player top 5 player money you better get top 5 player production. Yet because the 9ers can win despite not getting that production that makes everything ok.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
They had one of the most exciting offenses in the game, and were a legit contender save for them going down to 3rd QB, and their rook 3rd on the depth chart guy, didn't play like Purdy, he played like a rook 7th rounder, which he was.

I think the point that they got serious ROI from using their ones is demonstrable. In ways we have yet to see from the TL pick.

And if Brock becomes the elite QB we all hope we have the best ROI from a draft pick ever. It will counterbalance.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
You act like it's okay for guys to not perform, cuz hey it's the draft, bleep happens. Sure. Yet the difference between hitting on picks, especially the big trade up maneuvers, and whiffing, is dynasty / championships. That's what we are talking about here. You can pretend getting no ROI in 2021 or 2022, simply didn't cost us a thing. I don't pretend that. And btw, Suds or whoever else is QB2, should TL not have been the pick, probably gets us past the worst team in football, in a home game. I don't view year 3 as welp he's not Ryan Leaf at least, as a positive. I view it as he needs to get the rear in gear, asap.

It's not okay that guys don't perform. But realizing the draft is a crapshoot is a real thing. So as long as Brock becomes an elite player you live with it just like we lived with JJ Stokes because of TO. On balance the 9ers are hitting more than they miss, that's all you can ask.

Free Agency however is not a crapshoot so when you pay a player top 5 player money you better get top 5 player production. Yet because the 9ers can win despite not getting that production that makes everything ok.

Draft is a crapshoot is a great reason not to roll 3 years of ones into one project player. I would rather have three swings, than one big swing, if that makes sense. The way contracts work I am not overly worried about one of our guys balling, and getting paid. A lot of these deals have outs a lot sooner than the duration of the deal. If you cue up Daniel Jones for example, he has a cap hit of $21m this season, which is reasonable. The cap hit goes to $45m the next season, which is QB1 money. They then have an out. So it's one year of real QB1 dollars, and two years of contract, and a rip cord.

Originally posted by genus49:
No, my point is that hypothetical situations about how much better we could've been without making that Lance trade are simply that - hypothetical.

Having first round draft picks doesn't guarantee anything even if you address non QB positions.

And IF you get the QB pick right then whatever you spent to get the pick is all that matters. Lance hasn't been able to prove the pick was wrong or right given his situation and Brock winning QB1 job is also not indication that Lance sucks or he was a bust. It's just that he was unlucky in his injury timing - had we seen him play 5-6 games and then he got hurt at least we'd be better able to say what he is or isn't.

The circumstances with Trey are super unique, both in how the team was expecting to develop him, to how they used him, who was available and the circumstances in those games and that's on top of his incredibly limited throwing experience across all levels.

The kid is a unicorn as far as analysis goes. I can't think of a similar prospect to evaluate him against.

As far as the second bolded point once again...you love your hypotheticals. I got one for you, how about that worst team in the league(btw there is a way to research this to see if was Jacksonville battling it out with Detroit) playing the #1 seed in the AFC that same season and beating them? How about they play the Chargers with some scrub named Justin Herbert at QB? Surely the Chargers win right?

Not sure why it's so difficult for you to give the kid credit where it's merited. You'd rather come up with hypotheticals that cannot be proven.

Then again that's not surprising given you history in this thread.

Imagine if Michael Parsons didn't play yr one because he had some random vet in front of him and Dallas didn't want to "lose" because parsons might not set an edge right from day 1….then got hurt after 30 snaps the following yr lol.

trash