Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by Furlow:
It's actually a great analogy. We "put it all on red" but left one chip on green 00. It hit green 00 (Purdy) and most of you are saying "see, putting it all on red was a good bet. I'd do it again."

We got REALLY LUCKY with Purdy. Take Purdy out of this scenario and this team is f**kED. We'd likely have extended Jimmy again and be dealing with his constant injuries. Or maybe rolling out Darnold as our starter and hoping he resurrected his career. Or hoping that Trey suddenly starts playing like a vet.

Getting lucky with Purdy does NOT justify what we gave up for Trey. It was a bad trade and an even worse pick. Not sure why there is so much debate on this.

this bold had me

Originally posted by Furlow:
It's actually a great analogy. We "put it all on red" but left one chip on green 00. It hit green 00 (Purdy) and most of you are saying "see, putting it all on red was a good bet. I'd do it again."

We got REALLY LUCKY with Purdy. Take Purdy out of this scenario and this team is f**kED. We'd likely have extended Jimmy again and be dealing with his constant injuries. Or maybe rolling out Darnold as our starter and hoping he resurrected his career. Or hoping that Trey suddenly starts playing like a vet.

Getting lucky with Purdy does NOT justify what we gave up for Trey. It was a bad trade and an even worse pick. Not sure why there is so much debate on this.

This guy gets it. No purdy and we're debating firing lynch and shanahan.

No chip 8 years in with no future franchise QB in site. Heads should roll.

If that were the case they would have had plenty of time to win it all with such long contracts. Most coaches get far less time to win a SB.

Originally posted by Furlow:
It's actually a great analogy. We "put it all on red" but left one chip on green 00. It hit green 00 (Purdy) and most of you are saying "see, putting it all on red was a good bet. I'd do it again."

We got REALLY LUCKY with Purdy. Take Purdy out of this scenario and this team is f**kED. We'd likely have extended Jimmy again and be dealing with his constant injuries. Or maybe rolling out Darnold as our starter and hoping he resurrected his career. Or hoping that Trey suddenly starts playing like a vet.

Getting lucky with Purdy does NOT justify what we gave up for Trey. It was a bad trade and an even worse pick. Not sure why there is so much debate on this.

Jesus man...wtf are you talking about?

You're acting like we put Bosa, Kittle, Deebo and Trent Williams on red. Look at my post above. It was future picks and complete unknowns.

BTW hate to remind you of this but Lance isn't retired. Yes we got really lucky with Purdy. But Lance isn't gone yet so you guys acting like we traded the world for the guy and killed the team until Brock stepped in is absurd. We went to the NFCCG and should've won a SB if Tartt doesn't drop a punt pick. We did that without Brock being on the team.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
It just struck me as odd as we burn three ones to hopefully have a guy on the level of the prior guy.

I prefer more bets, rather than one big bet, we made one very big bet on TL, as a club. If you look at NE, they got Mac, and also Cole Strange and Christian Gonzalez. They kept all their ones, and the blowback is a lot less impactful if Mac doesn't work out, cuz they at least have Strange and this CB who maybe will be really good.

And yet the 9ers have a guy who has at least shown glimpses of elite play in a small sample while New England has a guy who needs to be carried to wins because his sklllset is weak and has no real upside. Cole Strange and Christian Gonzalez won't make up for that. No Pat fan will be ok with Mac not working out because they have a starting nfl guard and possible solid cornerback. Only way it doesn't blow back if Mac fails is if Bailey Zappe is Brock 2.0.

The big bet the team can't miss on is giving huge money to Brock or Trey down the line.

What he's saying is Mac Jones for one pick > Trey Lance for three picks. I don't see how anyone could disagree with this, up until this point anyway.

you miss every shot you don't take.. drafting Mac is not taking a shot

We gambled and it hasn't worked out, so far

Again, Faithful's point is he prefers to have multiple "shots" rather than just one. I agree. Moving up in the first round (or at all) doesn't work out very often.

You don't think team looked ahead to see what other "shot" may be available?

Who do you see as a good shot at QB with the 28/29th picks we would've had in 2021 and 2022 drafts? Last year's QB class was awful and we probably got the best QB in that class anyways and this year it's Will Levis or maybe Hendon Hooker. Both guys older than Trey. Levis by a year and Hooker by 2.5 years.

in 2021 our pick was 12, recall in 2020 we sucked, as JG was injured
so you mention a late first in 2021, that is not the reality
you don't need to hypothesize about random QBs, we got our QB1 at pick 262, Mr BCB
WAS got a QB1 in round 5, point is, you don't need to burn three ones in a panic move like we did

That is reality. You know very well what I meant and that was the picks we got from each of those seasons since they were the future picks we gave away.

It wasn't a panic move, it was a calculated decision. The reason why we were picking so high was pretty clear to anyone paying attention. Hell the fact that we got the 12th pick with the injuries we had that season is a testament to the team in place.

They moved up but gave nothing else away in that same draft, where all future picks are devaluated during that specific draft. We gave away a low 1st round pick in 2 drafts and a comp 3rd round pick we got from Saleh being hired by the Jets.

People want to act like we gave away the world but the move was calculated and that included looking ahead to see who else they would be able to get. I assure you Brock Purdy was not in consideration. Team knew they had a good roster in place and the future picks they were going to give away weren't likely to be high enough to draft special prospects at the position.

They made the move. Kudos to them. We'll see if their evaluation matched their shot.

I honestly didn't know what you meant. You were either wrong on the years that you gave, or the picks you gave. It looks like with you clarifying, that you got the years wrong. Fair enough, I simply knew something wasn't right, with your post.

It was a panic move, in the sense, they knew they couldn't survive with JG getting hurt, which ruined 2018 and 2020. So they basically hit the panic button, and liquidated years worth of picks, to say problem solved, even tho it wasn't.

They didn't have the sense of calm to say, why don't we explore other QBs, or maybe in 2022 we will get a QB, etc. My understanding is they flew up, just to scout and have the inside track. They didn't even know who they were moving up for. Is this correct? I hear that often mentioned. That's a panic move to me. After all Mac went 15, so flying up to 3 to scout him, when you have pick 12, is a bit silly looking back.

I give no kudos. Imagine someone cashing out their assets and betting it on red at the casino, you would give kudos to this? We'll see if it hits? Even if it does hit, you hit on BP, doesn't that mean all this draft capital could have been deployed elsewhere? Doesn't BPs success, and JGs last year, show that our O is built for any competent QB to step in and run it effectively? Under those conditions, you don't need to set fire to all that draft capital to find a QB.. there are a bunch of QBs that could flourish here for fractions of the investment.

Dude you have got to be the most frustrating person to have a conversation with on here lol.

How in the hell are you comparing what they did to someone betting it all on red at the casino? I don't even know where to start with that analogy.

First of all BP pick was pure luck. If he goes on to be a HOF stud who wins us multiple SBs it will be pure luck and not something a team can plan on getting right. If we felt that strongly about him we would've taken him a lot sooner. Same reason I didn't give Belichick credit for Brady. Pure luck. Only credit I give Shanahan/Belichick is seeing the potential and keeping them on the roster when you rarely see 4 or 3 QBs kept on the 53 man roster.

Second I already brought up the team looking ahead to next few years and clearly they felt that 2021(fixed it for you so there is no confusion) draft provided them the best opportunity to select a QB they felt could become more than just a Jimmy G. Given the QB class the following draft(2022 draft) it was a wise evaluation. And given where we were picking this past draft, it was also a wise evaluation unless you think Levis or Hooker somehow are a better prospect than Lance was.

Now you could make the claim that how the 49ers went about it doesn't make sense. By all accounts Andy Reid had Patrick Mahomes scouted long before that draft and made the move on draft night to go up and get his kid. However based on what Kyle has talked about recently they were looking for a QB with the skillset that Trey had. How they went about with the trade and doing their evaluation can be knocked but I think that's partly Shanahan's lack of patience and somewhat ego - like us trading up to the bottom of the 3rd round to draft CJ Beathard just because Kyle didn't want to sweat it out for another evening.

But no matter how much you want to complain about that the fact is the team clearly was looking ahead to replacing Jimmy with someone they felt could be special and someone who could give defenses very different looks to expand our offense. We can blame the evaluation or the method they chose to develop a kid like Trey but them going for it was 100% the right move.

It's actually a great analogy. We "put it all on red" but left one chip on green 00. It hit green 00 (Purdy) and most of you are saying "see, putting it all on red was a good bet. I'd do it again."

We got REALLY LUCKY with Purdy. Take Purdy out of this scenario and this team is f**kED. We'd likely have extended Jimmy again and be dealing with his constant injuries. Or maybe rolling out Darnold as our starter and hoping he resurrected his career. Or hoping that Trey suddenly starts playing like a vet.

Getting lucky with Purdy does NOT justify what we gave up for Trey. It was a bad trade and an even worse pick. Not sure why there is so much debate on this.

that analogy sucks

We didn't put all of it, heck we didn't even put a 3rd of the franchise on it. Purdy isn't and didn't save the entire franchise/top 5 of a team

Using three firsts for one pick is "putting it all on red." And yes, Purdy absolutely bailed out Kyle and the franchise.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I find this absurd. JGs deal by the end of it, top QBs get 50-60m, he was getting mid 20s. That's more than reasonable.

I don't view paying basic QB1 money, to a guy who goes 38-17 here as starter, is a handicap. There is actually production there, return on investment. He cost us a 2nd round pick, then a deal commensurate with his ability. That's dirt cheap compared to TLs cost in my book. Three ones I view as franchise altering.

Basic money? He was the highest paid qb in the league when he signed his deal iirc.

Not being able to keep Buckner is easily as franchise altering as not drafting a guy at 12 overall. Buckner was an all pro. We don't know what the picks would've been or if any of them were at that level.

Calling the Trey Lance trade a "franchise altering trade" is just silly. We traded future assets, that not a single person in the world can quantify.

Name a trade, in 49ers history, where we gave up more draft capital. Is there one?

Look up the trade we made for OJ Simpson.

If you want to use a trade value chart then we traded 12th, 29th, 29th and 102nd picks. Added up that's 2572 in draft value and that's NOT taking into consideration the depreciating value of future picks. That's why during the draft you'll see a team trade a 2nd round pick for next year's first.

All of the extra picks outside of #12 were in future years.

OJ Simpson trade we ended up giving away #1 overall. That's 3000 points all on its own. We added a 2nd and 3rd rounder in 78 draft and 2nd and 4th rounders in 1980 draft.

We got a 31 year old OJ Simpson coming off his worst season by far with the Bills for that.

So it's in the convo, of this trade, which I feel is demonstrating my point. It was a historic trade for SF. When you talk about those future picks, we had no way of knowing if they would be 28 or pick 1 overall. We got a lil lucky it was late first, although we had a good squad, they were betting on themselves, in a sense.

Imagine arguing, in the OJ scenario, that all the draft picks, who cares they are irrelevant, we may very well have botched those picks, so they simply do not matter.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Furlow:
It's actually a great analogy. We "put it all on red" but left one chip on green 00. It hit green 00 (Purdy) and most of you are saying "see, putting it all on red was a good bet. I'd do it again."

We got REALLY LUCKY with Purdy. Take Purdy out of this scenario and this team is f**kED. We'd likely have extended Jimmy again and be dealing with his constant injuries. Or maybe rolling out Darnold as our starter and hoping he resurrected his career. Or hoping that Trey suddenly starts playing like a vet.

Getting lucky with Purdy does NOT justify what we gave up for Trey. It was a bad trade and an even worse pick. Not sure why there is so much debate on this.

this bold had me

Hey it was your analogy, I just made it more funny lol.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Furlow:
It's actually a great analogy. We "put it all on red" but left one chip on green 00. It hit green 00 (Purdy) and most of you are saying "see, putting it all on red was a good bet. I'd do it again."

We got REALLY LUCKY with Purdy. Take Purdy out of this scenario and this team is f**kED. We'd likely have extended Jimmy again and be dealing with his constant injuries. Or maybe rolling out Darnold as our starter and hoping he resurrected his career. Or hoping that Trey suddenly starts playing like a vet.

Getting lucky with Purdy does NOT justify what we gave up for Trey. It was a bad trade and an even worse pick. Not sure why there is so much debate on this.

Jesus man...wtf are you talking about?

You're acting like we put Bosa, Kittle, Deebo and Trent Williams on red. Look at my post above. It was future picks and complete unknowns.

BTW hate to remind you of this but Lance isn't retired. Yes we got really lucky with Purdy. But Lance isn't gone yet so you guys acting like we traded the world for the guy and killed the team until Brock stepped in is absurd. We went to the NFCCG and should've won a SB if Tartt doesn't drop a punt pick. We did that without Brock being on the team.

Analogies are hard. Good lord. Why I keep putting it in quotations. Sure, we didn't trade every player and every pick for the rest of eternity of 49ers history - I guess THAT is what you guys would consider "all in?" I mean come on. Yes, we get it; we didn't risk EVERY single player and draft pick. Again, it's an analogy. Bottom line it was f**king A LOT that we gave up to get Trey and if we don't get lucky with Purdy we'd be looking at this current Super Bowl window closing fast and then who knows how long before we find a QB and get a roster this stacked again.

We also need to keep in mind and continue to reiterate that there is only ONE Mahomes. No other QB has shown the ability to carry a roster on a bloated QB salary. So having as many picks as possible to find a good/great QB on a rookie contract is the best way to beat Mahomes. Paying a flawed QB top money and then rolling out a depleted roster against Mahomes and the Chiefs is a great way to become the 90's Bills.

Originally posted by genus49:
Jesus man...wtf are you talking about?

You're acting like we put Bosa, Kittle, Deebo and Trent Williams on red. Look at my post above. It was future picks and complete unknowns.

BTW hate to remind you of this but Lance isn't retired. Yes we got really lucky with Purdy. But Lance isn't gone yet so you guys acting like we traded the world for the guy and killed the team until Brock stepped in is absurd. We went to the NFCCG and should've won a SB if Tartt doesn't drop a punt pick. We did that without Brock being on the team.

You're right that we can't be certain what would happen if we were forced to go with Lance and had no alternatives, but you also have to acknowledge the risk included blowing up our Super Bowl window. We have been cushioned from that because we were able to hang onto Jimmy G and because we hit the jackpot with Purdy (at least so far).

Everyone is making valid points here but some of them are being made in a vacuum scenario, so to speak. And it's completely unnecessary given we can address the moves in specific. An example is the idea that you swing for the fences by taking a high value prospect at the top of the draft (trading a lot to get there in our case), but the conversation should include the actual type of prospect we took. Lance was a raw player with extremely limited experience at a lower level of college football. That has to factor into the discussion and is a key reason why the move was reckless. I wouldn't say panicked, but it was a huge gamble with the chance for extreme consequences both good and bad.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Name a trade, in 49ers history, where we gave up more draft capital. Is there one?

Since we did it the team has made 2 nfc title games. What exactly got altered in the trajectory of the franchise?

In part, thanks to BP and Jimmy (which includes the contract given in 2018 )

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You're right that we can't be certain what would happen if we were forced to go with Lance and had no alternatives, but you also have to acknowledge the risk included blowing up our Super Bowl window. We have been cushioned from that because we were able to hang onto Jimmy G and because we hit the jackpot with Purdy (at least so far).

Everyone is making valid points here but some of them are being made in a vacuum scenario, so to speak. And it's completely unnecessary given we can address the moves in specific. An example is the idea that you swing for the fences by taking a high value prospect at the top of the draft (trading a lot to get there in our case), but the conversation should include the actual type of prospect we took. Lance was a raw player with extremely limited experience at a lower level of college football. That has to factor into the discussion and is a key reason why the move was reckless. I wouldn't say panicked, but it was a huge gamble with the chance for extreme consequences both good and bad.

Imagine if we had used those picks to trade for derrick Henry instead.

If we had Jimmy g handing it off to Henry since then. It might have been the piece to put us over the top one of those years.

Instead we had a raw prospect ride the pine then get injured the next year and is now struggling to fight off darnold.

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
In part, thanks to BP and Jimmy (which includes the contract given in 2018 )

Mostly Purdy. Think he would've been fine as the backup in hindsight. But hindsight is 20/20

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
Imagine if we had used those picks to trade for derrick Henry instead.

If we had Jimmy g handing it off to Henry since then. It might have been the piece to put us over the top one of those years.

Instead we had a raw prospect ride the pine then get injured the next year and is now struggling to fight off darnold.

To me, where we are now was easily predictable. It was an extremely arrogant viewpoint that we could compete for the Super Bowl and develop a raw player at the most important position on the field at the same time. The chance for success is/was thin. The chance for disaster was very real. It's still in play given we aren't settled at the position 3 years later, in spite of seemingly hitting the lottery with Purdy. We're back at square one if Purdy doesn't pan out more than likely.

I've said this many times, but as reckless as that gamble was, I give credit to management for adjusting quickly. We're not going to compound mistakes here, and continue to force something that hasn't worked until there are real signs in their mind that it will work.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Mostly Purdy. Think he would've been fine as the backup in hindsight. But hindsight is 20/20

Hard to say otherwise, but if they knew what he was he would have been drafted earlier. They got lucky as hell.

Originally posted by BoldRedandGold:
Imagine if we had used those picks to trade for derrick Henry instead.

If we had Jimmy g handing it off to Henry since then. It might have been the piece to put us over the top one of those years.

Instead we had a raw prospect ride the pine then get injured the next year and is now struggling to fight off darnold.

Tried to run our way to the SB in 2019. Didn't work. As good as Mac is he doesn't even make us a sb contender on his own. Need the QB to play like a top guy.