Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Kinda wild that we traded all that to initially get mac jones, if those reports are true. Obviously we don't know how max would of done here if he was drafted here but man. Lol I just don't trust Kyle evaluating QBs. I liked mac as a prospect but I didn't think he would be special either

i still can't wrap my head around why Justin Fields wasn't in the discussion

I think this interview is super misleading.

Kyle and Lynch specifically said they liked all three of the top quarterbacks. They traded up to ensure they got their #1 after completing their evaluations.

The media just jumped on Jones and ran wild with the assumption that it was him all the way, despite it never being truly confirmed by any legit sources. They knew we liked Jones, but they wrongly assumed we liked him the most and went all in on that and came out looking like fools because they relied on, at best, outdated information.

This is clown maneuvering imo. You don't pay the price, then do the homework. This is why I say they panicked. They knew they had a QB problem, QB durability with JG, and they chose to agree to the most prohibitively expensive solution, one could possibly come up with, prior to completing their full evaluations of the prospects.

I don't mind it and hell I actually like it. Take risks and make damn sure you're in control of what happens.

Why do you like it?
Suppose they settled on Mac. Well great, you just flew up to 3, to take a guy who went 15.. and you owned pick 12 all along
my point is at least do your homework first, then see what move can be made, depending on the guy you want.

they probably were like 'oh no, what if some other QB needy team leap frogs us', but again, that's panicking. Never fall in love with one prospect, have a plan B.

So figure out the guy you want and hope he falls to you. Yeah I'll take the GM who moves up to secure the guy he wants

"Waterbear and SWH they are arguing that teams should go after lesser QBs because they are more affordable. This is just such bad strategy. You do everything you can to get the best QB you can. It's the most important position in sport not a position to skimp. Why should other clubs without a QB settle for inferior options?" -faithful6

This just got awkward

When ppl take remarks for totally different conversations that are being had, with completely different specifics, years ago(?), and paste them in out of context, that tends to happen

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Kinda wild that we traded all that to initially get mac jones, if those reports are true. Obviously we don't know how max would of done here if he was drafted here but man. Lol I just don't trust Kyle evaluating QBs. I liked mac as a prospect but I didn't think he would be special either

i still can't wrap my head around why Justin Fields wasn't in the discussion

I think this interview is super misleading.

Kyle and Lynch specifically said they liked all three of the top quarterbacks. They traded up to ensure they got their #1 after completing their evaluations.

The media just jumped on Jones and ran wild with the assumption that it was him all the way, despite it never being truly confirmed by any legit sources. They knew we liked Jones, but they wrongly assumed we liked him the most and went all in on that and came out looking like fools because they relied on, at best, outdated information.

This is clown maneuvering imo. You don't pay the price, then do the homework. This is why I say they panicked. They knew they had a QB problem, QB durability with JG, and they chose to agree to the most prohibitively expensive solution, one could possibly come up with, prior to completing their full evaluations of the prospects.

I don't mind it and hell I actually like it. Take risks and make damn sure you're in control of what happens.

Why do you like it?
Suppose they settled on Mac. Well great, you just flew up to 3, to take a guy who went 15.. and you owned pick 12 all along
my point is at least do your homework first, then see what move can be made, depending on the guy you want.

they probably were like 'oh no, what if some other QB needy team leap frogs us', but again, that's panicking. Never fall in love with one prospect, have a plan B.

So figure out the guy you want and hope he falls to you. Yeah I'll take the GM who moves up to secure the guy he wants

"Waterbear and SWH they are arguing that teams should go after lesser QBs because they are more affordable. This is just such bad strategy. You do everything you can to get the best QB you can. It's the most important position in sport not a position to skimp. Why should other clubs without a QB settle for inferior options?" -faithful6

This just got awkward

When ppl take remarks for totally different conversations that are being had, with completely different specifics, years ago(?), and paste them in out of context, that tends to happen

Well by all means context it up. Cause it seems like you're opinion has changed which you're allowed to do but I would love to see how this was spun

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Kinda wild that we traded all that to initially get mac jones, if those reports are true. Obviously we don't know how max would of done here if he was drafted here but man. Lol I just don't trust Kyle evaluating QBs. I liked mac as a prospect but I didn't think he would be special either

i still can't wrap my head around why Justin Fields wasn't in the discussion

I think this interview is super misleading.

Kyle and Lynch specifically said they liked all three of the top quarterbacks. They traded up to ensure they got their #1 after completing their evaluations.

The media just jumped on Jones and ran wild with the assumption that it was him all the way, despite it never being truly confirmed by any legit sources. They knew we liked Jones, but they wrongly assumed we liked him the most and went all in on that and came out looking like fools because they relied on, at best, outdated information.

This is clown maneuvering imo. You don't pay the price, then do the homework. This is why I say they panicked. They knew they had a QB problem, QB durability with JG, and they chose to agree to the most prohibitively expensive solution, one could possibly come up with, prior to completing their full evaluations of the prospects.

I don't mind it and hell I actually like it. Take risks and make damn sure you're in control of what happens.

Why do you like it?
Suppose they settled on Mac. Well great, you just flew up to 3, to take a guy who went 15.. and you owned pick 12 all along
my point is at least do your homework first, then see what move can be made, depending on the guy you want.

they probably were like 'oh no, what if some other QB needy team leap frogs us', but again, that's panicking. Never fall in love with one prospect, have a plan B.

So figure out the guy you want and hope he falls to you. Yeah I'll take the GM who moves up to secure the guy he wants

"Waterbear and SWH they are arguing that teams should go after lesser QBs because they are more affordable. This is just such bad strategy. You do everything you can to get the best QB you can. It's the most important position in sport not a position to skimp. Why should other clubs without a QB settle for inferior options?" -faithful6

This just got awkward

When ppl take remarks for totally different conversations that are being had, with completely different specifics, years ago(?), and paste them in out of context, that tends to happen

Well by all means context it up. Cause it seems like you're opinion has changed which you're allowed to do but I would love to see how this was spun

No need, the original context I am sure is part of the record, feel free to view, tho you would have to check with WB, what year this came from, or what thread, etc.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

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.

lol you're right a team historically decimated by injuries at key positions during a crazy covid season ends up with the 12th pick after going to the SB and having the lead in the 4th quarter(let's not linger on that) giving up nothing but a swap that season and the rest being all future picks is somehow worse to you than a 2-14 team and one that hasn't sniffed the playoffs in like 7 years giving up all that for an aging RB coming off his worst season.

In this scenario that you keep trying to turn into "OMG they went all in on this trade!!!" They tried to land a franchise QB who many people liked and one who simply hasn't had time to show what he can or cannot do. In the other scenario we moved 5 picks for an over the hill RB to help a 2-14 squad.

Denial.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

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.

lol you're right a team historically decimated by injuries at key positions during a crazy covid season ends up with the 12th pick after going to the SB and having the lead in the 4th quarter(let's not linger on that) giving up nothing but a swap that season and the rest being all future picks is somehow worse to you than a 2-14 team and one that hasn't sniffed the playoffs in like 7 years giving up all that for an aging RB coming off his worst season.

In this scenario that you keep trying to turn into "OMG they went all in on this trade!!!" They tried to land a franchise QB who many people liked and one who simply hasn't had time to show what he can or cannot do. In the other scenario we moved 5 picks for an over the hill RB to help a 2-14 squad.

Denial.

I just asked any other big draft deals, okay OJ is #1, and this is #2, are there any others? Understand the original question, was simply, name a trade where we gave up more draft capital in 49er history. I appreciate your response, as OJ was a big one, no question. That was a lil before my time, but I remember hearing about it, after the fact.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Kinda wild that we traded all that to initially get mac jones, if those reports are true. Obviously we don't know how max would of done here if he was drafted here but man. Lol I just don't trust Kyle evaluating QBs. I liked mac as a prospect but I didn't think he would be special either

i still can't wrap my head around why Justin Fields wasn't in the discussion

I think this interview is super misleading.

Kyle and Lynch specifically said they liked all three of the top quarterbacks. They traded up to ensure they got their #1 after completing their evaluations.

The media just jumped on Jones and ran wild with the assumption that it was him all the way, despite it never being truly confirmed by any legit sources. They knew we liked Jones, but they wrongly assumed we liked him the most and went all in on that and came out looking like fools because they relied on, at best, outdated information.

This is clown maneuvering imo. You don't pay the price, then do the homework. This is why I say they panicked. They knew they had a QB problem, QB durability with JG, and they chose to agree to the most prohibitively expensive solution, one could possibly come up with, prior to completing their full evaluations of the prospects.

I'm not sure how that got perceived as us doing things backwards.

"we traded up to ensure they got their #1 after completing their evaluations"

Flip that around and maybe it's clearer. After doing our evaluations, we liked all three top quarterbacks so we traded up to that spot to ensure we got our favorite.

If you're going off what Adam says instead, at the absolute worst case in which Schefter is actually 100% telling the truth, then he's saying we 100% believed Mac Jones would go higher and traded up to ensure we got him. His claim is that we zeroed in on one guy, made a huge trade, and then finished our homework and Lance leapfrogged him in the final weeks.

The alternative was assuming someone would fall to us, and we would just have to hope it would be one we liked.

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
If the team had a chance to go back and do it again, I doubt they do the trade again. Based on the report today, no team appears willing to part with any significant draft picks for Lance, let alone 3 first and a 3rd.

They would be flat out insane to have not learned anything from this move. There's no way they make that trade in hindsight.

According to many in this thread, they should make that trade every chance they get until they "get their guy." Whatever that means.

It means you're not winning SBs in this NFL without a top tier QB anymore. Closest we saw was Foles with the Eagles and Wentz was having an MVP season for them before he got hurt and they had the best roster including OL/DL and Foles simply went into another level in the playoffs. Also helped the Pats benched their top DB for the SB.

So yeah…I don't fault the team for making a big move to get their guy but i want them to have a better plan to develop the kid and not set him up to fail. That doesn't make sense. Obviously the injury didn't help things nor the rain before that game but the PR game on display right now with him isn't ideal. Hopefully Trey shuts up a lot of people.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:


Wasn't Shefter the dude who was all butt hurt cause he said the trade was for Mac Jones.

What do we think happened here? I keep hearing they flew up, then did their homework on the prospects. Which is backwards. I wonder how it went down.

Everything Shanahan said recently before the trade even went down pointed towards a prospect like Lance/Fields.

I believe they made the move up with Lance in mind, Jones as a fallback if their recon(which they could then do out in the open after the trade) turned up that Lance had red flags.

Anyone claimed they moved up for Jones and Kyle was talked out of taking him is full of garbage.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Furlow:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Bay2Bay9erAllday:
If the team had a chance to go back and do it again, I doubt they do the trade again. Based on the report today, no team appears willing to part with any significant draft picks for Lance, let alone 3 first and a 3rd.

They would be flat out insane to have not learned anything from this move. There's no way they make that trade in hindsight.

According to many in this thread, they should make that trade every chance they get until they "get their guy." Whatever that means.

It means you're not winning SBs in this NFL without a top tier QB anymore. Closest we saw was Foles with the Eagles and Wentz was having an MVP season for them before he got hurt and they had the best roster including OL/DL and Foles simply went into another level in the playoffs. Also helped the Pats benched their top DB for the SB.

So yeah…I don't fault the team for making a big move to get their guy but i want them to have a better plan to develop the kid and not set him up to fail. That doesn't make sense. Obviously the injury didn't help things nor the rain before that game but the PR game on display right now with him isn't ideal. Hopefully Trey shuts up a lot of people.

I really hope so. If he doesn't work out, we have a more than competent guy to man the helm in Purdy. The circumstances leading to this situation not withstanding, Trey's success or failure in this league is significantly tied to how the team handles everything moving forward. Hope they do the kid right.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
I'm not sure how that got perceived as us doing things backwards.

"we traded up to ensure they got their #1 after completing their evaluations"

Flip that around and maybe it's clearer. After doing our evaluations, we liked all three top quarterbacks so we traded up to that spot to ensure we got our favorite.

If you're going off what Adam says instead, at the absolute worst case in which Schefter is actually 100% telling the truth, then he's saying we 100% believed Mac Jones would go higher and traded up to ensure we got him. His claim is that we zeroed in on one guy, made a huge trade, and then finished our homework and Lance leapfrogged him in the final weeks.

The alternative was assuming someone would fall to us, and we would just have to hope it would be one we liked.

Another alternative would be to move up, but not to number three. These guys can and should have some intelligence on what other teams are doing, and they have to work the system so that the odds are in their favor, if not actually guaranteed. Clearly that draft wasn't going QB 1-5.

As mentioned, it's a disregard for value. If you're ok with that, that's fine. But let's at least recognize it.

These explanations just aren't consistent upon close review and make little sense. If Adam's statement is true, they were so convicted on a guy they made one of the largest trade investments in team history for the opportunity to take him… and then moved off of him in a matter of weeks. That's not actually comforting, lol.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
I'm not sure how that got perceived as us doing things backwards.

"we traded up to ensure they got their #1 after completing their evaluations"

Flip that around and maybe it's clearer. After doing our evaluations, we liked all three top quarterbacks so we traded up to that spot to ensure we got our favorite.

If you're going off what Adam says instead, at the absolute worst case in which Schefter is actually 100% telling the truth, then he's saying we 100% believed Mac Jones would go higher and traded up to ensure we got him. His claim is that we zeroed in on one guy, made a huge trade, and then finished our homework and Lance leapfrogged him in the final weeks.

The alternative was assuming someone would fall to us, and we would just have to hope it would be one we liked.

Another alternative would be to move up, but not to number three. These guys can and should have some intelligence on what other teams are doing, and they have to work the system so that the odds are in their favor, if not actually guaranteed. Clearly that draft wasn't going QB 1-5.

As mentioned, it's a disregard for value. If you're ok with that, that's fine. But let's at least recognize it.

These explanations just aren't consistent upon close review and make little sense. If Adam's statement is true, they were so convicted on a guy they made one of the largest trade investments in team history for the opportunity to take him… and then moved off of him in a matter of weeks. That's not actually comforting, lol.

There were several people who felt VERY strongly Atlanta was taking Lance if he was there for them.

Originally posted by genus49:
There were several people who felt VERY strongly Atlanta was taking Lance if he was there for them.

Media and fans perhaps? That certainly didn't seem like it was going to be the case based on their reaction to our pick and reporting around it. The team is going to have much better intel.

And let's put that idea aside for a moment and work on the basis that Schefter's report (that we traded up for Jones and moved off of him) is true… the point I'm making is valid whether the Falcons liked Lance or not. They were so convicted on a guy they traded a s**tload of high value assets to move up and guarantee his selection, and then moved off him in a matter of weeks. That's reckless to a point of flying by the seat of their pants.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by genus49:
There were several people who felt VERY strongly Atlanta was taking Lance if he was there for them.

Media and fans perhaps? That certainly didn't seem like it was going to be the case based on their reaction to our pick and reporting around it. The team is going to have much better intel.

And let's put that idea aside for a moment and work on the basis that Schefter's report (that we traded up for Jones and moved off of him) is true… the point I'm making is valid whether the Falcons liked Lance or not. They were so convicted on a guy they traded a s**tload of high value assets to move up and guarantee his selection, and then moved off him in a matter of weeks. That's reckless to a point of flying by the seat of their pants.

You're not wrong but let's see how the summer shakes out.

"There really was never a lot of interest in Trey Lance," Schefter said after being asked about other teams potentially pursuing the quarterback.

https://www.49erswebzone.com/articles/169626-schefter-there-trade-market-49ers-trey-lance/

Should be no surprise here as I called this at the end of April... nobody in the league wants TL. Shanny is stuck with him for now and trying to make the best of it.

Who the hell was going to take Mac Jones inside the top 11? Beside's Kyle apparently lol. This guy thinking Mac Jones is an elite QB has me very worried. But he does have an obsession with Kirk Cousins. So frustrating.