Originally posted by genus49:
Originally posted by tankle104:
Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Originally posted by Furlow:
Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Originally posted by tankle104:
Originally posted by genus49:
Originally posted by tankle104:
Everything you said is nonsense.
1. Peyton manning didn't have a slow start. Lmao he was 3rd in the nfl in Passing yards and 5th in passing touchdowns. Yes, he lead the league in picks but he was on a bad team that leaned on him. He showed he was a superstar in the making, he just needed to work on the INT. His second year they went 13-3. Complete nonsense.
2. Joe montana didn't have a slow start? He just wasn't starting? He was also a 3rd round pick. No one was expecting him to be some future star that was drafted high in the first round. His first year starting full time he won the super bowl?
3. Steve young is like one of the only examples in nfl history where someone got off to a really rough start, left a team, and went on to be amazing and win a Super Bowl. He went to the USFL and not the NFL initially.
4. Josh allen wasn't off to a slow start. Lol It was clear he was talented. He had one question mark and it was his accuracy. That's all.
5. Trevor Lawrence: you can't win in this league with bad coaching and bad talent around you. In Lawrence case, he had probably the worst coach in NFL history. Lmao Lawrence was someone you KNEW was a bonafide generational talent and he wasn't the issue.
6. Aaron Rodgers didn't even play his first few years cause Farve was tearing it up. When Rodgers actually took over, he was great and continued to get better. Won a super bowl in what, his third year starting?
so stop with this nonsense. Lance has a great team around him, great coaching, great offensive playbook/calling, great culture etc. he has no excuse. He's extremely raw and inexperienced and I don't think he was ready to take on the mantle of leading a Super Bowl expectation team with tons of pro bowlers and all pros. I never thought it was the right pick and It's unfortunate how it's played out.
but stop using ridiculous examples, that I know you heard on the Krueg show lmao, because it's nonsense. Learn to look into these things.
lol Manning was league MVP his 2nd season. Saying he started slow is 100% accurate when you consider the rest of his career.
Same for Joe Montana, not the example I would've brought up but it still applies. Not all his fault of course but the example still fits.
Young everyone knows about - don't let me catch you hyping up Sam Darnold with the post above tho.
Josh Allen wasn't a slow starter lol? You joking right? His only issue was accuracy? He had highlight videos on how bad his accuracy was. Buffalo fans were furious at him and thought he was a bust.
In fact he was such a great comparison to Trey the dude even did a draft video for Trey, clearly people thought they were similar.
Lawrence clearly was held back by coaching but he also wasn't good. Still a solid example of a prospect even as good as Lawrence needing time to shake off the rust.
You can also add Jalen Hurts and Justin Fields. Both weren't exactly lighting the world on fire their first few starts. Team played them and let them develop and now they look like great players moving forward.
So manning started slow, even though he was top 5 in the nfl in touchdowns and yards as a rookie, just because he went on to have a HOF career? Lmao that's ridiculous.
starting slow is poor play. Manning held a ton of rookie records for like 10-15 years after his rookie year.
Stsrting slow isn't "because he didn't have as good of a season as he did the rest of his career". Lmao come on.
Manning had a 71.5 QB Rating as a rookie, more ints than TDs, a 56% completion rate, and only 6.5 Y/A. The reason he had so many yards is because he had nearly 600 attempts. If Manning was given only 3 starts to prove himself (like Trey) then his stat line would be 2 TDs and 8 ints and a 41 QB Rating and averaging 9 pts a game. Would you bet that someone with that stat line would go on to become a HOFer and arguably top-5 QB all-time?
Bro stop this madness. You're using stats from 1998 to compare to now, the rules and game are way different. And it's PEYTON MANNING. Were you not alive back then or something? The dude was a stud and looked the part, even in his rookie year while throwing all of those INT's. His team was terrible and they were letting him learn on the fly.
+ Show all quotes
Passing is easier now than it was then, but a 71.5 QB rating still wasn't good in 1998. It was well below average. 26 interceptions and a 4.9% was not good in 1998. Everyone that's saying he looked the part is using the power of hindsight. Just like they do with Josh Allen and others in that bucket. There's no world where Peyton Manning looked like a future HOFer/all-pro after his first 3 games, which are all we can really use in comparison.
Anyone who thinks manning had a bad rookie year is out of their mind. lol
of course, manning didn't look like a HOF player his first year, but he didnt get off to a slow start? no one has ever looked like a HOF player their rookie year. if thats how you're measuring it, then everyone ever got off to a slow start?? stop this ridiculousness lmao.
Manning had a good Rookie year overall and showed that he was more than capable of being a top QB, he just needed a better team around him and he needed to learn from his mistakes. he was top 5 in touchdowns and top 5 in yards.
This is also an era where throwing a lot of INT was much more common. Only 2 starters or so that year threw less than 10 INT. Half the starters in the league threw like 15+ int. four starters threw 20+ int. passing was a complete different ballgame back then.
It's very clear that some of you don't understand the game of football or how it was played in different eras.
Brad Freakin johnson led the league in accuracy with 64% lmao this is a time where 55% completion was pretty good. lmao just stop it.
54% 227 yards per game .67 TD / 2.67 INT per game in his first 3 starts.
Tell us more how amazing he was his whole SEASON as a rookie.
Would be nice if we had a look at Lance his whole rookie season. All we got were 3 full starts.
Manning flashes in his first 3 starts = great start, will only get better
Lance flashes in his first 3 starts = he sucked
Checks out
LOL what in the world are you talking about? I'm saying Manning had a good rookie season and didn't have a slow start to his career. who cares how he looked in three games?? Lance didn't get to play a whole season so talking about it is ridiculous and a debate with no end because it's all hypothetical. only thing we can say about Lance in his three full starts is that his play, cumulatively, was not good. plug in any and every excuse, doesn't change the fact that his stats were at the bottom of the league relative to everyone else and he had one of the best rosters in the NFL and Playcallers. 2 touchdowns in three games, 3 turnovers in three games, completing 55% passes, averaged 14 PPG as an offense, 1-2 W-L.
Would he have done better as the season went on? I sure hope he would have, otherwise we would of been an awful team W-L wise. honestly, he probably wouldn't have because he couldn't even grip the ball properly. So, I don't see any reason to assume that he would of got much better. Based on his track record of injuries and the way kyle was calling plays for him, I don't even think its rational to assume he would of stayed healthy all year.
you didn't get to see Lance his whole rookie year because he wasn't the best QB and he was injured. You didn't get to see lance his whole second year because he was injured (he also was the third best QB on the roster). Outside of Injury to other players, you may never see lance play here again outside of Preseason.
comparing Lance to someone like Manning is ridiculous. Manning was a generational talent, Lance isn't and has never been considered that by anyone with any sort of sense when it comes to evaluating QBs. Lance a physically gifted guy who has barely ever played QB in his entire life. you've only seen the guy throw the ball 500 times in his entire life and some claim he is oozing with potential? it doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying he doesn't have potential but he no one really knows if he has a lot of potential or not. barely ever seen him in any sort of situations that really make or break QBs.
Honestly, the team doesn't really seem to think he has much potential. They can put whatever sound bites they want in the media but their actions have made that super clear, at least not any potential they'll see any time soon - they have the guy competing with Sam Freakin Darnold, a bonified bust, for reps. that is insane. other teams don't really think he has any potential because apparently there wasn't a trade market for him, at least no one willing to give up any worthwhile picks for him.
I hope Lance has a great camp and really turns it around. changing this entire narrative around him but the only people who seem to think Lance is special are a small group of people on here. really, the only reason some think that is cause he was drafted high and is a 49er.
Yes, I watched Peyton Manning as a rookie. No, he did not look like a future HOFer/All-Pro in his first three games. The games are available online if you want to refresh your memory, but please tell me which of these three games made you think he was a future HOFer: the 29-6 loss to NE, the 44-6 loss to the NYJ, or the 24-15 loss to MIA? 2 TDs - 8 INTs in those games, 54% Completion Rate, 49.0 QBR, all terrible for the era. Now, did it shock me that Peyton turned out to be a great QB after that start? No, because you can't judge a QB after just 3 starts and like most highly drafted QBs, Manning was given time to figure things out.