Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
The two guys who fought the hardest about win % trumping QB stats.. are now saying Manning was a HOF after his 3 first games .. lol

Wins matter most

Trey beat Houston

NO NOT THAT WIN

lol

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
The two guys who fought the hardest about win % trumping QB stats.. are now saying Manning was a HOF after his 3 first games .. lol

Wins matter most

Trey beat Houston

NO NOT THAT WIN

Jim druckenmiller won his only start.

Originally posted by JoseCortez:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
The two guys who fought the hardest about win % trumping QB stats.. are now saying Manning was a HOF after his 3 first games .. lol

Wins matter most

Trey beat Houston

NO NOT THAT WIN

Jim druckenmiller won his only start.

I'm still waiting for him to get a 3-5 year run as QB1, so I can judge

Originally posted by tankle104:
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.

What thread are you in? Maybe if you stop moving the goalposts on every post that actually counters your bozo logic you could understand why Manning was brought up in a Trey Lance.

hint: it wasn't to say Lance = Manning.

I'm not even going to read the rest of your post because that's exactly what you've been doing here page after page. People give you a detailed breakdown to make a point and you pick out one thing that allows you to deflect and get back to your BS.

If you want to have an actual conversation as it relates to Trey Lance then let's do it.

Manning was far from a HOFer after his first 3/4 NFL starts and Trey Lance isn't a bust after 3/4 NFL starts and certainly not a HOFer either. He's an unknown who still has plenty of time to turn into a great QB. Manning with his 4 seasons of playing in the SEC and 1300 pass attempts and his whole life being coached on the intricacies of playing QB resulted in a somewhat scary looking result his first 3/4 starts. If you want to sit here and do mental gymnastics about why Manning wasn't awful...cool you keep driving that BS bus but the fact remains he looked way better with time AND he had all that experience to start.

What a crazy thought by some to think that Lance could improve with more time

Originally posted by JoseCortez:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
The two guys who fought the hardest about win % trumping QB stats.. are now saying Manning was a HOF after his 3 first games .. lol

Wins matter most

Trey beat Houston

NO NOT THAT WIN

Jim druckenmiller won his only start.

The team won that game, Druckemiller didn't even complete 50% of his passes and had 1 td to 3 ints against a Rams team that would finish 5-11.

Lance had 70% 2 tds and 1 int against a team that would finish 4-13.

You continue to be one of the dumbest posters because you don't seem to understand context or fact checking.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Furlow:

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.

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.

Did you watch Peyton Manning in his rookie year? How old were you? Yes, Peyton Manning looked like a future HOFer/All-Pro after his first 3 games. And for anyone who disagrees, that still doesn't help your point. Comparing Trey to Manning is absurd.

Can't figure out if you guys are being this dense on purpose...

First of all I didn't make the original post however you 100% can use Manning as an example of someone developing with more playing time. Manning himself talked about the interceptions he threw as a rookie being critical to his growth.

Nobody is comparing Trey to Manning. This is the laziest sh*t people do on forums. Someone brings up another player doing something and it's "how dare you compare them!"

It's comparing situations and showing that a HOF QB considered as one of the best to ever play needed time to grow and adjust to the speed of the game after coming into the game with a lot more experience and a whole childhood of QB development is a proper point.

There are numerous examples. The goal posts keep getting moved to take away from the original point which is QBs develop and many of them grow to very different players after a handful of initial starts.

And how old are you? Manning's hype was ultra high. Obviously people understood the long game with him but after those first few games nobody was saying future HOFer. Stop making sh*t up and pretend the rest of us weren't around for those days. He didn't really get it together til about midway through the season and even then he still kept turning the ball over but whoever said it was 100% right, those rules or not after his first 3/4 starts there was no HOF talk

I'm 48. Old enough to remember that Manning was a stud, and smart enough to not trot out stat lines from his rookie season in an era where throwing the football was MUCH tougher.

What you guys are missing is that was Manning's ROOKIE season. Trey was in year 2 by the time he started. Even based on that alone it's a bad comparison. Then add in how bad the Colts were compared to the 49ers with Trey? I mean this is madness.

If you want to say "Trey needs time," no one is going to argue that point. Just don't use Peyton Manning as an example to give hope to what Trey can become. We have absolutely no idea. We had a VERY GOOD idea of what Manning would be, even after his first three games that were rough statistically.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by JoseCortez:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
The two guys who fought the hardest about win % trumping QB stats.. are now saying Manning was a HOF after his 3 first games .. lol

Wins matter most

Trey beat Houston

NO NOT THAT WIN

Jim druckenmiller won his only start.

I'm still waiting for him to get a 3-5 year run as QB1, so I can judge

Especially a guy with as high of a ceiling as Druckenmiller. And the fact that we used a 1st round pick on him - gotta give him every opportunity in real games to see what he's got. Who cares what the coaches see in practice?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
I can promise you that would upset more than a couple who post in here. Why it would is anyone's guess.

You'd be wrong, of course. The reason Lance is doubted, or questioned, is because there hasn't been a return on the investment to this point (for a multitude of reasons). If he had played well, or showed real promise to the people you're talking about, they'd be excited. There isn't a resume, even a small one, of success people are rejecting here at this point.

On the other hand there are a small minority of fans who are willing to reject or doubt the success Purdy has had, and are willing to turn away from it because of their preconceived ideas about Lance. You see it here. You see it on twitter and other social media venues.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Nobody here has demonstrated they would be 'upset' if Lance had success.

Webzone: "Nobody here has demonstrated they would be 'upset' if Lance had success."

Also Webzone: "nope. Trey will cost us the playoffs or I will delete my account" (I will keep the poster anonymous).

There's plenty of posts that have mocked Trey before he played a single game. Idk if you truly just didn't see those but they definitely exist.

The fact of the matter is... this entire offseason has been nothing but BS claim after BS claim in the Trey thread.

Remember when Trey was supposedly in Hawaii not working out with the team because of a couple Instagram posts? Or when Trey commenting the peace sign on post about Ran Carthorn leaving, which clearly meant he wants out/traded from the team? Or how about now, we're hearing REPORTS which you call opinion, that the team changed their mind at the last minute from Mac to Trey, how many posters in here have believed this information is true? I mean, come on, I've seen so many posts that assume this is FACT.

I feel like I'm missing several more examples...

You know, Kyle never wanted to draft him, the players don't like him, John Lynch wants him gone, all of these things were being said regularly with no evidence, not saying you agreed with any of that, the only report I think I disagreed with you on is the meeting the team had when we brought back Jimmy had something to do with Trey's ineffectiveness, (im paraphrasing) but as far as I'm concerned, we have no idea what actually happened or what was said in that meeting. I assumed it was more about Jimmy coming back then about Trey's performance. But I'm not going to use that in an argument as proof of anything.

I've tried to be very clear that I do not care if posters don't believe in Trey. I do agree that Trey should have the least amount of support based on the fact that he has proven the least, but the hypocrisy and unsubstantiated claims used against Trey have got to stop. For god sakes let him actually fail on the field then mock him. He's only lost two games.

This tweet says everything about Lance's character.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Webzone: "Nobody here has demonstrated they would be 'upset' if Lance had success."

Also Webzone: "nope. Trey will cost us the playoffs or I will delete my account" (I will keep the poster anonymous).

There's plenty of posts that have mocked Trey before he played a single game. Idk if you truly just didn't see those but they definitely exist.

The fact of the matter is... this entire offseason has been nothing but BS claim after BS claim in the Trey thread.

Remember when Trey was supposedly in Hawaii not working out with the team because of a couple Instagram posts? Or when Trey commenting the peace sign on post about Ran Carthorn leaving, which clearly meant he wants out/traded from the team? Or how about now, we're hearing REPORTS which you call opinion, that the team changed their mind at the last minute from Mac to Trey, how many posters in here have believed this information is true? I mean, come on, I've seen so many posts that assume this is FACT.

I feel like I'm missing several more examples...

You know, Kyle never wanted to draft him, the players don't like him, John Lynch wants him gone, all of these things were being said regularly with no evidence, not saying you agreed with any of that, the only report I think I disagreed with you on is the meeting the team had when we brought back Jimmy had something to do with Trey's ineffectiveness, (im paraphrasing) but as far as I'm concerned, we have no idea what actually happened or what was said in that meeting. I assumed it was more about Jimmy coming back then about Trey's performance. But I'm not going to use that in an argument as proof of anything.

I've tried to be very clear that I do not care if posters don't believe in Trey. I do agree that Trey should have the least amount of support based on the fact that he has proven the least, but the hypocrisy and unsubstantiated claims used against Trey have got to stop. For god sakes let him actually fail on the field then mock him. He's only lost two games.

You're still missing examples of posters who would be upset if Trey actually had success.

Some of the people who post here just can't seem to understand differences of opinion, and fall back on emotional explanations (really accusations in this case) instead of substantive ones.

Your statement that you've seen people mock Trey before he ever played a game is pretty close to a good example. I really haven't seen mocking as it is actually defined. I've seen criticism, doubt, frustration… and that's born from those people's individual opinions of Lance as a prospect. He didn't need to play a game for people to feel that way. Accept the fact that people are going to analyze and project things differently. Not everyone looked at Lance the same.

That said, I do think there are elements of what you're describing that exist beyond the people who regularly post on this board… but for the most part I see people unable to respond to differences of opinion, including opinions that are supported in evidence.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'm still waiting for him to get a 3-5 year run as QB1, so I can judge

Just needs 6 games and every other poor performance becomes moot.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'm still waiting for him to get a 3-5 year run as QB1, so I can judge

Just needs 6 games and every other poor performance becomes moot.

Who got that treatment?

The one narrative I find silly, is that the Niners have never giving Lance a chance. They absolutely have. Lance just hasn't shown much with his chances and has had a tough time staying healthy.

look at Purdy, came off the bench, against a top team many had us losing to, and starting dropping dimes. Right off the bat showed he belong.

Now compare Lance vs the Hawks and cardinals, and Purdy vs Dolphins and Bucs, night and day.

Originally posted by Furlow:
Who got that treatment?

Ask the guy comparing Sam Darnold potential to Steve Young