Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
You wont get an answer to this. At best you will get some vague answer that you will have to take a huge leap to interpret it as someone being low on Trey.

It's more in what/how they talk then how you read it. Which is why it's hard to post words. You could tell how they answered questions there was something there. Then there was a report saying the same things. Fast forward to this year and everyone is singing a different tune even talking about his struggles last year.

Bottom line is you hear and read what you want depending on which side of the fence you sit. So when it's mostly them "watching" what they say it's basically the delivery and not the message. Posting it in word form would add nothing

@Waterbear. There's your answer. You just have to tell. And if you can't tell good enough, learn to tell better.

LMAO... love you @THL408, and IDC who knows it.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
You wont get an answer to this. At best you will get some vague answer that you will have to take a huge leap to interpret it as someone being low on Trey.

It's more in what/how they talk then how you read it. Which is why it's hard to post words. You could tell how they answered questions there was something there. Then there was a report saying the same things. Fast forward to this year and everyone is singing a different tune even talking about his struggles last year.

Bottom line is you hear and read what you want depending on which side of the fence you sit. So when it's mostly them "watching" what they say it's basically the delivery and not the message. Posting it in word form would add nothing

@Waterbear. There's your answer. You just have to tell. And if you can't tell good enough, learn to tell better.

IYKYK

Brought to you by the Dunning-Krueger syndrome.

Originally posted by Chance:
Brought to you by the Dunning-Krueger syndrome.

D-K works both ways. Just food for thought, lol.

Originally posted by Chance:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
You wont get an answer to this. At best you will get some vague answer that you will have to take a huge leap to interpret it as someone being low on Trey.

It's more in what/how they talk then how you read it. Which is why it's hard to post words. You could tell how they answered questions there was something there. Then there was a report saying the same things. Fast forward to this year and everyone is singing a different tune even talking about his struggles last year.

Bottom line is you hear and read what you want depending on which side of the fence you sit. So when it's mostly them "watching" what they say it's basically the delivery and not the message. Posting it in word form would add nothing

@Waterbear. There's your answer. You just have to tell. And if you can't tell good enough, learn to tell better.

IYKYK

Brought to you by the Dunning-Krueger syndrome.

ruh roh, more metaphysics

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
ruh roh, more metaphysics

Lol. Such deep thinkers.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Exactly

Also, there remains zero evidence that the 49ers traded up to #3 in 2021 with the intention of drafting Mac Jones. Repeating that baselessly a couple years after the fact won't make it true

— David Lombardi (@LombardiHimself) June 27, 2023

No fan of his football analysis but he's more linked to the 9er insiders than any national reporter. So what they say carries little weight.

I personally think it's a worse look for the front office if they traded all that and didn't even have a specific guy they were targeting. Lol "we will trade up (largest trade in franchise history and potentially mortgage our future) and figure out which one we like best".

i certainly hope that the story is that we either 1) liked Mac and changed our mind to Lance or

2) liked Lance the whole time and just played coy.

i just can't imagine being like "we are making the largest trade in franchise history to 3rd overall, where 2/5 of the QBs will be gone. Then we will decide which one we like from the leftovers". Lmao just nuts to me.

I always put more weight on Shanahan's comments long before the draft. It read like he was looking for a guy who could elevate the offense in terms of arm talent and threaten all parts of the field so teams couldn't just stack the box or crowd the middle like they did with Jimmy and also provide them extra schematic advantage in the run game.

Obviously the Drew Brees throwing ability and Lamar Jackson running is a unicorn and Lance clearly isn't either but he's closer to that unicorn than Mac Jones is.

I think they liked Lance and he was the main reason for the trade up but I think Mac was the fallback plan if they made the move up and dug more into Trey and found a major red flag. Mac was basically a cheaper Jimmy and potentially less injury prone so it made sense as a fallback option.

I guess it's possible they liked both or liked Mac more and then moved to Trey after digging into both but I just can't see us making the jump for Mac and somehow thinking we had to be at 3 to get him. I know Kyle has shown that "peace of mind" is big to him, like when we moved up for Beathard just so Kyle knew he had him in 2017 but we're talking late day 3 pick vs 2 future 1sts and a future 3rd. Hard to imagine they make that move for peace of mind.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, when I reviewed his film - I didn't like what I saw from his running ability, personally. When you run with your QB, you're typically not trying to get 3-5 yards. Lol that's what running backs are for.

then again, I thought all of his TD passes were wide open, I didn't really see tight window throws - in other words, I didn't see a lot of NFL caliber throws on his tape. To me, all people are doing is looking at his physical traits and projecting that he can learn everything.

Lance def has the physical talent to play at this level. I'm hoping his mechanics look a lot better in camp and he has more confidence. I'd really like to see him take the next step and make it a real competition.

And yet he's shown NFL caliber throws and into right windows in the NFL so…

Originally posted by genus49:
I always put more weight on Shanahan's comments long before the draft. It read like he was looking for a guy who could elevate the offense in terms of arm talent and threaten all parts of the field so teams couldn't just stack the box or crowd the middle like they did with Jimmy and also provide them extra schematic advantage in the run game.

Obviously the Drew Brees throwing ability and Lamar Jackson running is a unicorn and Lance clearly isn't either but he's closer to that unicorn than Mac Jones is.

I think they liked Lance and he was the main reason for the trade up but I think Mac was the fallback plan if they made the move up and dug more into Trey and found a major red flag. Mac was basically a cheaper Jimmy and potentially less injury prone so it made sense as a fallback option.

I guess it's possible they liked both or liked Mac more and then moved to Trey after digging into both but I just can't see us making the jump for Mac and somehow thinking we had to be at 3 to get him. I know Kyle has shown that "peace of mind" is big to him, like when we moved up for Beathard just so Kyle knew he had him in 2017 but we're talking late day 3 pick vs 2 future 1sts and a future 3rd. Hard to imagine they make that move for peace of mind.

I think that's probably what happened (moving to 3 in general, regardless of who was the initial target). Like you mentioned, we've seen other examples. This is just the extreme version of it. It's what can happen when you don't have a traditional GM and the HC is the final decision maker. Picks are undervalued.

Plus I think we've had a problem drafting for value through multiple regimes.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I think that's probably what happened (moving to 3 in general, regardless of who was the initial target). Like you mentioned, we've seen other examples. This is just the extreme version of it. It's what can happen when you don't have a traditional GM and the HC is the final decision maker. Picks are undervalued.

Plus I think we've had a problem drafting for value through multiple regimes.

I don't think they undervalue picks. They overvalue certain prospects which clouds how they weight what they trade. They've made good value trade downs in the past as well so they do understand their value. It's the emotional side that takes over and get caught up in the have to have dynamic.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
I don't think they undervalue picks. They overvalue certain prospects which clouds how they weight what they trade. They've made good value trade downs in the past as well so they do understand their value. It's the emotional side that takes over and get caught up in the have to have dynamic.

That's pretty much what I meant. Definitely agree they've moved around the draft well at times in terms of gaining value. Demonstrated it right off the bat in 2017 (though I believe Paraag orchestrated that trade). They'll just fall in love with certain prospects and deconsider value in the process.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I can't put any stock in Schlereth's comments. It's just a lazy take. Anybody who watched film of Trey in college wouldn't have expected running talent on a Lamar Jackson level, let alone a professional team of scouts and talent evaluators.

That's not why he was picked in my opinion. If they were looking for the best athlete, the choice would have been Fields, easily. They wanted a guy who could be successful from the pocket first with the ability to threaten defenses with his legs.

His brain and fundamental foundation in a similar, but simplified, version of our offense separated him from Fields. And his athleticism separated him from Jones.

I understand what you're saying. I just disagree that he was better than Fields. Fields did a lot of things well, but if that's the case, then essentially the team was knocking fields for the offense he played in.

i think fields has the closest athleticism to Lamar in the league and I think fields is a better natural thrower than Lance. He's also super competitive, has good leadership (per college teammates) and was more accurate.

im not saying Lance was a bum in college, I'm just saying I thought Fields was clearly the better talent. Fields has struggled in the NFL but I think it's cause he's been on the worst team in football his first few years - not good coaching and barely passable talent at most positions. When you have bad coaching, it makes all the talent on the team look even worse. Then young QBs try to overcompensate and it usually becomes ugly.

just to be clear - I believe your post is talking about how the team felt towards the QBs and I get that. I'm just saying I disagree with that evaluation. I didn't want us to take Mac Jones either, although I would of just sucked it up and remained optimistic until I wasn't anymore. Lol same thing I did with Lance. I'm not "giving up" on Lance - I'm just
not optimistic and don't expect much from him. I'm hoping he proves that wrong but I wouldn't bet on it.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I understand what you're saying. I just disagree that he was better than Fields. Fields did a lot of things well, but if that's the case, then essentially the team was knocking fields for the offense he played in.

i think fields has the closest athleticism to Lamar in the league and I think fields is a better natural thrower than Lance. He's also super competitive, has good leadership (per college teammates) and was more accurate.

im not saying Lance was a bum in college, I'm just saying I thought Fields was clearly the better talent. Fields has struggled in the NFL but I think it's cause he's been on the worst team in football his first few years - not good coaching and barely passable talent at most positions. When you have bad coaching, it makes all the talent on the team look even worse. Then young QBs try to overcompensate and it usually becomes ugly.

just to be clear - I believe your post is talking about how the team felt towards the QBs and I get that. I'm just saying I disagree with that evaluation. I didn't want us to take Mac Jones either, although I would of just sucked it up and remained optimistic until I wasn't anymore. Lol same thing I did with Lance. I'm not "giving up" on Lance - I'm just
not optimistic and don't expect much from him. I'm hoping he proves that wrong but I wouldn't bet on it.

I don't think there's much of a doubt they misevaluated in hindsight, but this situation isn't very different if they take Fields instead, with the big exception of course that Fields isn't necessarily lost to injury in his second year like Lance was. He also would have been more successful as a runner early I'm sure.

Justin Fields is a project as a passer, just like Lance. I def don't think he's a more natural thrower than Lance, or that he was an accurate passer (especially coming out). He struggled recognizing pressure and moving through reads. He was honestly the one guy of the three I didn't want them to take. We'll see what happens going forward with him though. He definitely has more talent around him this season. Feel like you could put the all decade OL out there and he'd still take 4 sacks a game, lol.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
I understand what you're saying. I just disagree that he was better than Fields. Fields did a lot of things well, but if that's the case, then essentially the team was knocking fields for the offense he played in.

i think fields has the closest athleticism to Lamar in the league and I think fields is a better natural thrower than Lance. He's also super competitive, has good leadership (per college teammates) and was more accurate.

im not saying Lance was a bum in college, I'm just saying I thought Fields was clearly the better talent. Fields has struggled in the NFL but I think it's cause he's been on the worst team in football his first few years - not good coaching and barely passable talent at most positions. When you have bad coaching, it makes all the talent on the team look even worse. Then young QBs try to overcompensate and it usually becomes ugly.

just to be clear - I believe your post is talking about how the team felt towards the QBs and I get that. I'm just saying I disagree with that evaluation. I didn't want us to take Mac Jones either, although I would of just sucked it up and remained optimistic until I wasn't anymore. Lol same thing I did with Lance. I'm not "giving up" on Lance - I'm just
not optimistic and don't expect much from him. I'm hoping he proves that wrong but I wouldn't bet on it.

I don't think there's much of a doubt they misevaluated in hindsight, but this situation isn't very different if they take Fields instead, with the big exception of course that Fields isn't necessarily lost to injury in his second year like Lance was. He also would have been more successful as a runner early I'm sure.

Justin Fields is a project as a passer, just like Lance. I def don't think he's a more natural thrower than Lance, or that he was an accurate passer (especially coming out). He struggled recognizing pressure and moving through reads. He was honestly the one guy of the three I didn't want them to take. We'll see what happens going forward with him though. He definitely has more talent around him this season. Feel like you could put the all decade OL out there and he'd still take 4 sacks a game, lol.

Yeah, the only difference would be that fields probably wouldn't of got injured (obviously you can't project that but I'm just going off if what happened with both players and fields has taken a beating).

I've felt like the two things fields hasn't had was good coaching (specifically a good system) and talent. He would have one of the most talented rosters in the league and one of the best coaches/play calling in the league. I'd bet he would look a whole world different than he has. When you don't trust your coach or your players around you, you tend to hold the ball too long and make too many turnovers.

i just thought that out of what Kyle was saying he wanted, fields was exactly that.

maybe it's just me? But I don't think Lance is a natural thrower at all. It's always looked labored, not very good mechanics, and inaccurate. To me, that means throwing isn't natural to you. Some guys can overcome not having great throwing mechanics because throwing is natural to them. I don't think Fields's is some special natural thrower either, just better than Lance. Lances new mechanics might make him look completely different, we will see.

Realistically, it'll probably play out where none of those three were worth trading up for. lol which I think is what bothers most people, the trade up was the worst part. Typically, I'm comfortable with the team taking big swings when they really believe in a player but it sounds like that just took a swing to swing, like they didn't love anyone of them when they moved up. They just moved up to see which one they want the most. Lol that to me is horrible. I think Lynch & Kyle have done a really good job overall, but that one puzzles me.

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by ninerjok:
So first the Niners are completely done with Trey more or less according to Albert Breer (who's almost never been right about anything) and now they've never been higher on him per Maiocco. Great, of course it's extreme opposites of the spectrum. So basically it's all b******t lol.

Welcome to the middle of the true offseason where the only real news is when a player is arrested.

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by ninerjok:
So first the Niners are completely done with Trey more or less according to Albert Breer (who's almost never been right about anything) and now they've never been higher on him per Maiocco. Great, of course it's extreme opposites of the spectrum. So basically it's all b******t lol.

That's why you have to go on what you know. Does it make sense that they are sold on TL and Sam is also a 49er? Even if you are sold on TLs ability, are you sold on his reliability? His durability?

LMAO "have to go on what you know" followed by 3 questions that you don't.

I guess what he's trying to say is he doesn't like Trey.