Originally posted by OnTheClock:
So much arguing in here... There's no need to go to such extremes on both ends.
"He had his chance and failed" - No... Four starts does not qualify as anything remotely close to a fair evaluation period over two seasons.
"He was better than Darnold in practice and the games" - Also no. According to Shanahan it was neck and neck and if you actually watched preseason, fair or not in terms of reps and who they played with, Sam looked better in terms of consistency and a lot less WTF plays.
I'm a huge Trey supporter but I can't honestly say he looked better. Decisions definitely weren't better, he honestly didn't even scramble better than Darnold. He didn't do anything that made me say, OK he's winning this backup job easy.
I'm not shocked at all that on top of their performance, Shanahan picked an experience vet over Trey. It makes logical sense. Only scenario it wouldn't make sense in is if Lance had balled out, and he didn't.
When Sam was brought in it was over…a guy with 50+ starts under his belt is gonna win the backup job because that's what you want in a backup…so experience/just don't f**k it up for a game. Make the easy play and nothing more. Sam's never gonna be our long-term guy. He's on the same career path as a Teddy Bridgewater. Highly paid backup.
the whole point in having Lance is to develop and have an opportunity to possibly be that guy. Not give him 4 random starts and say we've seen enough. Brock is the starter, but it's not like he some proven vet that can never be replaced while he's here. As we all know the season is long and a ton of s**t can and always does happen.
personally I'd rather keep all three for the year and do whatever after. Trading him for some late 7th rd pick to gain $6M over two yrs is stupid.