Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
That is partially my point, if the team is uncompetitive for 2 years okay you just threw away a big part of the rook QB advantage, which is competing on the rook contract. You put the QB first, ahead of team building. I don't agree with it.

Developing a franchise QB is the most important part of team building especially in today's game. There's no differentiation between developing a QB and building a team and your theory for building a team is the easiest ticket to putting yourself at a choice between the two when there shouldn't be one. Our team was a perfect example and there aren't a whole lot of others.

It is rare to find yourself in position to draft a top talent and be in position to compete right away.

Originally posted by GEEK:
Brock Purdy saved Lynch and Shanahan's jobs.

That's what top qbs do.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Developing a franchise QB is the most important part of team building especially in today's game. There's no differentiation between developing a QB and building a team and your theory for building a team is the easiest ticket to putting yourself at a choice between the two when there shouldn't be one. Our team was a perfect example and there aren't a whole lot of others.

It is rare to find yourself in position to draft a top talent and be in position to compete right away.

While I think McCarthy won't be very good I don't see how the Vikes would be better served trying to build around Sam. Even if they limp into a playoff spot ala the Giants what does it do for you long term to have a stiff at QB?

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Developing a franchise QB is the most important part of team building especially in today's game. There's no differentiation between developing a QB and building a team and your theory for building a team is the easiest ticket to putting yourself at a choice between the two when there shouldn't be one. Our team was a perfect example and there aren't a whole lot of others.

It is rare to find yourself in position to draft a top talent and be in position to compete right away.

While I think McCarthy won't be very good I don't see how the Vikes would be better served trying to build around Sam. Even if they limp into a playoff spot ala the Giants what does it do for you long term to have a stiff at QB?

Agreed

Originally posted by lamontb:
Agreed

At least, from their end, there was never a serious thought to do that… hence the JJ pick.

MIN is a great example of a team that is built taking a QB and being able to capitalize on that situation. I expect the rook plays very well or Sam plays and does well if McCarthy isn't ready or is a dud. Great landing spot for a QB, which is when you want to take one, and notice they got their QB pretty early and one of the top prospects.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
MIN is a great example of a team that is built taking a QB and being able to capitalize on that situation. I expect the rook plays very well or Sam plays and does well if McCarthy isn't ready or is a dud. Great landing spot for a QB, which is when you want to take one, and notice they got their QB pretty early and one of the top prospects.

Do you see how your argument leaves little room to develop the most important position in the game in conjunction with the timing of the team?

Either JJ does well or they play a journeyman backup/fringe starter instead… burning through whatever window it is you think they have with their current roster and sacrificing the young QB's development. Maybe he develops on the bench, but you waste that rookie contract you seem to prioritize very highly and your ready to compete team gets older (and more expensive).

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
MIN is a great example of a team that is built taking a QB and being able to capitalize on that situation. I expect the rook plays very well or Sam plays and does well if McCarthy isn't ready or is a dud. Great landing spot for a QB, which is when you want to take one, and notice they got their QB pretty early and one of the top prospects.

Do you see how your argument leaves little room to develop the most important position in the game in conjunction with the timing of the team?

Either JJ does well or they play a journeyman backup/fringe starter instead… burning through whatever window it is you think they have with their current roster and sacrificing the young QB's development. Maybe he develops on the bench, but you waste that rookie contract you seem to prioritize very highly and your ready to compete team gets older (and more expensive).

I just don't think it's wise, if your team is a dumpster fire. MIN is not that. Part of the calculus was it was hard to pay Cousins and Jefferson. Now they will just pay Jefferson. McCarthy is a lot more cost controlled.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I just don't think it's wise, if your team is a dumpster fire. MIN is not that. Part of the calculus was it was hard to pay Cousins and Jefferson. Now they will just pay Jefferson. McCarthy is a lot more cost controlled.

But you suggest the possibility of not playing the rookie and playing Darnold instead. What you have is two 'cost controlled' backup level QBs in that scenario.

On a side note you're overrating the Vikings IMO. They aren't a dumpster fire but they aren't even close to being a contender either.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I just don't think it's wise, if your team is a dumpster fire. MIN is not that. Part of the calculus was it was hard to pay Cousins and Jefferson. Now they will just pay Jefferson. McCarthy is a lot more cost controlled.

But you suggest the possibility of not playing the rookie and playing Darnold instead. What you have is two 'cost controlled' backup level QBs in that scenario.

On a side note you're overrating the Vikings IMO. They aren't a dumpster fire but they aren't even close to being a contender either.

Shanny spoke on this. He said you don't know what you got until they are in the bldg. So basically you draft with very incomplete knowledge and this summer, MIN will find out, what they got. I think that's the calculus. If McCarthy passes tests with flying colors, he starts from the jump. If he's struggling to tread water, he doesn't start. That's how it should be, imo. You can sit a year, nothing wrong with that. That was the entire stated plan on Lance to sit a year, and Shanny referenced the Mahomes model, as he sat a year. Whatever you think of MIN, they have the talent and coaching to move the ball and score points.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Shanny spoke on this. He said you don't know what you got until they are in the bldg. So basically you draft with very incomplete knowledge and this summer, MIN will find out, what they got. I think that's the calculus. If McCarthy passes tests with flying colors, he starts from the jump. If he's struggling to tread water, he doesn't start. That's how it should be, imo. You can sit a year, nothing wrong with that. That was the entire stated plan on Lance to sit a year, and Shanny referenced the Mahomes model, as he sat a year. Whatever you think of MIN, they have the talent and coaching to move the ball and score points.

There are at least two things potentially wrong with that using your own criteria: wasting parts of a rookie contract on a team ready to compete, and wasting at least a year of ready to compete team playing a fringe starter/backup because your rookie isn't ready.

Let's make a bet on Minnesota.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Shanny spoke on this. He said you don't know what you got until they are in the bldg. So basically you draft with very incomplete knowledge and this summer, MIN will find out, what they got. I think that's the calculus. If McCarthy passes tests with flying colors, he starts from the jump. If he's struggling to tread water, he doesn't start. That's how it should be, imo. You can sit a year, nothing wrong with that. That was the entire stated plan on Lance to sit a year, and Shanny referenced the Mahomes model, as he sat a year. Whatever you think of MIN, they have the talent and coaching to move the ball and score points.

There are at least two things potentially wrong with that using your own criteria: wasting parts of a rookie contract on a team ready to compete, and wasting at least a year of ready to compete team playing a fringe starter/backup because your rookie isn't ready.

Let's make a bet on Minnesota.

I question if you know my criteria. My only thesis I have stated is if I am taking over some talent poor team, like NE let's say, I probably don't draft a QB. So they failed in my book. They probably could have traded out of 3 and gotten a haul and built up the team. That's my preference.

Wanting to profit from a rook QB contract isn't 'my criteria' it's basic salary cap math. As for sitting a QB, I don't view that as a wasted year, for the team or the player. What is your bet?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I question if you know my criteria. My only thesis I have stated is if I am taking over some talent poor team, like NE let's say, I probably don't draft a QB. So they failed in my book. They probably could have traded out of 3 and gotten a haul and built up the team. That's my preference.

Wanting to profit from a rook QB contract isn't 'my criteria' it's basic salary cap math. As for sitting a QB, I don't view that as a wasted year, for the team or the player. What is your bet?

if the quarterback isn't rolling and the team isn't competing after that first year though, then it's a problem right?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I just don't think it's wise, if your team is a dumpster fire. MIN is not that. Part of the calculus was it was hard to pay Cousins and Jefferson. Now they will just pay Jefferson. McCarthy is a lot more cost controlled.

But you suggest the possibility of not playing the rookie and playing Darnold instead. What you have is two 'cost controlled' backup level QBs in that scenario.

On a side note you're overrating the Vikings IMO. They aren't a dumpster fire but they aren't even close to being a contender either.

Yeah the Vikings aren't a very good team. They aren't bad but no where near a contender. Depending on how JJ looks, I'd probably just play him. He comes from a pro style offense anyways and has a great safety blanket in Jefferson.

imo, you either play sam for a little to acclimate JJ and then make the swap or you just ride with JJ the whole year (hopefully injury) and see how he grows. Starting Sam really shouldn't be much of a thought.

i doubt Sam thought they were taking a qb on the first round when he signed there, it's essentially guaranteed he won't have a chance at revitalizing himself like baker did.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah the Vikings aren't a very good team. They aren't bad but no where near a contender. Depending on how JJ looks, I'd probably just play him. He comes from a pro style offense anyways and has a great safety blanket in Jefferson.

imo, you either play sam for a little to acclimate JJ and then make the swap or you just ride with JJ the whole year (hopefully injury) and see how he grows. Starting Sam really shouldn't be much of a thought.

i doubt Sam thought they were taking a qb on the first round when he signed there, it's essentially guaranteed he won't have a chance at revitalizing himself like baker did.

If Caleb is at all functional I don't see how the Vikes aren't last in the division.