Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

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.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
If Caleb is at all functional I don't see how the Vikes aren't last in the division.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

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 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.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

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.

So now it's well you can take a qb high it should just be outside the top 10 as long as you have the roster around it.

Appears to be quite the moving goalpost

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Not in Green Bay

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
So to be clear the Bears would've been better off trading out of 1 and getting a draft haul and signing Sam then doing what they did correct?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Not in Green Bay

Ok, but you are only getting two years in which to compete around that cheap contract… isn't that a problem in your mind?

Obviously Green Bay competed during his first few years, but that was because they had the MVP of the league at QB. They also arguably subverted their chances of winning those years and could have added elsewhere.

Probably not the best comparison. Certainly not for your theory if you want to be consistent.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I think Pack fans are probably very pleased with how things are going. And that's QB at the back end of round 1. I like that way of doing business. There doesn't have to be hard and fast rules. GB is more patient at QB than perhaps all clubs and it seems to work well for them.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by lamontb:
Agreed

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

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by dhp318:
No one wanted to hear it, but as soon as it happened I posted that it was arguably the worst trade ever just because there wasn't even a player they had in mind

Being that the Panthers have already given up the 9th overall, 1st overall, a 2, an established pro bowl level receiver and still owe a 2nd it's already been beaten.

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
Now thar you lay it out like that, yeah if Bryce doesn't work out, it's far worse. Shocking that our trade could be topped so soon.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
So it's not a problem then to waste multiple years of a rookie QB contract provided the QB ends up being good down the road.

It's almost as if it's just important to have a good QB.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Exactly. Maybe I'm a lil burnt on this whole Lance situation. I didn't like moving up to 3 at the time and even moreso now