Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
*sigh*
Ok, it's quite ironic that you would utilizing this logic and then call me biased.

Your thesis: Jimmy turns the ball over too much.
Evidence:INT's+fumbles

Counter: not nearly as many lost fumbles so it's not as big a problem as it's being made out to be.

Your counter: it's a coin flip on fumbles lost, so yes, still a problem.

My issue: using fumbles as a qualitative state to correlate turnovers from the QB position is misleading because fumbles credited to the QB are not actually all fumbles by the QB.

Your response: that line of logic is biased.

RE: Warner, according to the fumbles per game, he had a fulble in nearly 84% of his games. If it's as big a problem as y'all are making it, he wouldn't have been HOF.

John Elway had 137 fumbles in 234 career games or almost 59% of games.

Jimmy is 53%. Better than 2 guys in the HOF with 3 trophies.

So, again, trying to argue about fumbles as a stat isn't worth anything. That's people who have an issue with Jimmy grasping at something to make him look bad. Thr fact that you are defending this stat to much shows how biased you are.

The reason I am saying the logic is biased is because you are acting as if a majority of Jimmy's fumbles were because of poor center play. Where is the evidence that these fumbles are happening because of poor center play? Where is the evidence that these plays happen more for Jimmy than any other QB? Are other QBs afforded the questioning of whether their fumbles were caused by poor center play too? That's why I say the logic is biased.

You keep mentioning Warner as if fumbling wasnt an issue his whole career. Google it. There are plenty of articles written about his fumbling problems.

And this is not to say a QB cant be a good QB if he fumbles at the rate Jimmy does. But the entire point of this conversation was total turnovers. And Jimmy turns the ball over at a high rate. I am not "trying to make Jimmy look bad." Give me a break.

Where is the evidence it's not the result of poor center play?

THAT IS MY POINT.

I like how you mention Warner when I bring him up and gloss over John Elway.

And yes, you've been crapping in Jimmy for over 12 months.

The onus of proof is on you. Its your job to prove what you are claiming, its not my job to prove what you are claiming is wrong. LOL

And I mention Warner because you have brought him up multiple times to the Elway example once. And Elway retired two and a half decades ago.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Where are the doubters?

There everywhere,...just flip through the pages.

I guess the gif didn't give away that it was a joke, I take it?

There's one guy and he's a Bama fan

You doubt that Trey is ready to play right now. You, then, are a doubter. That's two and counting...

🙄 there's a big difference between not believing Trey is ready to start this year and believing he won't be a viable starter, long term. Learn some nuance, man.

Not surprised, but you're completely lost here. Dude was replying to a joke to begin with,...where I posted a goofy meme.

But if he asked for a doubter after claiming none are here, I pointed him out as one. You make #3 easily. Doubter's an extremely loose term, fella. Just how English works.

No, I got it.

But, first rule of debating and discussion is defining the terms. If you leave it loose, then there's no room for discussion because the array of options is too wide. You have to establish a clearly define terms.

Context also determines the definition of terms. In this context, "doubter" implies those doubting Trey Lance as a prospect.

I understand quite well how language works, thank you.

Originally posted by jonnydel:
My point is that talking about RB's getting benched for fumbling is similar to a qb getting credited for fumbles is disingenuous.

It's not a qualitative stat. It'd be like someone talking about Trey's comp % in pre-season without mentioning all the drops. It's misleading and disingenuous.

It's also why I was responding to French. He's said its crazy that people would brush off 17 fumbles in 30 games(really 32). Watson has 30 in 54 and I've never heard anyone talk about Watson having a fumbling problem.

It's because everyone understands that's a stat that doesn't mean much considering that many fumbles credited are not actually fumbles.

Kurt Warner has 104 fumbles in 124 career games. He's in the HOF and I've never heard of Warner having a fumbling problem.

Must've been so crazy how during all those HOF seasons no one was worried about his fumbles.

There are some differences between a RB fumbling and a center-exchange fumble with a QB.

But pointing out the fact that RBs can get benched for coughing it up isin't disingenuous. Saying that is the true extreme take here actually,...not the minor note about RBs.

Lol now if we did want to seek out being disingenuous...

Originally posted by jonnydel:

John Elway had 137 fumbles in 234 career games or almost 59% of games.
Jimmy is 53%. Better than 2 guys in the HOF with 3 trophies.

Lol were you really comparing the +/- of guys like John Elway and Kurt Warner,....to Jimmy G??

If we are getting that crazy then let me bring it back to the middle once again in stating that guys like that that can make so many plays and score so many touchdowns with their arms are ALLOWED to fumble the ball a little more. When you don't make anywhere near as many plays as guys like that in their heyday, you're that much more of a liability when you turn the ball over. Pretty basic.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
My point is that talking about RB's getting benched for fumbling is similar to a qb getting credited for fumbles is disingenuous.

It's not a qualitative stat. It'd be like someone talking about Trey's comp % in pre-season without mentioning all the drops. It's misleading and disingenuous.

It's also why I was responding to French. He's said its crazy that people would brush off 17 fumbles in 30 games(really 32). Watson has 30 in 54 and I've never heard anyone talk about Watson having a fumbling problem.

It's because everyone understands that's a stat that doesn't mean much considering that many fumbles credited are not actually fumbles.

Kurt Warner has 104 fumbles in 124 career games. He's in the HOF and I've never heard of Warner having a fumbling problem.

Must've been so crazy how during all those HOF seasons no one was worried about his fumbles.

There are some differences between a RB fumbling and a center-exchange fumble with a QB.

But pointing out the fact that RBs can get benched for coughing it up isin't disingenuous. Saying that is the true extreme take here actually,...not the minor note about RBs.

Literally my only point was that fumbling the ball is bad, regardless of whether or not the fumbling team recovers. Evidence of this is players being benched for fumbling, not just for losing fumbles.

Not sure how that is a disingenuous take in the slightest bit, but here we are still arguing about it pages later.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
My point is that talking about RB's getting benched for fumbling is similar to a qb getting credited for fumbles is disingenuous.

It's not a qualitative stat. It'd be like someone talking about Trey's comp % in pre-season without mentioning all the drops. It's misleading and disingenuous.

It's also why I was responding to French. He's said its crazy that people would brush off 17 fumbles in 30 games(really 32). Watson has 30 in 54 and I've never heard anyone talk about Watson having a fumbling problem.

It's because everyone understands that's a stat that doesn't mean much considering that many fumbles credited are not actually fumbles.

Kurt Warner has 104 fumbles in 124 career games. He's in the HOF and I've never heard of Warner having a fumbling problem.

Must've been so crazy how during all those HOF seasons no one was worried about his fumbles.

There are some differences between a RB fumbling and a center-exchange fumble with a QB.

But pointing out the fact that RBs can get benched for coughing it up isin't disingenuous. Saying that is the true extreme take here actually,...not the minor note about RBs.

🤦‍♂️ my point is that you can't compare them. They're not the same. They're not calculated the same and not as definitive.

That's like saying that if a RB isn't a 1000 yard receiver he isn't a good receiving back. Because good receivers are 1000+ yard guys.

It's not really comparable since the context of the situation and how it's tabulated doesn't really provide a good comparison.

Originally posted by boast:
i'd say the most important QB stat is wins. scoreboard.

pretty much every stat can be manipulated with enough qualifiers to make just about any argument someone wants to make.

Well that's really two stats. Scoreboard includes how much your team has been able to score, which easily trumps wins. Wins are much more a team stat, not a QB stat.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
My point is that talking about RB's getting benched for fumbling is similar to a qb getting credited for fumbles is disingenuous.

It's not a qualitative stat. It'd be like someone talking about Trey's comp % in pre-season without mentioning all the drops. It's misleading and disingenuous.

It's also why I was responding to French. He's said its crazy that people would brush off 17 fumbles in 30 games(really 32). Watson has 30 in 54 and I've never heard anyone talk about Watson having a fumbling problem.

It's because everyone understands that's a stat that doesn't mean much considering that many fumbles credited are not actually fumbles.

Kurt Warner has 104 fumbles in 124 career games. He's in the HOF and I've never heard of Warner having a fumbling problem.

Must've been so crazy how during all those HOF seasons no one was worried about his fumbles.

There are some differences between a RB fumbling and a center-exchange fumble with a QB.

But pointing out the fact that RBs can get benched for coughing it up isin't disingenuous. Saying that is the true extreme take here actually,...not the minor note about RBs.

Lol now if we did want to seek out being disingenuous...

Originally posted by jonnydel:

John Elway had 137 fumbles in 234 career games or almost 59% of games.
Jimmy is 53%. Better than 2 guys in the HOF with 3 trophies.

Lol were you really comparing the +/- of guys like John Elway and Kurt Warner,....to Jimmy G??

If we are getting that crazy then let me bring it back to the middle once again in stating that guys like that that can make so many plays and score so many touchdowns with their arms are ALLOWED to fumble the ball a little more. When you don't make anywhere near as many plays as guys like that in their heyday, you're that much more of a liability when you turn the ball over. Pretty basic.

Pretty basic in that you're still not understanding the point. The point is those guys really didn't have that many fumbles. A ton of those are botched snaps, and yes, shotgun snaps are included.

My whole point is that trying to even use qb fumbles as any sort of talking point is silly because there zero way, none, nada nowhere anything that separates what is actually their fault.

So, trying to assign fault where we have no way to know, is disingenuous.

It's like using qb sacks as a definitive statement on if a qb is good or bad or pro/con. There's no way to know, unless it is specifically tabulated out, which are his fault and which are the OL fault.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Where is the evidence that these fumbles are happening because of poor center play?

Where is the evidence it's not the result of poor center play?

THAT IS MY POINT.

Oh boy,...fun, fun times. Where's the evidence that interceptions are not the result of poor WR play? How far are we going to take this?

p.s.,...this is where statistics comes into play. WRs do account for INTs,...and centers can account for fumbles,...but if you understand statistics,...you understand that other teams have centers and WRs that make mistakes too.

We can really have some nerd calculate it out statistically and it still ends up at Jimmy G's feet for being turnover prone. JFYI. We can end this now.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by boast:
i'd say the most important QB stat is wins. scoreboard.

pretty much every stat can be manipulated with enough qualifiers to make just about any argument someone wants to make.

Well that's really two stats. Scoreboard includes how much your team has been able to score, which easily trumps wins. Wins are much more a team stat, not a QB stat.

lolololol again with semantics. some of you'll twist anything.

the scoreboard at the end of a game shows if you have won or not.

man the f**king Romper Room never changes.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
My point is that talking about RB's getting benched for fumbling is similar to a qb getting credited for fumbles is disingenuous.

It's not a qualitative stat. It'd be like someone talking about Trey's comp % in pre-season without mentioning all the drops. It's misleading and disingenuous.

It's also why I was responding to French. He's said its crazy that people would brush off 17 fumbles in 30 games(really 32). Watson has 30 in 54 and I've never heard anyone talk about Watson having a fumbling problem.

It's because everyone understands that's a stat that doesn't mean much considering that many fumbles credited are not actually fumbles.

Kurt Warner has 104 fumbles in 124 career games. He's in the HOF and I've never heard of Warner having a fumbling problem.

Must've been so crazy how during all those HOF seasons no one was worried about his fumbles.

There are some differences between a RB fumbling and a center-exchange fumble with a QB.

But pointing out the fact that RBs can get benched for coughing it up isin't disingenuous. Saying that is the true extreme take here actually,...not the minor note about RBs.

Lol now if we did want to seek out being disingenuous...

Originally posted by jonnydel:

John Elway had 137 fumbles in 234 career games or almost 59% of games.
Jimmy is 53%. Better than 2 guys in the HOF with 3 trophies.

Lol were you really comparing the +/- of guys like John Elway and Kurt Warner,....to Jimmy G??

If we are getting that crazy then let me bring it back to the middle once again in stating that guys like that that can make so many plays and score so many touchdowns with their arms are ALLOWED to fumble the ball a little more. When you don't make anywhere near as many plays as guys like that in their heyday, you're that much more of a liability when you turn the ball over. Pretty basic.

Pretty basic in that you're still not understanding the point. The point is those guys really didn't have that many fumbles. A ton of those are botched snaps, and yes, shotgun snaps are included.

My whole point is that trying to even use qb fumbles as any sort of talking point is silly because there zero way, none, nada nowhere anything that separates what is actually their fault.

So, trying to assign fault where we have no way to know, is disingenuous.

It's like using qb sacks as a definitive statement on if a qb is good or bad or pro/con. There's no way to know, unless it is specifically tabulated out, which are his fault and which are the OL fault.

The same could be said to an even greater degree about using wins as a QB stat. There are a lot more factors and variables in a team winning a game than there is in a fumble by the QB, yet people here bring up Jimmy's W/L record here constantly.

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by boast:
i'd say the most important QB stat is wins. scoreboard.

pretty much every stat can be manipulated with enough qualifiers to make just about any argument someone wants to make.

Well that's really two stats. Scoreboard includes how much your team has been able to score, which easily trumps wins. Wins are much more a team stat, not a QB stat.

lolololol again with semantics. some of you'll twist anything.

the scoreboard at the end of a game shows if you have won or not.

man the f**king Romper Room never changes.

Ok. Still making my point that a 48-28 Win tells me alot more than a simple "W" in the column of a QB that could've won the game 10-3 for all we know.

And even then,....i cant truly attribute that 48 points to the QB individually. But it's ALOT more meaningful than a simple "W" attached to a QB's day. Doesn't really tell me sh** about how the QB performed. The only thing I know is that given his Defense, Running Game, and STs,...he wasn't bad enough that day to lose. Now that reality, sir, is not semantics.

I don't think any legit football person here thinks that Wins are what really matter when it tells nothing at all about how the QB performed. I think we're just trying to protect a certain player that hasn't always had the best performances to rely on. If he did,...we'd talk about those instead of these silly "Wins" stuff.

He's been solid player thus far though, but that's where it ends.

yea yea,...deflect away from reality with "romper room" filler stuff that releases stress I guess, but doesn't absolve you from your poor point.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by boast:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
You just said the most important QB stat is wins, but don't care to know which QBs have the most wins.

You were also the one that posted the stats originally showing how many fumbles every QB had with your own cherry picked qualifier. Amazing hypocrisy.

lololololol at cherry picked a qualifier. you guys said 30 games. i posted the last 32 games.

youre the one who came along and cherry picked stats that disqualified more than few of the starting QBs over the past few years. what a moronic comeback.

You realize that limiting things to just the last 32 games eliminated more players than by limiting it to attempts, right?

which current QBs were eliminated? which current QBs weren't listed?

your qualifier eliminated more.

Also, limiting it specifically to the last 32 games makes no sense, because Jimmy didn't even play the last 32 games. What is the point of looking at the totals from 2020 when Jimmy played 6 games.

Jimmys totals for his entire 30 games were already posted. Jimmys stats in the links were irrelevant. we already knew them.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
In the last few days I've seen posters claim there's no perceived difference between Jimmy G and Lamar Jackson in terms of production and now you're comparing Jimmy to multiple HOFers and acting like SW is the biased one?

Good god man… why can't we be honest about Jimmy's flaws while rooting for him on Sunday.

These JG fans are out of control...

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
My point is that talking about RB's getting benched for fumbling is similar to a qb getting credited for fumbles is disingenuous.

It's not a qualitative stat. It'd be like someone talking about Trey's comp % in pre-season without mentioning all the drops. It's misleading and disingenuous.

It's also why I was responding to French. He's said its crazy that people would brush off 17 fumbles in 30 games(really 32). Watson has 30 in 54 and I've never heard anyone talk about Watson having a fumbling problem.

It's because everyone understands that's a stat that doesn't mean much considering that many fumbles credited are not actually fumbles.

Kurt Warner has 104 fumbles in 124 career games. He's in the HOF and I've never heard of Warner having a fumbling problem.

Must've been so crazy how during all those HOF seasons no one was worried about his fumbles.

There are some differences between a RB fumbling and a center-exchange fumble with a QB.

But pointing out the fact that RBs can get benched for coughing it up isin't disingenuous. Saying that is the true extreme take here actually,...not the minor note about RBs.

🤦‍♂️ my point is that you can't compare them. They're not the same. They're not calculated the same and not as definitive.

That's like saying that if a RB isn't a 1000 yard receiver he isn't a good receiving back. Because good receivers are 1000+ yard guys.

It's not really comparable since the context of the situation and how it's tabulated doesn't really provide a good comparison.

Of course you can compare them. You just can't say they're exactly the same thing. A RB can have excuses as well (free released defender due to a missed block,...poor handoff, et. al.)

Do you really think a QB's never been benched for fumbles?

We can compare and contrast all night and day,...and there's no need to hide from it by trying to force people to "not compare" stats you don't particularly care for.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
My point is that talking about RB's getting benched for fumbling is similar to a qb getting credited for fumbles is disingenuous.

It's not a qualitative stat. It'd be like someone talking about Trey's comp % in pre-season without mentioning all the drops. It's misleading and disingenuous.

It's also why I was responding to French. He's said its crazy that people would brush off 17 fumbles in 30 games(really 32). Watson has 30 in 54 and I've never heard anyone talk about Watson having a fumbling problem.

It's because everyone understands that's a stat that doesn't mean much considering that many fumbles credited are not actually fumbles.

Kurt Warner has 104 fumbles in 124 career games. He's in the HOF and I've never heard of Warner having a fumbling problem.

Must've been so crazy how during all those HOF seasons no one was worried about his fumbles.

There are some differences between a RB fumbling and a center-exchange fumble with a QB.

But pointing out the fact that RBs can get benched for coughing it up isin't disingenuous. Saying that is the true extreme take here actually,...not the minor note about RBs.

Lol now if we did want to seek out being disingenuous...

Originally posted by jonnydel:

John Elway had 137 fumbles in 234 career games or almost 59% of games.
Jimmy is 53%. Better than 2 guys in the HOF with 3 trophies.

Lol were you really comparing the +/- of guys like John Elway and Kurt Warner,....to Jimmy G??

If we are getting that crazy then let me bring it back to the middle once again in stating that guys like that that can make so many plays and score so many touchdowns with their arms are ALLOWED to fumble the ball a little more. When you don't make anywhere near as many plays as guys like that in their heyday, you're that much more of a liability when you turn the ball over. Pretty basic.

Pretty basic in that you're still not understanding the point. The point is those guys really didn't have that many fumbles. A ton of those are botched snaps, and yes, shotgun snaps are included.

My whole point is that trying to even use qb fumbles as any sort of talking point is silly because there zero way, none, nada nowhere anything that separates what is actually their fault.

So, trying to assign fault where we have no way to know, is disingenuous.

It's like using qb sacks as a definitive statement on if a qb is good or bad or pro/con. There's no way to know, unless it is specifically tabulated out, which are his fault and which are the OL fault.

The same could be said to an even greater degree about using wins as a QB stat. There are a lot more factors and variables in a team winning a game than there is in a fumble by the QB, yet people here bring up Jimmy's W/L record here constantly.

Right. There's no denying that. My point, the entire point to all this. Is that this particular stat doesn't tell us anything of substance. Look at great QB's. Some have high fumble numbers, some not as much. Look at bad qb's, same thing.

I'm not denying it that fumbles are bad. I have a hard time with someone using fumbles as definitive evidence for a QB, considering how thr stats are tabulated.

I hate Russel Wilson but if someone tried to use this same stat against him I'd make the same argument.