Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'd rather have Howell. He's gonna be QB1. He's way cheaper. He looks like a better prospect to me. Watch him play. Why do you think he's QB1, and TL is QB2/3? You are your record, is a famous coach saying. You are your track record, and your spot on the depth chart. Howell is higher in WAS, than TL is in SF. Ask why that is? Should that be the case, with our investment? Was TL the best option, in 2021 or 2022, draft?

Because the Commanders don't have a Brock Purdy.

Sam Howell was not the best option in any draft. Commanders are doing the opposite of what you advocated. But you support it simply in the context of Trey Lance.

Look, I don't support the Commanders. I said in a post yesterday, there are a lot of ways to get a QB1, and taking a round 5 like WAS or pick 262 like us, are examples of ways. Just cuz you invest hard in the draft, doesn't mean you are getting quality. You want the most quality that you can get, not the biggest investment you can make. You are conflating this.

Again faithful, how can you criticize Kyle and John for trading up to get their guy, if you said teams should disregard value when looking for a QB in FA?

"You do everything you can to get the best QB you can. It's the most important position in sport not a position to skimp. Why should other clubs without a QB settle for inferior options?" -faithful6

You flip flop all the time when defending Jimmy vs Trey. It's incredibly dishonest of you to not at least acknowledge that.

Originally posted by eric_anthony:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Everything you said is nonsense.

1. Peyton manning didn't have a slow start. Lmao he was 3rd in the nfl in Passing yards and 5th in passing touchdowns. Yes, he lead the league in picks but he was on a bad team that leaned on him. He showed he was a superstar in the making, he just needed to work on the INT. His second year they went 13-3. Complete nonsense.

2. Joe montana didn't have a slow start? He just wasn't starting? He was also a 3rd round pick. No one was expecting him to be some future star that was drafted high in the first round. His first year starting full time he won the super bowl?

3. Steve young is like one of the only examples in nfl history where someone got off to a really rough start, left a team, and went on to be amazing and win a Super Bowl. He went to the USFL and not the NFL initially.

4. Josh allen wasn't off to a slow start. Lol It was clear he was talented. He had one question mark and it was his accuracy. That's all.

5. Trevor Lawrence: you can't win in this league with bad coaching and bad talent around you. In Lawrence case, he had probably the worst coach in NFL history. Lmao Lawrence was someone you KNEW was a bonafide generational talent and he wasn't the issue.

6. Aaron Rodgers didn't even play his first few years cause Farve was tearing it up. When Rodgers actually took over, he was great and continued to get better. Won a super bowl in what, his third year starting?

so stop with this nonsense. Lance has a great team around him, great coaching, great offensive playbook/calling, great culture etc. he has no excuse. He's extremely raw and inexperienced and I don't think he was ready to take on the mantle of leading a Super Bowl expectation team with tons of pro bowlers and all pros. I never thought it was the right pick and It's unfortunate how it's played out.

but stop using ridiculous examples, that I know you heard on the Krueg show lmao, because it's nonsense. Learn to look into these things.

How about stop playing him like a fullback and play him like a QB? Stop with all the designed runs and have him extend plays with his legs. The kid has barely had a chance to prove himself with suspect playcalling. Funny how the only time he played fine was when the team was rolling in the second half of the season against the Texans. And even then the offense was inconsistent before Jimmy got hurt. It's way too early to write him off without seeing him play 4-5 straight games and not as a damn fullback with 10+ designed runs. I can agree he probably wasn't ready to lead the team to a SB his first year but that's why he really needed to start his first year so he could get that needed game experience.

I hated seeing how Kyle used him, I agree. We played him like we do Juice.

it actually made it way more difficult to gauge his potential because we barely threw the ball. It felt like every third down he was running, instead of passing.

im more of the thought that we put him in those positions and see how he does. If he does bad, we learn about it and he can hopefully improve upon those experiences. If he did well, awesome and he can continue to grow.

i hate running your qb the way we did and all it did was put him at more risk for injury. I also thought we would run him that way to set up some devastating play action and i felt like they didn't happen as often as it should have.

my post was more so geared towards the logic the guy was using. I'm not saying Lance won't get better, he should and I expect him to. I've said it many times that I think Lance is a Dak type QB, which is a good QB In this league. He just needs a lot of playing time - I think like 2 full seasons, before he gets there.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'd rather have Howell. He's gonna be QB1. He's way cheaper. He looks like a better prospect to me. Watch him play. Why do you think he's QB1, and TL is QB2/3? You are your record, is a famous coach saying. You are your track record, and your spot on the depth chart. Howell is higher in WAS, than TL is in SF. Ask why that is? Should that be the case, with our investment? Was TL the best option, in 2021 or 2022, draft?

Because the Commanders don't have a Brock Purdy.

Sam Howell was not the best option in any draft. Commanders are doing the opposite of what you advocated. But you support it simply in the context of Trey Lance.

Look, I don't support the Commanders. I said in a post yesterday, there are a lot of ways to get a QB1, and taking a round 5 like WAS or pick 262 like us, are examples of ways. Just cuz you invest hard in the draft, doesn't mean you are getting quality. You want the most quality that you can get, not the biggest investment you can make. You are conflating this.

Again faithful, how can you criticize Kyle and John for trading up to get their guy, if you said teams should disregard value when looking for a QB in FA?

"You do everything you can to get the best QB you can. It's the most important position in sport not a position to skimp. Why should other clubs without a QB settle for inferior options?" -faithful6

You flip flop all the time when defending Jimmy vs Trey. It's incredibly dishonest of you to not at least acknowledge that.

WB, this is easy, and thanks for the opportunity

You don't want an inferior QB. TL is an inferior QB. So not only did we get the inferior guy, we didn't even settle for the inferior guy! We paid a kings ransom, for the inferior guy. Ask yourself why the guy they sold the ranch for is behind pick 262 and maybe, maybe not, behind Sam Darnold.

My point with your bold, is say you have two QBs, and one is better, pay the higher price, to get the better QB. I totally stand by that 100%. Don't save yourself money, or picks, with an inferior QB. I 1000% stand by that. That is not what happened here. We got the inferior QB, and paid the superior price, it's a double whammy. Can you not see this?

Give me some tough ones WB, this is T-ball.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
WB, this is easy, and thanks for the opportunity

You don't want an inferior QB. TL is an inferior QB. So not only did we get the inferior guy, we didn't even settle for the inferior guy! We paid a kings ransom, for the inferior guy. Ask yourself why the guy they sold the ranch for is behind pick 262 and maybe, maybe not, behind Sam Darnold.

My point with your bold, is say you have two QBs, and one is better, pay the higher price, to get the better QB. I totally stand by that 100%. Don't save yourself money, or picks, with an inferior QB. I 1000% stand by that. That is not what happened here. We got the inferior QB, and paid the superior price, it's a double whammy. Can you not see this?

Give me some tough ones WB, this is T-ball.

This logically makes zero sense.

Don't risk picks but risk prime financial resources if one guy is functional.

So if the 9ers had taken Fields, the guy you have praised endlessly, Are you making the same don't trade the pick argument? Wait and go for a Sam Howell or pray for a Brock Purdy? But if you have a middling QB spend whatever to keep them.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
WB, this is easy, and thanks for the opportunity

You don't want an inferior QB. TL is an inferior QB. So not only did we get the inferior guy, we didn't even settle for the inferior guy! We paid a kings ransom, for the inferior guy. Ask yourself why the guy they sold the ranch for is behind pick 262 and maybe, maybe not, behind Sam Darnold.

My point with your bold, is say you have two QBs, and one is better, pay the higher price, to get the better QB. I totally stand by that 100%. Don't save yourself money, or picks, with an inferior QB. I 1000% stand by that. That is not what happened here. We got the inferior QB, and paid the superior price, it's a double whammy. Can you not see this?

Give me some tough ones WB, this is T-ball.

This logically makes zero sense.

Don't risk picks but risk prime financial resources if one guy is functional.

So if the 9ers had taken Fields, the guy you have praised endlessly, Are you making the same don't trade the pick argument? Wait and go for a Sam Howell or pray for a Brock Purdy? But if you have a middling QB spend whatever to keep them.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
WB, this is easy, and thanks for the opportunity

You don't want an inferior QB. TL is an inferior QB. So not only did we get the inferior guy, we didn't even settle for the inferior guy! We paid a kings ransom, for the inferior guy. Ask yourself why the guy they sold the ranch for is behind pick 262 and maybe, maybe not, behind Sam Darnold.

My point with your bold, is say you have two QBs, and one is better, pay the higher price, to get the better QB. I totally stand by that 100%. Don't save yourself money, or picks, with an inferior QB. I 1000% stand by that. That is not what happened here. We got the inferior QB, and paid the superior price, it's a double whammy. Can you not see this?

Give me some tough ones WB, this is T-ball.

This logically makes zero sense.

Don't risk picks but risk prime financial resources if one guy is functional.

So if the 9ers had taken Fields, the guy you have praised endlessly, Are you making the same don't trade the pick argument? Wait and go for a Sam Howell or pray for a Brock Purdy? But if you have a middling QB spend whatever to keep them.

It depends who we move up for, absolutely. That's the inferior options part of my post. Say we gave 5 ones, and moved up to take Uncle Rico. Would anyone be applauding? Of course not. Who they take is paramount, obviously. I'm not saying don't risk picks. I am totally fine if they risk picks, in fact that was WBs quote of mine he keeps sharing, it is me saying, if there is a better QB, and you need to invest more to get said QB, do it. I stand by that. Yet he thinks this means I am fine, or should be applauding, if we invest hard in the wrong QB, why would I, or anyone, be fine with that?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
It depends who we move up for, absolutely. That's the inferior options part of my post. Say we gave 5 ones, and moved up to take Uncle Rico. Would anyone be applauding? Of course not. Who they take is paramount, obviously. I'm not saying don't risk picks. I am totally fine if they risk picks, in fact that was WBs quote of mine he keeps sharing, it is me saying, if there is a better QB, and you need to invest more to get said QB, do it. I stand by that. Yet he thinks this means I am fine, or should be applauding, if we invest hard in the wrong QB, why would I, or anyone, be fine with that?

But weren't you saying you hated the trade up and it was a mistake at time? So now if it was Fields it wouldn't be? At least others are saying don't make the trade in general for anyone. At least that's logically consistent.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
It depends who we move up for, absolutely. That's the inferior options part of my post. Say we gave 5 ones, and moved up to take Uncle Rico. Would anyone be applauding? Of course not. Who they take is paramount, obviously. I'm not saying don't risk picks. I am totally fine if they risk picks, in fact that was WBs quote of mine he keeps sharing, it is me saying, if there is a better QB, and you need to invest more to get said QB, do it. I stand by that. Yet he thinks this means I am fine, or should be applauding, if we invest hard in the wrong QB, why would I, or anyone, be fine with that?

But weren't you saying you hated the trade up and it was a mistake at time? So now if it was Fields it wouldn't be? At least others are saying don't make the trade in general for anyone. At least that's logically consistent.

I'm not talking about Fields specifically in my above post, I'm talking about in general. I am on record in this thread as saying, I didn't like the trade up. I wasn't convinced these guys were superior options, to what we already had. Or to what we could obtain through other means.

Originally posted by eric_anthony:
How about stop playing him like a fullback and play him like a QB? Stop with all the designed runs and have him extend plays with his legs. The kid has barely had a chance to prove himself with suspect playcalling. Funny how the only time he played fine was when the team was rolling in the second half of the season against the Texans. And even then the offense was inconsistent before Jimmy got hurt. It's way too early to write him off without seeing him play 4-5 straight games and not as a damn fullback with 10+ designed runs. I can agree he probably wasn't ready to lead the team to a SB his first year but that's why he really needed to start his first year so he could get that needed game experience.

this

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
Just going off what we know

- There is no special film of him at any level

- He's played one full season, and it was on the little league globetrotters. They had Christian Watson and they were still run first

- He has sucked in the NFL in a great situation. Small sample, but it align with what we've seen in pre season and heard from practice reports

- The biggest one imo, is that the organization that invested so much in him is done after 4 starts. He has to suck if that's the case. There is no other answer. He would have been given so much support this offseason if they believed in him

Dude! WTF are you talking about. Trey is 1-0 He beat the Texans in a must win game. That's the only game that you can judge Trey.

As for practice reports and preseason games. Did you forget his TD to Sherfield? What about his rolling left and throwing deep his pro day. You adding that into your report? Not too mention the mother of them all. He threw a pass while in the presence of Patrick F'ing Mahomes. Judge him by those 3 passes not the other 100+ passes. Fake fan!!!!!

You should be embarrassed with yourselves being this dramatic

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'd rather have Howell. He's gonna be QB1. He's way cheaper. He looks like a better prospect to me. Watch him play. Why do you think he's QB1, and TL is QB2/3? You are your record, is a famous coach saying. You are your track record, and your spot on the depth chart. Howell is higher in WAS, than TL is in SF. Ask why that is? Should that be the case, with our investment? Was TL the best option, in 2021 or 2022, draft?

Because the Commanders don't have a Brock Purdy.

Sam Howell was not the best option in any draft. Commanders are doing the opposite of what you advocated. But you support it simply in the context of Trey Lance.

Look, I don't support the Commanders. I said in a post yesterday, there are a lot of ways to get a QB1, and taking a round 5 like WAS or pick 262 like us, are examples of ways. Just cuz you invest hard in the draft, doesn't mean you are getting quality. You want the most quality that you can get, not the biggest investment you can make. You are conflating this.

Again faithful, how can you criticize Kyle and John for trading up to get their guy, if you said teams should disregard value when looking for a QB in FA?

"You do everything you can to get the best QB you can. It's the most important position in sport not a position to skimp. Why should other clubs without a QB settle for inferior options?" -faithful6

You flip flop all the time when defending Jimmy vs Trey. It's incredibly dishonest of you to not at least acknowledge that.

WB, this is easy, and thanks for the opportunity

You don't want an inferior QB. TL is an inferior QB. So not only did we get the inferior guy, we didn't even settle for the inferior guy! We paid a kings ransom, for the inferior guy. Ask yourself why the guy they sold the ranch for is behind pick 262 and maybe, maybe not, behind Sam Darnold.

My point with your bold, is say you have two QBs, and one is better, pay the higher price, to get the better QB. I totally stand by that 100%. Don't save yourself money, or picks, with an inferior QB. I 1000% stand by that. That is not what happened here. We got the inferior QB, and paid the superior price, it's a double whammy. Can you not see this?

Give me some tough ones WB, this is T-ball.

I'm not objecting to anyone concluding the trade up to 3 overall was a mistake, fans have voiced their displeasure with Trey all offseason, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm objecting to the fact that...

1. You act like we knowingly traded up for an inferior player to what was on the board. According to you, we didn't do our homework before trading up to 3, we basically just traded up and started to review the film afterwards. Adam Schefter was wrong in his report that we were taking Mac Jones, but we should assume he's right in his latest report? I'm not saying we know the report is false but we certainly don't know that its true.

2. You claim teams shouldn't "skimp" out on the QB position when it's convenient in defending Jimmy, but with Trey, you say we should have cared more about "value". Besides the fact this is a textbook example of revisionist history, you're contradicting your own previous arguments. How could you not conclude that Kyle and John didn't do, "everything they can to get the best QB they could."?

Originally posted by Waterbear:
I'm not objecting to anyone concluding the trade up to 3 overall was a mistake, fans have voiced their displeasure with Trey all offseason, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm objecting to the fact that...

1. You act like we knowingly traded up for an inferior player to what was on the board. According to you, we didn't do our homework before trading up to 3, we basically just traded up and started to review the film afterwards. Adam Schefter was wrong in his report that we were taking Mac Jones, but we should assume he's right in his latest report? I'm not saying we know the report is false but we certainly don't know that its true.

2. You claim teams shouldn't "skimp" out on the QB position when it's convenient in defending Jimmy, but with Trey, you say we should have cared more about "value". Besides the fact this is a textbook example of revisionist history, you're contradicting your own previous arguments. How could you not conclude that Kyle and John didn't do, "everything they can to get the best QB they could."?

These weren't reports. They were opinions presumably based on information that was relayed to him.

Not trying to be nitpicky, but there is a clear difference. Schefter is a credible NFL reporter. His opinions are not infallible.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Everything you said is nonsense.

1. Peyton manning didn't have a slow start. Lmao he was 3rd in the nfl in Passing yards and 5th in passing touchdowns. Yes, he lead the league in picks but he was on a bad team that leaned on him. He showed he was a superstar in the making, he just needed to work on the INT. His second year they went 13-3. Complete nonsense.

2. Joe montana didn't have a slow start? He just wasn't starting? He was also a 3rd round pick. No one was expecting him to be some future star that was drafted high in the first round. His first year starting full time he won the super bowl?

3. Steve young is like one of the only examples in nfl history where someone got off to a really rough start, left a team, and went on to be amazing and win a Super Bowl. He went to the USFL and not the NFL initially.

4. Josh allen wasn't off to a slow start. Lol It was clear he was talented. He had one question mark and it was his accuracy. That's all.

5. Trevor Lawrence: you can't win in this league with bad coaching and bad talent around you. In Lawrence case, he had probably the worst coach in NFL history. Lmao Lawrence was someone you KNEW was a bonafide generational talent and he wasn't the issue.

6. Aaron Rodgers didn't even play his first few years cause Farve was tearing it up. When Rodgers actually took over, he was great and continued to get better. Won a super bowl in what, his third year starting?

so stop with this nonsense. Lance has a great team around him, great coaching, great offensive playbook/calling, great culture etc. he has no excuse. He's extremely raw and inexperienced and I don't think he was ready to take on the mantle of leading a Super Bowl expectation team with tons of pro bowlers and all pros. I never thought it was the right pick and It's unfortunate how it's played out.

but stop using ridiculous examples, that I know you heard on the Krueg show lmao, because it's nonsense. Learn to look into these things.

lol Manning was league MVP his 2nd season. Saying he started slow is 100% accurate when you consider the rest of his career.

Same for Joe Montana, not the example I would've brought up but it still applies. Not all his fault of course but the example still fits.

Young everyone knows about - don't let me catch you hyping up Sam Darnold with the post above tho.

Josh Allen wasn't a slow starter lol? You joking right? His only issue was accuracy? He had highlight videos on how bad his accuracy was. Buffalo fans were furious at him and thought he was a bust.

In fact he was such a great comparison to Trey the dude even did a draft video for Trey, clearly people thought they were similar.

Lawrence clearly was held back by coaching but he also wasn't good. Still a solid example of a prospect even as good as Lawrence needing time to shake off the rust.

You can also add Jalen Hurts and Justin Fields. Both weren't exactly lighting the world on fire their first few starts. Team played them and let them develop and now they look like great players moving forward.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'd rather have Howell. He's gonna be QB1. He's way cheaper. He looks like a better prospect to me. Watch him play. Why do you think he's QB1, and TL is QB2/3? You are your record, is a famous coach saying. You are your track record, and your spot on the depth chart. Howell is higher in WAS, than TL is in SF. Ask why that is? Should that be the case, with our investment? Was TL the best option, in 2021 or 2022, draft?

Because the Commanders don't have a Brock Purdy.

Sam Howell was not the best option in any draft. Commanders are doing the opposite of what you advocated. But you support it simply in the context of Trey Lance.

Look, I don't support the Commanders. I said in a post yesterday, there are a lot of ways to get a QB1, and taking a round 5 like WAS or pick 262 like us, are examples of ways. Just cuz you invest hard in the draft, doesn't mean you are getting quality. You want the most quality that you can get, not the biggest investment you can make. You are conflating this.

Again faithful, how can you criticize Kyle and John for trading up to get their guy, if you said teams should disregard value when looking for a QB in FA?

"You do everything you can to get the best QB you can. It's the most important position in sport not a position to skimp. Why should other clubs without a QB settle for inferior options?" -faithful6

You flip flop all the time when defending Jimmy vs Trey. It's incredibly dishonest of you to not at least acknowledge that.

WB, this is easy, and thanks for the opportunity

You don't want an inferior QB. TL is an inferior QB. So not only did we get the inferior guy, we didn't even settle for the inferior guy! We paid a kings ransom, for the inferior guy. Ask yourself why the guy they sold the ranch for is behind pick 262 and maybe, maybe not, behind Sam Darnold.

My point with your bold, is say you have two QBs, and one is better, pay the higher price, to get the better QB. I totally stand by that 100%. Don't save yourself money, or picks, with an inferior QB. I 1000% stand by that. That is not what happened here. We got the inferior QB, and paid the superior price, it's a double whammy. Can you not see this?

Give me some tough ones WB, this is T-ball.

I'm not objecting to anyone concluding the trade up to 3 overall was a mistake, fans have voiced their displeasure with Trey all offseason, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm objecting to the fact that...

1. You act like we knowingly traded up for an inferior player to what was on the board. According to you, we didn't do our homework before trading up to 3, we basically just traded up and started to review the film afterwards. Adam Schefter was wrong in his report that we were taking Mac Jones, but we should assume he's right in his latest report? I'm not saying we know the report is false but we certainly don't know that its true.

2. You claim teams shouldn't "skimp" out on the QB position when it's convenient in defending Jimmy, but with Trey, you say we should have cared more about "value". Besides the fact this is a textbook example of revisionist history, you're contradicting your own previous arguments. How could you not conclude that Kyle and John didn't do, "everything they can to get the best QB they could."?

On point number 1, obviously they liked TL. I didn't. It's just my opinion at the time, and I still don't like his game, or am not encouraged.
I don't know what happened, I hear that they moved up, then concluded their assessments. I would like to know how it went down, and who felt what, inside the bldg. I posed as open questions yesterday, what happened here? We may never know.

You don't understand the quote. Here is the quote again:

"You do everything you can to get the best QB you can. It's the most important position in sport not a position to skimp. Why should other clubs without a QB settle for inferior options?" -faithful6

This is a FA discussion. so get the better FA, given two guys, one of whom is better. Even if you have to invest more. I stand by that. Does this apply to the draft? not what the context was. You took it and pasted it in out of context. But sure, I'll play along, again TL is not a superior option. Read the 'inferior options' part. Heck he's not a superior option to pick 262. He was never the best QB. Imo. So when I say get the best QB you can.. I don't believe he ever was that. I don't think he's as good as Jimmy G. I like a tremendous number of QBs more, based on their game.

Originally posted by dmax:

Originally posted by eric_anthony:
How about stop playing him like a fullback and play him like a QB? Stop with all the designed runs and have him extend plays with his legs. The kid has barely had a chance to prove himself with suspect playcalling. Funny how the only time he played fine was when the team was rolling in the second half of the season against the Texans. And even then the offense was inconsistent before Jimmy got hurt. It's way too early to write him off without seeing him play 4-5 straight games and not as a damn fullback with 10+ designed runs. I can agree he probably wasn't ready to lead the team to a SB his first year but that's why he really needed to start his first year so he could get that needed game experience.

this

Ever give any thought as to why they ran him so much? To me, it seems like they did it because they felt he wasn't up to the task of passing. You can't have a guy out there sailing passes all over the place. I was for drafting Trey, but the trade up guaranteed that the pick wasn't ever going to be worth it, and not only that, but it was going to place unduly high expectations on Trey, who is unquestionably one of, if not the, most raw qb ever drafted in the first round. It was completely unrealistic to expect Trey to be ready to run the offense as quick as some here did. He played so little football in his life, and what he did play was at an inferior level. I still think he has the raw skills to mold into a decent player, but no head coach with a team set up to win now is going to throw a rookie who can't run the offense out there to wreck the season. I'm hoping he looks as improved as we've been hearing from OTAs in the preseason. I hope he is good enough to be our qb2 this year, and by next offseason, good enough to compete for qb1. I just hope we don't have to see that scrub Darnold ever play meaningful snaps for this team.