Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by Wubbie:
Per this article (https://www.sportingnews.com/ca/nfl/news/nfl-draft-luck-picking-a-pro-bowler-like-aaron-donald-or-dak-prescott-is-not-as-easy-as-it-looks/tpgicnny6lq81vhcz1aaqydrj)

I skimmed it... But from 2005-2020:

1. 65% of Pro Bowlers drafted in this period were found within the first two rounds, with QB's having similar percentage (68%).
2. Only 23% of Pro Bowlers were drafted in Round 4 or later, and that number goes down if you exclude Special Teams players.

I think it's a fair assumption though that all of NFL history follows similarly to the above stats.

Guys like Tom Brady are an example that great players can come from the later rounds, guys like Ryan Leaf are examples of busts taken in the early round.
But more often than not, you tend to find better players in the earlier rounds than the later rounds.

Not sure why this is having to be said

That wasn't the argument. No one is disputing that higher draft has higher success rate.

The argument is how relevant that is compare to player performance. Draft pick position is one data point, performance on the field is another data point. Sure the more snaps the more important the performance data point. As some point, the draft position data point becomes completely irrelevant. Purdy might play 7 to 10 games this season. How impressive does he need to have a fair competition for the 2023 starter job. Or are going to say he had a very impressive 7-10 games, but he is only a 7th rounder, so he is not gonna make it.

Not sure why this is having to be said.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You can disagree, but this is a legitimate argument.

There's no question that it is.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by boast:
you claimed he missed extended time due to injury. you back pedal on semantics so often it's funny.

"Hurt" isin't referring at all to games missed. I mean quoting it doesn't change the bait and switching you're doing. And it's besides the clear point: TEAMS WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S UP WITH THEIR TOP 5 PICK.

Where you were selected DOES MATTER. Realistically and financially.

youve now lost the plot entirely. all your bolded has nothing to do with the original comments about draft position being irrelevant to how one will perform in the NFL.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You can disagree, but this is a legitimate argument.

Lol it is absolutely not a legitimate argument. In what world would you want a young QB to NOT play on a great roster? The last thing you want is a young QB on a trash team forced to do more than he can and fail.

You know how many young QBs failed in part because they played on a horrible team? A s**t ton.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
There's no question that it is.

No it isn't. Not a single person should want a young QB to play on a horrible team. If anything it allows the QB to be supported by talent and not have to do more than they can. Thats how a s**t ton of young QBs careers fail.

My god people have s**t ass backwards. Let's start our young inexperienced QB on a horrible team. That will make him better da f**k.

Now ya'll are gonna tell me Brock would be playing just as well on a horrible team. Unbelievable.

Originally posted by boast:
youve now lost the plot entirely. all your bolded has nothing to do with the original comments about draft position being irrelevant to how one will perform in the NFL.

That's untrue as well,...lol. And there is a sea of data out there that says so but hey,...keep going with it simply because it sounds good.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
That wasn't the argument. No one is disputing that higher draft has higher success rate.

The argument is how relevant that is compare to player performance. Draft pick position is one data point, performance on the field is another data point. Sure the more snaps the more important the performance data point. As some point, the draft position data point becomes completely irrelevant. Purdy might play 7 to 10 games this season. How impressive does he need to have a fair competition for the 2023 starter job. Or are going to say he had a very impressive 7-10 games, but he is only a 7th rounder, so he is not gonna make it.

Not sure why this is having to be said.

Literally what he just wrote backed up that higher picks have a higher success rate…which in fact is about performance on the field. Overall there isn't a position that holds true more than the QB position.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Lol it is absolutely not a legitimate argument. In what world would you want a young QB to NOT play on a great roster? The last thing you want is a young QB on a trash team forced to do more than he can and fail.

You know how many young QBs failed in part because they played on a horrible team? A s**t ton.

In the world that we actually live in. The world where our extremely raw, developmental, project can be a detriment to the current team's chances of winning the Super Bowl.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by libertyforever:
You can disagree, but this is a legitimate argument.

Lol it is absolutely not a legitimate argument. In what world would you want a young QB to NOT play on a great roster? The last thing you want is a young QB on a trash team forced to do more than he can and fail.

You know how many young QBs failed in part because they played on a horrible team? A s**t ton.

Lol it has already been argue by many people in this thread and elsewhere. You don't have to agree, but if you don't even acknowledge this is a legitimate argument, then you may never have the intelligence to understand. As a result, I am not going to waste more of my time explaining this to you.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Lol it is absolutely not a legitimate argument. In what world would you want a young QB to NOT play on a great roster? The last thing you want is a young QB on a trash team forced to do more than he can and fail.

You know how many young QBs failed in part because they played on a horrible team? A s**t ton.

In the world that we actually live in. The world where our extremely raw, developmental, project can be a detriment to the current team's chances of winning the Super Bowl.

And a 7th rd rookie QB isn't lol? This team clearly doesn't need elite QB play to win games. That's been true for years now.

it's like none of you can accept the fact that they moved up for a QB and part of doing that means you have to play them and let them develop. That doesn't mean you have to lose games either.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by boast:
youve now lost the plot entirely. all your bolded has nothing to do with the original comments about draft position being irrelevant to how one will perform in the NFL.

That's untrue as well,...lol. And there is a sea of data out there that says so but hey,...keep going with it simply because it sounds good.

hahahahaha! no doubt the HoF player who won multiple MVPs that said the same thing about draft position knows nothing about the topic. a random poster on a forum knows way more than that guy.

have fun with that.

Originally posted by libertyforever:
Lol it has already been argue by many people in this thread and elsewhere. You don't have to agree, but if you don't even acknowledge this is a legitimate argument, then you may never have the intelligence to understand. As a result, I am not going to waste more of my time explaining this to you.

Your debate is crap. You should NEVER want your young QB to play on a bad team. anyone with half a brain should get that. Acting like you can't develop a QB and win games with a Super Roster is dumb as well…now you're gonna tell me Brock would be just as good playing on the bears or some other s**t team.

Originally posted by boast:
...... the original comments about draft position being irrelevant to how one will perform in the NFL.

I mean tbh boast....you've never served me an easier layup than this one.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2015/05/22/tracking-nfl-draft-efficiency-how-contingent-is-success-to-draft-position/?sh=6e8eb7047495

I could bore you with statistics all day but why? The correlation should be quite obvious without even looking. There is your proof that it does matter, however. Not only are teams more patient with you, not only are you given more opportunities (Mark Brunell/Ty Detmer over Kurt Warner??), but there are clear results there for you where nearly 30% of starters were 1st rounders, compared to 4% of 7th rounders.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by boast:
...... the original comments about draft position being irrelevant to how one will perform in the NFL.

I mean tbh boast....you've never served me an easier layup than this one.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2015/05/22/tracking-nfl-draft-efficiency-how-contingent-is-success-to-draft-position/?sh=6e8eb7047495

I could bore you with statistics all day but why? The correlation should be quite obvious without even looking. There is your proof that it does matter, however. Not only are teams more patient with you, not only are you given more opportunities, but there are clear results there for you where nearly 30% of starters were 1st rounders.

I can't believe we're even having a debate about it. Same s**t with thinking the only way you can start a young QB is if the team is bad lol. Wtf is going on in here??

it's okay to talk about outliners and "hope" Brock is one…But for the love of god realize the odds of that happening are small as f**k. Let's also stop acting like having a great team around a young QB isn't gonna help that QB develop. let's stop acting like this team can't win a bunch of games with middle of the road QB play, we've been doing it for years now.