Dallas Cowboys QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by NCommand:
Wanting a top QB and OL should be every teams priority, IMHO.

Not saying it's not…weren't not in the OL thread though. We're talking about a QB they spent a s**t ton on with incredible upside…and for whatever reason they've all but left out in the cold broken mentally/physically after 100 random passing attempts in two years. I know some "fans" are absolutely loving it (not saying you), which is incredibly weird/sad on its own.

I've never seen such an unprofessional approach to developing a QB you supposedly "loved" enough to make the biggest trade in franchise history.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Seems to me like some fans and some people in the FO are cool with "good enough" at the QB position. We can't even get a proper development of a QB that we spent a billion picks on and has a sky high ceiling.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Grant and Stats but they weren't wrong on Stats' pod the other day. They broke a 22 yr old QB both physically/mentally (congrats to certain fans) and all but gave up after 4 games.

we got 50+ games of straight trash from Darnold and people (including Kyle) want to prop up 6 games lol and if you watch those games it ain't special…it's just better than the pure trash he's put out there for 5 yrs. Meanwhile we got 100 random passes from Lance and we can't talk about anything good from those plays (which there was). It's just all bad according to some.

for once I actually agree with this guys

🚨Is the @treylance09 era in San Francisco over already?

Join @StatsOnFire & @grantcohn LIVE at 11:30 AM PT today to discuss!🚨

YouTube: https://t.co/BVOeoQisGu

— Gold Standard Network (@GSPodcasts) March 29, 2023

Exactly. See, my standards are the same regardless of the position. LOL

And some of the harshest critics of Lance believe Jimmy was a top 5 QB and that's verbatim.

Oof. Maybe top 5 efficiency for long stretches but that's about it. Top 12ish IMHO.

Efficiency is an offensive measurement,...not a ranking. Gotta put on the tape for rankings.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Not saying it's not…weren't not in the OL thread though. We're talking about a QB they spent a s**t ton on with incredible upside…and for whatever reason they've all but left out in the cold broken mentally/physically after 100 random passing attempts in two years. I know some "fans" are absolutely loving it (not saying you), which is incredibly weird/sad on its own.

I've never seen such an unprofessional approach to developing a QB you supposedly "loved" enough to make the biggest trade in franchise history.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Wanting a top QB and OL should be every teams priority, IMHO.

Not saying it's not…weren't not in the OL thread though. We're talking about a QB they spent a s**t ton on with incredible upside…and for whatever reason they've all but left out in the cold broken mentally/physically after 100 random passing attempts in two years. I know some "fans" are absolutely loving it (not saying you), which is incredibly weird/sad on its own.

I've never seen such an unprofessional approach to developing a QB you supposedly "loved" enough to make the biggest trade in franchise history.

All very true!

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Exactly. See, my standards are the same regardless of the position. LOL

Thing is you can't have great everywhere….

wanting/developing a great QB >>> any other position group.

Wanting a top QB and OL should be every teams priority, IMHO.

What is a top OL? They have two different jobs in pass pro and run blocking. In Kyle's outside zone offense, you need speed more that power to run, and that sucks up the defenders to throw deep. Our problem has been that Jimmy G was incredibly awful throwing deep to take advantage of what's there. He does seem to be moving towards bigger OL men, and perhaps fewer outside zone run plays.

I was pissed at Kyle running Lance too, but I'm convinced the Only reason he did that was that Lance wasn't mentally ready to read and see that open guy. Purdy is. At this point, the need and wisdom of throwing away a season to see if Lance Might get it is not there, as odds are he's not going to beat out Purdy long term anyway. I predict if we need a season starter, it will be Darnold, and Lance will be traded during the draft.

Originally posted by Giedi:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Seems to me like some fans and some people in the FO are cool with "good enough" at the QB position. We can't even get a proper development of a QB that we spent a billion picks on and has a sky high ceiling.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Grant and Stats but they weren't wrong on Stats' pod the other day. They broke a 22 yr old QB both physically/mentally (congrats to certain fans) and all but gave up after 4 games.

we got 50 games of straight trash from Darnold and people (including Kyle) want to prop up 6 games lol and if you watch those games it ain't special…it's just better than the pure trash he's put out there for 5 yrs. Meanwhile we got 100 random passes from Lance and we can't talk about anything good from those plays (which there was). It's just all bad according to some.

for once I actually agree with this guys

????Is the @treylance09 era in San Francisco over already?

Join @StatsOnFire & @grantcohn LIVE at 11:30 AM PT today to discuss!????

YouTube: https://t.co/BVOeoQisGu

— Gold Standard Network (@GSPodcasts) March 29, 2023

Exactly. See, my standards are the same regardless of the position. LOL

And some of the harshest critics of Lance believe Jimmy was a top 5 QB and that's verbatim.

Oof. Maybe top 5 efficiency for long stretches but that's about it. Top 12ish IMHO.

I agree that he was never a top 5 QB in the eyes of coaches and GMs around the league. He may have been in some stats but not as a QB overall. He was in that "good enough" category which means he was good enough to win with as long as the players around him stayed healthy and the defense played well. That puts him right in the middle of the pack in the NFL. 15-20.

I agree with you all, but from a different angle. I *do* think Jimmy is elite and top 5, however his durability drops him to middle of the pack. I think in 2017 he showed the ability to elevate a horrible team to a much higher level and that is one dimension of being a top QB - can you elevate your teammates when you enter a game? I think he clearly did that in 2017 and deserved that franchise level salary. However, his durability - which I think Tankle researched - was something on the order of 60% availability. Just eyeballing Joe Cools stats, it looks like he was out for only one season with that back injury but he was available - about 85 % of the rest of the time. Jimmy got hit in the super bowl KC game and looked like he played semi-concussed the last few minutes, and in his second NFCCG, he had a shoulder and a hand injury. To me, his durability was his kryptonite.

Jimmy can elevate a bad team to middle of the pack or even into good status. The problem is he can't elevate the team to the highest levels, which is why he can't be top 5. Then there's the reality that, he isn't going to get as much talent all over the offensive side as the ball as what he had here. So can he still win at his current clip without having the elite talent all over? For his sake, the Raiders are still a very good offensive team and the coach is a good play caller, so he won't be in a bad situation, but Jimmy's ceiling overall is definitely not top 5. Top 5 QBs don't have to wait in free agency and sign for backup money just because of an injury. I totally agree with the bolded.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Not saying it's not…weren't not in the OL thread though. We're talking about a QB they spent a s**t ton on with incredible upside…and for whatever reason they've all but left out in the cold broken mentally/physically after 100 random passing attempts in two years. I know some "fans" are absolutely loving it (not saying you), which is incredibly weird/sad on its own.

I've never seen such an unprofessional approach to developing a QB you supposedly "loved" enough to make the biggest trade in franchise history.

It's true You'd be saying the same thing if Mac Jones got 100 random passes and was an afterthought after that. At least McCorkle got two seasons of football before Bill started saying he might not be the dude.

The Chiefs scouted Mahomes for years before moving up to take him. They knew they wanted to move on from Alex, but were patient and did so when their guy came out.

Our big plan was move on from Jimmy. It was never about Trey until late in the process. Going after Stafford and trading up were products of wanting to move on from Jimmy, not a move to get their guy like the Chiefs made. I know the draft capital makes it seem like they loved the kid, when in reality he just happened to be there with Fields and Mac as the other choices.

It was a complete mess from start to finish, but they found Brock so they won't have to pay the price lol

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Wanting a top QB and OL should be every teams priority, IMHO.

Not saying it's not…weren't not in the OL thread though. We're talking about a QB they spent a s**t ton on with incredible upside…and for whatever reason they've all but left out in the cold broken mentally/physically after 100 random passing attempts in two years. I know some "fans" are absolutely loving it (not saying you), which is incredibly weird/sad on its own.

I've never seen such an unprofessional approach to developing a QB you supposedly "loved" enough to make the biggest trade in franchise history.

I agree. It's weird to spend that much draft capital to draft a known developmental "project" player and then put in almost no effort to develop that player. If you make this whole thing a judgement on Lance, then our FO comes off looking confused, foolish, and/or desperate. If you view it as not being about Lance, but more about Brock being so good that they had to change their plans, then it's a little more understandable.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Wanting a top QB and OL should be every teams priority, IMHO.

Not saying it's not…weren't not in the OL thread though. We're talking about a QB they spent a s**t ton on with incredible upside…and for whatever reason they've all but left out in the cold broken mentally/physically after 100 random passing attempts in two years. I know some "fans" are absolutely loving it (not saying you), which is incredibly weird/sad on its own.

I've never seen such an unprofessional approach to developing a QB you supposedly "loved" enough to make the biggest trade in franchise history.

I agree. It's weird to give up that much draft capital to draft a known developmental "project" player and then put in almost no effort to develop that player. If you make this whole thing a judgement on Lance, then our FO comes off looking confused, foolish, and/or desperate. If you view it as not being about Lance, but more about Brock being so good that they had to change their plans, then it's a little more understandable.

i missed the giving up part. Who said or what evidence is out there saying we gave up ?

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Wanting a top QB and OL should be every teams priority, IMHO.

Not saying it's not…weren't not in the OL thread though. We're talking about a QB they spent a s**t ton on with incredible upside…and for whatever reason they've all but left out in the cold broken mentally/physically after 100 random passing attempts in two years. I know some "fans" are absolutely loving it (not saying you), which is incredibly weird/sad on its own.

I've never seen such an unprofessional approach to developing a QB you supposedly "loved" enough to make the biggest trade in franchise history.

I agree. It's weird to give up that much draft capital to draft a known developmental "project" player and then put in almost no effort to develop that player. If you make this whole thing a judgement on Lance, then our FO comes off looking confused, foolish, and/or desperate. If you view it as not being about Lance, but more about Brock being so good that they had to change their plans, then it's a little more understandable.

i missed the giving up part. Who said or what evidence is out there saying we gave up ?

I'm not saying that they're giving up on Lance yet.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Seems to me like some fans and some people in the FO are cool with "good enough" at the QB position. We can't even get a proper development of a QB that we spent a billion picks on and has a sky high ceiling.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Grant and Stats but they weren't wrong on Stats' pod the other day. They broke a 22 yr old QB both physically/mentally (congrats to certain fans) and all but gave up after 4 games.

we got 50+ games of straight trash from Darnold and people (including Kyle) want to prop up 6 games lol and if you watch those games it ain't special…it's just better than the pure trash he's put out there for 5 yrs. Meanwhile we got 100 random passes from Lance and we can't talk about anything good from those plays (which there was). It's just all bad according to some.

for once I actually agree with this guys

🚨Is the @treylance09 era in San Francisco over already?

Join @StatsOnFire & @grantcohn LIVE at 11:30 AM PT today to discuss!🚨

YouTube: https://t.co/BVOeoQisGu

— Gold Standard Network (@GSPodcasts) March 29, 2023

Exactly. See, my standards are the same regardless of the position. LOL

And some of the harshest critics of Lance believe Jimmy was a top 5 QB and that's verbatim.

Oof. Maybe top 5 efficiency for long stretches but that's about it. Top 12ish IMHO.

In my opinion, on Jimmie's best days - he was in the 8-10 range and on his worst days he was in the 11-13 range. In other words, he was either one of the best game managers in the league Or an average one.

his efficiency was probably top 5 in the league but when you look at his complete body of work as qb, including his limitations, he is in the 8-13 range, depending on the week.

good to damn good qb but never elite. Elite QBs "make plays", they make others around them better, and more often than not - they don't just take what the defense gives
him. They put pressure on defenses and keep them on their heels. They throw guys open with excellent ball placement/timing. Etc. Jimmy didn't do that too often. Every once in a while but that's not good enough. Everyone in the league can do it from time to time, that's why they're in the league. Folks have to remember, a broken clock is still right twice a day. Lol

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
I agree. It's weird to spend that much draft capital to draft a known developmental "project" player and then put in almost no effort to develop that player. If you make this whole thing a judgement on Lance, then our FO comes off looking confused, foolish, and/or desperate. If you view it as not being about Lance, but more about Brock being so good that they had to change their plans, then it's a little more understandable.

Yes yes. Are they really convinced that Brock is just that good already? Interesting to see how this one plays out.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

I agree. It's weird to spend that much draft capital to draft a known developmental "project" player and then put in almost no effort to develop that player. If you make this whole thing a judgement on Lance, then our FO comes off looking confused, foolish, and/or desperate. If you view it as not being about Lance, but more about Brock being so good that they had to change their plans, then it's a little more understandable.

Yes yes. Are they really convinced that Brock is just that good already? Interesting to see how this one plays out.

I think they are more convinced Trey is just that bad

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Wanting a top QB and OL should be every teams priority, IMHO.

Not saying it's not…weren't not in the OL thread though. We're talking about a QB they spent a s**t ton on with incredible upside…and for whatever reason they've all but left out in the cold broken mentally/physically after 100 random passing attempts in two years. I know some "fans" are absolutely loving it (not saying you), which is incredibly weird/sad on its own.

I've never seen such an unprofessional approach to developing a QB you supposedly "loved" enough to make the biggest trade in franchise history.

I agree. It's weird to spend that much draft capital to draft a known developmental "project" player and then put in almost no effort to develop that player. If you make this whole thing a judgement on Lance, then our FO comes off looking confused, foolish, and/or desperate. If you view it as not being about Lance, but more about Brock being so good that they had to change their plans, then it's a little more understandable.

Rookie year I didn't expect much. If Jimmy would've had good trade value Lance probably would've gotten his chance to start. But I'm not mad about that, I prefer to sit QBs for 1 year anyways. Especially with a QB as raw/young as Lance.

Last year it was out of the FOs control. He got the starting job, and his injury screwed all that up. And Brock came out of nowhere and played at a very high level.