Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by English:

Lost track of the parameters but I suspect Drew Brees should be in there.

Post of the day!

Chargers let go of a HOF

Wasn't big and tall like Rivers. Didn't have the strongest arm and he was coming off a arm injury. They made the same mistake Trey fans are praying we make

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by English:
Lost track of the parameters but I suspect Drew Brees should be in there.

Post of the day!

Chargers let go of a HOF

Wasn't big and tall like Rivers. Didn't have the strongest arm and he was coming off a arm injury. They made the same mistake Trey fans are praying we make

do I read CS referring to TL as the next Philip Rivers?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
do I read CS referring to TL as the next Philip Rivers?

Lol, that would be pretty good for us from a football perspective. Not so great for overpopulation concerns.

Originally posted by Predator85:
- #12 2021 Micah Parsons LB
- #29 2022 Cole Strange G
- #102 2022 Channing Tindall LB
- #29 2023 Bryan Bresee DT

Results of the picks traded for Lance.

A first and basically two seconds.

And we still don't know what we have in Trey Lance. I'm optimistic Trey can eventually challenge for the QB1 spot, he just needs time to get the reps and experience. The only *real* reason everybody is talking about trading Trey is the unforeseen development of Brock Purdy. Brock came out of nowhere and played lights out. If you take out Brock's discovery and development, I'm confident that Trey would have been named QB1 and Sam would have been the challenger for QB1 and designated backup.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
hard not to think of the million ways those picks could have been used to get this thing over the line to 1 or 2 SB wins these past 2 seasons, so I respectfully disagree

Hard not to think of the million ways those picks could have been used to not get this thing over the line to 1 or 2 SB wins these past 2 seasons, so I respectfully disagree.

You people can't claim the draft is a gamble, look at the 49ers' recent history of first round picks, and then cherry pick the capital given up for Trey, simultaneously ignore the context. and then claim, "but muh draft capital would have put us over the hump." GTFO.

If Trey fails to be a FQB, but Brock turns into, what many here imply he will be, that is a FQB, the 2021 draft was a shining success. Shining success. In fact, I imagine most teams would gladly give up multiple first round picks to get a FQB with their seventh round pick.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SD49er:
We handicapped our roster because of the Trey trade? How?

these first two sentences had me like

Because you agree or disagree?

hard not to think of the million ways those picks could have been used to get this thing over the line to 1 or 2 SB wins these past 2 seasons, so I respectfully disagree

Well there is a big difference between using picks to help improve a roster, to which there is no guarantee, and "handicapping" the roster. We have arguably the best roster in all of football. The drafts for which we gave up picks have already had major returns. We could have drafted Pat Mahomes but we didn't. More high picks is always better than less number of low picks. But handicapping our team is a preposterous claim.

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SD49er:
We handicapped our roster because of the Trey trade? How?

these first two sentences had me like

Because you agree or disagree?

hard not to think of the million ways those picks could have been used to get this thing over the line to 1 or 2 SB wins these past 2 seasons, so I respectfully disagree

Well there is a big difference between using picks to help improve a roster, to which there is no guarantee, and "handicapping" the roster. We have arguably the best roster in all of football. The drafts for which we gave up picks have already had major returns. We could have drafted Pat Mahomes but we didn't. More high picks is always better than less number of low picks. But handicapping our team is a preposterous claim.

What's happened, has happened, gents! If Jimmy and sanders connect, maybe we are champs, but can't change what's done.

let's just hope we end up with a FQB, whether it's Brock or Lance, and win a chip!

so far the trade hasn't worked out but maybe this year Lance balls out if he plays, who knows.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SD49er:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by SD49er:
We handicapped our roster because of the Trey trade? How?

these first two sentences had me like

Because you agree or disagree?

hard not to think of the million ways those picks could have been used to get this thing over the line to 1 or 2 SB wins these past 2 seasons, so I respectfully disagree

Well there is a big difference between using picks to help improve a roster, to which there is no guarantee, and "handicapping" the roster. We have arguably the best roster in all of football. The drafts for which we gave up picks have already had major returns. We could have drafted Pat Mahomes but we didn't. More high picks is always better than less number of low picks. But handicapping our team is a preposterous claim.

What's happened, has happened, gents! If Jimmy and sanders connect, maybe we are champs, but can't change what's done.

let's just hope we end up with a FQB, whether it's Brock or Lance, and win a chip!

so far the trade hasn't worked out but maybe this year Lance balls out if he plays, who knows.

Also, if we didn't resign Jimmy, and used his money elsewhere, maybe we could have won the SB last season.

I'm sure a lot of you disagree with that, but if we're going to play the what if game you have to consider all scenarios.

Originally posted by SD49er:
Well there is a big difference between using picks to help improve a roster, to which there is no guarantee, and "handicapping" the roster. We have arguably the best roster in all of football. The drafts for which we gave up picks have already had major returns. We could have drafted Pat Mahomes but we didn't. More high picks is always better than less number of low picks. But handicapping our team is a preposterous claim.

You're misquoting and misrepresenting what I said. Here's what I said:

'We handicapped our ability to bolster the roster going forward'

Simply meaning we limited our ability to improve the roster going forward. 1st round picks are important assets that can be used to improve the roster. There's no guarantee the picks will be successful, but not having them limits your opportunity whether you are successful in other rounds or not. You effectively have stated the same thing in your response to me ('Having the picks is obviously preferable to not having the picks') which is good because it's common sense from a football perspective.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
Also, if we didn't resign Jimmy, and used his money elsewhere, maybe we could have won the SB last season.

I'm sure a lot of you disagree with that, but if we're going to play the what if game you have to consider all scenarios.

Definitely true that Jimmy's money could have been used elsewhere. The fact that Jimmy was re-structured is another cascading effect of the '21 draft.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SD49er:
Well there is a big difference between using picks to help improve a roster, to which there is no guarantee, and "handicapping" the roster. We have arguably the best roster in all of football. The drafts for which we gave up picks have already had major returns. We could have drafted Pat Mahomes but we didn't. More high picks is always better than less number of low picks. But handicapping our team is a preposterous claim.

You're misquoting and misrepresenting what I said. Here's what I said:

'We handicapped our ability to bolster the roster going forward'

Simply meaning we limited our ability to improve the roster going forward. 1st round picks are important assets that can be used to improve the roster. There's no guarantee the picks will be successful, but not having them limits your opportunity whether you are successful in other rounds or not. You effectively have stated the same thing in your response to me ('Having the picks is obviously preferable to not having the picks') which is good because it's common sense from a football perspective.

Kyle had only 3 first round picks *before* 2019 and still created a super bowl capable team. So *not* having the first round picks is not a guarantee that the team *will not improve* also. (solomon and ruben being busts and mcGlinchy being injured a lot)

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by SD49er:
Well there is a big difference between using picks to help improve a roster, to which there is no guarantee, and "handicapping" the roster. We have arguably the best roster in all of football. The drafts for which we gave up picks have already had major returns. We could have drafted Pat Mahomes but we didn't. More high picks is always better than less number of low picks. But handicapping our team is a preposterous claim.

You're misquoting and misrepresenting what I said. Here's what I said:

'We handicapped our ability to bolster the roster going forward'

Simply meaning we limited our ability to improve the roster going forward. 1st round picks are important assets that can be used to improve the roster. There's no guarantee the picks will be successful, but not having them limits your opportunity whether you are successful in other rounds or not. You effectively have stated the same thing in your response to me ('Having the picks is obviously preferable to not having the picks') which is good because it's common sense from a football perspective.

I understood what you said. I agree that I would rather have the picks than not (I was never a fan of this trade). But again, because we have drafted really well the team has bolstered its roster since the trade, and I expect them to continue to do so today and tomorrow based on prior success.

Originally posted by Giedi:
Kyle had only 3 first round picks *before* 2019 and still created a super bowl capable team. So *not* having the first round picks is not a guarantee that the team *will not improve* also. (solomon and ruben being busts and mcGlinchy being injured a lot)

Originally posted by SD49er:
I understood what you said. I agree that I would rather have the picks than not (I was never a fan of this trade). But again, because we have drafted really well the team has bolstered its roster since the trade, and I expect them to continue to do so today and tomorrow based on prior success.

SD, clearly you didn't as at no point did I say it handicapped our roster, and in your argument against that incorrect take you basically reiterated what I actually said.

For both of you, I am not making the argument that losing those picks meant we couldn't improve our team. I agree that we have, so far. No matter how you grade the success we've had in roster building since, having what we have now plus 3 additional 1st round picks on top of it would be an even better opportunity to be in a better position. Sure those picks could have had no impact... but that's exactly where we are right now.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Giedi:
Kyle had only 3 first round picks *before* 2019 and still created a super bowl capable team. So *not* having the first round picks is not a guarantee that the team *will not improve* also. (solomon and ruben being busts and mcGlinchy being injured a lot)

Originally posted by SD49er:
I understood what you said. I agree that I would rather have the picks than not (I was never a fan of this trade). But again, because we have drafted really well the team has bolstered its roster since the trade, and I expect them to continue to do so today and tomorrow based on prior success.

SD, clearly you didn't as at no point did I say it handicapped our roster, and in your argument against that incorrect take you basically reiterated what I actually said.

For both of you, I am not making the argument that losing those picks meant we couldn't improve our team. I agree that we have, so far. No matter how you grade the success we've had in roster building since, having what we have now plus 3 additional 1st round picks on top of it would be an even better opportunity to be in a better position. Sure those picks could have had no impact... but that's exactly where we are right now.

I think you can afford to take more chances in the first and second rounds - gambling wise, if you are hitting on the low round picks and undrafteds so well. Mitchell and Mason come to mind. Brendel was undrafted. (signed as a free agent) Brock Purdy, Hufanga, etc... Interesting to note that *so far* the 49ers haven't traded any of their 11 picks ot move up in today's draft.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by English:

Lost track of the parameters but I suspect Drew Brees should be in there.

Post of the day!

Chargers let go of a HOF

Wasn't big and tall like Rivers. Didn't have the strongest arm and he was coming off a arm injury. They made the same mistake Trey fans are praying we make

do I read CS referring to TL as the next Philip Rivers?

LFG!!!