Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
Oof. I didn't know that, but explains a ton. Were you also a Jimmy G backer? Is all this what has been hurting you so bad?

I wouldn't say I was a Jimmy Backer. I thought he played better than many gave him credit for. While also acknowledging he wasn't responsible for all those wins.

I Also don't put the SB loss all on Jimmy. I blame the defense more than Jimmy in that one. While also thinking the Rams NFCCG was a team loss. I can't blame 1 single person in that Rams game. Though Tartt,

So no I wasn't a JG apologist.

Originally posted by 49ers808:
Why are you just quoting me? I do find it hilarious because it is irony and hypocrisy at its finest.

I quoted you because you were the most recent one to respond the post. You can see the following posts I made to the other two guys who also responded. Hopefully you'll see why it's neither ironic, contradictory, or hypocritical.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, I was big on Fields. Although he isn't my prototypical QB preference, I thought he was exactly what Kyle was saying he desired. I thought/think Mac would of done really well here but that we would of had the same issues with limitations as we did with Jimmy. Accuracy is huge when it comes to my opinions on QBs and their potential, so I get what you're saying.

i didn't realize mac was as much as a issue as he has been, then again, pats shafted him last season with his coaches. Lol

purdy is much more my ideal preference for playing qb. Maybe if he was slightly taller and had more velocity in his throws, but outside of that - his playing style and personality is along the lines of ideal to me. Just have to hope he's consistent. I still want to see Lance get better and improve, he definitely should

If I'm being honest I was truly an anyone but Trey guy. I would have been fine with any of the other 4 QBs but yes Mac was my preference. I should also state I was anti trade up too so there is that

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49ers808:
Why are you just quoting me? I do find it hilarious because it is irony and hypocrisy at its finest.

I quoted you because you were the most recent one to respond the post. You can see the following posts I made to the other two guys who also responded. Hopefully you'll see why it's neither ironic, contradictory, or hypocritical.

Lol BS. Maybe not currently in this thread but all you have to do is simply take a look at all the crap in the Mac Jones thread. If you was not a part of that, then it's understandable why you feel the need to defend and have no idea why people are finding that post ironic and laughing at it.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, I was big on Fields. Although he isn't my prototypical QB preference, I thought he was exactly what Kyle was saying he desired. I thought/think Mac would of done really well here but that we would of had the same issues with limitations as we did with Jimmy. Accuracy is huge when it comes to my opinions on QBs and their potential, so I get what you're saying.

i didn't realize mac was as much as a issue as he has been, then again, pats shafted him last season with his coaches. Lol

purdy is much more my ideal preference for playing qb. Maybe if he was slightly taller and had more velocity in his throws, but outside of that - his playing style and personality is along the lines of ideal to me. Just have to hope he's consistent. I still want to see Lance get better and improve, he definitely should

If I'm being honest I was truly an anyone but Trey guy. I would have been fine with any of the other 4 QBs but yes Mac was my preference. I should also state I was anti trade up too so there is that

I'm kinda with you there. I think Trey has a lot of good qualities but he just isn't my preference. The only one I would of hated to get more was Zach Wilson. Lol then again, the only one that I "loved" was Lawrence, which we obviously weren't going to get.

when we traded up I just did my homework and tried to decide which one I thought was going to be best for our system and short term super bowl aspirations.

If I had to guess what's going to happen now, Brock will be the starter and Lance will get it on unique packages like saints used taysum hill. Unless someone offers us what the Kyle/John want in a trade.

it's interesting cause if Lance looks better, but Brock still the starter, and someone offers us what we desire - do you trade him? Keep him for insurance?

i personally can see the rationale behind both and I think if Lance gets good reports out of camp, this season is when he will be worth the most cause his third year option. I'd say if Brock is healthy come early June, it's a 5050 chance he's traded this year.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Sure it does when he's talking up a player who got to play with 5 first and 3 2nd round picks on his team.

Mac Jones had no business being a first rounder. He was and is Andy Dalton 2.0. Alabama made him. His first sign of adversity and he's tanked.

Do you understand that his preference for Jones was based on how he weighs certain qualities at the QB position?

Do you see how he specifically mentioned accuracy as a positive when evaluating Jones? Or that he didn't like Lance's throwing ability?

What in the hell does that have to do with whether or not either Lance or Jones benefited from talent around them. He's not using it as a basis for his preference.

Always the same crew with this b******t.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I'm kinda with you there. I think Trey has a lot of good qualities but he just isn't my preference. The only one I would of hated to get more was Zach Wilson. Lol then again, the only one that I "loved" was Lawrence, which we obviously weren't going to get.

when we traded up I just did my homework and tried to decide which one I thought was going to be best for our system and short term super bowl aspirations.

If I had to guess what's going to happen now, Brock will be the starter and Lance will get it on unique packages like saints used taysum hill. Unless someone offers us what the Kyle/John want in a trade.

it's interesting cause if Lance looks better, but Brock still the starter, and someone offers us what we desire - do you trade him? Keep him for insurance?

i personally can see the rationale behind both and I think if Lance gets good reports out of camp, this season is when he will be worth the most cause his third year option. I'd say if Brock is healthy come early June, it's a 5050 chance he's traded this year.

I wasn't a HUGE Zach fan either but if we were going to swing for the fences and trade up he was the only one that would have made sense to swing for IMO. I thought, his and Justin's issues could have been fixed by Kyle. He would have them getting the ball out quick and knowing where to go with the football.

Originally posted by 49ers808:
Lol BS. Maybe not currently in this thread but all you have to do is simply take a look at all the crap in the Mac Jones thread. If you was not a part of that, then it's understandable why you feel the need to defend and have no idea why people are finding that post ironic and laughing at it.

Beyond the fact that I've seen his rationale in the Mac Jones thread, and portions of it in this current conversation, I'm aware of the motivations behind the responses. It's transparent and common in these threads.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49ers808:
Lol BS. Maybe not currently in this thread but all you have to do is simply take a look at all the crap in the Mac Jones thread. If you was not a part of that, then it's understandable why you feel the need to defend and have no idea why people are finding that post ironic and laughing at it.

Beyond the fact that I've seen his rationale in the Mac Jones thread, and portions of it in this current conversation, I'm aware of the motivations behind the responses. It's transparent and common in these threads.

What's transparent and common? The motivations of some to trash Lance using hypocritical posts? Well then yes, I agree with you and it is common in these threads and frankly why I try to stay away from the QB threads.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Do you understand that his preference for Jones was based on how he weighs certain qualities at the QB position?

Do you see how he specifically mentioned accuracy as a positive when evaluating Jones? Or that he didn't like Lance's throwing ability?

What in the hell does that have to do with whether or not either Lance or Jones benefited from talent around them. He's not using it as a basis for his preference.

Always the same crew with this b******t.

So you can criticize one guy for his surrounding cast helping him while ignoring how another guys surrounding cast helped him just because of a preference of how they play?

B******t indeed.

But hey taking a shot at Trey with every single post you make on this site is so productive.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
So you can criticize one guy for his surrounding cast helping him while ignoring how another guys surrounding cast helped him just because of a preference of how they play?

B******t indeed.

But hey taking a shot at Trey with every single post you make on this site is so productive.

He was engaged in a discussion about the adversity, or lack thereof, that Trey has faced in his football career, in a comparison with Purdy's experience... and he reference the fact that he played for a loaded team that dominated a lower level of college as a part of that discussion.

You decided to pipe up and reference his preference for Mac Jones, who also played for the best team in his league. That had nothing to do with the conversation, nor is it a hypocritical point considering it wasn't the differentiating factor for his preference of Jones over Lance. He went on to explain some of the reasons for that preference in later posts which you are still ignoring now.

Like I said to Waterbear, it's really easy to assign an argument to somebody they aren't actually making. You give the game away when you reference your own (low) opinion of Jones in a conversation that had nothing to do with him simply because a poster who liked Jones (for a completely different set of reasons) made a comment you perceive as negative about Lance. Transparent. Weak.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
He was engaged in a discussion about the adversity, or lack thereof, that Trey has faced in his football career, in a comparison with Purdy's experience... and he reference the fact that he played for a loaded team that dominated a lower level of college as a part of that discussion.

You decided to pipe up and reference his preference for Mac Jones, who also played for the best team in his league. That had nothing to do with the conversation, nor is it a hypocritical point considering it wasn't the differentiating factor for his preference of Jones over Lance. He went on to explain some of the reasons for that preference in later posts which you are still ignoring now.

Like I said to Waterbear, it's really easy to assign an argument to somebody they aren't actually making. You give the game away when you reference your own (low) opinion of Jones in a conversation that had nothing to do with him simply because a poster who liked Jones (for a completely different set of reasons) made a comment you perceive as negative about Lance. Transparent. Weak.

So a 9er fan criticizing Jalen Hurts production because of his supporting cast wouldn't be hypocritical because they might prefer Purdy for other reasons? Why just bring only those up then?

As 808 referenced what's transparent and weak is the trolling and hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
No, I understand what you're saying. The evaluation of the player is independent. Doesn't change the fact that the post sucks.

Because it's either a contradiction or not a point that's applicable across the board. How good can a post be if you can't apply the same rule to every prospect? To explain further, if a player can still be a good prospect while having a loaded roster compared to his competition, doesn't that make his point kind of irrelevant? Why does it matter if he was surrounded with lots of talent? The original topic was who's had to deal with more adversity. So because Trey played with lots of talent, that means Trey had everything handed to him?

Bad posts gets an "LOL" from me. Sorry.

Pretty much

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
He was engaged in a discussion about the adversity, or lack thereof, that Trey has faced in his football career, in a comparison with Purdy's experience... and he reference the fact that he played for a loaded team that dominated a lower level of college as a part of that discussion.

You decided to pipe up and reference his preference for Mac Jones, who also played for the best team in his league. That had nothing to do with the conversation, nor is it a hypocritical point considering it wasn't the differentiating factor for his preference of Jones over Lance. He went on to explain some of the reasons for that preference in later posts which you are still ignoring now.

Like I said to Waterbear, it's really easy to assign an argument to somebody they aren't actually making. You give the game away when you reference your own (low) opinion of Jones in a conversation that had nothing to do with him simply because a poster who liked Jones (for a completely different set of reasons) made a comment you perceive as negative about Lance. Transparent. Weak.

So a 9er fan criticizing Jalen Hurts production because of his supporting cast wouldn't be hypocritical because they might prefer Purdy for other reasons? Why just bring only those up then?

As 808 referenced what's transparent and weak is the trolling and hypocrisy.

I'd argue that the dominance of NDSU in FCS isn't really comparable to any team in the FBS. They've been to 10 of the last 12 National championships, winning 9 of them.

i actually don't have an issue with someone being on a stacked team, like Mac at bama or Hurts in Philly, as long as they're still playing good competition. The disparity of talent is like Georgia to Boise when it comes to NDSU and most other FCS programs (NDSU lost the chip to SDSU this year ). I also bring up NDSU because of their sustained dominance, which is very impressive, since it's very clear they don't rely on a qb to be successful. Lance helped them win and did well there, but I'm saying they didn't win because of them.

no team in the FCS has more than. 4 chips
NDSU - 9
Youngstown - 4
montana/eastern Kentucky - 2
10 Teams - 1

that's all I was saying in regards to my concerns about lances lack of situations he's experienced. The few games he has played in, they've just about all been blowouts (wins) , and very few (if any) game winning situations/2 min drills. I'm not saying Lance can't do that, I just really want to see him in those. He's had one against the bears but he threw a pick that essentially sealed the loss but the rain was pretty rough at that point. I just am curious how he would respond. He seems mentally tough, so I'm hoping well.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
So a 9er fan criticizing Jalen Hurts production because of his supporting cast wouldn't be hypocritical because they might prefer Purdy for other reasons? Why just bring only those up then?

As 808 referenced what's transparent and weak is the trolling and hypocrisy.

That depends on whether or not they would argue that Purdy didn't benefit from the players around him, and whether or not it was a differentiating factor in a preference for either player. Then it would be hypocritical. Do you see how that didn't happen with Krizay's comment? Maybe he's not putting a heavy emphasis on production and team results when he's deciding who he prefers as prospects, seeing as how they are situationally dependent. Again, he specifically laid out some of his reasoning after your off-the-wall post. A preference for one of the other (Purdy and Lance in this case) wasn't even the context of the conversation. Mac Jones certainly had nothing to do with it.

The next best thing besides assigning arguments to people they aren't making because a comment upsets you is labeling those disagreeable comments as trolling.