Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Here's why I think Trey Lance can be a franchise QB. His performance against the Texans. Here's Walsh's take on those kinds of peak performances vs inconsistent performances that Trey recently had.

Walsh believed if he saw a college player display tremendous athleticism on one play, he and his staff could get that level of output from him consistently in the pros. Most scouts insist that many college players can look good on a few plays. Scouts like consistency, and Walsh, to be sure, liked it too. But inconsistency didn't scare him.
"I didn't have to see Joe Montana play 10 games at Notre Dame in 1978 to know I wanted him," Walsh says. "The argument against Montana was he was inconsistent. Maybe it was my impetuous ego, but I felt if I saw him succeed once, he could do it again."
https://vault.si.com/vault/1990/04/23/the-genius-at-work-bill-walsh-built-the-san-francisco-49ers-through-brilliant-trading-and-drafting-and-the-1986-draft-was-his-masterpiece

My thinking has been that Lance is pretty much an unknown and that he might be a very good QB or a bad one. Therefore, he needed PT to find out what he was.

But the fact that the team has relegated him to a backup role behind Purdy and that they have left the door open to a trade tells us that they have already made a judgmnet and that it's not positive. i admit I'm surprised.

Originally posted by napo:
My thinking has been that Lance is pretty much an unknown and that he might be a very good QB or a bad one. Therefore, he needed PT to find out what he was.

But the fact that the team has relegated him to a backup role behind Purdy and that they have left the door open to a trade tells us that they have already made a judgmnet and that it's not positive. i admit I'm surprised.

The clear indicator will be if they pick up his fifth year option after this year. As for moving on, if they decide to, you never double down on a bad bet, you cut losses and move on. Having been in the pro Lance camp since before the draft, I would hate to see this happen, but what I would hate worse is to see the team keep trying to force the square peg into the round hole. In my opinion, Trey hasn't played much more than a quarter of passable football in his time here because of various factors, some beyond his control. Folks point to the Texans game as a good start, but that was the worst team in football, and we struggled to move the ball for the better part of the game, failing to score a touchdown until the late third quarter. (I just re-watched this game to make sure I wasn't being overly harsh on Trey about it) This is the year he needs to show up and show out or he might never be a starter in this league, no team will ever have the patience with a draft pick that the team who way overpaid for you will. It is a sad situation because Trey is such a class act of a kid, but such is the reality of the NFL, which as Hank Stramm so famously put stands for "Not For Long" if you don't have success. He has to improve to the point of making sure Sam Darnold spends the year holding a clipboard, and if not outright win the starting job, to put himself in a position where it makes sense to invest another year in him. I am doing my best to remain cautiously optimistic about him, but only time will tell.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Hmmm. This sounds an awful lot like the constant disparaging of a QB who was recently on the roster. But I guess what constitutes a "legitimate defense" of Trey, was "just making excuses" for Jimmy. The hypocrisy in these threads is pretty astounding.

Who bashed Jimmy for his performance against Washington in 2019?

Originally posted by napo:
My thinking has been that Lance is pretty much an unknown and that he might be a very good QB or a bad one. Therefore, he needed PT to find out what he was.

But the fact that the team has relegated him to a backup role behind Purdy and that they have left the door open to a trade tells us that they have already made a judgmnet and that it's not positive. i admit I'm surprised.

When exactly did that happen? Link?

Originally posted by Giedi:
Here's why I think Trey Lance can be a franchise QB. His performance against the Texans. Here's Walsh's take on those kinds of peak performances vs inconsistent performances that Trey recently had.

Walsh believed if he saw a college player display tremendous athleticism on one play, he and his staff could get that level of output from him consistently in the pros. Most scouts insist that many college players can look good on a few plays. Scouts like consistency, and Walsh, to be sure, liked it too. But inconsistency didn't scare him.
"I didn't have to see Joe Montana play 10 games at Notre Dame in 1978 to know I wanted him," Walsh says. "The argument against Montana was he was inconsistent. Maybe it was my impetuous ego, but I felt if I saw him succeed once, he could do it again."
https://vault.si.com/vault/1990/04/23/the-genius-at-work-bill-walsh-built-the-san-francisco-49ers-through-brilliant-trading-and-drafting-and-the-1986-draft-was-his-masterpiece

This is exactly what I was talking about before. Lance was far from perfect but acting like he didn't flash big talent and overall showed this level isn't too big for him. The rest can be developed and by all accounts Trey is the type of guy who will put in the work to get better.

Guys who don't have it typically look like they're a disaster early in their career. Trey's games may not have been elite but he's never come into a game and completely buried the team with his trash play.

Given his inexperience and youth, imo he's got what it takes to be a good one. We'll see how he responds.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Hmmm. This sounds an awful lot like the constant disparaging of a QB who was recently on the roster. But I guess what constitutes a "legitimate defense" of Trey, was "just making excuses" for Jimmy. The hypocrisy in these threads is pretty astounding.

Who bashed Jimmy for his performance against Washington in 2019?

I remember quite the opposite; the guy's bashing Trey for his performance in the rain against the Bears excused Jimmy for his performance against Washington because of the rain. 81 is right, the hypocrisy in these threads is astounding

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by napo:

My thinking has been that Lance is pretty much an unknown and that he might be a very good QB or a bad one. Therefore, he needed PT to find out what he was.

But the fact that the team has relegated him to a backup role behind Purdy and that they have left the door open to a trade tells us that they have already made a judgmnet and that it's not positive. i admit I'm surprised.

When exactly did that happen? Link?

Both John and Kyle have made it clear that Brock has surpassed Trey, and Trey has a chance to regain (take note of the word regain) the QB1 spot.

Q: How's Trey's attitude with Brock taking over?

SHANAHAN: "As good as it can be. Trey is a great person, but he's also smart and he knows what he saw. He knows the level Brock played at. I talk to Trey the same way I'm talking to you guys now, so he gets it. I think Trey is just excited to be healthy and excited to come in and get those reps and show what he can do."

Kyle Shanahan Explains why Brock Purdy has Surpassed Trey Lance on the Depth Chart

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Hmmm. This sounds an awful lot like the constant disparaging of a QB who was recently on the roster. But I guess what constitutes a "legitimate defense" of Trey, was "just making excuses" for Jimmy. The hypocrisy in these threads is pretty astounding.

Who bashed Jimmy for his performance against Washington in 2019?

I remember quite the opposite; the guy's bashing Trey for his performance in the rain against the Bears excused Jimmy for his performance against Washington because of the rain. 81 is right, the hypocrisy in these threads is astounding

I wasn't specifically referencing Lance's Chicago game against Jimmy's game against Washington but was rather just speaking generally. Of course, the main difference between those two games is that the team won against Washington, which is really the only stat that matters in games like that.

Originally posted by CharlieSheen:

Originally posted by SLCNiner:

Originally posted by napo:
My thinking has been that Lance is pretty much an unknown and that he might be a very good QB or a bad one. Therefore, he needed PT to find out what he was.

But the fact that the team has relegated him to a backup role behind Purdy and that they have left the door open to a trade tells us that they have already made a judgmnet and that it's not positive. i admit I'm surprised.

When exactly did that happen? Link?

Both John and Kyle have made it clear that Brock has surpassed Trey, and Trey has a chance to regain (take note of the word regain) the QB1 spot.

Q: How's Trey's attitude with Brock taking over?

SHANAHAN: "As good as it can be. Trey is a great person, but he's also smart and he knows what he saw. He knows the level Brock played at. I talk to Trey the same way I'm talking to you guys now, so he gets it. I think Trey is just excited to be healthy and excited to come in and get those reps and show what he can do."

Kyle Shanahan Explains why Brock Purdy has Surpassed Trey Lance on the Depth Chart

Yeah, that says nothing about Trey being relegated to backup. You either knew that already, or don't know how to read. Do you just use the talk to type feature on your computer or phone?

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Hmmm. This sounds an awful lot like the constant disparaging of a QB who was recently on the roster. But I guess what constitutes a "legitimate defense" of Trey, was "just making excuses" for Jimmy. The hypocrisy in these threads is pretty astounding.

Who bashed Jimmy for his performance against Washington in 2019?

I remember quite the opposite; the guy's bashing Trey for his performance in the rain against the Bears excused Jimmy for his performance against Washington because of the rain. 81 is right, the hypocrisy in these threads is astounding

I wasn't specifically referencing Lance's Chicago game against Jimmy's game against Washington but was rather just speaking generally. Of course, the main difference between those two games is that the team won against Washington, which is really the only stat that matters in games like that.

It's certainly a lot easier to win when the defense holds the opponent to 0 points versus giving up 19, which is the main reason one was a victory and the other a loss. Offensively, we were better in basically every way against Chicago than we were against Washington. Not that we were particularly good in either game (or in any other poor weather game we've played under Kyle).

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by 49ers81:

Originally posted by 49ers808:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
Hmmm. This sounds an awful lot like the constant disparaging of a QB who was recently on the roster. But I guess what constitutes a "legitimate defense" of Trey, was "just making excuses" for Jimmy. The hypocrisy in these threads is pretty astounding.

Who bashed Jimmy for his performance against Washington in 2019?

I remember quite the opposite; the guy's bashing Trey for his performance in the rain against the Bears excused Jimmy for his performance against Washington because of the rain. 81 is right, the hypocrisy in these threads is astounding

I wasn't specifically referencing Lance's Chicago game against Jimmy's game against Washington but was rather just speaking generally. Of course, the main difference between those two games is that the team won against Washington, which is really the only stat that matters in games like that.

It's certainly a lot easier to win when the defense holds the opponent to 0 points versus giving up 19, which is the main reason one was a victory and the other a loss. Offensively, we were better in basically every way against Chicago than we were against Washington. Not that we were particularly good in either game (or in any other poor weather game we've played under Kyle).

And lost. I don't know, your post just seems to kind of prove my point. You seem to forget that the preferred argument for many in this forum is that wins are a "team stat", But if they lose it was all Jimmy's fault. So here you are making the argument that, "well, it was the defense's fault" that we lost against Chicago, and the weather, and the fact that Venus was in retrograde, and Lance had a poor horoscope that day. As I said it's all pretty hypocritical.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Here's why I think Trey Lance can be a franchise QB. His performance against the Texans. Here's Walsh's take on those kinds of peak performances vs inconsistent performances that Trey recently had.

Walsh believed if he saw a college player display tremendous athleticism on one play, he and his staff could get that level of output from him consistently in the pros. Most scouts insist that many college players can look good on a few plays. Scouts like consistency, and Walsh, to be sure, liked it too. But inconsistency didn't scare him.
"I didn't have to see Joe Montana play 10 games at Notre Dame in 1978 to know I wanted him," Walsh says. "The argument against Montana was he was inconsistent. Maybe it was my impetuous ego, but I felt if I saw him succeed once, he could do it again."
https://vault.si.com/vault/1990/04/23/the-genius-at-work-bill-walsh-built-the-san-francisco-49ers-through-brilliant-trading-and-drafting-and-the-1986-draft-was-his-masterpiece

This is exactly what I was talking about before. Lance was far from perfect but acting like he didn't flash big talent and overall showed this level isn't too big for him. The rest can be developed and by all accounts Trey is the type of guy who will put in the work to get better.

Guys who don't have it typically look like they're a disaster early in their career. Trey's games may not have been elite but he's never come into a game and completely buried the team with his trash play.

Given his inexperience and youth, imo he's got what it takes to be a good one. We'll see how he responds.

This is exactly how I feel too.

The guy, despite his INSANELY inferior experience level, AS A ROOKIE, came into that Houston game with a jacked up finger and delivered a critical win. The pressure was real regardless of the opponent.

He showed to me that he CAN hang in the NFL, he can do this job, it's just a matter of how much seasoning would be required to be consistent and how much better can he get over that time.

All that said, let's be fair, balanced, and reasonable. The Chicago game wasn't good. The conditions I'm sure didn't help but it was a poor game from Trey overall. Was it a big deal? NO... OBVIOUSLY. To expect him NOT to have any bad games as he grows and develops would just be silly.

He looked much better moving the ball early in the next game and we were left kind of blue balled because we never got to see what else he would've done from there. He seemed on track to bounce back from a down game after making some adjustments. But there's not a ton else we can really say beyond that.

FWIW, Shanahan felt he would've had a great year if he'd stayed healthy. Who knows. Overall, not much has really changed. He looked promising early on, had a rough game, and then seemed to do better in the next one and got hurt. Just still not enough info to make any definitive conclusions.

One thing I was concerned about was his delivery being a bit longer leading to batted passes, but the new mechanics look really promising. If he can maintain that from here on, I have no doubts that he'll develop into an excellent player. The shorter release and improved accuracy with the proper footwork and base are significant improvements a guy can make. There are really no physical limitations. Mentally, I see no reason to believe he can't correct any mental mistakes he makes as he gets more experience.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
And lost. I don't know, your post just seems to kind of prove my point. You seem to forget that the preferred argument for many in this forum is that wins are a "team stat", But if they lose it was all Jimmy's fault. So here you are making the argument that, "well, it was the defense's fault" that we lost against Chicago, and the weather, and the fact that Venus was in retrograde, and Lance had a poor horoscope that day. As I said it's all pretty hypocritical.

They are a team stat. It just so happened the rest of the team played better in the one game and made up for the offensive performance.

A guy with 4 starts should not be held to the same standard as a guy with 50+.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
And lost. I don't know, your post just seems to kind of prove my point. You seem to forget that the preferred argument for many in this forum is that wins are a "team stat", But if they lose it was all Jimmy's fault. So here you are making the argument that, "well, it was the defense's fault" that we lost against Chicago, and the weather, and the fact that Venus was in retrograde, and Lance had a poor horoscope that day. As I said it's all pretty hypocritical.

They are a team stat. It just so happened the rest of the team played better in the one game and made up for the offensive performance.

A guy with 4 starts should not be held to the same standard as a guy with 50+.

I don't think Jimmy had 50+ starts when that Washington game had taken place.

Anyways, I'd rather hold Lance to Purdys standard. Which is the gold standard at the moment.