Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
File him along with the vast majority of fans who understand that Trey will have to play himself back into the starter's role this offseason, because Brock is the presumptive starter.

Who's arguing that?

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Jakemall:
Job belongs to Purdy. Lance will get a chance to take it back with performance during the off season. There's another QB in the mix who also has a chance. Let the battle happen. Steel sharpens steel. Our team gets better no matter what. Why are we arguing?

Because for some the desire for Trey to fail supercedes the desire for anyone else to succeed.

Yep. It is a little like the Alex Smith syndrome.

Originally posted by 49ers808:
Who's arguing that?

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.

Start with this post two pages back and read the responses.

inb4 this devolves into a pathetic semantics argument.

Originally posted by Giedi:

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.

Agree 💯%, and Lance isn't the only one that took a long time to develop despite being a top ranked QB pick in the draft. Every QB is different and coaches and fans should be patient in developing physically talented QBs. We really don't know anything about Trey to even trade the guy, let alone have him as a possible QB1.

Terry Bradshaw

As the number one pick, Bradshaw was thrown to the wolves early and proceeded to throw for 1,410 yards, six touchdowns, and an NFL-worst 24 interceptions.
"Booing Terry Bradshaw became a favorite sport in Pittsburgh," he said. "Hey, what do you guys want to do tonight? Let's go boo Terry Bradshaw."
Steelers coach Chuck Noll had enough of the interceptions and the losing and replaced his rookie with second-year veteran Terry Hanratty.
https://www.profootballhistory.com/terry-bradshaw/

Roger Staubach had to spend 4 years in the Navy.

Roger Staubach gave up 4 years of his NFL prime to serve his country. He volunteered to go to Vietnam... And yeah, he's absolutely one of the 10 best QBs ever. pic.twitter.com/Yp95Oux9LR

— Ian O'Connor (@Ian_OConnor) December 28, 2019

I 100% agree that Trey needs time to develop and if he plays more, he will get better. It's actually one of my biggest issues with having him start over someone like Purdy, I feel like Lance needs a good two seasons of playing time to get up to speed, at least 1-1.5 if his curve is quick. And I think we would just be figuring out what he is, it wouldn't guarantee he would be a superstar.

regarding the comment about him "flashing big talent" - I'm not quite sure what that means exactly. I personally didn't see him flash anything besides a couple nice throws, if you feel like he did, then that's your take and it's all good. I'm just saying not everyone feels that way.

i do think he belongs in the league, I wouldn't say the game is too big for him - it's just his inexperience at this level is wild to me and I worry how long it'll take him to get to someone like Jimmie's level. I honestly felt like the offense was pretty inept most of the time in his three starts and I don't think that has to do with his ability. I think it has much more to do with his inexperience. Every play is essentially his first real life snaps at this stuff ever.

if we didn't have Purdy, I'd be all for him starting. My issue isn't Lance himself, it's that I think we have a better prospect in Purdy near term and long term. So playing Lance for the prospect of trying to develop him makes no sense. If he has to play because Brock isn't ready or is injured, that's all good. I'll root for him.

im just saying that not everyone watched him play and came away with the impression he "flashed big things". He had some nice throws but I personally felt like he was so inexperienced it made the offense really ineffective.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49ers808:
Who's arguing that?

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.

Start with this post two pages back and read the responses.

inb4 this devolves into a pathetic semantics argument.

Gotcha and yup I get your semantics statement lol

"What's even more astounding is trying to hold someone with 4 career starts and someone who has been in the league for close to a decade to the same standards.
Just an awful post and head scratching logic."

To the surprise of no one anywhere you are, as usual, completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with comparing Lance with Jimmy. It was just a response to a post where someone said Lance never got any recognition for the handful of good plays he has managed since he came to the team and that those posters who aren't "all in" on his potential are just looking for things to criticize about his play. Which is hilarious because the same posters who are saying that are the same ones who never gave Jimmy an ounce of respect for all of the good plays he had made for the team and instead only focused, interminably, on what they viewed as his many shortcomings. So apparently what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.

It is also a reflection on the arguments that have been made in Trey's defense, "Oh, he played in a monsoon", "Oh, he hasn't had enough reps", "Oh, his finger was hurt". "Oh, he's only started four games". Well, Jimmy played in crappy weather in Washington a couple of years ago and the team won. Did he play well, no, but the "team" got the "W". So, what was the more important takeaway from that game, Jimmy's stat line or the win? Which is just another variation on this forum's favorite hypocrisy, "well. wins are a team stat, but when they lost it was all Jimmy's fault."

Now the story coming out of camp is that Lance's finger injury was more of a hinderance than most fans knew, so the take becomes, "Oh, Lance wasn't able to throw the ball like he is capable of, that's why he hasn't been as effective as he could be". Jimmy played with and injured thumb and shoulder on his throwing arm and still helped the team get the NFC Championship game, but he never gets any credit for that. Instead, the argument seems to be that Lance's injury is the "reason" he may not have played as well as was hoped, but Jimmy's injuries were "just an excuse" for why the team lost to LA, and that "he should have played better". Because he's a veteran I guess, which brings me to the last point, the "he's only played four games and Jimmy's a vet so you can't compare them", take.

Okay, A) I wasn't comparing THEM, I was commenting on the hypocritical takes on the situation from a lot of posters in here. And B) now that Brock has seemingly secured the starting spot by playing in only eight games, I don't see how that, four games to nine-year vet, argument really holds up. If that were the case, then you can also argue that you can't compare Brock to Jimmy because he hasn't played in as many NFL games. And yet, many people in here are saying that, even with the small sample size, Brock is already better than Jimmy, which may very well be true. But it seems to me that you can't then turn around and say that Lance hasn't yet demonstrated that he's better than Jimmy because he's only played in four games to Jimmy's 55 or whatever. You guys can't keep having it both ways.

The bottom line is that Jimmy's gone, Brock is ascending, but unavailable at the moment, so now Lance has an opportunity to step up and show what he can do. He says he's 100% healthy so there's no reason for him not to be able to put his best foot forward, so to speak. We'll see what happens I guess. Personally, I don't really have an opinion about him one way or the other right now, but I hope he makes the most of this new chance. Go Niners!

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by Giedi:

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.

Agree 💯%, and Lance isn't the only one that took a long time to develop despite being a top ranked QB pick in the draft. Every QB is different and coaches and fans should be patient in developing physically talented QBs. We really don't know anything about Trey to even trade the guy, let alone have him as a possible QB1.

Terry Bradshaw

As the number one pick, Bradshaw was thrown to the wolves early and proceeded to throw for 1,410 yards, six touchdowns, and an NFL-worst 24 interceptions.
"Booing Terry Bradshaw became a favorite sport in Pittsburgh," he said. "Hey, what do you guys want to do tonight? Let's go boo Terry Bradshaw."
Steelers coach Chuck Noll had enough of the interceptions and the losing and replaced his rookie with second-year veteran Terry Hanratty.
https://www.profootballhistory.com/terry-bradshaw/

Roger Staubach had to spend 4 years in the Navy.

Roger Staubach gave up 4 years of his NFL prime to serve his country. He volunteered to go to Vietnam... And yeah, he's absolutely one of the 10 best QBs ever. pic.twitter.com/Yp95Oux9LR

— Ian O'Connor (@Ian_OConnor) December 28, 2019

I 100% agree that Trey needs time to develop and if he plays more, he will get better. It's actually one of my biggest issues with having him start over someone like Purdy, I feel like Lance needs a good two seasons of playing time to get up to speed, at least 1-1.5 if his curve is quick. And I think we would just be figuring out what he is, it wouldn't guarantee he would be a superstar.

regarding the comment about him "flashing big talent" - I'm not quite sure what that means exactly. I personally didn't see him flash anything besides a couple nice throws, if you feel like he did, then that's your take and it's all good. I'm just saying not everyone feels that way.

i do think he belongs in the league, I wouldn't say the game is too big for him - it's just his inexperience at this level is wild to me and I worry how long it'll take him to get to someone like Jimmie's level. I honestly felt like the offense was pretty inept most of the time in his three starts and I don't think that has to do with his ability. I think it has much more to do with his inexperience. Every play is essentially his first real life snaps at this stuff ever.

if we didn't have Purdy, I'd be all for him starting. My issue isn't Lance himself, it's that I think we have a better prospect in Purdy near term and long term. So playing Lance for the prospect of trying to develop him makes no sense. If he has to play because Brock isn't ready or is injured, that's all good. I'll root for him.

im just saying that not everyone watched him play and came away with the impression he "flashed big things". He had some nice throws but I personally felt like he was so inexperienced it made the offense really ineffective.

Agree about your two-year timeline. It might take that long to develop him we shall see. To your point about developing intangibles, the S2 cognition test is probably more accurate regarding assesment of intangibles than the spark or other SAT/IQ tests that don't deal with testing which tries to evaluate vision, perception and problem-solving skills. Trey has *flashed* elite defensive coverage reading skills, in my opinion, in some of the limited games he played. If he continues to develop those intangibles coupled with his athleticism - he can exceed Purdy if Trey approaches Purdy's consistency in his coverage reading skills etc....

Developing the intangibles can be done. Trey's defensive reading skills can be developed. Example here's an article with a quick snippet...

This is the difficult part of the position in the post-snap phase. With all the variations and adjustments defenses can make, sometimes your own eyes are lying to you, and you get into trouble as a quarterback. Which brings us back to the emphasis of the pre-snap phase of the play. The more information you have, whether due to film study, motion, personnel or a combination thereof, the more informed your eventual decision will be.
https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2020/03/06/on-patrick-mahomes-decision-making-and-reading-defenses/3/

That's why Trey getting reps is so important. Now, considering Purdy (looking like) actually being ready at the start of the season, developing Trey becomes a bit more complicated, but it still can be done during practice and with special Sub packages for Trey (like the 3 tight end offense in the four minute package) offense. I do think Trey will take longer to develop - not his fault, that Purdy come out of nowhere to play like a topflight QB from the git-go. Kyle, in my opinion, is a master at QB development (example - Purdy) and I have full confidence in Kyle being able to develop Trey. It just might take a bit more of time than the typical fans are expecting.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
"What's even more astounding is trying to hold someone with 4 career starts and someone who has been in the league for close to a decade to the same standards.
Just an awful post and head scratching logic."

To the surprise of no one anywhere you are, as usual, completely missing the point. It has nothing to do with comparing Lance with Jimmy. It was just a response to a post where someone said Lance never got any recognition for the handful of good plays he has managed since he came to the team and that those posters who aren't "all in" on his potential are just looking for things to criticize about his play. Which is hilarious because the same posters who are saying that are the same ones who never gave Jimmy an ounce of respect for all of the good plays he had made for the team and instead only focused, interminably, on what they viewed as his many shortcomings. So apparently what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.

It is also a reflection on the arguments that have been made in Trey's defense, "Oh, he played in a monsoon", "Oh, he hasn't had enough reps", "Oh, his finger was hurt". "Oh, he's only started four games". Well, Jimmy played in crappy weather in Washington a couple of years ago and the team won. Did he play well, no, but the "team" got the "W". So, what was the more important takeaway from that game, Jimmy's stat line or the win? Which is just another variation on this forum's favorite hypocrisy, "well. wins are a team stat, but when they lost it was all Jimmy's fault."

Now the story coming out of camp is that Lance's finger injury was more of a hinderance than most fans knew, so the take becomes, "Oh, Lance wasn't able to throw the ball like he is capable of, that's why he hasn't been as effective as he could be". Jimmy played with and injured thumb and shoulder on his throwing arm and still helped the team get the NFC Championship game, but he never gets any credit for that. Instead, the argument seems to be that Lance's injury is the "reason" he may not have played as well as was hoped, but Jimmy's injuries were "just an excuse" for why the team lost to LA, and that "he should have played better". Because he's a veteran I guess, which brings me to the last point, the "he's only played four games and Jimmy's a vet so you can't compare them", take.

Okay, A) I wasn't comparing THEM, I was commenting on the hypocritical takes on the situation from a lot of posters in here. And B) now that Brock has seemingly secured the starting spot by playing in only eight games, I don't see how that, four games to nine-year vet, argument really holds up. If that were the case, then you can also argue that you can't compare Brock to Jimmy because he hasn't played in as many NFL games. And yet, many people in here are saying that, even with the small sample size, Brock is already better than Jimmy, which may very well be true. But it seems to me that you can't then turn around and say that Lance hasn't yet demonstrated that he's better than Jimmy because he's only played in four games to Jimmy's 55 or whatever. You guys can't keep having it both ways.

The bottom line is that Jimmy's gone, Brock is ascending, but unavailable at the moment, so now Lance has an opportunity to step up and show what he can do. He says he's 100% healthy so there's no reason for him not to be able to put his best foot forward, so to speak. We'll see what happens I guess. Personally, I don't really have an opinion about him one way or the other right now, but I hope he makes the most of this new chance. Go Niners!

Originally posted by genus49:
Yeah you bringing up a Houston in your post definitely didn't mention the opponent card.

I assure you the people still believing in Trey aren't putting the bulk of their emphasis on the "win" in that game but more the pressure of it being a MUST win and it being his best game and only glimpse of him playing with the full talent of the roster we had.

Whatever you say chief!

Originally posted by tankle104:
I 100% agree that Trey needs time to develop and if he plays more, he will get better. It's actually one of my biggest issues with having him start over someone like Purdy, I feel like Lance needs a good two seasons of playing time to get up to speed, at least 1-1.5 if his curve is quick. And I think we would just be figuring out what he is, it wouldn't guarantee he would be a superstar.

regarding the comment about him "flashing big talent" - I'm not quite sure what that means exactly. I personally didn't see him flash anything besides a couple nice throws, if you feel like he did, then that's your take and it's all good. I'm just saying not everyone feels that way.

i do think he belongs in the league, I wouldn't say the game is too big for him - it's just his inexperience at this level is wild to me and I worry how long it'll take him to get to someone like Jimmie's level. I honestly felt like the offense was pretty inept most of the time in his three starts and I don't think that has to do with his ability. I think it has much more to do with his inexperience. Every play is essentially his first real life snaps at this stuff ever.

if we didn't have Purdy, I'd be all for him starting. My issue isn't Lance himself, it's that I think we have a better prospect in Purdy near term and long term. So playing Lance for the prospect of trying to develop him makes no sense. If he has to play because Brock isn't ready or is injured, that's all good. I'll root for him.

im just saying that not everyone watched him play and came away with the impression he "flashed big things". He had some nice throws but I personally felt like he was so inexperienced it made the offense really ineffective.

That's a you problem then and one I've talked to you about not too long ago.

Perhaps you need to explain what evaluation you have for QBs and what constitutes good things to you and at what level.

Trey has finished 3 full games in his short career. Both losses were close games where he was our leading rusher. We were never out of either game until the very end. Simply put Trey never played bad enough to have anyone question if this is all too much for him.

We've seen it with guys before. Carmazzi pissed himself in camp and never even played in a real game. Given Trey's lack of experience and unique situation due to covid and making the jump from the FCS at such a young age he never looked terrified out there like some QBs have. When you add context in his starts that bodes well for his future.

You claim his inexperience made the offensive ineffective…how about more detail on that? Was he not making the right reads and turning the ball over like crazy? Was he missing open receivers and taking off running?

What made you believe his inexperience was such a huge issue? Because in the two losses I saw us committing bad penalties in key moments, bad drops which contributed to struggles on offense than Trey doing those things.

And if you're going to blame a 21-22 year old kid playing with a messed up finger or within crazy weather in his first/3rd start for mistakes that he did make, all while talking in the Jimmy G thread about how he wins and making excuse after excuse for him when he misses guys, turns the ball over to defenders he should easily see and things that Lance did poorly at times then you really need to ask yourself why the double standard with the young kid getting more flak than the veteran QB?

Originally posted by genus49:
That's a you problem then and one I've talked to you about not too long ago.

Perhaps you need to explain what evaluation you have for QBs and what constitutes good things to you and at what level.

Trey has finished 3 full games in his short career. Both losses were close games where he was our leading rusher. We were never out of either game until the very end. Simply put Trey never played bad enough to have anyone question if this is all too much for him.

We've seen it with guys before. Carmazzi pissed himself in camp and never even played in a real game. Given Trey's lack of experience and unique situation due to covid and making the jump from the FCS at such a young age he never looked terrified out there like some QBs have. When you add context in his starts that bodes well for his future.

You claim his inexperience made the offensive ineffective…how about more detail on that? Was he not making the right reads and turning the ball over like crazy? Was he missing open receivers and taking off running?

What made you believe his inexperience was such a huge issue? Because in the two losses I saw us committing bad penalties in key moments, bad drops which contributed to struggles on offense than Trey doing those things.

And if you're going to blame a 21-22 year old kid playing with a messed up finger or within crazy weather in his first/3rd start for mistakes that he did make, all while talking in the Jimmy G thread about how he wins and making excuse after excuse for him when he misses guys, turns the ball over to defenders he should easily see and things that Lance did poorly at times then you really need to ask yourself why the double standard with the young kid getting more flak than the veteran QB?

https://youtu.be/HxMLk4t0zLo

Stuff like this in 2 close losses cost us big. His game against the bears ended up costing us the #1 seed.

Now, you will say well the defense had some breakdowns. That's true but I think in the 1st half the bears had damn near negative yards & niners D caused a turnover. What did the offense put up? 7 measley points. When you let teams hang around that's what happens.

Trey played a s**tty game against a pathetic defense. It's ok to admit that

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Jakemall:
Job belongs to Purdy. Lance will get a chance to take it back with performance during the off season. There's another QB in the mix who also has a chance. Let the battle happen. Steel sharpens steel. Our team gets better no matter what. Why are we arguing?

Because for some the desire for Trey to fail supercedes the desire for anyone else to succeed.

Yep. It is a little like the Alex Smith syndrome.

I remember the Alex thread, then the Kap, then the Jimmy G….those were always like this.
Heavy is the thread that bears the name "49ers QB"

Originally posted by frenchmov:

Originally posted by genus49:
That's a you problem then and one I've talked to you about not too long ago.

Perhaps you need to explain what evaluation you have for QBs and what constitutes good things to you and at what level.

Trey has finished 3 full games in his short career. Both losses were close games where he was our leading rusher. We were never out of either game until the very end. Simply put Trey never played bad enough to have anyone question if this is all too much for him.

We've seen it with guys before. Carmazzi pissed himself in camp and never even played in a real game. Given Trey's lack of experience and unique situation due to covid and making the jump from the FCS at such a young age he never looked terrified out there like some QBs have. When you add context in his starts that bodes well for his future.

You claim his inexperience made the offensive ineffective…how about more detail on that? Was he not making the right reads and turning the ball over like crazy? Was he missing open receivers and taking off running?

What made you believe his inexperience was such a huge issue? Because in the two losses I saw us committing bad penalties in key moments, bad drops which contributed to struggles on offense than Trey doing those things.

And if you're going to blame a 21-22 year old kid playing with a messed up finger or within crazy weather in his first/3rd start for mistakes that he did make, all while talking in the Jimmy G thread about how he wins and making excuse after excuse for him when he misses guys, turns the ball over to defenders he should easily see and things that Lance did poorly at times then you really need to ask yourself why the double standard with the young kid getting more flak than the veteran QB?

https://youtu.be/HxMLk4t0zLo

Stuff like this in 2 close losses cost us big. His game against the bears ended up costing us the #1 seed.

Now, you will say well the defense had some breakdowns. That's true but I think in the 1st half the bears had damn near negative yards & niners D caused a turnover. What did the offense put up? 7 measley points. When you let teams hang around that's what happens.

Trey played a s**tty game against a pathetic defense. It's ok to admit that

He missed Kroft, yes. He talked about it. He said he wanted to make a perfect throw and overthrew a backup TE who hasn't been on the team that long.

Have to wonder if George Kittle makes that catch…

You also saw him adjust later in the game and hit Jennings and had it not been for the rain and that crappy field he likely houses it.

Also why is it Lance's miss like that costs them the game but we act like Jimmy G is a winner when he missed Sanders on a bigger overthrow in the SB?

Taking a single play in those conditions and acting like this is why the team can't win with Lance is absolutely ridiculous when the same people think the team can win with Garoppolo who has missed guys like that on numerous occasions.

And also why did Trey cost us #1 seed in his 3rd career start but Garoppolo didn't cost it for us literally handing points to the Denver offense that could do nothing for almost all game long?

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by Jakemall:
Job belongs to Purdy. Lance will get a chance to take it back with performance during the off season. There's another QB in the mix who also has a chance. Let the battle happen. Steel sharpens steel. Our team gets better no matter what. Why are we arguing?

Because for some the desire for Trey to fail supercedes the desire for anyone else to succeed.

Yep. It is a little like the Alex Smith syndrome.

We live in an era where everyone wants instant gratification whether it's sports, politics or our daily lives. People aren't willing to give anything a real chance before they decide it's good or bad. It's a shame because talented players can get overlooked or cut too quickly.

We have 3 young QBs and only Darnold has played enough to say he's experienced. Unfortunately for him he played for 2 bad teams and had few weapons so even he deserves a real shot now that he's got a good coach and good offense around him. Trey and Brock are both way to inexperienced to say for sure that ether is going to be great or a bust. They have 11 starts between them. To make any final decisions on either one at this point could end up being a big mistake. We rushed into giving JG a big contract too soon and found out he was injury prone and had physical limitations. Let's not make the same mistake with Trey or Brock.I'm not in favor of a 2 QB system but I think each of them needs to see some real game action to be fairly evaluated. Toward the end, Walsh was doing that with Joe and Steve. He would start Joe and if the offense wasn't moving he would switch in the 2nd half. It may upset the QBs but it can also let each of them know that they have to earn that job every week or at least long enough to prove that they are the best.

Originally posted by genus49:
Are you guys for real???

Offseason of nothing. He was a vet going into his 9th NFL season and 6th with this team and having the same offense here.

He got "thrown into the Seahawks game" a team he's never seen before? In an offense he's never played in before?

I do believe the words were "it's like riding a bike" cuz he did well vs Seattle.

But cuz he played like ass vs Denver it was an offseason of nothing? Adrian Peterson came back from an ACL injury and an offseason of nothing to run for 2k.

And tinkle wants to know why Jimmy played poorly??? He's a Vet! Lance has a fraction of his experience, they should not be evaluated on the same level. Jimmy's decision making should be WAY better and yet the guy brings up the box score again which doesn't list all the context to a game.

Jimmy was absolute dog ass in that Denver game. Awful interception, awful fumble, inexcusable safety running out of the endzone and then throwing a pick 6 which got wiped away.

Lance's interceptions have all been due to poor mechanics or inexperience. He never made the wrong read, missed a player or threw into triple coverage like Jimmy did in the Denver game. Acting cuz the box score is similar that they were similar games is more proof of the BS Trey gets.