Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by tankle104:
In order for me to consider a qb to have a good game, at minimum, I think they need to have at least 3 good quarters of play.

So you're formed a subject they must do this in order for me to say anything positive about Lance? Not once did I ever see you say this is what you need prior to lance playing a single football game.

so Brock had a bad game vs DC and Dallas? He sure as s**t didn't have "at least" 3 good QRs. Does Tampa bay count? Outside of a 3rd QR Brady INT that put SF just out of the RZ. We punted the ball the rest of the 2nd half. How about the Raiders game? Brock did NOT play well for "at least" 3 QRs of football.

for someone that says they want Lance to be good…you sure are passive aggressive about all of it. You can't even saying he had a damn good game vs Houston. Why? Because you have a biased narrative and can't just admit it.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by tankle104:
In order for me to consider a qb to have a good game, at minimum, I think they need to have at least 3 good quarters of play.

So you're formed a subject they must do this in order for me to say anything positive about Lance? Not once did I ever see you say this is what you need prior to lance playing a single football game.

so Brock had a bad game vs DC and Dallas? He sure as s**t didn't have "at least" 3 good QRs. Does Tampa bay count? Outside of a 3rd QR Brady INT that put SF just out of the RZ. We punted the ball the rest of the 2nd half. How about the Raiders game? Brock did NOT play well for "at least" 3 QRs of football.

for someone that says they want Lance to be good…you sure are passive aggressive about all of it. You can't even saying he had a damn good game vs Houston. Why? Because you have a biased narrative and can't just admit it.

Why do ppl insist BP didn't play well vs DAL?
He played well imo. 0 turnovers, vs the #1 D in football at forcing turnovers. This is how we win.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Based on those standards, would you say that Brock had a good game against the Commanders?

He'd didn't for a couple game under those stipulations. Also what's considered a "good QR"? Does tossing a 5 yard pass to a wide open Deebo for a 70 yard TD or a screen pass for a 30 yard CMC play constitute as "a good QR" of football from a QB?

what a nonsense "yeah but" rebuttal. We all know Lance hasn't played great overall. Not allowing yourself to saying he play well in the Texans game is just being a hypocrite imo…especially from everyone that's using Brock stats to backup how amazing he played.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Why do ppl insist BP didn't play well vs DAL?
He played well imo. 0 turnovers, vs the #1 D in football at forcing turnovers. This is how we win.

Because he didn't play well..anyone who watched that game should objectively agree. We won because they dropped a couple INTs and Dak did Dak things. We didn't win because of QB play. Saying otherwise shows you can't be objective. He played well a bunch of other games.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Why do ppl insist BP didn't play well vs DAL?
He played well imo. 0 turnovers, vs the #1 D in football at forcing turnovers. This is how we win.

Because he didn't play well..anyone who watched that game should objectively agree. We won because they dropped a couple INTs and Dak did Dak things. We didn't win because of QB play. Saying otherwise shows you can't be objective. He played well a bunch of other games.

wrong, and quit with the 'if you disagree with me, you didn't watch the game' nonsense
go to the BP thread, there are plenty of takes saying he did good, played well, best QB on the field, in reaction to watching this game you speak of

The only thing that matters to me in regards to these QB threads are rules we can apply to all of them.

For instance…

1. reviewing film regardless of the outcome of the game should not be considered "hating".

This was a huge problem in the JG thread where discussion was routinely stopped because review of negative film was deemed to be "hating". To me, reviewing film is one of the main reasons I come to the webzone, and posters who try to limit these discussions are projecting their biases.

2. You should refrain from making statements about players who cannot defend themselves on the field.

We saw a lot of posters say, "starting Trey his rookie year would have resulted in a wasted season". When Jimmy got hurt last year, I saw people say, "there's no way Jimmy goes undefeated like Purdy". Which isn't fair to Jimmy either. Another potential example could be, "Brock Purdy would have played horribly if he stayed healthy in the NFC championship".

Basically, anytime a player gets injured, it really does no good to make blanket statements about what they couldn't have done since there's no way to prove it.

I'm sure there's more examples I could think of… but the point is, if you can't apply a standard to all 49ers QBs, it's probably not a good standard.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Why do ppl insist BP didn't play well vs DAL?
He played well imo. 0 turnovers, vs the #1 D in football at forcing turnovers. This is how we win.

Because he didn't play well..anyone who watched that game should objectively agree. We won because they dropped a couple INTs and Dak did Dak things. We didn't win because of QB play. Saying otherwise shows you can't be objective. He played well a bunch of other games.

wrong, and quit with the 'if you disagree with me, you didn't watch the game' nonsense
go to the BP thread, there are plenty of takes saying he did good, played well, best QB on the field, in reaction to watching this game you speak of

You must've not watched the game then lol

Originally posted by 49ersRing:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by tankle104:
I'd like to see more of Trey, just not if Brock is healthy, because I think he's the better qb short and long term. I don't evaluate QBs solely based on physical skill set.

im also not disillusioned and think he has played well. I think his best game was Houston and I'd classify it as "okay". I think his other two starts were bad performances.

i also don't think that means he's a bad qb. I just think he's very inexperienced and it's evident. I also don't think 5-10 nice plays/throws out 100 is enough to convince me he has tremendous potential, especially when he's missed half of those throws.

im still hoping the young man has a great camp and shows huge strides. I don't think he's going to be a failure in the nfl or anything, we just evaluate potential different and I think we have a much better option for the team short and long term. It has more to do with brock than it does Lance on why Idc to see more of Lance. But I'm also not going to sit here and lie about what I think his performances were.

has Kyle even ever said that Lance had a good game after one of his regular season starts?

I think some people embellish how "bad" he's played.

not sure how completing 70% of your passes for 250 yards a couple TDs and a 113.5 QB rating is considered okay? that was the only game he had Kittle in.

brock had two games where he threw more yards. Two games where he threw more TDs and two games completing more passes. That's including the playoffs and that's with CMC and a defense that actually turned the ball over.

In order for me to consider a qb to have a good game, at minimum, I think they need to have at least 3 good quarters of play. They need to constantly be putting the team in position to convert third downs and scoring opportunities, need to be accurate etc.

Lance had a slow start to that game in the first half. I also factor in that nearly every team in the league did better against that defense than we did - I know it's a different week every week, but I factor that in. Especially when I look at the massive difference in talent/coaching.

those things factor in for me. 3 points in the first half isn't good to me based on the way the offense was.

to treys credit, I thought it was a massive improvement from his Arizona game, which was nice to see. I just think the offense was very clunky.

this isn't something I do unique for Trey, I do this with all QBs. Stats don't always tell the whole story. I've seen QBs suck all game and then at the end get two quick touchdowns and yards st the end (still lost) but their stat line was sexy.

i personally have really high expectations for any qb in this offense, especially efficiency wise. I think Trey has been pretty inefficient. There are valid reasons that have contributed to his struggle but I don't think they should over shadow his performance because he was still out there playing.

Based on those standards, would you say that Brock had a good game against the Commanders?

I thought it was one of his worst games but I didn't think it was bad. It was a solid game but he definitely got off to a slow start.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by tankle104:
In order for me to consider a qb to have a good game, at minimum, I think they need to have at least 3 good quarters of play.

So you're formed a subject they must do this in order for me to say anything positive about Lance? Not once did I ever see you say this is what you need prior to lance playing a single football game.

so Brock had a bad game vs DC and Dallas? He sure as s**t didn't have "at least" 3 good QRs. Does Tampa bay count? Outside of a 3rd QR Brady INT that put SF just out of the RZ. We punted the ball the rest of the 2nd half. How about the Raiders game? Brock did NOT play well for "at least" 3 QRs of football.

for someone that says they want Lance to be good…you sure are passive aggressive about all of it. You can't even saying he had a damn good game vs Houston. Why? Because you have a biased narrative and can't just admit it.

Why do ppl insist BP didn't play well vs DAL?
He played well imo. 0 turnovers, vs the #1 D in football at forcing turnovers. This is how we win.

It seems pretty easy to understand why people might think that Purdy didn't play well in that game, whether you agree or disagree. Our offense as a whole underperformed against them compared to the averages that Dallas's defense was giving up all season, particularly in the 2nd half of the season. There was also a dropped interception in that game on our 1 TD drive. Probably the easiest interception a defender will ever have, but Diggs was already thinking about the dance he was going to do in the endzone when he let it slip through both hands.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Why do ppl insist BP didn't play well vs DAL?
He played well imo. 0 turnovers, vs the #1 D in football at forcing turnovers. This is how we win.

Because he didn't play well..anyone who watched that game should objectively agree. We won because they dropped a couple INTs and Dak did Dak things. We didn't win because of QB play. Saying otherwise shows you can't be objective. He played well a bunch of other games.

wrong, and quit with the 'if you disagree with me, you didn't watch the game' nonsense
go to the BP thread, there are plenty of takes saying he did good, played well, best QB on the field, in reaction to watching this game you speak of

You must've not watched the game then lol

The only thing I agree with him on was that Brock was the best QB on the field. But that alone doesnt mean he had a good game.

I thought Brock was fine against Dallas, especially considering his circumstances. But judging the game alone, it wasnt a good game. It was fine.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Why do ppl insist BP didn't play well vs DAL?
He played well imo. 0 turnovers, vs the #1 D in football at forcing turnovers. This is how we win.

Because he didn't play well..anyone who watched that game should objectively agree. We won because they dropped a couple INTs and Dak did Dak things. We didn't win because of QB play. Saying otherwise shows you can't be objective. He played well a bunch of other games.

wrong, and quit with the 'if you disagree with me, you didn't watch the game' nonsense
go to the BP thread, there are plenty of takes saying he did good, played well, best QB on the field, in reaction to watching this game you speak of

You must've not watched the game then lol

The only thing I agree with him on was that Brock was the best QB on the field. But that alone doesnt mean he had a good game.

I thought Brock was fine against Dallas, especially considering his circumstances. But judging the game alone, it wasnt a good game. It was fine.

the claim NY said is that 'he didn't play well'
is that a true claim?
I say, no, it isn't

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
wrong, and quit with the 'if you disagree with me, you didn't watch the game' nonsense
go to the BP thread, there are plenty of takes saying he did good, played well, best QB on the field, in reaction to watching this game you speak of

Lol you're the last person in here that should be delegating anything in this forum. I'm not spending my day arguing with your b******t takes. You don't have an objective bone in your body when it comes to talking about the 49ers.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
The only thing I agree with him on was that Brock was the best QB on the field. But that alone doesnt mean he had a good game.

I thought Brock was fine against Dallas, especially considering his circumstances. But judging the game alone, it wasnt a good game. It was fine.

Giving tankle's stipulations on what makes a QB have a good game. He did not. Overall Brock didn't have a good game vs Dallas imo. What do you mean by given the circumstances? We have one of the best rosters in football.

the one TD drive we had their defense had 3 defensive penalties two were pretty massive. QB play didn't have Dallas drop a couple INTs one on the RZ. A wins a win but if we're talking about a QB can only have a "good game" if they play well for at least 3 QRs then no he did not.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by genus49:
I brought him up because a large group of Trey drunk crowd were making every excuse in the book any time Jimmy played poorly and I was pointing out that Jimmy still got the "he's a winner" notion despite doing those things Trey is getting knocked for.

Simply put there is no reason to claim the team can't win with Lance at this point. Certainly not by the same people who pumped up Jimmy or excused him for the very things they're knocking Trey for despite much less experience.

Jimmy won, Trey has not won a lot.
People who win are called winners.

So what do you call it when winners lose?

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Why do ppl insist BP didn't play well vs DAL?
He played well imo. 0 turnovers, vs the #1 D in football at forcing turnovers. This is how we win.

Because he didn't play well..anyone who watched that game should objectively agree. We won because they dropped a couple INTs and Dak did Dak things. We didn't win because of QB play. Saying otherwise shows you can't be objective. He played well a bunch of other games.

wrong, and quit with the 'if you disagree with me, you didn't watch the game' nonsense
go to the BP thread, there are plenty of takes saying he did good, played well, best QB on the field, in reaction to watching this game you speak of

Very true faithful and don't you like how people don't acknowledge that our offensive line played its worst game of the season against Dallas? Purdy had zero time to throw for the better part of 3 quarters. But hey, let's not acknowledge that and pretend that he had a bad game or at best an average game. Let's pretend he didn't set rookie records in the regular season AND post season.