Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by elguapo:

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.

there was a lot of pressure vs DAL
here is an NY quote, from the DAL game, about BP

With the amount of pressure he took, only 2 sacks. That's pretty damn good.

my first thing I look for in any QB performance, TL, BP or otherwise, is keeping it clean, that means limiting sacks, and def no turnovers
ppl talk about the near INT, there was a tipped pass that Diggs got, iirc

Originally posted by NYniner85:

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.

I just meant given the circumstances of it being a 2nd round playoff game, facing a very good defense, and Brock not having much experience.

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
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.

There was two dropped INTs that game. He under threw a pass that the DB should have caught. It's not the end of the world…anyone talking about a having to play good for at least 3 QRs for it to be considered a good game…needs to back up that with a couple games where Brock wasn't "good" for 3 QRs. Or just admit that's a stupid take and say Lance had one good game. Seems to be hard for a couple people to do apparently

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by Stanley:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Because for some the desire for Trey to fail supercedes the desire for anyone else to succeed.

Nonsense. Some people just can't stand Trey NOT being the guy. I have no idea why.

There are people out there like that but I have not seen any of them posting here.

Every single person defending Trey here simply wants to see more before calling his career. Yet there are numerous people who downplay what he's shown so far and make it seem like every start of his outside of Houston(which is still diminished to being only a half of ok play if that against a terrible team) is like Sam Darnold's "I see ghosts" game.

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?

This back and forth clearly won't change anything for either of us so I'll just leave this analogy and I realize it's an extreme case but I feel like it's warranted to make it clear.

I'm sure there were Eagles fans who 2 years ago felt Carson Wentz was a better player than Jalen Hurts. Some probably would've even rather had Nick Foles as their QB.

Eagles let Hurts play and now have one of the best QBs in the sport running that offense.

It's not just a physical skill situation with Trey. His development is simple repetition. The idea is what can Trey become with playing time.

But this is the tough question for the team and one they 100% need to answer correctly. Who can be the better QB for this team moving forward - Lance with further development or Brock able to maintain a ceiling that's just too good to pass up and good enough to give you a franchise QB.

What we can't afford to see happen is getting rid of Trey and watching another team give him time to grow into a franchise QB and Brock hits a wall once our talent starts to leave when we pay him real QB money.

Why I badly want to see the two of them battle on the same field to see who can be our guy.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
there was a lot of pressure vs DAL
here is an NY quote, from the DAL game, about BP

With the amount of pressure he took, only 2 sacks. That's pretty damn good.

my first thing I look for in any QB performance, TL, BP or otherwise, is keeping it clean, that means limiting sacks, and def no turnovers
ppl talk about the near INT, there was a tipped pass that Diggs got, iirc

Nice find Faithful. Yeah, diminishing Purdy to prop up a possible good qb in Lance or suggesting a regression is funny to me.

I actually hope Trey tears it up similar to Purdy if he starts the first few games bc his ceiling is higher. I still would love to have a qb that can also run for multiple first downs and flick it 50-60 yards downfield accurately. Still hoping Lance can accomplish this. Too bad his first game is vs a top Steelers D

Originally posted by genus49:
This back and forth clearly won't change anything for either of us so I'll just leave this analogy and I realize it's an extreme case but I feel like it's warranted to make it clear.

I'm sure there were Eagles fans who 2 years ago felt Carson Wentz was a better player than Jalen Hurts. Some probably would've even rather had Nick Foles as their QB.

Eagles let Hurts play and now have one of the best QBs in the sport running that offense.

It's not just a physical skill situation with Trey. His development is simple repetition. The idea is what can Trey become with playing time.

But this is the tough question for the team and one they 100% need to answer correctly. Who can be the better QB for this team moving forward - Lance with further development or Brock able to maintain a ceiling that's just too good to pass up and good enough to give you a franchise QB.

What we can't afford to see happen is getting rid of Trey and watching another team give him time to grow into a franchise QB and Brock hits a wall once our talent starts to leave when we pay him real QB money.

Why I badly want to see the two of them battle on the same field to see who can be our guy.

Part of this tho is the Steve Smith quote, the part of him watching 5 mins, and he knows. I saw Hurts as a rook, he moved very well, very live arm, the team seemingly played better with him out there. I was a fan of Hurts, you can check the bold predictions thread, where I predicted his breakout year, this past season. I am not always right on QBs, no one is, but sometimes, you can just tell, like Steve was saying.

I don't see encouraging signs from Trey, as I did from Hurts. I see some encouraging things, but it's more discouraging than encouraging for me, right now. I still think he can pull it off, but you have to show it in prax. Realize Gio Carmazzi never threw a pass for the 49ers. Would ppl say, he just needed a regular season shot? The team could tell on the prax field, he couldn't do it. TL has to own the prax field, to see the regular season one.

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.

I wouldn't say he played well in that game(I mean if we're changing narratives then let's be consistent)

But he did avoid key mistakes(though we did get lucky on a couple of plays) and came up big when it mattered and that's all you can ask of a guy.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
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.

There was two dropped INTs that game. He under threw a pass that the DB should have caught. It's not the end of the world…anyone talking about a having to play good for at least 3 QRs for it to be considered a good game…needs to back up that with a couple games where Brock wasn't "good" for 3 QRs. Or just admit that's a stupid take and say Lance had one good game. Seems to be hard for a couple people to do apparently

The 3Qtr standard just doesn't work that well if you apply any scrutiny to it. By that standard, Tom Brady didn't have a good game in the 28-3 comeback Super Bowl against the Falcons.

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

Just generally speaking, not about that game in particular, I think it's always tough to say a QB played well to fans when they don't light up the statistics that people usually use when talking about QBs. The reverse is true as well… hard to convince fans a QB didn't play well when those statistics look good.

For example, Brock took a sack on the first play of that game, and it really was a nice play by him. There's no regular statistic that is going to account for it.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:
This back and forth clearly won't change anything for either of us so I'll just leave this analogy and I realize it's an extreme case but I feel like it's warranted to make it clear.

I'm sure there were Eagles fans who 2 years ago felt Carson Wentz was a better player than Jalen Hurts. Some probably would've even rather had Nick Foles as their QB.

Eagles let Hurts play and now have one of the best QBs in the sport running that offense.

It's not just a physical skill situation with Trey. His development is simple repetition. The idea is what can Trey become with playing time.

But this is the tough question for the team and one they 100% need to answer correctly. Who can be the better QB for this team moving forward - Lance with further development or Brock able to maintain a ceiling that's just too good to pass up and good enough to give you a franchise QB.

What we can't afford to see happen is getting rid of Trey and watching another team give him time to grow into a franchise QB and Brock hits a wall once our talent starts to leave when we pay him real QB money.

Why I badly want to see the two of them battle on the same field to see who can be our guy.

Part of this tho is the Steve Smith quote, the part of him watching 5 mins, and he knows. I saw Hurts as a rook, he moved very well, very live arm, the team seemingly played better with him out there. I was a fan of Hurts, you can check the bold predictions thread, where I predicted his breakout year, this past season. I am not always right on QBs, no one is, but sometimes, you can just tell, like Steve was saying.

I don't see encouraging signs from Trey, as I did from Hurts. I see some encouraging things, but it's more discouraging than encouraging for me, right now. I still think he can pull it off, but you have to show it in prax. Realize Gio Carmazzi never threw a pass for the 49ers. Would ppl say, he just needed a regular season shot? The team could tell on the prax field, he couldn't do it. TL has to own the prax field, to see the regular season one.

Steve Smith likes to make big bold statements. I'd question if he was aware of Trey's injury if he even watched him play.

And whether you were a Hurts fan or not doesn't change the fact that many Eagles fans were not.

Gio Carmazzi pissed himself during practice, let alone actual games. If you're making that comparison with Trey that just reinforces my point of some of you completely exaggerating how poorly Trey played.

Hurts also had way more experience in college AND played behind one of the better lines in the NFL. Now put him behind an OL with 3 new starters and put him in a rain game and see how he does. My guess is you won't see the same flashes you claim you saw from him.

Whether it's Hurts, Allen, or any other QB...the more experience you get you tend to improve unless you're mentally weak. Trey has given no indication of being that.

You claim you haven't seen enough to get excited about and I disagree. He's shown things you need to see in the NFL - anticipation throws, movement in the pocket without panic, ability to hit tight window throws, make plays with his legs, make good decisions with the football.

His failures for the most part are inexperience level stuff and things we've seen him correct during the game he makes those mistakes in. Why is it shocking to think he improves on those things overall with time?

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

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

Nick Foles is a winner too, right

Who cares?

And the answer is no, Foles is a .500 qb.

Originally posted by Bringbackedjr:

Keep telling yourself that. Jimmy and winner don't belong in the same sentence. Good luck Oakland…. He will be released and nobody will claim him.

Math tells me that.

Facts over feelings.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:

Originally posted by genus49:
This back and forth clearly won't change anything for either of us so I'll just leave this analogy and I realize it's an extreme case but I feel like it's warranted to make it clear.

I'm sure there were Eagles fans who 2 years ago felt Carson Wentz was a better player than Jalen Hurts. Some probably would've even rather had Nick Foles as their QB.

Eagles let Hurts play and now have one of the best QBs in the sport running that offense.

It's not just a physical skill situation with Trey. His development is simple repetition. The idea is what can Trey become with playing time.

But this is the tough question for the team and one they 100% need to answer correctly. Who can be the better QB for this team moving forward - Lance with further development or Brock able to maintain a ceiling that's just too good to pass up and good enough to give you a franchise QB.

What we can't afford to see happen is getting rid of Trey and watching another team give him time to grow into a franchise QB and Brock hits a wall once our talent starts to leave when we pay him real QB money.

Why I badly want to see the two of them battle on the same field to see who can be our guy.

Part of this tho is the Steve Smith quote, the part of him watching 5 mins, and he knows. I saw Hurts as a rook, he moved very well, very live arm, the team seemingly played better with him out there. I was a fan of Hurts, you can check the bold predictions thread, where I predicted his breakout year, this past season. I am not always right on QBs, no one is, but sometimes, you can just tell, like Steve was saying.

I don't see encouraging signs from Trey, as I did from Hurts. I see some encouraging things, but it's more discouraging than encouraging for me, right now. I still think he can pull it off, but you have to show it in prax. Realize Gio Carmazzi never threw a pass for the 49ers. Would ppl say, he just needed a regular season shot? The team could tell on the prax field, he couldn't do it. TL has to own the prax field, to see the regular season one.

Steve Smith likes to make big bold statements. I'd question if he was aware of Trey's injury if he even watched him play.

And whether you were a Hurts fan or not doesn't change the fact that many Eagles fans were not.

Gio Carmazzi pissed himself during practice, let alone actual games. If you're making that comparison with Trey that just reinforces my point of some of you completely exaggerating how poorly Trey played.

Hurts also had way more experience in college AND played behind one of the better lines in the NFL. Now put him behind an OL with 3 new starters and put him in a rain game and see how he does. My guess is you won't see the same flashes you claim you saw from him.

Whether it's Hurts, Allen, or any other QB...the more experience you get you tend to improve unless you're mentally weak. Trey has given no indication of being that.

You claim you haven't seen enough to get excited about and I disagree. He's shown things you need to see in the NFL - anticipation throws, movement in the pocket without panic, ability to hit tight window throws, make plays with his legs, make good decisions with the football.

His failures for the most part are inexperience level stuff and things we've seen him correct during the game he makes those mistakes in. Why is it shocking to think he improves on those things overall with time?

Just making the simple point, that you reveal who you are in prax. A lot of guys NFL careers, come down to how they perform in summer. We cut it from 90 to 53, based on summer reps, how they look. Many of those guys don't get 1 regular season snap, to show what they can do. That's football. So I reject the notion, that we need to hand him a bunch of regular season snaps, regardless of his ability to earn said snaps, to see what we have. KS will see what he has all summer.

Originally posted by genus49:

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?

A loss.

Is it really a challenge to understand what a winning record is and what a losing record is?

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Jimmy won, Trey has not won a lot.
People who win are called winners.

Nick Foles is a winner too, right

Who cares?

And the answer is no, Foles is a .500 qb.

1-0 in games that REALLY matter
Jimmy btw is 0-1 if you don't recall.