Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by Waterbear:
It doesn't ultimately matter what I think. I just don't see the evidence that signing Sam automatically means the team is down on Trey. To me, the signing was about injuries, the new rule change, and the fact that Trey is such an unknown. Which isn't the same thing as you're suggesting.
At the same time I'm not claiming to be more right than you… I'm arguing that it's unknowable.
Which is the general stance I've had about Trey all along.
I've argued against people saying starting Trey his rookie season would have resulted in missing the playoffs, not because I know he would have made the playoffs, but that there's not enough date to prove either opinion.
Is saying the team signed Sam to compete with Trey in order to give us a better chance at having a quality QB2 really that different from saying Trey is unknown? To expand, I definitely disagree that we have no idea what Trey has been to this point, and I fully believe two full years with the team is going to give the team a good idea what they have regardless of regular season time, but I also acknowledge that we don't know what, if any, improvements Trey will have made by the start of the season. The team made a move to give them flexibility in an unknown situation (Purdy's health, Trey's ability). Trey could simply beat Sam out for the job going forward. It's something the team couldn't know in advance and they're protecting themselves. It's not complicated and it was easy to see coming.
I totally understand your hesitation to derive conclusions from limited data. What I don't understand is a willingness to disregard evidence completely, even if it might not give a full picture, especially when you did in fact form your own opinion that proved incorrect. It's time to reevaluate in that case, not make the case that something is unknowable.
What is the evidence in disregarding? That Sam and Trey are competing? Does competition say anything about a players competency?
I'm saying we don't know… as in the fans, I would say it's fair to assume the 49ers know more about where Trey was his rookie season, last season, and now this offseason, even without a lot of game film.
But, for example, I've seen a lot of posters claim to know Trey has been awful in practice. When all the reports I've seen were that he was inconsistent. Is inconsistent the same as awful? I'd argue no… but again, we're basing off reports. How can I know if someone is wrong when they claim this? Other than I know they don't have access to practices themselves? I don't. And I'd argue no one does.
There were a couple of reporters Trey's rookie season that said he looked better than Jimmy, and Jimmy took us to the NFC championship after an offseason where he threw 5 straight interceptions in one practice… do you see where my hesitation comes from for making conclusions about players on practice?
I've been incredibly consistent about this from the beginning. While others were making positive or negative predictions about Trey, I only said I liked his skill set and wanted the 49ers to draft him, but I reserved the right to wait and be patient. Which is the opposite of 85% of the posters here.
I never assumed he would be instantly better than Jimmy, or that Purdy will be better than Jimmy. I think Purdy has played better than any QB we've had under Kyle, but there's still question marks for both QBs.
