Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
What is the practical difference in terms of the point he's making?

It's painfully evident. This is a team sport. Giving victories to players you like and switching back to "the team" or "the coach" when it's convenient for whatever narrative you came into the discussion with is just crap talk. Like a poster is asking on the previous page (albeit on a different subject), how bout a little consistency? I have no issues with those that disagree. Disagreement is good.

But good discussion I think starts with the truth and we work our way from there. There's been too much filler here with innuendo and fantasy stuff (about Lance and others),...so expect to see a concerted effort from posters like myself and Waterbear to at least ask that some of you at least state the truth when you rationalize your thoughts publicly.

"Saying one guy "Won a game" where he was a complete f*** up with 3 INTs and 100 or so passing yards where his defense and RB really saved the day just doesn't calculate, and so let's present what the truth really is. Teams win games in the NFL. This is not only the truth, but it should be a common standard when debating here. let's debate the other stuff, lol.

I mean how bout we go with facts (instead of fictionary tales) and what shows up on film and then work from there? After all the barking at each other stops for a sec, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask for.

Or if you like W/L records for individual players, I mean, sports like track and tennis are readily available.

But if you're going to things that aren't true on a message board for the sake of what sounds good to your ears for a guy you like, be ready to be corrected on it. That's all.

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
What is the practical difference in terms of the point he's making?

It's painfully evident. This is a team sport. Giving victories to players you like and switching back to "the team" or "the coach" when it's convenient for whatever narrative you came into the discussion with is just crap talk. Like a poster is asking on the previous page (albeit on a different subject), how bout a little consistency? I have no issues with those that disagree. Disagreement is good.

But good discussion I think starts with the truth and we work our way from there. There's been too much filler here with innuendo and fantasy stuff (about Lance and others),...so expect to see a concerted effort from posters like myself and Waterbear to at least ask that some of you at least state the truth when you rationalize your thoughts publicly.

"Saying one guy "Won a game" where he was a complete f*** up with 3 INTs and 100 or so passing yards where his defense and RB really saved the day just doesn't calculate, and so let's present what the truth really is. Teams win games in the NFL. This is not only the truth, but it should be a common standard when debating here. let's debate the other stuff, lol.

I mean how bout we go with facts (instead of fictionary tales) and what shows up on film and then work from there? After all the barking at each other stops for a sec, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask for.

Or if you like W/L records for individual players, I mean, sports like track and tennis are readily available.

But if you're going to things that aren't true on a message board for the sake of what sounds good to your ears for a guy you like, be ready to be corrected on it. That's all.

Yet by a quick look at your post history you've literally had about 2 post about other positions in the last week. If what you said is true you would be discussing other positions too. But... The QB is the most important position in all of sports arguably. To sit and say it's a team game yet only talk about the QB makes you full of s* imo. You talk about the QB so much because he is the engine for the team. He touches the ball every offensive possession. He manages the entire offense. He makes the most pivotal decisions.

Who's the last team to win a SB with a prominent RB?... There's not a lot of them.
Who's the last team to win a SB with a prominent QB?...
A vast majority of them.

Why didn't the team beat Philly last year?

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
What is the practical difference in terms of the point he's making?

It's painfully evident. This is a team sport. Giving victories to players you like and switching back to "the team" or "the coach" when it's convenient for whatever narrative you came into the discussion with is just crap talk. Like a poster is asking on the previous page (albeit on a different subject), how bout a little consistency? I have no issues with those that disagree. Disagreement is good.

But good discussion I think starts with the truth and we work our way from there. There's been too much filler here with innuendo and fantasy stuff (about Lance and others),...so expect to see a concerted effort from posters like myself and Waterbear to at least ask that some of you at least state the truth when you rationalize your thoughts publicly.

"Saying one guy "Won a game" where he was a complete f*** up with 3 INTs and 100 or so passing yards where his defense and RB really saved the day just doesn't calculate, and so let's present what the truth really is. Teams win games in the NFL. This is not only the truth, but it should be a common standard when debating here. let's debate the other stuff, lol.

I mean how bout we go with facts (instead of fictionary tales) and what shows up on film and then work from there? After all the barking at each other stops for a sec, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask for.

Or if you like W/L records for individual players, I mean, sports like track and tennis are readily available.

But if you're going to things that aren't true on a message board for the sake of what sounds good to your ears for a guy you like, be ready to be corrected on it. That's all.

Yet by a quick look at your post history you've literally had about 2 post about other positions in the last week. If what you said is true you would be discussing other positions too. But... The QB is the most important position in all of sports arguably. To sit and say it's a team game yet only talk about the QB makes you full of s* imo. You talk about the QB so much because he is the engine for the team. He touches the ball every offensive possession. He manages the entire offense. He makes the most pivotal decisions.

Who's the last team to win a SB with a prominent RB?... There's not a lot of them.
Who's the last team to win a SB with a prominent QB?...
A vast majority of them.

Isn't that the unique aspect about the recent 49ers though? That we've had so much success outside of the QB position?

I think everyone should be able to at least acknowledge that. This team is very unique in the style it wins in the modern NFL. That doesn't mean we haven't had good QB play, it just means the other areas of the team have been historically special.

If Purdy wins the SB next year, I think it's entirely possible he does so without being the main driver of our success. That doesn't mean I believe Purdy can't be an elite QB, because I absolutely think he can, but it's possible we could win the SB without elite QB play, due to the run scheme, YAC, and defense.

I was told last season if Jimmy wins it all he should return as the starter, no matter how well or bad he played, and I think going against everything we've learned about this team. This is a true team. I wouldn't be less appreciative of any QB that wins a SB if I thought they didn't play great, I would just be happy we won one finally. Idk why we can't talk about both ideas simultaneously.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
What is the practical difference in terms of the point he's making?

It's painfully evident. This is a team sport. Giving victories to players you like and switching back to "the team" or "the coach" when it's convenient for whatever narrative you came into the discussion with is just crap talk. Like a poster is asking on the previous page (albeit on a different subject), how bout a little consistency? I have no issues with those that disagree. Disagreement is good.

But good discussion I think starts with the truth and we work our way from there. There's been too much filler here with innuendo and fantasy stuff (about Lance and others),...so expect to see a concerted effort from posters like myself and Waterbear to at least ask that some of you at least state the truth when you rationalize your thoughts publicly.

"Saying one guy "Won a game" where he was a complete f*** up with 3 INTs and 100 or so passing yards where his defense and RB really saved the day just doesn't calculate, and so let's present what the truth really is. Teams win games in the NFL. This is not only the truth, but it should be a common standard when debating here. let's debate the other stuff, lol.

I mean how bout we go with facts (instead of fictionary tales) and what shows up on film and then work from there? After all the barking at each other stops for a sec, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask for.

Or if you like W/L records for individual players, I mean, sports like track and tennis are readily available.

But if you're going to things that aren't true on a message board for the sake of what sounds good to your ears for a guy you like, be ready to be corrected on it. That's all.

Yet by a quick look at your post history you've literally had about 2 post about other positions in the last week. If what you said is true you would be discussing other positions too. But... The QB is the most important position in all of sports arguably. To sit and say it's a team game yet only talk about the QB makes you full of s* imo. You talk about the QB so much because he is the engine for the team. He touches the ball every offensive possession. He manages the entire offense. He makes the most pivotal decisions.

Who's the last team to win a SB with a prominent RB?... There's not a lot of them.
Who's the last team to win a SB with a prominent QB?...
A vast majority of them.

Isn't that the unique aspect about the recent 49ers though? That we've had so much success outside of the QB position?

I think everyone should be able to at least acknowledge that. This team is very unique in the style it wins in the modern NFL. That doesn't mean we haven't had good QB play, it just means the other areas of the team have been historically special.

If Purdy wins the SB next year, I think it's entirely possible he does so without being the main driver of our success. That doesn't mean I believe Purdy can't be an elite QB, because I absolutely think he can, but it's possible we could win the SB without elite QB play, due to the run scheme, YAC, and defense.

I was told last season if Jimmy wins it all he should return as the starter, no matter how well or bad he played, and I think going against everything we've learned about this team. This is a true team. I wouldn't be less appreciative of any QB that wins a SB if I thought they didn't play great, I would just be happy we won one finally. Idk why we can't talk about both ideas simultaneously.

How'd the team do against Philly?

Edit: I dint mean this as a jerk response but a genuine rebuttal. Once Brock went down, most of us knew the game was over.

I was a huge Jimmy guy but if he makes plays we are SB champs. Twice maybe. So yeah, it takes a good team obviously but the QB is the driving force. Jimmy hits Sanders we win. Jimmy makes one play in the fourth against LAR we win. Kaep reads cover zero we win. Alex makes one play in the fourth against the Giants we win. You cannot say that about other positions.

Does KC have 2 without Mahomes?
Do the Rams get one with Goff instead of Stafford?
Does Tampa get one without Brady?
Are the Patriots a dynasty without Brady?

No. Once again you cannot say that about any other position. Do the other positions help? Oh yeah but not like a QB.

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:
How'd the team do against Philly?

Edit: I dint mean this as a jerk response but a genuine rebuttal. Once Brock went down, most of us knew the game was over.

I was a huge Jimmy guy but if he makes plays we are SB champs. Twice maybe. So yeah, it takes a good team obviously but the QB is the driving force. Jimmy hits Sanders we win. Jimmy makes one play in the fourth against LAR we win. Kaep reads cover zero we win. Alex makes one play in the fourth against the Giants we win. You cannot say that about other positions.

Does KC have 2 without Mahomes?
Do the Rams get one with Goff instead of Stafford?
Does Tampa get one without Brady?
Are the Patriots a dynasty without Brady?

No. Once again you cannot say that about any other position. Do the other positions help? Oh yeah but not like a QB.

Ok. So let's present a truth and an almost-truth.

1) Teams win games. QBs can have W/L records as a starter.

2) How much impact individuals (like QBs) may have had in their TEAM's success is always a debatable topic.

3) Most times in today's current rules with the current talent levels across the board, QBs can have the most impact in their TEAM winning or losing.
And I do say current, because if you ask alot of coaches and scouts before Generation Z came along, they will wholeheartedly tell you that a guy like LT was the most impactful player (in Wins and Losses) that the game has ever seen. And he wasn't a QB, he was a LB/Pass Rusher. Though, I never really hear or read where anybody's quoting his W/L record. (It's because he doesn't have one.

You see? The truth can be told when discussing football. It IS possible.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
From an article by Matt Maiocco about today's practice.

Lance looks sharper during his first week of training camp than he did at any point in his first two summers with the 49ers. "He's throwing the football a lot better," 49ers general manager John Lynch said of Lance before the practice session. "His base is better. Some of his mechanics are better. Those things are showing up on the field. So I'm not just proud of him for his attitude, his leadership, his resiliency. I'm proud for what I'm seeing out there."

Which is why he didn't start in his first year and was only starting last year by virtue of his draft position. Glad he is finally getting it together and showing what he is capable of but lets not pretend that he was "ready to play" when he first came into the league, as some have professed.

No one professed this. At most, people wanted him to learn on the job.

When you have a roster that went to the NFC Championship game 3 out of the last four years you don't put in a QB who has to "learn on the job". And don't for one minute pretend that during his first season he wasn't on the "Oh, he's going to start next week" watch of many posters in here, including you. A lot of those people were just convinced, convinced mind you, that Lance could have done "at least as good of a job" as Jimmy, which according to multiple team sources this year has been exposed for BS that it was.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
When you have a roster that went to the NFC Championship game 3 out of the last four years you don't put in a QB who has to "learn on the job".

I think you put in whomever the coaches choose to put in. There is no set formula or anything,...don't know why you're trying to present it as one.

There's still alot to be learned by both of these young guys.

Let's be honest: If there was no chance at all for him to play, you wouldn't be here checking the thread.

Originally posted by random49er:
It's painfully evident. This is a team sport. Giving victories to players you like and switching back to "the team" or "the coach" when it's convenient for whatever narrative you came into the discussion with is just crap talk. Like a poster is asking on the previous page (albeit on a different subject), how bout a little consistency? I have no issues with those that disagree. Disagreement is good.

But good discussion I think starts with the truth and we work our way from there. There's been too much filler here with innuendo and fantasy stuff (about Lance and others),...so expect to see a concerted effort from posters like myself and Waterbear to at least ask that some of you at least state the truth when you rationalize your thoughts publicly.

"Saying one guy "Won a game" where he was a complete f*** up with 3 INTs and 100 or so passing yards where his defense and RB really saved the day just doesn't calculate, and so let's present what the truth really is. Teams win games in the NFL. This is not only the truth, but it should be a common standard when debating here. let's debate the other stuff, lol.

I mean how bout we go with facts (instead of fictionary tales) and what shows up on film and then work from there? After all the barking at each other stops for a sec, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask for.

Or if you like W/L records for individual players, I mean, sports like track and tennis are readily available.

But if you're going to things that aren't true on a message board for the sake of what sounds good to your ears for a guy you like, be ready to be corrected on it. That's all.

I think you need to go back and read your post and the point I made in response. It had legitimately nothing to do with whether or not attributing wins/losses to a QB is a good way of evaluating QBs. I agree with what you're saying here for the most part and implied as much in my response.

I was arguing that it's useless to differentiate between QB winning percentage, and QB winning percentage as a starter… when we all know what he meant. Pure semantics.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
When you have a roster that went to the NFC Championship game 3 out of the last four years you don't put in a QB who has to "learn on the job". And don't for one minute pretend that during his first season he wasn't on the "Oh, he's going to start next week" watch of many posters in here, including you. A lot of those people were just convinced, convinced mind you, that Lance could have done "at least as good of a job" as Jimmy, which according to multiple team sources this year has been exposed for BS that it was.

I am on record (and repeated myself many times for people like you who like to misrepresent my position) saying that as a rookie, Trey was clearly behind Jimmy at the start. My position was always that he should start midway through the season and that with playing every game from that point he could be as good if not better. And what do you know? Jimmy played lime sh*t in the playoffs that year.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
When you have a roster that went to the NFC Championship game 3 out of the last four years you don't put in a QB who has to "learn on the job". And don't for one minute pretend that during his first season he wasn't on the "Oh, he's going to start next week" watch of many posters in here, including you. A lot of those people were just convinced, convinced mind you, that Lance could have done "at least as good of a job" as Jimmy, which according to multiple team sources this year has been exposed for BS that it was.

I am on record (and repeated myself many times for people like you who like to misrepresent my position) saying that as a rookie, Trey was clearly behind Jimmy at the start. My position was always that he should start midway through the season and that with playing every game from that point he could be as good if not better. And what do you know? Jimmy played lime sh*t in the playoffs that year.

You also don't spend three firsts on a QB then NOT have a plan to eventually get him on the field at all costs. If Trey wasn't going to play come hell
or high water the move shouldn't have been made

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
When you have a roster that went to the NFC Championship game 3 out of the last four years you don't put in a QB who has to "learn on the job". And don't for one minute pretend that during his first season he wasn't on the "Oh, he's going to start next week" watch of many posters in here, including you. A lot of those people were just convinced, convinced mind you, that Lance could have done "at least as good of a job" as Jimmy, which according to multiple team sources this year has been exposed for BS that it was.

I am on record (and repeated myself many times for people like you who like to misrepresent my position) saying that as a rookie, Trey was clearly behind Jimmy at the start. My position was always that he should start midway through the season and that with playing every game from that point he could be as good if not better. And what do you know? Jimmy played lime sh*t in the playoffs that year.

You also don't spend three firsts on a QB then NOT have a plan to eventually get him on the field at all costs. If Trey wasn't going to play come hell
or high water the move shouldn't have been made

That was the plan... for 2022. He broke his ankle 5 quarters into the season. It's a tough business, but that was his moment to take advantage of his draft position. Niners can't afford to do that again, unfortunately for Lance.

Originally posted by 49ers81:
When you have a roster that went to the NFC Championship game 3 out of the last four years you don't put in a QB who has to "learn on the job". And don't for one minute pretend that during his first season he wasn't on the "Oh, he's going to start next week" watch of many posters in here, including you. A lot of those people were just convinced, convinced mind you, that Lance could have done "at least as good of a job" as Jimmy, which according to multiple team sources this year has been exposed for BS that it was.

And you're sure that Trey couldn't??

i'd say he played a lot better in the rain vs Chicago than Jimmy played in normal weather in Denver. But Jimmy got more games to show what he could look like and had CMC added and somehow we forget that disaster of a game?

Easier to project Trey's Chicago game over the whole season apparently.

How many games did Jimmy win as a 49er when he was the team's leading rusher?

No team sources exposed any such BS because we don't know what Trey would've done the rest of the season.

The whole idea was that we could play Trey and ask him not to have to do too much and the talent on the team would support him. That didn't happen in Chicago and he got hurt early in Seattle and suddenly you're acting like Trey can't win games with this roster while using extreme cases where our talented roster didn't play up to their talent and blaming it all on Trey. I'm sure you were so tough on Jimmy after his bad games right? Or did you make excuses for him and throw those games away and concentrate on other games from him cuz you could?

Originally posted by random49er:

Originally posted by TreyDeyEeyDey:
How'd the team do against Philly?

Edit: I dint mean this as a jerk response but a genuine rebuttal. Once Brock went down, most of us knew the game was over.

I was a huge Jimmy guy but if he makes plays we are SB champs. Twice maybe. So yeah, it takes a good team obviously but the QB is the driving force. Jimmy hits Sanders we win. Jimmy makes one play in the fourth against LAR we win. Kaep reads cover zero we win. Alex makes one play in the fourth against the Giants we win. You cannot say that about other positions.

Does KC have 2 without Mahomes?
Do the Rams get one with Goff instead of Stafford?
Does Tampa get one without Brady?
Are the Patriots a dynasty without Brady?

No. Once again you cannot say that about any other position. Do the other positions help? Oh yeah but not like a QB.

Ok. So let's present a truth and an almost-truth.

1) Teams win games. QBs can have W/L records as a starter.

2) How much impact individuals (like QBs) may have had in their TEAM's success is always a debatable topic.

3) Most times in today's current rules with the current talent levels across the board, QBs can have the most impact in their TEAM winning or losing.
And I do say current, because if you ask alot of coaches and scouts before Generation Z came along, they will wholeheartedly tell you that a guy like LT was the most impactful player (in Wins and Losses) that the game has ever seen. And he wasn't a QB, he was a LB/Pass Rusher. Though, I never really hear or read where anybody's quoting his W/L record. (It's because he doesn't have one.

You see? The truth can be told when discussing football. It IS possible.

So again... Why didn't the team win against Philly? They actually got completely blown out.

In Denver last year the defense played spectacular. Jimmy didn't. Where was the team on that one?

Does KC have 2 without Mahomes?

Name the teams in the last 30 years that had a bad QB and a great team that won a SB? Ravens? Who else? You can say Philly but Foles played lights out and played at an MVP level.

A good team can get you far, no doubt but a good QB in needed a vast majority of the time to WIN you championships.

Originally posted by captveg:

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by 49ers81:
When you have a roster that went to the NFC Championship game 3 out of the last four years you don't put in a QB who has to "learn on the job". And don't for one minute pretend that during his first season he wasn't on the "Oh, he's going to start next week" watch of many posters in here, including you. A lot of those people were just convinced, convinced mind you, that Lance could have done "at least as good of a job" as Jimmy, which according to multiple team sources this year has been exposed for BS that it was.

I am on record (and repeated myself many times for people like you who like to misrepresent my position) saying that as a rookie, Trey was clearly behind Jimmy at the start. My position was always that he should start midway through the season and that with playing every game from that point he could be as good if not better. And what do you know? Jimmy played lime sh*t in the playoffs that year.

You also don't spend three firsts on a QB then NOT have a plan to eventually get him on the field at all costs. If Trey wasn't going to play come hell
or high water the move shouldn't have been made

That was the plan... for 2022. He broke his ankle 5 quarters into the season. It's a tough business, but that was his moment to take advantage of his draft position. Niners can't afford to do that again, unfortunately for Lance.

Kyle has basically gave Purdy the QB1 job, while Trey is competing for QB2 with Darnold. In fact, Purdy was handed the QB1 job even early in the off season when there was uncertainty whether Purdy would even be able to participate training camp.

This should have clearly indicated to everyone that Kyle has been disappointed with Trey last season, not necessarily the injury but his performance throughout training camp and regular season games when Trey was in the field. Kyle was kind of forced to played Trey to start the season but was ready to bench him for Jimmy any time.

That is speculation and just my opinion of course.