QB Sam Darnold is a Viking

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Change of scenery for quarterbacks who start out bad is rare to see work out. Off hand, these are the most significant ones I can think of in the past 30 years:

Steve Young

Rich Gannon

Kerry Collins

Alex Smith

Geno Smith

Maybe you could say Jameis Winston.

But yeah, not many.

Since 2000, these are the guys who were first or second round picked guys who had a crappy or meh start and changed teams hoping for more success, and still were mediocre or bad:

Blaine Gabbert
Josh Rosen
Marcus Mariota
Brock Osweiler
Jason Campbell
Byron Leftwitch
David Carr
Mark Sanchez (let's be real, he was statistically horrendous his whole career and was carried by the running game and defense early on)
Rex Grossman (see above)

I would argue what all the ones that work out have in common is they go to great situations

Geno did
Steve did
Gannon did
Alex did

Sam most definitely did

lot of those QB needy teams are crap teams, so it's lateral moves, like Sam from crappy NYJ to crappy CAR
not often that you have a SB heavyweight team with zero established QB1

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I would argue what all the ones that work out have in common is they go to great situations

Geno did
Steve did
Gannon did
Alex did

Sam most definitely did

lot of those QB needy teams are crap teams, so it's lateral moves, like Sam from crappy NYJ to crappy CAR
not often that you have a SB heavyweight team with zero established QB1

None of them were great from the start however. The majority took time to acclimate.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
None of them were great from the start however. The majority took time to acclimate.

Definitely true but each team's needs are different, and we aren't relying on Darnold to be a quality starting qb right away. We just might* need a guy capable of playing well in spots, and he's already done that at times. And he needs a quality environment where he has a chance to audition for his next opportunity/contract. It's a good deal for both sides.

Even if the light bulb goes off for him and he plays great, he's only got a 1 year deal for little money. It's extremely hard to imagine him playing so great we give him a long term deal at market value going forward.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I would argue what all the ones that work out have in common is they go to great situations

Geno did
Steve did
Gannon did
Alex did

Sam most definitely did

lot of those QB needy teams are crap teams, so it's lateral moves, like Sam from crappy NYJ to crappy CAR
not often that you have a SB heavyweight team with zero established QB1

None of them were great from the start however. The majority took time to acclimate.

That is not correct. Alex Smith made the Pro Bowl his first year with a new team it was his first Pro Bowl. Same with Gannon. Just not true mate.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Let's just put this argument aside for a moment and use some basic reasoning:

Trey hasn't been named the starter now, and Brock has been deemed the 'leader in the clubhouse'. If Trey is named the starter going into the season and keeps the job, that would indicate a clear change in their thinking between now and then.

Opinions from fans concerning how the team views Lance now would expire in the future with new, previously unavailable, developments. You're acknowledging this by recognizing there would be new, or more, data. It's really simple.

You mean like when he wasn't traded? Was it hey you know maybe the 9ers actually do value him more than I thought?

No. It was clearly he doesn't have any value to anyone else

If Trey does win the competition I expect it's well they only did that because of how much they invested or something along those lines.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Definitely true but each team's needs are different, and we aren't relying on Darnold to be a quality starting qb right away. We just might* need a guy capable of playing well in spots, and he's already done that at times. And he needs a quality environment where he has a chance to audition for his next opportunity/contract. It's a good deal for both sides.

Even if the light bulb goes off for him and he plays great, he's only got a 1 year deal for little money. It's extremely hard to imagine him playing so great we give him a long term deal at market value going forward.

That might be true. Faithful is arguing the baseline of his performance will be Jimmy of last year though.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
You mean like when he wasn't traded? Was it hey you know maybe the 9ers actually do value him more than I thought?

No. It was clearly he doesn't have any value to anyone else

If Trey does win the competition I expect it's well they only did that because of how much they invested or something along those lines.

I think you're oversimplifying those arguments and replacing them with extremes.

It's not necessarily that he didn't have value to anyone else, or that the 49ers value him more than people thought. It could be simply that the 49ers would rather keep him than give him away for whatever his value was.

I can use my own position as an example. I think it's clear and obvious that Trey's development has been pushed aside, but I still didn't think they should trade him for anything less than a 2nd round pick... and even that was questionable. It's not hard to imagine other teams not being willing to meet that price. I thought they were broadcasting that they were open for offers, while also thinking a trade was unlikely to happen.

Regardless, you should still acknowledge that we know for a fact the 49ers thinking around Lance would have changed if he becomes the starter again. Otherwise he'd be the starter now. Holding people to opinions they held before new information is available is ridiculous. Again, reasonable people understand that new information can/should change opinions/conclusions.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
That is not correct. Alex Smith made the Pro Bowl his first year with a new team it was his first Pro Bowl. Same with Gannon. Just not true mate.

Ill give you Gannon. So one guy compared the other list OTC gave ya.

Peyton Manning Tom Brady and Matt Scahub were the elected Pro Bowlers in 2013. I give zero credence to back ins. Alex in 2013 was the same guy from 2011. He didn't take the big step till he adjusted to the offense.

But hey if Darnold puts up Jimmy numbers for an entire season like you expect hed be in the Pro Bowl too. Calling your shot then faithful?

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
That might be true. Faithful is arguing the baseline of his performance will be Jimmy of last year though.

I'd say he's arguing that it could be, not that it will be.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I think you're oversimplifying those arguments and replacing them with extremes.

It's not necessarily that he didn't have value to anyone else, or that the 49ers value him more than people thought. It could be simply that the 49ers would rather keep him than give him away for whatever his value was.

I can use my own position as an example. I think it's clear and obvious that Trey's development has been pushed aside, but I still didn't think they should trade him for anything less than a 2nd round pick... and even that was questionable. It's not hard to imagine other teams not being willing to meet that price. I thought they were broadcasting that they were open for offers, while also thinking a trade was unlikely to happen.

Regardless, you should still acknowledge that we know for a fact the 49ers thinking around Lance would have changed if he becomes the starter again. Otherwise he'd be the starter now. Holding people to opinions they held before new information is available is ridiculous. Again, reasonable people understand that new information can/should change opinions/conclusions.

But the only information we have RIGHT NOW is thst Purdy is the leader for week 1. You see them not being committed to Lance FUTURE based on that when we have no information that proves that is factual. So if he then wins the starting spot you can't say the position had changed because you don't know actually what it is in the first place.

Honestly this had gone on long enough though and it's not about Darnold.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I'd say he's arguing that it could be, not that it will be.

"There's no reason Sam can't play at a Jimmy G like level"

That's setting an expectation. You set expectations for what you think someone will do not what they can do.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
"There's no reason Sam can't play at a Jimmy G like level"

That's setting an expectation. You set expectations for what you think someone will do not what they can do.

That quote is a statement about his talent level and what he's capable of. That doesn't mean it's going to materialize with certainty.

I think you're reaching here but I'll let Faithful jump in if he wants to. We've argued enough about posters, lol.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
But the only information we have RIGHT NOW is thst Purdy is the leader for week 1. You see them not being committed to Lance FUTURE based on that when we have no information that proves that is factual. So if he then wins the starting spot you can't say the position had changed because you don't know actually what it is in the first place.

Honestly this had gone on long enough though and it's not about Darnold.

Disagree, but I tried to put the argument about what exactly it is they believe right now aside because it's unnecessary to understand their thinking will have changed if Lance ends up the starter.

It is a bit contradictory to say you don't know what they're thinking now, but would jump to argue others were wrong in their assessment of that thinking 3-4 months or longer down the road after a bunch of new information will be available. If you don't know now, you won't know whether those assessments were correct or not. Again, basic reasoning.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
That quote is a statement about his talent level and what he's capable of. That doesn't mean it's going to materialize with certainty.

I think you're reaching here but I'll let Faithful jump in if he wants to. We've argued enough about posters, lol.

If I say there's no reason Nick Bosa can't get 20 sacks in 2023 and then he doesn't accomplish it clearly there WAS a reason.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
If I say there's no reason Nick Bosa can't get 20 sacks in 2023 and then he doesn't accomplish it clearly there WAS a reason.

I thought we were done with this. Why not just look at the bulk of his readily available posts on Darnold in the thread? Clearly the running theme is potential based around his skillset. He flat out said we're going to see if Darnold can play, and that Darnold would have to improve to be viable for us, amongst many other similar things.