Los Angeles Chargers QB Trey Lance Thread

Originally posted by tommyncal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by tommyncal:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I'm not sure I've ever commented on his ceiling outside of saying he wasn't as talented physically as guys like Mahomes, Allen, or Herbert.

I don't subscribe to the ceiling argument when it comes to QBs, especially based on physical traits. That was the point of my very short post.

Nfl teams believe in ceilings for QBs with gifted physical traits

NFL teams also drafted JaMarcus Russell and Jeff George, so they aren't infallible. Just pointing out that a strong arm attached to a weak head isn't an asset. Joe Montana and Brady fell in the draft because of their perceived lack of "arm talent" and athleticism. Arm talent should be a consideration, but nowhere near as high as some seem to think. As long as it is at least average, combined with a good mind for football, you can win with it. It is what makes the rare guys who have it combined with all the more important tools the "Unicorns" of professional football Like Marino, Manning, Rodgers, Luck, etc...

The point wasn't so much if it's infallible, it's why teams move up for 'high ceiling' QBs with gifted physical traits and arm talent. so, arm talent is ranked high in evaluations. Colts just did it with A Richardson. I'm not saying he will be a franchise QB because of his physical traits. But teams value those traits. Maybe, if they could figure out instincts, processing etc then maybe QBs like Purdy won't last to the last round.

Mahommes isn't a great qb because of his height, arms, and legs. He's a great qb because of all the intangibles like his mind/instincts etc. he just so happens to have an awesome arm and is mobile.

A great arm and leg is gravy. You don't try to take a great arm and leg and hope the rest adds up. You should initially look to see if you can identify the intangibles and then the arm and legs, IMO.

Physical traits don't make or break how great a qb can be. If they did, Brady and Montana wouldn't be the greatest ever. As long as their physical traits are good enough, the mind and heart (to simplify it) will take them the rest of the way.

that's why if you break out the top 10 greatest QBs of all time, they aren't necessarily gifted physically. Some have awesome arms but it kind of ends there outside of Steve young - which took him numerous years before he developed, but he had all the intangibles.

in my opinion, you can identify strong characteristics about every all time qb, but they don't have the best of anything overall, usually.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Mahommes isn't a great qb because of his height, arms, and legs. He's a great qb because of all the intangibles like his mind/instincts etc. he just so happens to have an awesome arm and is mobile.

A great arm and leg is gravy. You don't try to take a great arm and leg and hope the rest adds up. You should initially look to see if you can identify the intangibles and then the arm and legs, IMO.

Physical traits don't make or break how great a qb can be. If they did, Brady and Montana wouldn't be the greatest ever. As long as their physical traits are good enough, the mind and heart (to simplify it) will take them the rest of the way.

that's why if you break out the top 10 greatest QBs of all time, they aren't necessarily gifted physically. Some have awesome arms but it kind of ends there outside of Steve young - which took him numerous years before he developed, but he had all the intangibles.

in my opinion, you can identify strong characteristics about every all time qb, but they don't have the best of anything overall, usually.

Watching Mahomes in college to me was the best thrower of the football I'd ever seen. Even with all of his poor mechanics and everything else against him he wa still a great passer in college.

Originally posted by krizay:

Originally posted by tankle104:
Mahommes isn't a great qb because of his height, arms, and legs. He's a great qb because of all the intangibles like his mind/instincts etc. he just so happens to have an awesome arm and is mobile.

A great arm and leg is gravy. You don't try to take a great arm and leg and hope the rest adds up. You should initially look to see if you can identify the intangibles and then the arm and legs, IMO.

Physical traits don't make or break how great a qb can be. If they did, Brady and Montana wouldn't be the greatest ever. As long as their physical traits are good enough, the mind and heart (to simplify it) will take them the rest of the way.

that's why if you break out the top 10 greatest QBs of all time, they aren't necessarily gifted physically. Some have awesome arms but it kind of ends there outside of Steve young - which took him numerous years before he developed, but he had all the intangibles.

in my opinion, you can identify strong characteristics about every all time qb, but they don't have the best of anything overall, usually.

Watching Mahomes in college to me was the best thrower of the football I'd ever seen. Even with all of his poor mechanics and everything else against him he wa still a great passer in college.

That was never in question. The issue with Mahommes was would he be able to adapt to the NFL and play in a mire controlled fashion. That's something that's unpredictable. It's like trying to figure out if a QB that plays great in a college division not known for defense will be able to learn and dissect NFL defenses.

Teams fall in love with QBs at the combine based on physical attributes and then draft and hope they can teach them how to play. It's 50/50 whether they can or not.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
That was never in question. The issue with Mahommes was would he be able to adapt to the NFL and play in a mire controlled fashion. That's something that's unpredictable. It's like trying to figure out if a QB that plays great in a college division not known for defense will be able to learn and dissect NFL defenses.

Teams fall in love with QBs at the combine based on physical attributes and then draft and hope they can teach them how to play. It's 50/50 whether they can or not.

When you are drafting that high you want to shoot for the moon. You aren't just looking for a decent QB, You want someone who can one say be a top 5 QB and win an MVP because it makes winning a SB abit easier. Yes that player may have a much lower floor and might be boom or bust but if you are just going for safe approach you have already lost. Now you can draft those safe high floor guys late in the 1st RD or the mid rounds but any QB you draft in the top 10 you need to be confident he has the skillset to be an elite QB. Just like any positional player you draft in the top 10. If you draft a WR in the top 10 you are trying to draft an elite WR.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Koldo:
Funny how people think arm talent = arm strength.

Yea, and then use it as a basis for arguments about players 'ceilings'.

I've never understood that argument.

Because more arm strength =/= higher ceiling.

But also... you can't get mad at posters who believe Trey has a higher ceiling when you yourself are putting limitations on Trey's ceiling in your own mind after only 3 games.

I've tried to refrain from making statements about ceilings for Trey and Purdy, because I could honestly see either one of them or both become a top 5 QB, they just have different skill sets.

More arm strength is definitely tied to a higher ceiling. It means in theory they can make throws to locations most other guys cannot. There is obviously more to it than that, but clearly all other things being equal, a guy with greater arm strength has the potential to be better.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Koldo:
Funny how people think arm talent = arm strength.

Yea, and then use it as a basis for arguments about players 'ceilings'.

I've never understood that argument.

Because more arm strength =/= higher ceiling.

But also... you can't get mad at posters who believe Trey has a higher ceiling when you yourself are putting limitations on Trey's ceiling in your own mind after only 3 games.

I've tried to refrain from making statements about ceilings for Trey and Purdy, because I could honestly see either one of them or both become a top 5 QB, they just have different skill sets.

A lot of my personal belief on someone's "ceiling" depends on they play within an offense. Are they a game manager or someone that elevates everything around them?

i believe that if you're a game manager, you can never really be an elite qb, you can be a top 8-12 qb, but I don't think you can be elite.

how does someone perform when the play breaks down? How's their ball placement? Do they throw guys open? Do they hit tight windows? How do they perform under pressure? How do they perform in the redzone? How's their pocket presence? Etc.

a lot of QBs struggle if the play isn't open for them or it breaks down, those are usually the game managers. Or they can rarely operate outside of a play breaking down/throw guys open.

i personally feel like Lance is more of a high end game manager, but that isn't just based off of his three games, And my opinion can totally change once he plays more. It's just what I've seen so far. He's always been a cog in a machine and never the machine that everything runs through, if that makes sense. Highschool he threw 11 total touchdowns his junior and senior year (per max preps -I'm assuming he ran a lot more but it shows how little they depends on the pass game), then he had one season in college playing for a powerhouse that has won 9 championships in 12 years - so he isn't the reason they won, they won before him and right after. He was good there, no doubt, but it isn't like he elevated the program into a contender and they surely didn't rely on him to win games (specifically on his passing ability, just like his HS didnt.)- although he did help them win games. I'm saying they would of won with or without him like they have for nearly 15 years straight. He hasn't played enough in the nfl to make an assessment but that's my biggest concern with Lance.

Purdy isn't physically talented like Lance but he elevated his highschool to heights they've never been to or hadn't in decades (he was the core reason), then he did the same in college and they've been awful without him on offense (they were historically bad last season on offense without him). Then I watch him play in the pros and he elevated this offense to heights we have never seen under shanahan (he has a great cast, no doubt, but he was better than any other qb we've had by far).

so it isn't so much as I have made a final assessment on Lance, I just have concerns that are backed up by real evidence/data. Then we have Purdy who has done great things at all levels and led each program to new heights. That's what gets me excited.

im perfectly fine being wrong about Lance, that's a good thing. I'm not saying he is bad, I just have my concerns about him becoming elite and don't see any proof of him being able to do that. I see him as a 8-11 rank qb in this league once he gets experience. I don't think that's a bad thing? I just question that he will be elite. I don't think that's far fetched.

Are you insinuating Trey doesn't have the ability make off-schedule plays? I can think of four or five plays easily which refute that, if you are. However he isn't by nature a risk taker, so there's definitely some game manager in him. But he can make off-schedule plays. In fact, other than accuracy, his issues largely reside with the quick game. He's often just a tick late, probably due to his long throwing motion (unnecessary hitching, starting his throw like he's about to do a WWE move [nice and lackadaisical], slow wind-up which is only partially mitigated by a decent release speed, etc).

None of this challenges anything you said about Purdy. But Lance is not incapable of off-schedule plays.

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Koldo:
Funny how people think arm talent = arm strength.

Yea, and then use it as a basis for arguments about players 'ceilings'.

I've never understood that argument.

Because more arm strength =/= higher ceiling.

But also... you can't get mad at posters who believe Trey has a higher ceiling when you yourself are putting limitations on Trey's ceiling in your own mind after only 3 games.

I've tried to refrain from making statements about ceilings for Trey and Purdy, because I could honestly see either one of them or both become a top 5 QB, they just have different skill sets.

A lot of my personal belief on someone's "ceiling" depends on they play within an offense. Are they a game manager or someone that elevates everything around them?

i believe that if you're a game manager, you can never really be an elite qb, you can be a top 8-12 qb, but I don't think you can be elite.

how does someone perform when the play breaks down? How's their ball placement? Do they throw guys open? Do they hit tight windows? How do they perform under pressure? How do they perform in the redzone? How's their pocket presence? Etc.

a lot of QBs struggle if the play isn't open for them or it breaks down, those are usually the game managers. Or they can rarely operate outside of a play breaking down/throw guys open.

i personally feel like Lance is more of a high end game manager, but that isn't just based off of his three games, And my opinion can totally change once he plays more. It's just what I've seen so far. He's always been a cog in a machine and never the machine that everything runs through, if that makes sense. Highschool he threw 11 total touchdowns his junior and senior year (per max preps -I'm assuming he ran a lot more but it shows how little they depends on the pass game), then he had one season in college playing for a powerhouse that has won 9 championships in 12 years - so he isn't the reason they won, they won before him and right after. He was good there, no doubt, but it isn't like he elevated the program into a contender and they surely didn't rely on him to win games - although he did help them win games. I'm saying they would of won with or without him like they have for nearly 15 years straight. He hasn't played enough in the nfl to make an assessment but that's my biggest concern with Lance.

Purdy isn't physically talented like Lance but he elevated his highschool to heights they've never been to or hadn't in decades (he was the core reason), then he did the same in college and they've been awful without him on offense (they were historically bad last season on offense without him). Then I watch him play in the pros and he elevated this offense to heights we have never seen under shanahan (he has a great cast, no doubt, but he was better than any other qb we've had by far).

so it isn't so much as I have made a final assessment on Lance, I just have concerns that are backed up by real evidence/data. Then we have Purdy who has done great things at all levels and led each program to new heights. That's what gets me excited.

im perfectly fine being wrong about Lance, that's a good thing. I'm not saying he is bad, I just have my concerns about him becoming elite and don't see any proof of him being able to do that. I see him as a 8-11 rank qb in this league once he gets experience. I don't think that's a bad thing? I just question that he will be elite. I don't think that's far fetched.

Nice post Tankle. I agree with most of what you wrote, if not all of it.

If Trey has any chance of unseating Purdy, he's going to have to make plays outside the structure of the offense. I'm not sure he'll ever be as creative as Purdy, but I think if this were to happen (becoming QB1) he's going to have to make plays deep down the field in areas Purdy just doesn't have the arm strength for and become a much more effective runner. Those are two areas in which Trey could prove to be superior to Purdy, and then he has to prove he can be nearly as efficient in running the offense.

There's a lot on Trey's plate this year but I'm not counting him out.

I'm still leaning towards Purdy being the long-term guy as of today, I think he's earned that from the fans, I'm just saying the ceiling thing is kind of arbitrary anyway and we shouldn't count Lance out of the race just yet.

I'm quite certain a lot of people turned off the TV in 2021 when Trey was in the game.





Purdy is obviously the better QB, since he played like a top 5 guy. But for the life of me I cannot fathom where this "Trey can't make plays outside of structure" stuff comes from. He struggles making plays inside structure, because he's inaccurate and has a habit of hesitating.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by tankle104:
I'm still shocked that we used 3 first round picks and moved up to third overall for a qb with 417 pass attempts in his life (99 in highschool & 318 in college) and and 28 total starts ( 9 in HS & 19 in college). Especially with all the games at a very low division level.

that's a bigger gamble than making jimmy the highest paid qb in nfl history after 5 starts. Lmao

i was so shocked when we took him because no one, including Lance, has any freakin idea of what this guy is capable of. Lol wild. I hope it works out but idk how anyone can say he's capable of being a superstar or elite qb with that sample size in his lifetime.

Haha. TBF, Kyle also said Trey is a FQB after 2 games, Brock after 8 and Darnold after no games here. LOL

Kind of. He said they have franchise level talent but said only ones played like a franchise qb - Brock.

Kyle should be banned from the war room if Lance doesn't work out. Lmao cause I'm pretty sure a majority of our misses in the first three rounds can be traced back to him. Lmao I love him as our HC/OC but not as a talent evaluator.

Elite mental quickness, keeping your head in chaos, and resourcefulness are talents (which Purdy has in spades). They are the most important talents for QBs beside the ability to throw the ball. Tie them with elite quickness for the position and elite arm angles, an you get one of the better QBs in the NFL for an 8 game stretch.

EDIT: I think it's pretty clear Trey was picked because Kyle and John thought he had the character to develop the things he lacked. That's a gamble, but if you're picking a QB at 3, you're gambling no matter what most of the time. Trey is a good guy. Stand up guy. But there's one part of his character I wonder about: does he have the ruthlessness needed. If you're too kind you're too submissive, and then you defer to the better guy instead of trying to make him want to leave the team because you took his job. I don't know if Trey has that. We'll see I guess.

Originally posted by tankle104:
yeah, it would be a fun topic on here.

Neither of my parents were into sports, but both are born & raised in The City. when I was maybe 9 - My mom had this really cool old school metal paper bin for an office. It had the old school 49ers Logo and Font on it, like the endzone during the playoffs. All red and then all the way around the bin it had all the super bowls we've won with that years superbowl logo/teams/scores. I just thought it was the coolest thing and from there I started looking into the team and reading all the history about them.

Then i became emotionally attached to them. hahahah I've always been someone who believes in studying history to understand the present, so I just did this super deep dive and read about all the coaches, players, seasons, ownership etc. Since the team has been bad a majority of my life, it was a great escape. hahaha

This is a good story. I'll give you a free one of about my own fandom as payment.

I'm one of those weirdos who isn't from the Bay Area. I lived in Washington State when I became a 49er fan, but was exposed to football when I was a kid in Los Angeles a couple years before. Probably by all rights I should be a Rams of Seahag fan, but I chose the good guys (the Rams were already in St. Louis, but they'd been in LA for ages; same with the Raiders being in Oakland). I was just playing an old football video game and picked the team with the coolest uniform colors and most bad ass QB name—for both their QBs: Joe Montana and Steve Young. Who doesn't want a QB named Joe Montana? That's the most badass QB name of all time.

This was around the time when Steve Young and Jerry Rice were all over the media, and something about a guy named Young throwing to a guy named Rice, and a previous guy throwing named Montana intrigued me. And that red and gold color was nice. I wasn't a fan yet, but I was curious about the team so I started reading about them. And that's when I was sold. Bill Walsh. The fact that the guy outsmarted everyone, using brains over brawn. That was the moment I became a 49er fan. It was some old kids book about the history of NFL dynasties that pulled me in (published years before, so the Cowboys weren't mentioned). Basically it broke down every team by a single phrase. For the 49ers it was "Trick play offense, big play defense." This resonated with me so much, because I was a chess loser. The 49ers basically brought chess to football.

So, uniforms, cool names, and brains are what brought me in. And the coolest thing is my brother and I and a couple of friends started emulating the West Coast Offense in street football, and basically dominated everyone we played, even older kids. The fact that the sneaky quick stuff worked even in pickup games just solidified my fandom all the more. Ah, to be a kid again just falling in love with the 49ers.

My only regret is I didn't get to see Super Bowl 29 live. I have several copies of the game (and many others), but I just missed that. Sucks.

I was looking a bit ahead at the 2024 QB draft class, it looks strong. That will give Kyle some options if Trey doesn't look like he's improving this year.

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by tommyncal:

Originally posted by Memphis9er:

Originally posted by tommyncal:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I'm not sure I've ever commented on his ceiling outside of saying he wasn't as talented physically as guys like Mahomes, Allen, or Herbert.

I don't subscribe to the ceiling argument when it comes to QBs, especially based on physical traits. That was the point of my very short post.

Nfl teams believe in ceilings for QBs with gifted physical traits

NFL teams also drafted JaMarcus Russell and Jeff George, so they aren't infallible. Just pointing out that a strong arm attached to a weak head isn't an asset. Joe Montana and Brady fell in the draft because of their perceived lack of "arm talent" and athleticism. Arm talent should be a consideration, but nowhere near as high as some seem to think. As long as it is at least average, combined with a good mind for football, you can win with it. It is what makes the rare guys who have it combined with all the more important tools the "Unicorns" of professional football Like Marino, Manning, Rodgers, Luck, etc...

The point wasn't so much if it's infallible, it's why teams move up for 'high ceiling' QBs with gifted physical traits and arm talent. so, arm talent is ranked high in evaluations. Colts just did it with A Richardson. I'm not saying he will be a franchise QB because of his physical traits. But teams value those traits. Maybe, if they could figure out instincts, processing etc then maybe QBs like Purdy won't last to the last round.

Mahommes isn't a great qb because of his height, arms, and legs. He's a great qb because of all the intangibles like his mind/instincts etc. he just so happens to have an awesome arm and is mobile.

A great arm and leg is gravy. You don't try to take a great arm and leg and hope the rest adds up. You should initially look to see if you can identify the intangibles and then the arm and legs, IMO.

Physical traits don't make or break how great a qb can be. If they did, Brady and Montana wouldn't be the greatest ever. As long as their physical traits are good enough, the mind and heart (to simplify it) will take them the rest of the way.

that's why if you break out the top 10 greatest QBs of all time, they aren't necessarily gifted physically. Some have awesome arms but it kind of ends there outside of Steve young - which took him numerous years before he developed, but he had all the intangibles.

in my opinion, you can identify strong characteristics about every all time qb, but they don't have the best of anything overall, usually.

Yep.

As much teams try, you dont know whats between the ears when evaluation college players.

A quarterback reaching his "ceiling" is a fantasy. It applies to physical skills, but in mental ability, it only exists to the extent that the player is currently improving.

For years, I listened on this board how Colin Kaepernick hadn't reached his ceiling yet, while I was arguing that if that was going to happen, we'd be seeing improvement now, and we weren't. Garoppolo got incrementally better, but within a very narrow range.

Game experience helps you improve, but so does everything else you do on a team, including practice, study, meetings, film study, and coaching exposure. Even if you are not playing, you still better be getting better, or you won't.

I don't know, but putting Trey on the block looks to me like disappointed coaches. Actions speaks louder than words, and that's action, and kind words now are suspect when they have an interest in keeping Trey's value up.

Brock learned like crazy, without playing. No reason to think that vector has stopped.

Originally posted by BOI49er:
A quarterback reaching his "ceiling" is a fantasy. It applies to physical skills, but in mental ability, it only exists to the extent that the player is currently improving.

For years, I listened on this board how Colin Kaepernick hadn't reached his ceiling yet, while I was arguing that if that was going to happen, we'd be seeing improvement now, and we weren't. Garoppolo got incrementally better, but within a very narrow range.

Game experience helps you improve, but so does everything else you do on a team, including practice, study, meetings, film study, and coaching exposure. Even if you are not playing, you still better be getting better, or you won't.

I don't know, but putting Trey on the block looks to me like disappointed coaches. Actions speaks louder than words, and that's action, and kind words now are suspect when they have an interest in keeping Trey's value up.

Brock learned like crazy, without playing. No reason to think that vector has stopped.

Who put Lance on the block, and when? Or are you just referring to the usual garbage internet rumours?

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by BOI49er:
A quarterback reaching his "ceiling" is a fantasy. It applies to physical skills, but in mental ability, it only exists to the extent that the player is currently improving.

For years, I listened on this board how Colin Kaepernick hadn't reached his ceiling yet, while I was arguing that if that was going to happen, we'd be seeing improvement now, and we weren't. Garoppolo got incrementally better, but within a very narrow range.

Game experience helps you improve, but so does everything else you do on a team, including practice, study, meetings, film study, and coaching exposure. Even if you are not playing, you still better be getting better, or you won't.

I don't know, but putting Trey on the block looks to me like disappointed coaches. Actions speaks louder than words, and that's action, and kind words now are suspect when they have an interest in keeping Trey's value up.

Brock learned like crazy, without playing. No reason to think that vector has stopped.

Who put Lance on the block, and when? Or are you just referring to the usual garbage internet rumours?

Yep. Just rumors. That smoke/fire thing is not 100 percent, but...

Brock looked pretty good. And we can't afford a lot of losses to get Trey Years of experience.

Originally posted by BOI49er:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by BOI49er:
A quarterback reaching his "ceiling" is a fantasy. It applies to physical skills, but in mental ability, it only exists to the extent that the player is currently improving.

For years, I listened on this board how Colin Kaepernick hadn't reached his ceiling yet, while I was arguing that if that was going to happen, we'd be seeing improvement now, and we weren't. Garoppolo got incrementally better, but within a very narrow range.

Game experience helps you improve, but so does everything else you do on a team, including practice, study, meetings, film study, and coaching exposure. Even if you are not playing, you still better be getting better, or you won't.

I don't know, but putting Trey on the block looks to me like disappointed coaches. Actions speaks louder than words, and that's action, and kind words now are suspect when they have an interest in keeping Trey's value up.

Brock learned like crazy, without playing. No reason to think that vector has stopped.

Who put Lance on the block, and when? Or are you just referring to the usual garbage internet rumours?

Yep. Just rumors. That smoke/fire thing is not 100 percent, but...

Brock looked pretty good. And we can't afford a lot of losses to get Trey Years of experience.

Lance hasn't played yet. Not even the 49ers know how good he will be. If Purdy didn't exist, Trey's future over the next two years would be fairly certain. The only reason anyone is even entertaining the idea of trading Lance is because of how good Purdy looked. That's where all of you guys miss the boat. It's not about Lance being "at his bust ceiling." It's that with Purdy there is no need to actually wait to see if he hits his ceiling. In other words, the jury is still out on Lance, but the jury is mostly in on Purdy. A dollar in hand is worth more than two dollars you might get in the future.

So Purdy has made Lance and his potential expendable, for the right price. It has almost nothing to do with Lance, who has not developed at a slower than normal rate compared to most other QBs. He hasn't played, so how can we talk about how fast or slow he's developing?