Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by 49ers81:
Originally posted by thl408:
Originally posted by 49ers81:
Originally posted by Bangbang89:
Glad Brock is on track but hate that apparently he's been anointed qb1. Yes he did play well last year but we've seen that all happen before. And then they end up not playing so well later on down the line. Not a fan of one single player, I'm a fan of the 49ers. I would like to see what lance would look like for 5 games straight. I just hope they're not rushing Brock back.
Just curious, if the team went 2-3 in that five-game stretch, will you consider that experiment to have been worthwhile?
+ Show all quotes
If Lance has a QB rating of -1.0 but the team is 5-0, would that be a reason to continue playing Lance? I don't think so. Don't look at win/loss records when evaluating quarterbacks.
Well, if the team is 5-0 I think it would be pretty difficult for Lance to have a QB rating of -1. so I'm not sure that's a very serious hypothetical. If they are 5-0 he must have been doing something right. If they were 5-0 and he had a passer rating in the 70's and was completing less than 60% of his passes than that would certainly be something to look at. I think what I was really getting at was, given the slim margins we have seen in the last few years in the difference between making the playoffs and missing them, would those three losses, which might have an impact on whether or not the team were able to make the playoffs, be worth losing another year out of our current Super Bowl window, just so we can see how Lance develops? I suspect that's the question the team will be asking itself going into this season. Of course, there is also the possibility that Lance completely balls out and relegates Purdy to the role of best back-up in the league. Not sure that would be the case unless there is a setback with Brock's elbow, but stranger things have happened.
My point is team record has little to do with whether or not a developing QB should be allowed to continue playing. My hypothetical of a -1.0 QB rating is to show an extreme case, so let's not use that. In your more realistic hypothetical of a 70 QB rating, how did he get to that rating? Are passes doinking off WRs hands and getting intercepted? Is he throwing into triple coverage? Is he running around like a headless chicken, relying on off script plays while missing open WRs that are in rhythm of the play design? Stats lie, don't them to evaluate a QB.
So, based on that response, I gather you would put a higher priority on seeing Lance develop than you would on the potential risk that development might have to this year's team Super Bowl chances. You understand that I am speaking specifically about the 2023 Niners, and not just as a general rule of thumb? Such as Trevor Lawrence or Justin Fields going to their respective teams in that same draft. The Jags and Bears weren't realistically going to compete for the playoffs that year, whereas the Niners have been in the Super Bowl mix for three of the past four years.
I fully endorse the idea of a rookie QB getting a chance to play straight off if a team is rebuilding or trying to establish a group of core players for the future, but SF is in a rather different position. After having fallen short in the last two NFC Championship games do you think the majority of fans, not to mention the players, would really be okay with saying, okay, I'll run the risk of foregoing another Super Bowl run, with Trent Williams, and Arik Armstead, and George Kittle all getting another year older, so that we can see how Lance works out. That has been Lance's dilemma since he was drafted and now the issue has been further complicated by Purdy's arrival. I suppose the simplest solution would be for Purdy to be ready to go by training camp and then give all three QB's a chance to flat out win the job.
