49ers vs. Colts Tickets Available! →

There are 247 users in the forums

QB Brock Purdy Thread

Shop Find 49ers gear online

QB Brock Purdy Thread

Originally posted by 49ersRing:
My comment was about how you and others here have a tendency to start with your conclusion that Trey Lance is awful and then work backwards to ratlionalize how every decision the team makes is a reflection of that.

Jimmy's contract reflected the unusualness of his situation, not Lance's. His contract was about what you would expect for a high end backup with starter experience and the timing of his signing reflects their complete inability to trade him. It's only about Lance if you start with that as your conclusion and work backwards to rationalize it. What else were they supposed to do? Cut him and get nothing for a starting quality QB or keep him as the backup since he's better than what they had? Trey could have looked like the greatest QB to ever play in TC/preseason and it still would make sense to do exactly what they did.

The team signed Darnold for what they did because both him and the team know that it's likely not going to be a QB3 spot even if it starts out that way. Both Lance and Purdy have looked fragile out there and until it's proven otherwise the team should operate under the impression that all 3 QBs will play this year. It's not just about their confidence in Lance.

Jimmy's contract was not what you'd expect for any backup, let alone when the player is already under contract and has no competing bidder or leverage. And that's just the money. You aren't addressing his no trade clause or the team's inability to tag him. No backup gets this. Jimmy got it and he got it when the 49ers had no competition for his services. You've probably been following the team long enough to know we're pretty good with contracts, lol. How did this happen? Because Jimmy had enough leverage by simply being able to tell the team to f**k off and release him. The same team that had already committed guaranteed money to a QB2. The question is how did this guy gain that leverage. Easy answer.

On a side note, wasn't it you that argued the team felt that Sudfeld was a better backup option when they sidelined Jimmy and were expected to trade him? Pretty sure it was. Now here you are tripping over yourself with a completely different position. I could bump posts from the thread when Jimmy was restructured. It was a shocking event for a lot of the fans. Many did expect us to simply release him. Some even thought the restructure made it more likely he would be traded (which was laughable).

With the Darnold contract, not only are you definitely wrong but you again are only addressing a portion of the point. Why is it that Darnold is being given the opportunity to split reps with Lance, sending dudes like NY into a tailspin, lol. Is that simply precautionary in case Purdy and Lance both get hurt? Of course it isn't. No team operates this way. No team plans for two season ending QB injuries. No QB2 signs to be a QB3 banking on two injuries ahead of him. This explanation makes zero actual sense.

Again, like I asked multiple other posters… feel free to substantiate your argument by providing any contract from any other team similar to these two. I won't hold my breath.

Also, keep in mind the contracts are just a piece of the evidence. Another would be when they re-signed Jimmy they immediately called a meeting with team vets to make sure they were on board with the Lance plan. If you think that demonstrates confidence, I don't know what to tell you. Why the need to do that?
Originally posted by 49ersRing:
My comment was about how you and others here have a tendency to start with your conclusion that Trey Lance is awful and then work backwards to ratlionalize how every decision the team makes is a reflection of that.

Jimmy's contract reflected the unusualness of his situation, not Lance's. His contract was about what you would expect for a high end backup with starter experience and the timing of his signing reflects their complete inability to trade him. It's only about Lance if you start with that as your conclusion and work backwards to rationalize it. What else were they supposed to do? Cut him and get nothing for a starting quality QB or keep him as the backup since he's better than what they had? Trey could have looked like the greatest QB to ever play in TC/preseason and it still would make sense to do exactly what they did.

The team signed Darnold for what they did because both him and the team know that it's likely not going to be a QB3 spot even if it starts out that way. Both Lance and Purdy have looked fragile out there and until it's proven otherwise the team should operate under the impression that all 3 QBs will play this year. It's not just about their confidence in Lance.

Cue condescending response. If you don't agree with that premise you are a Lance homer who can't understand what's going on.

In agreement with your post ring. It's clear the team didn't want to get caught with their pants down again in terms of qb injuries. Because of Purdy and Lance's cheap qb numbers there was money to overspend a bit to assure a Josh Johnson level player likely doesn't start again. Hopefully it won't be neccessary.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by 49ersRing:
My comment was about how you and others here have a tendency to start with your conclusion that Trey Lance is awful and then work backwards to ratlionalize how every decision the team makes is a reflection of that.

Jimmy's contract reflected the unusualness of his situation, not Lance's. His contract was about what you would expect for a high end backup with starter experience and the timing of his signing reflects their complete inability to trade him. It's only about Lance if you start with that as your conclusion and work backwards to rationalize it. What else were they supposed to do? Cut him and get nothing for a starting quality QB or keep him as the backup since he's better than what they had? Trey could have looked like the greatest QB to ever play in TC/preseason and it still would make sense to do exactly what they did.

The team signed Darnold for what they did because both him and the team know that it's likely not going to be a QB3 spot even if it starts out that way. Both Lance and Purdy have looked fragile out there and until it's proven otherwise the team should operate under the impression that all 3 QBs will play this year. It's not just about their confidence in Lance.

Jimmy's contract was not what you'd expect for any backup, let alone when the player is already under contract and has no competing bidder or leverage. And that's just the money. You aren't addressing his no trade clause or the team's inability to tag him. No backup gets this. Jimmy got it and he got it when the 49ers had no competition for his services. You've probably been following the team long enough to know we're pretty good with contracts, lol. How did this happen? Because Jimmy had enough leverage by simply being able to tell the team to f**k off and release him. The same team that had already committed guaranteed money to a QB2. The question is how did this guy gain that leverage. Easy answer.

On a side note, wasn't it you that argued the team felt that Sudfeld was a better backup option when they sidelined Jimmy and were expected to trade him? Pretty sure it was. Now here you are tripping over yourself with a completely different position. I could bump posts from the thread when Jimmy was restructured. It was a shocking event for a lot of the fans. Many did expect us to simply release him. Some even thought the restructure made it more likely he would be traded (which was laughable).

With the Darnold contract, not only are you definitely wrong but you again are only addressing a portion of the point. Why is it that Darnold is being given the opportunity to split reps with Lance, sending dudes like NY into a tailspin, lol. Is that simply precautionary in case Purdy and Lance both get hurt? Of course it isn't. No team operates this way. No team plans for two season ending QB injuries. No QB2 signs to be a QB3 banking on two injuries ahead of him. This explanation makes zero actual sense.

Again, like I asked multiple other posters… feel free to substantiate your argument by providing any contract from any other team similar to these two. I won't hold my breath.

Also, keep in mind the contracts are just a piece of the evidence. Another would be when they re-signed Jimmy they immediately called a meeting with team vets to make sure they were on board with the Lance plan. If you think that demonstrates confidence, I don't know what to tell you. Why the need to do that?

Yeah, the darnold situation is super interesting because he's splitting reps and he signed with incentives. It's not like you'd sign that if you thought you weren't going to be able to get it, which the odds are slim if you're QB3. I think the injury thing is ridiculous because banking the two guys infront if you get injured is a horrible plan. Lol and weird.
we are paying him a lot, like you said, historically a lot.

didn't we just work out some other QB? Why are we doing that when we have four guys right now? Especially four guys we apparently really like? So strange.
Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, the darnold situation is super interesting because he's splitting reps and he signed with incentives. It's not like you'd sign that if you thought you weren't going to be able to get it, which the odds are slim if you're QB3. I think the injury thing is ridiculous because banking the two guys infront if you get injured is a horrible plan. Lol and weird.
we are paying him a lot, like you said, historically a lot.

didn't we just work out some other QB? Why are we doing that when we have four guys right now? Especially four guys we apparently really like? So strange.

I don't read much into the Allen signing because we need another body for camp and preseason. That's a usual QB3 type deal.

The Darnold contract is so far from it it's not even comparable. It wasn't really a surprise either. All signs pointed to the 49ers entering the market looking for a quality backup QB to compete with Lance. A developmental project type player isn't a guy you can count on to play well in spots. And with an injured QB1, that possibility is very real for whoever our QB2 is. What they did was intelligent. If Lance outplays him and earns QB2, great. We don't have to do this again next year. Same if Purdy gets healthy and firmly establishes himself as QB1 going forward. We have to spend additional resources, not because we are in a great spot at the position. It's the exact opposite.
Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, the darnold situation is super interesting because he's splitting reps and he signed with incentives. It's not like you'd sign that if you thought you weren't going to be able to get it, which the odds are slim if you're QB3. I think the injury thing is ridiculous because banking the two guys infront if you get injured is a horrible plan. Lol and weird.
we are paying him a lot, like you said, historically a lot.

didn't we just work out some other QB? Why are we doing that when we have four guys right now? Especially four guys we apparently really like? So strange.

I mean what team has ever had two sub 24 year old quarterbacks coming off season ending injuries making 10 mil combined on an nfc championship team? It's pretty unprecedented.
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
I mean what team has ever had two sub 24 year old quarterbacks coming off season ending injuries making 10 mil combined on an nfc championship team? It's pretty unprecedented.

What's your explanation for the competition with Lance? Because this doesn't cover it. It only covers the fact that we could afford to do it… not that it was something we actually want to do ideally.

Do teams typically split reps with QBs due to injury concerns? Nope they don't.

Beyond that, try to look at this situation from Darnold's point of view, instead of simply the team's side. We land a bottom barrel starter/high level backup on Day 1 of free agency. Do you think a player like that signs to be QB3 on day 1 with the expectation that two guys will get hurt in front of him? Seems extremely unlikely, and his incentivized contract reflects that. He is being given an opportunity to be a backup QB on a great team behind an injured QB who has a small sample of success.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by tankle104:
Yeah, the darnold situation is super interesting because he's splitting reps and he signed with incentives. It's not like you'd sign that if you thought you weren't going to be able to get it, which the odds are slim if you're QB3. I think the injury thing is ridiculous because banking the two guys infront if you get injured is a horrible plan. Lol and weird.
we are paying him a lot, like you said, historically a lot.

didn't we just work out some other QB? Why are we doing that when we have four guys right now? Especially four guys we apparently really like? So strange.

I don't read much into the Allen signing because we need another body for camp and preseason. That's a usual QB3 type deal.

The Darnold contract is so far from it it's not even comparable. It wasn't really a surprise either. All signs pointed to the 49ers entering the market looking for a quality backup QB to compete with Lance. A developmental project type player isn't a guy you can count on to play well in spots. And with an injured QB1, that possibility is very real for whoever our QB2 is. What they did was intelligent. If Lance outplays him and earns QB2, great. We don't have to do this again next year. Same if Purdy gets healthy and firmly establishes himself as QB1 going forward. We have to spend additional resources, not because we are in a great spot at the position. It's the exact opposite.

No, I'm not talking about allen. I thought we worked out a QB like a week ago? We didn't sign him but we worked him out. He was someone I'd never heard of.

I'm just hoping that our starting qb can stay healthy. Lol please lord baby Jesus. Please. Hahaha
Originally posted by tankle104:
No, I'm not talking about allen. I thought we worked out a QB like a week ago? We didn't sign him but we worked him out. He was someone I'd never heard of.

I'm just hoping that our starting qb can stay healthy. Lol please lord baby Jesus. Please. Hahaha

We'll probably be screwed in terms of winning big this year if he doesn't, just like the vast majority of teams.

But we have two talented options behind him and hopefully at least one of them will have a light bulb go off and become a reliable player or better.

It would be even better to go into next season with 5-15 million extra dollars to pour into the team outside of the QB position. Take full advantage of Purdy's ridiculously low salary.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
What's your explanation for the competition with Lance? Because this doesn't cover it. It only covers the fact that we could afford to do it… not that it was something we actually want to do ideally.

Do teams typically split reps with QBs due to injury concerns? Nope they don't.

Beyond that, try to look at this situation from Darnold's point of view, instead of simply the team's side. We land a bottom barrel starter/high level backup on Day 1 of free agency. Do you think a player like that signs to be QB3 on day 1 with the expectation that two guys will get hurt in front of him? Seems extremely unlikely, and his incentivized contract reflects that. He is being given an opportunity to be a backup QB on a great team behind an injured QB who has a small sample of success.

Two guys who have very little to go on and now have had major injuries, one of whom is rehabbing and not yet cleared, is a better bet then sitting behind an established healthy starting qb or trying to compete with an ordained rookie.

Objectively where does he get a gig with the combination of upside potential of no established starter and quality roster?

Cards? Nope
Rams? Nope
Hawks? Nope

Lions? Nope
Packers? Nope
Vikings? Nope
Bears? Nope

Commanders? Nope
Cowboys? Nope
Eagles? Nope
Giants? Nope

Saints? Nope
Panthers? Nope
Falcons? Nope
Bucs? Maybe just maybe if you believe in their defense to bounce back but unlikely

Chiefs? Nope
Chargers? Nope
Raiders? Not with that D
Broncos? Nope

Bengals? Nope
Steelers? Nope
Ravens? Nope
Browns? Nope

Jags? Nope
Colts? Nope
Titans? Nope
Texans? Nope

Bills? Nope
Jets? Nope
Dolphins? Banking on a Tua injury only
Patriots? Only other realistic option

2 maybe 3 other options and I'd argue none have the potential upside of this roster and coaches. Makes perfect sense to me from Sam's perspective considering his standing in the league.
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Two guys who have very little to go on and now have had major injuries, one of whom is rehabbing and not yet cleared, is a better bet then sitting behind an established healthy starting qb or trying to compete with an ordained rookie.

Objectively where does he get a gig with the combination of upside potential of no established starter and quality roster?

Cards? Nope
Rams? Nope
Hawks? Nope

Lions? Nope
Packers? Nope
Vikings? Nope
Bears? Nope

Commanders? Nope
Cowboys? Nope
Eagles? Nope
Giants? Nope

Saints? Nope
Panthers? Nope
Falcons? Nope
Bucs? Maybe just maybe if you believe in their defense to bounce back but unlikely

Chiefs? Nope
Chargers? Nope
Raiders? Not with that D
Broncos? Nope

Bengals? Nope
Steelers? Nope
Ravens? Nope
Browns? Nope

Jags? Nope
Colts? Nope
Titans? Nope
Texans? Nope

Bills? Nope
Jets? Nope
Dolphins? Banking on a Tua injury only
Patriots? Only other realistic option

2 maybe 3 other options and I'd argue none have the potential upside of this roster and coaches. Makes perfect sense to me from Sam's perspective considering his standing in the league.

You're still not addressing the question regarding competition. If the intent behind us signing him was to shore up QB3, why is he splitting reps with Lance? Is it normal for teams to split reps with QBs who are established in their roles for injury concerns? Is there another example of this you can provide if you believe it is.

Isn't the belief that Darnold is simply here to be a solid QB3 inconsistent with your argument regarding the undesirability of other spots given the presence of 'ordained rookies'? It certainly seems like it. There's just two here apparently in some peoples' eyes. Purdy's health going into the season was in question, not Lance's. The idea that Darnold was signed to be QB3 and nothing beyond that relies on the idea that Lance's position as QB2 (at least*) is 'ordained'.
[ Edited by SmokeyJoe on Jun 16, 2023 at 7:27 PM ]
Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
The point of mentioning Houston is that people who hate Lance for "reasons" (most because they are jilted Jimmy fantasizers) is that it's disingenuous to try to knock Lance's very good second half performance simply because the defense didn't finish high statistically. It was at the time we faced them no worse than midrange. Lance played well, PERIOD. There are NO F-ING QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED. He. PLAYED. WELL. End of discussion.

Why can't the former Jimmy cultists just give credit where credit is due? It's as bad as the people saying Purdy played badly against Dallas. Defenses like Dallas make guys throw multiple picks or take multiple sacks. Both played well.

When you put those two games in the same post, as you are doing, you invite the comparison of sure, they both played well, but those aren't the same situation 5GR.. just isn't.

When you say this, about HOU: "the defense didn't finish high statistically. It was at the time we faced them no worse than midrange." I suspect you simply don't know what you are talking about here. The D was 31st. We faced them in January in the next to last week of the season. You think they went from "midrange" to 31st in the span of a week? Get real.

The comparison between the two games is NOT comparing the two defenses. The comparison is in the two sides being flagrantly biased and pretending they're not.

And yes, goddammit, AT WORST they were mid-range when we faced them. DVOA is one of the best measures of overall team quality there is, and they finished above the mid-line on defense (it takes into account real strength of schedule, recent play, and other advanced stats).

Here are the Texans ppg allowed their first 8 games: 30.125

Here is their ppg allowed their last 8: 23.44

For comparison, that's like going from last in the NFL to 19th. They got a lot better that year, and were DEFINITELY playing better at the end. I don't know what I'm talking about? Clearly YOU don't, because you didn't even bother to look like I did, because why bother when "muh intuition" is better than observable reality.
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You're still not addressing the question regarding competition. If the intent behind us signing him was to shore up QB3, why is he splitting reps with Lance? Is it normal for teams to split reps with QBs who are established in their roles for injury concerns? Is there another example of this you can provide if you believe it is.

Isn't the belief that Darnold is simply here to be a solid QB3 inconsistent with your argument regarding the undesirability of other spots given the presence of 'ordained rookies'? It certainly seems like it. There's just two here apparently in some peoples' eyes. Purdy's health going into the season was in question, not Lance's. The idea that Darnold was signed to be QB3 and nothing beyond that relies on the idea that Lance's position as QB2 (at least*) is 'ordained'.

I never said he was signed to be a 3. He was signed in case Purdy couldn't play and Lance was ineffective. I don't take much stock in what they do in Minicamp personally.

Until Purdy is healthy no positions are ordained. That's the point.

You ask about Darnolds perspective I give it to you and you want me to answer a whole different question then. Reality is it's just like what ring said its working backwards from a judgement you have already made.

I'm not in NYs camp. I have no loyalty to Lance. If Darnold beats him out that's an indictment of Lance to be sure. But I'm not gonna act like that was the expectation because I'm not invested in that reality happening. I'm not invested in any reality besides the 9ers getting the best qb play possible.
[ Edited by 9ers4eva on Jun 16, 2023 at 8:11 PM ]
Originally posted by tankle104:
Originally posted by Furlow:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Let me just say this to both sides of this argument:

(1) The Texans defense when we played them last was better than their raw stats indicate. Bad offense makes your defense worse, and they were the 32nd best offense.

(2) The Cowboys defense last year was also better than their statistics indicate. Their pass rush in particular. That was a great defense .Absolutely on par with our defense. The fact that Brock didn't cost us is remarkable. He remained quite poised in the face of maybe the second best pass rush (we had the best pass rusher, but the Eagles and Cowboys had better team pass rush, IMHO; they were tied with the Eagles at 52% pass rush win rate. We were only 46%).

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34536376/2022-nfl-pass-rushing-run-stopping-blocking-leaderboard-win-rate-rankings-top-players-teams

One of Brock's "near interception" I keep seeing posted here was a tipped pass. The kid played very well. He missed a few things, sure. Was late a couple times, yeah. But he avoided the game-losing mistake. We lost by two scores if Jimmy is our QB in that game.

.
.

So, both sides of this Trey v. Brock argument are underestimating how good the other side's QB is. Trey is not trash, and Brock is not just a lucky one hit wonder.

Great post. I don't even understand why there is a "Trey vs. Brock" argument. It's silly. Clearly right now Brock is better and is the starter. If Trey gets his chance, we root for him too. It's not that hard.

That Texans defense was horrible. What some don't recognize is that was one of the best defensive performances (points wise) for the Texans that year, which is sad.

ultimately, we won and Trey got it together in the second half, which was great. It was his best performance, But as a whole, he still displayed the concerns he's always had IMO. He had passes nearly int, or should have been picked, just like some like to point out with Purdy. He struggled for the most part against a bad defense to keep the offense converting downs and scoring points most of the game. Just watch the film.

it was his second start so it isn't a big deal. I just don't think it was a good game. To me, it didn't inspire confidence that he is going to be some stud. It felt like I was watching a backup qb on a stacked team.

To me, a huge difference in their play is the way they control and take ownership of the offense when they play. With Brock, he goes out there and makes his presence known. He's very in control and confident.. like he's the owner of the team. With Lance it feels like I'm just watching someone try and run a play. Which most likely has to due with his lack of playing over the course of his life.

it's a super small sample size, so I don't look at it as he will never be good. I just don't think there is a logical reason to play Lance right now unless you cherish picks. If we didn't spend these picks on him, not many would be clamoring for him to play. I think Brock's worst game was way better than lances best game.

Trey just needs to keep doing what he is doing, grinding and working, so when he gets his chance - he can prove himself and his worth.

outside of that, I don't understand comparing the two because lances three starts don't even come close to Brock's worst three starts. They're both small sample sizes but it isn't even close. If Lance was a second round pick or later, or Brock was a higher round pick, no one would even bring up starting Lance. The clamor for Lance is driven by his draft status and not actual data or film.

That Texans defense in the first eight games allowed a points per game which would have been last in the NFL that year. Their final nine games, however, they allowed a points per game which would have finished 19th. They. Got. Better.

If people aren't going to bother getting detailed and looking, getting out a calculator and crunching the numbers, then they ought to not be giving an opinion.
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
The point of mentioning Houston is that people who hate Lance for "reasons" (most because they are jilted Jimmy fantasizers) is that it's disingenuous to try to knock Lance's very good second half performance simply because the defense didn't finish high statistically. It was at the time we faced them no worse than midrange. Lance played well, PERIOD. There are NO F-ING QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED. He. PLAYED. WELL. End of discussion.

Why can't the former Jimmy cultists just give credit where credit is due? It's as bad as the people saying Purdy played badly against Dallas. Defenses like Dallas make guys throw multiple picks or take multiple sacks. Both played well.

When you put those two games in the same post, as you are doing, you invite the comparison of sure, they both played well, but those aren't the same situation 5GR.. just isn't.

When you say this, about HOU: "the defense didn't finish high statistically. It was at the time we faced them no worse than midrange." I suspect you simply don't know what you are talking about here. The D was 31st. We faced them in January in the next to last week of the season. You think they went from "midrange" to 31st in the span of a week? Get real.

The comparison between the two games is NOT comparing the two defenses. The comparison is in the two sides being flagrantly biased and pretending they're not.

And yes, goddammit, AT WORST they were mid-range when we faced them. DVOA is one of the best measures of overall team quality there is, and they finished above the mid-line on defense (it takes into account real strength of schedule, recent play, and other advanced stats).

Here are the Texans ppg allowed their first 8 games: 30.125

Here is their ppg allowed their last 8: 23.44

For comparison, that's like going from last in the NFL to 19th. They got a lot better that year, and were DEFINITELY playing better at the end. I don't know what I'm talking about? Clearly YOU don't, because you didn't even bother to look like I did, because why bother when "muh intuition" is better than observable reality.

That should read "on pass defense." Regardless, they still went from what would have been worst in the NFL in points allowed their first 8 games to what would have been 19th in the league their last 9 games. They got better.

Not that it matters. You play the team in front of you. Lance played well. Period. And frankly, the Cardinals defense isn't why he played badly earlier in the year. He just did, as did the whole offense with the penalties. The supposed worst defense in the league last year held Aaron Rodgers to 12.5 points per game. They also held the Cowboys and Bills below their average. Being the "worst defense" means only so much in the NFL (and at the time they WEREN'T the worst defense, as their PPG allowed dramatically improved in the second half of the season).
[ Edited by 5_Golden_Rings on Jun 16, 2023 at 8:24 PM ]
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Cue condescending response. If you don't agree with that premise you are a Lance homer who can't understand what's going on.

In agreement with your post ring. It's clear the team didn't want to get caught with their pants down again in terms of qb injuries. Because of Purdy and Lance's cheap qb numbers there was money to overspend a bit to assure a Josh Johnson level player likely doesn't start again. Hopefully it won't be neccessary.


Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
I never said he was signed to be a 3. He was signed in case Purdy couldn't play and Lance was ineffective. I don't take much stock in what they do in Minicamp personally.

Until Purdy is healthy no positions are ordained. That's the point.


If this is your actual position, then we are in agreement. It's obviously the first time you said it in this conversation and it was the crux of the argument I was having with Ring (in the context of the Darnold signing).

I do wonder why you highlight that you put little stock in minicamp. I'm with you there as well, but I wonder if you say this under the idea that you're not convinced they will be competing in training camp, and that the only way Sam will be ahead of Lance on the depth chart is if Lance flounders in actual games.
Open Menu Search Share 49ersWebzone