QB Sam Darnold is a Viking

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You just refuse to put this debate in the proper context, maybe because you are so heavily invested in the idea of developing Lance.

The debate isn't about development, or giving player x or y a 'chance'. It's about solidifying the QB2 spot on a team with an injured QB1 who may not be ready to start the season. We're not committing to developing either Darnold or Lance. Both of their careers are in the crosshairs in this regard, especially with our team. Darnold is no longer a starting QB in this league, and this team is no longer committed to developing Trey Lance long term. We're going to play the best guy we have until our QB1 is healthy, if necessary. We're doing the best we can to insulate our team against a slow start because of lingering injury (Purdy), poor play (Lance), or both, at the QB position.

When you frame the debate in this context, it's not hard to see the belief that people have that Sam may be better to start a couple of games in a pinch than Trey would. It's not about getting a look at Trey, or rescuing Sam's career. It's about having a QB capable of playing well in spots. A veteran guy who didn't live up to expectations as a franchise QB prospect, but has played decently in his most recent action on a bad team, may in fact be better in the immediate short term than a raw prospect who hasn't played consistently in 3 plus years. What they could* be long term is irrelevant. Where they are at as players going into this season is relevant.

The reality is barring some kind of major jump from Lance this offseason, or a light bulb going off for Darnold in a better environment, this team will not be strong enough at the QB position to win a Super Bowl this year unless Brock can return and play at or near the level he played last season. That's what we're planning around... a successful return of Purdy, whether it be Week 1, or Week 4.

Very well said. It's not far fetched to believe that darnold would perform better in the short term than Lance. It isn't about which qb we are going to crown FQB and try to develop them. It seems to me like the team is set on moving forward with Purdy and believes he gives us the best chance at winning a super bowl.

what needs to be figured out is which player between darnold and Lance would give us the best chance to win a game if Purdy isn't available.

the odds of either one taking QB1 from Purdy is slim, especially if it's just camp play and not regular season. It would likely have to be a combination of Purdy playing bad and Lance/darnold showing major leaps. It's possible but I don't think the team is expecting or aiming for that. It's Brock as QB1 and then who between Lance/darnold offers the best chance to win this year (short term). Lance is very unknown and inexperienced. Darnold isn't some stud either but you know what he is. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the dev you don't.

i personally think lance will win QB2 but I don't think it's a stretch that darnold could win it too.

What does "this team is no longer committed to developing Trey Lance long term" even mean though? If that means they're not going to start him over Purdy if Purdy is healthy, I completely agree. But there's a real possibility that Purdy will not be 100% by week 1, or another point in the long 17 game season, thus giving Trey an opportunity to force Kyle to want to see more of him.

IMO NY is speaking about the hypocrisy of posters saying to give Sam Darnold chance to prove himself, while in the same breath saying Trey is a known quantity. Any objective poster can admit there's not enough data on Lance, and yet there's so many posters on here that claim to know how the movie ends. They're guessing, that's all it really is.

Smokey.. when you say, "What they could* be long term is irrelevant" kind of proves your bias on this subject. I would think that a team who spent 3 firsts on a very young QB would still care about the trajectory of their highly drafted QB, either for their own roster or somebody else's. This statement could not be further from the truth. The only way it doesn't matter is if they believe Trey won't surpass Brock and Brock plays the entire season, and I find that to be highly unlikely given our history

Originally posted by Waterbear:

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You just refuse to put this debate in the proper context, maybe because you are so heavily invested in the idea of developing Lance.

The debate isn't about development, or giving player x or y a 'chance'. It's about solidifying the QB2 spot on a team with an injured QB1 who may not be ready to start the season. We're not committing to developing either Darnold or Lance. Both of their careers are in the crosshairs in this regard, especially with our team. Darnold is no longer a starting QB in this league, and this team is no longer committed to developing Trey Lance long term. We're going to play the best guy we have until our QB1 is healthy, if necessary. We're doing the best we can to insulate our team against a slow start because of lingering injury (Purdy), poor play (Lance), or both, at the QB position.

When you frame the debate in this context, it's not hard to see the belief that people have that Sam may be better to start a couple of games in a pinch than Trey would. It's not about getting a look at Trey, or rescuing Sam's career. It's about having a QB capable of playing well in spots. A veteran guy who didn't live up to expectations as a franchise QB prospect, but has played decently in his most recent action on a bad team, may in fact be better in the immediate short term than a raw prospect who hasn't played consistently in 3 plus years. What they could* be long term is irrelevant. Where they are at as players going into this season is relevant.

The reality is barring some kind of major jump from Lance this offseason, or a light bulb going off for Darnold in a better environment, this team will not be strong enough at the QB position to win a Super Bowl this year unless Brock can return and play at or near the level he played last season. That's what we're planning around... a successful return of Purdy, whether it be Week 1, or Week 4.

Very well said. It's not far fetched to believe that darnold would perform better in the short term than Lance. It isn't about which qb we are going to crown FQB and try to develop them. It seems to me like the team is set on moving forward with Purdy and believes he gives us the best chance at winning a super bowl.

what needs to be figured out is which player between darnold and Lance would give us the best chance to win a game if Purdy isn't available.

the odds of either one taking QB1 from Purdy is slim, especially if it's just camp play and not regular season. It would likely have to be a combination of Purdy playing bad and Lance/darnold showing major leaps. It's possible but I don't think the team is expecting or aiming for that. It's Brock as QB1 and then who between Lance/darnold offers the best chance to win this year (short term). Lance is very unknown and inexperienced. Darnold isn't some stud either but you know what he is. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the dev you don't.

i personally think lance will win QB2 but I don't think it's a stretch that darnold could win it too.

What does "this team is no longer committed to developing Trey Lance long term" even mean though? If that means they're not going to start him over Purdy if Purdy is healthy, I completely agree. But there's a real possibility that Purdy will not be 100% by week 1, or another point in the long 17 game season, thus giving Trey an opportunity to force Kyle to want to see more of him.

IMO NY is speaking about the hypocrisy of posters saying to give Sam Darnold chance to prove himself, while in the same breath saying Trey is a known quantity. Any objective poster can admit there's not enough data on Lance, and yet there's so many posters on here that claim to know how the movie ends. They're guessing, that's all it really is.

Smokey.. when you say, "What they could* be long term is irrelevant" kind of proves your bias on this subject. I would think that a team who spent 3 firsts on a very young QB would still care about the trajectory of their highly drafted QB, either for their own roster or somebody else's. This statement could not be further from the truth. The only way it doesn't matter is if they believe Trey won't surpass Brock and Brock plays the entire season, and I find that to be highly unlikely given our history

I interpreted it as - the teams Plan A is no longer to make sure lance plays and gets developed, not that they won't continue to develop him overall, but Purdy is plan A until proven otherwise.

there is hypocrisy regarding the QBs all over. Some defend Lance relentless and make every excuse for why he hasn't had a great game and put down other, instead Of admitting he hasn't really played well either. Some push Darnold and put down Lance. Some question Purdy and claim he had a low ceiling because of his physique and Lance will be much better, with zero reason or evidence. Lol I know I'm guilty of being really critical of Lance, maybe unfairly at times. I try to stay rational though and push things as my opinion/perspective.
Lance is extremely unknown, no two ways about it. Darnold is known for the most part. I actually think it's part of what brings comfort to some if we had to play darnold in the short term over Lance, you know what darnold does and doesn't do well - much easier to put him in good situations gameplan wise. With Lance it's still a bit of an experiment and he has very little in game experience - doesn't mean he can't do it, it's just unpredictable right now.

I think Brock will play the whole season. Only way he doesn't is an injury, which is def possible based on our recent history but it isn't a given. I think what he's saying is that "potential" doesn't matter if someone can't get to it and very few players achieve potential. Potential is also subjective - some base that off of solely someone's physical ability while I'd argue potential is based off of variables such as mental ability/ instincts/leadership/confidence etc the stuff that's hard to measure and identify. I'm not saying Lance/darnold doesn't have that, we don't really know what Lance has because he's played such little ball in his life. I personally believe Purdy has all the potential in the world and trying to prove a draft pick you made was right just to save face, when you don't have to, is bad leadership and management. Once again, I'm not saying Lance won't develop into an awesome player - I'm just saying trying to develop him to solely save Face is bad business.

but developing Lance still has benefits. 1. You'll have an awesome back up that we will most likely needs 2. We can trade him for assets if it ever gets to that point.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I interpreted it as - the teams Plan A is no longer to make sure lance plays and gets developed, not that they won't continue to develop him overall, but Purdy is plan A until proven otherwise.

there is hypocrisy regarding the QBs all over. Some defend Lance relentless and make every excuse for why he hasn't had a great game and put down other, instead Of admitting he hasn't really played well either. Some push Darnold and put down Lance. Some question Purdy and claim he had a low ceiling because of his physique and Lance will be much better, with zero reason or evidence. Lol I know I'm guilty of being really critical of Lance, maybe unfairly at times. I try to stay rational though and push things as my opinion/perspective.
Lance is extremely unknown, no two ways about it. Darnold is known for the most part. I actually think it's part of what brings comfort to some if we had to play darnold in the short term over Lance, you know what darnold does and doesn't do well - much easier to put him in good situations gameplan wise. With Lance it's still a bit of an experiment and he has very little in game experience - doesn't mean he can't do it, it's just unpredictable right now.

I think Brock will play the whole season. Only way he doesn't is an injury, which is def possible based on our recent history but it isn't a given. I think what he's saying is that "potential" doesn't matter if someone can't get to it and very few players achieve potential. Potential is also subjective - some base that off of solely someone's physical ability while I'd argue potential is based off of variables such as mental ability/ instincts/leadership/confidence etc the stuff that's hard to measure and identify. I'm not saying Lance/darnold doesn't have that, we don't really know what Lance has because he's played such little ball in his life. I personally believe Purdy has all the potential in the world and trying to prove a draft pick you made was right just to save face, when you don't have to, is bad leadership and management. Once again, I'm not saying Lance won't develop into an awesome player - I'm just saying trying to develop him to solely save Face is bad business.

but developing Lance still has benefits. 1. You'll have an awesome back up that we will most likely needs 2. We can trade him for assets if it ever gets to that point.

The bolded is spot on. This is what the team's actions and even public statements to a lesser extent are broadcasting to everyone.

Even if Brock regresses or flat out plays poorly, that doesn't mean we turn back to a commitment to play Lance with the hope he develops. Lance is going to play if and only if he is the best available option we have in the short term, whether that's at the beginning of the season, middle of the season, or next season if Brock fails. A decision to play Lance or Darnold, if Brock isn't ready, is not going to be based on long term potential. Making decisions based on an outlook from April 2021 two years later, or based on spent capital, is a mistake, and thankfully the team is posturing they will not make it (again).

The page has turned on Lance getting a starting job here based on theoretical potential. He simply does not have to be the long term answer, nor should his potential override the short term goals of the team. The same would be true for Darnold obviously, so arguing about giving one or the other a 'chance' is beside the point. It's who can be a competent replacement for the guy we are planning around who is currently injured, and anything beyond that would be a bonus.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
I interpreted it as - the teams Plan A is no longer to make sure lance plays and gets developed, not that they won't continue to develop him overall, but Purdy is plan A until proven otherwise.

there is hypocrisy regarding the QBs all over. Some defend Lance relentless and make every excuse for why he hasn't had a great game and put down other, instead Of admitting he hasn't really played well either. Some push Darnold and put down Lance. Some question Purdy and claim he had a low ceiling because of his physique and Lance will be much better, with zero reason or evidence. Lol I know I'm guilty of being really critical of Lance, maybe unfairly at times. I try to stay rational though and push things as my opinion/perspective.
Lance is extremely unknown, no two ways about it. Darnold is known for the most part. I actually think it's part of what brings comfort to some if we had to play darnold in the short term over Lance, you know what darnold does and doesn't do well - much easier to put him in good situations gameplan wise. With Lance it's still a bit of an experiment and he has very little in game experience - doesn't mean he can't do it, it's just unpredictable right now.

I think Brock will play the whole season. Only way he doesn't is an injury, which is def possible based on our recent history but it isn't a given. I think what he's saying is that "potential" doesn't matter if someone can't get to it and very few players achieve potential. Potential is also subjective - some base that off of solely someone's physical ability while I'd argue potential is based off of variables such as mental ability/ instincts/leadership/confidence etc the stuff that's hard to measure and identify. I'm not saying Lance/darnold doesn't have that, we don't really know what Lance has because he's played such little ball in his life. I personally believe Purdy has all the potential in the world and trying to prove a draft pick you made was right just to save face, when you don't have to, is bad leadership and management. Once again, I'm not saying Lance won't develop into an awesome player - I'm just saying trying to develop him to solely save Face is bad business.

but developing Lance still has benefits. 1. You'll have an awesome back up that we will most likely needs 2. We can trade him for assets if it ever gets to that point.

The bolded is spot on. This is what the team's actions and even public statements to a lesser extent are broadcasting to everyone.

Even if Brock regresses or flat out plays poorly, that doesn't mean we turn back to a commitment to play Lance with the hope he develops. Lance is going to play if and only if he is the best available option we have in the short term, whether that's at the beginning of the season, middle of the season, or next season if Brock fails. A decision to play Lance or Darnold, if Brock isn't ready, is not going to be based on long term potential. Making decisions based on an outlook from April 2021 two years later, or based on spent capital, is a mistake, and thankfully the team is posturing they will not make it (again).

The page has turned on Lance getting a starting job here based on theoretical potential. He simply does not have to be the long term answer, nor should his potential override the short term goals of the team. The same would be true for Darnold obviously, so arguing about giving one or the other a 'chance' is beside the point. It's who can be a competent replacement for the guy we are planning around who is currently injured, and anything beyond that would be a bonus.

The emergence of Purdy doesn't change the fact that the team invested heavily in to Lance, it's that Trey's, just like you said, is no longer plan A.

So just like how you think it's fair to assume Sam might be the better option in the short term, it should also be fair to assume that Trey is still not dead in the long term.

That's my issue with how you phrase this. And it's not just you, but a lot of posters are acting as if the future is 100% Purdy, no questions asked, trade Trey, blah blah blah. It's ignorant IMO to assume that we've seen enough from Trey, because we clearly haven't.

And I love what I've seen from Purdy and I don't have any issue if he's the guy going forward. At all. He's proven everything that we all want to see from Trey, but I think the key point here is that developing Trey matters to the team both in a potential trade and him being the potential FQB going forward.

You could make the case that Sam should be viewed the same way, but I have yet to see someone assume we could flip Sam for significant trade value or that he has a shot to prove he's the future. If someone does feel this way, I can't argue that this opinion is invalid. That would be hypocritical.

The FQB debate is a completely fluid situation IMO, and that's the only fair way to describe it. That doesn't mean to take reps away from Purdy to develop Trey, it means that developing Trey could very realistically happen naturally due to our injury history and Purdy's current injury.

Im not saying we should start Trey over Sam if the 49ers know Sam gives us the better chance to win in the short term, I'm predicting that the front office won't believe that enough to offset the potential I think Trey has, for us or another team.

Originally posted by Waterbear:
The emergence of Purdy doesn't change the fact that the team invested heavily in to Lance, it's that Trey's, just like you said, is no longer plan A.

So just like how you think it's fair to assume Sam might be the better option in the short term, it should also be fair to assume that Trey is still not dead in the long term.

That's my issue with how you phrase this. And it's not just you, but a lot of posters are acting as if the future is 100% Purdy, no questions asked, trade Trey, blah blah blah. It's ignorant IMO to assume that we've seen enough from Trey, because we clearly haven't.

And I love what I've seen from Purdy and I don't have any issue if he's the guy going forward. At all. He's proven everything that we all want to see from Trey, but I think the key point here is that developing Trey matters to the team both in a potential trade and him being the potential FQB going forward.

You could make the case that Sam should be viewed the same way, but I have yet to see someone assume we could flip Sam for significant trade value or that he has a shot to prove he's the future. If someone does feel this way, I can't argue that this opinion is invalid. That would be hypocritical.

The FQB debate is a completely fluid situation IMO, and that's the only fair way to describe it. That doesn't mean to take reps away from Purdy to develop Trey, it means that developing Trey could very realistically happen naturally due to our injury history and Purdy's current injury.

Im not saying we should start Trey over Sam if the 49ers know Sam gives us the better chance to win in the short term, I'm predicting that the front office won't believe that enough to offset the potential I think Trey has, for us or another team.

football convo on the Darnold

MIKE FLORIO: But last week, Matt made a stir last week by saying that Sam Darnold may be the most talented thrower of the football the 49ers have ever had. Now, I knew that came straight from Kyle Shanahan. He's not just pulling that out of the air.

CHRIS SIMMS: Right.

MIKE FLORIO: That's coming straight from Shanahan. Shanahan has since said the same thing

CHRIS SIMMS: Yeah.

MIKE FLORIO: He said the same damn thing.

CHRIS SIMMS: Right.

MIKE FLORIO: They're getting the idea out there, Chris, that Darnold could be the guy. If Brock's not ready, it ain't Trey Lance. It's going to be Sam Darnold.

CHRIS SIMMS: Well, listen, I don't get into the nitty-gritty with my pal there in San Francisco about his whole team very much, right? I don't want to know some things. I don't want to speak out of turn. So we talk about football a lot.

One thing I can tell you for sure though is, yes, Sam Darnold, the respect for, I think, the player and what he could be, I think it's always been there from Shanahan. When he came out in the draft, I think he was very intrigued by him. I think he's always kept his eye on him, right? And I think he's got some of the attributes and things that Shanahan looks at and goes, wait, no, this makes sense for my offense.

Quick release, good feet, moves in the pocket, play action pass, boom, come up, Deebo Samuel, on the move bootlegs-- he can do that. There's a reason he was the number three pick in the draft. That's for sure. So I don't know.

Listen, as much as I know he likes Sam Darnold I know. He loves Brock Purdy and thinks he's the man too. And I still think Brock Purdy is the guy that's in the leader house there.

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-darnold-lead-49ers-2023-123426034.html

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
football convo on the Darnold

MIKE FLORIO: But last week, Matt made a stir last week by saying that Sam Darnold may be the most talented thrower of the football the 49ers have ever had. Now, I knew that came straight from Kyle Shanahan. He's not just pulling that out of the air.

CHRIS SIMMS: Right.

MIKE FLORIO: That's coming straight from Shanahan. Shanahan has since said the same thing

CHRIS SIMMS: Yeah.

MIKE FLORIO: He said the same damn thing.

CHRIS SIMMS: Right.

MIKE FLORIO: They're getting the idea out there, Chris, that Darnold could be the guy. If Brock's not ready, it ain't Trey Lance. It's going to be Sam Darnold.

CHRIS SIMMS: Well, listen, I don't get into the nitty-gritty with my pal there in San Francisco about his whole team very much, right? I don't want to know some things. I don't want to speak out of turn. So we talk about football a lot.

One thing I can tell you for sure though is, yes, Sam Darnold, the respect for, I think, the player and what he could be, I think it's always been there from Shanahan. When he came out in the draft, I think he was very intrigued by him. I think he's always kept his eye on him, right? And I think he's got some of the attributes and things that Shanahan looks at and goes, wait, no, this makes sense for my offense.

Quick release, good feet, moves in the pocket, play action pass, boom, come up, Deebo Samuel, on the move bootlegs-- he can do that. There's a reason he was the number three pick in the draft. That's for sure. So I don't know.

Listen, as much as I know he likes Sam Darnold I know. He loves Brock Purdy and thinks he's the man too. And I still think Brock Purdy is the guy that's in the leader house there.

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-darnold-lead-49ers-2023-123426034.html

I've always thought darnold has a great natural physical skill set and throws a beautiful ball effortlessly - he's just had horrible turnover issues. He hasn't been in great situations by any stretch and I think he's always put a lot of pressure on himself to over compensate, resulting in mistakes.

im still curious why guys like rap sheet is so damn confident that this guy is ahead of Lance? Idk who he spoke to, I don't think it was kyle or Lynch, but I think he heard something - whether it's true or not. He's just way too confident about it. Lmao same way with Chris simms - he's overly confident about making these statements.

i just hope all three of our guys look great, are healthy, and make each other better.

my favorite part is what he says about Brock 😈😈

The most important thing to remember about Sam Darnold is that his grandfather's name is Dick Hammer

Originally posted by mcwoot:
The most important thing to remember about Sam Darnold is that his grandfather's name is Dick Hammer

Wow.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:

Originally posted by mcwoot:
The most important thing to remember about Sam Darnold is that his grandfather's name is Dick Hammer

Wow.

any relation to Jack?

I've been compiling the last four years of data on the top 50 QBs in total yardage who played in 2022 in order to make a more reliable QB metric, and Darnold is among those guys. One interesting thing is that among all these QBs so far, only two have been pressured more than him by percentage over the last four seasons (out of 31 thus far). So maybe, maybe there's hope he can be good, if he experiences pressure like what Jimmy had since 2019 (despite popular opinion that the 49ers offensive line sucks at pass protection, among the 31 QBs with the most career yards who played in 2022, Jimmy's pressure rate from 2019 to 2022 [PFR's version of pressures] was third LOWEST among them), along with the coaching and supporting cast he'd get here.

I'm not jumping on the Darnold band wagon per se, but I find it interesting how much pressure he's been under, and I wonder what may be when a guy with that arm talent meets Shanahan and this supporting cast.

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
I've been compiling the last four years of data on the top 50 QBs in total yardage who played in 2022 in order to make a more reliable QB metric, and Darnold is among those guys. One interesting thing is that among all these QBs so far, only two have been pressured more than him by percentage over the last four seasons (out of 31 thus far). So maybe, maybe there's hope he can be good, if he experiences pressure like what Jimmy had since 2019 (despite popular opinion that the 49ers offensive line sucks at pass protection, among the 31 QBs with the most career yards who played in 2022, Jimmy's pressure rate from 2019 to 2022 [PFR's version of pressures] was third LOWEST among them), along with the coaching and supporting cast he'd get here.

I'm not jumping on the Darnold band wagon per se, but I find it interesting how much pressure he's been under, and I wonder what may be when a guy with that arm talent meets Shanahan and this supporting cast.

Certain posters won't like that narrative busting

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
I've been compiling the last four years of data on the top 50 QBs in total yardage who played in 2022 in order to make a more reliable QB metric, and Darnold is among those guys. One interesting thing is that among all these QBs so far, only two have been pressured more than him by percentage over the last four seasons (out of 31 thus far). So maybe, maybe there's hope he can be good, if he experiences pressure like what Jimmy had since 2019 (despite popular opinion that the 49ers offensive line sucks at pass protection, among the 31 QBs with the most career yards who played in 2022, Jimmy's pressure rate from 2019 to 2022 [PFR's version of pressures] was third LOWEST among them), along with the coaching and supporting cast he'd get here.

I'm not jumping on the Darnold band wagon per se, but I find it interesting how much pressure he's been under, and I wonder what may be when a guy with that arm talent meets Shanahan and this supporting cast.

This is my intuitive feeling and Shanny referenced it as well, give him this line, Trent, these weapons, KS calling plays, I feel he can do great things here. TL and BP are younger and more question marks to me right now. They just haven't played very much ball and BP of course very injured.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 5_Golden_Rings:
I've been compiling the last four years of data on the top 50 QBs in total yardage who played in 2022 in order to make a more reliable QB metric, and Darnold is among those guys. One interesting thing is that among all these QBs so far, only two have been pressured more than him by percentage over the last four seasons (out of 31 thus far). So maybe, maybe there's hope he can be good, if he experiences pressure like what Jimmy had since 2019 (despite popular opinion that the 49ers offensive line sucks at pass protection, among the 31 QBs with the most career yards who played in 2022, Jimmy's pressure rate from 2019 to 2022 [PFR's version of pressures] was third LOWEST among them), along with the coaching and supporting cast he'd get here.

I'm not jumping on the Darnold band wagon per se, but I find it interesting how much pressure he's been under, and I wonder what may be when a guy with that arm talent meets Shanahan and this supporting cast.

Certain posters won't like that narrative busting

Perhaps not, but honestly LAST year was a big part of it. Actually the last two years. In 2021 his pressure rate was 18.7%, but last year it was only 15.5%. Prior to that it was over 20%, and in 2018 it was actually over 30%. So it seems the 49ers were actually terrible at one point in pass protection, but they have improved quite a bit over the years.

We'll see next year, though.

we fixing to find out folks, if the Darnold can play

from frontpage/Louis Riddick:

Riddick has been hearing things about another 49ers quarterback, though—one acquired via free agency.

"I'll tell you what, I had someone tell me this just recently," Riddick shared with Rich Eisen. "They believe that Sam Darnold, in that match with Kyle Shanahan out there in San Francisco, that could finally be the spot that totally makes him become the out-of-nowhere surprise of the year.

"I had someone who I trust implicitly when it comes to quarterback play [tell me that]. I'm telling you, I said to him, I was like, 'What?' They're like, 'Just trust me on this one.'"

Riddick admits that Darnold beating out Lance in an offseason competition is a strong possibility.

"And there's nobody who's a bigger Trey Lance fan than me," he shared. "There may be, but I'm a huge believer. I couldn't be more disappointed for how things have happened for him. So I'm inclined to go, 'Look, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He deserves another opportunity. He got hurt.' We just don't know who he is."