PFT: Former No. 3 Overall pick Trey Lance to hit free agency

[DuncanIso]

I thought it was worth the gamble. Obviously it wasn’t but the 49ers gave 3 firsts so that was a much worse deal

Lance is UFA and his agent wants $$$$$

Not about ability.

We have Grier and likely draft a QB.

Thats 2M.

Cap broke.

 

[OmerV]

1st round QB.

Yes, that's where he was picked by San Franciso ...

 

[conner01]

Lance is UFA and his agent wants $$$$$

Not about ability.

We have Grier and likely draft a QB.

Thats 2M.

Cap broke.

His agent can want in one hand lol he’s not gonna get more than vet min maybe some incentives. He hasn’t shown he can be a capable backup in the nfl let alone a starter. Someone will take a look but no big payday coming

 

[KingCorcoran]

1st round QB.

Free agent quarterback with 4 years in the NFL and a woeful resume. In addition, when his original team dared play him he was exceedingly injury prone. His agent has quite a challenge ahead of him starting next week. He’s going to earn his 3%.

 

[atlantacowboy]

When did Shanahan become a QB guru? He had Matt Ryan and lucked into Purdy. Also, Lance was a John Lynch pick. Sean Payton is more of a QB guru than him.

Why b/c Payton "lucked" into Drew Brees? Shanahan is cut from the same cloth.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

If you aren't saying they should have just let him play then how is it you determined they had no intent to ever let him play? The fact that he didn't play doesn't prove that.

Again, he was a developmental guy. They didn't bring him in with the intent to play him immediately. His chances of playing always hinged on how the coaches saw his development.

I never said they should have just let him play. Can you show me I said that?

I object to signing someone with the intent to never let him play. There's a difference there and it's not subtle.

And it was NEVER about his performance. When Jerry signed Dak...that was it. There WAS an injury and Jerry rightly started Coop based on his experience.

My comment came from some small quip about "never intending to play Lance". I just don't think you should EVER do that. Even a "development" SHOULD have an intent to play.

True or not...I was only commenting on THAT. And yet here we are.

 

[OmerV]

I never said they should have just let him play. Can you show me I said that?

I object to signing someone with the intent to never let him play. There's a difference there and it's not subtle.

And it was NEVER about his performance. When Jerry signed Dak...that was it. There WAS an injury and Jerry rightly started Coop based on his experience.

My comment came from some small quip about "never intending to play Lance". I just don't think you should EVER do that. Even a "development" SHOULD have an intent to play.

True or not...I was only commenting on THAT. And yet here we are.

You suggested they never intended to let him play, so as I asked before, if you didn't just expect them to let him play then why do you say that? What support do you have for that belief?

As for already having Dak, of course the plan was not to have him come right in and take over for Dak. That's not the point of developmental players, which is what he was signed as.

You say even with a developmental guy there should be an intent to play him, but again, doesn't he have to earn the right to play?

 

[JoeKing]

First, your point about Jerry being a problem is actually the "ridiculous point" because I never said he wasn't. I'm no Jerry fan, and never suggested I am, yet here you are making a "ridiculous point" by acting like I'm praising Jerry. But what you obviously, and ridiculously don't grasp is that thinking Jerry is bad for the team doesn't require having a negative reaction to every single thing he does.

Your second "ridiculous point" is thinking that because you weren't in the know means the Cowboys saw no path for Lance to advance. The Cowboy coaches work with and have opportunities to evaluate all year long. Nobody appointed you or any fan to be the one to do those evaluations. While you are working at your job, they were working at theirs, and they - not you - are charged with deciding if a player has earned playing time.

As for a path to advancement, are you talking about Dak already being on the team and the starting QB? If so, do you really believe a team shouldn't continually look for talent even where they may not see an immediate need? Do you think teams should ignore positions with an established starter until that guy is already injured or retired? I ask because if that's your belief that would be a "ridiculous point".

First, way too many words in response to little ole me. But it's nice to be rent free in your head.

Second, I'm retired so my "job" is whatever I do that day. I confess I evaluate everything the team does and my evaluation of Lance from day one was spot on... an irrelevant noncontributor. The front office could have saved a great deal of time, energy, and money by consulting with me first before going through with that trade. Your opposition to my evaluation speaks for its own irrelevance. My rent-free existence in your head continues.

Dak's 60-million-dollar contract says he's our QB1 absent injury. Cooper Rush was always a better option as our QB2 over Lance. These two statements have you confused. Let me remind you that Dak, when drafted was our QB3 that ascended to the QB1 position through unforeseen events. I have not forgotten this. So yes, a miracle could have propelled Lance to the QB1 position, but it would not have been pretty. He was never "ready" for that role despite the time, energy and money invested in him. So, I will double down... Absent a miracle, Lance never had a path to advance. His biggest obstacle is his own lack of talent. So, when you mention a team's constant look for talent, that's not Lance. Keep looking.

 

[OmerV]

First, way too many words in response to little ole me. But it's nice to be rent free in your head.

Second, I'm retired so my "job" is whatever I do that day. I confess I evaluate everything the team does and my evaluation of Lance from day one was spot on... an irrelevant noncontributor. The front office could have saved a great deal of time, energy, and money by consulting with me first before going through with that trade. Your opposition to my evaluation speaks for its own irrelevance. My rent-free existence in your head continues.

Dak's 60-million-dollar contract says he's our QB1 absent injury. Cooper Rush was always a better option as our QB2 over Lance. These two statements have you confused. Let me remind you that Dak, when drafted was our QB3 that ascended to the QB1 position through unforeseen events. I have not forgotten this. So yes, a miracle could have propelled Lance to the QB1 position, but it would not have been pretty. He was never "ready" for that role despite the time, energy and money invested in him. So, I will double down... Absent a miracle, Lance never had a path to advance. His biggest obstacle is his own lack of talent. So, when you mention a team's constant look for talent, that's not Lance. Keep looking.

lol, you say it's too many words to respond to you and indicate it shows you live rent free in my head. Then you use just as many words as I did in response to me.

You just shot yourself in the foot ... lol

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I never said they should have just let him play. Can you show me I said that?

I object to signing someone with the intent to never let him play. There's a difference there and it's not subtle.

And it was NEVER about his performance. When Jerry signed Dak...that was it. There WAS an injury and Jerry rightly started Coop based on his experience.

My comment came from some small quip about "never intending to play Lance". I just don't think you should EVER do that. Even a "development" SHOULD have an intent to play.

True or not...I was only commenting on THAT. And yet here we are.

the question is do they deserve to play? have they shown anything that makes them worthy of playing. obviously Lance didn't. the coaches had him for 2 years..

and SF saw enough to just dump him after the ransom they paid to get him...

call it a mistake and move on.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

These were your words. You responded to the the claim they never intend to play him by citing it as an example of mismanagement and the Cowboys proficiency at wasting his careers.

Having said that...if they had no intention of playing him they should have just cut him. I believe mismanagement of players hurt them (and the team) in several ways. The Dallas Cowboys seem proficient at "wasting" NFL careers. Certainly SOME team would have taken a bigger chance with him. Maybe?

are they proficient in wasting NFL careers or they just suck in talent evaluation generally!..... I tend to think its the latter...I mean we just traded for Mingo, who was 5th on the depth chart on his team with 2 years of NFL film, but they went back to their draft evaluation of having him as a 2nd rounder...and not beliving their eyes.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Cap broke.

No

 

[OmerV]

are they proficient in wasting NFL careers or they just suck in talent evaluation generally!..... I tend to think its the latter...I mean we just traded for Mingo, who was 5th on the depth chart on his team with 2 years of NFL film, but they went back to their draft evaluation of having him as a 2nd rounder...and not beliving their eyes.

I'm not saying the Cowboys don't make bad choices. Obviously they do. But we are talking about a specific player, not in general, and the claim the team never had any intention of him ever playing. Clearly the team's intention with Lance was to see if he could develop and then further decisions would be made from there. You don't sign a developmental player with the intent that playing time is predetermined.

 

[kumizi]

why is this 12 pages? do we still have people living in an alternate reality that think Trey Lance is good?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I'm not saying the Cowboys don't make bad choices. Obviously they do. But we are talking about a specific player, not in general, and the claim the team never had any intention of him ever playing. Clearly the team's intention with Lance was to see if he could develop and then further decisions would be made from there. You don't sign a developmental player with the intent that playing time is predetermined.

do you sign developmental players in the 4th round? or 7th round? if he is developmental player, and they knew it, then why pay a 4th.... it was a mistake even specifically speaking about this individual player. keys! his former team having spent a ton to go get him, just dumped him and we paid more than anybody else willing, where others were offering 5th and 6th round picks.

he had been in NFL for 2 years. played. and there were coaches who worked with him daily, perhaps they could have researched it a bit, as opposed to maybe we can change him, trade a valuable 4th pick and then dump him!!! big mistake

 

[OmerV]

do you sign developmental players in the 4th round? or 7th round? if he is developmental player, and they knew it, then why pay a 4th.... it was a mistake even specifically speaking about this individual player. keys! his former team having spent a ton to go get him, just dumped him and we paid more than anybody else willing, where others were offering 5th and 6th round picks.

he had been in NFL for 2 years. played. and there were coaches who worked with him daily, perhaps they could have researched it a bit, as opposed to maybe we can change him, trade a valuable 4th pick and then dump him!!! big mistake

This isn't the same as drafting a player in the 4th round, although even those drafted in the 4th round are sometimes considered developmental and are definitely not considered as sure things guaranteed to get notable playing time.

The ability to use a 4th round pick to acquire a player that was considered as having 1st round talent is not the norm. Maybe 3rd overall in the draft was too high, but every team saw him as a 1st round draft pick.

 

[DuncanIso]

This isn't the same as drafting a player in the 4th round, although even those drafted in the 4th round are sometimes considered developmental and are definitely not considered as sure things guaranteed to get notable playing time.

The ability to use a 4th round pick to acquire a player that was considered as having 1st round talent is not the norm. Maybe 3rd overall in the draft was too high, but every team saw him as a 1st round draft pick.

We could get Lance at 5M

He likely wants 10M

Cap $$$ tight right now.

We got Grier at league min. 1.xM

 

[DuncanIso]

why is this 12 pages? do we still have people living in an alternate reality that think Trey Lance is good?

#LanceHate

 

[OmerV]

We could get Lance at 5M

He likely wants 10M

Cap $$$ tight right now.

We got Grier at league min. 1.xM

I'm not real comfortable with Grier, but I absolutely agree we need to move on from Lance. He just hasn't shown enough to justify the contract he will likely want.

 

[BaybeeJay]

Gives Raiders' vibes.