QB Trey Lance traded to Dallas!

[QB_Eagles]

I don't get why the 49ers get criticized so much. They needed a QB when they drafted Lance. They spent big draft capital to get him. Nothing wrong with that.

Then they lucked into Brock Purdy, who turned out to be better than Lance. The 49ers don't need both. They also got a backup who they think is better than Lance. So trading him was the obvious move, even if they only got a 4th in return. Keeping him on the roster just because you paid so much for him is sunk cost fallacy.

[bluejerseyjinx]

You didn't answer my question.

Fwiw you should be happy that the team is moving on from Lance. They recognized it was a sunk cost.

And he won't. You know how it works with Whiner fans.

[hermes]

so this is a qb who has barely played being traded for a single mid-round pick to a team with an already established starter - how is this big news? teams miss on qb prospects every year, just cut bait and move onto the next one

[Mr B]

I don't get why the 49ers get criticized so much. They needed a QB when they drafted Lance. They spent big draft capital to get him. Nothing wrong with that.

Then they lucked into Brock Purdy, who turned out to be better than Lance. The 49ers don't need both. They also got a backup who they think is better than Lance. So trading him was the obvious move, even if they only got a 4th in return. Keeping him on the roster just because you paid so much for him is sunk cost fallacy.

I don’t know if they think Darnold is better than Lance, he’s just better suited to be a backup to Purdy. Darnold is not a threat to Purdy. Lance IS a threat to Purdy considering what they gave up to get him.

[Vee-Rex]

I don't get why the 49ers get criticized so much. They needed a QB when they drafted Lance. They spent big draft capital to get him. Nothing wrong with that.

Then they lucked into Brock Purdy, who turned out to be better than Lance. The 49ers don't need both. They also got a backup who they think is better than Lance. So trading him was the obvious move, even if they only got a 4th in return. Keeping him on the roster just because you paid so much for him is sunk cost fallacy.

You're a newbie here so you might not understand things that well.

[righterwriter]

I don't get why the 49ers get criticized so much. They needed a QB when they drafted Lance. They spent big draft capital to get him. Nothing wrong with that.

Then they lucked into Brock Purdy, who turned out to be better than Lance. The 49ers don't need both. They also got a backup who they think is better than Lance. So trading him was the obvious move, even if they only got a 4th in return. Keeping him on the roster just because you paid so much for him is sunk cost fallacy.

I don’t know if they think Darnold is better than Lance, he’s just better suited to be a backup to Purdy. Darnold is not a threat to Purdy. Lance IS a threat to Purdy considering what they gave up to get him.

It's not about who is less of a threat, it was about which QB was ready to step in at starter if Purdy was hurt. Due to his previous experience as a starter, Darnold should be ready to step right in at starter for a few games, in necessary. Lance needs experience, like pretty much every other NFL QB, in order to get better.

Lance likely needed a different style of offense to cater to his strengths, as well. He's not a timing passer like Purdy (and Darnold to a lesser extent). His style is more similar to Dak Prescott, a QB who can freelance a bit and throw the ball downfield, and occasionally use his legs to scramble for yards.

He's better off being QB2 in Dallas than QB3 in San Francisco. Dak has missed 17 games over the last three seasons, which means Lance should be able to get some playing time. If he can get a few consecutive games to add experience, something he NEVER got in two seasons in SF due to injuries, I think we'll see what he's capable of.

[Harry Palmer]

I don't get why the 49ers get criticized so much. They needed a QB when they drafted Lance. They spent big draft capital to get him. Nothing wrong with that.

Then they lucked into Brock Purdy, who turned out to be better than Lance. The 49ers don't need both. They also got a backup who they think is better than Lance. So trading him was the obvious move, even if they only got a 4th in return. Keeping him on the roster just because you paid so much for him is sunk cost fallacy.

I don’t know if they think Darnold is better than Lance, he’s just better suited to be a backup to Purdy. Darnold is not a threat to Purdy. Lance IS a threat to Purdy considering what they gave up to get him.

It's not about who is less of a threat, it was about which QB was ready to step in at starter if Purdy was hurt. Due to his previous experience as a starter, Darnold should be ready to step right in at starter for a few games, in necessary. Lance needs experience, like pretty much every other NFL QB, in order to get better.

Lance likely needed a different style of offense to cater to his strengths, as well. He's not a timing passer like Purdy (and Darnold to a lesser extent). His style is more similar to Dak Prescott, a QB who can freelance a bit and throw the ball downfield, and occasionally use his legs to scramble for yards.

He's better off being QB2 in Dallas than QB3 in San Francisco. Dak has missed 17 games over the last three seasons, which means Lance should be able to get some playing time. If he can get a few consecutive games to add experience, something he NEVER got in two seasons in SF due to injuries, I think we'll see what he's capable of.

I don’t disagree that they thought Darnold’s floor is higher, but org mouthpieces have also described the post-trade dynamic as better for Brock without the ‘distraction’, so I’d say it was a factor, however small. But really I think it came down to missing the window or lack of patience. Again, the guy with the least amount of reps for a high 1st round qb in history got the least reps of a high 1st round qb in history despite everyone (including the organization) stating categorically that what Trey needed most to develop was reps. That can’t be anything but an organizational failure.

[makubesu]

Just a reminder: the 9ers didn’t trade up for Lance. They traded up “so the can pick the guy they want”. Maybe next time wait until you know there’s a guy worth the picks before moving, maybe it’s a hint that nobody stands out.

But they have to think Purdy is the guy right? Though honestly Darnold might give them enough.

[righterwriter]

I don’t know if they think Darnold is better than Lance, he’s just better suited to be a backup to Purdy. Darnold is not a threat to Purdy. Lance IS a threat to Purdy considering what they gave up to get him.

It's not about who is less of a threat, it was about which QB was ready to step in at starter if Purdy was hurt. Due to his previous experience as a starter, Darnold should be ready to step right in at starter for a few games, in necessary. Lance needs experience, like pretty much every other NFL QB, in order to get better.

Lance likely needed a different style of offense to cater to his strengths, as well. He's not a timing passer like Purdy (and Darnold to a lesser extent). His style is more similar to Dak Prescott, a QB who can freelance a bit and throw the ball downfield, and occasionally use his legs to scramble for yards.

He's better off being QB2 in Dallas than QB3 in San Francisco. Dak has missed 17 games over the last three seasons, which means Lance should be able to get some playing time. If he can get a few consecutive games to add experience, something he NEVER got in two seasons in SF due to injuries, I think we'll see what he's capable of.

I don’t disagree that they thought Darnold’s floor is higher, but org mouthpieces have also described the post-trade dynamic as better for Brock without the ‘distraction’, so I’d say it was a factor, however small. But really I think it came down to missing the window or lack of patience. Again, the guy with the least amount of reps for a high 1st round qb in history got the least reps of a high 1st round qb in history despite everyone (including the organization) stating categorically that what Trey needed most to develop was reps. That can’t be anything but an organizational failure.

I see it differently.

Lance was set to learn the system as a rookie. This is a normal process that a lot of great QBs have undertaken-- Mahomes, Rodgers, etc. The Niners had that luxury by having Jimmy G as a good bridge QB.

Everything was going to plan, with Lance set as the starter after sitting out his rookie year. Then he sustained a season-ending injury. The plan for him to get his reps last season and develop was derailed. It wasn't his fault, it wasn't the coach's fault, or the front office's fault. It was just something that happened due to injury.

Fast forward to season 3, where Lance is recovered and ready to resume his role as young, talented QB ready to learn on the job as the starter. But wait... the guy the Niners drafted in the 7th round is looking to be pretty damned good. In fact, he led them to two playoff victories and had the highest QBR in the league.

Is the Niners finding an even better, ready to go QB an organizational failure? Is Lance a failure for not being better than the guy that went 7-0 in his first seven starts? I don't think so.

If Lance never gets past this stage of looking unsure on the field and making dumb decisions (even if most of his plays are quite good), then he can be judged as being a poor QB and a bust. But we're not there yet. And the Niners as an organization being considered a failure because they found a guy ready to step in and lead them immediately instead of Lance is a bit like calling the Patriots failures for going with Tom Brady over Bledsoe, even though they'd just given Drew a 10 yr/$103M contract the year before letting him go.

And no, I'm not comparing Purdy to Brady and Lance to Bledsoe, but I think you get the analogy. It was a great thing that the organization picked and placed the better guy in there. That doesn't make Bledsoe a bum or Lance a certified bust.

[Mr B]

I don't get why the 49ers get criticized so much. They needed a QB when they drafted Lance. They spent big draft capital to get him. Nothing wrong with that.

Then they lucked into Brock Purdy, who turned out to be better than Lance. The 49ers don't need both. They also got a backup who they think is better than Lance. So trading him was the obvious move, even if they only got a 4th in return. Keeping him on the roster just because you paid so much for him is sunk cost fallacy.

I don’t know if they think Darnold is better than Lance, he’s just better suited to be a backup to Purdy. Darnold is not a threat to Purdy. Lance IS a threat to Purdy considering what they gave up to get him.

It's not about who is less of a threat, it was about which QB was ready to step in at starter if Purdy was hurt. Due to his previous experience as a starter, Darnold should be ready to step right in at starter for a few games, in necessary. Lance needs experience, like pretty much every other NFL QB, in order to get better.

Lance likely needed a different style of offense to cater to his strengths, as well. He's not a timing passer like Purdy (and Darnold to a lesser extent). His style is more similar to Dak Prescott, a QB who can freelance a bit and throw the ball downfield, and occasionally use his legs to scramble for yards.

He's better off being QB2 in Dallas than QB3 in San Francisco. Dak has missed 17 games over the last three seasons, which means Lance should be able to get some playing time. If he can get a few consecutive games to add experience, something he NEVER got in two seasons in SF due to injuries, I think we'll see what he's capable of.

Lance needing a change of scenery (or system) is part of it. But considering what they paid to get Lance there will always be fans or even people within the organization that think Lance needs to be given a chance to start (regardless of how Purdy is playing). With Lance gone there is zero question from fans or front office who the starter is. This move is more about the organization’s commitment to Purdy than it is about Darnold being better or worse than Lance as the backup.

[righterwriter]

I don’t know if they think Darnold is better than Lance, he’s just better suited to be a backup to Purdy. Darnold is not a threat to Purdy. Lance IS a threat to Purdy considering what they gave up to get him.

It's not about who is less of a threat, it was about which QB was ready to step in at starter if Purdy was hurt. Due to his previous experience as a starter, Darnold should be ready to step right in at starter for a few games, in necessary. Lance needs experience, like pretty much every other NFL QB, in order to get better.

Lance likely needed a different style of offense to cater to his strengths, as well. He's not a timing passer like Purdy (and Darnold to a lesser extent). His style is more similar to Dak Prescott, a QB who can freelance a bit and throw the ball downfield, and occasionally use his legs to scramble for yards.

He's better off being QB2 in Dallas than QB3 in San Francisco. Dak has missed 17 games over the last three seasons, which means Lance should be able to get some playing time. If he can get a few consecutive games to add experience, something he NEVER got in two seasons in SF due to injuries, I think we'll see what he's capable of.

Lance needing a change of scenery (or system) is part of it. But considering what they paid to get Lance there will always be fans or even people within the organization that think Lance needs to be given a chance to start (regardless of how Purdy is playing). With Lance gone there is zero question from fans or front office who the starter is. This move is more about the organization’s commitment to Purdy than it is about Darnold being better or worse than Lance as the backup.

That's more speculation than anything that has been established by anyone in the 49ers building. Brock Purdy doesn't strike me as a guy who needs other QBs traded away to make him feel more secure.

What's a fact is that Lance was set to make $5.3M next year. That's a lot of money for a guy who is your backup, let alone your third stringer.

[Mr B]

It's not about who is less of a threat, it was about which QB was ready to step in at starter if Purdy was hurt. Due to his previous experience as a starter, Darnold should be ready to step right in at starter for a few games, in necessary. Lance needs experience, like pretty much every other NFL QB, in order to get better.

Lance likely needed a different style of offense to cater to his strengths, as well. He's not a timing passer like Purdy (and Darnold to a lesser extent). His style is more similar to Dak Prescott, a QB who can freelance a bit and throw the ball downfield, and occasionally use his legs to scramble for yards.

He's better off being QB2 in Dallas than QB3 in San Francisco. Dak has missed 17 games over the last three seasons, which means Lance should be able to get some playing time. If he can get a few consecutive games to add experience, something he NEVER got in two seasons in SF due to injuries, I think we'll see what he's capable of.

Lance needing a change of scenery (or system) is part of it. But considering what they paid to get Lance there will always be fans or even people within the organization that think Lance needs to be given a chance to start (regardless of how Purdy is playing). With Lance gone there is zero question from fans or front office who the starter is. This move is more about the organization’s commitment to Purdy than it is about Darnold being better or worse than Lance as the backup.

That's more speculation than anything that has been established by anyone in the 49ers building. Brock Purdy doesn't strike me as a guy who needs other QBs traded away to make him feel more secure.

What's a fact is that Lance was set to make $5.3M next year. That's a lot of money for a guy who is your backup, let alone your third stringer.

I’m sure money was a part of it too. That is a lot for a guy sitting on the bench. As for Purdy, I have no doubt he gives two craps about Lance looking over his shoulder. This is more about the coaches and front office not wanting Purdy looking over his shoulder. Bill Parcels used to say if you have 2 QB’s you don’t have any. The main QB should always know that he’s THE GUY.

[Cactus Jack]

Watch on YouTube

[hermes]

after just watching the history on it, is this really worse than the hershel walker trade?

[Mr B]

Watch on YouTube

Bigger bust than Jamarcus Russell?

[Mr B]

after just watching the history on it, is this really worse than the hershel walker trade?

Trey Lance would have to lead the Cowboys to 4 consecutive Super Bowl wins for this trade to be worse than the Hershel Walker trade. The Walker trade set the foundation for 3 SB wins in 4 years for Dallas.

[righterwriter]

Watch on YouTube

Bigger bust than Jamarcus Russell?

Nah, its just an internet troll trying to get attention.

PS> This guy obviously has a great eye for which QBs are busts.

Watch on YouTube

[Worm Guts]

after just watching the history on it, is this really worse than the hershel walker trade?

Trey Lance would have to lead the Cowboys to 4 consecutive Super Bowl wins for this trade to be worse than the Hershel Walker trade. The Walker trade set the foundation for 3 SB wins in 4 years for Dallas.

It would be the 49ers trading up with the Dolphins to get Lance that would be in contention for worst trade, not the trade with Cowboys.

[azcatz11]

Cowboys are a SB contender this year. I don't see Lance playing 2 downs the entire season unless Dak gets hurt.

[Mariner]

Cowboys are a SB contender this year. I don't see Lance playing 2 downs the entire season unless Dak gets hurt.

I could see Lance playing on some gadget plays.
QB sneaks etc.