Jamarcus vs Trey

[Kiwibrown]

Does Trey at least challenge JaMarcus Russell for the title of biggest bust at qb in nfl history?

[nagahide13]

I'd say Jamarcus is way worse. Trey is the 49ers fault, Russell was Russell's fault. One of em just needs a chance and the other never should have had one. Jamarcus was #1 overall.

[Kiwibrown]

55 minutes ago, nagahide13 said:

I'd say Jamarcus is way worse. Trey is the 49ers fault, Russell was Russell's fault. One of em just needs a chance and the other never should have had one. Jamarcus was #1 overall.

Yeah fair.

[JaguarCrazy2832]

Its Russell and not really close...Russell is a case study in why rookie contracts had to be restricted. 

As far as I know he didnt do the whole "I watched the tapes and they were blitz packages...." but really they were blank tapes

Also, yes trading 3 first sucks but remember Jamarcus's contract: 6 years for 61M and 32M Guaranteed and that was SIXTEEN YEARS AGO....Lance signed 4 years for 34M

[Steelersfan43]

Nobody can beat Russell as the biggest bust ever....Not even Ryan Leaf.Russell put zero effort and had such a huge contract

[MSURacerDT55]

I say he does make a case against Russell but it is by the fault of the 49ers. They were fools to think they could take a guy who played less than 20 games in 3 years from an FCS school and expect him to pick up Shanahan's to a starter's level within 3 years. I think this was a gross overestimation by Shanahan, this single handedly could cost them a SB if they don't make it. They have a loaded team ready to compete in an easy NFC and because of the lack of QB could cost them a shot, this is a MASSIVE failure. This is without mentioning the compensation they used to get him when they could have either taken someone else or used the capital for another established QB.

At least with the Raiders, they were rebuilding so the talent level/expectations weren't on the same level as the 49ers.

Edited August 30, 2023 by MSURacerDT55

[nagahide13]

5 hours ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

I say he does make a case against Russell but it is by the fault of the 49ers. They were fools to think they could take a guy who played less than 20 games in 3 years from an FCS school and expect him to pick up Shanahan's to a starter's level within 102 pass attempts.

 

[NYRaider]

Russell was the reason that the league finally implemented a rookie scale contract system to protect franchises from overpaying rookies that may or may not work out. 

Lance obviously hasn't done much but he was a project coming out behind a good veteran as a rookie and then got hurt as a first year starter. Obviously the draft capital the 49ers gave up will always play a part in the conversation but he could still be a good starter somewhere else. Russell was absolutely terrible at football.

[LeotheLion]

I feel like it has to be Lance. And the reasoning is the situation he was in. Had elite weapons, defense, and coaching. And he was beat out by Mr Irrelevant and Sam Darnold in year 3. 

[///mcompact]

If Lance went to any other team but the Boys, the OP wouldn't have made this thread.   OP also thought reworking Zack Martin's contract was a bad deal because reasons. 

 

But anyway.  Carry on with this bad comparison.  
 

[SodeeWater_Cheezburger]

Too early to say if Lance is a bust.  He didn't work out for the team that drafted him, but whose fault was that?  There is probably plenty of blame to go around.  As far as I'm concerned, the book hasn't been written yet on Lance's career, so he could turn it around.  I do know I'd draft him every single time over JaMarcus Russell.  He seems to be a lot sharper mentally than "Sir Purple Drank" ever was.  I'm still holding out hope for Lance.

[viking]

Lance has done less & Lance cost more

[Forge]

Trey will never have the stigma of a Leaf or Russell just because he actually worked hard, tried and didn't melt down. So from that perspective, I don't believe he'll ever be perceived similarly to those two guys. I feel like from that perspective, he's more of a Heath Shuler / Rick Mirer bust. It'll be more of a "well, it is what it is" type thing. 

But there's a lot built into this question with regards how you view it. "Who cost their franchise more" is such a subjective question. Trey Lance cost pick 12 + 2 future picks (29 and 29). I think it's rough to lose those first round picks from a depth perspective, but from a draft value perspective, I believe most teams would value the first overall pick more than 12 / 29 / 29. However, there is also some built in luck there. They were banking on finishing strong in each of those seasons, but there was certainly a non zero chance but of those picks ended up as good picks.  But LIS, I think those future firsts were super important from a depth perspective. What has it cost the niners so far? They went to back to back NFC championship games. Does having Mac Jones or Slater change 2021 (trying to keep it as realistic as possible with who would have been the pick there) Does Jones / Slater + Karlaftis or Dax Hill change 2022? I think that's probably asking a lot, but possible. But so far, from an on field perspective, I certainly don't think that Lance has cost them much (I do think that is coming - may start this year with a step back, but over the next 2-3 years, I think this team is going to have to make some big moves). Meanwhile, the Raiders in those first three years went 4-12, 5-11, 5-11. 

The secondary part of this equation that makes it slightly less comparable is the money issue. NYRaider alluded to it earlier, but Russell's contract was 61 million. That's seriously nearly twice that of Lance's (34M) starting in a year where the cap was half of where it is now. That's such a huge, huge deal. Russell very much paralyzed that team. There was no getting away from that. If this were 2007, the niners probably couldn't have dumped Lance the way they did, and hell, I'm not sure that they could have made the jump up the board to get him. 

They both had pretty substantial opportunity cost lost. That 2007 draft was an absolute banger, as was that 2021 draft. It's hard to ignore two additional first round picks though. That's brutal. 

[BetterCallSaul]

Jamarcus cost his team more. He was a lazy POS & in addition to that, rookie #1 overall pick deals were astronomically expensive back then. It genuinely crippled your franchise if you drafted a bust at QB #1. The 49ers lost draft capital, but it didn’t destroy their finances. 

[43M]

On 9/2/2023 at 10:17 AM, viking said:

Lance has done less & Lance cost more

He has done "less" only because he hasnt gotten many meaningful snaps.     Not saying Lance would be good, but neither was Russell, and he has only "done more" because he was given more opportunities.       

As far as "cost more," perhaps as far as draft capital. but thats only because the 49ers foolishly thought they were in position to take a ridiculous risk on a project QB, and many didnt believe he should go top 5 or even top 10.    Russell was pretty much the consensus top pick, and even if the Raiders would have past, would have went top 3.     

Lance is on his way to being an epic bust, for sure, but mainly due to what the 49ers gave up, which they never should have given up.   However, as far as I know, there hasnt been an issue with effort for Lance.    He just hasnt progressed how they thought he would.

However, Russell was a revolutionary bust who didnt even make the slightest effort, despite going number 1 overall.    As mentioned, he was a big factor in implementing the rookie wage scale.    Not simply because he busted, but because he didnt even try.