NFL brings back emergency 3rd QB rule

[Big Turk]

A few months too late for the 49ers liking...

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/05/22/nfl-brings-back-emergency-third-quarterback-rule/amp/

[GunnerBill]

In the days of 2 free elevations per week the simpler solution was just increase the number active on gameday.

[SoCal Deek]

I’ve never understood why teams can’t have as many players as they want so long as they don’t go over the cap. 

[jwhit34]

The challenging thing for teams is that the 3rd QB has to be on the 53 cannot be a practice squad call up. Will that lead to more teams keeping 3 QBs. How about the Bills? Would they roster Barkley and if so what position gets cut back?

 

If 3 QBs:

QB       3

RB/FB  4

WR       6

TE        3

OL       10

DL        9

LB        6

DB        9

K/P/LS  3

 

I think in this scenario they go with 9 DBs (4 S, 5 CB) instead of 10, but I could also see them keeping 9 OL (4 OT, 5 IOL) and 10 DBs. 

 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Surprised they never got bigger rosters #s out of adding game 17. 

[mushypeaches]

They’re not going to burn a roster spot on Matt Barkley or any other third QB

[boyst]

19 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Surprised they never got bigger rosters #s out of adding game 17. 

I think this is NFLPA is not going to support. Waters down the money for the veterans.

[eball]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve never understood why teams can’t have as many players as they want so long as they don’t go over the cap. 

 

Competitive balance.  Teams used to “hide” players on the roster who might not be ready to play yet but would be scooped up by another team if given the chance.

 

Same reason there are IR rules.

 

[K D]

I prefer the RB taking over as 3rd string QB and running wildcat. More interesting. 3rd string QB's are garbage anyhow

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Competitive balance.  Teams used to “hide” players on the roster who might not be ready to play yet but would be scooped up by another team if given the chance.

 

Same reason there are IR rules.

 

That part I understand. I guess I should’ve said that I don’t agree with it. If teams can ‘hide’ players there and still stay under the cap…I’m okay with it. It’s all a financial juggling act. 

[eball]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That part I understand. I guess I should’ve said that I don’t agree with it. If teams can ‘hide’ players there and still stay under the cap…I’m okay with it. It’s all a financial juggling act. 

 

That’s how they negotiated to 53; a number that allows enough backups for depth without draining the talent pool.  The issue was addressed in large part by the expanded practice squad.  Teams can now “try” to hide players but don’t have exclusive rights.  Sort of a win-win in that players have mobility but teams can also develop guys and build some team loyalty.

 

[First Round Bust]

5 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

I prefer the RB taking over as 3rd string QB and running wildcat. More interesting. 3rd string QB's are garbage anyhow

was thinking same, a former qb, or someone with a decent arm who knows 6 plays, 2 of which are passes,  now playing another position as a backup ? would save a valuable roster spot, think about how often teams are need that third qb in a game, usually if first-string goes down you can make it thru the game with second-stringand then elevate that bartender...3rd-stringer from the PS...but first hope and pray...this Brock Purdy rule lives on for 1 season maybe.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

36 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Competitive balance.  Teams used to “hide” players on the roster who might not be ready to play yet but would be scooped up by another team if given the chance.

 

Same reason there are IR rules.

 

 

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve never understood why teams can’t have as many players as they want so long as they don’t go over the cap. 

my issue is why do they limit the actives on game day? I say you should be able to activate anyone on the roster.  Is that a salary thing? (Have to pay all the actives). 

[SoCal Deek]

28 minutes ago, eball said:

 

That’s how they negotiated to 53; a number that allows enough backups for depth without draining the talent pool.  The issue was addressed in large part by the expanded practice squad.  Teams can now “try” to hide players but don’t have exclusive rights.  Sort of a win-win in that players have mobility but teams can also develop guys and build some team loyalty.

 

I understand. With the amount of money being spent on player salaries I’ve always thought it was a shame that players languish on a practice squad, not really knowing from week to week whether they should keep a bag packed. These guys have personal lives. 
 

(Now at the same time, I do really like how they’ve limited the rookie contracts and think it’s great that we’ve moved passed the days of rookie holdouts.)

[Malazan]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

In the days of 2 free elevations per week the simpler solution was just increase the number active on gameday.

 

..eh.. if they increase the actives (which I think they should absolutely do).. teams will repeat what happened to the 3rd QB and use that roster spot on a player more likely to have an impact. 

 

However, there's no reason they can't do both.. a designated 3rd QB slot and add a few more active players for game day. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

2 hours ago, mushypeaches said:

They’re not going to burn a roster spot on Matt Barkley or any other third QB

They have in the past

[Florida Bills Fanatic]

3 hours ago, mushypeaches said:

They’re not going to burn a roster spot on Matt Barkley or any other third QB

I believe the third QB doesn't count against the game day roster limit.  This is about maintaining the quality of the game, having competitive contests, keeping TV sponsors viewership numbers up, and not disappointing fans.  Whether we disagree with it or not, the owners have seen the situation as a major problem and have taken this step to fix it.  It will be invisible to us unless a team loses two QB's during a game.

[boyst]

The more I think about this, the more I blame the NFL PA for the way the NFL is now. There's no reason not to have 50 players shooting on game day, especially to mitigate injuries. Have players designated for just special teams or something like that, NFL PA should be all about that. Having designated special teams players only etc would mitigate the risk to other athletes. But the NFL PA realizes that it would cost them to have to split the wealth and divide up the money they can make. These situations are never good for anyone.

[Gugny]

2 hours ago, boyst said:

The more I think about this, the more I blame the NFL PA for the way the NFL is now. There's no reason not to have 50 players shooting on game day, especially to mitigate injuries. Have players designated for just special teams or something like that, NFL PA should be all about that. Having designated special teams players only etc would mitigate the risk to other athletes. But the NFL PA realizes that it would cost them to have to split the wealth and divide up the money they can make. These situations are never good for anyone.

It’s good for the millionaire players and the billionaire owners. 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, boyst said:

The more I think about this, the more I blame the NFL PA for the way the NFL is now. There's no reason not to have 50 players shooting on game day, especially to mitigate injuries. Have players designated for just special teams or something like that, NFL PA should be all about that. Having designated special teams players only etc would mitigate the risk to other athletes. But the NFL PA realizes that it would cost them to have to split the wealth and divide up the money they can make. These situations are never good for anyone.

Money is always the reason but another reason is there's too much of a competitive disadvantage in your example if you have an injury plagued roster (say only 46 healthy players that are active) while the other team has 50 healthy players in your example.