Jump to content

Keeping 3 Quarterbacks Is Strange


Recommended Posts

IMO they should bring back the EQ rule.

Not gonna happen with the 2011 rule change.....

The owners and players have agreed to expand game day rosters from 45 to 46 active players. The No. 3 quarterback will no longer be an “emergency” inactive player.

In other words, a team can insert its third-string quarterback for a short period at any point in the game, then take him out and put the starter back in. Previously, the first and second quarterbacks couldn’t re-enter the game if the No. 3 quarterback played before the fourth quarter.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/nfl-drops-third-quarterback-rule-46-active-players-on-game-day/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a feeling Renfree is still gonna head to the PS.

I think they kept him for now to keep him safe, but as the rest of the NFL builds their squads they will be less likely to see him stashed back on the PS. Give it a few weeks or 1 injury elsewhere on the team and He'll wind up there so someone else can be bought in

Link to post
Share on other sites

op i completely disagree with your logic. either:

a) you don't like our gm and coach, or

b)uninformed drive-by fan.

it's as simple as this, nothing more nothing less: renfree probably wouldn't have cleared waivers with what he showed in PS. plus, most teams do carry three quarterbacks on their 53 man roster. the 3rd qb on the depth chart rarely is active on game day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you to all the reasonable posters who pointed out that last season was the first season we've ever carried only 2 QBs under the TD/Smitty regime.

Renfree is going to be an inactive every game barring an injury to Ryan or Yates, so I don't see what the big deal is. We have to leave 7 guys inactive every Sunday, so who cares if one is a QB versus having a 3rd TE or a 5th RB sit on the sideline like last season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is strange is some people's fixation on how they manage the players at the bottom of the roster that we hope never see playing time.

I understood the overreaction when they cut guys that people here liked, but no one got plucked that we cared about, so obviously they did it right to keep the guys who would probably be picked up on the 53, and cut the guys who would clear to be on the PS.

It's baffling to me the things that people choose to get worked up about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...