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.

 

[KDIGGZ]

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.

[NewEra]

9 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

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

Do you think teams would use that extra spot for a QB?  I don’t and I think that’s why they did it this way. They want to avoid RBs forced to playing QB….. especially in the playoffs 

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, Malazan said:

 

..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. 

 

If you allow 50 game day actives and teams choose to only keep up 2 QBs and theirs both get hurt that's on them.

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

Do you think teams would use that extra spot for a QB?  I don’t and I think that’s why they did it this way. They want to avoid RBs forced to playing QB….. especially in the playoffs 

 

But realistically how often does that happen? It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Expand the active list and let teams decide.

[Malazan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

If you allow 50 game day actives and teams choose to only keep up 2 QBs and theirs both get hurt that's on them.

 

They could keep 3 QBs as it stands.. so that "it's on them" doesn't change. They're going to play the numbers and a situation that happens to 1 team every decade or so won't stop it. They're incentivized to put someone in who is many, many times more likely to contribute. 

[GunnerBill]

29 minutes ago, Malazan said:

 

They could keep 3 QBs as it stands.. so that "it's on them" doesn't change. They're going to play the numbers and a situation that happens to 1 team every decade or so won't stop it. They're incentivized to put someone in who is many, many times more likely to contribute. 

 

Yes, I just wouldn't give them a "free" spot to do so. Having heard it explained in more detail since I think this rule will change nothing in the regular season, because your 3rd QB must be on the active roster. And it just isn't worth the roster spot. What I CAN see it changing is every team that makes the playoffs them adding a 3rd QB who has been on the PS all year to the active roster to benefit from this rule when the season is on the line. 

[machine gun kelly]

11 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

 

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). 

Several years ago someone asked that question on Movin the Chains.  Their explanation was that in the past the owners recognized throughout the year there would potentially be enough injuries that one team would have a competitive advantage which is why they historically dressed 46.  
 

I agree though Mr. Miyagi with the advent of a 16 player of the PS we should just allow 53 to dress including the 3rd QB.  The genesis is of course an overreaction to the 49ers situation on the championship game.

 

At the end of the day I don’t care.  Besides Allen almost never gets hurt so we’ll be fine.

[GunnerBill]

46 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

Several years ago someone asked that question on Movin the Chains.  Their explanation was that in the past the owners recognized throughout the year there would potentially be enough injuries that one team would have a competitive advantage which is why they historically dressed 46.  
 

I agree though Mr. Miyagi with the advent of a 16 player of the PS we should just allow 53 to dress including the 3rd QB.  The genesis is of course an overreaction to the 49ers situation on the championship game.

 

At the end of the day I don’t care.  Besides Allen almost never gets hurt so we’ll be fine.

 

Yea it was about competitive disadvantage for a team with lots of short term injuries. I'm not sure with only two elevations from the PS per week you can go straight to 53... but I'd support going to dress 50 each week. 

[Manther]

14 hours ago, mushypeaches said:

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

I would agree, but, maybe dressing a 3rd QB in playoff games would be a good idea?

[Manther]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yes, I just wouldn't give them a "free" spot to do so. Having heard it explained in more detail since I think this rule will change nothing in the regular season, because your 3rd QB must be on the active roster. And it just isn't worth the roster spot. What I CAN see it changing is every team that makes the playoffs them adding a 3rd QB who has been on the PS all year to the active roster to benefit from this rule when the season is on the line. 

Agreed.  And, one step further, they SHOULD allow teams in the playoffs to dress a 3rd/emergency back up even if they are on the PS.  The goal is to be competitive and have a good game to watch.

[Mr. WEO]

How is this a new rule?  Any team has always been free to keep a 3rd (or 4th, 5th) QB on the roster.  It wouldn't have helped SF last season as they didn't have another one on the roster that day.

[NewEra]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If you allow 50 game day actives and teams choose to only keep up 2 QBs and theirs both get hurt that's on them.

 

But realistically how often does that happen? It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Expand the active list and let teams decide.

It doesn’t happen often at all obv, but the nfl doesn’t care about adding one player to the active roster. They want to add one QB to make sure teams don’t put mccaffery out there at QB.  I see their point. 

[machine gun kelly]

2 hours ago, Manther said:

I would agree, but, maybe dressing a 3rd QB in playoff games would be a good idea?

They just discussed this on WGR with Sal, Joe, and Jeremy.  Sal clarified a lot about this new rule and too many data points to write up, but just go to Audacy in the 7:06-7:30 segment and you can listen for yourself.

 

He made a similar point, but you can’t bring up for the PS a 3rd QB, as they have to be on the 53.  As I mentioned just listen in and you’ll get all your answers.  I’m sure they’ll discuss again on the Extra Point show which is starting now.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

It doesn’t happen often at all obv, but the nfl doesn’t care about adding one player to the active roster. They want to add one QB to make sure teams don’t put mccaffery out there at QB.  I see their point. 

 

But it is up to teams to balance those decisions. 

[NewEra]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

But it is up to teams to balance those decisions. 

Under this new rule, is it? 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

Under this new rule, is it? 

 

I think actually it still is, because you still have to decide whether a 3rd QB is worth a 53 man roster spot. As I said earlier I suspect during the regular season the answer will be "no" for most teams. In the playoffs it might be "yes."  I mind it less now I have seen that element of how it will operate. It was the same when in the old days of 21 man squads for World Cups FIFA used to specify a minimum of two keepers. Some teams took 3, some took 2 on the basis your 3rd keeper is never going to play unless you are incredibly unfortunate. Then for France '98 they changed the rule and required a minimum of 3 keepers in your (by then) 22 man squad. North Korea tried to get around the rule in 2010 by nominating an additional striker as their "3rd goalkeeper" and FIFA ruled that he would not be allowed to enter the field to play in any other position. I oppose that rule too. Let teams decide their own risk appetite. 

[The Frankish Reich]

18 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. 

I like that idea. It would make things more interesting. Not gonna happen, but it should.