The potential value of keeping only 2 QB's but 7 WR's

[gatorskin77]

Wonder If Lorenzo would be willing to learn the QB position as well

That would be awesome!

[kingofdaroad99]

Technically, you don't have to have any QBs on the roster. In fact, using old school terms, any time you are in a spread shotgun, there is no qb on the field, the guy throwing the ball would be called a TB. In a wildcat, technically, the QB would be the guys lined up behind the OL on the strong side. Remember, Sammy Baugh? He did not play QB until 1945.

its raining hard cold facts up in here

[@DCGoldPants]

Too risky,

Who takes over at QB if you lose both your recognised ones, and maybe early in the game. Cooley? Does he spend all day handing off and thus making it an easy game for the opposing D?

In a game as violent as this, you just NEVER know when injury will strike. And with the greatest of respect to them, the O-line still has it ALL to prove going forward.

No, I wouldn't want to go with only 2 QB's out of 53 players. WAY too risky a situation on game day now the emergency QB rule has gone.

Hail.

Last time your starter and backup QB were knocked out? For us, was that the bodybag game?

[Darth Tater]

I've been trying to find out for awhile now: What is the point of gameday inactives? Why not just have 53 active players available?

Did some research. Some argue that the maximum roster size was a pre cap attempt to minimize "rich" teams ability to lock up all the good players. The 53 man roster with game day inactives is a 3-way compromise between the "rich" teams, the "poor" teams and the NFLPA. Basically, slots 47-53 are analogous to the old in-season IR. Now, with the cap, floor and FA, I wonder if roster limits are themselves relevant.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Last time your starter and backup QB were knocked out? For us, was that the bodybag game?

I'd guess, and I take your point on the rarity. But there's always the chance that rarity could happen, maybe even early in a game. I'd personally always both have and dress three now we can dress 46 on game day. I totally agree on Clemens BTW, which I why I was hoping Chappell would be kept as a developmental guy.

Hail.

[Darth Tater]

Last time your starter and backup QB were knocked out? For us, was that the bodybag game?

In 1989 the PS was re-established (it had been gone since 1973), only the rule about a 3rd QB (established in 1993 IIRC) made carrying 3 or more QBs on your final roster make sense unless he was a project that would get signed away from you at the first opportunity. I suppose cap management strategies might also make you do that.

[tibbidoe]

Did some research. Some argue that the maximum roster size was a pre cap attempt to minimize "rich" teams ability to lock up all the good players. The 53 man roster with game day inactives is a 3-way compromise between the "rich" teams, the "poor" teams and the NFLPA. Basically, slots 47-53 are analogous to the old in-season IR. Now, with the cap, floor and FA, I wonder if roster limits are themselves relevant.

I just think a player working hard just to make the team, then turning around and being inactive is completely pointless. All 53 should be active, the active roster should be moved up to 60 and there should be better rules in place to keep practice squad guys from being snatched up by other teams.

Just my opinion.

[Mania]

I think that's a great point. No idea why they only have 53 players on the roster.

I think 53 is fine, but I don't like the non active players as only 47 are eligible on game day. 60 would thin out the level of competition tremendously.

[Darth Tater]

I just think a player working hard just to make the team, then turning around and being inactive is completely pointless. All 53 should be active, the active roster should be moved up to 60 and there should be better rules in place to keep practice squad guys from being snatched up by other teams.

Just my opinion.

I think I agree with you because I think the cap, floor and FA effects of the CBA make the point of having inactives irrelevant. The reason seems to be driven by an environment only arguably true pre-1993 (and may have not been valid since the mid-60s). I'd actually argue that roster limits themselves may make no sense now with the new CBA.

[tibbidoe]

I think I agree with you because I think the cap, floor and FA effects of the CBA make the point of having inactives irrelevant. The reason seems to be driven by an environment only arguably true pre-1993 (and may have not been valid since the mid-60s). I'd actually argue that roster limits themselves may make no sense now with the new CBA.

Well, I do think there needs to be a roster limit (60). Fitting as many as possible, as long as it's under the cap is pointless, it seems to me. I really don't think though, that 60 would thin things out much. You'd still be talking about the lowest guys on any given team's totem pole. But you would have a chance for more depth at some spots AND room for developmental guys without really hurting anything.

It also seems to me that it's just a matter of time (3-5 years) until we see an 18-game schedule. Those extra spots would account for injuries in addition to the other reasons I stated.

[Darth Tater]

Well, I do think there needs to be a roster limit (60). Fitting as many as possible, as long as it's under the cap is pointless, it seems to me. I really don't think though, that 60 would thin things out much. You'd still be talking about the lowest guys on any given team's totem pole. But you would have a chance for more depth at some spots AND room for developmental guys without really hurting anything.

It also seems to me that it's just a matter of time (3-5 years) until we see an 18-game schedule. Those extra spots would account for injuries in addition to the other reasons I stated.

Still, why would the rosters need to be limited?

[tibbidoe]

I think there still needs to be a limit for a couple of reasons:

Continuity. All teams should be set to the same number restrictions, just as a general rule.

Level playing field. With no number limit, good teams could sign and hold players. How many guys are going to want to play for a bad team, if the Patriots/Steelers type teams are offering a spot?

[justice98]

And you can probably forget about that Dennis Dixon idea with Byron Leftwich out for the year.

[Diesel__44]

I think the new 3rd QB rule will be why Shannhan elects to go with 3 QBs..Although Clemens has been terrible.

"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."

[Darth Tater]

I think there still needs to be a limit for a couple of reasons:

Continuity. All teams should be set to the same number restrictions, just as a general rule.

Level playing field. With no number limit, good teams could sign and hold players. How many guys are going to want to play for a bad team, if the Patriots/Steelers type teams are offering a spot?

Continuity?

No, teams could not sign and hold good players. If you think they could then you must agree with the inactive list.

[DavidGQ]

I just think a player working hard just to make the team, then turning around and being inactive is completely pointless. All 53 should be active, the active roster should be moved up to 60 and there should be better rules in place to keep practice squad guys from being snatched up by other teams.

Just my opinion.

I agree with you on this one. PS is a joke IMO.

[tibbidoe]

Continuity?

No, teams could not sign and hold good players. If you think they could then you must agree with the inactive list.

I don't get your point there.

Same guidelines for all teams (same limit to number of players). 60 active, no practice squad, no inactive list.

(as an example of what I'm trying to say)

Or maybe 63 total, including the protected practice squad players, still no inactive on gameday.

[@DCGoldPants]

with no real minor league system in the NFL even though some point to the NCAA, its hard to keep a player who might take longer to develop. All of the 3 other major sports here have a minor league system. NHL/MLB's obviously are the best and the NBA is still newer. ALSO.....none of those leagues have as many players on a roster already as the NFL. But they don't field 11 starters on each side and then however many on special teams.

This isn't arguing about expanding march madness beyond 64 teams or whatever. Actually, this originally wasn't about roster size at all. Just that for the Redskins, it might make more sense to keep 7 WR's instead of 3 QB's.

If you lose your 1st 2 QB's in a game and you're forced to use a WR as your QB to finish it out. That would suck. But that's the chance you take by keeping up an extra player during the season who has a better chance of contributing even if its only on special teams.

[tibbidoe]

with no real minor league system in the NFL even though some point to the NCAA, its hard to keep a player who might take longer to develop. All of the 3 other major sports here have a minor league system. NHL/MLB's obviously are the best and the NBA is still newer. ALSO.....none of those leagues have as many players on a roster already as the NFL. But they don't field 11 starters on each side and then however many on special teams.

This isn't arguing about expanding march madness beyond 64 teams or whatever. Actually, this originally wasn't about roster size at all. Just that for the Redskins, it might make more sense to keep 7 WR's instead of 3 QB's.

If you lose your 1st 2 QB's in a game and you're forced to use a WR as your QB to finish it out. That would suck. But that's the chance you take by keeping up an extra player during the season who has a better chance of contributing even if its only on special teams.

Sorry I got off-topic, sir.

I'd go with 7 WR/2 QB as well.

[Jericho]

I think the new 3rd QB rule will be why Shannhan elects to go with 3 QBs..Although Clemens has been terrible.

"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."

Your statement does not make sense. Under the old rules, a third QB could play IF he was active. But there were restrictions if he was not active (assuming the team even carried three QBs). Under the new tules, Clemens would have to be active for the above scenario to work. Not only does it make little sense to have Clemens come in for a short period, but why keep Clemens active in the first place? On the off chance that both QBs get hurt? Let's face it, if that did happen and both Beck and Grossman went down, the team's probably going to lose anyway. Not sure Clemens is going to provide anything groundbreaking either.

[Diesel__44]

Your statement does not make sense. Under the old rules, a third QB could play IF he was active. But there were restrictions if he was not active (assuming the team even carried three QBs). Under the new tules, Clemens would have to be active for the above scenario to work. Not only does it make little sense to have Clemens come in for a short period, but why keep Clemens active in the first place? On the off chance that both QBs get hurt? Let's face it, if that did happen and both Beck and Grossman went down, the team's probably going to lose anyway. Not sure Clemens is going to provide anything groundbreaking either.

"In 2011, the lack of a third-quarterback designation could be helpful for teams with third-string quarterbacks who are running threats: Now the third-stringer could be inserted as a wildcat quarterback for a play or two and then be replaced by the starter." Obviously that's not Clemens bag..

[ouvan59]

I'd rather keep another lineman than keep 7 receivers. I think Paul will make it through to the PS. He's not going to get any playing time anyway so he's essentially on the PS anyway. Everybody in the league has their own version of Paul.

[Coolio47]

7 WR's is kind of pushing it. I can see the argument for 6, but another Linemen instead of a 7th WR imo.

[PosseLover]

The only reason I think 3 QBs is needed is if you truly have no other choice; like below average talent or an injury to your starter going into Week 1...like Indy. Peyton won't play probably til Week 3...so obviously they need a back-up to Kerry Collins. To my knowledge the NFL doesn't require a team to have 3 QBs... if they do who was the guy 2nd guy behind Peyton?

I think we have 2 capable QBs that are young, ready, willing and able to shine. Yes, I know Rex's career stats and yes, I know Beck is inexperienced, but so was the above name along with Bradford, Ryan, Rivers, Flacco...you get the idea. I'm aware there are as many QB bust, but at least they got their start. Now the 7 WR deal. I say, do it...the more the merrier...RIGHT?

HAIL

[whatmeworry]

Since we really only have 2 QBs anyway.....