Conn Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Was better than I expected, with all of the usual preseason playcalling and competition caveats acknowledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsailand Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I think we could have a legit competition for the backup QB spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, Tsailand said: I think we could have a legit competition for the backup QB spot. Hard to say. I thought colt looked a good bit better. But how much longer will he be around? I'm 50/50 on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Nate didn't overreact to anything and no turnovers. For first preseason game, I love it. Not much, but already seems pretty calm in the pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I don't think there's a backup QB competition. That job belongs to Colt, who has proven he can win in that spot. Sudfeld was a nice pick up for us. But why rush him? Let him hold the clipboard. Let him get some preseason reps. Let him learn. There's no reason for him to see the field this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Nate's going to be solid. Take a couple of years of pro coaching and he'll be a damn good back-up. Having banged on about him pre draft, I'm all in for him to do well. Nice start for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Harmonizing with chorus, he looked much better than I expected especially based on camp reviews. His bomb was just a hair off and I'm still not sure Ross shouldn't have caught it. He was mainly playing against 3rd stringers I think, but there probably were some 2nds at the top of the 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probos Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 8 hours ago, Tsailand said: I think we could have a legit competition for the backup QB spot. Um,...no. Colt will be the backup. Nate looked fine but he's not ready to even be a solid backup at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dblock804 Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 I went to camp four times, Nate didn't look that great, but he's got some zip on that ball. Will they keep him? Will he just be on the practice squad? The kid looks like he's got all the tools. I thought he looked pretty good for such a young kid in his 1st game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreek1973 Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 Best case right now for us to wave him and then put him on the PS. He keeps showing like this however in the next 3 preseason games and no way we risk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzplay Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 If he's put on the practice squad, you can consider him gone; he'll be signed to a full roster faster than you can say say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 8 hours ago, skinzplay said: If he's put on the practice squad, you can consider him gone; he'll be signed to a full roster faster than you can say say. Doubt it, unless he really shows out the next two weeks. Having a raw QB who hasn't seen a page of your playbook come in and take up a spot on the 53 is tough. Most teams already have a developmental QB3 of their own and if they don't, they probably already have plans for that roster spot and only carry two QB's for a reason--it's not like Sudfeld is an exceptionally good developmental prospect whose availability would make it worth giving up on your own prospect, who already has time and snaps in your scheme. Bottom line is that he was a 6th round pick that all 32 teams were fine passing at least 5-6 times each...unless he really blows up the rest of preseason his flashes won't be enough to get him a spot on anyone's 53 at the expense of whoever they already have, most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 8 hours ago, skinzplay said: If he's put on the practice squad, you can consider him gone; he'll be signed to a full roster faster than you can say say. To sign a guy off ps, he has to be active for at least 1 week, not just the 53rd guy but at least the 46th guy. This would mean you'd have to have three qbs active or you are in a disaster situation.. A backup QB who does not know your playbook? Just a wasted roster space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 4 minutes ago, Darth Tater said: To sign a guy off ps, he has to be active for at least 1 week. A backup QB who does not know your playbook? Just a wasted roster space. Well in that hypothetical situation, he'd be signed to a 53 after being waived before ever making it to our pracrice squad so that wouldn't apply. But if you read my post above you'll see that I agree with the gist of your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 1 minute ago, ConnSKINS26 said: Well in that hypothetical situation, he'd be signed to a 53 after being waived before ever making it to our pracrice squad so that wouldn't apply. But if you read my post above you'll see that I agree with the gist of your point. The quote I was responding to already assumed he was signed to our PS. Not that we cut him in hopes we can sign him to our PS. In such a case, they don't have to sign him to their 53, they can sign him to their PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinzplay Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 On 8/20/2016 at 11:39 PM, Darth Tater said: To sign a guy off ps, he has to be active for at least 1 week, not just the 53rd guy but at least the 46th guy. This would mean you'd have to have three qbs active or you are in a disaster situation.. A backup QB who does not know your playbook? Just a wasted roster space. Hey Darth.......my thinking was more along the lines of Sudfeld being picked up by a team that runs a fairly similar offensive scheme; there are several. My hunch is that we'll keep him on the 53-man. No inside info or anything, just thinking aloud. Or typing......... Happy Monday, and Hail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregpeck99 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 My gut is that Sudfeld will contract that well known TC disease known as hangnailitis and end up on IR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 We had 3 QB's last year, and we'll have the same this year. Sudfeld is not heading for the PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 1 hour ago, BleedBNG said: We had 3 QB's last year, and we'll have the same this year. Sudfeld is not heading for the PS. Can't really compare, we were stuck with a guy we'd never play but couldn't cut last year in RG3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Sudfeld = Studs field. He's gonna be good. Too soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johns Bass Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 One way or another the Skins will have 3 QB's all on the 53 man roster whether that #3 guy is Sudfeld or not. Can't really get away with stashing a rookie on the PS. If he's good enough to PS somewhere along the line during the season it's a very good chance some other team will come short at QB and he'll be gone. If #1 or #2 go down for whatever reason and #3 moves up he needs to be as up to speed as much as possible and he can't be snatched from the 53 man roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 On 8/20/2016 at 2:46 PM, skinzplay said: If he's put on the practice squad, you can consider him gone; he'll be signed to a full roster faster than you can say say. You're talking about Nate Sudfeld right? The guy that plays for the Redskins right? No team is giving him a roster spot anytime soon. After watching him live the other night, I'm not convinced he'll be in the league in 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Johns Bass said: One way or another the Skins will have 3 QB's all on the 53 man roster whether that #3 guy is Sudfeld or not. Can't really get away with stashing a rookie on the PS. If he's good enough to PS somewhere along the line during the season it's a very good chance some other team will come short at QB and he'll be gone. If #1 or #2 go down for whatever reason and #3 moves up he needs to be as up to speed as much as possible and he can't be snatched from the 53 man roster. Where are you getting this from? QB is probably the position that sees the absolute least player movement throughout an NFL season. A QB is more useless than almost any other position without already knowing the offense and having a rapport with his surrounding cast. Nobody is stealing a 6th round rookie off of a PS in week 9 or something because they have an injury at QB. They are shifting all of their own guys up a spot on the depth chart (including their own potential PS QB) and checking their Rolodex for the FA QB's they've already worked out and had in the building within the last year, and gotten a feel for. Because they want vets if they're in dire need of a QB for emergency purposes, not raw projects. The one risky time would be when he'd need to be cut to get onto our PS. And as I explained in an earlier post, I don't see that as being likely either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 4 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said: Can't really compare, we were stuck with a guy we'd never play but couldn't cut last year in RG3. We weren't stuck with him after Sept.11 (cleared of concussion), and could have cut him anytime after that. I would say more of an 80% chance that NS makes the 53. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 This thread is treading closer and closer to 2013 ES territory where crazies swore to me that we could get a bunch of picks for Rex and Pat White... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.