Deactivate DA?

[RealTalk]

This really isn't that terrible of an idea. People are acting like we would be cutting DA. Webb is a decent backup and if Cam went down he could fill in just fine. It's obviously a gamble, but if Cam goes down against Seattle I think we would probably be screwed anyway so might as well try to utilize another roster spot with the injuries we've had.

+1

[sunset]

But if Cam doesn't go down, DA is just a wasted roster spot

He's not a wasted roster spot at all.  He's like insurance.  You have to have it in the event that if some poo does go wrong you're not totally fuged.

[Mr. Scot]

This really isn't that terrible of an idea. People are acting like we would be cutting DA. Webb is a decent backup and if Cam went down he could fill in just fine. It's obviously a gamble, but if Cam goes down against Seattle I think we would probably be screwed anyway so might as well try to utilize another roster spot with the injuries we've had.

If the team really believed Webb gave us as good a chance to win as Anderson, they'd make Webb the backup. 

No team in the league is gonna deactivate their number two in favor of their number three. Heck, some teams don't even keep a number three. 

[Bartin]

If the team really believed Webb gave us as good a chance to win as Anderson, they'd make Webb the backup. 

No team in the league is gonna deactivate their number two in favor of their number three. Heck, some teams don't even keep a number three. 

It's a one game gamble and yes most teams don't even carry a 3rd QB because that's how valuable the roster spot is and especially an active roster spot. Even the teams that do carry 3 QB's don't have 3 active. Of course Webb doesn't give us as good a chance to win as Anderson, but gambling in a one game scenario where we are fighting injuries might make it worth the risk.

[Mr. Scot]

It's a one game gamble and yes most teams don't even carry a 3rd QB because that's how valuable the roster spot is and especially an active roster spot. Even the teams that do carry 3 QB's don't have 3 active. Of course Webb doesn't give us as good a chance to win as Anderson, but gambling in a one game scenario where we are fighting injuries might make it worth the risk.

It's not a gamble. It's a decision. 

There are other guys a lot less valuable than the backup quarterback who could be deactivated. 

The team makes the decision on who are the best 45 every week. Anderson is consistently going to be part of that group. 

[rayzor]

giving ben hartsock's spot away would be amuch better idea.

[RealTalk]

It's not a gamble. It's a decision. 

There are other guys a lot less valuable than the backup quarterback who could be deactivated. 

The team makes the decision on who are the best 45 every week. Anderson is consistently going to be part of that group. 

I suppose you could teach Ryan Kalil, who snaps every snap anyway, to snap it longer and take Jansen's spot and double as team's longsnapper, thus clearing a roster spot. But that seems impractical.

[MadHatter]

It's a one game gamble and yes most teams don't even carry a 3rd QB because that's how valuable the roster spot is and especially an active roster spot. Even the teams that do carry 3 QB's don't have 3 active. Of course Webb doesn't give us as good a chance to win as Anderson, but gambling in a one game scenario where we are fighting injuries might make it worth the risk.

Webb provides 3 different benefits.....he is a great ST player (the reason teams carry extra lb, db, etc).....he can be an emergency WR....he can be an emergency QB.  Therefore, carrying him is no different that why other teams carry ST players that have a different primary position than QB.

Not really that hard to understand....well, for most people anyway.

[Growl]

If it were a smart idea, every team would be doing it.

Hidden Content

Most teams in the league only have two quarterbacks, much less three active. This was a terrible post.

[MadHatter]

I suppose you could teach Ryan Kalil, who snaps every snap anyway, to snap it longer and take Jansen's spot and double as team's longsnapper, thus clearing a roster spot. But that seems impractical.

Just wow....

Stupid people are just too stupid to realize they are stupid......even when everyone else keeps telling them they are stupid.

[Bartin]

It's not a gamble. It's a decision. 

There are other guys a lot less valuable than the backup quarterback who could be deactivated. 

The team makes the decision on who are the best 45 every week. Anderson is consistently going to be part of that group. 

Umm, it's definitely a gamble because we would be gambling that Cam doesn't get hurt and therefore have no need for a backup QB in one game, but you hedge it by having Webb available to backup should something happen. It's a calculated risk that could pay off.

[Moorgan]

On a related note...if the team is 53 players...WHY is there even an active roster? Why can't all 53 suit up? What was the reason for them making this rule. Did it have to do with old school paychecks or some other nonsense? And why does the NFL continue this element of the game?

 

Here is the article explaining when it went from 45 to 46 players in 2011 but no reason why it exists at all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_quarterback_rule

 

[Mr. Scot]

Umm, it's definitely a gamble because we would be gambling that Cam doesn't get hurt and therefore have no need for a backup QB in one game, but you hedge it by having Webb available to backup should something happen. It's a calculated risk that could pay off.

Sorry. I can't buy that. 

If you really want to activate Wegher, Norwood or whomever, you can find someone a lot less valuable than the backup quarterback to deactivate in their place.

No team in the NFL would take this option. 

[uncfan888]

what has happened in this forum this week? good lord.. the bye week really has brought out the insanity