NFL Approves Emergency QB

[CamWhoaaCam]

1 hour ago, jfra78 said:

Only you thought anyone was talking about him being the starter.  

That is a lie!

 

I said he would be the 3rd QB behind Darnold and that he probably wants a chance to compete for a starting job on another team that gives him a better opportunity.

 

That's when people started talking about how he might can compete with BY for the starting job. Like I said this sub gives me a good laugh. 

[MHS831]

Now they will need to define "injured."  Slippery slope.

[jfra78]

40 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

That is a lie!

 

I said he would be the 3rd QB behind Darnold and that he probably wants a chance to compete for a starting job on another team that gives him a better opportunity.

 

That's when people started talking about how he might can compete with BY for the starting job. Like I said this sub gives me a good laugh. 

 

[csx]

27 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Now they will need to define "injured."  Slippery slope.

Why? It means they can't play just like any other time a backup needs to come in. 

 

[csx]

1 hour ago, Shocker said:

This rule was definitely needed without question.  I can’t wait for some team to grab and extra cookie from the jar somewhere and ruin it for everyone else.  It feels like this is an extra roster spot at QB which is fine but someone will exploit this somehow.

Maybe this means 32 less free agents available in a crunch.  Interesting to see where this goes

I believe if you read any article explaining the rule your fears would subside.

[1of10Charnatives]

5 hours ago, Carolina Cajun said:

So I saw the story going around about them allowing an emergency qb after the 49ers had to use McCaffery briefly at QB then going back to a guy who legitimately couldn't throw.

I mention this because I think this all but guarantees that the panthers will keep Corral on the roster at least.  If you're gonna have your inactive list, why not narrow that inactive list down by one and allow for the 3rds string QB in emergency without worrying about losing an active day roster spot.  Anyone else get that feeling after seeing that this rule change happened?

I'll do you one better.

Why in the world does the NFL insist demanding that every game, each team must designate seven players, all of whom are under contract, being paid, and presumably practiced and attended meetings just like all their teammates, who cannot participate in the game?

Forget just the 3rd string qb, the whole concept of the inactive list has always struck me as pointless. Yes the NFL has injuries, lots of them, but since the inactive list doesn't alter your overall roster size in any way, it's still 53, it serves no useful purpose.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

5 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

... the whole concept of the inactive list has always struck me as pointless. Yes the NFL has injuries, lots of them, but since the inactive list doesn't alter your overall roster size in any way, it's still 53, it serves no useful purpose.

Should be all hands on deck with the expanded regular season.  There might have been some rational years ago for an inactive roster, but in today's multi-billion dollar NFL, it is hard to justify leaving any players sitting at home on gameday. 

[Carolina Cajun]

9 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I'll do you one better.

Why in the world does the NFL insist demanding that every game, each team must designate seven players, all of whom are under contract, being paid, and presumably practiced and attended meetings just like all their teammates, who cannot participate in the game?

Forget just the 3rd string qb, the whole concept of the inactive list has always struck me as pointless. Yes the NFL has injuries, lots of them, but since the inactive list doesn't alter your overall roster size in any way, it's still 53, it serves no useful purpose.

dude, I've thought this for a while and Im shocked that the players didnt fight for this when they expanded to 17.  The active roster has desperately needed to be expanded for a while.

[csx]

8 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I'll do you one better.

Why in the world does the NFL insist demanding that every game, each team must designate seven players, all of whom are under contract, being paid, and presumably practiced and attended meetings just like all their teammates, who cannot participate in the game?

Forget just the 3rd string qb, the whole concept of the inactive list has always struck me as pointless. Yes the NFL has injuries, lots of them, but since the inactive list doesn't alter your overall roster size in any way, it's still 53, it serves no useful purpose.

The point of the inactive list is  due to injuries. It allows for each team to have the same number of available players.

 

If one team has 8 injured players and the other none then there is less pressure for teams to play guys who aren't ready to return.  It creates a status for injured players that is between playing and off the roster.

 

[csx]

7 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Should be all hands on deck with the expanded regular season.  There might have been some rational years ago for an inactive roster, but in today's multi-billion dollar NFL, it is hard to justify leaving any players sitting at home on gameday. 

Nothing has changed in regards to the reason it exists. It's as valid now as ever.

[NanuqoftheNorth]

Just now, csx said:

It's as valid now as ever.

Please, tell me more...

[csx]

6 minutes ago, Carolina Cajun said:

dude, I've thought this for a while and Im shocked that the players didnt fight for this when they expanded to 17.  The active roster has desperately needed to be expanded for a while.

It benefits the players more than anyone 

[csx]

Just now, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Please, tell me more...

Read my above post or read some of the more eloquently written explanations online 

[KillerKat]

3 hours ago, Shocker said:

This rule was definitely needed without question.  I can’t wait for some team to grab and extra cookie from the jar somewhere and ruin it for everyone else.  It feels like this is an extra roster spot at QB which is fine but someone will exploit this somehow.

Maybe this means 32 less free agents available in a crunch.  Interesting to see where this goes

But he still has to count towards the 53. I dont see how this helps that much.