NFL Approves Emergency QB

[NanuqoftheNorth]

16 minutes ago, csx said:

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

The inactive roster appears to be a mechanism used to limit player compensation and allow those with minor injuries to have a week or more off to heal up.

It would increase gameday flexibility to have everyone healthy enough to play suit up rather than have some sitting on their couches on Sunday.  Future contracts could be structured to take into account games where players aren't utilized beyond standing on the sidelines for compensation purposes.  An inactive roster could still exist to allow players to heal up for a few weeks or address personal issues if a team chooses to take advantage of it.

Edited May 23, 2023 by NanuqoftheNorth

[csx]

9 minutes ago, Carolina Cajun said:

Eh, I think the players could have pushed for a full active roster and more flexible IR situation IE have like 3 or so Weekly IR positions to allow for healthier players and less forced use of injured players.  I mean Baseball in a much less physical sport has 15 day IR for short term injuries while the NFL is like a month long IR for "short term".

I think it's fair to debate the parameters but it does serve a purpose and this purpose has been the justification of expanding rosters....not limiting them as some here are suggesting.

Players not being cut or put on IR or being forced to play injured because of a teams disadvantage in available players any given week serves the players best interest. 

I don't see why NFLPA would want to get rid of that. It benefits players. 

[1of10Charnatives]

1 hour ago, csx said:

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.

 

Thank you for skimming the first sentence of my post and then responding without reading the rest of it, where I addressed injuries. If you're going to respond to a post, please read the whole post. It wasn't even a long one.

[Gerry Green]

7 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Life hits you fast.

 

Just yesterday we were talking about Corral and Bryce battling it out for the starting position. Now we want him as an emergency QB.

 

This is why we click The Huddle for the daily laughs.

 

lol Man, you are willing to say anything ain'tcha. You were the ONLY one saying Matt was going to push Bryce. Then you got all huffy when folks started making fun of that line of thinking.

 

You couldn't even get Daltons name right. Dude, you were all over the place. 

 

Now, one day later. You're singing a different tune. smh

 

If you are going to throw wild statements out there. You have to live with the feedback.

 

Now go ahead and poo the post. I know you want to. 

[MHS831]

23 hours ago, csx said:

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

 

Imagine the Panthers are losing 43-0 and they are down to their second string QB.  That means, under no circumstance, could you pull him and insert the emergency QB to save him for the next game unless he was injured.  While not probable, you make rules if the situation is possible.  If they do not define "injured" you are going to see a lot fake injuries.

[Jackie Lee]

21 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Imagine the Panthers are losing 43-0 and they are down to their second string QB.  That means, under no circumstance, could you pull him and insert the emergency QB to save him for the next game unless he was injured.  While not probable, you make rules if the situation is possible.  If they do not define "injured" you are going to see a lot fake injuries.

Yeah stuff like cramping and ankle sprains are totally subjective, it's funny that it's the totally opposite of forcing players to get shot up with painkillers to finish the game which is the usual move

[Wes21]

On 5/22/2023 at 6:01 PM, Carolina Cajun said:

I dont know about teams with 3 qbs, but also this rule has never been in place so I think this is going to be a more common discussion among front offices.

This rule has existed before.  Many teams valued the roster spot more than they valued having an emergency QB, so they still carried 2 QBs on the 53 man roster.  So the rule died.

The 49ers are used as the poster child for why the rule is needed.  But the reality is that the 49ers most likely wouldn't have had a 3rd QB on the 53 man roster heading into the game.  Maybe I'm wrong.

[tukafan21]

I can't remember, did we ever have 3 QB's on the active 53 man roster last year or was one of them always on the IR until Baker was traded?

I do think we'll still keep Corral this year though because of this and part of it is because of Chinn, with him, we can easily carry 1 less defensive player somewhere as he can really play so many positions if needed.

Edited May 26, 2023 by tukafan21

[Jackie Lee]

3 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

I can't remember, did we ever have 3 QB's on the active 53 man roster last year or was one of them always on the IR until Baker was traded?

I do think we'll still keep Corral this year though because of this and part of it is because of Chinn, with him, we can easily carry 1 less defensive player somewhere as he can really play so many positions if needed.

Sam was on Ir for like the first half of the season, can't remember if we officially had all three guys on the 53 or if Baker was cut when Sam was activated