No. 3 QB

3rd QBs usually aren't expected to play anyway. Hell, they're the only member of the 53 man roster who is rendered inactive by definition. So keeping a third guy you don't expect to play isn't a big deal. Moreover, as I keep explaining, there is a rule where if you have 3 QBs on your roster, you can then add a QB to the practice squad without using up one of the spaces. I imagine this might actually lead them to keep LeFors and then try to put Basanez on the practice squad.

It is possible that they could go with just 2 guys, but I don't really see a reason for it since the replacement would just be inactive anyway, and you'd have one less player on the practice squad.

 

If either had to play in a game, sure I'd care that one of them would play adequately to get us through that game. Of course, Weinke would have to get hurt also, and both are very, very durable.

So the question is more of a "would you expect either to be decent as a momentary replacement this year?" and "does either have a shot at having a future here?" and since both have shorter contracts than both Weinke and Delhomme, one would have to show a lot to stay around. Chances are, with Weinke signed, they will play with projects for a few years before seriously grasping at getting Jake's heir apparent, and even then that player will probably not play right off.


It's not that I don't care entirely, but I don't think it'll matter. Just like Bush, and Shelton, and Ciurciu/Adams, and whatever else. You'd rather see the guy with potential stick, but if he's inactive all year, does it really bear weight, hold water, chop wood, rolf on the flour, or long for the snapper?

to get back to Bush, for instance: he's been allright. Let's say he makes it, and is 5th CB. Let's say he's active for two games if Howard's dinged. Regardless of whether Marshall is nickel or Howard is, the other will make the team and backup CB effectively. Bush would rarely dress and not likely play anything but ST if he did. If Howard's gone next year, Bush would still have to compete with another CB we'd bring in, since he'd not really earned 4th CB, which of course doesn't play that much anyway.

The only time in a while that I can remember us playing a 4th CB regularly was when Gamble and Hawkins were both hurt in 04 and Trgovac was foolish enough to play Wesley in man against the Raiders so we could bring 8 against Collins (which really isn't an awful call, but you can't expect Wesley to cover in man for a number of plays and not get burnt).

 

How 'bout 3rd string tailbacks, they are'nt EXPECTED to play either. But Nick Goings got plenty of action last year. Heck, even Rod Smart got some action.

 

Hmm. Never heard of that rule. Not saying its not true.

Frankly, I don't think getting 9 on the PS is that important. I'd keep only 2 this year. The spots on the 53 are more of a premium this year than any other I remember.

 

It does not really matter but I vote for Bas. I liked the way he led that last drive to set up the win. In the worst case scenerio I would rather have him on the field than Lefors. On top of that I think he shows more potential. Lefors is probably too short and Bas has a stronger arm.

 

yeah, that's pretty much it in a nut shell for me too.

 

And when is the last time our 3rd quarterback saw action? Randy Fasani came in for a handful of plays in 2002. You're comparing apples and oranges, because the #3 RB gets at least some carries (and often contributes on special teams) pretty much every season for almost every team in the league.

Just out of curiosity, are you asking these questions because you're genuinely interested or because you're trying to give me a hard time? If it's the former, I'll gladly attempt to answer them despite our past, but if it's the latter then please just save us both the trouble.


Ide:
Yeah, it's a fairly new rule that I didn't know about until reading about it recently. And in regards to PS vs. active, like I said, whoever would replace the 3rd QB is just going to be inactive anyway. So you have the same number of inactives, and you lose a spot on the practice squad.

 

I'm asking the questions because I am genuinely interested , hence, I started the thread.
I am only responding to answers given that leave place for opinion. If you would have simply answered Lefors or Basanez without going into detail there would be no need for discussion.

 

.

 

You protect a player who could turn out to be very good, like McClover, from being claimed. I don't care if he's inactive. I care that we have him for years, assuming he develops.