3 QB’s vs 2

Clonamery said:

Insurance is an investment. All of it is management of risk with a lean towards value because of the cap. By choosing only Hoyer as your insurance you are going with minimum value with barest minimum investment in following years. That's fine. Unless, the value of a young QB appears before you, say in Round 2 or 3. What do you do? Not invest in a purchase that will create a better insurance policy in year 2 than Hoyer? Perhaps like JG, the investment will be as good as or better than Hoyer in year 1.

Click to expand...

Hyped said:

Well, I buy the minimum insurance I can....because I like having cash in my pocket, LOL.

I hear yall though....just like I said above..I am ALL IN on the NOW. I want Brady to win as many games as possible before the end.

Click to expand...

Hyped said:

Well, I buy the minimum insurance I can....because I like having cash in my pocket, LOL.

I hear yall though....just like I said above..I am ALL IN on the NOW. I want Brady to win as many games as possible before the end.

Click to expand...

28222 said:

He made Jimmy the lone backup his rookie yr IIRC. More risky at Brady’s age for sure,but there are some thin positional groups that could use that roster spot. Will be interesting to see it play out.

Click to expand...

maineman209 said:

IOW, spending that one 2018 draft pick on a QB prospect for the future instead of on some other position - without knowing who those players may be or even what "other" position that might be - is likely to cost Brady future wins?

Click to expand...

Hyped said:

Let's look at it the Jimmy Garoppolo POV:

After JG was drafted..Jarvis Landry went next....Trai Turner went a few picks later..and Devonta Freeman went 2 rounds later... say we passed on JG...traded down for more picks and took Turner...then maybe don't need to take Mason or Thuney the next year.... who knows.

Basically, we got maybe a 30 pick return for JG (#62 pick 4 years ago to #34 now). When we could have taken another player or traded down.We trained him for 4 years and now the Niners will recoup all of that....

Click to expand...

maineman209 said:

Jimmy G in 2014.

Click to expand...

meatface said:

ooh your right, I forgot they traded Mallet at the end of the preseason.

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

For me, the best use of roster spots is to have FOUR wide receivers on the 53 man roster. I'm OK with 5 if the 5th is active to be a special teamer. We've had Amendola and now Patterson.

THE FIFTH WR
The 5th WR has totaled 47 receptions over the past TEN YEARS. That's a an average of 4.7 a year or an average of ONE catch every 3 or 4 games.

THE SIXTH WR
The 6th WR has a total of 16 receptions over the past 10 years or 1.6 per YEAR. This position is NOT a luxury. It is gross negligence to use a roster spot for a 6th WR.

FOUR WIDE RECEIVERS OR FIVE
If the 5th wide receiver is a special teamer, I can see carrying five. However, the total receptions for the #5 and #6 WR over the last 10 years has been 63 or 6.3 per year. That's not even one reception every 2 games. There were NO SEASONS where the total receptions for the #4 and #5 wide receivers was as much as ONE per game. I suspect that there is a better use of a roster spot than a position that averages one catch every 2-3 games.

AS AN ASIDE - THE FOURTH WR
averages less than one catch per game. All the backups TOTAL an average of 19 catches per season or a bit more than one catch per game.

OPTION 1
I suspect that all we need is FOUR WR's plus a one on the Practice Squad. That's plenty. Of course, we should have lots of WR's during camp and the pre-season. Injuries do happen, and sometimes players don't come back from injuries as fast as we would like.

OPTION 2 (the most likely)
Since our backup receivers are pretty good this year, and one is our KR, then I'm fine with 5 WR's on the 53. We really don't need any backup on the Practice Squad. However, it always a good idea to have one or two to develop for the future: say McCarran and/or anther.
===========
AS AN ASIDE
We could have the same analysis for the 4th TE, a 15th front seven player or whoever we might want to keep instead of the 3rd QB. My BOTTOM LINE is that we often do indeed have a better use for the roster spot than using it for a 3rd QB. However, a 3rd QB does not exactly put huge pressure on roster decisions.

Click to expand...