Should We Carry A 3rd QB?

[Sect140]

Why wouldn’t all teams carry the third QB back for games? Isn’t the third QB just an emergency QB in case the starter and backup get injured? If we designate Malik as the third QB he can’t play any other position, so we couldn’t use him as a receiver or running back.

 

[Brandon_Cox]

Could he turn out to be a mix between Kyler and Lamar? Maybe.

Who he kinda reminds me of is Tyler Huntley of the Ravens. If he turns out to be that good, I would be ecstatic.

 

[Kasmir]

It makes sense to keep him, even if he is transitioning into a wr. I know some of you think that by looking good against 5th stringers who will be working at McDonald’s in 3 weeks he is the qb of the future, but let’s pump the breaks a bit on that. But it offers a good way to keep him around.

Let's get serious here: if Malik's only NFL prospect is as a WR, there is no way he should be on the 53. That's practice squad at best.

The waiver risk with him is that one or more teams will seem him as a viable candidate to be QB2 or QB3 in a dual threat offense. Given the injury risk from rushing, it makes a ton of sense that if you are committing to dual threat offense in the NFL, you need backup dual threat QB's on your roster and certainly on your practice squad.

 

[p8ryts]

It makes sense to keep him, even if he is transitioning into a wr. I know some of you think that by looking good against 5th stringers who will be working at McDonald’s in 3 weeks he is the qb of the future, but let’s pump the breaks a bit on that. But it offers a good way to keep him around.

True, but I would like to see some effort into seeing how much he could improve and maybe you could strike gold. However, I was a big Michael Bishop guy so I would be skeptical of anything I say.

 

[stcjones]

A 3rd QB can now be active if both the other QB's are injured. This an extra active player. The NFL also has a provision for an extra OL being on the Active Game Roster.

In the case of Cunningham, I would say definitely yes… I would cut McSorley and keep Cunningham… He could run the wildcat… He could fill in at wide receiver… And if need be, he could come in as a quarterback… Very versatile player I would think for BB

 

[sarge]

Definitely,

Yeah, yeah we all know it was against guys who likely won't make the roster (some of you love patting yourselves on the by stating the bleeding obvious), but the kid can only face who he is put out there against and he made the most of his opportunity. And those scrubs were kicking the crap out of McSorly so I think he has definitely earned the right to compete for QB3 at the very least.

What I specifically liked was based on the head movement it really did look like he was going through his progressions. He most definitely would find running against a teams number one's considerably more difficult.

That pass that was dropped. Don't care if it was backups or not, the window was miniscule and he put it on the money while on the run. Was it luck??? Maybe. I don't know. I do know based on what he has done with the opportunity he was given he has earned the right to compete.

 

[Thelonious]

In part because of a recent shift in draft philosophy, we have more "athletic players with potential" on the roster than we used to. If we are to captialize on this (welcome) change in draft philosophy, we must have the courage to hold on to these players to see if they really can develop. The ones who demonstrate real potential in camp have to be on the roster. The practice squad might work, but there are very real risks that you might lose them trying to get them to the p-squad. In this sort of situation, faced with a choice between "Oh well. he'll do" and "Not a lot of use now but could be great," a team on the rebuild, which we very much are, should err on the side of the latter. Keeping Zappe on the roster, for example, would be foolish in the present context, and in light of the new emphasis on (athletic) potential. Keeping Malik makes far better sense. McSorley is a no-go. Put another way, we are simply not yet a team good enough to pass on the sort of potential these guys, Malik very much included, offer.

If you keep Cunningham as your back-up-under-development (which is what I would do), would it really make sense also to hold onto to Zappe "just to be safe," depriving a player with promising upside a spot at some other position? I don't think so, not at all.

 

[jdlboot14]

I'm on record that I'd rather get a standard vet QB as a #2, and keep Malik as the E#3 QB just to develop for a year and see.
I don't think Zappe is really a legit future, so what's the point in carrying him when we already need to find out if Mac is the true future?
Get one of the Gabbert's / Dalton's of the league at cut downs just to be a steady voice and a serviceable backup if needed.
If Mac fails, or gets hurt for significant time this year, they're starting over next year again anyway (unless Malik becomes a Brady)

 

[p8ryts]

I'm on record that I'd rather get a standard vet QB as a #2, and keep Malik as the E#3 QB just to develop for a year and see.
I don't think Zappe is really a legit future, so what's the point in carrying him when we already need to find out if Mac is the true future?
Get one of the Gabbert's / Dalton's of the league at cut downs just to be a steady voice and a serviceable backup if needed.
If Mac fails, or gets hurt for significant time this year, they're starting over next year again anyway (unless Malik becomes a Brady)

Gabbert, ugh. Dalton maybe.

 

[Wozzy]

We don't get to see everything the coaches see in practice, but based off what Malik did at QB he deserves a further look I guess.

He didn't catch a single pass or play a single special teams snap... which would have been nice. Maybe his future is at RB, he looks good running with the ball in his hands. If he could give us snaps elsewhere, justifying his roster spot would make more sense.

He was a 62% career passer at Louisville at 8.8 YPA, not amazing but better than Lamar Jackson's 57% completions and 8.3 YPA. He's a better passer than Lamar, he's just nowhere near the runner even if he is a good runner, he's just not as fast.

He could possibly become a dual threat QB, but he has limits as a passer. I see good backup at best... but could be wrong. I have been before, when guys put in the work and improved. If he could play RB or WR he could be a unique weapon who could run wildcat effectively.

 

[n6249c]

We don't get to see everything the coaches see in practice, but based off what Malik did at QB he deserves a further look I guess.

He didn't catch a single pass or play a single special teams snap... which would have been nice. Maybe his future is at RB, he looks good running with the ball in his hands. If he could give us snaps elsewhere, justifying his roster spot would make more sense.

He was a 62% career passer at Louisville at 8.8 YPA, not amazing but better than Lamar Jackson's 57% completions and 8.3 YPA. He's a better passer than Lamar, he's just nowhere near the runner even if he is a good runner, he's just not as fast.

He could possibly become a dual threat QB, but he has limits as a passer. I see good backup at best... but could be wrong. I have been before, when guys put in the work and improved. If he could play RB or WR he could be a unique weapon who could run wildcat effectively.

I was thinking wildcat. Could be a very dangerous change of pace.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

A 3rd QB can now be active if both the other QB's are injured. This an extra active player. The NFL also has a provision for an extra OL being on the Active Game Roster.

Sure, so we can go ahead and keep Jones

 

[RobertWeathers]

On the 96 team Parcells had a kid by the name of Ray Lucas. QB out of Rutgers. On that team he was essentially the 4th QB behind Drew, Zo and Tupa. Lucas was a core STer in 96.

I don't see McSorley on this team. My hope is Malik develops as a backup QB but can also be stretched to run the ball, learn some routes and participate on special teams.

If he does that it justifies him being on the active roster on game days as a QB3.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Yes absolutely. If Millen and Hodsen get hurt we need a back-up.

 

[Kontradiction]

No. Too many other depth needs at different positions to carry 3 QBs. Keep whoever wins the battle between Zappe and Cunningham.

 

[Nunchucks]

Cunningham should be the 3rd qb, except on game day. On game day he should be the number 2 with zappe as 3.

That way he can come in for a few snaps a game. If Mac gets hurt, Cunningham could develop a calf strain and get knocked out of the game

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

If Mac gets hurt

Sooner the better

Yes absolutely. If Millen and Hodsen get hurt we need a back-up.

What about the Flutie kid whom we'd pay much less than Millen? Nope, he's too short.

On the 96 team Parcells had a kid by the name of Ray Lucas. QB out of Rutgers. On that team he was essentially the 4th QB behind Drew, Zo and Tupa. Lucas was a core STer in 96.

Do we give Belichick enough credit for carrying four QB's in 2000? Rehbein was sky high on the Brady kid, and Tom definitely showed promise when he played in preseason. But Brady was going to warm the bench, and indeed the only action he got was in the Thanksgiving blowout in Motown.

True, but I would like to see some effort into seeing how much he could improve and maybe you could strike gold. However, I was a big Michael Bishop guy so I would be skeptical of anything I say.

What you had going for you was Drew was fundamentally flawed. His very real and good production got you wins, as Eason did to a lesser extent, but the ceiling was hard and impenetrable. All of the hoopla and pressure to play a first rounder around Eason, Bledsoe (and Jones) is eaten up by media and coaches, which often (as in these cases) caused fans and perceptive observers to bang their heads against the wall in frustration, to the extent they're rooting for the team to win.

You weren't as far off as you think. Bledsoe had to go, if we were going anywhere. Comparison in my mind is Joe Thornton from the Bruins. Productive, but not part of a Cup equation.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

This is relevant - has to be on the 53 to be eligible to be the emergency QB.

One hour and 30 minutes prior to kickoff, each club is required to establish its Active List for the game by notifying the Referee of the players on its Inactive List for that game. Each club may also designate one emergency third quarterback from its 53-player Active/Inactive List (i.e., elevated players are not eligible for designation) who will be eligible to be activated during the game, if the club's first two quarterbacks on its game day Active List are not able to participate in the game due to injury or disqualification (activation cannot be a result of a head coach's in-game decision to remove a player from the game due to performance or conduct). If either of the injured quarterbacks is cleared by the medical staff to return to play, the emergency third quarterback must be removed from the game and is not permitted to continue to play quarterback or any other position, but is eligible to return to the game to play quarterback if another emergency third quarterback situation arises.
A club is not eligible to use these procedures if it carries three quarterbacks on its game day Active List [47- or 48-players in 2023].

 

[PATS16N0]

The only reason they drafted Mac Jones was because they knew sensible people would hate him as the first QB trying to stand in Tom Brady’s spot.

Zappe is way more fun to watch than Mac Jones pouting and making horror-movie faces when he gets sacked. Zappe Traaaaaaaaaaain. Malik #2. Jones to the Broncos for a 4th.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

This is relevant - has to be on the 53 to be eligible to be the emergency QB.

One hour and 30 minutes prior to kickoff, each club is required to establish its Active List for the game by notifying the Referee of the players on its Inactive List for that game. Each club may also designate one emergency third quarterback from its 53-player Active/Inactive List (i.e., elevated players are not eligible for designation) who will be eligible to be activated during the game, if the club's first two quarterbacks on its game day Active List are not able to participate in the game due to injury or disqualification (activation cannot be a result of a head coach's in-game decision to remove a player from the game due to performance or conduct). If either of the injured quarterbacks is cleared by the medical staff to return to play, the emergency third quarterback must be removed from the game and is not permitted to continue to play quarterback or any other position, but is eligible to return to the game to play quarterback if another emergency third quarterback situation arises.
A club is not eligible to use these procedures if it carries three quarterbacks on its game day Active List [47- or 48-players in 2023].

Good find!

It would make sense then to keep either Cunningham or McSorley on the 53 man roster. Of course if both Mac and Zappe go down, I doubt they are winning the game anyways, but since Edelman is no longer around, you need a third option at QB.

A more interesting scenario would be to list Cunningham as QB2 and make Zappe the emergency QB. Leaving Cunningham available for WR and ST duties.