Is it a given we are going to carry 3 QB's on our active roster?
 

I have seen a couple of NFL shows on TV where they were talking about teams 53 man rosters, and they have said more teams are going with only keeping 2 QB's on their active roster.

Last year in Green Bay, they only kept 2. Rodgers and Harrell.

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/gnb/2012.htm

I know there are a lot of Bray homers on this board, but given the direction the NFL seems to be going... and obviously Dorsey has already been part of an organization that has already done the same thing... is it a given we will keep 3 active? Or will we keep 2 and look for a practice squad 3rd string QB?

Yes

I think it'd be wise.

Alex takes a lot of sacks and Chase isn't that much of a QB...

QFT X 1,000,000

KC needs to keep 3 QBs on the active roster.

If we aren't gonna keep bray on the 53, I'd play him the whole game Thursday, then in about the 4th quarter, he'd get "injured" and I'd designate him to the injured list.

Wouldn't mess with the practice squad

It would be stupid as **** not to have 3 qbs on this team. They need to have developmental QBs on the roster every year and have a system in place to develop young QBs.

I didn't even know that this was questionable. I mean, they surely are carrying 3, right?

I'm not sure how they can't. Bray won't make it through waivers to the practice squad.

Kind of like what we did with Tannay last year.

I'm not sure. I know we have been conditioned to always having 3.

On games days though or 3rd stringer is usually inactive, IIRC. I could be wrong on that, but it seems to me that Stanzi was always inactive when Cassel was healthy.

I could see us going 2 active and having a practice squad QB, Bray or someone else.

There are teams out there that have deeper QB rosters than we do that are going to have to be released in all likelihood that will be snatched up to an active roster quicker than Bray would.

So I am not sure if we automatically go with 3 active. I tend to think we will, but won't be shocked if we don't either.

Just because we have 3 people listed as QBs doesn't mean we have 3 QBs. There is only one true QB on our roster and his name is Bray. GAY FOR BRAY WOOOOOOOO

If this happens, Bray couldn't practice at all for the entire season could he?

If you have a franchise type QB that does not get injured (i.e. Green Bay & Rodgers or NY Giants & Manning) you can get away with only carrying 2 QBs on your roster.

However if you have a starting QB with a history of injury (i.e. KC & Smith) or you have a front office that is overly invested in keeping the starting QB as the starting QB (i.e. KC & Cassel or KC & Grbac) you need to carry 3 QBs on the active roster.

Wasn't Stanzi inactive last season? Which meant we only had 2 QB's on game day.

If Smith were to go down, you bring up your practice squad guy the next week. :shrug:

He couldn't until week 6 when you decide what to do as far as taking him off it etc, but you could at least hide him until then.

He won't make it they waivers though so I'd say he's the 3rd qb one way or another

Being on the 53 and being inactive can both happen, you don't dress all 53 guys

See below.

O is correct, Bray would not make it through waivers.

I see.

I understand that.

I just don't think it's a given we will carry 3 QB's.

What about Stanzi? We must keep all four, no way they can cut him after investing all of this time in training him.

I kind of disagree but not like strongly disagree just kind of disagree. I think Bray could pass waivers because he hasn't done that much and I've seen other team backups do much better. All though with injuries like the Bills, QBs are always a prime target to get off of waivers. I just don't think Bray has done all that much to impress anyone so far. I think he is a Chiefsfan hopeful thinking he will be good prospect.

Heh

They used to let you have a 3rd QB as a designated emergency QB that would not count against your game day 'dress' roster. Though if he came in before the 4th Qtr the other two QBs cannot re enter the game. Not sure why they did away with that rule.

LMAO


and to the OP.


Yes, they will keep three.

The obvious point is that if you look at the depth of the roster, who are you going to justify keeping over him?

A 6th receiver? another cb? they are positions on the team that are embarrassingly thin after the first two at receiver, and after the first three at cb.

3 qbs
3 rbs
1fb
3tes
5 wrs
8 OL

6 DL
8lbs
5 cbs
5 safeties

1 kicker
1 punter

1 ls

that's 50, as a bare minimum.

Problem is, it might not be a qb needy team snatch him up.

The cardinals or bears or whoever that's looking for a developmental guy could easily claim him

EDIT: THE INFORMATION BELOW IS WORTHLESS. ENJOY

My recollection is that the 'inactive 3rd QB' is inactive in name only.

The distinction is that if you play him in that game, the other 2 QBs cannot go back into the game.

So if you have your #3 QB active on gamedays and Smith cuts a finger and needs stitches then Daniel gets knocked out of the game, you can put Bray in for a series and put Smith back in when the stitches get put finished up. However, if you have your #3 QB as the 'inactive' 3rd QB that day and the same scenario occurs, you have a decision to make - do you try to roll with Jamaal Charles taking snaps and running the wildcat for a series so you can bring Smith back into the game when he's ready? Or do you trot Bray out there, take the 'inactive' tag off him and preclude Smith from returning.

Someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong, but I'm almost 100% certain that's how the inactive 3rd QB works.

Yes it is a given.

Hell, the bills would probably snag him at this point.

They are starting some udfa named Tuel the last preseason game, and probably week one.

There are several other teams I could see snatch him up.

Sf being one as well believe it or not.

He has a lot of skills. Cleveland Doesn't have a developmental qb on its roster right now either.

Looks like Pred is right:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...s-on-game-day/

Well I agree - that's pretty stupid to do away with it. Though it looks like the trade-off was granting each team an additional active roster spot for gamedays, from 45 to 46. Most teams don't activate a 3rd QB with that roster spot, it would appear.

I'd still keep 3 QBs.

Awwe that is a good point indeed. The Cards would be of need to develop guys after Carson Palmer debut album is a flop.

I remember Chiefs having Cassel, Quinn and Stanzi

I think it is safe to say we weren't carrying any QB's

Oh we carried Cassel alright. Carried him to a 60 million dollar career.

we keep three up, yes. simply because this staff happens to be looking for the QBOTF as Smiff isn't going to play too much longer. If I were them, I'd push Bray like a rented mule -- if he breaks, time to cut ties and find the next.