Would you prefer a 3rd qb on roster or ps?

[SantaClaraHawk]

The cons to rostering now is that we’d have to spend a spot. The pros are that we could dress The inactive as a emergency qb.

Id prefer we do this playoff time when there usually is some guy who could be ir

 

[kidhawk]

For me it would depend on team health. We may need depth in other areas depending on which players are healthy. If we get to a point we need a third quarterback the odds of winning drop dramatically already whereas having depth for other positions improves our odds somewhat. I could see a situation where we have Geno hurting but still playing where it might become needed but not week in and week out.

 

[FrodosFinger]

Practice squad. Pete never rolls with 3 as the coaches know it is a waste of a roster spot. Playoffs I’d rather have depth in the trenches

 

[Seahawks Guy]

The way I see it, if we are down to third string QB, the season has a high probability of being unsuccessful anyway.

 

[sutz]

The downside of the PS route is the limited callups, but like fender said, if you're depending on QB3 the season is probably toast anyway. The playoffs are a bit of a crap shoot as well and probably better having depth at other position groups, dependent on injuries during the season.

 

[Jegpeg]

The way I see it, if we are down to third string QB, the season has a high probability of being unsuccessful anyway.

49ers did OK with their 3rd string QB last season, (though did struggle with their 4th string)

With the change of rules difficult to know what teams will do, about half the teams had a 3rd QB in the 53 in the old system so being able to kit them up on game day is likely to tip the balance for a few more.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Just depends on how good Ragnar Lothbrok’s NFL bloodline is…

 

[Hawkspeed]

I voted PS.
We could use Defensive depth and having a quarterback that will not play is a mistake. I would prefer a rookie Defensive Lineman. A rookie DL could be rotated in every game and will learn by experience, but he would also contribute by keeping the defensive line "fresh" and un-fatigued.
Or, maybe another running back...

 

[hawkfan68]

The way I see it, if we are down to third string QB, the season has a high probability of being unsuccessful anyway.

Most likely true but IIRC, Brock Purdy started last season as San Francisco's 3rd string QB.

 

[flv2]

How often has a 3rd QB been needed in the last 10 years, (approx 2700 games)? How likely would having a 3rd QB have been in changing the outcome of those games? If you have a 3rd QB who has justified his spot on the active roster then the new rule is a very small plus. If you haven't got such a #3 QB I don't think there's enough upside in cutting a better player. If QB1 or QB2 is hurting then putting the #3 QB on the game day roster is something you'd probably do anyway.

The 2023 game day roster limit is 48 + #3 QB if on the 53-man active roster. That would only leave 4 inactive spots for injured players and developmental projects. I know this can be extended by 2 players with temporary promotions from the PS but that's only a short-term fix.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

I see little disadvantage in filling The roster spot with a qb3 once playoffs start. Most players on ir for the wc will not suddenly be ready for the sb, and if the team gets that far that‘s the dudes permanent replacement.

We likely have that spot to spare, more so as we advance. So then we use the emergency qb option to activate someone else.

 

[Jegpeg]

It also depends on how good our preseason QB3 is. Say Holton Ahlers shows some really good stuff. Not enough to cut Lock but showing signs of being a potential QBOTF. If we put him on the practice squad another team could snap him up. Then we could be crazy not to have 3 QBs on the roster.

 

[flv2]

The cons to rostering now is that we’d have to spend a spot. The pros are that we could dress The inactive as a emergency qb.

Id prefer we do this playoff time when there usually is some guy who could be ir

I haven't seen you post in ages, your profile appears to be shut-down, and the ability to start a conversation with you has been switched off. I did see that you had signed-in very recently. Just a quick post to say I hope you're doing well and that your posts are missed by myself and others, (even if I disagree with some of them).

 

[cymatica]

 

[Double Tribble]

Playoffs? Lol.

 

[Sperrydogg]

Right now we only have 3/4 of a quarterback

 

[Sperrydogg]

The way I see it, if we are down to third string QB, the season has a high probability of being unsuccessful anyway.

Like mt. Everest

 

[Sperrydogg]

Most likely true but IIRC, Brock Purdy started last season as San Francisco's 3rd string QB.

49ers don’t mess around though. They traded everything to draft Trey lance and still took purdy in the same draft

 

[Sperrydogg]

How often has a 3rd QB been needed in the last 10 years, (approx 2700 games)? How likely would having a 3rd QB have been in changing the outcome of those games? If you have a 3rd QB who has justified his spot on the active roster then the new rule is a very small plus. If you haven't got such a #3 QB I don't think there's enough upside in cutting a better player. If QB1 or QB2 is hurting then putting the #3 QB on the game day roster is something you'd probably do anyway.

The 2023 game day roster limit is 48 + #3 QB if on the 53-man active roster. That would only leave 4 inactive spots for injured players and developmental projects. I know this can be extended by 2 players with temporary promotions from the PS but that's only a short-term fix.

Browns this year
49ers last year when it really counted, that only took two seconds to think of and I didn’t even use google.
Cardinals
Depends on who you have too

 

[flv2]

Browns this year
49ers last year when it really counted, that only took two seconds to think of and I didn’t even use google.
Cardinals
Depends on who you have too

You should have read the post you were replying to before you replied to it.