Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

NFL Approves Emergency QB

Carolina Cajun

By Carolina Cajun,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

jfra78 Grand Master

jfra78

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

That is a lie!

 

I said he would be the 3rd QB behind Darnold and that he probably wants a chance to compete for a starting job on another team that gives him a better opportunity.

 

That's when people started talking about how he might can compete with BY for the starting job. Like I said this sub gives me a good laugh. 

 

SB_P1_68_-_Two-Face.jpg

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
csx Grand Master

csx

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Shocker said:

This rule was definitely needed without question.  I can’t wait for some team to grab and extra cookie from the jar somewhere and ruin it for everyone else.  It feels like this is an extra roster spot at QB which is fine but someone will exploit this somehow.

Maybe this means 32 less free agents available in a crunch.  Interesting to see where this goes

I believe if you read any article explaining the rule your fears would subside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1of10Charnatives Mentor

1of10Charnatives

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Carolina Cajun said:

So I saw the story going around about them allowing an emergency qb after the 49ers had to use McCaffery briefly at QB then going back to a guy who legitimately couldn't throw.

I mention this because I think this all but guarantees that the panthers will keep Corral on the roster at least.  If you're gonna have your inactive list, why not narrow that inactive list down by one and allow for the 3rds string QB in emergency without worrying about losing an active day roster spot.  Anyone else get that feeling after seeing that this rule change happened?

I'll do you one better.

Why in the world does the NFL insist demanding that every game, each team must designate seven players, all of whom are under contract, being paid, and presumably practiced and attended meetings just like all their teammates, who cannot participate in the game?

Forget just the 3rd string qb, the whole concept of the inactive list has always struck me as pointless. Yes the NFL has injuries, lots of them, but since the inactive list doesn't alter your overall roster size in any way, it's still 53, it serves no useful purpose.

  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NanuqoftheNorth Grand Master

NanuqoftheNorth

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

... the whole concept of the inactive list has always struck me as pointless. Yes the NFL has injuries, lots of them, but since the inactive list doesn't alter your overall roster size in any way, it's still 53, it serves no useful purpose.

Should be all hands on deck with the expanded regular season.  There might have been some rational years ago for an inactive roster, but in today's multi-billion dollar NFL, it is hard to justify leaving any players sitting at home on gameday. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carolina Cajun Veteran

Carolina Cajun

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I'll do you one better.

Why in the world does the NFL insist demanding that every game, each team must designate seven players, all of whom are under contract, being paid, and presumably practiced and attended meetings just like all their teammates, who cannot participate in the game?

Forget just the 3rd string qb, the whole concept of the inactive list has always struck me as pointless. Yes the NFL has injuries, lots of them, but since the inactive list doesn't alter your overall roster size in any way, it's still 53, it serves no useful purpose.

dude, I've thought this for a while and Im shocked that the players didnt fight for this when they expanded to 17.  The active roster has desperately needed to be expanded for a while.

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
csx Grand Master

csx

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

I'll do you one better.

Why in the world does the NFL insist demanding that every game, each team must designate seven players, all of whom are under contract, being paid, and presumably practiced and attended meetings just like all their teammates, who cannot participate in the game?

Forget just the 3rd string qb, the whole concept of the inactive list has always struck me as pointless. Yes the NFL has injuries, lots of them, but since the inactive list doesn't alter your overall roster size in any way, it's still 53, it serves no useful purpose.

The point of the inactive list is  due to injuries. It allows for each team to have the same number of available players.

 

If one team has 8 injured players and the other none then there is less pressure for teams to play guys who aren't ready to return.  It creates a status for injured players that is between playing and off the roster.

 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
csx Grand Master

csx

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Should be all hands on deck with the expanded regular season.  There might have been some rational years ago for an inactive roster, but in today's multi-billion dollar NFL, it is hard to justify leaving any players sitting at home on gameday. 

Nothing has changed in regards to the reason it exists. It's as valid now as ever.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
csx Grand Master

csx

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Carolina Cajun said:

dude, I've thought this for a while and Im shocked that the players didnt fight for this when they expanded to 17.  The active roster has desperately needed to be expanded for a while.

It benefits the players more than anyone 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KillerKat Grand Master

KillerKat

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Shocker said:

This rule was definitely needed without question.  I can’t wait for some team to grab and extra cookie from the jar somewhere and ruin it for everyone else.  It feels like this is an extra roster spot at QB which is fine but someone will exploit this somehow.

Maybe this means 32 less free agents available in a crunch.  Interesting to see where this goes

But he still has to count towards the 53. I dont see how this helps that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carolina Cajun Veteran

Carolina Cajun

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, csx said:

It benefits the players more than anyone 

Eh, I think the players could have pushed for a full active roster and more flexible IR situation IE have like 3 or so Weekly IR positions to allow for healthier players and less forced use of injured players.  I mean Baseball in a much less physical sport has 15 day IR for short term injuries while the NFL is like a month long IR for "short term".

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Panthers Fan 69
      Canalas’ play calling next week

      By Panthers Fan 69 · Posted

      Who believes after Rico went off that Dave will go back to Chuba, go very pass happy again, run Chuba 7 times, and give Rico 5 carries?   he has a weird obsession with wanting to pass it over and over with Bryce. 
    • AceBoogie
      Any well functioning team benches Bryce

      By AceBoogie · Posted

      I never once said I believed in Sam. Only that he’s proof that the Jets and Panthers are bad organizations. You spent all that time on me. I’m flattered. 
    • CPcavedweller
      Any well functioning team benches Bryce

      By CPcavedweller · Posted

      Story of the year. Get down massively to Arizona, look like your first NFL game to throwing for more than 300 yards and getting the team to within 40 yards of a come back win. Get down 17-0 to Miami, execute the offense to outscore the Dolphins 27-7 the rest of the way. Defeat the Falcons 30-0 throwing for like 150 yards. Personally, I think it would be great to have retained Darnold. Darnold in this scheme with Canales would instantly make this team a contender for the NFC South. However that didn't happen.  I don't know what you do because when they run game gets shut down, and it will get shut down, you have to depend on Bryce to play efficiently. On one third down ball to someone (I forget who), when he was rolling out and made that throw close to the sideline to convert, the TV people would talking about how special that was. What I saw was another receiver streaking all alone 45 yards downfield, with about 5 yards of separation. Even while rolling out, an average QB is able to deliver that ball, signed, and sealed for a touchdown. Bryce's lack of deep ball ability is the achilles heel to this offense and it's something that can't be fixed.  I would love to be able to draft Carson Beck. I think he took a lot of crap at UGA which now seems unwarranted. Looking at how inefficient their offense is now compared to how it was with Beck at QB, and now how he has gone into the system Cam Ward was in and outperformed him massively in just pure execution and efficiency, along with the physical traits, tells me he will be a Top 3 pick. We won't have a Top 3 pick though. So what do we do? I have no idea. Canales is too good of an offensive coach for us to get a Top 3 pick and Bryce is inconsistent enough to get us a Top 10 pick. So absent finding a guy like Nix with tons of experience and good enough measurables, which requires great evaluations, I just think we are stuck. 
×
×
  • Create New...