Comments on: NFL drops third quarterback rule, 46 active players on game day

By: miniditka

miniditka — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:20:23 +0000

Hi P. Allen Smith
First off since you scored a 7 on your football Wonderlic test, please stick with your Gardening books and TV Shows.
“Lovie Smith inserted No. 3 quarterback Caleb Hanie into the game just in time for him to hand … the Bears would have been without a quarterback for the rest of the game.”
If you were watching Todd Collins had thrown the game away despite a great performance by the Bear defense. At that point they had NO QB and NO SHOT at winning the game anyway.
It was because of this ridiculous rule that the Bears cut Dan LeFevour, a promising rookie from Central Michigan for a dead weight veteran,fearing rookie mistakes. UGGGGH, the NFL GM’s that lose cannot evaluate talent.

By: marima07

marima07 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 23:27:45 +0000

A coach that bungled his QB rotation is the cause of this rule change. What next?

How about for a coach that can’t manage the clock, the league allows his team to just finish the drive even if the clock runs out.

By: blackheld

blackheld — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:43:15 +0000

bears354 says: Jul 22, 2011 1:32 PM

Just a reminder, Cutler and Collins both got hurt. That’s why Hanie came in the game when he did. See what happens when you listen to a guy who hates the Bears and looks for any opportunity to get a dig in on them.

————————————————-

Dude, everyone hates the Bears. You wanna be loved, take one roll of duct tape, use it on Urlacher and Briggs’ mouths, and tape Cutler into a ballistic protection suit.

Oh, and tape Mike Martz’ playbook shut.

By: imjinbrdgr

imjinbrdgr — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:32:00 +0000

Players that aren’t active on game days do not have to be paid. Thats why they dress 45(46) not 53.

I also think Lovie deserves some slack for that move. As a Packer fan I was hoping for any circumstance that Collins could come back in the game. Did any of you actually watch how bad he was. Any body they would have put back there to take the snap would have been better.

By: time2speakup

time2speakup — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:58:34 +0000

I’ve said it before, and here it is again for the umpteenth and last time – and Yes I have heard it before, this logic behind each team dressing a fixed number supposedly being the fairest way to keep a level playing field in case of injury. I think the logic is flawed, and makes no sense. Here it is: if you have 53 players – dress them and play them. Every team has 53 – every team should dress them and play them, and designating a “fixed” number under 53 FOR WHATEVER REASON, just does not compute to me. Period.

By: titan40

titan40 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:27:02 +0000

Hanie should be a quarterback teams should look at. I mean, he did come close to leading the Bears in a comeback in the championship. I think he should be given a chance somewhere.

By: wetpaperbag2

wetpaperbag2 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:05:08 +0000

@BroncoNick :

That’s because you HAVEN’T heard everything yet. You and everyone else is getting bits and pieces of the entire process.

How would YOU know that the player “should be happy” with this deal? Because someone said on a news show that the players get 48% of the pie? What about health care? What about the injured reserve clauses? What about other roster exempt rules? What about salary cap rules that allow the teams to “manipulate” a contract to help it’s end but screw the player out of potential money? What about the rules on the franchise and transition tags? Have they changed as well?

The problem with this entire process is that BOTH sides have NOT given details on the ENTIRE CBA. Both sides seem more occupied about how each can make the other look bad in the eyes of the fans.

As Flava Flav once said, “Don’t believe the hype!”

By: hscorpio

hscorpio — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:00:22 +0000

I wish they had figured out a way to make it so no healthy players are forced to sit the game out. It seems rather crazy that NFL teams are giving healthy players on the active roster a check for games they cannot suit up to play because they were not part of the 45 man (now 46) game day roster.

By: thephantomstranger

thephantomstranger — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:53:39 +0000

I hope they don’t have a rule that you can’t have three third-string quarterbacks, because the Redskins would be screwed.

By: thephantomstranger

thephantomstranger — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:52:47 +0000

For most teams, having extra depth at another position will be more useful than the ability to insert the third quarterback into the game whenever they please.
_____________

I think this is a misunderstanding of the new rule. You don’t still have the chance to insert the 3rd QB if you don’t make him active. So if you choose the extra depth at another position you may get burned by not having enough depth at the QB position, which I think is a pretty important position.

By: lionfan419

lionfan419 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:51:08 +0000

Yes more Drew Stanton Dougie dances!!!!

By: tundey

tundey — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:51:05 +0000

You say “Smith’s decision to put Hanie in the game in the third quarter instead of waiting for the fourth meant that if Hanie had suffered an injury, the Bears would have been without a quarterback for the rest of the game.”…it doesn’t matter what point the game the 3rd string QB comes in. If he’s injured, you are SOL.

By: dickroy

dickroy — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:42:26 +0000

That 3rd Qback rule was stupid anyway!!

By: BroncoNick

BroncoNick — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:36:17 +0000

With everything I’ve heard I don’t understand how the players can’t be happy with this deal… sign it today!

By: bears354

bears354 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:32:14 +0000

By: dbellina

dbellina — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:27:42 +0000

This could have a big impact on teams that like to use the wildcat.

By: vikings2102

vikings2102 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:25:49 +0000

The rule in general is crap. If you have 53 players on the roster, you should be able to play 53 players (outside of injury of course). There is no need to not let them play!!

By: Deb

Deb — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:25:42 +0000

Ridiculous rule that needed to be dropped.

By: browniebuck

browniebuck — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:24:04 +0000

As a Canton resident…having the Hall of Fame game canceled SUCKS. It was always fun to have the blimp over my house for 3 or 4 hours during the game.

And…if it hasn’t been said enough as of yet, SIGN THE DAMN DEAL ALREADY!!!

By: wetpaperbag2

wetpaperbag2 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:22:29 +0000

@jersey73:

Unless you have seen the “original” CBA offer and the one that the owners “inserted items at the last minute”, you or anyone else cannot say one way or another who is getting screwed or who is just stalling.

Until the COMPLETE CURRENT owners offer and the player’s counter offer is displayed in full, no one…and I mean NO ONE can who is getting the better end of this deal.

By: zackwheat

zackwheat — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:20:26 +0000

I can’t wait for the whining from the first coach who only activates two QBs and sees them both go down in the same game. He’ll be screaming for another player to be added to the active roster.

By: mdnittlion

mdnittlion — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:19:41 +0000

@ supashug

Why is that so surprising, they changed the overtime rules in the playoffs, cause no one wanted to watch the Saints go to the Superbowl. Don’t forget Tom Brady getting hurt, which triggered rule change about how QB’s are protected. It’s not stupid it’s just how things are going to be in the future.

By: alphaq2

alphaq2 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:18:45 +0000

I feel like Donovan McNabb. I had no idea that rule even existed. Remember all the heat Cutler took for his toughness / sideline demeanor. Who knew he wasn’t even allowed to come back in the game?

By: laeaglefan

laeaglefan — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:18:30 +0000

I always thought that was a dumb rule anyway. It was wasting a roster spot for a player that wouldn’t even get in the game 95% of the time. Much better to be able to use that extra slot on a special teams player, or someone that may make a difference.

By: Mike Tomlin

Mike Tomlin — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:18:28 +0000

“Smith’s decision to put Hanie in the game in the third quarter instead of waiting for the fourth meant that if Hanie had suffered an injury, the Bears would have been without a quarterback for the rest of the game.”

And then what? Seriously what would they have to do? Fumblerooski every play?

By: fcs34

fcs34 — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:18:18 +0000

I won’t know what to think about this until some random, little known NFL player chimes in via twitter.

By: johnnyjagfan

johnnyjagfan — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:13:23 +0000

I like this! There’s now an availability for more flexibility in game planning.

By: capslockkey

capslockkey — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:12:40 +0000

Like it would have mattered if Hanie got hurt. The way Collins and Cutler were playing before coming out, they could have put in Brian Urlacher at QB and it would have produced the same results.

By: zaggs

zaggs — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:11:04 +0000

So now will we have Wildcat specific QB’s?

By: paulseiferth

paulseiferth — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:10:48 +0000

Let’s get the facts right. Cutler was out with his injury, we all know that. Todd Collins, the #2, suffered his own but not as well reported injury just before the end of the 3rd quarter. Which is why Hanie went in.