Jump to content

Offseason Phase III - The Finite (Roster Space) War


RpMc

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Well, I'll believe they'll carry 2 QBs when I actually see it.  They haven't done so ever, so why expect it to change?  

They haven't done so ever? It was just a few years ago that they started the season with only two QBs on the active roster.

In 2017 when they announced the initial 53 man roster it was just Sam Bradford and Case Keenum.  They brought Sloter up to an active spot with Bradford injured most of the year to bring their roster back up to 2 active QBs on the 53.  There wasn't a third QB signed, was there?

In 2016 when they announced the initial 53 man roster it was just Shaun Hill and Sam Bradford.

It seems clear me me that they entertain the idea of having just 2 active QBs on the 53.

Edited by Cearbhall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

They haven't done so ever? It was just a few years ago that they started the season with only two QBs on the active roster.

In 2017 when they announced the initial 53 man roster it was just Sam Bradford and Case Keenum.  They brought Sloter up to an active spot with Bradford injured most of the year to bring their roster back up to 2 active QBs on the 53.  There wasn't a third QB signed, was there?

In 2016 when they announced the initial 53 man roster it was just Shaun Hill and Sam Bradford.

It seems clear me me that they entertain the idea of having just 2 active QBs on the 53.

I would agree that they should be considering just 2 QBs.  Cousins has shown to be a guy that doesn't miss games.  Sloter should be able to prove he is the number 2 QB.  Manion is the type of guy we can get off the street anytime if needed.

Edited by Snake Plissken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cearbhall said:

They haven't done so ever? It was just a few years ago that they started the season with only two QBs on the active roster.

In 2017 when they announced the initial 53 man roster it was just Sam Bradford and Case Keenum.  They brought Sloter up to an active spot with Bradford injured most of the year to bring their roster back up to 2 active QBs on the 53.  There wasn't a third QB signed, was there?

In 2016 when they announced the initial 53 man roster it was just Shaun Hill and Sam Bradford.

It seems clear me me that they entertain the idea of having just 2 active QBs on the 53.

In 2017, they had Teddy Bridgewater waiting in the wings, which is why they didn't sign another QB late in the season (and even at one point had 4 QBs on the roster when Teddy came back)

In 2016, they likely would have had 3, had Teddy not gotten injured prior to the season and they did get Heinicke back later in the season.  

I do consider the 2016 season as an exception to the rule, in the fact that they did truly have 2 well-experienced veterans in Bradford and Hill.  In this situation, only Cousins has any extensive experience, so I fully expect them to carry 3 QBs, regardless of Cousins' durability.  They carried 3 last year despite Cousins' durability, I can't imagine it'll be any different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swede700 said:

I personally just only see them carrying 3 and keeping 1 on the practice squad, just because of the sheer number of roster spots...if you keep 4 TEs then someone's going to have to come off the defense (in my scenario it's 25-25) because I think they'd want to keep 10 OL (but I suppose they could manage to keep just 9 because of the flexibility)...and we know how Zim likes to have depth available on his defense.  In the power struggle on roster spots, the HC is going to win. 

Carrying 3 TEs still shouldn't have a huge impact on the amount of 2 TE sets you can run.  For an example, even in the Broncos Super Bowl run, Kubiak only carried 3 TEs: Owen Daniels, Vernon Davis, and Virgil Green.  With CJ Ham already in the fold as a FB (which Denver didn't have), they can get away with only have 3 TEs (Denver carried 6 WRs).

With surplus of TEs, could easily keep only 5 WRs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, swede700 said:

In 2017, they had Teddy Bridgewater waiting in the wings, which is why they didn't sign another QB late in the season (and even at one point had 4 QBs on the roster when Teddy came back)

Yeah, Teddy was on the team but he wasn't eligible to play until after week 6 and it wasn't clear if he would have been ready to be activated right away.  But yeah, he was there.

I am just saying that if they were unwilling to consider just two active QBs on the roster as an option they wouldn't have went large chunks of recent seasons with just two. They wouldn't have started seasons with just two active QBs on the roster.

And specifically, I was responding to you making a statement that they haven't ever done it. You used that statement to suggest that they wouldn't.  The problem that I was responding to was that statement is an outright false statement to support your argument. We don't even have to have a memory that goes back many years to find counterexamples.  Maybe it is an exception, but you did use the word "ever".  There shouldn't be exceptions to that.

I don't really care to argue about it as I don't have a real side in the argument of whether they should go with just two QBs or three. My only objective was to clear up the false premise of your case.  There are plenty of sensible arguments to make for carrying three QBs that are rooted in truth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to argue about it either, because my memory apparently isn't that great either, because I didn't even remember that they only had 2 to start those seasons, so you were right about that.  xD

It just seems like so often they generally choose to have 3, even when we think they should go with only 2.  For me, in this instance, I'd personally probably go with 3 too, just because I don't have any trust in any of the backups to just pick one of them and go with them as the sole backup.  

Edited by swede700
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth here is what Kubiak had on his roster as an OC or HC since 2003. If he has any say it might lean towards having only 2 QBs based on what he's done in the past.

Offensive Coordinator Denver Broncos:

2003: Steve Beurelein, Danny Kannell, Jake Plummer, and Jarious Jackson

2004: Jake Plummer

2005: Jake Plummer and Bradlee Van Pelt

Head Coach Houston Texans

2006: David Carr and Sage Rosenfels

2007 and 2008: Matt Schaub and Sage Rosenfels

2009: Matt Schaub and Rex Grossman

2010: Matt Schaub and Dan Orlovsky

2011(games started): Matt Schaub (10), Matt Leinert (1), TJ Yates (5), Jake Delhomme (0)

2012: Matt Schaub and TJ Yates

2013: Matt Schaub, Case Keenum, and TJ Yates

Offensive Coordinator Baltimore Ravens:

2014: Joe Flacco and Tyrod Taylor

Head Coach Denver Broncos:

2015: Peyton Manning, Brock Osweiler, and Trevor Siemian

2016: Trevor Siemian and Paxton Lynch

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swede700 said:

For me, in this instance, I'd personally probably go with 3 too, just because I don't have any trust in any of the backups to just pick one of them and go with them as the sole backup. 

Great, with that misconception cleared up, here are the actual reasons that I see to go with three QBs...

A leading reason that I wouldn't go with two on the roster and one on the practice squad is owing to the fact that having a QB poached from the practice squad stinks. QBs know all of the play book and if signed by another team they (should) have knowledge of more than just their assignment on a given play.  This makes leaving one exposed to other teams to poach extra dangerous.

And to the argument that Cousins is durable, I agree that his durability would make it easier to carry just two. However, his lack of long(er) term contractual commitment to the team is more of the reason for carrying a third developmental QB than thoughts of the third guy needing to play this year.  The team needs to be trying to find and develop a starter of the future until they already have a starter of the future under contract.  In fact, I would consider going with four QBs on the roster if the team had enough developmental options that look to be progressing around.

Also, a third QB is important to have on the roster to runt he scout team IMO.  That QB needs to be studying the habits of opposing teams and trying to emulate that to give the defense the most relevant practice possible in the weak leading up to a game. I don't want my backup QB worrying about that as I want his head to be into the Vikings game plan so that he'll be prepared to step in right away if needed. A backup that knows the other team's tendencies isn't really useful in a game where all his teammates have been practicing the Vikings game plan.

There are probably other reasons as well. Whether these reasons justify using a valuable roster spot depends on personal philosophy.

Edited by Cearbhall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RpMc said:

A practice squad QB still practices with the team... and can run scout team. 

True, but but you either need to put him on your full roster or accept the risk that he'll sign with another team that is willing. If the guy is not too promising that is probably an acceptable risk.

But I would rather have a promising QB to develop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

True, but but you either need to put him on your full roster or accept the risk that he'll sign with another team that is willing. If the guy is not too promising that is probably an acceptable risk.

But I would rather have a promising QB to develop. 

I don't think the Vikes really have a promising QB to develop though, which makes it harder to justify keeping a third QB for the purposes of developing. Sloter and Mannion are very underwhelming options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

True, but but you either need to put him on your full roster or accept the risk that he'll sign with another team that is willing. If the guy is not too promising that is probably an acceptable risk.

But I would rather have a promising QB to develop. 

With Browning being the only realistic practice squad option, I’m fine with that risk. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the back up QBs:

Sloter--if he can't earn the #2 QB spot, we really don't have much with him.

Manion-- Replaceable free agent

Browning--UDFA/practice squad

 

We could lose all 3 and probably have them replaced with similar talent by the end of the day with a few phone calls.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2019 at 10:01 AM, Cearbhall said:

It seems clear me me that they entertain the idea of having just 2 active QBs on the 53.

Realistically, there's not much of a reason to carry QB3 unless you have someone you're developing.  The odds of you losing 2 QBs in the same game are virtually non-existent, so he's a healthy scratch on a good day.  But if your starting QB goes down for an extended period, you're looking to add another QB to the roster.  But most of the time that happens, you're going to be looking at the end of your season anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

The odds of you losing 2 QBs in the same game are virtually non-existent, 

from the Oliver Stone movie, Any Given Sunday:

  • QB1 (MVP Rooney) gets hurt in game..
  • QB2 {Cherubini) goes in and gets hurt on first play...
  • Coach: "Cherubini's hurt now!"
  • Team Doc: "What'd he do, fall off the bench?"
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.

×
×
  • Create New...