Eagles are 0-2 in their last two games. Browns are 1-1.
It would be insane not to bet everything on a Browns championship this season.
Three starters down in the first 10 minutes.
At least it’s a super important preseason game.
The Browns look like they have a big boy NFL defense. Weird.
Myles Garrett is looking like he’s justifying the hype from his draft now that he’s healthy. Dominant at times.
Two bits of news from Titletown, regarding the quarterback position:
-
Aaron Rodgers and the Packers have agreed to a 4 year, $137 million dollar contract extension, which could be worth as much as $180 million if Rodgers were to meet all incentives. The new contract, which, for the moment, makes Rodgers the highest-paid player in the league, will run through the 2023 season, at which point, Rodgers will be 40.
-
The Packers have traded backup QB Brett Hundley to the Seahawks, for a sixth-round pick in 2019. Hundley was unimpressive in replacing the injured Rodgers last year, and apparently didn’t look particularly good in this preseason. The trade leaves DeShone Kizer and undrafted free agent rookie Tim Boyle as Rodgers’ backups for this year.
I never seem to understand why NFL teams ever carry 3 QB’s on their roster. If your starter goes down, you’re usually screwed, unless you happen to have a pretty good backup, which is rare enough. If you do, great, then he plays instead and hopefully you win some games. If he goes down also, then you are truly screwed, and any guy you have as a 3rd QB isn’t going to be any better than someone you pluck from another team’s practice squad or off the street, right?
OK, so QB3 knows your system/playbook. But the marginal play I’ve seen from QB3’s when they’ve been pressed into service over the years leads me to believe that is not much of an advantage over almost any other warm body that’s played QB in the league for any length of time.
Why not just go with 2 QB’s and gain an extra roster spot? I know a lot of teams do this, but many still cling to having 3 QB’s when it doesn’t seem to represent any type of increase in chances of winning games. Why?
The 3rd QB can run the scout team while the second one gets prepared to oppose, not imitate, that week’s opponent if he has to suddenly come in. You’re right that he’s rarely going to get into a game, but that’s true of most of the end of the bench - they make the team for special-teams and practice contributions instead. Who’s to say a 3rd QB is of any less value to the team than a 4th safety?
To protect the 3rd string QB from other teams. If you have a young QB you really like, even if you know he isn’t ready enough to be a backup alone, you stash him on the roster rather than cutting him, which lets any other team take him.
For example, last year Jets carried three to protect Hackenburg. Bills carried three to protect Peterman. Chiefs had three to protect Bray. This year, the Cards, the Browns, the Ravens, the Bills, the Broncos, the Lions, the Packers, etc. all may keep three because they really don’t want their young developmental QB to be poached by some other team.
Good point. That’s why the Pats kept Tom Brady as a third stringer his rookie year.
Also, the third guy may not be far behind the other two, on an unfortunate team that just doesn’t have a guy good enough to establish himself as the starter. That gives them an option in case neither of the first two develops himself. The old saying is “If you don’t know who your starter is, you don’t have a starter”.
Only the Browns would have to cut a starting player for insider trading. Mychal Kendricks admitted to such and may be facing prison time. Unbelievable.
Always those NFL thugs and their white collar crime. Sigh.
That’s exactly why the Packers typically keep three. QB2 is, hopefully, good enough to win some games for you if he’s pressed into service (and the Packers found out, the hard way, last year that Brett Hundley probably wasn’t good enough). QB3, in this case, has nearly always been a younger player, whom they’re hoping can step up into a QB2 or even QB1 role through seasoning. If they’re pressed into starting QB3, things have gone seriously pear-shaped.
In 2013, the first time that Aaron Rodgers broke a collarbone, the Packers had Seneca Wallace as their #2, and inexperienced Scott Tolzien as their #3. When Rodgers went down, Wallace became the starter, but he quickly got hurt. They started Tolzien twice, he was ineffective, and they brought back Rodgers’ old backup, Matt Flynn, who had just been cut by the Bills; Flynn started four games, until Rodgers was able to return.
Your second paragraph is exactly the scenario I am talking about when asking “why bother?”. If you like a younger guy well enough to have drafted him/kept him on your roster, make him the number 2 instead of some crusty old vet (like the Bengals are doing with shitty ass Matt Barkley). If you make him your number 3, how is that more of a vote of confidence than sticking him on your practice squad? Because the #3QB on a roster makes a little more money than a PS player?
PS and I understand that a PS player can be plucked by another team and not if he’s on your roster.
It’s worth noting that #3 QBs don’t count against the gameday actives but they can still serve in an emergency capacity if the first two go down.
Pretty sure you can keep him by moving him onto the 53-man.
Apparently this year the Pack are seriously considering keeping an undrafted rookie QB because they like him so much. Tim Boyle, from college football powerhouse Eastern Kentucky, is reportedly going to make the roster because he’s tall, strong armed, and has a quick release. Nevermind he was undrafted and threw more interceptions than touchdowns, the Packers love him and seem unwilling to take the chance that he’ll get scooped up if they try and get him on the practice squad.
The Pack got burned by the Saints with Taysom Hill a few years ago. They liked him, cut him hoping to get him on the practice squad, and the Saints signed him. I don’t think they want that to happen again.
Because many teams, rightly I think, think their #3 QB is developmental and unable to properly run an NFL offense successfully. Throwing a unprepared, still shitty QB into a starting role instead of a more prepared, likely less shitty QB, will not only lose you games, it could greatly hurt a rookie QB’s development, lose the rest of the players on the team, and cost the coach a job. That doesn’t help anyone.
The Johnny Manziel Effect.
LOL, except in his situation he was a 1st rounder and being a Brown, expected to play from the get go.