So this 3rd QB can act like a backup if either QB is injured and cannot return.
This mostly comes from the NFCCG when Purdy was out and Johnson was useless. This rule is all well and good but there are 32 starting QBs in the NFL and each have a backup. How many serviceable NFL QBs are there to serve as a 3rd string emergency QB?
This mostly comes from the NFCCG when Purdy was out and Johnson was useless. This rule is all well and good but there are 32 starting QBs in the NFL and each have a backup. How many serviceable NFL QBs are there to serve as a 3rd string emergency QB?
Interesting. IIRC, the old rule was that if the emergency QB came in, neither of the other two could play again.
I don’t get this at all. They used to have 45 guys on the game day roster, plus an emergency QB, just like this. But then they thought it would be more beneficial to let teams just have 46 active players instead of 45 + emergency QB.
But then SF had their QB situation, and now they added the emergency QB thing. So now it’s 46 players plus the emergency QB.
It’s stupid. Teams have 46 guys. Just let them have three QBs or four or five if they want. They’ve got 46 guys to have active.
But whatever. I don’t care. I just think it’s dumb to change the rules in response to teams playing their hands stupidly.
edit- nah, I'm completely wrong.
Last edited:
I'm with you. It is a strategic decision. You could decide to not dress a kicker either.
https://theathletic.com/4542428/2023/05/22/nfl-flex-scheduling-thursday-night-football?source=user-shared-article
I'm not going to start reading last rites for the NFL, but moving a playoff game to streaming-only and then telling season ticket holders (and everyone else) that the NFL may change game days and times and tough shit if you don't like it feels like a league begging its fans to start drifting away.
yes, but you’re thinking of this from a team tough luck side.
The NFL has tons of rules that only apply to the QB because the QB is everything in the sport. They added this back because in their second biggest showcase, one team had zero QBs available and from a league standpoint that’s bad for business.
Honestly, with concussion protocols now actually somewhat seriously in place, this was inevitable.
Let’s put it this way, who does this rule hurt? No team wants to be in SF’s position in that Championship Game.
It's also worth noting that switching travel plans is hard enough. Forcing fans to do it during the holiday season, when travel is up and people are juggling their time, is cruel. This could not be a bigger FU from the league to its most loyal fans.
Eh, the vast majority of people watch the NFL on some version of TV. Limiting this to the last 5 weeks, with only 2 maximum instances, with 28 days notice doesn’t seem like the crime against fandom that some are portraying it to be. It’s been announced in May, and doesn’t affect any games until December. Will there be a small % of traveling fans impacted by it this year? Undoubtedly. But going forward, everyone will know the risk of planning a late season trip. And season ticket holders in every sport live with the possibility of schedule changes as part of the deal. Last year there was loud criticism about how bad the Thursday schedule was. Seems like they can’t win for trying on this one. I have plenty of issues with the owners and league office on other things. But this feels like manufactured outrage to me.
Are you sure it’s limited to December? I thought the only time restriction was the 28 days.
One of the afternoon sports radio guys in NY pointed out that this could impact a game where the marquee QB is injured and out long-term. For example, Rodgers or Mahomes gets hurt and is out for the season.
One of the afternoon sports radio guys in NY pointed out that this could impact a game where the marquee QB is injured and out long-term. For example, Rodgers or Mahomes gets hurt and is out for the season.
According to ESPN it is only an option for weeks 13-17 and the league must provide 28 days notice to the impacted teams.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37709462/nfl-owners-ok-flexing-thursday-night-games
Pats @ Steelers is currently scheduled for Thursday in Week 14 so that is a potential flex to Sunday.
Johnson wasn't useless, necessarily. I mean, he is pretty useless as a QB but he is a QB. But he got hurt too in that game and was removed for a concussion.
SF didn't have a QB who could actually throw the ball(Purdy) or even get on the field(Johnson).
Last rites? Feels like a league that knows they can do whatever they want because the fans will still watch. And that they make SO much money through tv/streaming, that pissing off ticket holders doesn't really matter to them.
Bradys been gone for a few years now. If 50% of current season ticket holders got pissed and bailed, there seats would be filled and there would still be a waiting list for season tickets.
"It's easy," Goodell said. "On the one hand, you might have a few tens of thousands of angry ticket holders whose money we've already pocketed and who, we know from past history, will stick with the league even as we maim our players. On the other hand, you have multiple millions of TV viewers on networks that pay us billions of dollars."
(Quotes are entirely invented. And reflect an entirely plausible NFL thought process.)
I'm curious, for those that are so offended by this: Is it the notion of ever flexing late season Thursday night games you find so egregious, or do you think they didn't provide enough lead time this year for some people to avoid non-refundable travel plans for a December game?
Have you ever looked at the price of plane tickets for refundable vs non refundable? I know I purchase my tickets for any travel well before 28 days and I'd be pissed if I planned a vacation for a Patriots road game on a Thursday and found out it got flexed to the weekend (or vice versa).
Just because they can do it and most people will be ok doesn't make it right.
My point is really simple: When fans get really mad about things that happen to their teams, they forget that the team does not have a drop of support to offer in return. In fact, they often view them with disdain. Fans will still support their teams because of the memories and greater experience; but the NFL could not be any clearer about how it values its fans.
Plus the whole "people will stick with the NFL no matter what" cuts both ways. If the NFL is the biggest game in town, they are going to pull decent ratings no matter what the game is. The games impacted are
Steelers/Pats
Chargers/Raiders
Rams/Saints
Browns/Jets
How much of a ratings/viewership bump will any of these slots get if they switch to a different game? If this is about appeasing Amazon, their less interesting games are earlier in the season and are not impacted by this ruling. Now if this is about moving one of these four games to Sunday, that's a different conversation. But why piss off a traveling fanbase (even if it is small) for a tiny bump? Just as fans will ultimately stay no matter what, the networks and streamers will ultimately pay no matter what.
Steelers/Pats
Chargers/Raiders
Rams/Saints
Browns/Jets
How much of a ratings/viewership bump will any of these slots get if they switch to a different game? If this is about appeasing Amazon, their less interesting games are earlier in the season and are not impacted by this ruling. Now if this is about moving one of these four games to Sunday, that's a different conversation. But why piss off a traveling fanbase (even if it is small) for a tiny bump? Just as fans will ultimately stay no matter what, the networks and streamers will ultimately pay no matter what.
We go to Foxboro once a year in December. It’s a trip I usually start planning now. There is a lot that goes into it. Lots of holiday stuff to juggle. Sometimes if I book one of the hotels at Patriots Place, they have punitive cancellation rules.
I don’t know how I can plan it this year.
The NFL and the Patriots do not care if I go. The seat will get sold either way. This is a no brainer for them. They do not even view it as an issue worth thinking about. I guess, why would they? They don’t need to care. Demand exceeds supply.
The networks and streamers will keep paying. But they might not pay as much, or competition might be reduced in the absence of some guarantee. Or, conversely, the presence of some sort of quality guarantee -- which is all flexing is -- increases the price. The NFL wouldn't do it if it was somehow a net loss.
Yeah, I know the difference between those tickets. That’s not answering my question. We’re 6 months out from any games being affected. So, again, is it travelers getting burned this season, or is it the concept of flexing late season Thursday games in general that has people angry? Because after this season, presumably anybody who books non-refundable travel plans for a late season Thursday game, does so with fair warning, and at their own peril.
I don't care - the one NFL game I've attended is likely the only one I'll ever attend, and when particular teams play is not that critical to me.
However, there are two worrisome elements about this.
First, when you start doing things that hurt your most loyal fans in the name of incremental growth, things get dicey. It might work, especially if the number of diehards you anger is pretty small, but you generally try not to irritate your biggest fans, and this does that.
Second, the only people this really helps are the TV networks who need great ratings to sell ad time to offset the costs of the TV deal. A decision to cater to the TV networks rather than the actual consumers of the product seems risky.
There are reasonable arguments against my position, but I think the NFL's decision shows a lot of hubris.
That's a good way to put it...I guess this is how I would put it:
Yes, I think I am more concerned that people who have booked travel after seeing the schedule be released for this upcoming season.
Yes, I think it would be annoying for season ticket holders to have an expectation that their tickets are good for a certain day, and be told a month before that suddenly it's on another day.
No, I don't think this will affect how much money the NFL makes, or their viewership, and it won't affect me in any way because I'm done attending Patriots road games since I don't enjoy the in-person experience nearly as much as watching it in the comfort of my own home (having gone to games in San Francisco, Oaklandx2, and Seattle).
It's pretty much catering to the TV audience (of which I am fully part of) and potentially screwing the in-person fan. So yes, I think probably 1% of fans will feel some sort of pain out of this, and in the grand scheme of things, it won't matter a bit...doesn't change the fact that it's still a shitty thing to do.
It's potentially affects anybody that books non-refundable travel plans for any late-season game. That Sunday game you planned to attend could end up being on Thursday Night.
It affects more than just the people travelling though. Every ticket holder for a game that is switched is affected in some way.
The NFL has become a TV product. While attending an NFL game is fun, that is not what they are looking for now and like people have said here, those seats will get sold anyways.
As a matter of fact, most of the seats bough by fans who make travel plans late in the season come from a secondary market seller such as Stubhub or Vivid Seats, which means that the seat has already been sold even if no one shows up.
They will market and design their product for TV (and streaming soon).
As a matter of fact, most of the seats bough by fans who make travel plans late in the season come from a secondary market seller such as Stubhub or Vivid Seats, which means that the seat has already been sold even if no one shows up.
They will market and design their product for TV (and streaming soon).
Why even have kickoffs? Serious question. With the quality of NFL kicking, it’s hard to imagine many kickoffs being returned, and it’s not like those kickoffs that are returned are any less dangerous.
Exactly right.
If you don't go, you're still a Pats fan and will most likely watch the game on TV. Someone else will purchase your ticket and spend concession money. No skin off the NFLs back.
Of the 4 major sports, the NFL is easily the least enjoyable to attend live. They know this and are planning accordingly.
I totally agree, both in that I think it doesn't really matter but also that it's dumb. Consider that the 49ers hadn't even signed a third healthy quarterback to their practice squad behind Purdy and Johnson -- they didn't even have that third guy in the building, let alone the active roster. They totally used the rule to absorb the criticism rather than just defend their (reasonable!) decision making.
This assumes a team would make the same decisions under two different sets of rules. And I don’t agree they would have.
If having 3 QBs on the active roster meant the niners could have had an emergency QB in that game, they would have had 3 QBs on the active roster.
Their decisions were determined by the rules in place, where having a 3rd QB would have been meaningless. Now it’s not.
I am with you. I used to go yearly and tailgating is by far the best part. This is the last NFL game I attended in person. Granted it was on the road but that was an unpleasant experience. I took my then 15-year-old with me and we heard an earful all game. We did see Jimmy G throw a TD, probably the last thing my kid expected that night. That season turned out all right.
The new rule only impacts those in the air kicks short of the end zone. As with kicks one yard deep, now a kick that comes down the 1 will allow the returner to decide if he wants to take a fair catch to take it to the 25 or try to run it back.
I do wonder if we will see more long squib kicks, ones that bounce around the 15-20.
This is true, but I would say that having fans in the seats adds to the TV experience. Sell out crowds of die hard fans cheering make the game more exciting.
But anyone saying this will impact the NFL is just way off. Even if it were to have any material effect, they'd just change it back and the same fans would return. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Kicking team willing to risk getting better defensive field position are going to be doing a lot more line drive kicks or trying to squib with authority so it bounced inside the 20s. Force other teams to have more people catch the ball and dare them to run it out
Hopefully we get some more impactful hits in that smaller area of play! Just kidding.
Hate everything that they’ve done to kickoffs the last couple years from a game point of view. the onside kick chance has never been recovered I know safety safety but …. Just annoying
Honestly, if they really want to limit the kick offs, they should just tell teams that any touch back with start the ball at the 15 yard line. The great majority of kicks would be out of the end zone once teams adjust. Going to be hard to control the kicking team incentives here.
Hate to imagine how that last minute of SB LI goes if Atlanta got to start the ball at their 25 after that perfect kick by Gostkowski . Huge advantage to teams that get tied up in last 2 minutes as it weakens bad starting field position drama
You know that BB will experiment with line drive kickoffs directed away from the returner
They should just have punt-offs instead of kick-offs. The punter and the long-snapper are the only two players on the field, the long-snapper snaps it to the punter from some yard-line, and wherever the punter punts it to is where the other team starts. Make touchbacks a severe penalty (other teams get the ball at their own 40 or something).
I was very, very wrong about how long this guy would last as commish
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1661085221775872008
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1661085221775872008
