The #3 QB Debate: Why A Veteran?

When people worry about the need to have a “veteran” as your third stringer. As though, should he actually get into a game, that veteran-ness is going to cover up the fact that he’s not good enough to be a backup.

To my mind, it just makes more sense to have somebody younger in the emergency role. As you mentioned, it’s called the “emergency” quarterback for a reason – if you have to go to him, things are dire. Maybe the season isn’t lost, but you’ve at the very least exhausted your good options.

And if I’m looking at two players who aren’t very talented, and one of them is old and the other is young, it stands to reason that the old guy has less potential to work with. And you’re playing the lottery, anyway, at that point. You may as well side with potential.

Where the conversation gets complicated is the people who want to bring in a veteran to be the backup: Somebody who can come in if Smith goes down so that the team doesn’t need to throw Kaepernick into the fire. And I know that 49ers fans can be nervous about throwing a young QB into the fire (once bitten, twice shy, as they say), but… I just can’t side with that. I think you have to be willing to throw your second round draft pick into the game. The second round isn’t where you go to find players to bury on the sideline, so unless you figure the pick was already wasted (or Smith keeps him on the bench), he should have the opportunity to play.

If you had a true proven winner that wasn’t looking to start (and came cheap), then it might help for a year, assuming you don’t have to bump a promising youngster from the roster (don’t think the niners are in that boat).

Some of the names I’ve seen thrown around make me laugh…we don’t need a “vet” just because he’s been in the league a few years, but has never made an impact on the field.

I hope this is a narrow enough topic for a FanPost.

If it’s this long and well-thought out, you can always feel free to post it as a FanPost instead of looking for somewhere to post it as a comment instead. Most of the FanPosts we take down are one or two paragraphs and don’t really discuss anything in detail.

Maybe it’s better to save the roster spot for another position rather than a 3rd QB. It seems we could easily put one or both of our undrafted QB rookies in the practice squad. Plus with the number of linebackers and safeties that we have, I’d rather keep OLB Gibson or S Mays over QB Masoli on the active roster.

Good grief. Blue Light special?

This is a very solid FanPost. It’s a good topic, you provide some background and your own thoughts. Perfect example.

The team has two goals: Winning as many games as possible, and grooming CK to be the potential QBOTF.

You do not want to throw CK to the wolves before he’s ready – but you want to be able to give him a lot of practice reps to help him get ready. The problem is, if your third QB is a rookie, you need to give him a lot of practice reps to keep him ready – reps you’d rather be giving CK, to further his development.

On the other hand, if you bring in a vet – who you don’t expect to be any better than the rookie – then you can give all those extra practice reps to CK. You have more time to work with him, to focus on him, and to get him ready. And you’re more protected if Smith gets hurt and you don’t feel CK is ready. (Smith was thrown in too soon as a rookie. Might not have made a difference, but it sure didn’t help – best case scenario is that it did no damage, and that strikes me as unlikely).

It doesn’t make sense to compare us to the Bears, who knew who their #1/QBOTF was: Cutler. They didn’t have anybody to groom, so they could apportion their practice reps for non-starters however they needed to for the next week’s game.

That is not the Niners situation. The whole point is to have a #3 who’s going to take as few practice reps as possible away from CK. The Nate Davis situations demonstrated how hard it is for a #3 QB to get meaningful practice reps, so the team wants a guy who doesn’t need them.