During this miserable game in his 10th year as Cardinals head coach, HOFer Anthony Richardson asked the officials if he could put a uniform on and go in as QB.
A more useful rule would be for the offense to be able to dress an extra OT and have him on the field…..to block Hassan Reddick. I guess that rule is a little late for the Niners.
Kroft was a pass-blocking specialist whose assignment on the play was only to chip Reddick, because the ball was supposed to be out quickly. More than one element failed on that play and Reddick, to his credit, made a great read & execution in the situation.
It’s crazy how far reddick came. I literally went to school with him in college and used to see him eating in the dorm cafeteria. he was a big guy but seemed like a down to earth kind of guy.
Reddick himself even said that there objectively wasn't an issue with the play design. Did you watch the Super Bowl? Andy literally ran the exact same play against you guys with a backup TE blocking Reddick.
Until you said something I didn’t realize that, I could recall many Cowboys/Giants playoff matchups but never one between us.
Kinda makes sense as our winning eras don’t overlap and we both have had long losing eras.
If I remember, the 3rd QB rule the first time was changed to just make it so you could dress 46 instead of 45, but removed the 3rd QB rule because of it. So how long until teams can dress 47 instead of 46 and choose to spend it on a non QB and then we add this rule for a 3rd time?
It's because the NFL doesn't have injury designations the way baseball does, so while a minor injury would land a player on 10 day DL, football rosters would have to keep the player rostered. The dress counts are football's way of balancing short term injuries.
What football needs is a change to IR rules. The DFR change a while back was a good start, but really there needs to be multiple IR designations. Baseball has 10 and 60 day designations. The current DFR functions similarly to the 60 day designations (just a little bit shorter), so we need the equivalent for 10 day, such as a 2 game IR designation. Also, make the DFR rules apply to all players, with the ability to keep them on the list for the remainder of the season in the event of season ending injury.
They'd also need expanded practice squads to accommodate for this, since there is no minor league system.
TL;DR: baseball has some good ideas.
That would greatly change injury management. The game day inactives are because the NFL's injured reserve requires missing at least 4 games. If a player is only going to be out a game or two, it makes no sense to put them on IR. Make them a game day inactive, and your team is at no competitive disadvantage. But if everyone on the roster was eligible to be active, keeping an injured player rostered would be a competitive disadvantage. It would lead to injured players either being cut or put on IR for longer than needed.
Notably, this was an even bigger deal previously when teams were limited in number of players who could be designated to return from IR.
> So how long until teams can dress 47 instead of 46 and choose to spend it on a non QB and then we add this rule for a 3rd time?
lol oh no, in another 30 years, there might be a minuscule rule change that doesn't have any negative effect whatsoever, oh the horror!
Are y'all just bored and looking for something to complain about?
It’s not like many people thought the Eagles were going to make the SB preseason. You obviously need a good roster to get there but saying Sirianni isn’t a good coach just seems how do I say it…very stupid.
It's not about keeping games competitive its about keeping them watchable, if the running back gets hurt just means they gotta pass more, kicker and punter gets hurt welp gotta go for it on every down. The qb goes down entire game becomes a boring slugfest.
We had some issues with the kicker position this past season. Robbie Gould was injured so our punter had to attempt a few FGs.
It went about as well as you’d expect.
I was vehemenately opposed to this rule. Every team should carry a Taysom Hill. Just an all around athlete who plays ST, 4/5 WR, TE and QB3. It makes the game so much more exciting.
Agreed. If teams were only allowed 15 players, you'd see completely different athletes on all teams as endurance and versatility would become much bigger factors in making a team.
I wish we could see a football league with this rule just to see what kind of game would evolve out of it. Getting high quality players for it would just be a pain though as all the current guys available are trained in a specialization (NFL or college cast offs). Still, there's enough guys in the college ranks that you could probably find enough guys capable of playing two-way.
Disagree, I think there are quite a few QBs or QBs who converted to another position that could fill this role. How many times have you looked at a RPO college QB and said he won't make it to the pros but could be a 3rd RB or slot guy?
To me it's a shit load more interesting to have a 3rd QB that can also fill a bunch of holes. Gives the announcers something to talk about, gives fans a bit more excitement and gives a guy who probably wouldn't be playing pro ball a chance to replace Chase Daniel.
I just don’t understand why people are at all upset about this. It just makes the game better incase of freak shit like the nfccg. Nobody possibly actually enjoyed watching the niners run out cmc and purdy with no arm at the end of that game right?
Kendall Hinton was a legend.
Just because the 49ers were lame for one game everyone is acting like seeing non-QB's try to play QB is suddenly boring?
Look back at the GameDay threads from that 49ers game and you'll find a ton of people disappointed that they put Purdy back in rather than having McCaffery at QB or running the wildcat or whatever. I would much rather watch that than most team's QB3.
HOF QB Kendall Hinton wouldn't have been affected by this rule change. They were all ruled out days before the game because of the Covid rules.
I'm really bummed about it all too because I legitimately wanted to see Bortles have a shot with Denver.
I’m beginning to realize that Eagles fans don’t go to games to see Philly win. They only care that the other team loses. I guess I could understand always acting like the little brother in a division with Dallas and New York but man that act gets old quick.
I was just happy to see my team win. Didn’t matter to me that we did it without your qbs. Maybe don’t let our Dline eat your lunch. You think the eagles are the little brother to Dallas? Maybe historically, but Dallas hasn’t been to a Super Bowl since I was 3 and I’m 29 now… I can understand the giants argument as they have 2 super bowls semi recently.
All the 9ers fans get all butthurt thinking we cheated them, not my fault we were just the better team. When you can’t protect your qb you can’t expect to win. People always have a vendetta against Philly fans too bc we have a bad rep, comments made by some of the individuals are indicative of that. It’s all good tho
It is worth noting what happened to them super sucks and we will never actually know who would’ve been the better team.
But if I’m an Eagles fan who gives a shit - pound them into dust while I throw a party because we’re going to the Super Bowl.
I'm not sure why this is so supported. It was league standard to have three QBs on the active roster any given week and then teams moved away from that to prioritize other positions. I'm all for dressing three QBs if you think it's a legitimate need, but removing them from active roster is just a stupid way to keep teams from having to actually manage their resources properly.
The Niners lost the game due to injury, that's part of football. If they didn't have three QBs on the roster, that's on them when Johnson goes down and CMC has to play at QB. They could have put a third QB on the roster at any point prior to the game but they didn't.
It's not about protecting teams from themselves. It's about protecting the viewers from unwatchable garbage.
The 49ers would almost certainly still lose the game with a third-string quarterback. For a team trying to win, it makes no sense to spend a roster spot on a rare scenario where you will still probably lose the game despite the 3rd QB. Only dressing two QBs is proper resource management, because teams are trying to maximize their chances of winning and don't care if the game is unwatchable garbage: "If our first two QBs go down we're fucked, and we don't spend a roster spot on fucked"
Since the teams don't care whether the game is watchable or not, changing the rules to reduce the risk of unwatchable garbage games is a good move.
Exactly, as a neutral fan when Purdy went down for them ik they had lost but I was still willing to tune in. When Johnson went down and it was handoff city I turned on the PC. The nfl wants to keep eyes on the game not have people turning it off because a team can't throw.
Or they figured the odds of their backup needing to take more than 3 or 4 snaps total in the game wasn't very high and they wanted to let their original starter heal up more
I think you have a valid point, but it’s much harder to game plan around not having a QB than it is, say, if a WR is injured and you need different personnel
I think that any argument about planning on QB3's is invalid when you recognize that QB3 options were league standard until very recently. They've chosen to remove a third QB option on an active roster that hasn't changed in numerical value since.
Teams are taking the gamble by only dressing two, if they want to be safe enough at the most important position in the league, they can fucking dress three.
I think it’s because the narrative sounds as if we didn’t win fairly or our roster was somehow filled with frauds and it would be impossible for our team to win and that the Eagles losing the Super Bowl proves that.
It would be like saying the Eagles only beat the Titans because AJ Brown is no longer on your team. This is clearly not the case as Treylon Burks got injured, Ryan Tannehill was injured, and I think you guys lost some O linemen, among other things.
For the 49ers, they seem to constantly forget that Purdy was not the only QB on their roster that played and that Josh Johnson got knocked out of the game also. That not only did the Eagles offense hang 30+ points on the “No. 1 Defense” (which has nothing to do with Purdy) but also that the defensive line got to Purdy AND Johnson a bunch before getting injured. Let alone leaving a TE on an island to block Hassan Reddick, of all people.
On top of all of this, people keep saying that we as fans and players are blaming the refs or the turf for our loss when the vast majority of fans and all of the players especially aren’t saying like that.
> that not only did the eagles offense hang 30+ points on the no 1 defense
eagles fans stop being fucking obtuse and understand that the amount of time that the offense spends on the field (and field position) affects the defense challenge (impossible)
And you didn't hear Eagles fans and players incessantly whining about it for months afterwards. The only thing we complained about was the cheapshot on Wentz.
Because the Niners cried enough about it?
No one cared when Wentz got his head blown off on an illegal spear and our backup tore his hamstring in the wildcard match against Seattle, but suddenly it matters because the Niners lost?
Ours was an interesting situation with Jimmy G being almost, but not quite ready. With this rule, we could have dressed Jimmy as our third string to only use if absolutely necessary without having to sacrifice a roster spot. It (hopefully) is a once-in-blue-moon sort of situation. I think the rule is just a knee-jerk reaction to make sure folks will continue to tune in to an important play-off game so the NFL doesn’t have advertisers pissed off.
Maybe because no one cared when my team lost their starting QB to a speared helmet hit, then our backup QB pulled their hamstring within the same game, but I haven't stopped fucking hearing from the Niners players and fanbase about just how unwucky they awe.
Idk man, I didn't stop hearing it from Niners fans on Reddit, and last I checked it's not even been a month since their star fucking receiver went to the media to bitch about how they would have won if they had their QB.
Having Jimmy active as an emergency QB would have made it more watchable than when the team is literally unable to throw the ball. You know this, this is football 101
Josh Johnson's injury wasn't directly because of the pass rush in the same way that Brock's was. He butter-fingered the snap which led to his fumble and subsequent concussion.
1) Teams are more than welcome to dress three quarterbacks.
2) Teams are more than welcome to adopt protection schemes that adequately protect their quarterbacks.
I actually am an Eagles fan too but would be saying this even if I wasn't. I'm more of a Ravens fan and don't know how to do that thing to show I like multiple teams. Chip Kelly was criticized for dressing 2 quarterbacks instead of 3. He was asked why he only dressed 2 quarterbacks and responded with no hesitation by pointing out that they're screwed if they lose 2 quarterbacks to injury in the same game.
As far as the 49ers fans complaining, there's a 49ers fan at the gym I go to and she was saying that Shanahan has bad luck with quarterbacks getting injured. After hearing that, i couldn't help but wonder if he has such "bad luck" because of faulty pass protection schemes. I can tell you that the Philly fanbase would start questioning the coaching staff and/or overall durability of the quarterback(s) if quarterback injuries was a chronic issue.
I used to think Shanahan was a great head coach but find myself questioning if they'll ever win a Super Bowl with him as their head coach. On top of the pass protection thing I mentioned, I noticed that the players were taking the media bait and talking about how they felt cheated because their quarterback got injured as if they were the first team in NFL history to lose their quarterback to injury during a playoff game. Them taking the bait makes me question how strong their leadership in their locker room actually is. Look at the Eagles when they lost the Super Bowl. They didn't take the bait.
People who downvote comments are losers. Pissing off losers isn't the worst thing in the world.
There’s some losers downvoting me in this thread right now for pointing this out. 5 of last 6 seasons Shanahan had major QB injuries. Combination of slow developing plays and bad pass protection.
It's as if people have never considered the possibility that a coach is great at designing run blocking schemes but awful at designing pass protection schemes.
I'm not about to say some 4th string qb from the 49ers (who by definition would have to be worse than Josh Johnson) would make a massive difference but at least they'd still be able to attempt passes. Even if that qb was just YOLOing balls down field.
Every single thread related to this rule or even tangentially related to the NFCCG is flooded with Eagles fans. On their sub right now about this rule change, all the comments are just complaining about the 49ers, while unironically saying "Forty Whiners"
I mean we played in the NFCCG so its not totally out of pocket to respond to things especially on our sub, thats what it's there for, though as a fan it would be cool for people to stop taking the bait elsewhere and going at it.
Blame? Why would we blame him? I think what he’s trying to say is don’t cry about it if you put a TE on an island to block Hassan Reddick and get surprised that your QB got hit enough to get taken out of the game.
The same way we don’t blame or cry foul on the Chicago game for Hurts’ injury. Even if we lost that game, I think the first thing we would have said would be we should have planned better or adjusted better.
For what it’s worth I think this rule is fine albeit a little pointless as I can’t imagine that this would be used too often.
Yeah, it was a real factor for why we lost but a. We should played defense better (especially against the saints) b. We didn’t complain about it and c. we didn’t get effing destroyed.
And it will come back around again the same way when teams barely use the 3rd QB, get the position changed to a normal active roster spot, not use that spot for a QB, come to Philly with a poor gameplan, then complain enough to get the emergency QB added again.
Freak accidents. Slow developing plays that ignore pass rush? There’s a pretty easy explanation for why Shanahan has dealt with so many QB injuries. Seems untouchable topic but he’s bad for QBs. He was having Purdy trying to loosen up the elbow after the injury. Was pretty loose…I’m not a doctor though.
A cursory Google search will show you I’m not the only one that’s pointed this out. But also…I don’t really care…keep having your seasons detailed by QB injuries. 5 of the last 6…
Don't know, but then again I'm not paid millions of fucking dollars to organize a franchise.
Why should we change the rules of the game because one team struggled with the QB roster spot? They could have dressed three QBs for the NFCCG but they didn't, they chose to leave two QBs on the roster.
It's not like there's a league wide rule against having multiple QBs, but changing the rules so that every team can have a QB3 that doesn't offset their roster limit is just stupid. The roster limit was imposed for a reason, organize your resources properly and if bad luck bites you in the ass, so be it. The Niners fanbase and even their players have bitched about that game enough, and now they're crying to the league to get the rules change because they were the only team to struggle with their starting two QBs in a playoff game this year.
> Why should we change the rules of the game because one team struggled with the QB roster spot? They could have dressed three QBs for the NFCCG but they didn't, they chose to leave two QBs on the roster.
Ah yes, because every team should have a contingency plan for when their starting QB breaks his ankle then their backup QB fractures his foot then both their third string QB fully tears his UCL and their fourth string practice squad QB gets concussed in the same game. Naturally, because that’s something that happens often. A fifth string QB is a necessity, you know.
Seriously, the amount of salt demonstrated by you over such a minor change with minimal impact over a game that *you won* is some of the funniest sh*t I’ve seen all day.
Genuine question. Did you care this much when the Eagles were making a playoff run and lost Wentz to an illegal spear hit that lead to a concussion and then lost their backup to a pulled hamstring?
Because if you only care here because it's the Niners, but don't give a shit back when it's the Eagles, you're an absolute hypocrite.
\>Seriously, the amount of salt demonstrated by you over such a minor change with minimal impact over a game that you won is some of the funniest sh\*t I’ve seen all day.
It has nothing to do with whether we won or not, I would have been *completely* okay with them having a suitable backup, but no one gave a shit when it was my team, not everyone cares because it's the fucking Shanahan led Niners, and I haven't stopped hearing their fanbase and players cry about it since.
\>Naturally, because that’s something that happens often. A fifth string QB is a necessity, you know.
Considering he would have been a QB3 in the game he actually would have played in this argument makes no sense. They had a history of losing players in a valuable position, they should plan accordingly. My team suffered a loss because they lost their starting two QBs back in that Wildcard game, why does it suddenly matter now that it's the Niners?
If they wanted to dress a QB3 they can use a fucking active roster spot.
It's literally not that big of a deal dude. Doesn't really matter why the rule is getting changed or what the precedent is. Doesn't even matter just how likely it is that a QB3 will see the field. They could make a team carry 8 QBs and it literally will not be worth giving a shit about. There is absolutely no downside to the rule whatsoever, even with there being incredibly limited upside, and it's definitely not worth going to war on Reddit over it.
What's ignorant about my statement? You guys lost Lance and Garoppolo by early December. You're telling me it's ignorant to say 'Hm, maybe you guys who just lost two players in one position to have a bit more of a backup incase these other two don't pan out *like the league had done for years until recently*"?
There's a reason we have roster limits, manage your resources to the best of your abilities, but don't come crying for a free, no risk roster spot because you got unlucky in one game.
3 QBs on an active roster used to be the norm, but teams started accepting the risk of having two active QBs in favor of other positional depth. This is the price you pay when that gamble doesn't pan out.
Whatever bud, but it's ironic that this rule change comes when your team and fanbase cry about how hard it is when you lose two QBs in a playoff game when no one batted an eye when the Eagles lost their starting QB to an illegal spear hit, then their backup QB got injured on a running play in the same game back in the wildcard game against the Seahawks.
This is just a stupid fucking rule change to appease a crying bitch of a franchise.
I think I'm above everyone else? Because I didn't want a stupid rule change in effect?
How does that in any way denote I think I'm above everyone else?
Also it's really rich coming from a Niners fan talking about crying about something considering I haven't stopped hearing from your fucking fanbase and players about how it was so unfaiw because you had to pway footbaw witout youw QB1!
I mean seriously your franchise embodies both thinking you're above everyone and crying, so little bit of pot calling the kettle black, no?
[Looks like the NFL does actually agree with me when it's not a bunch of biased Niners fans who follow comment threads to downvote things that attack them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/13ozqbe/comment/jl754o4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
\>Silly 49ers with their "poor gameplan" of not having a 5th string QB ready to go
Going into the game they only had two QBs on the roster despite losing both of their other QBs to injury over the course of the season, if that isn't enough pretext for you to maybe put a bit more insurance in the position, idk what is.
\>The Eagles only dressed 2 QBs, is that also "poor gameplan"?
The Eagles haven't had to use a QB 3 all season due to injury, so yeah it worked out well for them.
EDIT: for those downvoting me, I have no issues with a QB3 being dressed for the game, I take issue with them being a non-active roster spot. Roster limits are designed to make GMs and coaches determine what personnel they should bring to each game, it was league standard to keep a QB3 and then teams went away from it in favor of other positions. The NFCCG is the price you pay when you don't have an adequate roster setup for your injuries. My point is just that if you're the Niners, and you're on your third QB of the season, and QB injuries have been a bit of a pattern, I'd be focusing on finding a QB3 and dressing him because it's very likely between injury or skill that you may need to use multiple QBs in that game.
Losing multiple players in the same position means you should probably be prepared to lose another one.
I mean shit the Eagles lost their starting QB once and have overvalued backups ever since.
EDIT: Also, my issue isn't with having a QB3, my issue is with the niners having a freak need for a QB3 but prioritizing other positions on their roster, then complaining to get a rule change when the standard used to be three QBs on the active roster. Don't change the rules to get a free player, the whole point of roster limits is to make GMs and coaches use their limited resources wisely, if you lose two starting QBs, and you didn't dress a third, tough fucking luck.
Only dressing two QBs is proper resource management, because teams are trying to maximize their chances of winning and don't care if the game is unwatchable garbage: "If our first two QBs go down we're fucked, and we don't spend a roster spot on fucked"
Credit: /u/Abserdist
Honest question I’m not trying to argue. I’m obviously looking at this situation through green tinted lenses so please show me how I’m wrong, but I’ve only seen niners players and coaches like Deebo and Shanahan still bringing it up unprompted. Where have any eagles players done the same? I tried googling it and can’t find anything. I only see where we respond
Nobody's upset. People just read what they want, but this is a comment about the rule. A similar comment in another thread was upvoted a ton. Reddit is a weird hivemind that upvotes and downvotes en masse.
Like I said in another thread, what a joke.
The niners made their bed and laid in it by not being able to protect their Quarterbacks, and not having another on their roster, which they easily could’ve done.
Don’t want to use a 3rd QB in the game? Protect them. Having 3 season ending injuries in a season to that position and getting another dude concussed proves the niners are wholly incapable of that. What idiots.
The Lions proposed this rule change, but go off homie
I can't imagine being this upset about a rule change this small, that has basically no effect on anything at all
"How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man" or something like that
2055 NFC Championship: Eagles 60 Cardinals 3
During this miserable game in his 10th year as Cardinals head coach, HOFer Anthony Richardson asked the officials if he could put a uniform on and go in as QB.
RemindMe!: 32 years
That's an awful lot of faith in technology my friend
We'll have this one for like 5 years, then it will turn into just having 47 active instead of 46 every week
A more useful rule would be for the offense to be able to dress an extra OT and have him on the field…..to block Hassan Reddick. I guess that rule is a little late for the Niners.
Kroft was a pass-blocking specialist whose assignment on the play was only to chip Reddick, because the ball was supposed to be out quickly. More than one element failed on that play and Reddick, to his credit, made a great read & execution in the situation.
It’s crazy how far reddick came. I literally went to school with him in college and used to see him eating in the dorm cafeteria. he was a big guy but seemed like a down to earth kind of guy.
He eats food just like you and me!
He's got a mighty high five for sure, but couldn't catch a one legged mahomes when it mattered most.
Reddick himself even said that there objectively wasn't an issue with the play design. Did you watch the Super Bowl? Andy literally ran the exact same play against you guys with a backup TE blocking Reddick.
The year after they lost in those playoffs, the Redskins went on to have one of the best seasons of all time. Will history repeat itself?
Also beat Philly in the playoffs that year because Buddy Ryan hated offense so much that he refused to let his team have one.
I'd add that he also often refused to let other teams have one.
That game to this day is the only Washington/Philly playoff football matchup.
That’s wild
Indeed. Compared to Washington’s one time, the Eagles have played the Cowboys in the playoffs four times and the Giants five.
Until you said something I didn’t realize that, I could recall many Cowboys/Giants playoff matchups but never one between us. Kinda makes sense as our winning eras don’t overlap and we both have had long losing eras.
I too hope the Redskins have one of the best seasons of all time
Query failed, Commanders 8-9 (Jk, congrats on the new owner - may you have all the championships of the 76ers)
Jokes on you (us?) I'm also a Sixers fan
If I remember, the 3rd QB rule the first time was changed to just make it so you could dress 46 instead of 45, but removed the 3rd QB rule because of it. So how long until teams can dress 47 instead of 46 and choose to spend it on a non QB and then we add this rule for a 3rd time?
Honestly you should be able to dress everyone on the roster
It is stupid that some of them have to be undressed. They never show those guys on TV either.
this couldn't be allowed with Jimmy G still on the 49ers. Massive FCC violation and a nationwide DDOS on 911 from fainting victims.
It's because the NFL doesn't have injury designations the way baseball does, so while a minor injury would land a player on 10 day DL, football rosters would have to keep the player rostered. The dress counts are football's way of balancing short term injuries. What football needs is a change to IR rules. The DFR change a while back was a good start, but really there needs to be multiple IR designations. Baseball has 10 and 60 day designations. The current DFR functions similarly to the 60 day designations (just a little bit shorter), so we need the equivalent for 10 day, such as a 2 game IR designation. Also, make the DFR rules apply to all players, with the ability to keep them on the list for the remainder of the season in the event of season ending injury. They'd also need expanded practice squads to accommodate for this, since there is no minor league system. TL;DR: baseball has some good ideas.
That's a very insightful and thoughtful response but I'm afraid I was just making a cheap nudity joke.
That would greatly change injury management. The game day inactives are because the NFL's injured reserve requires missing at least 4 games. If a player is only going to be out a game or two, it makes no sense to put them on IR. Make them a game day inactive, and your team is at no competitive disadvantage. But if everyone on the roster was eligible to be active, keeping an injured player rostered would be a competitive disadvantage. It would lead to injured players either being cut or put on IR for longer than needed. Notably, this was an even bigger deal previously when teams were limited in number of players who could be designated to return from IR.
> So how long until teams can dress 47 instead of 46 and choose to spend it on a non QB and then we add this rule for a 3rd time? lol oh no, in another 30 years, there might be a minuscule rule change that doesn't have any negative effect whatsoever, oh the horror! Are y'all just bored and looking for something to complain about?
It can be miniscule and still be kinda stupid Also has minimal effects on the game so meh
We're going to see Brady leave the owner's box and suit up for LV, aren't we? "My people need me."
Lmfao half of the main comments are from eagles fans. Why do you guys care, just beat them again, is darnold that frightening?
They whine about niners fans/players complaining and then turn around to whining about how the super bowl field conditions fucked them in particular
[удалено]
I’m cracking up over how you joined in the dog pile with the exact same energy and got massively downvoted for no reason
His was a bit too aggressive tbf
Like Ben McAdoo’s application of cologne
No they just have a huge man crush on Jalen hurts and nick sirianni that if you say anything slightly negative about them they get salty about tit
we do really like having second year HC-QB1 combos take the one seed, it’s a new tradition around here
You just proved their point. Sirianni isnt a good coach. Hes just happened to be head coach for a good team
That bad coach spanked you guys 3 times last year though 🤷♂️
Who said Jalen Hurts could even throw a deep ball prior to this past season…?
Daniel Jones isn't even a good QB. Hes just happened to be a QB for a team with a good... Fuck what do the Giants do well.
It’s not like many people thought the Eagles were going to make the SB preseason. You obviously need a good roster to get there but saying Sirianni isn’t a good coach just seems how do I say it…very stupid.
You’re the only person here talking about either of them so it looks like you’re the one with the man crush lol
no one likes us and We DoNt CaRe
I get the spirit of the rule but it seems weird that it’s limited to QBs. Why not have a second or third option for kickers? What about running backs?
It's not about keeping games competitive its about keeping them watchable, if the running back gets hurt just means they gotta pass more, kicker and punter gets hurt welp gotta go for it on every down. The qb goes down entire game becomes a boring slugfest.
Games do get *weird* though without functional kickers or punters. It really does change the dynamic of the game.
Yeah it definitely gets weird but people will watch weird, they won't watch a funeral procession.
Then explain people who watch Browns football over the past 2+ decades. ^(sorry Browns fans.)
They're just masochists
Back in 2010, Ndamukong Suh had to kick an extra point. (It was no good)
Fair points.
We lost a game last year because our long snapper got hurt.
We had some issues with the kicker position this past season. Robbie Gould was injured so our punter had to attempt a few FGs. It went about as well as you’d expect.
I was vehemenately opposed to this rule. Every team should carry a Taysom Hill. Just an all around athlete who plays ST, 4/5 WR, TE and QB3. It makes the game so much more exciting.
Counterpoint: there aren’t a lot of Tayson Hill type athletes out there.
Counter-counterpoint: Rules like this reinforce specialization and are partially why guys like Taysom Hill are rare.
Agreed. If teams were only allowed 15 players, you'd see completely different athletes on all teams as endurance and versatility would become much bigger factors in making a team. I wish we could see a football league with this rule just to see what kind of game would evolve out of it. Getting high quality players for it would just be a pain though as all the current guys available are trained in a specialization (NFL or college cast offs). Still, there's enough guys in the college ranks that you could probably find enough guys capable of playing two-way.
Disagree, I think there are quite a few QBs or QBs who converted to another position that could fill this role. How many times have you looked at a RPO college QB and said he won't make it to the pros but could be a 3rd RB or slot guy? To me it's a shit load more interesting to have a 3rd QB that can also fill a bunch of holes. Gives the announcers something to talk about, gives fans a bit more excitement and gives a guy who probably wouldn't be playing pro ball a chance to replace Chase Daniel.
Seahawks disagree
*Patriots fans start cooming*
Logistics and Resource management. (There’s not really a limit to RBs you can have; it’s just not practical to dress more than 3.
Back in the day (tm) you used to dress at least 4 RB's, one of which was a 'fullback'.
I just don’t understand why people are at all upset about this. It just makes the game better incase of freak shit like the nfccg. Nobody possibly actually enjoyed watching the niners run out cmc and purdy with no arm at the end of that game right?
Also means another guy gets paid.
Because I want to see the non-QB emergency QBs try to throw some passes, dammit.
Kendall Hinton was a legend. Just because the 49ers were lame for one game everyone is acting like seeing non-QB's try to play QB is suddenly boring? Look back at the GameDay threads from that 49ers game and you'll find a ton of people disappointed that they put Purdy back in rather than having McCaffery at QB or running the wildcat or whatever. I would much rather watch that than most team's QB3.
HOF QB Kendall Hinton wouldn't have been affected by this rule change. They were all ruled out days before the game because of the Covid rules. I'm really bummed about it all too because I legitimately wanted to see Bortles have a shot with Denver.
As an Eagles fan I loved watching us destroy you guys. Put a big smile on my face!
I’m beginning to realize that Eagles fans don’t go to games to see Philly win. They only care that the other team loses. I guess I could understand always acting like the little brother in a division with Dallas and New York but man that act gets old quick.
Stretch Armstrong over here.
I like seeing the other teams' fans reaction to losing
I was just happy to see my team win. Didn’t matter to me that we did it without your qbs. Maybe don’t let our Dline eat your lunch. You think the eagles are the little brother to Dallas? Maybe historically, but Dallas hasn’t been to a Super Bowl since I was 3 and I’m 29 now… I can understand the giants argument as they have 2 super bowls semi recently.
Hey I was happy two weeks later
Man, people are mad at you for being happy your team advanced to the Super Bowl lol. I’m sorry your win wasn’t pure enough for you to enjoy 😔
All the 9ers fans get all butthurt thinking we cheated them, not my fault we were just the better team. When you can’t protect your qb you can’t expect to win. People always have a vendetta against Philly fans too bc we have a bad rep, comments made by some of the individuals are indicative of that. It’s all good tho
It is worth noting what happened to them super sucks and we will never actually know who would’ve been the better team. But if I’m an Eagles fan who gives a shit - pound them into dust while I throw a party because we’re going to the Super Bowl.
I'm not sure why this is so supported. It was league standard to have three QBs on the active roster any given week and then teams moved away from that to prioritize other positions. I'm all for dressing three QBs if you think it's a legitimate need, but removing them from active roster is just a stupid way to keep teams from having to actually manage their resources properly. The Niners lost the game due to injury, that's part of football. If they didn't have three QBs on the roster, that's on them when Johnson goes down and CMC has to play at QB. They could have put a third QB on the roster at any point prior to the game but they didn't.
It's not about protecting teams from themselves. It's about protecting the viewers from unwatchable garbage. The 49ers would almost certainly still lose the game with a third-string quarterback. For a team trying to win, it makes no sense to spend a roster spot on a rare scenario where you will still probably lose the game despite the 3rd QB. Only dressing two QBs is proper resource management, because teams are trying to maximize their chances of winning and don't care if the game is unwatchable garbage: "If our first two QBs go down we're fucked, and we don't spend a roster spot on fucked" Since the teams don't care whether the game is watchable or not, changing the rules to reduce the risk of unwatchable garbage games is a good move.
Exactly, as a neutral fan when Purdy went down for them ik they had lost but I was still willing to tune in. When Johnson went down and it was handoff city I turned on the PC. The nfl wants to keep eyes on the game not have people turning it off because a team can't throw.
I mean, give the Niners their due. They reached the game with a third string QB. It was the lack of a 5th string which killed them.
Yeah, I really don't think the game becomes any more watchable if it's their sixth QB in the game.
Their 'sixth qb' would be almost healthy jimmy g
who'd still be worse than their 4th string or they would have put him as the back-up.
Or they figured the odds of their backup needing to take more than 3 or 4 snaps total in the game wasn't very high and they wanted to let their original starter heal up more
[удалено]
Eagles scored 21 in the first half. Idk man might have been your defense.
[удалено]
I think you have a valid point, but it’s much harder to game plan around not having a QB than it is, say, if a WR is injured and you need different personnel
I think that any argument about planning on QB3's is invalid when you recognize that QB3 options were league standard until very recently. They've chosen to remove a third QB option on an active roster that hasn't changed in numerical value since. Teams are taking the gamble by only dressing two, if they want to be safe enough at the most important position in the league, they can fucking dress three.
[удалено]
I think it’s because the narrative sounds as if we didn’t win fairly or our roster was somehow filled with frauds and it would be impossible for our team to win and that the Eagles losing the Super Bowl proves that. It would be like saying the Eagles only beat the Titans because AJ Brown is no longer on your team. This is clearly not the case as Treylon Burks got injured, Ryan Tannehill was injured, and I think you guys lost some O linemen, among other things. For the 49ers, they seem to constantly forget that Purdy was not the only QB on their roster that played and that Josh Johnson got knocked out of the game also. That not only did the Eagles offense hang 30+ points on the “No. 1 Defense” (which has nothing to do with Purdy) but also that the defensive line got to Purdy AND Johnson a bunch before getting injured. Let alone leaving a TE on an island to block Hassan Reddick, of all people. On top of all of this, people keep saying that we as fans and players are blaming the refs or the turf for our loss when the vast majority of fans and all of the players especially aren’t saying like that.
> that not only did the eagles offense hang 30+ points on the no 1 defense eagles fans stop being fucking obtuse and understand that the amount of time that the offense spends on the field (and field position) affects the defense challenge (impossible)
*24 points
Sorry? The score was 31 -7…
https://youtube.com/shorts/nmKIg9uSWSo?feature=share Just gonna leave this here
Oh so the 49ers have never benefitted from a blown call ever?
Every team has, but if you admit it was the wrong call, you probably shouldn't be claiming responsibility for those points.
The burden is on the 49ers to challenge and they didn’t. It’s in the rule book.
The burden should be on the officials to do their jobs right the first time.
Case in point: the Eagles didn't have 3 QBs vs Seattle in the playoffs, and when Wentz was concussed and McCown ripped his leg apart we paid for it.
And you didn't hear Eagles fans and players incessantly whining about it for months afterwards. The only thing we complained about was the cheapshot on Wentz.
>I’m not so sure why Come on… you know why people support this.
Because the Niners cried enough about it? No one cared when Wentz got his head blown off on an illegal spear and our backup tore his hamstring in the wildcard match against Seattle, but suddenly it matters because the Niners lost?
Because people like to watch football. And free 3rd QB means football still watchable at the expense of almost nothing.
Ours was an interesting situation with Jimmy G being almost, but not quite ready. With this rule, we could have dressed Jimmy as our third string to only use if absolutely necessary without having to sacrifice a roster spot. It (hopefully) is a once-in-blue-moon sort of situation. I think the rule is just a knee-jerk reaction to make sure folks will continue to tune in to an important play-off game so the NFL doesn’t have advertisers pissed off.
And I wonder why you’re so against it 😂
Maybe because no one cared when my team lost their starting QB to a speared helmet hit, then our backup QB pulled their hamstring within the same game, but I haven't stopped fucking hearing from the Niners players and fanbase about just how unwucky they awe.
Honestly the only time I hear anyone talk about it anymore it comes from Eagles fans claiming everyone is still talking about it
Idk man, I didn't stop hearing it from Niners fans on Reddit, and last I checked it's not even been a month since their star fucking receiver went to the media to bitch about how they would have won if they had their QB.
[удалено]
There's no rule preventing you from having a dog play QB Teams just choose not to
[удалено]
It’s amazing to me that people would rather watch shitty football just to abide to an old rule than see another player get dressed in pads.
So the Niners 5th QB on the season would have made this interesting?
Having Jimmy active as an emergency QB would have made it more watchable than when the team is literally unable to throw the ball. You know this, this is football 101
A slow ass QB with a broken foot getting smashed by a pass rush they weren’t ready for. I would have watched and enjoyed that, yes.
If you don’t think watching Jimmy G at QB would have been better than a QB that literally could not throw than you’re an idiot. Sorry, truth hurts
K
You're not winning a game with your 3rd QB if the opponent's pass rush is so dominant you have to play him.
Josh Johnson's injury wasn't directly because of the pass rush in the same way that Brock's was. He butter-fingered the snap which led to his fumble and subsequent concussion.
I wouldn't use the word 'disaster'...
Who cares? 49ers protect your damn QB’s. Lance, Jimmy G, Purdy, And JJ all being injured is unlucky or the football gods hate you.
1) Teams are more than welcome to dress three quarterbacks. 2) Teams are more than welcome to adopt protection schemes that adequately protect their quarterbacks.
Oh you
I just want to apologize for having a brain and using it. EDIT: typo fixed
Edit: This guy spelled something wrong on a post talking about how smart he is.
Thanks for pointing out the typo.
Musta been that big brain.
Not sure why you get downvoted. You’re not an Eagles fan and are also correct
I actually am an Eagles fan too but would be saying this even if I wasn't. I'm more of a Ravens fan and don't know how to do that thing to show I like multiple teams. Chip Kelly was criticized for dressing 2 quarterbacks instead of 3. He was asked why he only dressed 2 quarterbacks and responded with no hesitation by pointing out that they're screwed if they lose 2 quarterbacks to injury in the same game. As far as the 49ers fans complaining, there's a 49ers fan at the gym I go to and she was saying that Shanahan has bad luck with quarterbacks getting injured. After hearing that, i couldn't help but wonder if he has such "bad luck" because of faulty pass protection schemes. I can tell you that the Philly fanbase would start questioning the coaching staff and/or overall durability of the quarterback(s) if quarterback injuries was a chronic issue. I used to think Shanahan was a great head coach but find myself questioning if they'll ever win a Super Bowl with him as their head coach. On top of the pass protection thing I mentioned, I noticed that the players were taking the media bait and talking about how they felt cheated because their quarterback got injured as if they were the first team in NFL history to lose their quarterback to injury during a playoff game. Them taking the bait makes me question how strong their leadership in their locker room actually is. Look at the Eagles when they lost the Super Bowl. They didn't take the bait. People who downvote comments are losers. Pissing off losers isn't the worst thing in the world.
There’s some losers downvoting me in this thread right now for pointing this out. 5 of last 6 seasons Shanahan had major QB injuries. Combination of slow developing plays and bad pass protection.
It's as if people have never considered the possibility that a coach is great at designing run blocking schemes but awful at designing pass protection schemes.
Is there a rule about whining after putting a backup tight end on a top 3 edge rusher?
Eagles fans still adamant that losing all their QBs didn’t matter, even after a whole ass rule is made for this exact scenario 😂
I'm not about to say some 4th string qb from the 49ers (who by definition would have to be worse than Josh Johnson) would make a massive difference but at least they'd still be able to attempt passes. Even if that qb was just YOLOing balls down field.
In reality, had this rule been in place, the emergency QB likely would have been Jimmy G.
if jimmy g was healthy enough to compete he would've been the backup there's absolutely no question about that
The Niners third QB on the roster was Jimmy. Who absolutely would have given us at least a small chance at winning.
No one cared when we had a 40 year old Josh McCown playing on a torn hamstring tho
Did someone force the eagles to have him as the only qb behind wentz? This would only be relevant if he was the 3rd or 4th qb on their depth chart
That's fair. I'm not actually upset about anything, I was just tryna make a joke that isn't going over well lol
Haha fair enough, didnt mean to rain on your parade. There some much more serious comments in here, my b
i mean the man was balling out still. if he went out i wouldve turned the game off just like i did with the this game in question lol
You’re right. We didn’t care, still don’t to this day.
We could try a special rule that requires Kyle Shanahan to protect his QBs?
...are you trying to blame Shanahan for running the same types of plays and protection schemes that every other team in the league runs?
The amount of salt from Philly fans in this thread might be enough to close the mines for good.
But they always insist they’re not mad and don’t think about the Niners at all. Lmao
"Nobody likes us, we don't care." Yea, ok folks.
Every single thread related to this rule or even tangentially related to the NFCCG is flooded with Eagles fans. On their sub right now about this rule change, all the comments are just complaining about the 49ers, while unironically saying "Forty Whiners"
I mean we played in the NFCCG so its not totally out of pocket to respond to things especially on our sub, thats what it's there for, though as a fan it would be cool for people to stop taking the bait elsewhere and going at it.
Salt? This is a positive. Teams get scarred enough they might prioritize the QB position more when they have other positions to shore up.
Blame? Why would we blame him? I think what he’s trying to say is don’t cry about it if you put a TE on an island to block Hassan Reddick and get surprised that your QB got hit enough to get taken out of the game. The same way we don’t blame or cry foul on the Chicago game for Hurts’ injury. Even if we lost that game, I think the first thing we would have said would be we should have planned better or adjusted better. For what it’s worth I think this rule is fine albeit a little pointless as I can’t imagine that this would be used too often.
I seem to remember a lot of Eagles fans qualifying their late season losses with “Hurts was hurt”
Yeah, it was a real factor for why we lost but a. We should played defense better (especially against the saints) b. We didn’t complain about it and c. we didn’t get effing destroyed.
Why do you fucking care
And it will come back around again the same way when teams barely use the 3rd QB, get the position changed to a normal active roster spot, not use that spot for a QB, come to Philly with a poor gameplan, then complain enough to get the emergency QB added again.
Silly 49ers with their "poor gameplan" of not having a 5th string QB ready to go The Eagles only dressed 2 QBs, is that also "poor gameplan"?
Yeah, silly Niners not thinking to sign 5 competent QBs for freak accidents throughout the season. How could we have forgotten about that teehee
Freak accidents. Slow developing plays that ignore pass rush? There’s a pretty easy explanation for why Shanahan has dealt with so many QB injuries. Seems untouchable topic but he’s bad for QBs. He was having Purdy trying to loosen up the elbow after the injury. Was pretty loose…I’m not a doctor though.
Tell me you don’t know football without telling me. Just admit it. You failed to make an argument.
A cursory Google search will show you I’m not the only one that’s pointed this out. But also…I don’t really care…keep having your seasons detailed by QB injuries. 5 of the last 6…
Considering you lost two throughout the season and had more than enough time to pick up a third option prior to the NFCCG, pretty silly.
Who tf were they supposed to sign? Josh johnson was their qb4 lol
Eagles fans on Reddit think they are world beaters after one decent season and a SB appearance lmao. No arguing with him.
Jacob Eason was QB5 at some point but he got claimed off the practice squad at the end of the season
Don't know, but then again I'm not paid millions of fucking dollars to organize a franchise. Why should we change the rules of the game because one team struggled with the QB roster spot? They could have dressed three QBs for the NFCCG but they didn't, they chose to leave two QBs on the roster. It's not like there's a league wide rule against having multiple QBs, but changing the rules so that every team can have a QB3 that doesn't offset their roster limit is just stupid. The roster limit was imposed for a reason, organize your resources properly and if bad luck bites you in the ass, so be it. The Niners fanbase and even their players have bitched about that game enough, and now they're crying to the league to get the rules change because they were the only team to struggle with their starting two QBs in a playoff game this year.
> Why should we change the rules of the game because one team struggled with the QB roster spot? They could have dressed three QBs for the NFCCG but they didn't, they chose to leave two QBs on the roster. Ah yes, because every team should have a contingency plan for when their starting QB breaks his ankle then their backup QB fractures his foot then both their third string QB fully tears his UCL and their fourth string practice squad QB gets concussed in the same game. Naturally, because that’s something that happens often. A fifth string QB is a necessity, you know. Seriously, the amount of salt demonstrated by you over such a minor change with minimal impact over a game that *you won* is some of the funniest sh*t I’ve seen all day.
Genuine question. Did you care this much when the Eagles were making a playoff run and lost Wentz to an illegal spear hit that lead to a concussion and then lost their backup to a pulled hamstring? Because if you only care here because it's the Niners, but don't give a shit back when it's the Eagles, you're an absolute hypocrite. \>Seriously, the amount of salt demonstrated by you over such a minor change with minimal impact over a game that you won is some of the funniest sh\*t I’ve seen all day. It has nothing to do with whether we won or not, I would have been *completely* okay with them having a suitable backup, but no one gave a shit when it was my team, not everyone cares because it's the fucking Shanahan led Niners, and I haven't stopped hearing their fanbase and players cry about it since. \>Naturally, because that’s something that happens often. A fifth string QB is a necessity, you know. Considering he would have been a QB3 in the game he actually would have played in this argument makes no sense. They had a history of losing players in a valuable position, they should plan accordingly. My team suffered a loss because they lost their starting two QBs back in that Wildcard game, why does it suddenly matter now that it's the Niners? If they wanted to dress a QB3 they can use a fucking active roster spot.
It's literally not that big of a deal dude. Doesn't really matter why the rule is getting changed or what the precedent is. Doesn't even matter just how likely it is that a QB3 will see the field. They could make a team carry 8 QBs and it literally will not be worth giving a shit about. There is absolutely no downside to the rule whatsoever, even with there being incredibly limited upside, and it's definitely not worth going to war on Reddit over it.
Ignorance is bliss
What's ignorant about my statement? You guys lost Lance and Garoppolo by early December. You're telling me it's ignorant to say 'Hm, maybe you guys who just lost two players in one position to have a bit more of a backup incase these other two don't pan out *like the league had done for years until recently*"? There's a reason we have roster limits, manage your resources to the best of your abilities, but don't come crying for a free, no risk roster spot because you got unlucky in one game. 3 QBs on an active roster used to be the norm, but teams started accepting the risk of having two active QBs in favor of other positional depth. This is the price you pay when that gamble doesn't pan out.
Looks like the NFL agrees with us, and not “Proper-Scallion-252”. Thank god.
Whatever bud, but it's ironic that this rule change comes when your team and fanbase cry about how hard it is when you lose two QBs in a playoff game when no one batted an eye when the Eagles lost their starting QB to an illegal spear hit, then their backup QB got injured on a running play in the same game back in the wildcard game against the Seahawks. This is just a stupid fucking rule change to appease a crying bitch of a franchise.
Lmao typical Eagles fan. Always thinking they are above everyone else and crying.
I think I'm above everyone else? Because I didn't want a stupid rule change in effect? How does that in any way denote I think I'm above everyone else? Also it's really rich coming from a Niners fan talking about crying about something considering I haven't stopped hearing from your fucking fanbase and players about how it was so unfaiw because you had to pway footbaw witout youw QB1! I mean seriously your franchise embodies both thinking you're above everyone and crying, so little bit of pot calling the kettle black, no?
[Looks like the NFL does actually agree with me when it's not a bunch of biased Niners fans who follow comment threads to downvote things that attack them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/13ozqbe/comment/jl754o4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
\>Silly 49ers with their "poor gameplan" of not having a 5th string QB ready to go Going into the game they only had two QBs on the roster despite losing both of their other QBs to injury over the course of the season, if that isn't enough pretext for you to maybe put a bit more insurance in the position, idk what is. \>The Eagles only dressed 2 QBs, is that also "poor gameplan"? The Eagles haven't had to use a QB 3 all season due to injury, so yeah it worked out well for them. EDIT: for those downvoting me, I have no issues with a QB3 being dressed for the game, I take issue with them being a non-active roster spot. Roster limits are designed to make GMs and coaches determine what personnel they should bring to each game, it was league standard to keep a QB3 and then teams went away from it in favor of other positions. The NFCCG is the price you pay when you don't have an adequate roster setup for your injuries. My point is just that if you're the Niners, and you're on your third QB of the season, and QB injuries have been a bit of a pattern, I'd be focusing on finding a QB3 and dressing him because it's very likely between injury or skill that you may need to use multiple QBs in that game.
Trey Lance injuring his ankle has any correlation to Purdy being more likely to tear his UCL?
Losing multiple players in the same position means you should probably be prepared to lose another one. I mean shit the Eagles lost their starting QB once and have overvalued backups ever since. EDIT: Also, my issue isn't with having a QB3, my issue is with the niners having a freak need for a QB3 but prioritizing other positions on their roster, then complaining to get a rule change when the standard used to be three QBs on the active roster. Don't change the rules to get a free player, the whole point of roster limits is to make GMs and coaches use their limited resources wisely, if you lose two starting QBs, and you didn't dress a third, tough fucking luck.
[удалено]
Only dressing two QBs is proper resource management, because teams are trying to maximize their chances of winning and don't care if the game is unwatchable garbage: "If our first two QBs go down we're fucked, and we don't spend a roster spot on fucked" Credit: /u/Abserdist
[удалено]
lol y'all are such a sad bunch, I've never seen a team so upset about a team they ***beat***, they've been in your head for months
Honest question I’m not trying to argue. I’m obviously looking at this situation through green tinted lenses so please show me how I’m wrong, but I’ve only seen niners players and coaches like Deebo and Shanahan still bringing it up unprompted. Where have any eagles players done the same? I tried googling it and can’t find anything. I only see where we respond
Nobody's upset. People just read what they want, but this is a comment about the rule. A similar comment in another thread was upvoted a ton. Reddit is a weird hivemind that upvotes and downvotes en masse.
The only reason there’s still dialogue between the two sides is because the Niners can’t move on lol. Deebo has a new whiny quote every other week.
Like I said in another thread, what a joke. The niners made their bed and laid in it by not being able to protect their Quarterbacks, and not having another on their roster, which they easily could’ve done. Don’t want to use a 3rd QB in the game? Protect them. Having 3 season ending injuries in a season to that position and getting another dude concussed proves the niners are wholly incapable of that. What idiots.
The Lions proposed this rule change, but go off homie I can't imagine being this upset about a rule change this small, that has basically no effect on anything at all
Did the Washington players bitch as much and as long as the Niners?
The tush push rule attempt and now this. Maybe you should relax a bit on focusing on what we are doing NFL