Lionbackers.com

So this confirms it’s Rourke and Zappe battling out for #3?

Via Ian Rapoport:

Source: The #Patriots have agreed to terms with QB Jacoby Brissett, who gets $8M on a 1-year deal.

DanoT wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 11, 2024 5:09 pm

The way I look at it, with Mac Jones gone that's one less QB that Rourke has ahead of him on the depth chart. For sure the Pats draft a QB but not for sure they sign a veteran QB. So perhaps 1st round drafted QB starts and Zappe and Rourke battle it out for backup QB.

It's not a matter of IF NE drafts a QB but which one of the top 3, Williams, Maye and Daniels, they end up with. They WILL bring in another veteran to add to Zappe and Rourke. Rourke WILL NOT emerge from camp as #2 because no HC in his ever loving mind, especially a first time HC, would ever put himself in that situation. Imagine Mayo trying to explain to Robert Kraft that he thought it was a good idea to backup the new rookie QB who has never taken a regular season NFL snap with another QB who has never taken an NFL snap? Talk about a CLM.

I'd love nothing more than to see Rourke live out his dream to be an NFL starter but this NE situation is not the one to see it happen any time soon. When NFL teams draft QBs early in the 1st round the starting job is the rookie's to lose. If they feel the rookie needs a few more weeks after camp wraps up they want to have a veteran of some experience to be the placeholder for however long that is. In recent years QBs taken in the top 5 are usually Wk 1 starters and if not are starting by Wk 8.

What could benefit Rourke the most would be if NE believes it's an open competition between Zappe and the incoming vet and zappe wins out. Regardless they will still bring in a vet to compete with Zappe for #2.

SammyGreene wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 11, 2024 5:42 pm

So this confirms it’s Rourke and Zappe battling out for #3?

Via Ian Rapoport:

Source: The #Patriots have agreed to terms with QB Jacoby Brissett, who gets $8M on a 1-year deal.

Heard that rumour yesterday. That would certainly do it.

So, likely - vet journeyman Brissett (with way more losses than wins as an NFL starter) gets #1 to mentor and be a stop-gap till the 1st round draft pick is "ready" (hope they don't draft another Ryan Leaf). Leaving Nathan to battle it out with Zappe for #3 / PR guy? Not sure I like Rourke's chances there. He might be better off to hope getting cut early there and hope to end up with another NFL team with less on the QB depth chart ? Still believe he will stick it out down there for at least a couple of more years, even if just off & on PRs.

OV:54-40 wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:15 pm

So, likely - vet journeyman Brissett (with way more losses than wins as an NFL starter) gets #1 to mentor and be a stop-gap till the 1st round draft pick is "ready" (hope they don't draft another Ryan Leaf). Leaving Nathan to battle it out with Zappe for #3 / PR guy? Not sure I like Rourke's chances there. He might be better off to hope getting cut early there and hope to end up with another NFL team with less on the QB depth chart ? Still believe he will stick it out down there for at least a couple of more years, even if just off & on PRs.

Was thinking the same thing. Few NFL teams bring 4 QBs to main camp. So good chance Rourke or Zappe gets waived before then.

Brissett is being brought in as the bridge guy to whomever they're taking at 3. Rourke is done there.

You can waste your years sitting in press boxes, but it's probably time for him to read the room and come home to lead the Tiger Cats to their destiny.

The only upsides here it seems are:
1. the bridge QB hasn't had a stellar career yet.
2. IIRC isn't Rourke able to make over US$900,000 if hangs in.

Toppy Vann wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2024 8:26 am

The only upsides here it seems are:
1. the bridge QB hasn't had a stellar career yet.
2. IIRC isn't Rourke able to make over US$900,000 if hangs in.

As a bridge QB the question re: Brissett is how long will the bridge be? It could be 3 games, 8 games or no games if they feel their soon-to-be-prized rookie is ready to go for Wk 1. One downside for Rourke is the makeup of their TC QB room. Last year in Jacksonville there were only the 3 QBs. Lawrence as the established starter didn't take many reps in preseason leaving Beathard and Rourke to share the bulk of the ex-game reps. This year will be much different. The rookie will get a lot of playing time as will Brissett although he should be familiar with the offense as new Pats' OC Alex Van Pelt was the OC in Cleveland in 2022 when Brissett started 11 games while DeShaun Watson was sitting out his suspension. Familiarty between Brissett and Van Pelt no doubt played a role in his signing. With NFL cutting back to 3 preseason games and the need to get preseason playing time for the new guy and Brissett there will be a lot few reps left over for Zappe and Rourke to split than Rourke enjoyed in Jacksonville.

I thought Rourke didn't quite get rostered for enough games to earn a year of service but supposedly he did. Apparently he's at $915K while Zappe is at $985K with another year left after this one at $1.1M. Those numbers of course only if they are on the 56 man roster which looks doubtful unless the rookie or Brissett get hurt before the season begins. I'm still curious to see what happens when it comes time to make a roster decision on Zappe. Would he accept a PS assignment if that's his only option or would he decide it's time to find a new home with what appears to be NE's long term QB solution coming on board? Keep in mind NE can't simply assign him to the PS. They have to first waive him and then see if he clears waivers. If he does then they can offer him a PS spot which he is not obligated to accept.

I see where the NFL is considering tweaking their emergency 3rd QB rule so that teams could use a PS player as opposed to having to activate the player to the 53 man active roster to be available for emergency use. The biggest benefit would be that teams wouldn't have to pass the QB back thru waivers to assign him back to the PS. That still doesn't protect the team from the possibility of another team raiding their PS of said QB

Hambone wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2024 9:29 pm

I see where the NFL is considering tweaking their emergency 3rd QB rule so that teams could use a PS player as opposed to having to activate the player to the 53 man active roster to be available for emergency use. The biggest benefit would be that teams wouldn't have to pass the QB back thru waivers to assign him back to the PS. That still doesn't protect the team from the possibility of another team raiding their PS of said QB

I don't grasp the stupidity of the NFL at times when it comes to stupid rules and this one has to be one of the dumbest.
Admittedly, this is not as dumb as their best ever dumb rule for OT where they let a coin toss determine OT as all the team had to do then was kick a FG knowing their opponent wasn't getting a shot.

The NFL has no money issues so why not just expand to 47 with 3 QBs.

Toppy Vann wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:38 am

Hambone wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2024 9:29 pm

I see where the NFL is considering tweaking their emergency 3rd QB rule so that teams could use a PS player as opposed to having to activate the player to the 53 man active roster to be available for emergency use. The biggest benefit would be that teams wouldn't have to pass the QB back thru waivers to assign him back to the PS. That still doesn't protect the team from the possibility of another team raiding their PS of said QB

I don't grasp the stupidity of the NFL at times when it comes to stupid rules and this one has to be one of the dumbest.
Admittedly, this is not as dumb as their best ever dumb rule for OT where they let a coin toss determine OT as all the team had to do then was kick a FG knowing their opponent wasn't getting a shot.

The NFL has no money issues so why not just expand to 47 with 3 QBs.

My take on the stupid NFL overtime rules is that it is driven by the TV broadcasters who don't want the football broadcast eating into the next TV program in their schedule. So get the game decided quickly in OT is the goal.

I think the NFL has changed the OT rules in the playoffs so that both teams get a chance to put the O on the field.

Toppy Vann wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:38 am

Hambone wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2024 9:29 pm

I see where the NFL is considering tweaking their emergency 3rd QB rule so that teams could use a PS player as opposed to having to activate the player to the 53 man active roster to be available for emergency use. The biggest benefit would be that teams wouldn't have to pass the QB back thru waivers to assign him back to the PS. That still doesn't protect the team from the possibility of another team raiding their PS of said QB

I don't grasp the stupidity of the NFL at times when it comes to stupid rules and this one has to be one of the dumbest.
Admittedly, this is not as dumb as their best ever dumb rule for OT where they let a coin toss determine OT as all the team had to do then was kick a FG knowing their opponent wasn't getting a shot.

The NFL has no money issues so why not just expand to 47 with 3 QBs.

The NFL may have no money issues but they didn't arrive at that situation by burning $1M per team per season to have a player on their game roster they have no plans to use other than in a case of total emergency. They don't even like to use their #2 unless thay are forced to. In 2022 pre the new 3QB rule only 12 teams chose to have 3 QBs on their 53 man active roster. At the start of the 2023 season with the emerg 3QB rule in effect that number jumped to 13. There were still 19 teams who chose not to carry a 3rd QB on the 53. 6 of the 13 who started out with 3 on the 53 never saw their #3 take a snap all season.

In fairness on the emergency 3rd QB rule it was a new rule this past season. As is often the case when new rules are implemented there can be unintended consequences. There also were CBA rules that had to be adhered to. For all we know the NFL may have wanted to be able to use PS QBs but the NFLPA may have rejected it. Credit to them for finding reason to tweak it after one season and doing so.

For my money the dumbest NFL rule is the one where a ball carrier stretching his arm and the ball out to break the plane fumbles it and it rolls OB in the endzone resulting in a touchback and possession to the defending team. If he fumbles it OB 3" before the pylon his team retains possession but if it rolls OB 6" farther and 3" inside the endzone they lose possession and to add insult to injury the defending team gets the ball at the 20. WTF?!?!?!?

When I read about the new NFL rule on 3QB, I wondered how it would impact Nathan. Assuming the Pats use their #3 pick on a QB, they will already have 4 QB's in camp. Rourke will have to pass Zappe to #2 spot to dress for a game as I would imagine that the rookie QB will hold the Emerg QB spot.... since there is no risk in plucking a high pick off the PS if he is listed as emergency #3 QB.

Or is there another impact to the new rule?

Dusty wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2024 8:53 am

When I read about the new NFL rule on 3QB, I wondered how it would impact Nathan. Assuming the Pats use their #3 pick on a QB, they will already have 4 QB's in camp. Rourke will have to pass Zappe to #2 spot to dress for a game as I would imagine that the rookie QB will hold the Emerg QB spot.... since there is no risk in plucking a high pick off the PS if he is listed as emergency #3 QB.

Or is there another impact to the new rule?

Rourke will likely have to beat Zappe to be No. 3 QB and spend another season on the PR, behind whoever the Pats draft with the third overall pick and newly signed veteran free agent Jacoby Brissett.

Dusty wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 27, 2024 8:53 am

When I read about the new NFL rule on 3QB, I wondered how it would impact Nathan. Assuming the Pats use their #3 pick on a QB, they will already have 4 QB's in camp. Rourke will have to pass Zappe to #2 spot to dress for a game as I would imagine that the rookie QB will hold the Emerg QB spot.... since there is no risk in plucking a high pick off the PS if he is listed as emergency #3 QB.

Or is there another impact to the new rule?

The only thing I see as changing this year is the team doesn't have to promote the 3rd QB from the PS to the 53 to be able to get him into the game on an emergency basis. That means he doesn't have to clear waivers to be reassigned to the PS. I'm not reading anything that says a QB on the PS can be "red-circled" as emergency 3QB and protected from raiding. He'd never even get to the PS because in order to get him there they'd first have to release him at the end of training camp and hope he clears waivers. There is zero chance he'd clear waivers.

If NE does as expected take one of the top 3 QB prospects he will start the season as at worst #2 behind Brissett who would only be holding the job for as long as it takes for the Pats to be comfortable enough to give the keys to the offence to the rookie. Unless the Pats come out of the chute playing .500 or better football I expect that would happen by Week 7. at the latest. Nobody takes a QB in the top 5 spots without the intention of him being fast-tracked to starting by the mid point of the season. In most cases in recent years the QB drafted in the top 5 has opened the season as starter.