| NFL -- Not For Long |
8 September 2003
|
Quarterback Cut Backs
The American football season has begun, and for the next three months, the war in Iraq, ballooning budget deficits and Howard Dean's latest pronouncement will only matter to many insofar as they might affect Sunday's games. At this point in the season, in any sport, the arguments and opinions are almost always pointless because there is no meaningful information, just surmise and projection. There is, though, a single development this year that may matter greatly to the winner of January 2004's Super Bowl -- the demise of the third-string quarterback.
Five teams, Indianapolis, Washington, San Diego, Buffalo and Denver, have decided that they can get by with just two quarterbacks this season. Whether they can or not will possibly change the way rosters are structured, they way the game is played, and even how the money is doled out.
It is hard to imagine a team sport that depends so heavily on a single player. Even baseball and cricket, with their reliance on the pitcher and bowler, have regular replacements of the men tossing the ball during the game. Not so with the field general in American football. While the backs may run end to end in a glorious dash for paydirt, the receivers find a grip on a ball merely mortals couldn't touch, it is the quarterback who personifies the team. Those who doubt is are challenged to name a single nosetackle on any NFL team.
Yet because of the salary cap and desires for depth elsewhere, these five teams will have but one man as backup. It may be unsporting, but there will certainly be attempts to reduce that to none through extra rough play. Also, some athletes simply have a bad season, quarterbacks no less than anyone else. The risks are tremendous.
The teams that have decided to keep a third man at QB are playing its safe, but it could be that they are playing it smart. This potentially is the most interesting question to be answered between now and February.
Home