There is a new rule that allows a non active but present 3rd quarterback on game day now.
Yes, there is.
But, as you may be aware, the rule is structured so you don't use your #3 unless you've had reason already to use your #2.
Copy and paste of the language from NFL.com:
One hour and 30 minutes prior to kickoff, each club is required to establish its Active List for the game by notifying the Referee of the players on its Inactive List for that game. Each club may also designate one emergency third quarterback from its 53-player Active/Inactive List (i.e., elevated players are not eligible for designation) who will be eligible to be activated during the game, if the club's first two quarterbacks on its game day Active List are not able to participate in the game due to injury or disqualification (activation cannot be a result of a head coach's in-game decision to remove a player from the game due to performance or conduct). If either of the injured quarterbacks is cleared by the medical staff to return to play, the emergency third quarterback must be removed from the game and is not permitted to continue to play quarterback or any other position, but is eligible to return to the game to play quarterback if another emergency third quarterback situation arises. A club is not eligible to use these procedures if it carries three quarterbacks on game day Active List.
So, to my point last night,
make Rush the #3 for game day, and if Dak has to be out for multiple games, he's the starter.
Here's the breakdown of the equation, then............
Option A (conventional, NFL status quo robo-coach decision 
)
- Cooper Rush, the better of the two, is your back-up if QB1 is out for any length of time, whether b/c of injury or the game is blow-out
- While not your only option, QB1 represents your best go-to as a short yardage/goal line back
Option B (not-so-fast, out-of-the-box sentient coach decision )
- Trey Lance, the lesser of the two but still relatively adequate, is your back-up if QB1 goes down for the current game only
- While not your only option, Trey Lance represents your best go-to as a short yardage/goal line back
- If QB1 is out for the next game(s), Rush is elevated to starter, while Lance remains in that very same role regardless
Advantages of Option A:
- If QB1 goes down, your best QB on the bench comes in, ostensibly giving you the best shot at winning the game
- (That's it. There is no #2.)
Disadvantages of Option A:
- Over the course of 17 games worth of short yardage plays in which he gets the lion's share, QB1 takes a cumulative beating, and thus, is subject to greater injury risk
- While Rush gives you the best chance to win a game where QB1 is injured, it's arguable whether the difference b/t Rush and Lance is the diff b/t winning and losing (... granted it's just preseason, but just last weekend, Lance effectively put SF on his shoulders and led a comeback win over DEN)
- To never play Lance is to never deploy a significant weapon in your arsenal--by practically anyone's assessment whether draft day or now, an exceptional, if not elite, runner
(Advantages and disadvantages of Option B are generally just the reverse of what is cited above.)
Add to this, it's plausible but not persuasive to argue that Jones, Jones, Mac and Mac Inc "came after" (think that was Lynch's term) Lance just because they saw a long-term opportunity.
Just.
Only because.
I think that, rather, that's one part of it, but it's
easier to think they were motivated and enthusiastic about this because there was a second part to the proposition that benefits the short-term. And that second part is what's outlined above.
That, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is how I became convicted that this is the plan. Now, of course, I hasten to add as I often hasten to add, I'm not the kind of poster who pretends omniscience, nor the kind that considers other posters to be fools for not having reached the same conclusion I have. I could be wrong. Obviously, I don't think I will be, but if I am, I further think that it's just a matter of time before this working theory is proven to be well-grounded and correct... ie, there could be some time necessary for McC to get comfortable.
And wrapping up b/c I've really given this topic too much time already, and there's more than enough other things to give attention... neither is anyone else posting here omniscient (as far as mere mortal me would be aware). So, a big ol' "we'll just have to see" is (as usual) appropriate.
