The economics work in our favor with the current 2 backups, but is this wise? Everyone hates paying a good backup to sit, but that is called super smart insurance. I don't call either Wolford or Perkins super smart insurance. I call a 1m signing of Blake Bortles super smart insurance when we signed him behind Goff because he had so much starting experience. Whether you like him or not you can't take away that experience.
I have been the one railing in the off-season to get better backup QB play for that insurance. I know being an armchair GM is easy but the need to replace x amount of players the question always is where do you allocate your financial resources in the off-season. Unfortunately there is only so much to go around with so many costly superstars.
My answer is we have a race horse of a team and if God forbid Stafford can't play we will sputter with imo marginal QB play. I know you all will say these guys have 3 years in the system and that counts for something sure but we all witnessed the difference between Goff to Stafford well just imagine Stafford to Wolford or Perkins. I feel this is a massive difference vs an ex saavy starter (think Daltonas an example) who now is relagated to playing behind a current starter. It is the experience alone that is worth it's weight in gold. But McVay and Snead think they can get by but this is predicated on two things: They think Stafford will stay on the field so they roll the dice and they believe in their coaching up ability of the other two backups.
We'll shall see.