Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BCJet

How do you define a Franchise QB?

70 posts in this topic

Reading through the thread on Kirk Cousins, its seems like people are confusing a Franchise QB and "Hall of Famer" as the same thing.  Whether Hackenberg works out for us, we draft a QB in the top 5-10 in 2018 or we wind up with someone like Cousins, I think the expectations are off the charts with what people want in a QB.

In the last 10 or so years the NFL has seen more first ballot Hall of Fame QBs then ever before.  Brady, Rogers, Rothlisberger, Peyton, and Brees will all wind up in the HOF at some point.  They are generational passers, that have thrived as the league became more and more focused on the pass, have won SBs, and will go down as all-time greats.  They are also all obviously Franchise QBs.

That being said, there are guys like Eli (could be a HOF, not the point of the thread), Stafford, Flacco, Matt Ryan, Rivers, and even Andy Dalton, Carson Palmer and quite possibly Kirk Cousins, who will likely never get near the HOF, but are franchise QBs.  I didnt mention Luck or Wilson because they are too young to fall definitively into one category or another.

My point is that anyone in the second group, as Eli and Flacco have proven, CAN win a Super Bowl on a good team.  I dont particularly want Cousins on this team in 2018, but can anyone say without a doubt that he is much less likely to win a SB then Joe Flacco or Matt Stafford?   Matt Ryan is playing amazing football, but his team has also endured back to back 4-12 and 6-10 seasons.   What would people think about Flacco if Ozzie Newsome did build a great defense that allowed Flacco to turn solid playoff football (0 turnovers in the entire playoffs that year) into a Championship.  

What Mac, and any GM really, needs to do is build a strong enough team that we can win a SB if Dranold/Allen doesnt become Aaron Rogers/Ben because its hard enough to find a franchise guy, let alone a HOFer.  We havent even had reasonably competent QB play in 20 years - a franchise QB would be enough.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imo the whole thing about a franchise qb is really overblown.  not every team will be able to have a manning, marino, elllway, kellly, montana etc. as qb. they're more likely to have theisman's or rypien's or williams'.  just about all of the guys who reach the nfl are capable of making every throw.  the big distinction is if they can make the right passing decisions game in and game out.  the jets almost had that guy in sanchez until idzik's best bud geno turned in an 8-8 season.  at that point idzik decided geno was the guy.  that was a huge mistake in retrospect.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically speaking, a guy your franchise signs to a long term deal and he starts for 5 years because he's good enough to hold off the competition. 

I prefer pro bowl QB, it sets a clear standard that the guy is among the leagues best.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dalton, Ryan, Stafford, Flacco, Rivers, Palmer, etc.

 

Any of the above (and their respective careers) would have been the best QB the Jets have had since Namath. Chads 15 minutes aren't long enough. Any of that pack would have been a "franchise QB" for the Jets. 

 

But would it matter, being in a division with the GOAT for 15 years? 

Could Cousins play at that level? Sure. Any guy locked up and built around for more than a few years is a "Franchise QB". Not as good as an elite guy or a Future HOF'er, but better than a "Hold the Fort" guy, or the complete Dogsh*t we've been forced to endure since Vinnys Hysterical Colorblindness returned.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A QB that when the opposing coaching staff meets in their game plan meeting the week before the game,The first question that comes to the table is, "How are we going to stop the QB from beating us?" 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Larz said:

Technically speaking, a guy your franchise signs to a long term deal and he starts for 5 years because he's good enough to hold off the competition. 

I prefer pro bowl QB, it sets a clear standard that the guy is among the leagues best.

That's Tony Romo, Andy Dalton,  and those guys will never be considered great....   I think a few playoff wins as well. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe W. Namath said:

Franchise qb means ur qb is good enough that you are not looking for another one.

Which then excludes Cousins, or Washington would have locked him up already.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody that consistently performs well over the long term.

Its a pretty low bar, but half the franchises in the league play musical chairs at the position.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, southparkcpa said:

That's Tony Romo, Andy Dalton,  and those guys will never be considered great....   I think a few playoff wins as well. 

 

So Mark Sanchez?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QB who don't play for the Jets?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's the guy your offense is built around. He doesn't have to be elite to be considered your franchise quarterback. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KRL said:

In today's NFL the definition of a "franchise QB" is someone who can hold the position 
for 8-10 years unchallenged.  Therefore everyone else is a "placeholder QB".  In Cousins
case WAS still doesn't believe he can hold the position for 8-10 years otherwise they
would've signed him already

Exactly, even thou he is getting paid more then just about every franchise QB this season does not mean he is a franchise QB, if Washington thought he was he would have already inked a 5 for $125 mill contract minimum back before FA period started so the Skins could have more $$$$ freed up in cap space to BUILD around who they think is a franchise QB, they have not done this, while that doesn't mean they are right in their opinion, I just happen to agree with them, I personally would have shipped him off to SF for the 2nd pick in the draft plus some if they were willing, traded down with whoever wanted Trubisky, and drafted Mahomes, but that's me, and I play Monday morning QB on a Jets message board so WTF do I know lol.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, KRL said:

In today's NFL the definition of a "franchise QB" is someone who can hold the position 
for 8-10 years unchallenged.  Therefore everyone else is a "placeholder QB".  In Cousins
case WAS still doesn't believe he can hold the position for 8-10 years otherwise they
would've signed him already

Problem with Washington is that Cousins has only played 2 full seasons as a starter and has given them Flacco confidence. Up and down but he's good enough to keep trying with but don't wanna pay him top dollar for that. If I were them I'd extend him after this season for a few more years and just hope he gets hot one year like flacco did that year of their super bowl run. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KRL said:

In today's NFL the definition of a "franchise QB" is someone who can hold the position 
for 8-10 years unchallenged.  Therefore everyone else is a "placeholder QB".  In Cousins
case WAS still doesn't believe he can hold the position for 8-10 years otherwise they
would've signed him already

I dont disagree with your definition but dont forget who is behind "not signing" him, arguably the dumbest owner in the NFL who ran a good GM out of town.  Plus they are paying him huge sums each year and now basically cant protect him with the TAG again.  I dont think cousins is the savior, but is he really not as good as Matt Stafford?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they fix the money problem with escalating QB salaries, and install a standard ceiling % of the cap or max contract at the position, there is going to be a lot of Kirk Cousin type problems to go around. 

Look at what Carr just banked.... Now, I love what Carr is doing, and he may very well turn out to be an elite top 5 type QB in the league, but they are taking a huge risk allocating that much cap room to a guy who has only continued down the expected path of becoming a FQB.  It's a shame that he wasn't taken in the 1st because then they'd have that 5th year option and franchise tags to be able to string him along for 7 years to ensure they were making the right decision by paying him at the very top of the market.  Oakland took a huge leap of faith because Carr is maturing in the exact way you would expect a FQB to develop. But the bottom could just as easily drop out on him, and once they have to start paying non rookie contract money to Cooper, Mack and the majority of their defense need to decide on how to afford to keep the same level of OLine play at half the cost of what they are spending there no it's going to be Carr that needs to shoulder the load or they have to take a step backwards on defense and hope Carr is capable of being an Aaron Rodgers type of player.  I'm rooting for Carr, I liked him a lot coming out, and I'm wishing him well despite being a scumbag Raider.  But teams have to basically destroy their cap to keep a young QB happy in this system.  Something has got to give. And if a team is on the fence we will see a lot more Cousins type wait and see approaches. I still think Cousins gets his money from the Skins, because what is their plan B? Not having a QB? Continually taking on veteran JAGs who can't shoulder the load at the position?  We all know how well that approach works.

Another reason I'm pulling for Carr is that the Raiders are a good enemy to have when they are good. It kills me when we lose to them, and it is the best feeling when we beat them. Similar to the Dolphins. You love to hate them, but at least you can respect them.  Unlike a certain division rival of ours....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Franchise QB is the man you see as your starting QB over the long term, or a player that has taken you to the promised land that you have no reason to move on from. Its a designation based on a team's commitment to that player, nothing more, nothing less.

Here's a list of guys I'd consider Franchise QB's:

Tom Brady

Ryan Tannehill

Ben Roethlisberger 

Joe Flacco

Andy Dalton

Andrew Luck

Derek Carr

Phillip Rivers

Eli Manning

Aaron Rodgers

Matthew Stafford

Matt Ryan

Cam Newton

Russel Wilson

 

Anybody else is either a tentative starter who could be replaced in a year or two's time (Glennon, Siemian, etc), a young player on their way to franchise status (Mariota, Winston, Prescott, etc) or a starter who CAN be long term answers at QB but are in a less than secure position with their team at the moment (Cousins)

Really, you're a franchise QB if you get that big contract. Quality may vary, but that's the way I see it.

 

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, T0mShane said:

A quarterback who, when you fix his footwork, can finish in the top half of the Big 10.

undertaker-sitting-up1.gif?w=1000

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tony MaC said:

A Franchise QB is the man you see as your starting QB over the long term, or a player that has taken you to the promised land that you have no reason to move on from. Its a designation based on a team's commitment to that player, nothing more, nothing less.

Here's a list of guys I'd consider Franchise QB's:

Tom Brady

Ryan Tannehill

Ben Roethlisberger 

Joe Flacco

Andy Dalton

Andrew Luck

Derek Carr

Phillip Rivers

Eli Manning

Aaron Rodgers

Matthew Stafford

Matt Ryan

Cam Newton

Russel Wilson

 

Anybody else is either a tentative starter who could be replaced in a year or two's time (Glennon, Siemian, etc), a young player on their way to franchise status (Mariota, Winston, Prescott, etc) or a starter who CAN be long term answers at QB but are in a less than secure position with their team at the moment (Cousins)

Really, you're a franchise QB if you get that big contract. Quality may vary, but that's the way I see it.

 

 

 

 

Good take. I'd say Dalton and Tannenhill are not quite FQBs as I think their contracts are both essentially worked out to be a string of 1 year deals that can be voided at any time. Neither seems to have inspired any real confidence from their teams GMs and both also seem to be considered "upgradeable" should their teams find themselves with a top pick.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lil Woody said:

Good take. I'd say Dalton and Tannenhill are not quite FQBs as I think their contracts are both essentially worked out to be a string of 1 year deals that can be voided at any time. Neither seems to have inspired any real confidence from their teams GMs and both also seem to be considered "upgradeable" should their teams find themselves with a top pick.

They're pretty much at the bottom of the barrel of what I'd call a franchise QB- JUST enough commitment to pass my test. They're average as hell, but they are starters and I think those teams would need to see a drop quality or can't miss opportunity to move on. Helps that they're on team friendly deals.

Just as well, Kirk Cousins, and Tyrod Taylor are on the other side of that wall. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lil Woody said:

Until they fix the money problem with escalating QB salaries, and install a standard ceiling % of the cap or max contract at the position, there is going to be a lot of Kirk Cousin type problems to go around. 

Look at what Carr just banked.... Now, I love what Carr is doing, and he may very well turn out to be an elite top 5 type QB in the league, but they are taking a huge risk allocating that much cap room to a guy who has only continued down the expected path of becoming a FQB.  It's a shame that he wasn't taken in the 1st because then they'd have that 5th year option and franchise tags to be able to string him along for 7 years to ensure they were making the right decision by paying him at the very top of the market.  Oakland took a huge leap of faith because Carr is maturing in the exact way you would expect a FQB to develop. But the bottom could just as easily drop out on him, and once they have to start paying non rookie contract money to Cooper, Mack and the majority of their defense need to decide on how to afford to keep the same level of OLine play at half the cost of what they are spending there no it's going to be Carr that needs to shoulder the load or they have to take a step backwards on defense and hope Carr is capable of being an Aaron Rodgers type of player.  I'm rooting for Carr, I liked him a lot coming out, and I'm wishing him well despite being a scumbag Raider.  But teams have to basically destroy their cap to keep a young QB happy in this system.  Something has got to give. And if a team is on the fence we will see a lot more Cousins type wait and see approaches. I still think Cousins gets his money from the Skins, because what is their plan B? Not having a QB? Continually taking on veteran JAGs who can't shoulder the load at the position?  We all know how well that approach works.

Plus the Raiders are a good enemy to have when they are good. It kills me when we lose to them, and it is the best feeling when we beat them. Similar to the Dolphins. You love to hate them, but at least you can respect them.  Unlike a certain division rival of ours....

The rising cap is a huge contributor to the increasing cost of a franchise QB. 25 million a year might seem like a lot now, but give it time it'll feel like less of an over pay come the end of that contract. Its NFL salary inflation man, 25 million is the new 20 million and unless the growth stops it'll only keep climbing.

 

Edit- Just looked at the details of that deal for the first time- Its a little less than 25 million a year actually, more like 21 million a year. And there's only two years of guaranteed commitment- and that's counting this season. Looks like a great deal for all involved I think.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Larz said:

So Mark Sanchez?

Oh yes absolutely.....  :rolleyes:     Dirty Sanchez....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0