How do you define a Franchise QB?

[BCJet]

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.

[Joe W. Namath]

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

[rangerous]

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.

[Larz]

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.

[Jet_Engine1]

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.

[flgreen]

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?" 

[southparkcpa]

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. 

 

[T0mShane]

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

[Lupz27]

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.

[predator_05]

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.

[Larz]

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?

[The Crusher]

QB who don't play for the Jets?

[Larz]

My definition of franchise QB is very pedestrian.  Its just a consistent starter. Here is a list of my rankings

HOF

All-pro

pro-bowl

franchise

starter

back up

Jets QB

[August]

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

[KRL]

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

[Lupz27]

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.

[MDL_JET]

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. 

[BCJet]

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?

[Lil Woody]

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....

[Tony MaC]

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.

 

 

 

 

[dbatesman]

4 hours ago, T0mShane said:

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

[Lil Woody]

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.

[Tony MaC]

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. 

[Tony MaC]

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.

 

[southparkcpa]

3 hours ago, Larz said:

So Mark Sanchez?

Oh yes absolutely.....       Dirty Sanchez....

[Lupz27]

42 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.

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....

Seriously it's a shame crook billionaires who are leaving a city that loves that team because they won't pay for the billionaires new shiny toy aren't able to exploit a rising star by not paying him pennies compared to what they make owning the team?  Seriously you feel for an NFL owner about having to shell out some cash?  **** the NFL owners, they are the biggest scumbag criminals in all of the league (except for Aaron Hernandez), but because they are billionaires, and people actually believe their propaganda BS on how players should be loyal, but when they are through with the player they can go rot in the streets for all they care.  I have no love for the players either, BUT if I am going to have to choose a side I'm going to choose the players side every time when it comes to salary.  Most around here bitch, and moan about how Revis stole Woody Johnson's money, REALLY?  **** Woody, and yeah it sucks Revis did not live up to that contract, but good for him for making every single dollar possible in this league, what he did is so difficult in the NFL, meanwhile guys who play 8 minutes a night in the NBA are getting 10 million a year to waive a towel, and play some mop up minutes all guaranteed, and the stars are making $40 million a year now, but lets feel bad for the poor Raiders owners who had to pony up .01% of the franchises net worth to pay a possible young franchise QB.

[Lupz27]

Ugh 13 more days can't come soon enough!

[Larz]

20 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

Oh yes absolutely.....       Dirty Sanchez....

Beat Manning and Brady back to back

[southparkcpa]

10 minutes ago, Larz said:

Beat Manning and Brady back to back

I had a wet dream to Elle MCPherson.   I'm no George Clooney. 

[NoBowles]

Just ask the experts, @T0mShane and @dbatesman,  they will tell you.

[Lil Woody]

26 minutes ago, Lupz27 said:

Seriously it's a shame crook billionaires who are leaving a city that loves that team because they won't pay for the billionaires new shiny toy aren't able to exploit a rising star by not paying him pennies compared to what they make owning the team?  Seriously you feel for an NFL owner about having to shell out some cash?  **** the NFL owners, they are the biggest scumbag criminals in all of the league (except for Aaron Hernandez), but because they are billionaires, and people actually believe their propaganda BS on how players should be loyal, but when they are through with the player they can go rot in the streets for all they care.  I have no love for the players either, BUT if I am going to have to choose a side I'm going to choose the players side every time when it comes to salary.  Most around here bitch, and moan about how Revis stole Woody Johnson's money, REALLY?  **** Woody, and yeah it sucks Revis did not live up to that contract, but good for him for making every single dollar possible in this league, what he did is so difficult in the NFL, meanwhile guys who play 8 minutes a night in the NBA are getting 10 million a year to waive a towel, and play some mop up minutes all guaranteed, and the stars are making $40 million a year now, but lets feel bad for the poor Raiders owners who had to pony up .01% of the franchises net worth to pay a possible young franchise QB.

Meh. I don't care for either owners or players individually. I only care about the best interests of the franchise.  That means I care about the same interests that align with what is in the best interest of the owners as the CBA is presently written. Since the interests of the players typically are contradictory to the interests of the team/league, I likely will never pick the side that benefits the players.  It is what it is.

[Lil Woody]

54 minutes ago, Tony MaC said:

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.

 

Good points. I think they just need to be clear when we get reports on the deals. You are right, the dollars are not the issue, the % of cap space the contract takes should be the number that is focused on. I tend to react to the #s as they are reported year to year. It seems like a huge increase every season, but if the cap is moving at the same rate, then it's fine, but if QB contracts are outpacing annual cap growth that's a problem.

[Larz]

21 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

I had a wet dream to Elle MCPherson.   I'm no George Clooney. 

What happened to Sanchez can make one believe in the Namath deal with the devil

[BCJet]

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

 

I think your post is the exact reason I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.  Tom Brady and Ryan Tannehill are listed next to each other on your list - think about that.  I get that you "cant win" without a QB, but Ryan Tannehill hasnt proven a thing, and his team hasnt won with him there, nor has he really improved (he threw for 1800 less yards then Cousins btw)

I dont think the salaries matter as much as the fans/media make them out to be.  It not just the escalating cap, but the rookie cap makes a huge difference.  Every team is saving millions, especially when you draft in the top 10, by not paying unproven rookies $20+ million in guarantees.  Can you swing and miss on a veteran FA, of course.  But the % chance of a miss on those guys is less than the miss % on a rookie who used to make $20 million guaranteed without playing a down of NFL football.  Every dollar saved on a rookie, makes a QB deal less painful to absorb.

[Lil Woody]

5 minutes ago, BCJet said:

I think your post is the exact reason I thought this would be a good topic to discuss.  Tom Brady and Ryan Tannehill are listed next to each other on your list - think about that.  I get that you "cant win" without a QB, but Ryan Tannehill hasnt proven a thing, and his team hasnt won with him there, nor has he really improved (he threw for 1800 less yards then Cousins btw)

I dont think the salaries matter as much as the fans/media make them out to be.  It not just the escalating cap, but the rookie cap makes a huge difference.  Every team is saving millions, especially when you draft in the top 10, by not paying unproven rookies $20+ million in guarantees.  Can you swing and miss on a veteran FA, of course.  But the % chance of a miss on those guys is less than the miss % on a rookie who used to make $20 million guaranteed without playing a down of NFL football.  Every dollar saved on a rookie, makes a QB deal less painful to absorb.

Great points, but the assumption here is that you have a team that drafts well and can consistently keep that cheap talent in the pipeline and follow that next man up ideal.  VERY few teams have mastered that approach.