...is a term that gets thrown around very loosely by TV pundits, sports writers and fans. 1. I'm curious to know what everyone's definition of a "franchise quarterback" is? 2. What criteria (wins, CMP%, RAT, QBR...etc.) do you use to qualify a QB with the "franchise quarterback" label. 3. How many of them are out there right now in the NFL?
There aren't too many of them. Peyton, Rodgers, Brady, Brees are the obvious choices. Then there is Matt Ryan, Romo. The young guys which can be too early to tell in Kaep, Wilson, Luck and RGIII. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A Franchise QB is a guy that a team can build around for the foreseeable future,a guy that keeps his team in contention year in and year out,I don't look to stats all that much(see Brady this year) more so always knowing that if you have this guy you know that you will always be in contention and can win every week.I would say there are only about 4-5 true elite Franchise QBs in the NFL right now.
A franchise quarterback is a quarterback who can, will, and does win the Super Bowl, and further is enough of a contributor to that cause that the team locks them up long term in order to have a reasonable chance at more Super Bowl victories. Think quarterbacks who have their team in the playoffs every year except in unusual circumstances such as the injury bug or some other really random weirdness. Peyton Manning Tom Brady Aaron Rodgers Drew Brees Eli Manning Ben Roethlisberger In my opinion, Russell Wilson will be the next guy who makes this list. I don't include Flacco because I believe his contract is an albatross and that the Ravens defense had significantly more to do with winning the SB than Flacco did (despite the heroics vs the Broncos) thus undermining their future potential to win another Super Bowl. Romo and Rivers - prove you are the guys. There are other young quarterbacks who might one day be true franchise quarterbacks, but for now they are just potential.
^ Russell Wilson is right on the cusp of being on that list with the others you mentioned. I'd take Eli off that list as he's fallen back to the pack a little IMO. It's more than stats that make a franchise QB. It's their cool, calm demeanor in the pocket when they're under duress. It sounds cliché but it's true. If you know the game well enough then you can tell who has "it" and who doesn't. So there's about 6 of them in the league right now. So franchise QB's only make up about 20% of the starting QB's in the league, or about 1 for every 5 teams.
Eli certainly isn't in the same class as Peyton or Brady, however you don't win two Super Bowls by accident. What separates Eli from Romo, Rivers, Ryan, and others is that success. That's a major difference and one worth noting. Eli fits the bill of a guy who gives the team a reasonable chance to win the SB every year, even if he's definitely the most maddening one when it comes to doing that. I agree with your description of the qualities of a franchise QB. These guys truly are a rare breed. Too many quarterbacks in the NFL have the look of a franchise quarterback, but aren't actually deserving of that title.
The following teams have "franchise QB's" Patriots Dolphins Ravens Bengals Steelers Colts Chargers Broncos Chiefs Giants Eagles??? Cowboys Redskins Packers Bears Lions Falcons Saints Panthers 49ers Seahawks Rams Of course there are varying levels. Between these teams only 4 of them have elite QB's. The rest vary from really good, to good to decent/average.
Wrong for many reasons. Your comment would eliminate so many Franchise QBs its just ignorant. A Franchise QB is a guy the team can count of for a decade and produces at a high level. Some things you would want are averaging .600 wins, with more TDs than Ints and completion percentage 60%.or above. These NFL great and some HOFers fit my criteria but not yours. Also, if a QB is in the HOF and you don't consider him a Franchise guy then you were dropped at a kid. Dan Marino (Dolphins 17 Years) Jim Kelly (Bills 11 Years) Donovan McNabb (Eagles 11 Years) Dave Krieg (Seattle 12 Years) Warren Moon (Houston 10 Years) Steve McNair (Houston 11 Years) Philip Rivers (Chargers 10 years) Tony Romo (Cowboys 10 Years) These guys were considered Franchise guys but don't even fit my criteria. Ken Anderson (Cincy 16 Years) Jim Hart (Cards 18 Years) Roman Gabriel (Rams 11 Years) Dan Fouts (Rams 15 Years) Randall Cunningham (Eagles 11 Years) John Hadl (Charges 11 Years) Matt Hasselbeck (Seattle 10 Years) Boomer Esiason (Cincy 9 Years) Joe Ferguson (Bills 12 Years) Mark Brunell (Jacksonville 9 years) Steve Grogan (Pats 16 Years) Ron Jaworski (Eagles 10 Years) John Brodie (49ers 17 years) Worst of all not one of these guys listed on either of my lists were Jets. If you count the young QBs like Wilson and the Superbowl winning one, some teams have 3 guys covering 30+ years. We have only Namath who is ranked 60th on the all time winning list for QBs. And who shortly will be passed by Flacco, Rogers, Ryan, Cutler . * Archie Manning was a Franchise guy on a horrible team for 11 years of the Saints and he won't even make the top 100 QBs by stats and never sniffed a rings until his sons won them.
This. If you're only considering the top ~5 quarterbacks as franchise quarterbacks, you need to temper your expectations. Despite what the talking heads say, you don't need one of the elite quarterbacks to be a contender. What you can't have is a quarterback that can punish a defense if they don't respect the pass.
Patriots-obviously Dolphins- too soon to tell Ravens- yes Bengals- maybe Steelers- yes Colts- yes Chargers- yes Broncos- yes Chiefs -maybe Giants- yes Eagles- looks good but early Cowboys- yes Redskins- yes Packers- yes Bears- no Lions- yes Falcons- yes Saints- yes Panthers- yes 49ers- looking good Seahawks- yes Rams- not yet
really? so the following QB's were not Franchise QB's: Dan Marino Warren Moon Fran Tarkenton Boomer Esiason Jim Kelly Dan Fouts Please explain. Being a Franchise QB has nothing to do with winning the Super Bowl, it has to do with being talented enough to be a difference maker and make your team a consistent contender. Jim Kelly wasn't a franchise QB just because the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys had better teams than he did? that is an asinine argument and is what you stated.
most playoff wins and only one losing season w/ the worst skill talent I have ever seen(or at least since the 1995 Jets).
You also forgot Favre. Yes both Brunell and Favre were "getting on" in their careers but we did have them. Having said that, to me, a "Franchise" QB is a guy that brings the play UP of others around him. He makes the WHOLE offense better. Whether he wins the SB or not he must do this for at LEAST 5-10 years. We all saw Brady's two young guys the first game we played them...and then the 2nd game...and subsequent games before/after. He ultimately MADE those guys better. There are only a handful of guys in the league whom I would consider Franchise guys...now: Brady, P. Manning, Rogers, Brees Potential Franchise guys: E. Manning, Rivers, Romo Too young to tell Franchise guys: Wilson, Kaepernick, Locker, Tannehill, R. Griffin III, Luck Never will be: A. Smith, Stafford, Schaub, Sanchez, Anything on Jacksonville The potential guys have to prove they can get it done with lesser talent...especially Romo. E. Manning really is a bubble guy to Franchise...he goes back up if he rebounds next year. But this year has been Sanchez ugly. You can't even enter the Too young guys...I mean really...they are ALL 2 years or less in playing time. They need to survive and get it done for at LEAST half a decade. One thing to consider about Kaepernick, Griffin III and Wilson...they are running QB's and history is not on their side as far as longevity is concerned. Just look at Griffin III...let's hope he comes all the way back as he is good for the league and appears to be an all around good guy...but history doesn't favor him ever having the year he had last year. So much of what he does relies on his legs.
Fair points. Throughout NFL history my argument doesn't hold up and there are exceptions as pointed out by both of you. Those guys had great careers and did not win a Super Bowl. At the end of the day, who do we want? 60th all time Joe Namath with a quality Super Bowl win, or elite quarterbacks who don't do squat? I listed Eli Manning as a franchise quarterback. There are many quarterbacks in the NFL that are "better" than Eli and haven't (yet) won a Super Bowl, yet he has the results and they don't. Who would you rather have? I'm not going to argue that you're both wrong. Your arguments are accurate and indisputable. I'm going to argue that my argument is a dynamic that does exist in the NFL, especially today. I'd take Eli and his accomplishments over Romo, Rivers, Ryan, etc... On my team, my franchise guy is the one who gets it done. The Super Bowl is the goal, nothing else. Give me one or two great Super Bowls over fifteen years of coming close.
It's a tough thing to define. For me, it's not a set definition, but a QB where you don't have to worry about that position barring injury or retirement. So basically if the guy is starting game 1, you aren't worried about that position at all. AND on top of that, the QB is playing good. Within the group of franchise QBs, there is varying degrees of ability to play the franchise QB position. For me personally, I think I rank franchise QB as below a "great" QB and definitely below "elite" QB. EDIT: How many are there? Without counting, I would guess 1/2 the league has a franchise QB and 2/3 of the league believe they have a franchise QB
Eli, Rivers and Romo already are a franchise QBs. Don't think it is too early to tell with Wilson and Luck, they will be barring career ending injuries. You failed to mention Cam Newton, in my opinion he has a much better shot than Kaep, RG3, Locker and Tannehill.
