My definition is a guy that helps more than hurts, makes the talent that he has to work with better and when the game is on the line doesn't cause me to miss plays covering my eyes...
Consistently win with? Is that why we won more than 8 games in a season with him starting just once? If he was a franchise guy based on playoff wins, then I guess guys like Jim Leonhard, Vernon Gholston and Wayne Hunter are franchise guys too.
Stafford is still a young a franchise QB in his fifth year. May not have the wins, but except for 2010 due to injury, he averages over 4,000 and 25 TDs a year. By the end of the year he will have average 5,000 yards the last three seasons.
Franchise QB. 60%+ completion percentage. Minimum 1.5 TD to every Turnover. Nothing more to say, be efficient with the passing game, take care of the ball. End of story. (note these are based on the modern rule set for passing. You can have slightly lower than 1.5 to 1 TD to turnover ratio but you'd better be putting up 4,000 yards + if you're lower than 1.5 and even then you can't be under 1.2 or 1.3. if your turning the ball over as often as you're scoring you're a liability and not an asset. Sanchez never took care of the ball and was never efficient. Smith has been extremely disappointing and the Jets will draft another QB in 2014.)
Yep, if you have the guy signed long-term and have no plans to replace him the odds are he's your franchise QB.
There's a pretty big difference between elite and franchise quarterbacks. A franchise quarterback needs to be the unquestioned starter for as long as he's on the team. This means they usually need to have at least 3 or 4 years of experience. There might be exceptions; Russell Wilson comes to mind. You see how we have so many threads about our quarterback situation? Teams with Franchise QBs don't have to worry about that. Once your in a situation like that where there's no doubt you have your QB of the future, he can be labeled a franchise quarterback. Young guys like Tannehill and Kaepernick I label as potential franchise QBs because we don't know for sure yet. I'm sure the Bengals are having now doubts about Dalton, but they probably felt he was a franchise QB at one point. So basically if you feel 100% confident that your quarterback does not and will not need replacement, he's a franchise QB. Then you can start building around him and the position can be an afterthought. At least that's how I see it.
It's a good question. LIke other posters have said there aren't many around. But you can win without one. A team with a good game manager who does not turn over the ball can win in the NFL. Rather than spend 20 mil per for a guy who might get injured I'd go with the game manager (unless you have a clear shot at one of top 2 or 3-the others like Flacco while good aren't worth killing your cap space over). If I were the Jets I'd try to sign a good veteran Qb (which we should have done this year--Garrard obviously doesn't count due to injuries, not playing in 3 years, etc.) for 2014 and I said good not Mark Sanchez. Somebody maybe in the 4 mil range like a Hasselbeck if available. He won't bog down your offense he'll move the chains, not turn over the ball and keep you on the field and with a good defense give you a decent chance every week to win. I wouldn't draft a Qb or it could be the same thing next season. Keep Geno as a developmental project and your backup unless they conclude he isn't NFL quality.
So by your logic you would take a Superbowl winning QB over a highly productive QB like Marino and Kelly. If getting to a Superbowl and getting a win is what makes a great QB, please explain Trent Dilfer?
I mean I'd take Eli's playoff luck and his SB play with under 4 minutes left in a SB :grin: When the Eli Manning QB'ed Giants get a break, they always seem to take advantage. They won both NFC championship games in OT and both game winning drives came off a turnover by the other team and both GW drives and Eli throwing for 0 yards and Bradshaw putting them in closer FG range than the turnover. And then of course the Giants go on and win both SBs. EDIT: I'm not trying to talk down the Giants SB, they played great and their offense/defense/special teams came together to put together 2 amazing runs. If someone calls you lucky, it means you won. Being a tad bit more serious, I'd take Eli, Romo, Rivers, or Ryan as QB although the first 3 are getting kind of old in NFL years. They all have been some great years and each have put up close to MVP type years. All great QBs of this era. Funny enough, the likeness score for Eli Manning on profootballreference, Tony Romo comes up
I'd say Eli, Rivers and Ryan, and then Romo below them. The first 3 have all enjoyed playoff success in multiple years. Romo has been an absolute dud once the bright lights of the playoffs come on. Tony Romo to me is a guy who puts up stats that look good but his rating as a top QB gets diminished because he's never done it in the postseason and up until recently, couldn't do it in crunch time situations. My ratings go: Elite-Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers Next level - Wilson, Ryan, Eli, Newton, Luck, Rivers, Kap Followed by: Romo, Flacco, Cutler, RG3, Alex Smith, Foles Then: Dalton, Tannehill, and then a big dropoff to the rest of the starting QB'S in the league. The players in the 2nd and 3rd tier are very interchangeable right now and depending on playoff results could easily sway.
based on performance in 2013 Young Eli and Matty Ice both deserve to be in the "rest of the starting QBs in the league" category and the jury is far from resolved on Foles and Tannehill too and I assume it's just an error that Big Ben and Stafford are included in your bottom tier when both are better than Cutler, Smith and RG3 by miles
I'm not that black and white in my thinking. For one, I left Joe Flacco off my list because I believe his contract prevents the team from having a reasonable chance to win another Super Bowl. Further, teams with defenses so great that all they need is a game managing QB to win do come along occasionally, and then you get your Trent Dilfers and Rob Johnsons of the world... not franchise quarterbacks. I believe that while a franchise QB should have won Super Bowls, QBs who win Super Bowls aren't necessarily franchise quarterbacks. Like you pointed out, there are lots of anomalies surrounding both franchise QBs and Super Bowl QBs. The QB I want are the ones I listed. Given the choice of Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, and Tony Romo, I take Eli Manning every single day 100% without fail, despite the fact that an argument can be made that the other two are better.
My definition is a smart QB who protects the ball & doesn't lose games for you. Doesn't need the huge arm or to throw for 400yds a game, just needs to manage the game and protect the ball.
It's simple. It's a QB that has potential and you build your team around and give him the best tools to win.
I know I'll get burned for this, but I'm not 100% sold on having a 'franchise' QB. Yes. it's easier for the media and fans to have only one player to pay attention to, but I think having a 'franchise' QB is an over-simplification of the game of American Football. I'd rather have a team that's 'fun to watch' in multiple areas. Having a franchise QB that sucks 50% of your entire offensive budget into one position means you have a mediocre offensive line. You have mediocre TEs. You have mediocre FBs, blocking TEs, and RBs. And you have 3 mediocre WRs running routs. And you have a backup QB you probably can't even name. You may get lucky and get one other 'better than decent player', but don't count on it. It's the whole 'Revis' argument, only on offense. Would you rather have a phenomenal DB shutting down the other teams #1 go-to-guy, or would you prefer 'just good enough DBs' plus the Sons of Anarchy tearing opposing QBs a new asshole? As a fan I guess it's a preference thing. I prefer a rock solid above avg team from one end to the other that's fun to watch anywhere on the field rather than watching just one or 2 great players hoping they play good enough to overcome the team's 15 weaknesses. Plus you never have to suffer through a season after your 'star player' suffers a dreaded high ankle sprain or breaks a collar bone. Plus I like seeing more than just one name on the back of jerseys sitting in front of me or standing in line with me at the beer counter.
Trends point to needing a "franchise QB" to get to the playoffs and then having a solid team around the "franchise QB" to win the SB. Most franchise QBs don't suck up 50% of the budget for offense. It's usually after 3-4 years the team decides they are the franchise QB and then they get paid like Rodgers or Flacco.
im going to get murdered for this but if the defense can get stability in the backfield and the offensive skill positions improve sanchez might excel in this system. im not sure he wont restructure and stay with the jets and compete for the starting job if geno ever learns or even improves his footwork he might have a shot but he theres a lot of room for improvement
So if the defense improves and our offensive skill positions improve we'll get better regardless of QB :smile: No matter who the QB is, the Jets have to improve the skill position. I forgot what thread it was posted in, but I looked up all the offensive skill positions we drafted since 2000 and it isn't pretty.
