The Quarterback Grab

[RunOJRun]

The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.).

 

It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB.

 

With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place.

 

With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab."

 

Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster).

 

To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.)

 

To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks.

 

This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine.

 

Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating.

 

I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle.

[Saint Doug]

That seems like a really cool idea. I would add that teams who grab a QB must offer that player a 5+ year contract after their first full season or let them walk. I believe there are many good QBs (and maybe even great QBs) out there that just never get the chance to show their stuff and they end up out of football.

 

This is another argument for some sort of "minor league". Most QBs need more than 1-2 years to develop. Usually, being buried on a roster with a franchise QB, this never happens. It's actually quite a waste if talent.

[Thoner7]

Or the Bills could fire Modrak and all the other scouts, then hire a real GM and real Scouts, draft a good QB, and not worry about it for 15 years.

 

Or they could trade/spend average QB money on one of the franchise QBs that have come up on the market recently (brees, vick, cutler)

 

I don't think the NFL should reward retarded teams like Buffalo and punish competent teams who do what it takes to win. The government already does that to us citizens and it doesn't make anything better.

 

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Ben Franklin

Edited February 13, 2011 by Thoner7

[The Cincinnati Kid]

I think that a minor league is a better idea than this madness you have described. I think it is very innovative, but it just would never happen. The coaches would be pissed, and QBs would never get drafted high anymore because you couldn't groom them yourself. The idea of have a minor league has always been a good one. Maybe have it by division. So the AFC East would have one team in like Albany. The Albany Albinos. White Uniforms. Anyway, that would create an 8 team league that would play games on Wednesday nights. They would have Sunday's as their tradional off day (possibly for "call-ups"?). Each team could designate 13 players. That would make a 52 man roster. They could figure out a pay scale for these guys. Something similar to the practice squad. That would give each NFL team a roster of 66 players or 72 players if they decided to keep a group of guys as an actual practice squad like they do now. The main gain to all this that the teams would have NFL caliber players playing against NFL caliber players during the season. Development is taking place, and if yu have 4 ILBs drop, you aren't signing some guy out of Michigan's weight room/garden care center to fill in...

[BillsVet]

Socialism can do anything.

[BADOLBILZ]

I think that a minor league is a better idea than this madness you have described. I think it is very innovative, but it just would never happen. The coaches would be pissed, and QBs would never get drafted high anymore because you couldn't groom them yourself. The idea of have a minor league has always been a good one. Maybe have it by division. So the AFC East would have one team in like Albany. The Albany Albinos. White Uniforms. Anyway, that would create an 8 team league that would play games on Wednesday nights. They would have Sunday's as their tradional off day (possibly for "call-ups"?). Each team could designate 13 players. That would make a 52 man roster. They could figure out a pay scale for these guys. Something similar to the practice squad. That would give each NFL team a roster of 66 players or 72 players if they decided to keep a group of guys as an actual practice squad like they do now. The main gain to all this that the teams would have NFL caliber players playing against NFL caliber players during the season. Development is taking place, and if yu have 4 ILBs drop, you aren't signing some guy out of Michigan's weight room/garden care center to fill in...

 

A minor league system would be great, but I think each team would need their own. The problem is, as it was with NFL Europe, nobody wants their QB of the future to get hurt in a minor league game.

[jumbalaya]

Minor league is college ball. Each NFL team should sponsor one or two schools and pay for this student athletes to attend. It is criminal that tax payer money finances athletic scholarships at state schools.

[Albany,n.y.]

The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.).

 

It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB.

 

With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place.

 

With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab."

 

Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster).

 

To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.)

 

To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks.

 

This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine.

 

Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating.

 

I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle.

This has to be the worst idea ever proposed on this board. It's hard enough to attain team stabilty, now you want to throw that all away. The goal of most teams is to have a competent backup QB. All you have to do to see the insanity of this is to look at the Super Bowl champs. Aaron Rodgers was drafted in the 1st round to eventually replace Brett Favre. The plan worked. Under this "system" it wouldn't work for any team with an aging QB. I seriously doubt the players would want anything to do with this.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.).

 

It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB.

 

With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place.

 

With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab."

 

Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster).

 

To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.)

 

To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks.

 

This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine.

 

Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating.

 

I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle.

No way! you get what you get, If your GM stinks get a new one. I wouldn't want some team pulling one of our QBs that we might need due to injuries or could used in a trade to enhance my team.

[sandiegobillsfan]

Oh and add this to the mix, the dreaded 18 game schedule. I believe that teams would want two starter quality QB on their rosters. That way your starter does not have to play all 18 games.

[section122]

How about this novel idea... if you want a qb find one on your own. If someone has one you want trade for them. To punish teams that are good at finding talent and teaching that talent is ridiculous. If the bills were good would you be for this idea?

[yungmack]

Socialism can do anything.

The NFL is a strange mix of socialism and, until free agency, slavery. Of course the socialism is of the American type. That is, the owners get to keep any profits, and the taxpayers get to eat the losses (in the case of professional sports, that means they pay taxes that build stadiums, provide roadways, etc. while the owners get to keep all of "their" money). Kind of like the Wall Street bailout, the auto industry bailout (where the workers had to make massive concessions as the companies made billions on taxpayer money), health care "reform" which, to label it honestly, should really be called Health Care Industry Profit Maximization.

 

Ya gotta love American Socialism, where Big Money/Big Industry is on the governmental dole, and the rest of us get to support them. This is Groucho Marxism.

[Captain Hindsight]

I think that a minor league is a better idea than this madness you have described. I think it is very innovative, but it just would never happen. The coaches would be pissed, and QBs would never get drafted high anymore because you couldn't groom them yourself. The idea of have a minor league has always been a good one. Maybe have it by division. So the AFC East would have one team in like Albany. The Albany Albinos. White Uniforms. Anyway, that would create an 8 team league that would play games on Wednesday nights. They would have Sunday's as their tradional off day (possibly for "call-ups"?). Each team could designate 13 players. That would make a 52 man roster. They could figure out a pay scale for these guys. Something similar to the practice squad. That would give each NFL team a roster of 66 players or 72 players if they decided to keep a group of guys as an actual practice squad like they do now. The main gain to all this that the teams would have NFL caliber players playing against NFL caliber players during the season. Development is taking place, and if yu have 4 ILBs drop, you aren't signing some guy out of Michigan's weight room/garden care center to fill in...

I really like this idea. One thing they could do is buy out the UFL and start this in its place. People love football, alot. This is something i would go see and would be an armchair GM's dream. To spot the next big player at the minor league level

 

College isnt played in a pro style game. This would be a way for many fringe players to get a better chance and would improve teams rosters in the event of injury bugs

[Malazan]

1. The league has fairly decent parity or it has a level of parity that it has happy with and does not feel the need to 'increase' parity. Parity is about the opportunity to be equal, not a guarantee.

 

2. It's a nice thought, but there's enough holes to drive a death star through.

 

Just to start, if a QB is claimed then he is 'protected', but any QB claimed can't be claimed again?

 

any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter.

 

That right there already overlaps and makes one of them irrelevant. Throwing draft picks for lost QBs just makes it more of a 'cluster'.

 

Are you adding picks? Taking them away from other rounds? This starts to create a cluster. What's to stop teams from using this to 'create' draft picks? Get another team to claim your backup QB and get a free 2nd round pick?

[Zulu Cthulhu]

So a team, say Buffalo, drafts someone like Cam Newton high in the draft to groom him for a season or two while Fitzpatrick starts. But the day after the draft some other team that really wanted Newton can just claim him? Buffalo esentially loses a first round pick (the one they spent on Newton) and has no qb to develop? Um, no.

 

This idea also assumes there are more than a few teams out there with more than one starting caliber qb. There isn't. There is maybe 1 (philly) right now. No other team has that situation.

 

Parity does exist, especially in the NFC. A different team has represented the NFC in the superbowl for the last 10 seasons. The two big spending, "marquee" teams in that conference, Dallas and Washington, aren't in that group of ten.

[Ramius]

How many backup QBs throw 23 TDs in a season?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

This has to be the worst idea ever proposed on this board.

I wish people (especially good posters like yourself) would refrain from making comments like this.

 

If you don't like the idea, just say why you don't like it. Another alternative would be to not reply to the topic. Or, instead of insults, how about an attempt at humor ("to the original poster...you should develop board games for Milton Bradley ")?

 

One thing is clear from the original post…the author put a lot of time, thought, and effort into the post. Also, while I find the idea misguided for all the reasons already eloquently stated, the idea was certainly paved with good intentions.

 

I recently had one of my topics called "maybe the dumbest post of the offseason so far." Please take my word for it…the post was not dumb.

 

People become immediately hurt, insulted, and flucking pissed off when others make flip, oversimplified criticisms of their posts. It's the surest way to start a pissing match and foul the waters of our fair board.

 

It's the nature of a forum like this to disagree but can we really try not to insult each other?

Edited February 14, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

[T master]

The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.).

 

It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB.

 

With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place.

 

With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab."

 

Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster).

 

To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.)

 

To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks.

 

This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine.

 

Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating.

 

I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle.

 

By the end of the first paragraph that just sounded stupid !!!!!!

[RunOJRun]

This has to be the worst idea ever proposed on this board. It's hard enough to attain team stabilty, now you want to throw that all away. The goal of most teams is to have a competent backup QB. All you have to do to see the insanity of this is to look at the Super Bowl champs. Aaron Rodgers was drafted in the 1st round to eventually replace Brett Favre. The plan worked. Under this "system" it wouldn't work for any team with an aging QB. I seriously doubt the players would want anything to do with this.

 

OK, maybe QBs should be immune from being grabbed during their rookie and second seasons. If their team isn't willing to make them the designated starter by their third season and another team is willing to start them, they should be fair pickings for another team.

 

(Really, what's the point of drafting a QB who is likely to hit free agency before you have any plans to play him? If your "aging quarterback" is in his early 30's, he might have a good five or more years left. You're better off signing an even older quarterback on the downside of his career to spot start occasionally should your starter be injured.)

 

If there are fewer than 32 quarterbacks genuinely talented enough to start in the NFL, it hurts the sport if a few of those genuinely talented players stand around holding a clipboard when they could replace lesser talents on other teams. It's unfair to the player who could be starting elsewhere and improving his bargaining position when he's up for free agency and it's unfair to every fan who watches games which aren't as entertaining as they could be because a few teams are hoarding two worthy starters while other teams have none. Get the best players on the field and it benefits the sport.

Edited February 19, 2011 by RunOJRun

[Zulu Cthulhu]

Kudos to you OP for coming back and revising your idea reasonably after so many replying posters flamed your original post.

 

I still don't agree with your overall idea, but your revised version is a lot better.

[Spiderweb]

Socialism can do anything.

You couldn't resist the political crap?

[MyHorseAteTheKid]

The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.).

 

It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB.

 

With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place.

 

With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab."

 

Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster).

 

To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.)

 

To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks.

 

This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine.

 

Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating.

 

I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle.

 

 

Unbelievable, Typical welfare mentality, the first thing people what to do who don't have, is take away from the people that do.. The "No work ethic mentality" is now spreading to sports.. An organization has the best front office, they draft the best, they manage their salary cap, great coaching staff and put an excellent product on the field..

 

So now you want your team, who has a terrible front office, bad scouting system, drafts poorly and refuses to spend to the cap limit, to be allowed to compete by scarfing up a better organizations player?

 

WORK ETHIC... Compete by hard work and hiring the proper personal...

[Saint Doug]

Unbelievable, Typical welfare mentality, the first thing people what to do who don't have, is take away from the people that do.. The "No work ethic mentality" is now spreading to sports.. An organization has the best front office, they draft the best, they manage their salary cap, great coaching staff and put an excellent product on the field..

 

So now you want your team, who has a terrible front office, bad scouting system, drafts poorly and refuses to spend to the cap limit, to be allowed to compete by scarfing up a better organizations player?

 

WORK ETHIC... Compete by hard work and hiring the proper personal...

 

You need to calm down, dude. I agree with you, but this is not real life, it's the NFL. And the NFL like parity. You shouldn't have taken 10 minutes of your life to argument against someones fantasy for an already fantasy world, the NFL.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Unbelievable, Typical welfare mentality, the first thing people what to do who don't have, is take away from the people that do.. The "No work ethic mentality" is now spreading to sports.. An organization has the best front office, they draft the best, they manage their salary cap, great coaching staff and put an excellent product on the field..

 

So now you want your team, who has a terrible front office, bad scouting system, drafts poorly and refuses to spend to the cap limit, to be allowed to compete by scarfing up a better organizations player?

 

WORK ETHIC... Compete by hard work and hiring the proper personal...

 

You need to calm down, dude. I agree with you, but this is not real life, it's the NFL. And the NFL like parity. You shouldn't have taken 10 minutes of your life to argument against someones fantasy for an already fantasy world, the NFL.

Yes. This was a suggestion made by a well-meaning fan on a sports bulletin board.

 

No need to elevate the blood pressure.

 

 

[LancasterSteve]

Socialism can do anything.

 

Ditto.....you beat me to it

[BillsVet]

You couldn't resist the political crap?

 

The only difference here is someone's talking about redistributing quarterbacks and not greenbacks. Ironically, the NFL is perhaps the most socialist of any professional league, and there are still several teams stuck at the bottom while others are perennial successes. You can't legislate teams into success because some people make more mistakes than others.

[Ozymandius]

They should also make 32 Super Bowl trophies each year.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

The only difference here is someone's talking about redistributing quarterbacks and not greenbacks. Ironically, the NFL is perhaps the most socialist of any professional league, and there are still several teams stuck at the bottom while others are perennial successes. You can't legislate teams into success because some people make more mistakes than others.

Is that to say that you don't prefer the NFL and NHL models (most socialistic) over MLB and NBA models (least socialistic)?

 

You can't legislate competitiveness but if you did a comprehensive study of all leagues, I think you'd find that at least the NFL gives every team a better chance at occasionally making the playoffs. I think you'd also find that based on won-lost records that the NFL and NHL are much more competitive than MLB and the NBA.

 

Again this is based on all records, not just playoff teams and is only my opinion.

 

 

[BillsVet]

Is that to say that you don't prefer the NFL and NHL models (most socialistic) over MLB and NBA models (least socialistic)?

 

You can't legislate competitiveness but if you did a comprehensive study of all leagues, I think you'd find that at least the NFL gives every team a better chance at occasionally making the playoffs. I think you'd also find that based on won-lost records that the NFL and NHL are much more competitive than MLB and the NBA.

 

Again this is based on all records, not just playoff teams and is only my opinion.

 

If you compare SB participants versus WS participants since the 2001 season, the numbers are very similar: 14 SB participants versus 15 WS participants. No one's defined success or competitiveness here, but I'd be the first one to point out that there will always be teams that remain bad-mediocre while other teams are successful more often than not. In the AFCE alone you've got that situation with NE having been at or near the top for a decade while Buffalo fumbles around in the same period. And that's with a salary cap and the worst teams having the best draft picks.

 

Ultimately, it's the people managing these teams who either make more good decisions or do not that lead to on-field success. There's no way to ensure every team has a capable owner and/or GM that consistently make good decisions to put the best team on the field. Bob Kraft hired Belichick in 2000 and not long after RW went with Donahoe/G. Williams. RW followed that up with Marv, then Brandon, and now Nix. Meanwhile, NE still has the same HC whose system is very successful. The NFL can't possibly force RW to hire someone of Belichick or Pioli or Dimitroff's acumen no matter how much they want to.

[Albany,n.y.]

If you compare SB participants versus WS participants since the 2001 season, the numbers are very similar: 14 SB participants versus 15 WS participants. No one's defined success or competitiveness here, but I'd be the first one to point out that there will always be teams that remain bad-mediocre while other teams are successful more often than not. In the AFCE alone you've got that situation with NE having been at or near the top for a decade while Buffalo fumbles around in the same period. And that's with a salary cap and the worst teams having the best draft picks.

 

Ultimately, it's the people managing these teams who either make more good decisions or do not that lead to on-field success. There's no way to ensure every team has a capable owner and/or GM that consistently make good decisions to put the best team on the field. Bob Kraft hired Belichick in 2000 and not long after RW went with Donahoe/G. Williams. RW followed that up with Marv, then Brandon, and now Nix. Meanwhile, NE still has the same HC whose system is very successful. The NFL can't possibly force RW to hire someone of Belichick or Pioli or Dimitroff's acumen no matter how much they want to.

 

Maybe yes, maybe no. Back in the 1979 the NFL put pressure on the NY Giants to hire George Young. This was after fan boycotts including burning tickets in the parking lot & a plane flying over the stadium with a banner reading "15 years of lousy football-We've had enough."

[Phil Hansen Forever]

Socialism can do anything.

Just ask Obama and his ilk. Or perhaps Gorbechev...it worked out so well for him.

[Spiderweb]

The only difference here is someone's talking about redistributing quarterbacks and not greenbacks. Ironically, the NFL is perhaps the most socialist of any professional league, and there are still several teams stuck at the bottom while others are perennial successes. You can't legislate teams into success because some people make more mistakes than others.

 

Whether the NFL is or isn't similar in operation as would be a socialist society didn't need to be interjected into this discussion, unless you feel so inclined to take every opportunity, cheap or not, to make your political statements.

 

To say the idea proposed by the OP is wonderful (and here's why) or it is preposterous (and here's why) would have been far more contributory and civil. Personally it seems more than a bit misguided.

[Koufax]

The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.).

 

It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB.

 

With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place.

 

With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab."

 

Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster).

 

To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.)

 

To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks.

 

This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine.

 

Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating.

 

I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle.

 

Very similar to the Rule V draft in baseball, with the idea of good players not getting a chance, and the complex rules after you pick one. I like this idea at some levels, but the complexity and the eliminating the possibility of developing a QB over a year or two makes it seem like a fun thing for a bottom team without a QB to throw about, but not enough upside to ever really get considered.