The Quarterback Grab

[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.