Franchise QB History

[Punch]

If that is the criteria, Layne might be the guy.

 

Interesting--- it's amazing that Matthew Stafford is likely the best QB in the history of the Lions franchise since Layne. Surely that's the longest drought of inconsistent QB play of any team.

 

After rereading the OP I realized the media aspect was really just the 3rd part of the question.

[FleaMoulds80]

You can only become a franchise QB when you win a super bowl. Until then he is a just a starter

 

That is the biggest load of horse cr*p i've ever heard. So Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Johnny Unitas, Dan Fouts were never franchise QBs?

[HeHateMe]

That is the biggest load of horse cr*p i've ever heard. So Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Johnny Unitas, Dan Fouts were never franchise QBs?

 

I agree, I think a Franchise is a guy than can solidify the position on the team for 8 to 12+ years while playing at a high level and giving the team a chance to compete for a Championship. The team has no question who the guy is at QB each year and looks to build around him.

 

Kelly, Marino, etc..

[You herd it hear last]

The term "franchise QB" is the most abused and meaningless phrase ever. It's tossed around like confetti on anyone you want to fluff up. Matt Leinert and Jimmy Clausen were called franchise. Mark Sanchez and Sam Bradford are inexplicably still referred to that way.

 

There are only two or three REAL franchise QBs in the NFL right now, and no rookie out of college is one, sorry.

 

PTR

Thanks for all the feedback everyone.

 

As for rookies, I'd agree. But it only takes a glimpse of what you have, e.g. Dalton, Newton, to know yer not going to draft a QB real high for a while, right? Read: we have our franchise guy, let's build around him...

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Unitus was the first franchise qb. His performance from the late 50s for more than a decade was remarkable. In some of those years his stats would have put him in the pro bowl in the receiver coddled era. Ha had a plus Td to interception ratio when his receivers were being clocked with the ball in the air.

 

I mentioned Unitas earlier and he is a compelling counterargument to Montana being the first franchise quarterback ever. Ironically in the most dramatic moment of his career in "The Greatest Game Ever Played," it was fullback Alan Ameche who toted the rock over the goal line in overtime to secure the victory for the Colts. But Unitas was epic in that game.

 

I would pick Sammy Baugh. You can make a case for Benny Friedman earlier. Graham was also before Unitas.

 

I had forgotten Otto Graham in my earlier post.

 

Another incredible statistical outlier of his time who completely transcended his position was Don Hutson.

 

He held all of these NFL records, many of which still stand today, in spite of playing wide receiver from 1935 to 1945:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Hutson#NFL_records

 

p.s. I believe there is such a thing as a franchise quarterback but it is based on accomplishment in the NFL and nothing else.

[KRC]

I mentioned Unitas earlier and he is a compelling counterargument to Montana being the first franchise quarterback ever. Ironically in the most dramatic moment of his career in "The Greatest Game Ever Played," it was fullback Alan Ameche who toted the rock over the goal line in overtime to secure the victory for the Colts. But Unitas was epic in that game.

 

 

 

I had forgotten Otto Graham in my earlier post.

 

Another incredible statistical outlier of his time who completely transcended his position was Don Hutson.

 

He held all of these NFL records, many of which still stand today, in spite of playing wide receiver from 1935 to 1945:

 

http://en.wikipedia....son#NFL_records

 

p.s. I believe there is such a thing as a franchise quarterback but it is based on accomplishment in the NFL and nothing else.

 

I have spent a lot of time watching game film of Hutson. In my opinion, he is the best receiver of all time (yes, better than Rice).

 

As far as your p.s., can you explain what you mean by "accomplishment in the NFL and nothing else."? Do you mean eliminating the celebrity factor?

[Jim in Anchorage]

All these post's and not a word about Terry Bradshaw. Yeah I know he could drop the ball and Stalworth/Swan would catch it [or so they say].

 

Really do you think the Steelers would own 4 ring's from the Noll era W/O Bradshaw?

[DaGimp]

It obviously begins and ends with Fitzgerald

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I'd say the "franchise QB" era started with Joe Montana given his Superbowl Dynasty and the Dwight Clark / Jerry Rice matchups. Jim Plunkett was not a true franchise QB or Joe Theisman...they both had stud running backs with Marcus Allen and Joe Riggins. Montana had Roger Craig, but the Niners were known as a passing team. The switch from RB's as franchise players to QB's probably started in the 80's with Montana and then really took off with the draft class of Jim Kelly, Elway and Marino.

 

I think that's a realistic analysis as far as players. I would put the root cause for the "rise of the Franchise QB" in the early '70s and Bill Walsh developing the horizontal spread passing attack later called "West Coast offense", that fueled Montana. Notable and forgotten by many are the two QB Walsh coached in Cleveland, set completion percentage records and went to multiple probowls (Carter, Anderson). The key innovation that fueled the change from "Franchise RB" to "Franchise QB" was IMO the use of short, high-percentage passes to set up the long ball and the running game, rather than using the running game to set up a low-percentage, high-reward vertical passing game. Most people don't realize it's so old because Walsh was driven out of the NFL and didn't implement it until he took over the '49ers HC gig in the early '80s.

 

Ironically, the driver for the "Rise of the Franchise QB" was an offense originally built for smart, reasonably mobile QBs who threw accurate short passes and lacked the super-arm to succeed as "mad bombers"!

 

The "second wave" driving the "rise of the Franchise QB" were rule changes favoring the QB and the WR. Again IMO these rule changes started really in the late '70s with the >5 yd LOS contact restriction on WR and accellerating in the '90s.

 

JMO of course.

 

Thanks for all the feedback everyone.

 

As for rookies, I'd agree. But it only takes a glimpse of what you have, e.g. Dalton, Newton, to know yer not going to draft a QB real high for a while, right? Read: we have our franchise guy, let's build around him...

 

Allegedly Bengals coaches are concerned that despite taking the Bengals to the playoffs as a rookie, Dalton isn't the "long term solution". I'm not sure the coaches have this concern, but a visit to Bengals message boards will reveal that fans certainly do. Some of their threads are eerily reminiscent of threads here a bout Fitz - yeah, he's smart, knows his football, can extend a play with his legs, doesn't really have "the arm" to be "the Man" and take us to "the game".

 

That is the biggest load of horse cr*p i've ever heard. So Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Johnny Unitas, Dan Fouts were never franchise QBs?

 

I could be mistaken, I think Hindsight was perhaps parodying a popular viewpoint in the media (and on this board) that measures a QB quality by wins and esp. championships.

 

I think the original question was when the switch occurred from building an offense around a star running back, to building an offense around a star QB.

[sllib olaffub]

Yes - the term Franchise QB is subjectively applied. I think a good definition of a Franchise QB is a QB who can raise the level of play of the offense around him to such a degree that by having him as a QB the team always stands a chance of winning, regardless of the personnel. That is all you can ask for. If a QB gives a team the chance to win every week - masking deficiencies, making extraordinary plays - plays that other QB's could seemingly not make, then he is doing his job. I think that quality of play extends to Franchise RB's, too - guys like Barry Sanders, Thurman Thomas, Jim Brown (guys who could single handedly carry drives) - also, guys like Megatron come to mind. They are elite, they make the opposing team go out of it's way to stop them.

 

How many QB's really earn that type of distinction today? Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Cam Newton, Manning(s). They only come around every few years.

 

You can build a team around these cornerstone players, regardless of their position, I think. You just have to 1.) have them, and 2.) utilize their amazing talent, maximize it by making it a team strength. Case in point - do you draft Megatron if you do not have a good QB? I say yes - and then you get the QB who can utilize his strengths. Bruce Smith was a sort of Franchise DE - you get them when they're there to take.

[Best Player Available]

You can only become a franchise QB when you win a super bowl. Until then he is a just a starter

 

So much for Kelly then. Or does he get exemption because he played in Buffalo?

Edited August 25, 2012 by Best Player Available

[Hapless Bills Fan]

All these post's and not a word about Terry Bradshaw. Yeah I know he could drop the ball and Stalworth/Swan would catch it [or so they say].

 

Really do you think the Steelers would own 4 ring's from the Noll era W/O Bradshaw?

 

Quite possibly. Not to dis on Bradshaw, but the Steelers offense of that era IMO was built around Franco Harris (run first) and the "Steel Curtain" D.

It's kinda hard to argue that a D featuring Greene, Blount, Ham, and Lambert wouldn't have been successful no matter what the QB did, esp. with Harris running behind that OL.

 

I kinda interpret the gist of the question to be when the "switch" from run-first to QB-centric offense occurred - and there were a lot of great QB in the run-first era including Unitas, Bradshaw, etc.

I see the franchise they played with as being built around stout D and amazing RB tho

 

Maybe I'm mistaken about the OPs question

[You herd it hear last]

Quite possibly. Not to dis on Bradshaw, but the Steelers offense of that era IMO was built around Franco Harris (run first) and the "Steel Curtain" D.

It's kinda hard to argue that a D featuring Greene, Blount, Ham, and Lambert wouldn't have been successful no matter what the QB did, esp. with Harris running behind that OL.

 

I kinda interpret the gist of the question to be when the "switch" from run-first to QB-centric offense occurred - and there were a lot of great QB in the run-first era including Unitas, Bradshaw, etc.

I see the franchise they played with as being built around stout D and amazing RB tho

 

Maybe I'm mistaken about the OPs question

No, you've got it.

[NoSaint]

The idea of being priceless or irreplaceable hasnt been focused on enough. A guy that is so ingrained with the teams success and identity that you will pay him what he wants, and generally wouldn't even look at the big trade offers if they came through. Couple that with longevity and you've got the right, albeit vague, lens to look at this through.

 

Imagine what a 29 year old manning, Brady, Brees, rodgers.... Would fetch in a trade.... You couldn't even come up with a package because they are so valuable to the franchise that has them - on and off the field, they make the franchise operate, really.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

The idea of being priceless or irreplaceable hasnt been focused on enough. A guy that is so ingrained with the teams success and identity that you will pay him what he wants, and generally wouldn't even look at the big trade offers if they came through. Couple that with longevity and you've got the right, albeit vague, lens to look at this through.

 

Imagine what a 29 year old manning, Brady, Brees, rodgers.... Would fetch in a trade.... You couldn't even come up with a package because they are so valuable to the franchise that has them - on and off the field, they make the franchise operate, really.

 

I understand your point, I think the question was "when did the QB emerge as that priceless figure?"

 

(I know the counterexample of the year Brady broke his leg and they won with Cassel has been done to death)

[You herd it hear last]

The idea of being priceless or irreplaceable hasnt been focused on enough. A guy that is so ingrained with the teams success and identity that you will pay him what he wants, and generally wouldn't even look at the big trade offers if they came through. Couple that with longevity and you've got the right, albeit vague, lens to look at this through.

 

Imagine what a 29 year old manning, Brady, Brees, rodgers.... Would fetch in a trade.... You couldn't even come up with a package because they are so valuable to the franchise that has them - on and off the field, they make the franchise operate, really.

Do you think one of those 3 you listed was the first guy to fulfill your prerequisites for that moniker? I like some of the points you emphasized there.

[Offside Number 76]

1. Early 1980s.

 

2. Montana or Marino.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I understand your point, I think the question was "when did the QB emerge as that priceless figure?"

 

(I know the counterexample of the year Brady broke his leg and they won with Cassel has been done to death)

 

I have a hard time picking a single guy as its likely coming in a period that is from before my own time. The other reason I focused onthe definition is because there's little to no agreement on the term- so without that, how do you pick who embodied the term first.

 

If I had to place a line, I'd say the 1978 rules changes for what we think of as the "franchise qb." there could be some guys before that which fit the bill, but as was referenced earlier, it's kind of the start of the modern game.

 

I guess that ties tightly to the comments of Montana, Kelly, marino....At their peaks, would any stand a chance of being moved or being let go over a few bucks? With the increased value of the qb in that period I think not. But before 78 I could see the premiere guys less valued.

 

I suppose thinking more on it, free agency probably has some sort of tie to my original definitions too, but I don't have a well established theory to link there.

Edited August 25, 2012 by NoSaint

[memphisbillsfan]

You can only become a franchise QB when you win a super bowl. Until then he is a just a starter

Jim Kelly was not a franchise quarterback?

[SouthernMan]

I would have to agree that the Era started with Montana, but I might want to say the first Franchise QB was Joe Namath. He threw for over 4,000 yards in an era that 3,000 was pretty rare. He was the face of that franchise, who else comes to mind when you think of the biggest upset in NFL History when they beat the Colts? Nobody but Broadway Joe that's who.

I would have to agree that the Era started with Montana, but I might want to say the first Franchise QB was Joe Namath. He threw for over 4,000 yards in an era that 3,000 was pretty rare. He was the face of that franchise, who else comes to mind when you think of the biggest upset in NFL History when they beat the Colts? Nobody but Broadway Joe that's who.

 

Can't believe it took so long into this thread before someone targeted Broadway Joe. He is almost surely the first QB labeled as a "franchise" QB. When he was drafted in 1965 by the AFL NY Jets, there was an all out war between the AFL and NFL. The Jets offered him an enormous amount of money, unheard of - $427,000 - the highest paid player ever at the time. Mentioned earlier in thread was Bill Walsh's west coast passing offense, but the AFL was an innovative passing league. While the stodgy old NFL was an old traditional running league, the upstart AFL was airing it out with Namath, Dawson, Kemp, Hadl, Lamonica, et al leading the way.

 

Following the AFL-NFL merger there was a trend that swung back to the running game in the early 70s. Maybe coaches had caught up with the AFL passing schemes or maybe it was just a time of more athletic and better trained runners. The Dolphins running trio of Kiick, Morris, and Czonka were leading the charge. The Bills had O.J. The Stillers had Franco. Broncos had Floyd Little.

 

But to address the OP, I truly think Namath was the first "franchise" QB, whether or not the label originated with him.