What Defines Success For A Franchise QB

[row_33]

59 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Jim Kelly never won a super bowl. Was he successful? Football is a team sport. If you’ve been your teams undisputed starter for five years are more....you ARE that team’s franchise QB. 

 

I'm sure a few QBs hit that 5 year level and their fanbase spits on the ground every time they are reminded.

 

 

[Rico]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Jim Kelly never won a super bowl. Was he successful? Football is a team sport. If you’ve been your teams undisputed starter for five years are more....you ARE that team’s franchise QB. 

Jets spent a lot of capital and time for The Sanchize to be their Franchise QB. Was he successful of (at the very least) making the players around him better? YMMV, but I would say no.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Rico

[row_33]

The Bears probably have the least number of successful franchise QBs over the last 70 or so years.

 

[MTBill]

1 hour ago, prissythecat said:

 

Didn't Montana already have 2 Superbowl wins before Jerry Rice came on board?

 

Good Call - I never realized that.  Thanks for the education.

[cba fan]

1 hour ago, Ramza86 said:

Consistent high level QB. 

 

Pretty much a guy who will be playing at a probowl level almost every year.

perfect.

 

To expand a little. You know by watching if you have a franchise QB. It is apparent to virtually all football fans regardless of results. 

PS: QB would show some ability to come back late and pull out some games. Not fold like a house of cards like Tyrod and Fitz did/do.

 

Stafford, Rivers, Jimmy G., and similar are franchise even though they have not won Super Bowls. "Yet"

 

Big Ben would be even if he had no Super Bowl wins like the two tainted/lucky ones he was "awarded".

Kurt Warner would be even without his one St Louis Super Bowl win.

Edited March 29, 2018 by cba fan

[SoTier]

5 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Don’t make it more complicated than it needs to be. A Franchise QB is a guy who’s been the consistent starter for a single team for some extended period of seasons. For purpose of this discussion I’m going to say...five or more years.

 

You can all debate wins and losses all day long, but if a QB has been your starter for that long....by definition he’s been your Franchise’s QB. Simple!

 

Everything else is just message board chatter.

^^^

5 hours ago, prissythecat said:

 

 

Not necessarily an unreasonable definition.     I believe we can assume that no team would keep a bad QB as starter for 5 or more years.

 

By your definition, SoCalDeek, Ryan Tannehill is a franchise QB and Blake Bortles will likely become one after 2018 barring some unforeseen circumstance simply because they were first round picks and their teams had no one better.   Neither one is a "bad QB" on the level of a Joey Harrington, JaMarcus Russell or EJ Manuel, but neither has been "good enough" to truly secure the starting position since rumors persist that Miami is looking to replace Tannehill, and Bortles had to fight in training camp in 2017 to keep his job as starter.  I sure wouldn't consider either a franchise QB at this point, although they're probably both decent starters.

 

BTW, Mark Sanchez started for four years for the Jests and even received a contract extension after his second or third season.  If the Jests hadn't had a major regime change that resulted in them sacking their GM and HC (every Bills fan's fave, Rex Ryan) after the 2012 season, Sanchez would have undoubtedly been the Jests' starter in 2013 as well.   So, yeah, sometimes teams do keep a bad QB as a starter years longer than they should simply because they have too much invested in them or they can't find anybody better.

[jr1]

It's so hard to keep a franchise QB during the era of free agency

[John from Riverside]

Franchise QB in this fan base has a extremely high bar

 

They cant just do their job and do it well.....the team has to win regardless of the talent level at the other positions of the team as a whole.

 

And its not enough for the team to win......the QB has to be the reason WHY we won

[SoTier]

It seems to me that  the definition of a "franchise QB" is much like Justice Potter Stewart's view of pornography ... paraphrased: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." 

[Rico]

13 minutes ago, SoTier said:

It seems to me that  the definition of a "franchise QB" is much like Justice Potter Stewart's view of pornography ... paraphrased: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." 

I think a “successful” franchise QB is very debatable.... but a franchise QB is pretty clear. He’s the Chosen One, no need to look any further. He’s not a bridge QB, you have identified him as The Man for your team.

 

EJ Manual was Doug Whaley’s franchise QB.

[Bing Bong]

just good enough, that's all. Has a capability to step up in important games. You win some you lose some, but you don't have to call for your starting QBs head year in and year out. Don't compare your QB to others, the Chargers were never like "crap Phil isn't Aaron Rodgers we need to draft another!". Just a quarterback that doesn't require you to spend every offseason thinking heavily about spending a pick on more quarterbacks rather than building a team. I'd say half the league has their franchise QB by this definition. That's all I ask for.

[Last Guy on the Bench]

Great question, since we all throw the term around so much, and we mean different things.

 

For me, I don't think you can look at absolutes like winning the Super Bowl - too many other factors go into that. We all want to win the Super Bowl, but first and foremost I want to consistently enjoy my team, I want it to be relevant, and I want it to feel like it has a regular chance to win the big one. So I would combine some of the different definitions in this thread into three levels of franchise. Each level would include the criteria of the lower levels.

 

Level 1) Long-term starter. As a few people have said, that's probably a basic definition of "franchise." This guy is associated with your team in a sustained way. You continue to give him the keys. He may not be a world beater, but starting for 5 years for one team is a MAJOR accomplishment, if we think about all of the thousands of gifted high school QBs, whittled down to NCAA QBs, whittled down to pro contracts, whittled down to starting even one game, whittled down to journeyman, whittled down to this. These Andy Daltons are nothing to be sneezed at. There ain't that many of them.

 

Level 2) Is a major contributor to a team being regularly in the hunt. This is probably THE key level for me. I'd be super happy to have this again after 25 years without it. Makes the playoffs more often than not. Wins some playoff games.  Might have a down year here and there, but bounces back the next year. Teams can ride this QB to relevance and January football enjoyment for 7-12 years. This is gold. This is Phillip Rivers, Donovan McNabb, Joe Flacco, etc. to me.

 

Level 3) Can put the team on his back at difficult times. Fourth quarters, comebacks, major injuries to other key players, etc. These guys suck to play against. Even when you seem to be controlling the game, outplaying their team, etc., they just make it really hard for you to beat them. They often (not always) just seem to have one more play in them than you do. It isn't always pretty, but it works. You know these guys because even when you are beating them you don't feel good and you are waiting for the other shoe to drop. Conversely, if they are on your team, you always kind of expect to pull the game out at the end. You won't every time, but you still except to. It's very relaxing. These guys don't have to be perfect or win the SB necessarily to me. I would include QBs like Kelly here along with the obvious ones like Brady, Rodgers, Montana, etc. I'd put Wilson here. Roethlisberger. Elway. This is nirvana.

 

Obviously you can still argue about where guys should be. Where's Eli. for example? -Clearly meets level 1, I think clearly meets level 2, level 3? Sometimes.

 

Anyway that's my two cents, based purely on what I value and enjoy in a QB for my team. I want one.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Last Guy on the Bench

[Bing Bong]

I'd set the bar at Andy Dalton. He gets ripped on here, but he's not going away, Bengals are smart enough (IMO) to build around him rather than gambling for greener pastures.

 

But he's not great by any standard, any worse and you don't have a franchise qb.

Edited March 29, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[OldTimer1960]

2 hours ago, Last Guy on the Bench said:

Great question, since we all throw the term around so much, and we mean different things.

 

For me, I don't think you can look at absolutes like winning the Super Bowl - too many other factors go into that. We all want to win the Super Bowl, but first and foremost I want to consistently enjoy my team, I want it to be relevant, and I want it to feel like it has a regular chance to win the big one. So I would combine some of the different definitions in this thread into three levels of franchise. Each level would include the criteria of the lower levels.

 

Level 1) Long-term starter. As a few people have said, that's probably a basic definition of "franchise." This guy is associated with your team in a sustained way. You continue to give him the keys. He may not be a world beater, but starting for 5 years for one team is a MAJOR accomplishment, if we think about all of the thousands of gifted high school QBs, whittled down to NCAA QBs, whittled down to pro contracts, whittled down to starting even one game, whittled down to journeyman, whittled down to this. These Andy Daltons are nothing to be sneezed at. There ain't that many of them.

 

Level 2) Is a major contributor to a team being regularly in the hunt. This is probably THE key level for me. I'd be super happy to have this again after 25 years without it. Makes the playoffs more often than not. Wins some playoff games.  Might have a down year here and there, but bounces back the next year. Teams can ride this QB to relevance and January football enjoyment for 7-12 years. This is gold. This is Phillip Rivers, Donovan McNabb, Joe Flacco, etc. to me.

 

Level 3) Can put the team on his back at difficult times. Fourth quarters, comebacks, major injuries to other key players, etc. These guys suck to play against. Even when you seem to be controlling the game, outplaying their team, etc., they just make it really hard for you to beat them. They often (not always) just seem to have one more play in them than you do. It isn't always pretty, but it works. You know these guys because even when you are beating them you don't feel good and you are waiting for the other shoe to drop. Conversely, if they are on your team, you always kind of expect to pull the game out at the end. You won't every time, but you still except to. It's very relaxing. These guys don't have to be perfect or win the SB necessarily to me. I would include QBs like Kelly here along with the obvious ones like Brady, Rodgers, Montana, etc. I'd put Wilson here. Roethlisberger. Elway. This is nirvana.

 

Obviously you can still argue about where guys should be. Where's Eli. for example? -Clearly meets level 1, I think clearly meets level 2, level 3? Sometimes.

 

Anyway that's my two cents, based purely on what I value and enjoy in a QB for my team. I want one.

Very nice post and I agree with the majority of it.  I realize that it is a gray area, but I’d put Flacco on Dalton’s level or vice-versa.   Both give a team a chance at success, but neither(nor the tier above) can single-handedly carry a weak team to playoff success.

 

i think that many herethink that getting a QB high in this draft somehow guarantees that the team will magically compete for the Super Bowl every year even if the supporting group is poor.  I think that there is a very low probability of that happening.

[stuvian]

a hot wife has to count for something

[Last Guy on the Bench]

6 minutes ago, OldTimer1960 said:

Very nice post and I agree with the majority of it.  I realize that it is a gray area, but I’d put Flacco on Dalton’s level or vice-versa.   Both give a team a chance at success, but neither(nor the tier above) can single-handedly carry a weak team to playoff success.

 

i think that many herethink that getting a QB high in this draft somehow guarantees that the team will magically compete for the Super Bowl every year even if the supporting group is poor.  I think that there is a very low probability of that happening.

 Yeah, QBs like Flacco and Dalton are tricky. My knee-jerk was to differentiate them on playoff wins, but that's crude. They may not be that different. I think they are both definitely franchise guys. I'd probably put them both at level 2 rather than level 1. The Bengals have been in the playoffs regularly with Dalton, I think. Just haven't won one. But again, that's not necessarily mainly on Dalton. Plus I love him for last year, so from the Bills' point of view he should actually be at Level 4!

[SoCal Deek]

I’m the one who put the ‘five year consecutive starter for one team’ measurement out there.

 

Does anyone on here have the ability to compile that list...using let’s say the last twenty years?

 

I’m betting it’s not that long of a list and it’ll include just about EVERYONE that meets everyone else’s criteria.

[Bing Bong]

On 3/29/2018 at 6:59 PM, stuvian said:

a hot wife has to count for something

Less pressure, at the end of the day the QB will always be confident he's got something going for him. Good for you AJ.