Here's an interesting article from a year ago about franchise quarterbacks and what success every team has found in securing them. www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/the-search-for-a-franchise-qb-history-of-every-nfl-teams-franchise-qbs-and-the-longest-droughts-to-find-one/
That's a good article in general, but I don't agree with his definition of a franchise QB nor with some of this assessments. For instance, a franchise QB doesn't have to be tied to one franchise. Also, as much as I think Kurt Warner was overrated and a product of the talent he had around him more than anything else, he put up some huge stats and made the Cardinals a contender and got them to a Super Bowl. Doesn't matter if it was short-lived, he was clearly a difference maker. But the gist of hit certainly holds true.
He doesn't tie a QB to a single team for consideration as evidenced by Brady being listed as a franchise player for both New England and Tampa Bay. I find his definition of what he considers a franchise quarterback a good one and some longevity is a need for me but there is some inconsistency, as you point out, regarding Warner. He played five years for the Cardinals and got a ring, Andrew Luck played five, no ring and he's on the FQB list for the Colts. But other definitions I've seen don't speak to stats at all, but rather to the idea that a franchise quarterback builds a team around him and he is the catalyst that makes them all better. As you make note of, Warner may have been made better by those around him rather than the opposite. On the other hand, he appears to require very little in the only stat that counts. He says Esiason was a FQB for the Bengals and in his initial nine year stint there his record was 55 - 60; not something to aspire to.
Agree. He called Brady a franchise quarterback specifically for the Bucs when he played there for three years. But that's only because he won them a Super Bowl? No, Brady turned the Bucs back into a contender because he's a franchise QB period. My main point is that in most cases it should be attributed to the QB himself and not based only on the franchise he played for. Situations where a guy went somewhere and didn't do anything because he was there for a short time or aged vets who went to teams to finish out their careers shouldn't change the fact that they were franchise quarterbacks, they just shouldn't necessarily appear on that teams list.
Interesting stuff - for me a "Franchise QB" is a guy that's consistently ranked in the top 10-12 QBs (obviously the higher the better but they don't need to be top 3 or anything) at the end of the season and that has a multi-year career, i.e. there is enough time to build around them - so for example even if Rodgers plays great he isn't a FQB as his maximum lifespan is 2 years (probably 1)
We can't forget that, by definition, a franchise quarterback is tied to the fortunes of, you guessed it, a franchise. The main theme is the guy needs to take the team (franchise) to a place it has rarely been and keeps it there for at least a solid part of his tenure. In doing so he must be the catalyst in others being at their best. I think it takes more, not reflected in stats, than just being rated highly among quarterbacks at the time. While a championship or two is not required it certainly wouldn't hurt.
I guess one rule of thumb (for me) would be - if they were at the end of their contract would you slap a franchise tag on them without much hesitation. The most interesting one to me is Jared Goff - he's took the Rams to the SB and nearly did the same with the Lions but I don't think you'd see him in the same light as say Josh Allen or Joe Burrows as a true franchise QB.
yes he’s an interesting case…agree he’s now had pretty damn good success at two franchises, but for some reason he’s not really looked at in the same regard as either of those guys. Not sure why that is…
1) Have a good QB 2) Draft well 3) have a good HC When have the JETS been able to check off all 3 boxes at once?
I'm of the opinion that it's not nearly as important as it used to be. Sure if you can get one it's a nice thing to have no doubt. It used to be necessary when perennial defensive powerhouse teams roamed the league and were allowed to play as brutal as they wanted. There are no more perennial powerhouse defensive teams no more Steel Curtain, Sapp-Lynch-Brooks Bucs, Lewis-Suggs-Reed-Ngata Ravens just to name a few and even if you could identify a unit like that in this modern NFL they're so limited in what they can do by the rules and how the games are called by refs that opportunity is always there for a offense. I remember when only the most elite of QBs could drive a team down the field at the end of a half or game. Now every Joe Blow QB can do it franchise QBs, backups, rookies, scrubs it doesn't matter. The Eagles won it all with a backup QB a few years ago. The Niners are there this year with a QB who is the last player picked in his draft class. I think system, coaching-playcalling, and supporting cast can more than offset not having 'franchise qb' in this modern NFL. Having QBs who are good enough is enough.
hell - it's very rare that the Jets have been able to tick 1 of those boxes! The Jets have been one of the worst drafting teams in fact it is mind blowing how bad they have been - they say it takes 3 years to evaluate a draft class so looking at 2020 - 2010 at the first two rounds where you would want to get at least a quality starter: 2020: - Becton = bust - Mims = bust 2019 - Quinnen = good pick - no second rounder 2018 - Darnold = bust - no second rounder 2017 - Adams = disappointment (we got a great trade for him but as a player ended up very disappointing and getting worse it seems) - Maye = disappointment 2016 - Lee = bust - Hackenburg = bust 2015 - Williams = disappointment (jets got nothing of any value for him and never lived up to the hype of being "best player in the draft") - Smith = bust 2014 - Pryor = bust - Amaro = bust 2013 - Milliner = bust - Richardson = disappointment (flashes but never became what he looked at time like he could be) - Smith = disappointment (would have been a bust but for late flashes with Seattle) 2012 - Coples = bust - Hill = bust 2011 - Wilkerson = disappointment (though really tempted to label him a bust) 2010 - Wilson = bust - Ducasse = bust So out of 20 first and second round picks (with many of those first rounders being top 10 picks where you want to land a pro-bowler) the Jets landed one quality starter (and arguably Adams as well). If they had just thrown a dart at a list of names they likely would have had 5 or 6 quality players minimum.
Sorry but look at the SB of the last 20 years - 11 of them featured one or the other (or in one case both) of the top two rated QBs of recent times. Every team with a quality QB made the playoffs (unless that player got injured and if they did then those teams immediately fell off). Brock Purdy might have been the last player taken but that means nothing - Brady was a 6th rounder - he has still had one of the highest QB ratings of any QB. If you want CONSISTENT success in terms of making the playoffs (which is what you need to have any realistic shout of getting a SB) then if you don't have a top tier QB then everything else needs to be great and you need to be lucky - the only two teams with really meh QBs in the playoffs were the Browns and Steelers and both got booted out quickly and the Bucs soon followed. Of the top 4 rated QBs in the regular season 3 of them made the final 4 teams and the only one that wasn't in the top 4 was Mahomes who struggled early on but who is clearly the best QB in the NFL so really all 4 of the best performing QBs were the final 4 teams standing.
He is like Rodney Dangerfield "I don't get no respect" - its a bit like Kirk Cousins, always plays to a high standard but you'd never think of him when putting together a list of "franchise QBs"
True…but with Cousins I think it’s more the feel that he’s a paper tiger…always throws for nice stats…high 65%+ completion rate, lots of yards, etc., but for whatever reason, his teams NEVER win much, and flame out in the playoffs. If it was just one or two years where that happened, or even just one team, it’d be something. But for whatever reason, he hasn’t won anywhere. Like it or not, the QB takes so much credit for wins but also takes blames for losses. But yes, looking at just stats alone, you’d have a hard time arguing that Cousins or Goff are not very good QBs…and yet neither is looked at as a top franchise type guy.
I think in part for Goff its because he was "ditched" by the Rams - i mean at the time it was seen as the Lions having to agree to take on Goff and his salary as part of the deal and they would be looking to ditch him as soon as they could - they never seemed to "want" him (though I am expecting that will have changed after this season)
That one contextual perception. The other and more likely correct one is that it means that a QB is one that a franchise can build around, that raises the performance of a franchise, etc. The performance doesn't have to be tied to a specific franchise, it just of most times because teams don't trade those guys often.
That will be the case more often than not. In football, NFL, QB has been and more often than not will always be the most important position. All I'm saying is in 2024 a team which is a have not at QB most definately CAN compete with the haves at QB and CAN win a Super Bowl. Teams don't play defense the way it used to be played they can't. Not with the rules in place and the way these games are called by the refs. Actually it does. Purdy as the last player selected in his draft class must be making close to nothing (by NFL standards) in terms of salary. Darnold might be making more than he is to back him up? I dont know that but it wouldn't surprise me if that is the case. When I say a have not at QB can compete with the haves that's exactly what I mean. Get a capable enough QB ON THE CHEAP NOT pay a capable enough QB like he's a franchise QB. Build up his supporting cast with coaching, playcalling that can take advantage of the 2024 rules and way refs call these games. Yes of course you're right. Though even that doesn't guarantee anything see the Lions not going anywhere with Stafford. What's easier? Searching forever for the elusive 'franchise qb' or building up a o-line, finding receivers & WRs and implementinga offensive system with playcalling to take advantage of the lowered defensive standards in the 2024 NFL? Before in the playoffs teams that could run the ball and play defense dominated in the playoffs. Very very few teams play defense anymore. Ravens supposedly had the #1 defense this year, #1 scoring, most sacks. Did they get 1 sacks in the entire playoffs? The Chiefs marched up and down the field on them in the first half. Kelce had 9 catches. The '#1 defense' in the 2024 had no answers for KC's offense. That used to be unheard of in the NFL. But they were there (playoffs). And some were only in because the starter was injured. Flacco was a midseason addition? If you can get one of those guys that's the way to go. The Jets and many other teams have been searching for those guys for most of their history. Good luck finding one.
Its the case. Purdy made 890 thousand this year. Darnold made 5.7 million to back him up. Fun fact, we paid Tim Boyle 1.1 million.
You've chopped up my post with so many partial quotes I can't really reply - suffice it to say your original post was essentially saying that having a franchise QB was not as important as it used to be - as I detailed that simply doesn't hold up to the facts - if you don't agree then let's agree to disagree (while we watch a SB featuring Mahomes (the best QB in the NFL) and Brock Purdy (the player with the highest QB rating over the 2023 season....).
