Franchise QB's?

[gbrittain]

If we won like this I wouldn't have to. The anti Cowboys sentiment in the NFL would have labeled the officials as corrupt and stated that Dallas only won because of their popularity. I'm not saying the game was rigged, but there is always that possibility.

You still did not answer the question. What would you be saying?

Are Commanders fans correct when they say the NFL is out to get them? Is that true?

 

[Doomsday101]

Referee's also made Seattle miss 2 field goals.

Their fault the flea flicker went for easy TD.


Heck - their fault Seahawks couldn't stop Steelers from runing clock out in 4th quarter. First down after first down when all knew what was coming.


Steelers won the game - period.

I agree and I was pulling for Seattle. I will agree with anyone who says there were some questionable and even some bad calls but Seattle did not do themselfs any favors with some poor execution

 

[neosapien23]

I find that quote kind of interesting. You are saying that NFL games could be fixed, but then you say the UFC is totally impartial...interesting.

Not that I have a problem with the UFC, its just that you believe the NFL could be fixed yet the UFC is totally impartial.

No way to call a fight for someone when they are knocked out. Usually unconsciousness is a pretty good sign of defeat.:laugh2:

 

[gbrittain]

No way to call a fight for someone when they are knocked out. Usually unconsciousness is a pretty good sign of defeat.:laugh2:

First of all not all fights end in knock outs. I have seen plenty of tap outs. No chance that one of the guys put himself in a position so that he could tap out for some extra cash under the table or some other consideration?

 

[jterrell]

I don't think that's the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that teams with there QB situation settled, long term, are enjoying much more success then those who are not. This is not an abarition as there is entirely too much supporting evidence to substanciate this. Teams that don't have this position settled can win but not long term. At least, I have yet to see one. Perhaps Washington in the 80s but even then, I don't think that you could call Theisman, Williams and Rypien scrubbs. I hated Theisman, really liked Williams and felt indifferent to Rypien but I thought that all of them had talent.

The problem is thats the same at every position.
Good teams generally try to keep their players and bad teams upgrade every off-season.

Where does Pitt feel deficient right now?
Seattle isn't upgrading their Qb position but perhaps they should.


Of your list of haves and have nots I'd argue it makes more sense to simply argue Qbs in ranking. Winning teams are much more likely to believe they have the situation solved as they are winnign with who they have. Dallas BELIEVES it has its franchise QB in Bledsoe. Just listen to Bill and Jerry. Rightly or wrongly they feel more confident than Buffalo and many other teams on your haves list. But thats an inherent weakness is arguing what other people think.

 

[jterrell]

Archie Manning was a great QB stuck on a horrible team. I'll tell you right now it wasn't his fault they were so bad. The Saints for years ignored getting football minded people in place to fix things and Archie paid for it. Look at the difference in the Saints before Jim Finks and after his arrival. Sometimes there simply isn't anything the player can do to alter that atmosphere of losing.

Anyone who thinks Archie Manning was horrible needs to listen to the players of that era.

Every year QBs go high in the Drafts. Why? Real simple, teams realize that rolling the dice on them is about the long term payoff. Until that changes, until the NFL ignores QBs in Free Agency and the Draft, there's no basis to the argument that a Franchise caliber QB is a luxury not a necessity. If there were even a scrap of evidence to support the thinking I'd be impressed.

Jon Kitna was a decent QB. Yet the Bengals drafted Carson Palmer. The Colts, Patriots, Eagles, Vikings, et al, in recent years gave huge contracts to keep their Franchise QBs in town. There's a very simple reason that gets ignored on message boards far too often.

Franchise QB in place for long term = better chance at consistent runs if the Front Office does its job well.

What makes that any different than CB, Pass Rusher, LT????
The argument seems quite simple except it doesn't just apply to QBs.

And again what team is making consistent runs in this era of parity?

If you want consistency then draft well and hire a good coach.
Hoping one guy can carry you to that would be a bad, bad move.

 

[gbrittain]

What makes that any different than CB, Pass Rusher, LT????
The argument seems quite simple except it doesn't just apply to QBs.

And again what team is making consistent runs in this era of parity?

If you want consistency then draft well and hire a good coach.
Hoping one guy can carry you to that would be a bad, bad move.

I guess I am not sure what your theory is on QBs.

Are you saying they are no more important than say your middle line backer?

Are you saying that there really is no such thing as a great QB, because in fact it is those surrounding the QB who make the QB great.

Please understand I am not putting the above words in your mouth. You did not say either one of those things. I am just throwing a few things out as an example, but I would love to hear your theory on QBs.

 

[DipChit]

Archie Manning was a great QB stuck on a horrible team. I'll tell you right now it wasn't his fault they were so bad. The Saints for years ignored getting football minded people in place to fix things and Archie paid for it. Look at the difference in the Saints before Jim Finks and after his arrival. Sometimes there simply isn't anything the player can do to alter that atmosphere of losing.

Anyone who thinks Archie Manning was horrible needs to listen to the players of that era.

Every year QBs go high in the Drafts. Why? Real simple, teams realize that rolling the dice on them is about the long term payoff. Until that changes, until the NFL ignores QBs in Free Agency and the Draft, there's no basis to the argument that a Franchise caliber QB is a luxury not a necessity. If there were even a scrap of evidence to support the thinking I'd be impressed.

Jon Kitna was a decent QB. Yet the Bengals drafted Carson Palmer. The Colts, Patriots, Eagles, Vikings, et al, in recent years gave huge contracts to keep their Franchise QBs in town. There's a very simple reason that gets ignored on message boards far too often.

Franchise QB in place for long term = better chance at consistent runs if the Front Office does its job well.

Sure I understand what you're saying and I'm just making a little fun at the term "franchise".

But again, what makes a "franchise" QB? Someone mentioned Carr. Is the only reason anyone is on the fence about him is because his *team* isnt winning? If they were winning must we then assume he's a franchise QB? Is a QB a franchise QB just because a franchise says "he's our guy!"?

Is Leftwich a franchise QB? I cant believe he is. His teams havent won anything.

Is Culpepper a franchise QB? He did pretty good until Moss left. I'm sure he was considered a franchise QB for a couple years there. But this year he did squat before he got hurt. Then Johnson stepped in and they won 6 straight or whatever. That suddenly make Johnson the franchise QB? No wait that cant be true since he's bounced around like a pinball.. even though he's a SB winner.

Or can it just be that a franchise QB is that just because of how he "looks" when he plays regardless of his teams W's and L's?

 

[DipChit]

Are you saying that there really is no such thing as a great QB, because in fact it is those surrounding the QB who make the QB great.

Well you're not actually talkin to me, but IMO that must be true for the most part.

If our 90's teams would have never been better talent wise than what we trotted out in 96-99 (still had Emmitt and Irvin to boot for the most part, not to mention Deion, Woodson, etc) would Aikman still have been considered a franchise QB? If so, why? Because we "said" he was?

I mean afterall, we were 1-3 in the post-season over those years and Aikmans numbers were 2 Td's 8 Int's. That sound like the record/numbers of a "franchise" QB?

If those would have been his numbers in the first 3-4 years we went to the playoffs with him as opposed to the last 3-4 years we would've prolly said he was a choker "in the big game" like there was no tommorrow. And he wasnt exactly putting up mega numbers in the regular season either to otherwise help his "franchise" cause.

 

[Hostile]

What makes that any different than CB, Pass Rusher, LT????
The argument seems quite simple except it doesn't just apply to QBs.

And again what team is making consistent runs in this era of parity?

If you want consistency then draft well and hire a good coach.
Hoping one guy can carry you to that would be a bad, bad move.

Show me the NFL trend of draffting Franchise CBs, LTs, and Pass Rushers that has dominated the Draft History.

The fact remains that NFL teams roll the dice on QBs for a reason.

 

[jterrell]

I guess I am not sure what your theory is on QBs.

Are you saying they are no more important than say your middle line backer?

Are you saying that there really is no such thing as a great QB, because in fact it is those surrounding the QB who make the QB great.

Please understand I am not putting the above words in your mouth. You did not say either one of those things. I am just throwing a few things out as an example, but I would love to hear your theory on QBs.

lol fair enough for sure.

pinned down my theory would be something like...

1. QB is the biggest hit and miss proposition of any position.
2. QB is the most overpaid and overvalued position.
3. QBs on good teams are almost universally overrated.
4. QBs on bad teams are often though not universally underrated.
5. LT, CB, Pass Rusher are all more important than QB as those players play on an island of sorts whereas offenses can be geared toward a QBs strengths and made to hide a QBs weaknesses.
6. The teams with the worst record in the NFL are generally the ones who swing and miss with high selections at QB. See Lions, Chargers after Leaf, Browns et al.
7. Experience is a huge factor in QB success and knowing a guys limitations and strengths are a big advantage. See recent Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Kerry Collins, Rich Gannon SB appearances.

McNabb and Culpepper have been the success stories of a storied QB class yet BOTH missed the playoffs this year. That is at a time regarded as being in their prime. Yet Kyle Orton MADE the playoffs.

Manning, McNair, McNabb, Vick and Culpepper have all been considered NFL MVP candidates in the past few seasons yet this year only 1 made the playoffs and they had 0 playoff wins amongst this elite group that would have been in the top 5 of QBs by most folks at some point in the past 3 seasons.

It becomes a huge crap shoot in guessing at a guy's actual comparison because circumstances are so different. For instance there are many, many moans about not signing Jake Delhomme. But Dallas doesnt have Steve Smith or Jordan Gross or Muhsin Muhammed or Stephen Davis.... I'd rather trade Tucker for Gross than Bledsoe for Delhomme thats for dang sure. Same with Steve Smith for Key or Terry Glenn.

When the Houston Texans drafted David Carr I thought they were crazy.
The team needed everything and didn't have the cushy bazallion draft picks like Carolina/Jax did. I thought they should have traded down and added more proven vets. Any backup QB wanting a starting job would have delivered them at least as much as success as they have seen under Carr.

At QB I want a football player. A guy his teammates respect and follow because he talks the talk and walks the walk. He expects to win games on his own if need be but is sensible enough to follow gameplans until that crucial instant. I'd prefer a guy who can get you short yardage on his own. Especially if you spread out the defense in a passing formations. Why pass on 3rd and 3 when your QB can run right up the middle? He doesn't need to make pretty passes all the time or throw the ball through brick walls. Guys like this are underrated IMHO as opposed to the Boller, Vick type with cannons or the Eli Manning type with famous name. I am championning Vince young as this type opf player and would gladly make a trade for him but ONLY with parts I deemed expendable like Ellie, Glover, Romo or Henson. Note Not meant as a shot at Romo/Henson but Young would be the heir apparent so no need to keep 2 on the bench.

 

[Hostile]

Sure I understand what you're saying and I'm just making a little fun at the term "franchise".

But again, what makes a "franchise" QB? Someone mentioned Carr. Is the only reason anyone is on the fence about him is because his *team* isnt winning? If they were winning must we then assume he's a franchise QB? Is a QB a franchise QB just because a franchise says "he's our guy!"?

Is Leftwich a franchise QB? I cant believe he is. His teams havent won anything.

Is Culpepper a franchise QB? He did pretty good until Moss left. I'm sure he was considered a franchise QB for a couple years there. But this year he did squat before he got hurt. Then Johnson stepped in and they won 6 straight or whatever. That suddenly make Johnson the franchise QB? No wait that cant be true since he's bounced around like a pinball.. even though he's a SB winner.

Or can it just be that a franchise QB is that just because of how he "looks" when he plays regardless of his teams W's and L's?

The term franchise QB goes back a long way. It didn't originate in my dome like agenda and pedigree have on this forum. At least i think I am the author of those two circular debate topics.

I didn't define anyone as a Franchise QB really other than Archie Manning and that was to fit the criteria you raised. Whether those guys you just asked about are Franchise guys or not in my mind is irrelevant isn't it? I mean let's look at the facts. The teams that drafted them rolled the dice that they could be.

That's the only thing pertinent really. What I think of them means little.

Let me ask you a question or 2 about 2 QBs you brought up. Brad Johnson and Daunte Culpepper. You're a GM, both are in their prime and unrestricted Free Agents for whatever reason, which guy you going to roll the dice on?

You're still a GM, this time of the Vikings. If salary cap hit is not a consideration but you can only keep one of the 2, who rents a U-Haul?

To me, that is the litmus test. How will teams react to each. If both were Unrestricted Free Agents who'd draw the most interest? I'll say Culpepper every time. The reason why is simple, he's easily the best chance at a franchise caliber guy. It's not even close.

 

[jterrell]

Show me the NFL trend of draffting Franchise CBs, LTs, and Pass Rushers that has dominated the Draft History.

The fact remains that NFL teams roll the dice on QBs for a reason.

www.drafthistory.com.

No real need to list anything as franchise pass rusher, CB, LTs almost always go very, very high.

The difference is teams dont ridiculously overrate those guys as they do with spare QBs.

What NFL teams do in making mistakes doesn't make much of an example to follow.

Your specific point is that franchise QBs keep you winning every year yet I asked quite simply which QBs do that and got nothing but silence.

 

[gbrittain]

lol fair enough for sure.

pinned down my theory would be something like...

1. QB is the biggest hit and miss proposition of any position.
2. QB is the most overpaid and overvalued position.
3. QBs on good teams are almost universally overrated.
4. QBs on bad teams are often though not universally underrated.
5. LT, CB, Pass Rusher are all more important than QB as those players play on an island of sorts whereas offenses can be geared toward a QBs strengths and made to hide a QBs weaknesses.
6. The teams with the worst record in the NFL are generally the ones who swing and miss with high selections at QB. See Lions, Chargers after Leaf, Browns et al.
7. Experience is a huge factor in QB success and knowing a guys limitations and strengths are a big advantage. See recent Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Kerry Collins, Rich Gannon SB appearances.

McNabb and Culpepper have been the success stories of a storied QB class yet BOTH missed the playoffs this year. That is at a time regarded as being in their prime. Yet Kyle Orton MADE the playoffs.

Manning, McNair, McNabb, Vick and Culpepper have all been considered NFL MVP candidates in the past few seasons yet this year only 1 made the playoffs and they had 0 playoff wins amongst this elite group that would have been in the top 5 of QBs by most folks at some point in the past 3 seasons.

It becomes a huge crap shoot in guessing at a guy's actual comparison because circumstances are so different. For instance there are many, many moans about not signing Jake Delhomme. But Dallas doesnt have Steve Smith or Jordan Gross or Muhsin Muhammed or Stephen Davis.... I'd rather trade Tucker for Gross than Bledsoe for Delhomme thats for dang sure. Same with Steve Smith for Key or Terry Glenn.

When the Houston Texans drafted David Carr I thought they were crazy.
The team needed everything and didn't have the cushy bazallion draft picks like Carolina/Jax did. I thought they should have traded down and added more proven vets. Any backup QB wanting a starting job would have delivered them at least as much as success as they have seen under Carr.

At QB I want a football player. A guy his teammates respect and follow because he talks the talk and walks the walk. He expects to win games on his own if need be but is sensible enough to follow gameplans until that crucial instant. I'd prefer a guy who can get you short yardage on his own. Especially if you spread out the defense in a passing formations. Why pass on 3rd and 3 when your QB can run right up the middle? He doesn't need to make pretty passes all the time or throw the ball through brick walls. Guys like this are underrated IMHO as opposed to the Boller, Vick type with cannons or the Eli Manning type with famous name. I am championning Vince young as this type opf player and would gladly make a trade for him but ONLY with parts I deemed expendable like Ellie, Glover, Romo or Henson. Note Not meant as a shot at Romo/Henson but Young would be the heir apparent so no need to keep 2 on the bench.

Very interesting takes. I have to run for a bit, but I will be back to continute this conversation. Very interesting.

 

[Hostile]

www.drafthistory.com.

No real need to list anything as franchise pass rusher, CB, LTs almost always go very, very high.

The difference is teams dont ridiculously overrate those guys as they do with spare QBs.

What NFL teams do in making mistakes doesn't make much of an example to follow.

Your specific point is that franchise QBs keep you winning every year yet I asked quite simply which QBs do that and got nothing but silence.

I did NOT say Franchise QBs keep you winning every year. I said the reason the NFL places value on them is because the idea, goal, dream, vision, use whatever synonym you want, is to have a perennial contender.

Go back and look at the original question and my original post. That is clearly what I said and have clarified now more than once. If it is still unclear to you let me know.

 

[neosapien23]

First of all not all fights end in knock outs. I have seen plenty of tap outs. No chance that one of the guys put himself in a position so that he could tap out for some extra cash under the table or some other consideration?

Thats true, the point I'm trying to make is that the Ref hardly has an impact on the fight. Either someone taps out or is knocked out. The only time the Ref can change a fight if is he stops it due to a bad cut or if the fighter looks hurt. As far as taking money under the table is concerned you never know. If someone paid you 2 million to lose, I'm sure you'd put yourself in postion to get submited.

Not all officials had to be bought off for this game to be impartial. Sports betting is a serious lucritive bussines. If 2 or three referees were bought off it would be enough to make the game unfair. I'm not saying the NFL rigged that game, but someone like a crime boss could have paid the refs or even threatened their families. I'm not saying it happened, but in this corrupt world you never know. Just don't be naive enoug to think that the game is uncorruptable.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

If Super Bowls are the ultimate yard stick, I'd have to say that Roth has proven the point. In his rookie year, he lost in the conference championship game to the eventual champs. In his 2nd year, he has won the Super Bowl. I guess I don't see how this disproves the Franchise QB theory.

I don't know exactly how Ben's performance last night helps the theory either

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Who does that???
Tom Brady and then....

McNabb is close. Vick? hmm not really close.
Manning? nope. Playoff skidmarks.
Delhomme? Nope. Missed playoffs altogether in between playoff runs.
Culpepper? Nope.
Brett Favre? Nope.



No team is consistently winning(except NE) and NO QB is either in this parity era.

If you go back to the era where there were dynasties this might have held true but right now you have to try to build a team not just get a QB because having the best QB doesnt mean much as we saw this year and when Dilfer won and when Brady won the first time and when Brad Johnson won et al.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think that Roeth is going to improve by leaps and bounds over the next two years. I watched him play while at Miami of Ohio and I am convinced he can throw the football. It is a maturation process.

agreed

The Steelers are lucky...

...that Tommy Maddox went down

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't think that's the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that teams with there QB situation settled, long term, are enjoying much more success then those who are not. This is not an abarition as there is entirely too much supporting evidence to substanciate this. Teams that don't have this position settled can win but not long term. At least, I have yet to see one.

we should wait to see what Pitt does in the future with Ben at the helm before you can say anything is substantiated