Franchise QB's?

[Bob Sacamano]

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.

 

[jterrell]

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.

Huh?

A franchise QB is about competing for the whole 9 yards year after year, not 1 game.

Again if you are telling me what teams do then don't bother. I am clearly arguing they are wrong. Most teams take a long time to adjust because the guys running them have been doing it for 30 years.

All I care about is the best means of building a winning team not dreams/hopes/wishes.

But even at that I'd say the idea is at best incomplete. Teams are raising coaching salaries and focussing more than ever on the draft(at all positions) in this era of the salary cap. I'd say teams are now allowing the game to come to them where QBs are concerned much more so than previously.

I doubt I'd rate either Hasselback or Ben R. a top 10 QB and know I would have not done so entering last season. Expand it to the final 4 and Plummer and Delhomme are also questionable top 10 calls. Of those 4 only Pitt used a first round pick and even then it was because Ben was a regional college guy and was the 3rd QB taken.

Fans are obsessing about Qbs much moreso than NFL front offices.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

agreed



...that Tommy Maddox went down

Supposition on your part. You don't know that Ben would or would not have beaten Maddox out.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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

Unfathomable how you could not know but if you say you don't, then you don't.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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

Your statement is irrelivent. You don't have to use Ben as a focus. In my earlier post, he was clearly not the focus. The numbers speak for themselves and they are irrefutable. The over whelming majority of teams that had there QB situation settled were in the playoffs or competing for spots in the playoffs at a much higher ratio then those who did not. If you wish to debate the status of who is and who is not a franchise QB, that's fine but I think my list is pretty close to the mark.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

I don't agree with your assesment of how Dallas feels. I don't even think it's debatable. They think they have a QB for the next couple of years but that, to me, is not the same as believing you have a QB that is going to represent the face of your franchise for years to come. However, I am open to difference of opinion. I have confidence that if the list were reviewed, it would probably pass muster. Put it to the test if you wish.

 

[Hostile]

Huh?

What part of is about "competing" year after year not just 1 game isn't clear to you? The argument presented was that a QB can win a Super Bowl with a 22 QB rating.

This isn't that hard JT.

Again if you are telling me what teams do then don't bother. I am clearly arguing they are wrong. Most teams take a long time to adjust because the guys running them have been doing it for 30 years.

JT, correct me if I am wrong, but you responded to me and I attempted to answer your question or clarify something for you. Now you're telling me not to bother. Then don't ask Sparky. How hard is that?

All I care about is the best means of building a winning team not dreams/hopes/wishes.

Then pay attention to an opinion other than your own now and then because others on this site do have good ideas.

But even at that I'd say the idea is at best incomplete. Teams are raising coaching salaries and focussing more than ever on the draft(at all positions) in this era of the salary cap. I'd say teams are now allowing the game to come to them where QBs are concerned much more so than previously.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this diatribe. Don't bother explaining it though, because it really isn't that interesting.

I doubt I'd rate either Hasselback or Ben R. a top 10 QB and know I would have not done so entering last season. Expand it to the final 4 and Plummer and Delhomme are also questionable top 10 calls. Of those 4 only Pitt used a first round pick and even then it was because Ben was a regional college guy and was the 3rd QB taken.

Thank you for telling me your QB ratings. Saved me the trouble of asking.

Fans are obsessing about Qbs much moreso than NFL front offices.

Fans obsess about everything more than NFL Front Offices. What's your point? Doesn't change the fact that NFL teams still try and build around QBs whenever they can.

 

[dbair1967]

But yet Roth made plays when he HAD to and got the job done.

Enough said.

not really...he made one decent play via the pass and a couple of good scrambles...when two of your three scores come on a 75yd run by a RB and a WR reverse pass for a TD, your QB had little to do with the outcome

I like him as a player, but he was awful Sunday

David

 

[kartr]

I don't know that I consider either to be "Franchise" Kartr. I tried to view this from the perspective of the franchise and what I've heard reported. Certainly, there is room for doubt.

Houston continues to insist that Carr is there guy so I list him as such. Chicago, healthy or not, loves Grossman. I think that evidence of this is that they would start him in the playoffs fresh of injury. I think they believe he's there franchise guy.

Notice I did not list Detroit in the haves. I don't believe that they think they have there franchise guy in Harrington.

A great deal of sepeculation on my part put I think it does get across my point on this subject matter regardless.

Okay, I see where you're coming from now.

 

[kartr]

What makes you so sure this game wasn't fixed. There were some horrible calls and this wasn't the only game calls were badly missed. I think it was just poor officiciating, but you never know.

I agree that there was some very poor officiating in the game, but the officiating doesn't account for Seattle's poor clock management late in the 2nd quarter and late in the 4th quarter or their missed field goals or Hasselbeck's bad int or his out of bounds throws. I feel that Seattle beat themselves more than the officials did and I was pulling for them to stop the Steelers from getting that fifth ring.

 

[kartr]

Boxing is a joke and everyone knows it. How many billions and billions of dollars does the NFL make?

Would it make any sense to jeopardize those billions so that Pittsburght could beat Seattle?

Rest assured, if it ever came out that NFL games are fixed then the gravy train would be over immediately.

Answer this honestly. If Dallas had just won the Superbowl in the same manner Pittsburgh won last night, would you be on this forum talking about "fixed" games?

I know what I would be saying:

1. Seattle are the ones who let Willie Parker run for the longest TD in NFL history.

2. Seattle are the ones who let a WR throw for long TD pass.

3. Seattle are the ones who had a TE that decided to drop about 5 critical passes.

4. Seattle are the ones who were only able to sack Ben R once all game.

5. Seattle are the ones who had two missed field goals.

6. Seattle are the ones who had a WR that kept trying to catch ball out of bounds.

I could go on, but Seattle had their chances.

Why are you blaming the WR for catching a pass that was thrown out of bounds. I suppose you also blame the receiver for Hasselbeck throwing over his head to Ike Taylor.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Supposition on your part. You don't know that Ben would or would not have beaten Maddox out.

well, he didn't start until an injury to TOmmy Maddox, so I'm going to go by what I know, so that people like you can stop acting like Ben's success was planned out by Cowher all along, it wasn't, it was just a stroke of luck, an ineffective Maddox going down to injury

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Unfathomable how you could not know but if you say you don't, then you don't.

well, you're saying Ben's performance last night doesn't hurt the franchise QB theory, and I'm telling you that i don't see how exactly it helps it either, because to me, it looked like the Steelers won a ring because of a team effort, not because of Ben's performance

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Your statement is irrelivent. You don't have to use Ben as a focus. In my earlier post, he was clearly not the focus. The numbers speak for themselves and they are irrefutable. The over whelming majority of teams that had there QB situation settled were in the playoffs or competing for spots in the playoffs at a much higher ratio then those who did not. If you wish to debate the status of who is and who is not a franchise QB, that's fine but I think my list is pretty close to the mark.

how is my statement, IRRELEVENT? jterrel pointed it out earlier on here, that a "franchise" QB in this day and age, hasn't exactly assured a prolonged championship run, so I say let's see what the Steelers do the rest of the way before we substantiate anything on the matter

I think that's fair enough

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

well, he didn't start until an injury to TOmmy Maddox, so I'm going to go by what I know, so that people like you can stop acting like Ben's success was planned out by Cowher all along, it wasn't, it was just a stroke of luck, an ineffective Maddox going down to injury

OK, so we can then deduce that Bledsoe would never have started had the QBs in front of him, in his rookie year, not been injured?

When you really examine this line of reason, it sounds pretty stupid doesn't it?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

well, you're saying Ben's performance last night doesn't hurt the franchise QB theory, and I'm telling you that i don't see how exactly it helps it either, because to me, it looked like the Steelers won a ring because of a team effort, not because of Ben's performance

It is always a team effort. Having said that, facts are facts. He still played consecutive games at a very high level against quality opponents in Indy and Denver. He QB'd Pittsburgh to something like 8 straight must wins to get them where they are. He QB'd them to an AFC conference title game as a rookie. I guess I don't see what's so difficult to understand here. Yes, you win and lose as a team but hey, lets be real. Individual accomplishements mean something in team sports. If they didn't, you wouldn't have records kept or Pro Bowls played or the HOF, for that matter. Regardless, if you choose to ingnore Roeth's accomplishments at such an early age or not, regardless of the fact that he was a high pick and a franchise QB selection, it doesn't change the facts. He was a high pick and he is considered a franchise QB for Pittsburgh. It's pretty simple really.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

how is my statement, IRRELEVENT? jterrel pointed it out earlier on here, that a "franchise" QB in this day and age, hasn't exactly assured a prolonged championship run, so I say let's see what the Steelers do the rest of the way before we substantiate anything on the matter

I think that's fair enough

It is irrelevant because your using a single instance, in this case Roeth, to evaluate. The info, over the course of the season, is already available. There is no need to "Wait and see" what happens in Pittsburgh.

 

[jterrell]

I don't agree with your assesment of how Dallas feels. I don't even think it's debatable. They think they have a QB for the next couple of years but that, to me, is not the same as believing you have a QB that is going to represent the face of your franchise for years to come. However, I am open to difference of opinion. I have confidence that if the list were reviewed, it would probably pass muster. Put it to the test if you wish.

And again the problem with your take is its all opinions based stuff spun into fact.

I dont think there is any question Dallas feels Bledsoe is a franchise guy. How many Jerry quotes do you need saying how much better Bledsoe made us to believe that?

If you simply want to rank QBs you'd be in a lot better shape.

Again tho my numbers were pretty much not arguable. Vick, Manning, Favre, McNabb, McNair all got NFL Offensive MVP votes in the past three seasons yet only 1 team made the playoffs and they had zero playoff wins. Those numbers are irrefutable because they aren't based on my opinion.

 

[jterrell]

It is irrelevant because your using a single instance, in this case Roeth, to evaluate. The info, over the course of the season, is already available. There is no need to "Wait and see" what happens in Pittsburgh.

Actually EVERY SB is relevant because thats the total pool of evidence from which to pull.

This is especially relevant because it is the most recent evidence.

The argument is all over the place from needing a great QB, to needing a franchise QB, to thinking you have a franchise QB. In the end yea every team in the league starts a QB and its better to be good there than bad same as every other position. No one in the NFL prefers bad players to good ones. But its been repeatedly proven that a great or even very good QB is not a prerequisite AT ALL. There are lots of guys who have been FAR WORSE than Drew Bledsoe who went to SBs. I am using Bledsoe as a token of mediocrity more than anything here but also because it relates to the Dallas Cowboys.

Pitt made 3 plays. 1 run, the best pass of the game by a WR, and a near desperation and ill-advised heave. They could have made all of those plays with 25 other QBs.

Seattle had 7 or 8 dropped passes and even if Montana is tossing Jerramy Stevens not catching a pass in the hands is gonna kill you. Wouldn't you love to go back and replace Dwight Clark with Jerramy Stevens? Montana might not be considered the best ever if we could.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

And again the problem with your take is its all opinions based stuff spun into fact.

I dont think there is any question Dallas feels Bledsoe is a franchise guy. How many Jerry quotes do you need saying how much better Bledsoe made us to believe that?

If you simply want to rank QBs you'd be in a lot better shape.

Again tho my numbers were pretty much not arguable. Vick, Manning, Favre, McNabb, McNair all got NFL Offensive MVP votes in the past three seasons yet only 1 team made the playoffs and they had zero playoff wins. Those numbers are irrefutable because they aren't based on my opinion.

This is BS JT. You should know better. I told you yesterday that I thought my evaluation of what teams felt they had franchise guys and what teams didn't was pretty close to accurate. Test it if you doubt it. Post a poll. The variation is going to be plus or minus 1 or 2 maybe.

AS for the rest of your BS, Vick almost made the playoffs. Atlanta was in it up to the end. Manning did make the playoffs. Favre is retiring so you know, that arguement will hold water for like another month or so. McNair is in the same sito. As a side note, getting votes for MVP and being MVP are two very different things. Drew Olson from UCLA got a Heisman Vote this season too. What do you think that means?

Irrefutable. Yeah, OK then.