Right, but presumably there is just one QB (i.e., the best one in the league) you would trade all others for. Is he the only "franchise QB" there is?
Is Ryan Tannehill Going to Become a Franchise QB?
- Thread starter Shouright
- Start date
there isn't just one the ones I listed are ones I would make a case for being the best.
Right, but theoretically speaking at least, there is just one who is the best, and one you should (and perhaps would) trade all others for. That can't possibly mean that all of the other 31 starting QBs in the league are "non-franchise."
if you had brees, I doubt you'd trade him for brady. if you had brady I doubt you'd trade him for brees. there isn't just one QB i'd say was the best. If you want to say that one QB is the absolute best in the league that's on you. I don't know how you'd prove that one QB is the best, but in this case I say there are about 5 or 6 QBs I'd make the case for being Franchise Elite.
AgentXof12
Active Roster
Is it ever the case that there is just one QB who is on a whole other level from all other QBs? A 'Michael Jordan' of QBs? I've never seen the league in that situation. The best QB is usually just a little bit better than the next two or three guys considered to be in his class. It's such that a swap of the QBs in question wouldn't make much sense to either team.
If you had Peyton Manning, would you trade him for Tom Brady?
Would you trade either of them for Drew Brees?
If you had Aaron Rodgers, would you trade him?
I could understand trading Peyton/Brady/Brees for Rodgers simply due to age, but Green Bay would never do it because of age.
2413fanphins
Active Roster
peyton manning, tom brady, drew brees, aaron rodgers, are bonafide franchise qb's. I think you could make a case for about six or so other guys, that you could deem franchise qb's, meaning if they were your quarterback for 8-10 years, you'd be fine with it.
Good points. But let me ask you this: let's say you have Joe Flacco for example, who wasn't mentioned above. Just because you don't have Manning, Brady, Rodgers, or Brees, and none of their teams would accept Flacco in trade for any of them, should that leave you feeling like you don't have a "franchise QB" and are still on the lookout for one in the draft or free agency? Or do you feel like you have your franchise QB and feel settled at the position, without needing a change?
I'd trade flacco for any of the 5 I listed, and smile about it.
Right, so does that mean Flacco isn't a franchise QB, just because you would trade him for one of those other QBs if you could?
a franchise QB is simply a QB you can build a team around. a QB who will take you to the playoffs by winning games consistently. I think Bradford classifies and I know Tannehill and Luck do. Russel Wilson probably is too
AgentXof12
Active Roster
That's a question of probability. If I'm the GM of the Ravens, I think there is a slightly higher probability that a guy like Flacco could be replaced than a guy like Matt Ryan. It has to be a switch that makes sense, though, and the better the QB talent the less likely a GM is to find a superior talent available. It's rare for it to happen, but it does happen on occasion. Donovan McNabb got replaced by Michael Vick. Both of those guys are/were pretty good. Occasionally the planets do align and a franchise QB like Peyton Manning is dumped in favor of a rookie like Andrew Luck--that probably should not have happened like that, but the team was in turmoil, so. Then there's Alex Smith *flinch* who is better than many around here think he is, and he got benched for Kaepernick--controversial to say the least.
I think it's even fair to say that Green Bay was grooming Aaron Rodgers while Brett Favre was still setting records. Honestly, I don't think the search for QB talent should ever stop even when you have Captain Franchise out there. The guy could break his neck on any given day, then what?... At the same time, you wouldn't invest your first round pick every year stockpiling QBs because that isn't going to give you the greatest return on investment. You do, however, take advantage of opportunities to draft a Tom Brady in the 7th round when he falls through the cracks.
Like Pat Devlin, who was just a roll of the dice. You don't spend a lot looking for a QB when you have Flacco. You do, however, spend the 8th overall pick on Tannehill when you have Matt Moore.
That's essentially my definition as well: a guy who allows you to feel settled at the position so you can focus on improvements in personnel in other areas. In other words, is the guy we have sufficient to put us in contention for the Super Bowl if he has enough talent around him?
The game is so focused on passing and QB play nowadays that the QB in essence functions as a limiting factor (a "ceiling") in a team's overall ability. In effect a franchise QB is necessary but not sufficient for Super Bowl contention.
In other words, having a franchise QB doesn't automatically make you a Super Bowl contender (i.e., you need other pieces as well), but if you don't have a franchise QB, it doesn't matter how many other pieces you have -- you're going nowhere big.
---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------
Right, but now I think you're talking about something that could happen to Manning (and it did!), Brees, Brady, or Rodgers, as well.
Motcrue4
Scout Team
I thought he was already a franchise QB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AgentXof12
Active Roster
When it does happen to those guys, I think you'll find that those teams have been grooming replacements.
I think a distinction to make with a franchise QB is that if you have one and you replace him, you will always suffer a drop in QB quality. Luck was a step down from Peyton. I honestly don't know that if Flacco was replaced that it would literally be a step down for the Ravens. I'm thinking that Flacco wasn't even as productive as some of the rookies last season. He was definitely good, though.
It's all subjective, of course. I happen to believe that a true franchise QB is someone you can't replace without taking a step back at the position. I think there are a fair number of franchise quality QBs: Rodgers, Brady, Peyton, Ryan, Schaub, Brees. I'm probably missing someone who definitely ought to be on there. I think those guys are nearly impossible to replace, though. In the case of Favre/Rodgers, I can't help but feel like that was a stroke of pure genius in terms of planning and preparation. Unbelievable, really. The further you extend the franchise label, the more likely you are to have franchise QBs who are either cut or benched, which I feel kind of goes against the spirit of such a title. Like Mark Sanchez... declaring him the franchise was extremely foolish.
I think a distinction to make with a franchise QB is that if you have one and you replace him, you will always suffer a drop in QB quality. Luck was a step down from Peyton. I honestly don't know that if Flacco was replaced that it would literally be a step down for the Ravens. I'm thinking that Flacco wasn't even as productive as some of the rookies last season. He was definitely good, though.
It's all subjective, of course. I happen to believe that a true franchise QB is someone you can't replace without taking a step back at the position. I think there are a fair number of franchise quality QBs: Rodgers, Brady, Peyton, Ryan, Schaub, Brees. I'm probably missing someone who definitely ought to be on there. I think those guys are nearly impossible to replace, though. In the case of Favre/Rodgers, I can't help but feel like that was a stroke of pure genius in terms of planning and preparation. Unbelievable, really. The further you extend the franchise label, the more likely you are to have franchise QBs who are either cut or benched, which I feel kind of goes against the spirit of such a title. Like Mark Sanchez... declaring him the franchise was extremely foolish.