RunOJRun Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.). It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB. With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place. With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab." Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster). To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.) To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks. This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine. Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating. I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 That seems like a really cool idea. I would add that teams who grab a QB must offer that player a 5+ year contract after their first full season or let them walk. I believe there are many good QBs (and maybe even great QBs) out there that just never get the chance to show their stuff and they end up out of football. This is another argument for some sort of "minor league". Most QBs need more than 1-2 years to develop. Usually, being buried on a roster with a franchise QB, this never happens. It's actually quite a waste if talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) Or the Bills could fire Modrak and all the other scouts, then hire a real GM and real Scouts, draft a good QB, and not worry about it for 15 years. Or they could trade/spend average QB money on one of the franchise QBs that have come up on the market recently (brees, vick, cutler) I don't think the NFL should reward retarded teams like Buffalo and punish competent teams who do what it takes to win. The government already does that to us citizens and it doesn't make anything better. "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Ben Franklin Edited February 13, 2011 by Thoner7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cincinnati Kid Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I think that a minor league is a better idea than this madness you have described. I think it is very innovative, but it just would never happen. The coaches would be pissed, and QBs would never get drafted high anymore because you couldn't groom them yourself. The idea of have a minor league has always been a good one. Maybe have it by division. So the AFC East would have one team in like Albany. The Albany Albinos. White Uniforms. Anyway, that would create an 8 team league that would play games on Wednesday nights. They would have Sunday's as their tradional off day (possibly for "call-ups"?). Each team could designate 13 players. That would make a 52 man roster. They could figure out a pay scale for these guys. Something similar to the practice squad. That would give each NFL team a roster of 66 players or 72 players if they decided to keep a group of guys as an actual practice squad like they do now. The main gain to all this that the teams would have NFL caliber players playing against NFL caliber players during the season. Development is taking place, and if yu have 4 ILBs drop, you aren't signing some guy out of Michigan's weight room/garden care center to fill in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Socialism can do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I think that a minor league is a better idea than this madness you have described. I think it is very innovative, but it just would never happen. The coaches would be pissed, and QBs would never get drafted high anymore because you couldn't groom them yourself. The idea of have a minor league has always been a good one. Maybe have it by division. So the AFC East would have one team in like Albany. The Albany Albinos. White Uniforms. Anyway, that would create an 8 team league that would play games on Wednesday nights. They would have Sunday's as their tradional off day (possibly for "call-ups"?). Each team could designate 13 players. That would make a 52 man roster. They could figure out a pay scale for these guys. Something similar to the practice squad. That would give each NFL team a roster of 66 players or 72 players if they decided to keep a group of guys as an actual practice squad like they do now. The main gain to all this that the teams would have NFL caliber players playing against NFL caliber players during the season. Development is taking place, and if yu have 4 ILBs drop, you aren't signing some guy out of Michigan's weight room/garden care center to fill in... A minor league system would be great, but I think each team would need their own. The problem is, as it was with NFL Europe, nobody wants their QB of the future to get hurt in a minor league game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Minor league is college ball. Each NFL team should sponsor one or two schools and pay for this student athletes to attend. It is criminal that tax payer money finances athletic scholarships at state schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.). It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB. With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place. With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab." Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster). To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.) To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks. This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine. Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating. I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle. This has to be the worst idea ever proposed on this board. It's hard enough to attain team stabilty, now you want to throw that all away. The goal of most teams is to have a competent backup QB. All you have to do to see the insanity of this is to look at the Super Bowl champs. Aaron Rodgers was drafted in the 1st round to eventually replace Brett Favre. The plan worked. Under this "system" it wouldn't work for any team with an aging QB. I seriously doubt the players would want anything to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.). It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB. With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place. With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab." Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster). To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.) To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks. This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine. Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating. I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle. No way! you get what you get, If your GM stinks get a new one. I wouldn't want some team pulling one of our QBs that we might need due to injuries or could used in a trade to enhance my team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandiegobillsfan Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Oh and add this to the mix, the dreaded 18 game schedule. I believe that teams would want two starter quality QB on their rosters. That way your starter does not have to play all 18 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 How about this novel idea... if you want a qb find one on your own. If someone has one you want trade for them. To punish teams that are good at finding talent and teaching that talent is ridiculous. If the bills were good would you be for this idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Socialism can do anything. The NFL is a strange mix of socialism and, until free agency, slavery. Of course the socialism is of the American type. That is, the owners get to keep any profits, and the taxpayers get to eat the losses (in the case of professional sports, that means they pay taxes that build stadiums, provide roadways, etc. while the owners get to keep all of "their" money). Kind of like the Wall Street bailout, the auto industry bailout (where the workers had to make massive concessions as the companies made billions on taxpayer money), health care "reform" which, to label it honestly, should really be called Health Care Industry Profit Maximization. Ya gotta love American Socialism, where Big Money/Big Industry is on the governmental dole, and the rest of us get to support them. This is Groucho Marxism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I think that a minor league is a better idea than this madness you have described. I think it is very innovative, but it just would never happen. The coaches would be pissed, and QBs would never get drafted high anymore because you couldn't groom them yourself. The idea of have a minor league has always been a good one. Maybe have it by division. So the AFC East would have one team in like Albany. The Albany Albinos. White Uniforms. Anyway, that would create an 8 team league that would play games on Wednesday nights. They would have Sunday's as their tradional off day (possibly for "call-ups"?). Each team could designate 13 players. That would make a 52 man roster. They could figure out a pay scale for these guys. Something similar to the practice squad. That would give each NFL team a roster of 66 players or 72 players if they decided to keep a group of guys as an actual practice squad like they do now. The main gain to all this that the teams would have NFL caliber players playing against NFL caliber players during the season. Development is taking place, and if yu have 4 ILBs drop, you aren't signing some guy out of Michigan's weight room/garden care center to fill in... I really like this idea. One thing they could do is buy out the UFL and start this in its place. People love football, alot. This is something i would go see and would be an armchair GM's dream. To spot the next big player at the minor league level College isnt played in a pro style game. This would be a way for many fringe players to get a better chance and would improve teams rosters in the event of injury bugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 1. The league has fairly decent parity or it has a level of parity that it has happy with and does not feel the need to 'increase' parity. Parity is about the opportunity to be equal, not a guarantee. 2. It's a nice thought, but there's enough holes to drive a death star through. Just to start, if a QB is claimed then he is 'protected', but any QB claimed can't be claimed again? any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. That right there already overlaps and makes one of them irrelevant. Throwing draft picks for lost QBs just makes it more of a 'cluster'. Are you adding picks? Taking them away from other rounds? This starts to create a cluster. What's to stop teams from using this to 'create' draft picks? Get another team to claim your backup QB and get a free 2nd round pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 So a team, say Buffalo, drafts someone like Cam Newton high in the draft to groom him for a season or two while Fitzpatrick starts. But the day after the draft some other team that really wanted Newton can just claim him? Buffalo esentially loses a first round pick (the one they spent on Newton) and has no qb to develop? Um, no. This idea also assumes there are more than a few teams out there with more than one starting caliber qb. There isn't. There is maybe 1 (philly) right now. No other team has that situation. Parity does exist, especially in the NFC. A different team has represented the NFC in the superbowl for the last 10 seasons. The two big spending, "marquee" teams in that conference, Dallas and Washington, aren't in that group of ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 How many backup QBs throw 23 TDs in a season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) This has to be the worst idea ever proposed on this board. I wish people (especially good posters like yourself) would refrain from making comments like this. If you don't like the idea, just say why you don't like it. Another alternative would be to not reply to the topic. Or, instead of insults, how about an attempt at humor ("to the original poster...you should develop board games for Milton Bradley ")? One thing is clear from the original post…the author put a lot of time, thought, and effort into the post. Also, while I find the idea misguided for all the reasons already eloquently stated, the idea was certainly paved with good intentions. I recently had one of my topics called "maybe the dumbest post of the offseason so far." Please take my word for it…the post was not dumb. People become immediately hurt, insulted, and flucking pissed off when others make flip, oversimplified criticisms of their posts. It's the surest way to start a pissing match and foul the waters of our fair board. It's the nature of a forum like this to disagree but can we really try not to insult each other? Edited February 14, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 The NFL is always talking about maintaining parity (since keeping teams competitive is good for stadium attendance, TV ratings, merch sales, etc.). It seems to me that one way to further this aim is to ensure that every team has a decent starting QB. With so many things up in the air due to the current owndership/labor dispute, it seems like an opportune time for the union and/or owners to put new league rules and policies in place. With this backdrop, I'd like to see the NFL institute a policy which you could call "the quarterback grab." Here's how it would work...each team designates one QB on their roster at the beginning of a season as their protected starting quarterback. Any other QB on their roster can be claimed by any other NFL team at any point during the season, and that selected QB becomes the protected starting quarterback of the claiming team (The former protected QB of the claiming team then becomes another unprotected QB on their roster). To keep this from becoming a complete clustermess, any team in the NFL can make a claim just once during a season and any QB who has been claimed once during a season cannot be claimed additional times. Any team which selects a QB through this process must make that QB their new protected starter. Except for this situation, no team may change it's protected starting QB during the season (You can start and play other quarterbacks, but you can't protect those QBs. If you protected the wrong guy at the beginning of the season, you're out of luck. Of course, you're then free to select someone else's unprotected back-up QB if you're unhappy with whomever you're now starting.) To compensate the team which lost a QB, they would receive a compensatory additional draft pick in the second round in the following year's draft. When their turn comes up, they get to select two second round picks. This policy would prevent some NFL teams from having two or more first-rate QBs on their roster while other teams have none. It's a shame that teams like the Bills and Panthers had to make due with QBs this past season who essentially should have been back-ups, while Kevin Kolb rides the pine. Sure, a team which has lost a QB through this process may find themselves without a first rate starting QB, should their designated QB get injured. But that's the point of promoting league parity...a path is cleared for the weaker teams to get better and the stronger teams to be less dominating. I'd think that the union would get behind this policy, because it enables current back-up quarterbacks to maximize their potential for on-field success and maximum earnings by getting them off the bench and into the huddle. By the end of the first paragraph that just sounded stupid !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunOJRun Posted February 19, 2011 Author Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) This has to be the worst idea ever proposed on this board. It's hard enough to attain team stabilty, now you want to throw that all away. The goal of most teams is to have a competent backup QB. All you have to do to see the insanity of this is to look at the Super Bowl champs. Aaron Rodgers was drafted in the 1st round to eventually replace Brett Favre. The plan worked. Under this "system" it wouldn't work for any team with an aging QB. I seriously doubt the players would want anything to do with this. OK, maybe QBs should be immune from being grabbed during their rookie and second seasons. If their team isn't willing to make them the designated starter by their third season and another team is willing to start them, they should be fair pickings for another team. (Really, what's the point of drafting a QB who is likely to hit free agency before you have any plans to play him? If your "aging quarterback" is in his early 30's, he might have a good five or more years left. You're better off signing an even older quarterback on the downside of his career to spot start occasionally should your starter be injured.) If there are fewer than 32 quarterbacks genuinely talented enough to start in the NFL, it hurts the sport if a few of those genuinely talented players stand around holding a clipboard when they could replace lesser talents on other teams. It's unfair to the player who could be starting elsewhere and improving his bargaining position when he's up for free agency and it's unfair to every fan who watches games which aren't as entertaining as they could be because a few teams are hoarding two worthy starters while other teams have none. Get the best players on the field and it benefits the sport. Edited February 19, 2011 by RunOJRun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Kudos to you OP for coming back and revising your idea reasonably after so many replying posters flamed your original post. I still don't agree with your overall idea, but your revised version is a lot better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts