What Defines Success For A Franchise QB

[MTBill]

I think the one thing your thread really points out - to be successful you need more than a QB.

 

Plenty of those QBs were very good 'Franchise' QBs, but they didn't have something - whether that is coaches, injuries, skill players, defenses, or ST (how many of those guys were 1 FG away from something more?)

 

And - there have been others who while not 1st round guys who are obviously Franchise QBs (Brady, Brees, Warner, Montana, Young, Favre come to mind without straining.)

 

I agree with your definition - someone who will secure the position for more than 5 years and have at least moderate sustained success.  Maybe now that you have a definition - make a list of all of them since 2000 and when they were drafted - what did they look like coming out of college?  Maybe that helps evaluate this years crop.  And if you extend that further - which 1st round QBs failed - were there warning signs?

[Mat68]

Simply, week in week you know if protected he will play in a manner that will lead to winning the game.  There are different shapes and sizes but you feel barring injury he is the Qb  of your team for the next 10 years.  

[MJS]

A guy that convinces the fan base consistently that you don't need to address the position and can focus on other positions to complain about.

[SoCal Deek]

25 minutes ago, Rico said:

Minimum requirement to me for a successful franchise QB is that he is able to make the players around him better. That’s only the starting point though in evaluating him.

Rico?  Is there such a thing as a 'unsuccessful' Franchise QB?

[clayboy54]

I think that Tony Romo is a perfect example of this conundrum. He was a franchise QB for Dallas, without a doubt. His work ethic was tremendous, he was a leader on and off the field. He was a consummate professional and was the "leader of men." Interestingly, he made some bone-headed plays, and was never the guy who could put the game on his shoulders and take them all the way. And, he had some real talent around him at times.

 

During his time in Dallas, the team was always competitive, and even in the down years, they were always in the national spotlight. This defines the term franchise QB. But, he's probably not a HOF guy, and certainly not a first ballot HOF guy. That said, I would take a Tony Romo all day long. Not the most talented, but a true franchise guy.

Edited March 29, 2018 by clayboy54

[mjt328]

3 hours ago, corta765 said:

I have wanted to post this for weeks but I needed to think of how to correctly approach this so here we go. It is more then likely the Bills will draft a QB at some point in the 1st round with the expectation he is going to be the franchise QB long term. My question that I have been thinking of is what defines success then if he becomes a franchise guy? Are we talking wins, amazing stats, playoff success, or just general stability at the position for a decade with a mix of these? This is not a necessarily a comparison of who I think is better, rather how these QBs have done in their careers. For my criteria this pertains to 1st round QBs only, I am only going as recent as 2012 otherwise its a bit too hard to judge the newer guys, and the player had to have some level of success in one of these categories:

 

QB's who win: These QB's may not have the most fantastic regular seasons stat wise, but they have a track record of consistently putting up solid seasons that result usually in playoff appearances and 10 win seasons at least. Aikman is the pinnacle of this group and Alex Smith is basically the floor with McNabb being your middle. These are all solid passers

Troy Aikman  89'

Alex Smith  2005'

Donovan McNabb  99'

 

Stat QB's: These QBs are guys who in terms of passing the ball have incredible numbers but their success in the regular season and post season is lacking. Sometimes with guys like Marino, Rivers, and Stafford they lacked a roster around them to get their fair chance at a SB, some like Palmer & Pennington saw injuries derail promising careers and the numbers hint at what could've been, and for some like Cutler & O'Brien they can throw but they lacked the leadership skills to take it to the bank.

Andrew Luck  2012'

Matt Stafford  2009'

Jay Cutler  2006'

Phillip Rivers  2004'

Carson Palmer  2003'

Chad Pennington  2000'

Dan Marino  83'

Ken O'Brien  83'

 

Playoff darlings: During the regular season these guys at points will make you want to pull your hair out..and then the post season comes and they both have performances that make you want to say they are great.

Joe Flacco  2008'

Eli Manning  2004'

 

Success in multiple avenues from regular season, playoffs, stats etc...: These are guys who have put up MVP caliber seasons, had playoff success, and had multiple years worth of regular season success for their team. For all of these players the idea of putting them in the HOF either has happened or is a pretty valid thought in some way.

Cam Newton  2011'

Matt Ryan  2008'

Aaron Rodgers  2005'

Ben Rothlisberger  2004'

Michael Vick  2001'

Peyton Manning  98'

Steve McNair  95'

Drew Bledsoe  93'

John Elway  83'

Jim Kelly  83'

 

Looking at this I just find more questions. Was Troy Aikman a better QB then a guy like Philip Rivers because of his winning SB's? Steve McNair had one of the best season a QB had in total and his career frankly looks better then Eli Manning who has two Super Bowl rings so wouldn't he be more of a preferred franchise guy to have your QB model? Matt Stafford managed to take an 0-16 team that has been perennially bad and managed to make them playoff contenders most years; is that more impressive then Cam Newton's career who has been great but also had vastly more help across the board? Donovan McNabb had a better level of success team wise in the NFL and even beat Michael Vick's Falcons in the NFC title, yet Vick was a transcendent talent who changed the QB position and without the dog fighting was on pace for a historically unique career so who really would you take?

 

Truthfully none of these questions require an answer nor am I looking for one. What it does show is how we can view success in variety of different ways and at the same point failure. The quarterback position of any in football is hardest to judge in terms of success because I think we all value things so differently and as fans we live in a world where everything now is championship or bust. If Darrelle Revis never won a SB would that be held against his HOF resume compared to other HOF caliber CBs? If the Bills drafted one of these quarterbacks and his career were to arch like Matt Stafford isn't that still a success to insulate the position and get playoffs appearances? Or would you rather a Joe Flacco type who benefited from a better team but is a lesser passer?

 

In the end I arrived at this for my expectations for a franchise passer. I want someone who can give me at least 10-12 years where the QB position is not an issue and they have a career throwing for some real solid yardage. In the end that QB cannot control the roster that may be put around him which to a degree will shape the success possible for that QB. Of all the things I despise about Patriot fans it is how they don't appreciate they had a true franchise QB with Bledsoe and literally tripped into the greatest QB ever in my humble .02 opinion. It is so hard to get that position right and they are going nearly 30 years of having that hole filled. I am very excited to see how the draft plays out and curious how you frame your expectations for a QB.

 

Football is a team sport, so you can't always judge a Quarterback by his wins/losses/championship rings.

At the same time, Quarterback is (by far) the most important position on the field. 

 

A team can't realistically expect to be consistently good, without strong play from its QB.

At the same time, even teams with elite/franchise QBs need to have at least an average supporting cast. 

 

When ranking quarterbacks, I prefer to look at guys in tiers, based on their ability to carry the offense around them (no quarterback can control what happens on the defensive side of the ball) to a championship.  Guys like Tom Brady would obviously be in the Tier 1, since they can carry even average receivers and running backs to contention.  Someone like Ben Roethlisberger would be in Tier 2, capable of winning championship if the pieces around him are strong.  Tier 3 would be players like Alex Smith, who are solid passers, but need an elite supporting cast full of Pro-Bowl talent to go all the way.  (In my opinion, Tyrod Taylor was a Tier 4 and would never be good enough to win a championship with).

 

The goal for a "Franchise QB" is to get someone in the Tier 2 level, and then construct a strong enough supporting cast to make the playoffs most seasons.  Hopefully over the course of 10-12 years, the team can be good enough to win a Super Bowl or two.  Anything less than Tier 2, you end up with a situation where you are drastically overpaying for a solid QB, and will never have the cap space to build around him.

 

 

 

[corta765]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Flacco has been the Ravens starting QB for many years now.  He is definitely their Franchise QB. Tom Brady went quite a few years without winning a super bowl.  Did he stop being a Franchise QB during that period?  Come on!

 

You misread what the conversation entailed. The poster said currently as in 2018 Joe Flacco may not be thee guy anymore which I agreed with which happens on the back end of all players. He is 33 his team has missed the post-season the previous 3 season and he has not been the same since he tore that knee. But no one said he wasn't a franchise guy, my entire point was using him as one of many in terms of expectations. Every Bills fan would sign up for drafting a guy like him in a heart beat if we could get his career and success both regular season and post.

10 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

Football is a team sport, so you can't always judge a Quarterback by his wins/losses/championship rings.

At the same time, Quarterback is (by far) the most important position on the field. 

 

A team can't realistically expect to be consistently good, without strong play from its QB.

At the same time, even teams with elite/franchise QBs need to have at least an average supporting cast. 

 

When ranking quarterbacks, I prefer to look at guys in tiers, based on their ability to carry the offense around them (no quarterback can control what happens on the defensive side of the ball) to a championship.  Guys like Tom Brady would obviously be in the Tier 1, since they can carry even average receivers and running backs to contention.  Someone like Ben Roethlisberger would be in Tier 2, capable of winning championship if the pieces around him are strong.  Tier 3 would be players like Alex Smith, who are solid passers, but need an elite supporting cast full of Pro-Bowl talent to go all the way.  (In my opinion, Tyrod Taylor was a Tier 4 and would never be good enough to win a championship with).

 

The goal for a "Franchise QB" is to get someone in the Tier 2 level, and then construct a strong enough supporting cast to make the playoffs most seasons.  Hopefully over the course of 10-12 years, the team can be good enough to win a Super Bowl or two.  Anything less than Tier 2, you end up with a situation where you are drastically overpaying for a solid QB, and will never have the cap space to build around him.

 

 

 

 

I think that is a really fair outlook. That is why I said if I drafted a guy to be my franchise QB my expectations for that person would be give me 10-12 years where I can build with that player and they pass for a good amount of TDs/Yards etc..

38 minutes ago, clayboy54 said:

I think that Tony Romo is a perfect example of this conundrum. He was a franchise QB for Dallas, without a doubt. His work ethic was tremendous, he was a leader on and off the field. He was a consummate professional and was the "leader of men." Interestingly, he made some bone-headed plays, and was never the guy who could put the game on his shoulders and take them all the way. And, he had some real talent around him at times.

 

During his time in Dallas, the team was always competitive, and even in the down years, they were always in the national spotlight. This defines the term franchise QB. But, he's probably not a HOF guy, and certainly not a first ballot HOF guy. That said, I would take a Tony Romo all day long. Not the most talented, but a true franchise guy.

 

Agreed. I have always kind of thought of Drew Bledsoe as the perfect time (when in NE not BUF). Team was successful, went to a SB, 4x pro bowler, and had a good amount of success/national attention. I think any team drafting a QB would sign up for the baseline of Romo/Bledsoe if that is what they got.

[Fadingpain]

The OP is making this way too complicated.

We all know a real QB when we see one.  It's the guy who can lead a team down the field when he has to in order to win games, is accurate, plays with confidence, can read a defense, stays calm under pressure, etc.

 

Anyone remember Drew Brees *losing* playoff performance this year?

The guy was incredible.  You want your QB to look like THAT.

 

 

 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

at least a 10 year career that consists of leading an offense to points/wins, playoffs and the chance at a championship.

 

 

[Gugny]

Here's how I'd "define" what I believe a successful Franchise QB is:

 

Being one of the primary reasons your team wins enough games to get into the playoffs for the majority of the seasons you're there.

[papazoid]

3 hours ago, ddaryl said:

 

 

that is not franchise at all. You described Tyrod Taylor and he is not franchise.

 

Franchise QB's play better than average for at least 10 years and put up multiple playoff worthy seasons that include multiple playoff wins. There individual stats usually land them in the top half or top 10 in QB multiple different ranking stats in most of those years

 

 

TT didn't win a playoff game

[Rico]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Rico?  Is there such a thing as a 'unsuccessful' Franchise QB?

The way I’m looking at it, absolutely. Many, many QBs were set up to be Franchise QBs by virtue of the time spent and capital invested in them, only to fall short of being successful.

[ddaryl]

5 minutes ago, papazoid said:

 

 

TT didn't win a playoff game

 

good point... but basicaly outside of the win a playoff game the statement I referred to above means TT was franchise.

 

Are you willing to say if TT beat Jax then he would of automatically be considerd franchise ? I wouldn't

Edited March 29, 2018 by ddaryl

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Rico said:

The way I’m looking at it, absolutely. Many, many QBs were set up to be Franchise QBs by virtue of the time spent and capital invested in them, only to fall short of being successful.

Jim Kelly never won a super bowl. Was he successful? Football is a team sport. If you’ve been your teams undisputed starter for five years are more....you ARE that team’s franchise QB. 

[papazoid]

1 minute ago, ddaryl said:

 

good point... but basicaly outside of the win a playoff game the statement I referred to above means TT was franchise.

 

Are you willing to say if TT beat Jax then he would of automatically be considerd franchise ? I wouldn't

 

this is kind of a 2 part question

 

#1 - what is a Franchise QB   

 

#2 - what defines "success" for a franchise QB

 

my original answer defined success for a franchise QB.  Big Ben is a Franchise guy, but lost his only playoff game for 2017, so his season was not a success.

 

my definition of a Franchise QB is the Top 10 QB's in the league for sure. possibly some inside Top 15. at best TT is just inside Top 20 so he is not a Franchise guy even if we Won the Jax game.....he didn't play very well anyways.

[MTBill]

After further thought - I also think part of this is they are an unquestioned leader.  Dan Marino wasn't looking over his shoulder to see who was behind him on the depth chart.  I'd argue Kelly was not quite meeting this.  He was successful by many counts - but even during the SB run - people questioned him and his commitment and many wanted to see Frank get his shot.  He sort of brought it on himself at times, refusing to be benched - perhaps due to a concern Frank would be successful.  Part of the lack of total faith may have been the injuries, part of it was probably the fact he shunned Buffalo when he was drafted and really came back only because the USFL collapsed, part of it was we had the "bickering Bills", his 'reputation' around town at the time didn't help either.

 

The Abyss at the position in Buffalo after he left - only strengthened his legacy.  I do think he was a Franchise QB.  He was surrounded by an amazing cast of players and coaches.  You sort of wonder though - was he making them better, or were they making him better?  There is a symbiotic relationship there.  Without Jerry Rice, how much of what Joe Montana achieved would have been achieved and by the same count Steve Young?

 

[prissythecat]

8 minutes ago, MTBill said:

After further thought - I also think part of this is they are an unquestioned leader.  Dan Marino wasn't looking over his shoulder to see who was behind him on the depth chart.  I'd argue Kelly was not quite meeting this.  He was successful by many counts - but even during the SB run - people questioned him and his commitment and many wanted to see Frank get his shot.  He sort of brought it on himself at times, refusing to be benched - perhaps due to a concern Frank would be successful.  Part of the lack of total faith may have been the injuries, part of it was probably the fact he shunned Buffalo when he was drafted and really came back only because the USFL collapsed, part of it was we had the "bickering Bills", his 'reputation' around town at the time didn't help either.

 

The Abyss at the position in Buffalo after he left - only strengthened his legacy.  I do think he was a Franchise QB.  He was surrounded by an amazing cast of players and coaches.  You sort of wonder though - was he making them better, or were they making him better?  There is a symbiotic relationship there.  Without Jerry Rice, how much of what Joe Montana achieved would have been achieved and by the same count Steve Young?

 

 

Didn't Montana already have 2 Superbowl wins before Jerry Rice came on board?

[Ramza86]

Consistent high level QB. 

 

Pretty much a guy who will be playing at a probowl level almost every year.

[corta765]

52 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

The OP is making this way too complicated.

We all know a real QB when we see one.  It's the guy who can lead a team down the field when he has to in order to win games, is accurate, plays with confidence, can read a defense, stays calm under pressure, etc.

 

Anyone remember Drew Brees *losing* playoff performance this year?

The guy was incredible.  You want your QB to look like THAT.

 

 

 

 

The problem with this is that there is a good portion of fans that only view a franchise QB as someone who has HOF career putting up great numbers or solid numbers but tons of playoff success. There are a lot of QB's who may not be HOF caliber but were/are good to at points great from Jim McMahon, Eli Manning, Joe Flacco, Donovan McNabb etc..  who you could still say were/are franchise guys. Another poster made a great point about Tony Romo being a good definition of a franchise QB. He may not be a HOF QB but he was really good, the team had some decent success, the team received some decent national attention, and it stabilized the spot for a decade plus.

 

You mention Drew Brees as your guy looking like that but he is arguably one of the top 5-7 QBs ever in the league. If your expectation is that you will constantly be disappointed and be waiting a long time for that guy.

 

The post was directed at the expectations that come with a QB being deemed franchise and how we as fans view success at the position. Based off your response your in the group that is HOF caliber or bust.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

I don't care what you call him.  I just want a quarterback who wins games much more often than not.