Value of the Franchise QB

[BigRedMO]

There is an article in the 2/4/05 Sporting News by Brian Baldinger called "You Cant Build Long Term Success without a Franchise QB".

It talks about how of the four teams in the champsionship games have franchise QBs (McNabb, Brady, Big Ben(admits may be early to call a FQB), Vick. Atlanta goes 5-11 without Vick. McNabb is 4th in rating, 3rd in YDS, 8th in TDs. Brady is 9th in rating, 6th in YDS, , 10th in TDs. Ben 5th in rating, 19th in YDS, and 22nd in TDs. Vick 21st in rating, 24th in YDS, 26th in TDs.. Those are passing TDs and do not include Vicks rushing TDs. Vick's # seem out of place due to him being at this point more of a running threat. Prediction- If he does not learn to be a passer his career will be short.

He talks about TB and Baltimore having success for a short period but without a FQB it is not sustainable.

For curiousity sake Mccowns #s are 29th rating, 29th YDs, and 24th in TDS. Now for you Mccown apologists do you really think the Cards wont bring in a FA and maybe draft a QB to compete for the job.

 

[slanidrac16]

Please Buffalo, please cut Bledsoe!

 

[Evil Ash]

There is an article in the 2/4/05 Sporting News by Brian Baldinger called "You Cant Build Long Term Success without a Franchise QB".

It talks about how of the four teams in the champsionship games have franchise QBs (McNabb, Brady, Big Ben(admits may be early to call a FQB), Vick. Atlanta goes 5-11 without Vick. McNabb is 4th in rating, 3rd in YDS, 8th in TDs. Brady is 9th in rating, 6th in YDS, , 10th in TDs. Ben 5th in rating, 19th in YDS, and 22nd in TDs. Vick 21st in rating, 24th in YDS, 26th in TDs.. Those are passing TDs and do not include Vicks rushing TDs. Vick's # seem out of place due to him being at this point more of a running threat. Prediction- If he does not learn to be a passer his career will be short.

He talks about TB and Baltimore having success for a short period but without a FQB it is not sustainable.

For curiousity sake Mccowns #s are 29th rating, 29th YDs, and 24th in TDS. Now for you Mccown apologists do you really think the Cards wont bring in a FA and maybe draft a QB to compete for the job.

Notice how the writer doesn't bring up the running games of those 4 teams. All near the top yet for some reason it is completely ignored. I find the fascination with the QB dumbfounding at times.

They'll bring in a FA QB and I expect that but don't expect any big names coming here

 

[Matt L]

Notice how the writer doesn't bring up the running games of those 4 teams. All near the top yet for some reason it is completely ignored. I find the fascination with the QB dumbfounding at times.

They'll bring in a FA QB and I expect that but don't expect any big names coming here

but that should prove the point more for the quarterback as opposed to the running back. it helps to have a strong running back but dorsey levens and warrick dunn and tj duckett aren't exactly the top running backs in the game. before the patriots got corey dillon they were still winning with antowain smith who isn't that great. jerome bettis is pretty old and duce staley isn't that great either. none of these teams have a complete stud running back.

 

[arthurracoon]

but that should prove the point more for the quarterback as opposed to the running back. it helps to have a strong running back but dorsey levens and warrick dunn and tj duckett aren't exactly the top running backs in the game. before the patriots got corey dillon they were still winning with antowain smith who isn't that great. jerome bettis is pretty old and duce staley isn't that great either. none of these teams have a complete stud running back.

They do however have some GOOD offensive lines.

 

[jerryp]

I seriously hope "went 5-11 without him" is not a serious argument for Vick being a franchise QB. I'm sure converting from a poorly executed 3-4 defense to an effective 4-3 defense had nothing to do with it.

Oh and who was the QB that led the Falcons to their best record ever? Oh yeah, Chris Chandler, the guy who was holding the Rams QB position hostage. Now that's a franchise QB.

And for any clown that's been duped by the "Vick beat Green Bay at Lambeau" line that the media has repeated over and over, here's the the actual game stats.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20030104_ATL@GB

Yeah, I am sure the 2 interceptions, 3 fumble recoveries, and blocked punt for TD by the defense/special teams had nothing to do with winning that game. Or Duckett and Dunn pounding the rock for 6.1 and 5 yards per carry respectively. Oh no, it was definitely Vick with his 104 COMBINED rushing/passing yards that did it. All by himself.

Go go hyperbole! Thy name is Vick.

 

[BigRedMO]

The point of the article wasnt that you cant win without a franchise QB (Ravens, TB Super Bowls). The point being made in the article is you cant be a team that is in Super Bowl contention and serious threat for it year in year out. What was the last team to appear in or win more than one Super Bowl within a couple years without a franchise QB? I dont know the answer but would be curious to know.

To me it is illogical to think that a team can beat good teams consistently over time with a one dimensional offense. No team is so good that a good defense cant stop them if they know what is coming. There has to be some uncertainty about whether it is a pass or a run coming. If a team has no credible passing threat that is half of a game plan they dont need to worry about.

 

[john h]

Notice how the writer doesn't bring up the running games of those 4 teams. All near the top yet for some reason it is completely ignored. I find the fascination with the QB dumbfounding at times.

They'll bring in a FA QB and I expect that but don't expect any big names coming here

The QB is now and has always been the most important position on a team. You may find instances where teams won the big one with marginal or average QB's but in the long run you need a very good QB to be good year in and year out. If you can picture Josh McCown as a frachise QB in a super bowl then you have one h--- of an imagination. We need to think a lot bigger than that.

 

[john h]

I seriously hope "went 5-11 without him" is not a serious argument for Vick being a franchise QB. I'm sure converting from a poorly executed 3-4 defense to an effective 4-3 defense had nothing to do with it.

Oh and who was the QB that led the Falcons to their best record ever? Oh yeah, Chris Chandler, the guy who was holding the Rams QB position hostage. Now that's a franchise QB.

And for any clown that's been duped by the "Vick beat Green Bay at Lambeau" line that the media has repeated over and over, here's the the actual game stats.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20030104_ATL@GB

Yeah, I am sure the 2 interceptions, 3 fumble recoveries, and blocked punt for TD by the defense/special teams had nothing to do with winning that game. Or Duckett and Dunn pounding the rock for 6.1 and 5 yards per carry respectively. Oh no, it was definitely Vick with his 104 COMBINED rushing/passing yards that did it. All by himself.

Go go hyperbole! Thy name is Vick.

Vick sure has a lot to offer but among the contenders this year he is the one I would have the most questions about in the long run. When teams stop his running he does not fair well as a pocket QB. Short at about 6' and just will not stay in the pocket which causes problems for the OC in designing plays.

 

[john h]

The point of the article wasnt that you cant win without a franchise QB (Ravens, TB superbowls). The point being made in the article is you cant be a team that is in super Bowl contention and serious threat for it year in year out. What was the last team to appear in or win more than one SuperBowl within a couple years without a franchise QB? I dont know the answer but would be curious to know.

To me it is illogical to think that a team can beat good teams consistently over time with a one dimensional offense. No team is so good that a good defense cant stop them if they know what is coming. There has to be some uncertainty about whether it is a pass or a run coming. If a team has no credible passing threat that is half of a game plan they dont need to worry about.

When you start looking at some of the great QB's you generally find them playing regularly in the playoffs. They may not have even won a superbowl but they are close year in and year out.

 

[Rocco]

The point of the article wasnt that you cant win without a franchise QB (Ravens, TB Super Bowls). The point being made in the article is you cant be a team that is in Super Bowl contention and serious threat for it year in year out. What was the last team to appear in or win more than one Super Bowl within a couple years without a franchise QB? I dont know the answer but would be curious to know.

To me it is illogical to think that a team can beat good teams consistently over time with a one dimensional offense. No team is so good that a good defense cant stop them if they know what is coming. There has to be some uncertainty about whether it is a pass or a run coming. If a team has no credible passing threat that is half of a game plan they dont need to worry about.

I agree. A good quarterback means you'll always have a reason to hope.

Baltimore is the team most mentioned as being proof that you don't need a top quarterback. But that hasn't stopped them from trying to find one. Wonder why.

 

[Evil Ash]

I agree. A good quarterback means you'll always have a reason to hope.

Baltimore is the team most mentioned as being proof that you don't need a top quarterback. But that hasn't stopped them from trying to find one. Wonder why.

Almost all of the teams are looking for a franchise QB every year. Theres' a good reason for that ... THEY'RE HARDER THAN HELL TO FIND.

I just hate it when people act like they are readily available every year. The majority of QBs that are drafted are given the title and never live up to it.

 

[Rocco]

Almost all of the teams are looking for a franchise QB every year. Theres' a good reason for that ... THEY'RE HARDER THAN HELL TO FIND.

I just hate it when people act like they are readily available every year. The majority of QBs that are drafted are given the title and never live up to it.

Agree, Brett Farve's dont grow on trees. But the post said "good", meaning anywhere from a solid NFL starter to a pro bowl quality player. On second thought, no team out there would ever let go of a pro bowl quality quarteback, so I guess that puts them at the franchise level.

 

[john h]

Almost all of the teams are looking for a franchise QB every year. Theres' a good reason for that ... THEY'RE HARDER THAN HELL TO FIND.

I just hate it when people act like they are readily available every year. The majority of QBs that are drafted are given the title and never live up to it.

Why is it the same teams year in and year out never find one? Sometimes you have to take the big gamble when it presents itself and take a QB with the 1-3 pick in the draft. Who is the last Qb we drafted in the top 5? Was it Kelly Stouffer?

 

[Mulli]

Why is it the same teams year in and year out never find one? Sometimes you have to take the big gamble when it presents itself and take a QB with the 1-3 pick in the draft. Who is the last Qb we drafted in the top 5? Was it Kelly Stouffer?

I agree Cards should have drafted Ryan Leaf. j/k

 

[Faithful]

They do however have some GOOD offensive lines.

 

[JeffGollin]

There's no single way to build a team.

It could be argued that the Giants got to the Super Bowl with great defenses and vanilla mistake-free offenses. Phil Simms was a good QB, but it could be argued that neither he nor Hostetler were "franchise" guys.

Similarly, I'm not sure Brady is a prototypical "franchise QB" either, but he is certainly is the prototypical "Belicheck/Patriots franchise QB" whose job it is to "drive the bus" and - like the other 52 dudes on the roster - do his job.

Certainly guys like Elway and Favre are at the other end of the spectrum. And having a really good QB is a lot better than not having a real good QB. But there have been teams who have gotten to the promised land without the Big Guy under center, because they were so dominant in other aspects of the game.

 

[BigRedMO]

The point of the article was not getting to A Super Bowl. The article pointed to teams who made it without franchise QBs. They dont repeat that appearance.(Ravens, TB) It was going to and winning repeated Super Bowls. There is no way Brady would not succeed anywhere. He is a "franchise" QB.

Th Giants of the 80's made it to and won one Super Bowl with O.J. Anderson the MVP. If I am not mistaken the next year they were 5-11 and did not make the playoffs. Giants, Ravens, Bucs dont make the point that you can be a repeat Super Bowl contender without franchise QB.

 

[Syracusecards]

The point of the article was not getting to A Super Bowl. The article pointed to teams who made it without franchise QBs. They dont repeat that appearance.(Ravens, TB) It was going to and winning repeated Super Bowls. There is no way Brady would not succeed anywhere. He is a "franchise" QB.

Th Giants of the 80's made it to and won one Super Bowl with O.J. Anderson the MVP. If I am not mistaken the next year they were 5-11 and did not make the playoffs. Giants, Ravens, Bucs dont make the point that you can be a repeat Super Bowl contender without franchise QB.

The Chicago Bears are a good example of this also. They were dominant in all phases of the game but Jim McMann(sp?) was completely average if that. They won the Superbowl one year and then didn't get back.

Mistake free football with good defense can get you there for one year if you're lucky, but eventually the one of the big games is going to boil down to whether or not your qb can make clutch plays when he has to.

 

[justAndy]

3 parts of the game

offense, defense, special teams.
a qb is a big part of ONE of the parts.
any championship team is at least GOOD in ALL 3 parts.
qb importance overrated.