Thread: What is a "Franchise QB"?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Fair...but what is it that makes a team decide to build their team around that player? More specifically, how did they determine that player was worthy of building a team around?

I suppose one would have to get in the heads of gm of those particular teams to find out for sure. Looking at the list put up all but three of them were taken in the first round. So I would guess draft status generally has something to do with it certainly isn't only thing. All of them have been successful to one degree or another.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

A quarterback who makes the people around him better.

Just to play devil's advocate...Thielen and Diggs had career years with Keenum. And the Minnesota offense in general had their best overall ratings in years.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Just to play devil's advocate...Thielen and Diggs had career years with Keenum. And the Minnesota offense in general had their best overall ratings in years.

This point will be ignored.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

A quarterback who makes the people around him better.

It could be argued that Tim Tebow made the people around him play better (how, I don't know) does that make him a franchise QB?

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Just to play devil's advocate...Thielen and Diggs had career years with Keenum. And the Minnesota offense in general had their best overall ratings in years.

Personally, I’m not writing him off. My first impression is he’s a placeholder similar to what Steve DeBerg was. I don’t think you give two year deals to guys you believe in.

However, you have a valid point and it is possible for him to turn into that guy. Gannon and Garcia are two quarterbacks with similar skill sets who went from “journeyman backup” to “franchise quarterback”.

I think it's one of those things that's not really definable, but you know it when you have it.

A “franchise” QB is simply a QB that a team determines is their long-term answer at the QB position and is willing to invest heavily in his development/support system and in him financially.

Sometimes it is determined by draft stock and potential and sometimes by proven performance. Kirk Cousins apparently wasn’t a franchise QB to the Redskins but he apparently was to the Vikings. A guy like Elway or PFM, even when they were young and struggled, had those “flashes” of greatness so their organizations continued to invest resources in them until they became the GOAT of their franchise. Tom Brady had to prove himself and probably would’ve had a shorter leash had he played like shit after he won his first championship. NE would’ve never kept him around if he wasn’t a great QB.

A franchise QB is expected to be all the things people think he is. The leader, the face of the franchise, the locker room unifier, the coach’s best confidant, a guy who leads by example on and off the field and in the locker room/workout room. He doesn’t have to be a physical freak or even a huge rah-rah guy, but he has to be able to be an effective player who gives his team the chance to win consistently without needing a pro bowl roster around him to do it. There are franchise QBs who come in all shapes and sizes. The bottom line I think is that I may not be able to describe it well, but you know one when you see one.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

Personally, I’m not writing him off. My first impression is he’s a placeholder similar to what Steve DeBerg was. I don’t think you give two year deals to guys you believe in.

However, you have a valid point and it is possible for him to turn into that guy. Gannon and Garcia are two quarterbacks with similar skill sets who went from “journeyman backup” to “franchise quarterback”.

I'll push that to compare him to Cousins. Cousins only got 3 years, but Minnesota believes him to be enough of a franchise guy to make him the highest paid player in the NFL. So, does contract value help determine if a guy is seen as a franchise QB...or does contract length.

Originally Posted by Freyaka

It could be argued that Tim Tebow made the people around him play better (how, I don't know) does that make him a franchise QB?

Did he? The team finished 8-8 and only made the playoffs because Oakland choked in week 17. If 8-8 is making a team better, then where is the love for Siemian and his 9-7 season?

I think certain aspects of Tebow's game helped the team win more games than it should have, but I dont think he made the team better.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Did he? The team finished 8-8 and only made the playoffs because Oakland choked in week 17. If 8-8 is making a team better, then where is the love for Siemian and his 9-7 season?

I think certain aspects of Tebow's game helped the team win more games than it should have, but I dont think he made the team better.

Well I think the argument for tebow is that he took over that 8-8 team at 1-4, thus making them better. I'm not necessarily making that argument, but one could argue that taking a 1-4 team to 8-8 is a bit more impressive than taking a roster that just won the super bowl to 9-7.

Originally Posted by Northman

A franchise Qb is someone who can lead, motivate, and elevate a team when needed. For me its really not that hard to see it in a player.

Tim Tebow was said already.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Did he? The team finished 8-8 and only made the playoffs because Oakland choked in week 17. If 8-8 is making a team better, then where is the love for Siemian and his 9-7 season?

I think certain aspects of Tebow's game helped the team win more games than it should have, but I dont think he made the team better.

I feel like our running game and defense did step up for Tebow. I don't think he's a franchise QB, and I don't think obviously AW4M thinks that either, just playing devil's advocate a little.

As for TS love...I've been there, done that. I've been burnt too badly by supporting that guy to show any love for him after the fact.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Well I think the argument for tebow is that he took over that 8-8 team at 1-4, thus making them better. I'm not necessarily making that argument, but one could argue that taking a 1-4 team to 8-8 is a bit more impressive than taking a roster that just won the super bowl to 9-7.

Ok...but then based on that scenario, it appears we can eliminate "making his teammates better" as a definitive quality of a franchise QB. Obviously, that can be done without being elite.

So far, it looks like we've crossed a few traits off of the list required to have that title...Leader, motivator, making the team better, etc. Not that you don't want these traits, just that they aren't requirements to be called a franchise QB.

I guess based on a few opinions we might also be able to eliminate stats from the qualifications, but my one argument for paying attention to stats is this...if having great stats isn't indicative of being a franchise QB, why is it that all the QB's that are considered franchise QB's always seem to have great stats??? Is 4000 yards, 30 TD's and a high rating just a by-product, or does it require having some ability as an elite QB help?

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

Simple answer:

Elway.

Struggled his first year - even got benched, but showed flashes of brilliance. Won games he probably didn't have any business winning due to his will to win alone. He wasn't surrounded by a "great" team until his final years.

He just won games. As a fan during that time, even if the Broncos were down 20 points in the 4th, I knew there was at least a chance to win with him behind center. He demanded elite play from his teammates, and could get away with it because he left everything on the field himself. Never had eye-popping stats, but retired as the winningest QB with the most 4th quarter comebacks of all time.

I fully realize I'm an Elway homer and view virtually everything through orange-colored glasses, but when you watched him play, you just knew he was something incredibly special. The face of the franchise. A franchise QB.

I'm not sure I've seen that before or since, to be honest.

Agreed. I wanted to watch every minute Elway played because I somehow knew I was
watching history in the making, even during that time. As you suggested, Elway didn't always
have the best supporting cast around him. He just won.

One of the most profound comments about him that I ever heard from the booth -- I don't
remember who said it -- was when the Broncos were behind with one chance to go down the
field for the win. Elway took the field, and the announcer said, "Uh-oh." He was a prophet.
Elway did it again.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Just a question of curiosity to see how each individual defines this term. Based on the last few weeks of ridiculous ****-fighting, I'm curious...if passer or QB ratings are irrelevant...exactly what numbers do define a "franchise QB"? And if numbers alone dont justify the title...what does?

Obviously, this is going to vary from person to person as it does from team to team in the NFL, but since there are threads disputing things like stats, personality, history, etc. playing into the title, I'm curious as to exactly what it is that has to happen before a QB is classified with the "Franchise" label.

I don't think there actually is such a thing, as such. Craig Morton took the Broncos to their first SB back in '77, after a decade as a backup/2nd choice elsewhere. Even when he was starting in Dallas he was keeping the seat warm for Staubach. Then, in his mid 30's, he shows up in Denver and led us to a 12-2 season, then 3 of 4 seasons as winners after that - and even there, the 8-8 1980 season was hardly his fault. He played behind a dismal offensive line, and on top of that had a pedestrian running game as well. His receiving corps was pretty good (Moses, Odoms, Dolbin), but there were probably better at the time. Was he a "Franchise QB"? A "Game Manager"? The Broncos kept trying to replace him, first with Norris Weese, then the horrible Matt Robinson experiment in 1980, but he kept being the best QB on the roster in spite of it.

Or are these terms, as such, really just silly and a bit lazy?