Franchises with/without franchise QBs

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Not sure how Matt Ryan could be a franchise guy but not Flacco....

[Thanatos 2,847]

I assume you meant to comment on how Flacco and Eli aren't and yes, I stand by that. I know Flacco has made the playoffs every year, but do you think thats because of him? I don't. He had a great run this year, but I don't get the vibe that thats something he will keep up regularly.

 

Eli Manning is what I think Flacco will be like. Yeah he had those great super bowl runs where he made great plays, but how many franchise qbs in their prime missed the playoffs in 3 of 4 years? Manning has his moments, but he's not someone you can rely on. If a quarterba

 

Kaepernick and Wilson established themselves as top level players in their first year of starting. I would be very surprised if they turn out to just be a flash in the pan (flashes in pans?)

 

RG3 also had an amazing year just like those guys. Really, it was better. The only reason I had any hesitation calling him a franchise qb is because of his knee. If he recovers from that, he's gonna have a long, successful career.

 

Newton my biggest question whether to say yes or no to and I decided no. What happened this season? The Panthers should've been in playoff contention. Instead they just crapped their way out of the gate before having a nice run against mostly bad teams. I don't care that Newton is young or that the Panthers don't have a ton of talent. Look at the three main rookie qbs this last year, most notably Luck. The colts were making a serious threat at 0-16 in 2011 and made the playoffs this year. The panthers had enough where they should've made the leap to competitiveness, but they didn't. Of course, Newton is young and for all I know he's on the verge of a great year this year where the Panthers do well. Until then though, I don't consider him a franchise qb.

 

I don't have a problem with not considering him a franchise qb. I just don't see how you can say that Kaep and Wilson are with the teams they have around them after one year, (less in Kaep's case), and also say Cam is not. Especially RG3, with his injury problems.

 

Cam has nothing in Carolina, no weapons, that's the problem. Steve Smith was literally his only weapon last year. That's what happens when your GM hands out retarded contracts to decent players.

 

The Colts example is pointless. A- because they had an easy as pie schedule and b- because that was a pereniel playoff team with Peyton the whole time. They weren't nearly as bad as their 2011 record made them out to be.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

How in the world is Joe Flacco being a franchise QB debatable? You are confusing franchise QB with "elite" QB. You don't have to be an "elite" QB to be a franchise QB. That's just ridiculous. He made all the plays he needed to make to help his team win the superbowl. Granted, his WRs went ape shit, he went 11tds-0ints and made the plays. Can't ask for more then that from your QB. So if Flacco is your QB, just performed the way he did in the play offs, won the superbowl, on his contract year, you're telling me that he isn't your franchise QB? C'mon now. Obviously you can win with this guy and he's far from a Trent Dilfer comparison who was clearly horrible and got carried by his defense. I wouldn't have paid Flacco as much as but he'd definitely be our guy. He's not elite but after putting up the play off performance he just did, won the superbowl, he's definitely a franchise QB that you build around. Debatable...

 

It doesn't come down to whether or not I'm confusing the two. I have Cam Newton as a franchise QB, but he isn't elite. At least not yet.

 

The thing with Flacco is that while yea, this past post-season he was the biggest reason for the team's success, how do we know it's gonna translate to long term success?

 

It's not like I said, Joe Flacco isn't a franchise QB. I'm saying though that he put up numbers this past post season that he hasn't at any point in his career thus far, at least in terms of consistency. He has 2010 where he put up great numbers but outside of that, I still have doubts that he can be consistent enough to the point where his team makes the playoffs if the defense, or just his team in general isn't all together like it has been for the majority of his career.

 

One playoff run isn't gonna get me jumping on a boat of a guy.

 

I'm sorry, I was totally agreeing with you (Even about Matt Ryan) until I saw Cam Newton. What has he proved? How can you have him as a YES, but Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan as a Debatable? That makes no sense. Cam Newton hasn't shown us anything spectacular aside from one season. Both those guys are light years ahead of Cam right now (Which is rightfully so being in the league longer).

 

I'm just curious for your honest reasoning behind the yes for Newton. Especially when, while the team WAS horrible as a whole, he didn't elevate them at all this past season.

 

And I'm not saying Newton ISNT a franchise QB. For me it's too early to tell and I would lean toward yes being how bad the team has been around him. But still, to have those two as debatable and Newton as an absolute yes, struck me weird.

 

You'll have to excuse my homer for Newton but I've been a huge fan even before he was drafted. Lol.

 

My saying yes is based on the fact I think he'd be playing for a SB if he played for any team that had the stability that most other young QBs that are playing especially well have.

 

Him averaging 8 yards a pass on almost 58% throwing to virtually no one outside of Steve Smith and Olsen has me a believer.

 

While I have the criteria set, it's not a simple black and white thing to me where you either fit it and you're in, or you don't and you are out. I'd probably change it to a probably yes, but my confidence in his ability is he only thing behind my absolute yes.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Honestly, IDK whether or not Blotsfan is being serious, but I almost put Eli in the same boat as Flacco and Ryan... If I thought that one through, I woulda.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Understandable I suppose. I'm just not a fan of saying you can debate that two guys - one who has a superbowl and proved to be great in the playoffs this past season, and one who has a boat load of accomplishments outside of a superbowl - are franchise QB's. But you can give a definite yes to a guy who has really accomplished nothing at all. Other than the fact that he has all the talent in the world to have those accomplishments. A guy is someone who elevates the team. He didn't elevate. Even when the team isn't the greatest. I know both Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco now have weapons on offense, but that's beside the point because you don't know. This comes down to just another faulty QB Ranking thread.

 

We end up in the same debates over and over, who is franchise or "elite" and who is not. Same deal.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I don't know why everyone assumes I'm not being serious. You have to take into what we've seen. One good season in two years doesn't impress me as much as one good season in one year. A franchise qb has to be consistent.

 

Id also say that the true franchise guys like manning,Brady, and roethlisberger have shown that they can do stuff even with messes of rosters. If you have to make all those excuses, I'm not buying you as a franchise qb.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Understandable I suppose. I'm just not a fan of saying you can debate that two guys - one who has a superbowl and proved to be great in the playoffs this past season, and one who has a boat load of accomplishments outside of a superbowl - are franchise QB's. But you can give a definite yes to a guy who has really accomplished nothing at all. Other than the fact that he has all the talent in the world to have those accomplishments. A guy is someone who elevates the team. He didn't elevate. Even when the team isn't the greatest. I know both Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco now have weapons on offense, but that's beside the point because you don't know. This comes down to just another faulty QB Ranking thread.

 

We end up in the same debates over and over, who is franchise or "elite" and who is not. Same deal.

 

Who's game does he have around him that can be elevated?

 

In his 2 seasons with Carolina Olsen has put up way better numbers then he did with CHI.

 

Steve Smith has managed to put his 2nd and 3rd (tied for 3rd) highest YPC in his two season with Cam.

 

Brandon Lafell was targeted as much in 2010 as he was in 2011 and he far outproduced himself.

 

The fact of the matter is that Cam really has nothing to work with. But he has shown that he can make a lot happen with a little. And if his defense wasn't as bad as it's been over the past two seasons this conversation might be completely different. He's just a QBs that I just decided to go on a limb based on my opinion of whether or not they'll be franchise QBs for sure.

 

The talent disparity between Ryans and Flacco's team compared to Newton's can't be stressed enough.

Edited March 23, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Who's game does he have around him that can be elevated?

 

In his 2 seasons with Carolina Olsen has put up way better numbers then he did with CHI.

 

Steve Smith has managed to put his 2nd and 3rd (tied for 3rd) highest YPC in his two season with Cam.

 

Brandon Lafell was targeted as much in 2010 as he was in 2011 and he far outproduced himself.

 

The fact of the matter is that Cam really has nothing to work with. But he has shown that he can make a lot happen with a little. And if his defense wasn't as bad as it's been over the past two seasons this conversation might be completely different. He's just a QBs that I just decided to go on a limb based on my opinion of whether or not they'll be franchise QBs for sure.

 

The talent disparity between Ryans and Flacco's team compared to Newton's can't be stressed enough.

 

I have to disagree. Until Q and Torrey who did he have (2 of 5 years). Houshmanzadeh, Mason, Mark Clayton, Demetrious Williams, and who ? None of those guys could sniff Steve Smiths jock. Outside of Mason none can touch Lafell.

 

So really who has had receivers here ?

[Thanatos 2,847]

I don't know why everyone assumes I'm not being serious. You have to take into what we've seen. One good season in two years doesn't impress me as much as one good season in one year. A franchise qb has to be consistent.

 

Except, see, this is the media's stance, and not what actually happened. Cam had two good seasons in two years, and in reality, had a better second season than his first. Sure he had less rushing TDs and two less passing TDs, (he also threw five less picks), but his rushing TDs going down is exactly what Carolina wanted, and the reason we were running the ball at the goal-line- we didn't want him taking those dives that he did in season 1.

 

A franchise QB has to be consistent, but you're willing to say 100% yes on Kaep, Wilson, and RG3 after one year. You're confusing me here, blots.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I have to disagree. Until Q and Torrey who did he have (2 of 5 years). Houshmanzadeh, Mason, Mark Clayton, Demetrious Williams, and who ? None of those guys could sniff Steve Smiths jock. Outside of Mason none can touch Lafell.

 

So really who has had receivers here ?

 

Mason had a stretch before Flacco of putting 1000+ yards 6 out of 7 seasons... He had 100+ receptions the year right before Flacco came into the league. He isn't as great as Steve Smith but let's not act like he'd be considered a scrub compared to him.

 

But the point is that while Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan have been put into positions, regardless of their individual #s, to succeed. The same can't be said about Newton.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Mason had a stretch before Flacco of putting 1000+ yards 6 out of 7 seasons... He had 100+ receptions the year right before Flacco came into the league. He isn't as great as Steve Smith but let's not act like he'd be considered a scrub compared to him.

 

But the point is that while Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan have been put into positions, regardless of their individual #s, to succeed. The same can't be said about Newton.

 

Completely understandable, but how can you say that Cam Newton would certainly be delivering more success than Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan on their teams if he was on them? You can't. If you give Newton a yes, you have to give a yes to guys who are clearly more accomplished than him.

 

As said before, it's just another "grey area" opinion based thread about where you rank quarterbacks. The truth is, you can't rank anyone based on the "team around them". It doesn't work. Why? Because not a single team is ever the same. You can't say one guy would do more with what another had, or less. You just can't. It's not possible. It will never be possible. All you can do is wait until their careers are over and judge guys based on stats and the aura around them as a player. When it all comes down to it, I believe there are only a few franchises that have "franchise" QB's right now, and a lot of the teams that do are on the tail end. They will have to start looking real soon. A franchise QB hasn't anything to do with just stats, but it means that guy is going to be a mainstay at the position because of his performance as a whole. Mostly, wins.

 

Patriots

Packers

Broncos

Steelers

Giants

Saints

Ravens

Falcons

Colts

Panthers

Bengals

 

Those are the only teams I see with Quarterbacks that without a doubt will be a mainstay on their respective teams for a while. You have the Patriots, Broncos, and possibly the Saints who are in the tail ends of their franchise QB's career. I don't think Cam Newton is going anywhere, at least no time soon. He's clearly got a hell of a lot of talent, but he needs a better team. Now, I have the Colts and the Bengals on there. Andrew Luck looked great, but he also made a lot of mistakes. I think he will get better, he's going to be on the Colts for quite some time. The Bengals I'm even more shaky on, but I think Dalton is here to stay based on the fact that they are now starting to build around him. AJ Green or not, Dalton has shown great performance and has maintained composure under pressure in Cincinnati. Phillip Rivers in San Diego is the one wild card I can't decide on. He's been a main stay, but he has really went down hill lately. We'll put San Diego in the maybe category, still understanding that he IS on his way to the tail end of his career.

 

A lot of people want to say that there are only a few teams that don't have franchise QBs, but how can you say that? Look at all the QBs in the league right now. Do you really think they are franchise guys that will be mainstays on the respective teams they play for RIGHT NOW? I don't. Those teams I listed are the only ones I can say have QB's for a great amount of time.

 

Of course, that's also with saying that I am a firm believer that Robert Griffin will not have an extremely long career. I guess I could put Washington up there if I really want to go with my theory that Cousins will be the actual franchise quarterback they drafted in 2012. That's a little too over ambitious though, even for myself.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Completely understandable, but how can you say that Cam Newton would certainly be delivering more success than Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan on their teams if he was on them? You can't. If you give Newton a yes, you have to give a yes to guys who are clearly more accomplished than him.

 

Why not? I mean, it just comes down to whether or not you are willing to apply common sense...

 

If a QB plays relatively well and flashes brilliance despite lot of instability around him, where's the flaw in assuming that he'd perform even better with a better unit around him? How is this any different then when a QB plays great, and then loses pieces on his team and he performs worse?

 

I mean, if you wanna be super literal about it, there's no absolute way to tell. Hindsight is 20-20. But, if a QB plays well and his team is worse, it'd kinda be common sense to assume he'd perform better if he had a better unit around him...

 

As said before, it's just another "grey area" opinion based thread about where you rank quarterbacks. The truth is, you can't rank anyone based on the "team around them". It doesn't work. Why? Because not a single team is ever the same. You can't say one guy would do more with what another had, or less. You just can't. It's not possible. It will never be possible. All you can do is wait until their careers are over and judge guys based on stats and the aura around them as a player. When it all comes down to it, I believe there are only a few franchises that have "franchise" QB's right now, and a lot of the teams that do are on the tail end. They will have to start looking real soon. A franchise QB hasn't anything to do with just stats, but it means that guy is going to be a mainstay at the position because of his performance as a whole. Mostly, wins.

 

Patriots

Packers

Broncos

Steelers

Giants

Saints

Ravens

Falcons

Colts

Panthers

Bengals

 

Those are the only teams I see with Quarterbacks that without a doubt will be a mainstay on their respective teams for a while. You have the Patriots, Broncos, and possibly the Saints who are in the tail ends of their franchise QB's career. I don't think Cam Newton is going anywhere, at least no time soon. He's clearly got a hell of a lot of talent, but he needs a better team. Now, I have the Colts and the Bengals on there. Andrew Luck looked great, but he also made a lot of mistakes. I think he will get better, he's going to be on the Colts for quite some time. The Bengals I'm even more shaky on, but I think Dalton is here to stay based on the fact that they are now starting to build around him. AJ Green or not, Dalton has shown great performance and has maintained composure under pressure in Cincinnati. Phillip Rivers in San Diego is the one wild card I can't decide on. He's been a main stay, but he has really went down hill lately. We'll put San Diego in the maybe category, still understanding that he IS on his way to the tail end of his career.

 

A lot of people want to say that there are only a few teams that don't have franchise QBs, but how can you say that? Look at all the QBs in the league right now. Do you really think they are franchise guys that will be mainstays on the respective teams they play for RIGHT NOW? I don't. Those teams I listed are the only ones I can say have QB's for a great amount of time.

 

Of course, that's also with saying that I am a firm believer that Robert Griffin will not have an extremely long career. I guess I could put Washington up there if I really want to go with my theory that Cousins will be the actual franchise quarterback they drafted in 2012. That's a little too over ambitious though, even for myself.

 

I can tell you right now that your argument is flawed is you put a lot of emphasis on wins.

 

It's very much possible to say one guy would do more if he has what another QB has. People do it all the time with Stafford and Calvin Johnson, giving all the credit for Stafford 's success to having CJ. If CJ can make an "average to below average" (as most people on TGP would refer to Stafford) QB look competent, how much better would he make a great QB look? It's the same concept.

 

Like I said, it may not always be right, but if QB A has a worse team then QB B. It kinda makes perfect sense to assume that unless if QB A somehow gets worse with better talent around him, he's gonna get better if he has the weapons, or the team that QB B has.

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

So are you telling me to list teams that have a guy who is their franchise QB (In other words, a guy who will be a clear mainstay at the position for that said team for years to come), or are you asking me to list teams that currently have QB's that are good to pretty good and could win a superbowl with a better team?

 

I'm sorry, but we all know that teams aren't going to say "Well, there's no one else here, perhaps he could throw 25 TD as opposed to 15 TD and throw less INTs if he had the Falcons offense or the Ravens offense around him". It doesn't work like that. As much as I, or anyone else, would love for QB's to be looked at for stats in general, we all know that won't happen. If a team continues and continues to draft, and a guy is putting up stats but not winning games, we've seen that QB get the can. That's not to say that a guy isn't going to hop town and go to his next team and win a superbowl. It's just saying, he wasn't their franchise QB. I would probably put Cowboys and Lions on the list I wrote, I kind of skipped over them I suppose, biased opinions toward both guys. Obviously, people are taking this whole thing out of whack because of what went on with CK and Alex Smith, but generally speaking, if a QB is finding ways to win games regardless of their stats, they are going to stick around. If a team believes in them, they are going to stay and try to fix other areas of the team.

 

But I can't sit and say that I believe teams like the Bucs, Browns, Chiefs, have found their franchise QBs. The Seahawks, 49ers, and Redskins may very well have - but it's too early for me. Andrew Luck was my exception.

 

Looking back in the thread, you can simply read what Dutch wrote for my explination - a Franchise QB has nothing to do with being "elite" or "top 10". It has everything to do with the guy you are building your team around and the guy who WILL be THE GUY at that position for years to come. In a round about way, it does have to do with the stat sheet, but the simple question of franchise QB and building a team, the stats don't mean as much.

 

How in the world is Joe Flacco being a franchise QB debatable? You are confusing franchise QB with "elite" QB. You don't have to be an "elite" QB to be a franchise QB. That's just ridiculous. He made all the plays he needed to make to help his team win the superbowl. Granted, his WRs went ape shit, he went 11tds-0ints and made the plays. Can't ask for more then that from your QB. So if Flacco is your QB, just performed the way he did in the play offs, won the superbowl, on his contract year, you're telling me that he isn't your franchise QB? C'mon now. Obviously you can win with this guy and he's far from a Trent Dilfer comparison who was clearly horrible and got carried by his defense. I wouldn't have paid Flacco as much as but he'd definitely be our guy. He's not elite but after putting up the play off performance he just did, won the superbowl, he's definitely a franchise QB that you build around. Debatable...

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

And as to the whole deal with knowing a guy would be better off on another team with more talent, that's just not how it works. You're talking about different playbooks, schemes, coaching styles, team mates etc. If that was the case, there are a lot of guys that should have won superbowls and MVP awards after swapping teams. QBs, RBs, WRs, Defensive guys, etc.

 

It doesn't happen, because each team is entirely different. There's too many X's and O's (Not playbook wise, but cause and effect wise) that could prevent a guy from performing well on this team or the next to ever be able to say "Cam Newton would be the league MVP if he was on a team like the Falcons".

 

There's no saying that Tom Brady would be the Quarterback he has turned out to be if he was drafted by a different team. Would he have gotten his chance even? No one knows. If he did get his chance, would he have been as successful? How would we know. What if Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf swapped? Perhaps Leaf would have been the successful one? They had the same tools. No one knows. You can't predict or know those things, just like you can't know if Newton would perform better on a team with more talent.

 

I understand what you're saying, and that makes sense, but it's not how things worked out. Cam Newton was dealt the hand he was and has to work with what he has. Just as guys like Flacco and Ryan have talent everywhere and will work with that. You can't rate a guy based on what he COULD possibly do, you rate a guy based on what he does.

 

Matt Ryan is a choke artist at best right now, but deep down, most know he has the potential to be great. Joe Flacco was a choke artist, now he is considered a great QB. Cam Newton is a good QB, no one is arguing that, but he has accomplished next to nothing in the league. So to say Newton is an absolute main stay, but not Flacco and Ryan? Makes no sense to me at all.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Rain Man

[oochymp 2,393]

Tennessee: No.

49ers: Too early to tell, but probably.

I'm curious how you can say it's too early to tell with Kaepernick but can give a definitive no to Locker, they're both in their second season in the league, first season starting, and neither has actually started a full season, I'd say their resumes are about the same size, are you just more willing to write a player off than to call him a franchise QB?

 

 

FTR, I'd have no objection to just saying "too early to tell but probably no" I just don't think we've seen enough of Locker to really say one way or the other, he's definitely shown flashes of being a franchise QB, but the sample size is definitely too small

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I'm curious how you can say it's too early to tell with Kaepernick but can give a definitive no to Locker, they're both in their second season in the league, first season starting, and neither has actually started a full season, I'd say their resumes are about the same size, are you just more willing to write a player off than to call him a franchise QB?

 

 

FTR, I'd have no objection to just saying "too early to tell but probably no" I just don't think we've seen enough of Locker to really say one way or the other, he's definitely shown flashes of being a franchise QB, but the sample size is definitely too small

 

Because when Kaep did he was playing dynamic.

 

Locker has been decent when he was starting, but he has nowhere near the upside of Kaep. Not really a knock on hiim as not many in the league do.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Except, see, this is the media's stance, and not what actually happened. Cam had two good seasons in two years, and in reality, had a better second season than his first. Sure he had less rushing TDs and two less passing TDs, (he also threw five less picks), but his rushing TDs going down is exactly what Carolina wanted, and the reason we were running the ball at the goal-line- we didn't want him taking those dives that he did in season 1.

 

A franchise QB has to be consistent, but you're willing to say 100% yes on Kaep, Wilson, and RG3 after one year. You're confusing me here, blots.

I mean, those guys aren't 100% because no one is. For all I know, Aaron Rodgers could turn into a turnover machine this year. Obviously I'm doing some guesswork here. I probably would've said Newton was a franchise qb after last year, but a year that might've been statistically comprable, but still couldn't win anything worries me. If Wilson, Kaepernick or RG3 get a lot worse after this year (Griffin obviously the most likely candidate), I'll change my tune. Right now though, I stand by my choices.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Except, see, this is the media's stance, and not what actually happened. Cam had two good seasons in two years, and in reality, had a better second season than his first. Sure he had less rushing TDs and two less passing TDs, (he also threw five less picks), but his rushing TDs going down is exactly what Carolina wanted, and the reason we were running the ball at the goal-line- we didn't want him taking those dives that he did in season 1.

 

A franchise QB has to be consistent, but you're willing to say 100% yes on Kaep, Wilson, and RG3 after one year. You're confusing me here, blots.

I mean, those guys aren't 100% because no one is. For all I know, Aaron Rodgers could turn into a turnover machine this year. Obviously I'm doing some guesswork here. I probably would've said Newton was a franchise qb after last year, but a year that might've been statistically comprable, but still couldn't win anything worries me. If Wilson, Kaepernick or RG3 get a lot worse after this year (Griffin obviously the most likely candidate), I'll change my tune. Right now though, I stand by my choices.

[BwareDWare94 723]

AFC East:

Patriots: Yes

Dolphins: Not applicable until further notice

Bills: Noooooo

Jets: Noooooo

 

AFC North:

Ravens: Yes

Steelers: Yes

Bengals: Debatable

Browns: Not applicable until further notice.

 

AFC South:

Texans: Yes

Colts: Not applicable until further notice

Jaguars: Nooooooo

Titans: No

 

AFC West:

Broncos: Yes

Charger: Yes

Chiefs: Noooooo

Raiders: Noooooo

 

NFC East:

Giants: Yes

Cowboys: Yes

Eagles: Noooooo

Redskins: Not applicable until further notice

 

NFC North:

Packers: Yes

Lions: Debatable

Bears: Noooooo

Vikings: Not applicable until further notice

 

NFC South:

Saints: Yes

Falcons: Yes

Buccaneers: No

Panthers: Debatable

 

NFC West:

Rams: Noooooo

Cardinals: Noooooo

49ers: Not applicable until further notice

Seahawks: Not applicable until further notice

 

Some of you are too picky. I don't think it's that difficult to say that the teams I have listed as definitive Yes's have franchise QBs. Also, I think I have your answer for QBs who don't have a large enough sample size.

[oochymp 2,393]

Because when Kaep did he was playing dynamic.

 

Locker has been decent when he was starting, but he has nowhere near the upside of Kaep. Not really a knock on hiim as not many in the league do.

okay then, let me put it this way: I also wouldn't take issue (at least in terms of consistency) if he'd just said yes for Kaep, but he said too early to tell. We haven't seen much more in quantity from Locker than we have from Kaep (same number of games played, Locker has 4 more starts) so if the comment on Kaep is that we haven't seen enough then that should apply to Locker as well, what we've seen from them is irrelevant (though I would definitely agree that we've seen far better from Kaep than Locker at this point, that's right, I'm not stupid)

 

he may just be taking the approach of writing someone off faster than he's willing to call someone a franchise guy, while I would disagree with that approach I can certainly understand it and he's not alone in the approach, I see Bware did the same thing saying no to Locker while saying not applicable (which I'm thinking is his way of saying don't know yet? correct me if I'm wrong Bware) for Ponder, who we've seen a lot more of than Locker (Ponder has 11 more games and 14 more starts) and Kaepernick, who I've already discussed

Edited March 24, 2013 by oochymp

[Thanatos 2,847]

Bware has Ponder as a don't know yet because he's a Vikings fan.

[BwareDWare94 723]

okay then, let me put it this way: I also wouldn't take issue (at least in terms of consistency) if he'd just said yes for Kaep, but he said too early to tell. We haven't seen much more in quantity from Locker than we have from Kaep (same number of games played, Locker has 4 more starts) so if the comment on Kaep is that we haven't seen enough then that should apply to Locker as well, what we've seen from them is irrelevant (though I would definitely agree that we've seen far better from Kaep than Locker at this point, that's right, I'm not stupid)

 

he may just be taking the approach of writing someone off faster than he's willing to call someone a franchise guy, while I would disagree with that approach I can certainly understand it and he's not alone in the approach, I see Bware did the same thing saying no to Locker while saying not applicable (which I'm thinking is his way of saying don't know yet? correct me if I'm wrong Bware) for Ponder, who we've seen a lot more of than Locker (Ponder has 11 more games and 14 more starts) and Kaepernick, who I've already discussed

 

My reasoning behind the Locker as a strict no has more to do with the fact that I don't believe he has the offensive pieces needed in order to succeed at a high level. I really don't like what the Titans have put around him and I don't know if he'll ever pan out because of it, especially if Britt isn't the same player he once was.

[oochymp 2,393]

My reasoning behind the Locker as a strict no has more to do with the fact that I don't believe he has the offensive pieces needed in order to succeed at a high level. I really don't like what the Titans have put around him and I don't know if he'll ever pan out because of it, especially if Britt isn't the same player he once was.

so because they haven't built the rest of the team they don't have a franchise QB? beyond the fact that I don't agree with your assessment that we don't have the pieces around him that argument makes less than no sense in a thread about which team has a QB that could succeed with a decent supporting cast, or however you want to define "franchise QB"

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

And as to the whole deal with knowing a guy would be better off on another team with more talent, that's just not how it works. You're talking about different playbooks, schemes, coaching styles, team mates etc. If that was the case, there are a lot of guys that should have won superbowls and MVP awards after swapping teams. QBs, RBs, WRs, Defensive guys, etc.

 

It doesn't happen, because each team is entirely different. There's too many X's and O's (Not playbook wise, but cause and effect wise) that could prevent a guy from performing well on this team or the next to ever be able to say "Cam Newton would be the league MVP if he was on a team like the Falcons".

 

There's no saying that Tom Brady would be the Quarterback he has turned out to be if he was drafted by a different team. Would he have gotten his chance even? No one knows. If he did get his chance, would he have been as successful? How would we know. What if Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf swapped? Perhaps Leaf would have been the successful one? They had the same tools. No one knows. You can't predict or know those things, just like you can't know if Newton would perform better on a team with more talent.

 

Like I said, I really don't understand where you're going with this.

 

If a player plays well with lesser talent around him, the assumption should be that he'll play better with better talent around him. You look at the history in the league, and name me a list of players who have somehow gotten worse with the talent around him getting better, or has been less successful and the talent around him being better. It just doesn't happen.

 

I couldn't tell you if Tom Brady woulda been the same QB he is now if he went to a separate team. But Tom Brady isn't exactly the best person to use. His circumstances is a once in a generation type of deal and he probably woulda drafted way higher if he was an incoming rookie with all the advances in scouting teams make nowadays.

 

I understand what you're saying, and that makes sense, but it's not how things worked out. Cam Newton was dealt the hand he was and has to work with what he has. Just as guys like Flacco and Ryan have talent everywhere and will work with that. You can't rate a guy based on what he COULD possibly do, you rate a guy based on what he does.

 

You don't even have to do all that.

 

It's this simple; Cam Newton has shown the ability to do great things in his two years in the league with what little he has around him. Therefore, he is a franchise QB because you give him a few more pieces to do well, and let him keep improving, and you'll be competing for a title year in and year out.

 

Matt Ryan is a choke artist at best right now, but deep down, most know he has the potential to be great. Joe Flacco was a choke artist, now he is considered a great QB. Cam Newton is a good QB, no one is arguing that, but he has accomplished next to nothing in the league. So to say Newton is an absolute main stay, but not Flacco and Ryan? Makes no sense to me at all.

 

Really? Is that so?

 

Please do go on and list all the things Joe Flacco and Ryan have accomplished in the NFL.

 

And don't give me wins, and the SB title which just so happen to be team accomplishments. I'll give you Flacco's SB MVP, but outside of that, what else have they done? How many all pros do they have between the two of them? Pro bowls? Records?

 

Afterwards, compare all that with Cam Newton's accomplishments in his two years in the league.

[BwareDWare94 723]

so because they haven't built the rest of the team they don't have a franchise QB? beyond the fact that I don't agree with your assessment that we don't have the pieces around him that argument makes less than no sense in a thread about which team has a QB that could succeed with a decent supporting cast, or however you want to define "franchise QB"

 

Every QB I listed as a definitive Yes has a much much better supporting cast than Locker.

 

Very rarely do franchise QBs become franchise QBs when surrounded by mediocrity.