Honest question for discussion since we are picking #2. I am not advocating for or against a QB this year, I just really want to know what folks believe is considered a franchise QB
To pick a few players from the 80s who are all considered franchise QBs who would you want?
2 fairly pedestrian QBs (if we are honest rode their Defenses to the SB) in Jim McMahon and Phil Simms who won a SB each.
or Dan Marino who was a stats machine but could not win a SB and only made it to 1.
or Jim Kelley who made it to 4 in a row, but could never make it over the hump?
If we traded out with the Jets (for example) and they get the next Marino and we have the next Simms in Webb, who are we better off with as a franchise?
The fact that Marino did not win a Superbowl says more about the team around him than him. No QB wins a Superbowl alone.
I agree it is not all one person to win a team game/championship, but lately the talk is we need the next great QB at 2 who is going to lead us to the glory land
So does contention every year then trump 1 SB win, in picking the next guy?
2. You pick the better quarterback when you have the chance.
No one picks Simms over Marino intentionally.
You don't have the foresight of knowing Simms has 2 rings and Marino 0.
As for what makes a successful franchise QB, it's hard to define, like the supreme court threshold test for obscenity ("I know it when I see it").
I think in general to keep it simple it would be a QB who stabilizes the position and helps his team win more often than contributes to them losing. Probably not a great definition though
but I agree with Keith, QB's get too much credit and too much blame, it's a team game and no QB singlehandedly wins games.
The fact that Marino did not win a Superbowl says more about the team around him than him. No QB wins a Superbowl alone.
Sure it does, throw out the name Marino and replace it with Kelley, the name really doesn't matter. The Bills were a phenomenal team, but never won.
The base question is, if the Giants draft a QB this year would you be happy with never winning a SB with the guy, but having great seasons/stats, or having that QB be JAG but win a SB?
starts for a minimum of 10 years
He does not have to lead in stats, but he can't be a Trent dilfer type of quarterback.
Leadership. He can't just be a long for the ride. He has to be part of the reason we win (4th quarter comebacks, td passes to interceptions and / or passing yards)
I'm sure there might be a few more, but these are the ones that came to mind as I gave it some thought.
Quote:
wins a SB, its a team sport. A franchise QB will allow you to be in contention year after year.
I agree it is not all one person to win a team game/championship, but lately the talk is we need the next great QB at 2 who is going to lead us to the glory land
So does contention every year then trump 1 SB win, in picking the next guy?
Of course contention doesn't trump winning, but a lot of things have to go in your favor to actually win. Lots of luck, health, good bounces, calls, matchups, etc... All you can really do is put a team that contends every year so you are in that position to win when the things go your way.
2. Can he discern and dissect a defense both pre and post snap and put the players around him in a position to better succeed.
3. While I am not a fan of completion percentage or stats in general (yards and tds are far more important), Accuracy throwing the ball downfield.
4. This ties in with one, but he doesn't need an all time great team around him to win games, calm under intense pressure and can regularly lead game winning drives with regularity.
A lot of what I described is Manning in his prime, he's not that qb anymore. However, there are two guys in the draft that can do this again for us. Get one.
Playing at a high level for a long time with 1 team is the definition to me.
A Successful Franchise QB is the same as the above and has won a SuperBowl as well.
Agreed. I don't think there is a player that's benefited more for not playing meaningful football, practice, game or otherwise for a year with one fan base than this guy. I guess Ryan Nassib, but even at least he played against legitimate NFL players in practice, not practice squad guys.
Super Bowl victories > EVERYTHING ELSE
Therefore, I'd rather Simms over Marino. Obviously, Marino is far, far superior in every way and it's impossible to have the hindsight to see who would have more Super Bowl wins but based purely on hypothetical I'd pick Simms. Again, I don't care who my quarterback is if they're hoisting a Lombardi trophy every year.
Yes, Brady, Peyton, Rodgers are all studs and the ideal hope. But honestly, I'd be content with an Eli, a Flacco, a Stafford, etc as long as they win.
That is a silly question. Who would rather see a QB put up ridiculous stats and lose instead of winning championships? Everyone wants their team to win championships.
Same thing for a QB or any other position.
-- The ability to elevate the play of others
-- The ability to put their team in playoff contention
every year
-- The ability to win games late
-- The ability to win shoot outs
Quote:
Why is there a choice between a QB like Marino, and a QB like Simms? Marino was a better QB, so you want someone with his talent. Why would you ever want a lesser talent?
The fact that Marino did not win a Superbowl says more about the team around him than him. No QB wins a Superbowl alone.
Sure it does, throw out the name Marino and replace it with Kelley, the name really doesn't matter. The Bills were a phenomenal team, but never won.
The base question is, if the Giants draft a QB this year would you be happy with never winning a SB with the guy, but having great seasons/stats, or having that QB be JAG but win a SB?
You had me up til this. WHo would rather a franchise QB that never wins over a JAG that wins the SB???? HOwever, does anyone see the future? No, so you take the better player and hope everything else works out. This makes no sense.
Now in terms of what makes that guy's performance successful, we that's a whole different discussion about career success.
Quote:
In comment 13859646 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Why is there a choice between a QB like Marino, and a QB like Simms? Marino was a better QB, so you want someone with his talent. Why would you ever want a lesser talent?
The fact that Marino did not win a Superbowl says more about the team around him than him. No QB wins a Superbowl alone.
Sure it does, throw out the name Marino and replace it with Kelley, the name really doesn't matter. The Bills were a phenomenal team, but never won.
The base question is, if the Giants draft a QB this year would you be happy with never winning a SB with the guy, but having great seasons/stats, or having that QB be JAG but win a SB?
You had me up til this. WHo would rather a franchise QB that never wins over a JAG that wins the SB???? HOwever, does anyone see the future? No, so you take the better player and hope everything else works out. This makes no sense.
Maybe I am not asking this correctly.
I never said I can see into the future. But the assumption that Rosen or SD or anyone else is going to have a better career than any other QB is also just as ludicrous. That QB is either going to win it all or not. We are going on potential of the draft class
My point in using the 80s QB was deliberate.
Simms was a QB with little success up till 83. The Giants did not select a QB from the 83 class.
Are you happier we kept Simms and did not draft Kelly or Marino?
If the answer is yes because he won a SB and the other 2 didn't, well then a pedestrian QB who won a SB is your answer
If your answer is it would have been better to get one of the 83 class because of the potential and we never won a SB, well there is another answer.
If you had to answer the below questions, what is your answer? I pick Simms all day long because he won the SB.
Kelly > Simms because he got to the Superbowl 4xs but never won? or Simms > Kelly because he won 1 SB?
- Playoff appearances in at least ~50% of seasons
- Top 10 at the position for better part of a decade
- Multiple pro bowl appearances
It boils down to that for me. Now, there's a whole 'nother level when you are talking about the Tom Brady/Peyton Manning types. However, that is what I consider a "franchise QB", especially when we are discussing within the context of the draft.
Quote:
In comment 13859660 cjd2404 said:
Quote:
In comment 13859646 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
Why is there a choice between a QB like Marino, and a QB like Simms? Marino was a better QB, so you want someone with his talent. Why would you ever want a lesser talent?
The fact that Marino did not win a Superbowl says more about the team around him than him. No QB wins a Superbowl alone.
Sure it does, throw out the name Marino and replace it with Kelley, the name really doesn't matter. The Bills were a phenomenal team, but never won.
The base question is, if the Giants draft a QB this year would you be happy with never winning a SB with the guy, but having great seasons/stats, or having that QB be JAG but win a SB?
You had me up til this. WHo would rather a franchise QB that never wins over a JAG that wins the SB???? HOwever, does anyone see the future? No, so you take the better player and hope everything else works out. This makes no sense.
Maybe I am not asking this correctly.
I never said I can see into the future. But the assumption that Rosen or SD or anyone else is going to have a better career than any other QB is also just as ludicrous. That QB is either going to win it all or not. We are going on potential of the draft class
My point in using the 80s QB was deliberate.
Simms was a QB with little success up till 83. The Giants did not select a QB from the 83 class.
Are you happier we kept Simms and did not draft Kelly or Marino?
If the answer is yes because he won a SB and the other 2 didn't, well then a pedestrian QB who won a SB is your answer
If your answer is it would have been better to get one of the 83 class because of the potential and we never won a SB, well there is another answer.
If you had to answer the below questions, what is your answer? I pick Simms all day long because he won the SB.
Kelly > Simms because he got to the Superbowl 4xs but never won? or Simms > Kelly because he won 1 SB?
It's simple. Take a look at the list of QB's that have won and do you see more guys that are JAG's or franchise QB's? It's obviously the franchise guys. They are in contention every year and in a better position to win a SB. It's really not that complicated. You are much better off with a frnachise QB.