Originally Posted by GTripp0012
I guess I'm trying to avoid being the guy who defines franchise quarterback and fits the definition to his argument. This is something you're avoiding as well. But I can see how, under a restrictive definition of the term, that you might only have 7 or 8 franchise QBs in the NFL (my top two tiers). I can also accept a more liberal/inclusive definition that allows for 18-22 franchise quarterbacks (including our own JC17). I personally don't care enough about the term itself to make a stand one way or another.
But my point of greater importantance is that Romo and Eli do bring (sustainable, repeatable) skills to the table that Big Ben and Aaron Rodgers do not, even if numbers wise, their per play and total production is indistinguishable. I'm not trying to disrespect Rodgers, Roethlisberger, or Matt Schaub here by declaring that they shouldn't be considered franchise quarterbacks even though their stats compare well to Romo and Eli, but that we should recognize the differences in context between "successful players" like those three, and players who have to deal with contextual deficiencies. Schaub, Rodgers, and Roethlisberger (and McNabb, really) all have high yards per attempt because they throw to a lot of WIDE open receivers downfield, and Campbell, Henne, Palmer, Garrard, and Cutler (09) really just don't have the same opportunities.
I think if they were in a great offense, Campbell's and Garrard's '09 production would be grounds for dismissal. (Sort of like '08 Cassel: you have that sort of production with the Redskins, you deserve a contract extension. With the Pats, it gets you traded.) However, neither gets pass protection, neither has a true downfield target that's ever open, both offenses lack ingenuity, and so then average performance looks kind of nice.
The problem with Hasselbeck is not durability (though that is a problem), it's that he's no longer in an offense where his familiarity with the timing of plays is useful. If he were producing like Campbell and Garrard, he probably would still have value. But he's played like a rookie in consecutive seasons, and replacement level (valueless by definition) would be a major improvement from the last two years. Hasselbeck used to be what Matt Schaub currently is: the system player who generates down-field plays in the context of the strong offense. He was a top quarterback as recently as age-33, but I do wonder if Matt Hasselbeck ever qualified as a franchise QB. Under the restrictive definition, I'd say: no. Same with Bulger, Delhomme, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Culpepper, and McNabb to an extent. At all of their peaks, these guys were major cogs in an offensive juggernaut, but limited without their other parts. And so, if you restrict the definition of franchise QB to "guy who makes players around them better," none of these guys qualify. None of the older guys withstood the test of time, and I doubt that Rodgers/Roethlisberger can reverse the trend.
Agreed that trying to discern which players are responsible for which percentage of a given production total is painful, time-consuming, and ultimately requires the necessity to continually check your assumptions with objective evidence and never get too comfortable with any given opinion. But painful or not, it's still a major part of player analysis.
So while I'd agree that 3/4ths of the league can't just replace their quarterback with the best available player and expect no dropoff, only about 1/4 of the league has a truly indispensable player at the QB position. It's fashionable to call a guy a franchise QB right out of college, but one of the reasons I don't think people should be surprised if Bradford or Clausen ends up being the next Campbell or Garrard is because you can't mandate context before the draft.
|