Quote
RamUK
I guess Tannehill, Winston and Bortles would be called franchise QB's, yet all are under threat and maligned by fans and media.
Mariota is barely any better and Carr isn't looking like a guy being paid top 3 QB money.
Can any of those really be called franchise QB's?
It seems to be there are 3 or 4 levels.
I don't think it's realistic to lump Ryan and Stafford with Tennehill and Bortles in the same group as merely franchise QB's.
Probably splitting hairs now, but it's interesting.
Well I would say a couple of criteria defining a franchise qb is (1) you are considered to be inherently a starting caliber qb, and (2) that the team has no plans to replace you and therefore builds its offense around you.
So yeah that allows for some borderline cases where the guy is not considered established, or is on probation. And it excludes #2 caliber qbs like Keenum, Fitzpatrick, and Foles.
It's a mistake to pretend like there's a simple, objective rule for defining this. There couldn't be, because the thing is fluid. But we all know if a guy is struggling to be that or IS that. And we all know that when a team drafts a guy what the intention is. But rather than engage in semantic games all day, we say the Jets drafted Darnold, he's their FQ. We don't need to add, if he works out as a starter in the league---we all know that. And Flacco is their FQ. We all know that he's older and might decline and force the team to re-think the position. So everyone comes with invisible footnotes. That can lead to quibbles but it doesnt; have to because the truth is we all know the distinctions.
So the intention when you draft a guy to be your starter is to install him, develop him, and count on him being the future at the position.
