In football it's generally thought that if you have a 'Franchise QB' you are set for 10-15 years and will be able to contend if you put enough complementary pieces around that QB. Except for in the rare cases where the complementary pieces are stronger than the QB (85 Bears, 00 Ravens), it's basically a requirement that you need a good QB to be a Super Bowl contender.
In this thread, I will present to you a handful of players who are currently the undisputed starter for their team. These guys will not have won a Super Bowl before, since all of the QBs with a ring would likely be considered 'Franchise QBs'. This thread isn't for them. This is a thread for guys that may or may not have the talent to lead his team to a Super Bowl Championship. I will list the pros and cons of the player listed and then I'll open it up to you guys to decide if the said QB is capable of being labeled a 'Franchise QB'.
Please note: my definition of a 'Franchise QB' is a guy that is the center of your offense and won't ride the coattails of his defense to a title (Dilfer with the Ravens, Grossman on the Bears as examples of guys I WOULDN'T consider franchise QB's even though they won/made a Super Bowl as the Starting QB.
---
I think there has been a slight sense of confusion on how people should vote in this thread. I partially blame myself for not clarifying in the first two threads. This is how you should consider the concept: If I am stuck with this QB for the next 10-15 years, he will consistently be one of my best players and keep my team in contention. If you agree with the bolded statement, then he is likely a 'Franchise QB'. If you don't, then he isn't. While most appear to have understand the concept, that's kind of the guideline I'd like for you to follow.
Now we're on to our 3rd QB of the 2009 draft class, and this one I think will have the most split of votes. Sanchez still remains heavily a no (<10% yes), while Stafford has been pretty strongly regarded as a yes (>70% yes). Here is the case for Tampa Bay Buccaneers QB Josh Freeman:
Yes, he's a Franchise QB
-He's shown flashes of brilliance for a sustained period of time. His 2010 season was a spectacular one with a 25-6 TD/INT ratio, 95 QB rating, over 60 completion %, and almost 3500 yards.
-He can be a dual threat guy, averaging over 250 yards rushing a season. While he won't ever be a Michael Vick or Randall Cunningham running the ball, I could see him being a threat running the way Donovan McNabb was early in his career; you don't expect him to take off and run often, but when he does he can hurt you.
-He performs well in late game situations. He has 17 career wins, with 8 of them featuring 4th Quarter comebacks and 9 of them featuring Game winning drives.
-He's done well enough without much of a supporting cast of weapons. Kellen Winslow and Mike Williams have been his top 2 weapons the past two seasons, not exactly favorable talents compared to what Stafford or even Sanchez have around them. Williams isn't really the gamechanger that Calvin and Santonio are, and now Freeman should benefit with Vincent Jackson and Dallas Clark coming into the picture.
No, he's not a Franchise QB
-If we're going to harp on Sanchez for not protecting the football, Freeman shouldn't get a pass either. Only 5 more TDs than INTs in his career, and has lost 14 fumbles (if my math is correct).
-While he threw for a few more yards this past season, he did it on 80 more attempts, lowering his Yards/Attempt by almost a yard. Again, having the likes of Mike Williams and Kellen Winslow as your top receivers doesn't help, but only 6ish Y/A isn't that good.
Overall, while I don't think he has the upside of a Stafford (one of his contemporaries) I do think Freeman has a lot of tools needed to be a successful QB. He's improved his accuracy to over 60% in his past 2 seasons, he's a big body (6-6, 250), plus he has an added threat in the running game. He won't ever rush for 1,000 yards, probably not even 500, but in a one game situation you have to account for it, which adds another dimension to his game. The biggest problem for Freeman was that he just wasn't put in a great situation. Raheem Morris really wasn't ready to be a head coach and they didn't surround him with enough talent (1 good season by LeGarrette Blount notwithstanding) to let this team take the next step last season. We've seen potential out of him, and with even a slightly improved talent (and coaching) situation, I think Freeman can lead the Bucs back to where they were 2 years ago: on the crisp of playoff contention. The south is a grueling division for playoff spots, but in another 2-3 years I think he'll jump into top 10 territory (once Brady, Manning, etc. ware down).
While I'm not as confident with him as I was with Stafford, I'd still say yes, he is capable of being a 'Franchise QB'.
In this thread, I will present to you a handful of players who are currently the undisputed starter for their team. These guys will not have won a Super Bowl before, since all of the QBs with a ring would likely be considered 'Franchise QBs'. This thread isn't for them. This is a thread for guys that may or may not have the talent to lead his team to a Super Bowl Championship. I will list the pros and cons of the player listed and then I'll open it up to you guys to decide if the said QB is capable of being labeled a 'Franchise QB'.
Please note: my definition of a 'Franchise QB' is a guy that is the center of your offense and won't ride the coattails of his defense to a title (Dilfer with the Ravens, Grossman on the Bears as examples of guys I WOULDN'T consider franchise QB's even though they won/made a Super Bowl as the Starting QB.
---
I think there has been a slight sense of confusion on how people should vote in this thread. I partially blame myself for not clarifying in the first two threads. This is how you should consider the concept: If I am stuck with this QB for the next 10-15 years, he will consistently be one of my best players and keep my team in contention. If you agree with the bolded statement, then he is likely a 'Franchise QB'. If you don't, then he isn't. While most appear to have understand the concept, that's kind of the guideline I'd like for you to follow.
Now we're on to our 3rd QB of the 2009 draft class, and this one I think will have the most split of votes. Sanchez still remains heavily a no (<10% yes), while Stafford has been pretty strongly regarded as a yes (>70% yes). Here is the case for Tampa Bay Buccaneers QB Josh Freeman:
Yes, he's a Franchise QB
-He's shown flashes of brilliance for a sustained period of time. His 2010 season was a spectacular one with a 25-6 TD/INT ratio, 95 QB rating, over 60 completion %, and almost 3500 yards.
-He can be a dual threat guy, averaging over 250 yards rushing a season. While he won't ever be a Michael Vick or Randall Cunningham running the ball, I could see him being a threat running the way Donovan McNabb was early in his career; you don't expect him to take off and run often, but when he does he can hurt you.
-He performs well in late game situations. He has 17 career wins, with 8 of them featuring 4th Quarter comebacks and 9 of them featuring Game winning drives.
-He's done well enough without much of a supporting cast of weapons. Kellen Winslow and Mike Williams have been his top 2 weapons the past two seasons, not exactly favorable talents compared to what Stafford or even Sanchez have around them. Williams isn't really the gamechanger that Calvin and Santonio are, and now Freeman should benefit with Vincent Jackson and Dallas Clark coming into the picture.
No, he's not a Franchise QB
-If we're going to harp on Sanchez for not protecting the football, Freeman shouldn't get a pass either. Only 5 more TDs than INTs in his career, and has lost 14 fumbles (if my math is correct).
-While he threw for a few more yards this past season, he did it on 80 more attempts, lowering his Yards/Attempt by almost a yard. Again, having the likes of Mike Williams and Kellen Winslow as your top receivers doesn't help, but only 6ish Y/A isn't that good.
Overall, while I don't think he has the upside of a Stafford (one of his contemporaries) I do think Freeman has a lot of tools needed to be a successful QB. He's improved his accuracy to over 60% in his past 2 seasons, he's a big body (6-6, 250), plus he has an added threat in the running game. He won't ever rush for 1,000 yards, probably not even 500, but in a one game situation you have to account for it, which adds another dimension to his game. The biggest problem for Freeman was that he just wasn't put in a great situation. Raheem Morris really wasn't ready to be a head coach and they didn't surround him with enough talent (1 good season by LeGarrette Blount notwithstanding) to let this team take the next step last season. We've seen potential out of him, and with even a slightly improved talent (and coaching) situation, I think Freeman can lead the Bucs back to where they were 2 years ago: on the crisp of playoff contention. The south is a grueling division for playoff spots, but in another 2-3 years I think he'll jump into top 10 territory (once Brady, Manning, etc. ware down).
While I'm not as confident with him as I was with Stafford, I'd still say yes, he is capable of being a 'Franchise QB'.