Can you name an example? Minus the two I mentioned, all the QB's that have won superbowls with their teams in the last 25 years were well-liked by their franchises *before* winning a Superbowl. Flacco is the perfect example. From 1996 when the Baltimore Ravens came into existence to 2007 before they drafted Flacco, they had 15 starting QBs. No QB held the job consistently for more than 2 years, no matter how well the team did - including winning a Superbowl. Then they drafted Flacco and he started for 5 straight years before winning a Superbowl. That's how you identify when a team believes they found a franchise QB - they stop searching for someone else. That's done independently of winning a Superbowl.
Flacco, Roethlisberger, Eli....The season before the Giants won the SB Eli was being talked about as a potential draft bust, immediately afterwards we started hearing "You can't spell ELITE without ELI". Ben Roethlisberger had one of the worst SB winning performances of the last 20 years, but immediately after the Steelers won the SB, he got a reputation for being a great QB....which he wasn't. Flacco has been average at best his entire career, he has one lucky postseason where a bunch of hail mary type passes happened to be caught by his guys and all of a sudden he's a "franchise QB"
Unfortunately, your definition of "franchise QB" differs from many others here. You basically consider a franchise QB as somebody who was drafted/acquired to be the starter... AND they stick around (regardless of how they actually perform, as most QB's stick around while their team is winning). By your definition, Matt Schaub was at one point a franchise QB... Ryan Fitzpatrick was at one point a franchise QB... Ponder/Locker/Gabbert were at one points franchise QB's as those teams had every intention of drafting those QB's and never looking back. Whether they work out or not is entirely dependent on their surrounding parts and coaching, more than anything else (which was my original point). Most people here think a "franchise QB" is a savior of sorts... and I think its an entirely a skewed way to look at things, as you still need everything else in place. I also don't think its necessarily "easier" to start with the QB... vs. the coaching/lines/system. Certain QB's excel in certain systems/schemes... a QB can be rendered useless if he can't grasp your system, despite having the strongest arm/quickest speed. At the same time, QB's can be "ruined" if you have absolutely zero line depth or quality options for him to depend on. Every year's draft features 3-4 "can't miss" QB prospects who more than likely end up missing... however a lot of those misses could very well be cases of wrong place/wrong time/wrong team. This year's crop is absolutely no exception. You forgot to include Jake Dellhome who was a FG away from winning a SB... or Rich Gannon who was actually the league MVP, and blossomed at a late age thanks to the SYSTEM he played in. In fact, the one thing super bowl teams have in common is good coaching and balanced talent on both sides of the ball...moreso than simply having a talented or even elite QB. Its been proven that you can win it all with simply competent QB play... provided you have balance/talent up/down the roster. It really has not been proven that you can win with simply talent at the QB position. Its pretty much equatable to hitting in baseball... you can win with marginal hitting but elite pitching, but I've never seen a team with with marginal pitching and elite hitting.
Very rough day. Gonna have a few more of these as there is more film on him. Looking forward to seeing how he responds.
Really easy read too, he stared down the receiver and threw a pass that pretty much anyone picks off. At some point they'll play another bad defense and he'll look better.
Bad game today. His o-line play sucked, got sacked 8 times. As a rookie you got to expect days like this, but he would still be a better option than Fitz, or drafting Savage/ Su'a Filo IMO.
