Is a franchise QB really needed?

[jason]

The last ten super bowl winning QBs with their TD/INTs:

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17)

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9)

2012 - Flacco (22/10)

2011 - E.Manning (29/16)

2010 - Rodgers (28/11)

2009 - Brees (34/11)

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15)

2007 - E.Manning (23/20)

 

When searching for a "franchise" QB, I think you're trying to find that guy who can put up nearly 4000 yards every year and keep turnovers down to a minimum. It needs to be a guy who outright carries the team for most of the season, in my opinion. A QB that everyone says, "Oh shit, we're playing against..."

 

Out of the QBs above, which were the main reason the team won it all and caused that kind of fear?

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17) - Won despite QB play

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9) - Won because of dominating defense

2012 - Flacco (22/10) - Mediocre season, got lucky to make it to the SB, but was clutch in the playoffs. Probably not considered a top level guy by most.

2011 - E.Manning (29/16) - Fluke 9-win SB winner, but he did throw for nearly 5000 yards.

2010 - Rodgers (28/11) - I hate him. They only got there because the Bears played 3 QBs in the NFC Championship game, but Rodgers is a no doubt guy.

2009 - Brees (34/11) - No doubt Brees carried the team.

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15) - #1 dominating defense, made it in spite of Big Ben

2007 - E.Manning (23/20) - This team was crazy fortunate, had breaks go their way, and won despite Manning's average season.

 

So half the SB winning QBs of the past ten years were significantly responsible in the team winning it all.

 

So the question remains, is a franchise QB really needed?

 

Sure, you can't go anywhere with Moses Moreno and the other 29 guys the Bears had for what seems like forever. But can a consistently decent guy get you there? Absolutely.

 

Which approach is preferred?

[adam]

The last ten super bowl winning QBs with their TD/INTs:

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17)

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9)

2012 - Flacco (22/10)

2011 - E.Manning (29/16)

2010 - Rodgers (28/11)

2009 - Brees (34/11)

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15)

2007 - E.Manning (23/20)

 

When searching for a "franchise" QB, I think you're trying to find that guy who can put up nearly 4000 yards every year and keep turnovers down to a minimum. It needs to be a guy who outright carries the team for most of the season, in my opinion. A QB that everyone says, "Oh shit, we're playing against..."

 

Out of the QBs above, which were the main reason the team won it all and caused that kind of fear?

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17) - Won despite QB play

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9) - Won because of dominating defense

2012 - Flacco (22/10) - Mediocre season, got lucky to make it to the SB, but was clutch in the playoffs. Probably not considered a top level guy by most.

2011 - E.Manning (29/16) - Fluke 9-win SB winner, but he did throw for nearly 5000 yards.

2010 - Rodgers (28/11) - I hate him. They only got there because the Bears played 3 QBs in the NFC Championship game, but Rodgers is a no doubt guy.

2009 - Brees (34/11) - No doubt Brees carried the team.

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15) - #1 dominating defense, made it in spite of Big Ben

2007 - E.Manning (23/20) - This team was crazy fortunate, had breaks go their way, and won despite Manning's average season.

 

So half the SB winning QBs of the past ten years were significantly responsible in the team winning it all.

 

So the question remains, is a franchise QB really needed?

 

Sure, you can't go anywhere with Moses Moreno and the other 29 guys the Bears had for what seems like forever. But can a consistently decent guy get you there? Absolutely.

 

Which approach is preferred?

I think your list answers the question pretty soundly, you need a franchise QB. Even if they have a down year statistically, they did enough to win when they were not at their best. Once you have the franchise QB, you need to have a decent run game and a good to great defense that is opportunistic. I think the strongest correlation to success has been turnover ratio and QB Rating differential.

 

Also, if you take those anomalies into consideration, like the 2007 Giants, who literally got every break possible, you would see them beating teams with great QB's (Giants beat Romo and Favre).

 

So I say, yes to franchise QB.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

The last ten super bowl winning QBs with their TD/INTs:

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17)

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9)

2012 - Flacco (22/10)

2011 - E.Manning (29/16)

2010 - Rodgers (28/11)

2009 - Brees (34/11)

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15)

2007 - E.Manning (23/20)

 

When searching for a "franchise" QB, I think you're trying to find that guy who can put up nearly 4000 yards every year and keep turnovers down to a minimum. It needs to be a guy who outright carries the team for most of the season, in my opinion. A QB that everyone says, "Oh shit, we're playing against..."

 

Out of the QBs above, which were the main reason the team won it all and caused that kind of fear?

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17) - Won despite QB play

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9) - Won because of dominating defense

2012 - Flacco (22/10) - Mediocre season, got lucky to make it to the SB, but was clutch in the playoffs. Probably not considered a top level guy by most.

2011 - E.Manning (29/16) - Fluke 9-win SB winner, but he did throw for nearly 5000 yards.

2010 - Rodgers (28/11) - I hate him. They only got there because the Bears played 3 QBs in the NFC Championship game, but Rodgers is a no doubt guy.

2009 - Brees (34/11) - No doubt Brees carried the team.

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15) - #1 dominating defense, made it in spite of Big Ben

2007 - E.Manning (23/20) - This team was crazy fortunate, had breaks go their way, and won despite Manning's average season.

 

So half the SB winning QBs of the past ten years were significantly responsible in the team winning it all.

 

So the question remains, is a franchise QB really needed?

 

Sure, you can't go anywhere with Moses Moreno and the other 29 guys the Bears had for what seems like forever. But can a consistently decent guy get you there? Absolutely.

 

Which approach is preferred?

 

For me, it's more about the overall team and specifically the defense. Take a look at our own Bears and consider 1985 as an example. But even more recently in 2006 when we last made a Super Bowl appearance we had Grossman as QB. How about in 2005 (when we lost to the Fox led Panthers in the divisional round)? And as you pointed out in 2010 despite having 3 QBs we still made it awfully close. What were the common denominators? Strong defenses.

 

Looking at your list above, of the teams that did make it to the SBs and many that won was due to their defense, not because of the QB. Hell Matt Ryan (who many consider a "franchise QB") was the NFL MVP last year and didn't win the SB. How do you explain that?

[ASHKUM BEAR]

The last ten super bowl winning QBs with their TD/INTs:

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17)

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9)

2012 - Flacco (22/10)

2011 - E.Manning (29/16)

2010 - Rodgers (28/11)

2009 - Brees (34/11)

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15)

2007 - E.Manning (23/20)

 

When searching for a "franchise" QB, I think you're trying to find that guy who can put up nearly 4000 yards every year and keep turnovers down to a minimum. It needs to be a guy who outright carries the team for most of the season, in my opinion. A QB that everyone says, "Oh shit, we're playing against..."

 

Out of the QBs above, which were the main reason the team won it all and caused that kind of fear?

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17) - Won despite QB play

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9) - Won because of dominating defense

2012 - Flacco (22/10) - Mediocre season, got lucky to make it to the SB, but was clutch in the playoffs. Probably not considered a top level guy by most.

2011 - E.Manning (29/16) - Fluke 9-win SB winner, but he did throw for nearly 5000 yards.

2010 - Rodgers (28/11) - I hate him. They only got there because the Bears played 3 QBs in the NFC Championship game, but Rodgers is a no doubt guy.

2009 - Brees (34/11) - No doubt Brees carried the team.

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15) - #1 dominating defense, made it in spite of Big Ben

2007 - E.Manning (23/20) - This team was crazy fortunate, had breaks go their way, and won despite Manning's average season.

 

So half the SB winning QBs of the past ten years were significantly responsible in the team winning it all.

 

So the question remains, is a franchise QB really needed?

 

Sure, you can't go anywhere with Moses Moreno and the other 29 guys the Bears had for what seems like forever. But can a consistently decent guy get you there? Absolutely.

 

Which approach is preferred?

I think it is having the right system from top down gets you to the big dance. The teams that are consistantly good have GM, coach, and a QB that have been together for a long time. You might sneak in by building a dynamic D or O, but having the 3 I listed will get you more opportunities than focusing on one direction. Great minds can find a way with lower level talent. The piece that worries me the most is Fox more so because of his age. This team is young and growing with a long term coach is more of a concern to me going forward.

[madlithuanian]

You can win the Lotto many ways. With one ticket or with a 100,000. A great D is like having 10,000 tickets...

 

The odds are better having 100,000 tickets. That's what a Franchise QB gives you...

 

The last ten super bowl winning QBs with their TD/INTs:

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17)

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9)

2012 - Flacco (22/10)

2011 - E.Manning (29/16)

2010 - Rodgers (28/11)

2009 - Brees (34/11)

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15)

2007 - E.Manning (23/20)

 

When searching for a "franchise" QB, I think you're trying to find that guy who can put up nearly 4000 yards every year and keep turnovers down to a minimum. It needs to be a guy who outright carries the team for most of the season, in my opinion. A QB that everyone says, "Oh shit, we're playing against..."

 

Out of the QBs above, which were the main reason the team won it all and caused that kind of fear?

 

2016 - Brady (28/2)

2015 - P.Manning (9/17) - Won despite QB play

2014 - Brady (33/9)

2013 - Wilson (26/9) - Won because of dominating defense

2012 - Flacco (22/10) - Mediocre season, got lucky to make it to the SB, but was clutch in the playoffs. Probably not considered a top level guy by most.

2011 - E.Manning (29/16) - Fluke 9-win SB winner, but he did throw for nearly 5000 yards.

2010 - Rodgers (28/11) - I hate him. They only got there because the Bears played 3 QBs in the NFC Championship game, but Rodgers is a no doubt guy.

2009 - Brees (34/11) - No doubt Brees carried the team.

2008 - Roethlisberger (17/15) - #1 dominating defense, made it in spite of Big Ben

2007 - E.Manning (23/20) - This team was crazy fortunate, had breaks go their way, and won despite Manning's average season.

 

So half the SB winning QBs of the past ten years were significantly responsible in the team winning it all.

 

So the question remains, is a franchise QB really needed?

 

Sure, you can't go anywhere with Moses Moreno and the other 29 guys the Bears had for what seems like forever. But can a consistently decent guy get you there? Absolutely.

 

Which approach is preferred?

 

[jason]

You can win the Lotto many ways. With one ticket or with a 100,000. A great D is like having 10,000 tickets...

 

The odds are better having 100,000 tickets. That's what a Franchise QB gives you...

 

That's an interesting analogy. I like it. Given that analogy, where the lottery is winning the super bowl, the key here is how often you get to buy tickets.

 

For a franchise QB, that chance comes around every 5 years at best. So you blow your load one year on the franchise QB, use all 100,000 tickets, and hope. If you miss, then that's 4-5 years of not winning the lottery before you can even buy another ticket. If you find a franchise QB, then you have a free supply of 100,000 tickets every year.

 

For that great D, however, you can load up over and over and over. And you can play every year. If you don't win, you could get to play the next year with 20,000 tickets. The next year with 30,000. And so on.

 

I agree with the concept of your 10,000 vs 100,000 analogy, but you have a better chance of playing in the lotto every year if you do it through D.

[AZ54]

That's an interesting analogy. I like it. Given that analogy, where the lottery is winning the super bowl, the key here is how often you get to buy tickets.

 

For a franchise QB, that chance comes around every 5 years at best. So you blow your load one year on the franchise QB, use all 100,000 tickets, and hope. If you miss, then that's 4-5 years of not winning the lottery before you can even buy another ticket. If you find a franchise QB, then you have a free supply of 100,000 tickets every year.

 

For that great D, however, you can load up over and over and over. And you can play every year. If you don't win, you could get to play the next year with 20,000 tickets. The next year with 30,000. And so on.

 

I agree with the concept of your 10,000 vs 100,000 analogy, but you have a better chance of playing in the lotto every year if you do it through D.

 

Add in that franchise QBs aren't always playing elite football (see Andrew Luck).

 

You do need a decent/good QB to win but the elite franchise QB is not necessary and spending a ton of effort (picks) year after year in search of one can kill the team (see NYJ, Cleveland). That's really where your GM has to hit it right: Just find a good starting QB and there is usually one in every draft. If we have our good QB in the fold then from here on out it's about building the winning defense while giving Trubisky enough weapons to be productive on offense.

[Mongo3451]

8 of those 10 had very good defenses. The question is, how easy is it to build a championship D?

[Lucky Luciano]

Which approach is preferred?

 

i have to say go for the franchise qb. the NFL at this point in time is geared for offensive football via all the rule changes.

 

to even get a chance at going to a superbowl you have to get to the playoffs. in my opinion an excellent franchise qb always gives you that chance year after year. that is not to say a good defense is not required, but... with a kick arse offense your defense can take more chances because they know the offense can cover some mistakes. it also means your defense is on the field less and has time to rest. it also means if you face a killer qb/offense you can keep up in an offensive shootout.

 

one more item: to win multiple superbowls your best 'chance' is with a franchise quality qb. history shows that pretty clearly.

 

a franchise qb ALWAYS will give you the opportunity every single year to win a superbowl.

[madlithuanian]

I follow. Seems reasonable to me.

 

That's an interesting analogy. I like it. Given that analogy, where the lottery is winning the super bowl, the key here is how often you get to buy tickets.

 

For a franchise QB, that chance comes around every 5 years at best. So you blow your load one year on the franchise QB, use all 100,000 tickets, and hope. If you miss, then that's 4-5 years of not winning the lottery before you can even buy another ticket. If you find a franchise QB, then you have a free supply of 100,000 tickets every year.

 

For that great D, however, you can load up over and over and over. And you can play every year. If you don't win, you could get to play the next year with 20,000 tickets. The next year with 30,000. And so on.

 

I agree with the concept of your 10,000 vs 100,000 analogy, but you have a better chance of playing in the lotto every year if you do it through D.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

For those convinced Franchise QB is the answer I pose this question; how and when do you get one? 1st round, top 5 pick (even using other picks to move up if need) or wait until the 6th round?

[adam]

I don't know if comparing one player (QB) to an entire side of the football is a fair comparison to start with.

 

I think of it this way; what one position, if you were to draft a future HoFer in would have the biggest impact on the team? QB without a doubt. Do you not agree?

 

So just say we drafted Garrett instead of Trubisky, but both are going to be future HoFers, which one makes our team (more) better?

 

I think Houston is an interesting case of defense vs QB, they had potentially one of the worst QB positions ever to make the playoffs, but their defense was good enough to carry them to the playoffs. So you would think hey defense is more important than QB. However, they did that without arguably the best defensive player in the league. So the value of the best defensive player in the league was displayed and it was nowhere near the loss of a MVP-caliber QB.

 

So 1v1, QB wins. I would say defense as a unit may be more valuable than any one player, but it would be a close valuation to franchise QB. Since we haven't won one in over 30 years and we haven't had a true franchise QB, so I say you find the franchise QB at all costs, then build the team around him.

 

 

[mondonico]

I think every QB on that list is a Franchise QB except one. They may not of had a franchise year the year they wonbut I'll bet they made more than a few franchise plays. Or played more than a few franchise games. So yes I think you need a franchise QB, along with great play from the rest of the team. A great D can win you one and get you to a few more maybe. Hell, we a a great Special team player who almost won one for us. I still think we were a 3 plays on Of. and D away from winning that game. Anyway back to does a team need a FQB? To be truly relevent in todays NFL and win Super Bowls? Yes

[mondonico]

For those convinced Franchise QB is the answer I pose this question; how and when do you get one? 1st round, top 5 pick (even using other picks to move up if need) or wait until the 6th round?

 

 

So when do you get one. When ever the hell you can. And this coaching staff thinks we now have one. God I hope so!! Based on the glowing report on Bears Report he is that and more after today. Kinda LOL

['TD']

We have our franchise QB finally, so we don't have to worry about that again. Plus, the fact that a QB can be compared to the whole defense, it just shows the importance of QB.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

For those convinced Franchise QB is the answer I pose this question; how and when do you get one? 1st round, top 5 pick (even using other picks to move up if need) or wait until the 6th round?

When you don't have one, you do whatever it takes like Bill said. The Bears were lucky to get their target and it cost far less than what you see teams trade to get one. Like TD said, we don't need another for a least a few years so now we are cashing in. A QB needy team may be giving us a call next year asking the price to trade up and we can end up with additional/future picks.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

When you don't have one, you do whatever it takes like Bill said. The Bears were lucky to get their target and it cost far less than what you see teams trade to get one. Like TD said, we don't need another for a least a few years so now we are cashing in. A QB needy team may be giving us a call next year asking the price to trade up and we can end up with additional/future picks.

 

All we can do now is 'hope'.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

All we can do now is 'hope'.

I agree, we did that with Shea, Long, Fuller, White, and Floyd or who ever else we could have taken but I suppose this QB is our 3rd, 4th, and next years 3rd also. It is a coin toss, glad we don't have to worry about it for a few years now.

[Stinger226]

For those convinced Franchise QB is the answer I pose this question; how and when do you get one? 1st round, top 5 pick (even using other picks to move up if need) or wait until the 6th round?

That is a no brainer, top of the draft is where most good QBs are found. There is an examples of the Bradys and Wilsons, but most great QBs were up at the top of the first round. This was Paces shot at finding his QB when we had the third pick in the draft. It will prove to have been a good idea or he will be fired. I admire him for doing what he thought he had to do , big balls.

[Wesson44]

That is a no brainer, top of the draft is where most good QBs are found. There is an examples of the Bradys and Wilsons, but most great QBs were up at the top of the first round. This was Paces shot at finding his QB when we had the third pick in the draft. It will prove to have been a good idea or he will be fired. I admire him for doing what he thought he had to do , big balls.

All a team needs is a good QB....when we won the Super Bowl was Jimmy Mac the top ten QB in the NFL? Hell the Ravens won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. Defense wins championships

[Stinger226]

All a team needs is a good QB....when we won the Super Bowl was Jimmy Mac the top ten QB in the NFL? Hell the Ravens won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. Defense wins championships

Once in a while a QB makes it that is not high profile, but in most cases, its the Dree Brees,, Brady type that land there.

[adam]

All a team needs is a good QB....when we won the Super Bowl was Jimmy Mac the top ten QB in the NFL? Hell the Ravens won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. Defense wins championships

We won over 30 years ago, so using us as an example is probably not the best way to support your argument. Also, some will argue with some good data to back it up that our 1986 defense was even better than our 1985 defense, yet we lost in the Divisional Round, probably needed a better QB.

[jason]

We won over 30 years ago, so using us as an example is probably not the best way to support your argument. Also, some will argue with some good data to back it up that our 1986 defense was even better than our 1985 defense, yet we lost in the Divisional Round, probably needed a better QB.

 

Yeah, just looking at franchise QBs and Super Bowls won could lead someone to think the Bears lack of a franchise QB is the reason for not winning again, but I'd say it's just a single aspect of nearly 30 straight years of dysfunction. Because, let's be honest, there are plenty other reasons.

[madlithuanian]

Not anymore... 85 was 30 years ago...and the ravens almost 20.

 

 

All a team needs is a good QB....when we won the Super Bowl was Jimmy Mac the top ten QB in the NFL? Hell the Ravens won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. Defense wins championships

 

[Mongo3451]

All a team needs is a good QB....when we won the Super Bowl was Jimmy Mac the top ten QB in the NFL? Hell the Ravens won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. Defense wins championships

If we had Trent Dilfer instead of Grossman, we'd have 2 at Halas Hall.