sam bradford

[skinsguy]

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

Dating back to the beginning of my life (1989...21 years ago), the only 3 teams that have won a superbowl without a franchise qb are the ravens (dilfer), bucs (johnson...who was a pro bowler), and redskins (Rypien....was a pro bowler). The bucs and the ravens had two of the best defenses of all time also.
The QB's that won the other 18 superbowls

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.

[rypper11]

Originally Posted by skinster

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.

Phil Simms? Franchise QB? He wasn't even his team's best qb (Hostetler was). And of those on the list, IMO, only Peyton, Montana and possibly Brees is better than Marino who never won a SB so more than a franchise qb is needed. And, don't forget that Elway only won a SB once he had a great running game.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by rypper11

Phil Simms? Franchise QB? He wasn't even his team's best qb (Hostetler was). And of those on the list, IMO, only Peyton, Montana and possibly Brees is better than Marino who never won a SB so more than a franchise qb is needed. And, don't forget that Elway only won a SB once he had a great running game.

Simms started 14 years for the giants. I'd say he was a franchise qb. But even if you disagree, the numbers are now 17 franchise sb victories to 4 non...and 3 of the 4 non and some of the best defenses of all time (I was 2 when the Giants won, but I assume that was the LT defense that I've heard so much about)

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by skinster

Dating back to the beginning of my life (1989...21 years ago), the only 3 teams that have won a superbowl without a franchise qb are the ravens (dilfer), bucs (johnson...who was a pro bowler), and redskins (Rypien....was a pro bowler). The bucs and the ravens had two of the best defenses of all time also.
The QB's that won the other 18 superbowls

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.

Yeah, thanks for proving my point even further. Out of all of the teams that these mentioned QBs play for, I see only three that can be consistent winners without these QBs during their respective eras. Present day Pittsburgh, Montana era 49ers, and Aikman era Cowboys. And even further analysis will tell you that the Cowboys dropped off after Aikman left the game, 49ers dropped off after Young left, leaving only Pittsburgh as a consistent winner (but not Super Bowl level) without Roethlesberger. The Giants would be nothing without Eli, the Saints would be nothing without Brees, The Colts nothing without Manning, etc....

However, on the flipside, the Redskins remained consistent winners throughout the 80's (except for the '88 season) with different QBs at the helm. Joe Theismann, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien. Why? Because the team was solid overall. So solid that Gibbs could plug just about any decent QB in and win with him. In fact, the only "franchise" QB the Redskins had in that era was Joe Theismann.

Sure, I would much rather have a complete team with a "franchise" QB who's going to be with the team for years to come, but I would be OK to know that the team was solid despite who plays QB. Those teams tend to be consistent winners no matter who is at QB.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Yeah, thanks for proving my point even further. Out of all of the teams that these mentioned QBs play for, I see only three that can be consistent winners without these QBs during their respective eras. Present day Pittsburgh, Montana era 49ers, and Aikman era Cowboys. And even further analysis will tell you that the Cowboys dropped off after Aikman left the game, 49ers dropped off after Young left, leaving only Pittsburgh as a consistent winner (but not Super Bowl level) without Roethlesberger. The Giants would be nothing without Eli, the Saints would be nothing without Brees, The Colts nothing without Manning, etc....

However, on the flipside, the Redskins remained consistent winners throughout the 80's (except for the '88 season) with different QBs at the helm. Joe Theismann, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien. Why? Because the team was solid overall. So solid that Gibbs could plug just about any decent QB in and win with him. In fact, the only "franchise" QB the Redskins had in that era was Joe Theismann.

Sure, I would much rather have a complete team with a "franchise" QB who's going to be with the team for years to come, but I would be OK to know that the team was solid despite who plays QB. Those teams tend to be consistent winners no matter who is at QB.

Yea well I want a superbowl, and I think to try and accomplish anything else is ludacris, and I don't really understand why you wouldn't want that either.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by skinster

Yea well I want a superbowl, and I think to try and accomplish anything else is ludacris, and I don't really understand why you wouldn't want that either.

Where did I EVER state that I didn't want the Redskins to win a Super Bowl? And where does it STATE that in order to win a Super Bowl, you must have a franchise QB? Obviously, that isn't true, because the Redskins, Bucs, Ravens, and Giants have all proved that an overall solid team with depth is going to win you Super Bowls.

On the contrary, there have been several teams with franchise QBs that didn't win Super Bowls with those Franchise QBs. Oh, Dan Marino comes to mind. And Elway didn't when his Super Bowls until he had a great supporting cast around him. So, don't tell me that the only way a team wins it all is if they have a franchise QB, because that isn't the case.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

Almost every transaction in football a gamble. That said, busting on a franchise qb may not be that bad because since the QB will make the team lose, the team will have higher draft picks in the subsequent years. They can then use those high draft picks to stock up the roster. Of course, this only applies if the team is just using it's normal 1st rounder and did not trade a bunch of stuff away for the pick.