Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

racepug wrote:

JohnH19 wrote:The Bears QB history since Luckman retired is the worst in the NFC North and probably in the whole league.

It's pretty bad - there's no question about that. But I do lots of research (though probably not as much as many of YOU do - ) on teams in order to keep up on all the franchises' players from all time (in order to keep the rosters "fresh" and "up-to-date" for a Greatest Players of All Time season that I run using an old - but very good! - football simulation) and I can think of one team whose overall QB history is even more dismal, in my opinion, than that of the Bears, Lions, or Browns. Any guesses?

It'd be the Bucs for me. No QB ever there more than 5 years. Brad Johnson was good in 2002, but only a regular for 3 years, other two years were only average. Thought about the Cards, longer history, but I'd take either Hart or Lomax over Johnson.

Jay Z wrote:

racepug wrote:

JohnH19 wrote:The Bears QB history since Luckman retired is the worst in the NFC North and probably in the whole league.

It's pretty bad - there's no question about that. But I do lots of research (though probably not as much as many of YOU do - ) on teams in order to keep up on all the franchises' players from all time (in order to keep the rosters "fresh" and "up-to-date" for a Greatest Players of All Time season that I run using an old - but very good! - football simulation) and I can think of one team whose overall QB history is even more dismal, in my opinion, than that of the Bears, Lions, or Browns. Any guesses?

It'd be the Bucs for me. No QB ever there more than 5 years. Brad Johnson was good in 2002, but only a regular for 3 years, other two years were only average. Thought about the Cards, longer history, but I'd take either Hart or Lomax over Johnson.

The team I was thinking was the Cardinals (though the Buccaneers aren't a bad pick for that "honor," either), precisely because they are THE oldest team in the league and yet they've never really had a "marquee" QB - not as far as I can tell (well, I guess a case can be made for Paddy Driscoll but he played long before passing really became a "thing" in the N.F.L, didn't he?). Hart started with the Cardinals forever but his best years were when Don Coryell was head coach (nothing wrong with that, but that really wasn't very many years). Other than that - . Lomax was okay, I guess (my understanding is that he and Hart didn't really get along) but I never really considered him to be a true "star." Kurt Warner got the Cardinals to a S.B. (one that they probably should've won, in my opinion) but his best years were behind him by then. Carson Palmer was a decent QB for the Cardinals (as far as I can tell) - but, again - not really a "star." Of course now the Buccaneers have won a(nother) S.B. with one of the greatest QBs of all time at the helm. There are other good "candidates" out there but for my money the Cardinals have the "honor" of having the sorriest history with QBs in the entire league (they somewhat make up for that, though, by having what is in my estimation arguably the greatest all-time secondary of any team in the league [again, there are many "contenders" for that honor]).

The Cardinals? Charley Johnson, Hart, Lomax, Jake Plummer, Warner and Palmer are all better than anyone, other than a healthy McMahon, the Bears have had since Luckman.

Then theres Pittsburgh with Bradshaw and Ben but nothing else ... though the Cardinals only won a championship with Christman.

Brian wolf wrote:Then theres Pittsburgh with Bradshaw and Ben but nothing else ... though the Cardinals only won a championship with Christman.

But Bradshaw and Ben cover 30 seasons.

Haha ... youre right. 30 seasons out of what, nearly 90 seasons ?

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? The Steelers have had Bobby Layne, Bradshaw and Ben since Luckman retired. Are you saying that the Bears situation in the past 70 years is better or even comparable?

Interesting question. I suppose you have to set parameters for determining what constitutes a franchise QB.

Luckman, of course, has to head the list.

The Bears had Blanda but they didn't use him much. He could have become the kind of player you mean, I think.

Billy Wade was the championship QB in 1963, but he was drafted by the Rams. Wade got to the Bears late in his career.

I think you'd have to say McMahon was a franchise QB.

Just my opinion, fun thing to consider.

Youre right JohnH19 ... Despite many years of mediocrity before Bradshaw, the Steelers still have a better QB history than the Bears. Cardinals are a tough call too ...
They could throw the ball with Johnson, Hart, Lomax, Warner and Palmer but not enough winning ...

Yeah, forgot about Plummer for Cards too, though his best years were in Denver. Defense and Bidwell ownership never helped the Cards QBs enough ...