The new formula to win in the NFL

[call_me_ishmael]

1. Develop franchise QB for 3 years.
2. Trade for copious draft picks.
3. Draft solid to elite level future franchise QB. Develop for 2 years. Build defense.
4. Win super bowl.
5. Repeat starting at step 2.

Discuss.

[smuggler]

That formula wouldnt work. If franchise QBs were so easy to draft and develop, why would other teams trade copious picks for them?

[MadScientist]

Nice idea, but most of the supposed franchise QB's that have been developed behind actual franchise QB's don't pan out (Flynn, Kolb, Cassel, etc.) So a team might make a trade once, but if and when the guy fails to produce, teams will shy away from making trades. With good coaches and a good team around him, a backup can look a lot better than he really is.

[pbmax]

If you change develop the first franchise QB from 3 to 16 years, then that was the Packer formula from 1992 to 2010. :O

But I am not sure, unless you are AJ Smith in San Diego, that you can be both bad and good enough to get two franchise QBs inside five years (Brees/Rivers).

[bobblehead]

The "new" model for winning changes a lot. Just a couple years ago Pb and I argued about the running game. He opined that the new NFL doesn't bother running it and no running team would ever win the superbowl again. Its a passing league now.

Ok, pb didn't actually go that far, but I remember it the way I want to dammit.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

1) Have a excellent draft every year.

done.

[smuggler]

A single excellent draft would put this team in the Super Bowl in 2 years, probably.

[run pMc]

1. Develop franchise QB for 3 years.
2. Trade for copious draft picks.
3. Draft solid to elite level future franchise QB. Develop for 2 years. Build defense.
4. Win super bowl.
5. Repeat starting at step 2.

Discuss.

Hasn't worked for Philly yet after trading Kevin Kolb, although calling him a franchise QB is generous.
Maybe that's the tricky part -- defining "franchise QB". I tend to think of them as in the Top 8-10 for sure and that likely makes them a multiple Pro-Bowler.
If you truly have a franchise-QB you'd have to either be a complete idiot or have the guts of a burglar to trade them. They're hard to find, expensive to keep, and win games. Winning makes you money.
Imagine GB trading Favre after the '97 season...Steve Bono was 35, Doug Peterson didn't prove to be a starter when given the chance elsewhere, and Matt Hasselbeck wasn't going to beat them out as a rookie.

If you have a historic-level defense you can get away with a game manager QB, but even then I doubt you'll see Schneider or Baalke trading their young QB's for copious draft picks. They know finding even a top 15 QB (i.e., a solid-to-elite QB) is difficult.

[run pMc]

A single excellent draft would put this team in the Super Bowl in 2 years, probably.

This, assuming players remain healthy and the 2013 crop makes the proverbial leap.

[mraynrand]

A single excellent draft would put this team in the Super Bowl in 2 years, probably.

Sure. And a healthy 2014 team has a reasonable shot of making the Superbowl too. I wouldn't say easily, just because the competition in the NFC is pretty fierce.

[pbmax]

The "new" model for winning changes a lot. Just a couple years ago Pb and I argued about the running game. He opined that the new NFL doesn't bother running it and no running team would ever win the superbowl again. Its a passing league now.

Ok, pb didn't actually go that far, but I remember it the way I want to dammit.

You give me that defense and I will happily sign off on the run first run game with Wilson or better at QB.

[Guiness]

If you change develop the first franchise QB from 3 to 16 years, then that was the Packer formula from 1992 to 2010. :O

But I am not sure, unless you are AJ Smith in San Diego, that you can be both bad and good enough to get two franchise QBs inside five years (Brees/Rivers).

Funny, that rarely gets mentioned. I guess because despite the fact that they actually had 3 (!!!) top tier QBs pass through their hand in the space of five years. They had some truly excellent teams, with Thomlinson, Gates, Jackson; Merriman, Williams and more, yet all they managed was a single berth in the conference championship game.

Maybe ishmael is on to something, the Pack just have to bring in 'ol A.J. as a draft consultant and land one of those guys (of which there appear to be maybe 10 out of a population of 300 million in the US) a few times a decade!

[call_me_ishmael]

Sure. And a healthy 2014 team has a reasonable shot of making the Superbowl too. I wouldn't say easily, just because the competition in the NFC is pretty fierce.

No way. They get demolished by Seattle. 38-17, ish.

[mraynrand]

No way. They get demolished by Seattle. 38-17, ish.

Why would a healthy Packer team get clobbered by Seattle, when a highly damaged team could play the 49ers toe-to-toe? The same 49ers team that was one hand away from beating Sea in Sea? Doesn't add up.

[pbmax]

No way. They get demolished by Seattle. 38-17, ish.

Nope. Packers matchup WAY better with Seattle than San Fran. Very close game with Seachickens and I think they win.