Right, but it’s 12 versus 10 a year ago, right?
If we go back 365 you could list a lot of repeats:
BUF MIA NYJ
CLE
HOU
DEN
WAS
CHI
LAR
SF
(doesn’t include MIN who had to trade for Bradford after the horrific TB injury)
Yeah, there’s a lot of QB uncertainty, but I’m not sure I agree with the articles this week that claim it’s super unusual.
Not sure I see all of these.
A year ago Tannehill seemed to be pretty locked in as the Miami starter. From the Wikipedia page after the 2016 season:
In 2016, after a 1–4 start, the Dolphins won six straight games, and finish the season on a 9–2 run and 10-6 overall. Tannehill played in 13 games, missing three due to injury. With their Week 15 win over the Jets, the Dolphins clinched a winning record and a playoff berth for the first time since 2008. Tannehill finished the season with a career-high 67.1 completion percentage, 2,995 yards, 19 touchdowns and 12 interceptions.
A year ago, yeah Goff struggled as a rookie, but I do not remember any legitimate questions being raised that he would not be the Rams starter in 2017.
Tannehill and Goff were more locked in as the starters last December than all but probably Bortles on his list of 12. The other 11 have QBs not under contract, or more than one legitimate option under contract. (Assuming McCarron loses his case and is still an RFA for Cincy... and Cincy has the added murkiness of a pending head coaching change).
No, the sky is not falling and this is not historic... but a 37.5% increase in QB instability (increase from 8 to 11) is a significant trend.
As Gregg Easterbrook has repeatedly said, success in the NFL comes down to one thing... getting a franchise QB. All the extra rules to protect the passer and the passing game reduce the GM's job to finding a single player. I think ten years is enough to idenitify a pattern in the NFL. The last ten Superbowls have been won by Brady (2), Ben, Peyton, Eli (2), Brees, Rodgers, Wilson & Flacco. Flacco is the only anomaly on that list.
How do you define a Franchise QB? I suggest that you look for at least three years out of a five year window where they finish in the top eight in QB fantasy production.
Excluding folks with less than 3 years in the NFL, off the top of my head, the only QBs I can think that would meet that definition other than the SB champs are Ryan (lost a SB), Newton (Lost a SB), Rivers, Stafford.& Luck.
So from 12 QBs that were consistent fantasy studs, we have 9 of 10 SB wins and if you add in Warner as a franchise QB, the same 9 of 10 of the losing teams were led by consistent fantasy studs. Interestingly, the only anomalies happened in the same game... Flacco vs Kaepernick in 2013.
So a GM appears to have a 75% chance of playing in a superbowl if he can get a fantasy stud at QB, and a 7/12 or 58% chance of winning one. As this becomes more and more clear to the league, you are going to continue to see lots of QB instability.
Editorial NOTE: It is not required that your QB be a fantasy stud the year he wins/plays in the SB... its not the stats themselves that cause the win, but the "IT" factor that comes with success. A supreme confidence that causes a team to relax and play their best. I still remember the story that right before the winning TD pass when all the pressure was on in the SB, Joe Montana was in the huddle with the team and then paused from calling a play to stop and point and say "There, in the stands, standing near the exit ramp... Isn't that John Candy?"
... 
based on his play it safe style this year on the field, IMO. so legit question here.
