Never was? Respectfully my friend, I can understand forming that position after the completion of his first (rookie) season because you have something a little more "concrete" to base it on. But even then, IMO, I think that is a rash (quick) decision to make on ANY rookie QB. And I don't recall you staking out this position, when the Browns drafted him in the second round, that this kid will never be a franchise QB.
It's funny how this term "franchise QB' is getting thrown around anymore. I just find it odd that you see a word tossed around so much, but no one really seems to know the exact meaning. Everyone talks about WHO is a franchise QB, but not WHAT a franchise QB is? You can't label a franchise QB unless you know what it is.
Coming out of college ....
Obviously, one of the most important "ingredients", in order to be able to build on, is possessing the physical skill-set and athletic ability. And you show me one scouting (draft) report on Kizer coming out of college that says he doesn't possess that? You won't find one.
The other factors involved are ... consistency, maturity, leadership, football intelligence (on-field decision making) .... these are all variables that one can't (or shouldn't) make judgments on INITIALLY because - 1) you're dealing with inexperienced youth (amateurs) who have never stepped one foot on a professional football field, and - 2) they're variables that need to be developed, learned, given that opportunity to grow, to see if they're there. And that involves the investment (and risk) of time and gaining experience. It's not a conclusion one should come to in their rookie season.
It's real easy to list who we think franchise QBs are currently ..... Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Luck, Stafford, etc ..... but can you show me where any of them, or any others you care to list, coming out of college were, without question or doubt, before they even stepped on that playing field, or even after their rookie season, were labeled a "franchise QB"? All of these QBs (including Kizer) were highly successful in college and instrumental to their team's success. They all, for the most part, got solid scouting reports. But it's all about potential, assessing it, and any future possibilities. It's not a guarantee either way (success, failure).
Do we want to run down the list of QBs who we'd say were franchise QBs, yet never won a Super Bowl? ... Marino, Romo, Rivers, Stafford, the list goes on and on. So what good is it having that label then? And is it appropriate to label them that? Why?
I think Stafford is one of the best QBs in the NFL; but I doubt he ever makes it to a SB playing in Detroit (LOL). Is that his fault? It's sad that Rivers will probably retire without ever experiencing a SB. What you seem to be missing is that even though you may have developed into one of the "premier" QBs in the league (as far as stats/performance), you still need to have a certain level of "franchise" players surrounding you that were intricate in making you that "franchise QB" and leading your team to success.
Would Montana have been as successful without players like Rice, Clark, and Lott? Or how about Bradshaw, Elway, Favre, Aikman? None of these QBs single-handedly were the reason for their team's success.
And some of those "pieces" are missing in Cleveland from an offensive standpoint, and have been, through mismanagement, for quite some time.
And you've acknowledged that. You've even stated that this team is pretty devoid of talent overall. Yet you continue to place the entire burden of success of this team, with so many other issues going on, on the shoulders of an inexperienced, rookie QB. And regardless of his performance this year, I think you've been grossly harsh and unfair to Kizer overall.
I have a lot of respect and admiration for sports columnist Terry Pluto. I think his post-season assessment of Kizer here is solid ......
http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/index..._case_for.html