What the Hell is a "System QB" and why is it bad to be one?
 

I just saw this in another thread (Ryan's Pro Day workout at BC) and it brought to mind why this phrase gets tossed around all the time as some kind of insult. As I understand it, "He's just a system QB" is generally thrown out there to say that a QB looks better than he really is, presumably because the "system" that he is in MAKES him look better. In other words, it's not the QB that is good/great, it's the system.

This entire concept makes NO sense to me. EVERY QB, especially in the NFL, plays in a fantastically complicated offensive "system" that is DESIGNED to make him look good. Coaches and players spend hundreds of hours every week (combined) analyzing weaknesses in the opposing defense and trying to adapt their "system" and plays to take advantage of the weaknesses.

The only way this makes any sense is to suggest that a system QB isn't as good as a "non-system" QB in the sense that when the play breaks down, the QB can't improvise. In other words, he's not a Favre or Elway.

The severe problem with this statement is that there are very, very few Favre's or Elways. If by "system QB" you mean that he's not a highly athletic runner who also has a shotgun, accurate arm and is one of the top 10 QBs in history, then that's no insult at all. It applies to 99.9% of the quarterbacks in NFL history.

I note, also, that if this is what you mean by "system QB", then Marino, Brady, Manning, Fouts, and god-knows how many other awesome QBs who couldn't run well are also "just system QBs" and therefore subject to insult.

I don't get it. Am I missing something?

I honestly would like to see this phrase disappear from NFL-fan lexicon. It's worthless as a statement.

Good analysis, I agree with the way you define 'system QB'. I'd add Montana to that list, he was definetely a system QB. Things didn't turn out to bad for that little guy.

I also note that "non-system" guys might be freelancers like Michael Vick, Kordell Stewart and a number of other guys who think that the play call is more of a suggestion than anything else.

And those QBs tend to suck at the NFL level because the defenses are too disciplined for all that freelance stuff to work consistently. SOMETIMES it turns out great, but soemtimes it's a disaster, and/or your QB gets blown up.

The few great ones are more that "system QBs"

Farve, Elgay, Montana, ....


the rest are just good system QBs. If they adapt and move around in enough systems they can get to the next level maybe.

Yep. Another way to say 'system QB' might be 'QB who knows the offense front and back and can run the team accordingly'.
Vick et al don't have what it takes to go outside the system.
If you are going to go off script and improvise you had better be damn good, Marlon Brando good, or you mess the whole scene up.

I respectfully disagree with you about Montana.
Montana was every inch a system QB. If he would have lived outside the play, outside the pocket, where Elway and Favre regularly played little Joe would have been killed. He had neither the arm nor the body for it.

So Marino, Manning and Brady are "just good system QBs"?

:spock:

His success was primarily in the West Coast Offense which was patterned on very precise timing.

So unless someone here wants to tell Vailpass and I that Hall of Fame Coach WALSH!! didn't have a very advanced system....

I've always defined system QBs as guys who put up ridiculous stats in a wide-open, pass-happy system but are easily replaceable by other guys that can put up the same stats. Thus, they get undeserved hype based on their stats, and most of the time they underperform in an NFL pro offense.

System QBs that come to mind right now are Hawaii QBs (Colt Brennan, Timmy Chang), Tedford QBs (Kyle Boller, Aaron Rodgers, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith), and Spurrier QBs (Rex Grossman, Danny Wuerffel).

And Chase Daniel.

Montana was the poster boy for the System QB.

Complete horse shit.

This definition would make much more sense to me. College QBs who put up absurd stats based on a run-and-shoot or other wide-open system in the NFL that won't translate well to the NFL.

But by definition, you couldn't use that label on an NFL QB because no NFL team runs such a system. Adn yet I've seen that label applied to Tom Brady nad other NFL QBs.

If your definition was used by everyone, I'd have no problem with it.

That's funny.

All great QBs are system QBs. Nobody plays on an island and, in football, nobody can really "take a team on his shoulders." It's a nice sentiment to hear, but the reality is that every star is the product of the team around him, and QBs fit that bill more than anybody else. Success is a combination of a line blocking for him, most often a back providing some kind of threat to keep defenses honest, receivers capable of getting open and then catching the pass when they do, and an offense that takes advantage of his singular strengths while mitigating whatever weaknesses he may have in his game (and they all have weaknesses, make no mistake...). If he doesn't have all of that, any QB is going to fail.

That's why football is such a great game. It's as "team" a contest as you'll find in sports.

A system guy in college football refers to the option, spread, and the Run N Shoot which those 3 do not normally become great QB's in the NFL.

That's what always irritated me about Trent Green's detractors, throwing the "system" label on him like it was a bad thing, or some type of weakness of his. I'll take a "system" QB that throws for 4,000 yards and 20+ TD's on a yearly basis over a guy who can "do it all".

I think when they say system QBs, they're talking about how particular colleges rely on the shotgun or unusual formations that you don't see in the NFL, and that these formations will generally be pass-friendly and kind to his numbers, making the prospect look a lot better on paper and in the field than he will in the NFL.

Like, look at Hawaii. They run out of a shotgun every single play, with zero running game. That makes Brennan's numbers great, making him a system QB.

I'm interested in hearing why you think Montana was not a system QB.

Montana won many, many games on the strength of his ability. There is a lot more to being a quarterback than how far you can throw a ball.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that when this phrase (system QB) started? Was with Montana and the Bill Parcels dubbed Bll Walsh ran West coast offense.

Trent Green. Yes, Joe Montana was a west coast system QB.

I agree completely. The thing that Walsh was so great at was taking advantage of the QB's ability, then game planning and putting that together then creating situations to be succesful.

Now, was it all the system? of course not. But he did benifit greatly from it.

To me when someone says a college QB is a "systems QB" it is a negative way of saying the coaches built a limited offensive playbook around the QB that didn't require the QB to do all of the things an NFL QB is needed to do. It also tends to inflate a college QB's stats. Often it utilizes a shotgun formation and spread offense (like Brennan and/or Woodson in this years draft or Leftwich from years ago). Those QB's will have a more difficult time in the NFL taking snaps from center and their accuracy may not be as good as what in college because in college they had 4-5 WR's going up against inferior defensive talent.

David Klinger, Andre Ware, etc. were system quarterbacks. That is why they couldn't cut it in the NFL. You could have put Montana in any system and he would have looked good, because he was good.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a system QB. As long as he's playing in the right system.

You can be a Montana fan and still acknowledge he was a system QB, probably the best system QB to ever play the game.
Do you think Montana would have won as many games as Favre or Elway if he had played on the teams either of those had; teams that required the QB to carry the game in many of their seasons?

BTW, I'm not saying 'system QB' is a negative, I don't think it is at all. I consider the term to mean the QB has mastered the offense and runs it at top capacity.

it's only bad if you have your QB in the wrong system.

EVERY quarterback should be a system QB for YOUR system.



it's just an excuse for coaches who don't know how to really teach a QB how to play.

Yep.. that term always angered me. Of course Alex Smith and Tim Tebow are both QB's who made it in Meyer's "system". Maybe some truth to the Smith thing though.

Either way, we should definitely never draft system qb's until we get an actual system.

Amnorix, everyone knows that Matt Ryan is wicked awesome. Now clean that sand out of your gina. ;)

Can He hand off consistently?

IF so he is the man for the job...

Herm needs a QB that can hand off and punt. :)

Yes he was good. But how good would have depended on which system and the talent and coaches around him. Hence, his time in KC.

nfl system qb = Steve Bono

One of my other favorite media topics to yammer about is "so tough to follow a legend..."

They always talk about how tough it is to follow a legend but I largely call BS. Yes there is some higher expectations of play because the fans have just gone through a period of seeing high level of play at that position from a legend. But let me ask you this.....Of all these QB's that failed following a legend, how many of them moved on and really shined? I can't think of any. They failed because they sucked not because they followed a legend. Steve Young followed one of the biggest legends and he succeeded because he was good.

If several QB's that followed legends struggled following the legend but then moved on and really did well then that would help make that argument but the reason most of them struggle is because the team had a legend at the QB position and didn't bother investing a high pick or a lot of free agent money on the position. So they usually have very average to below average QB's as backups that then get pushed into the position upon the departure of the legend.

Actually, it's when it's applied to Tom Brady that it really irritates me. I honestly don't care THAT much about BC or Ryan. I'm a casual fan of BC footbal. I didn't go there, but they're the only 1-A program in New England.

But, honestly, I'm a tightass when it comes to langauge, and thsi "system QB" stuff is stupid because (as this thread clearly shows) nobody really agrees on what it means, or to whom it should be applied. The only definition I've seen that makes any sense is when it's applied to a college QB in a wide-open system, which results in stat pumping, and yet I've seen the label slapped on MANY NFL QBs, which makes no sense at all.

I honestly think it's just a stupid term.

Somebody should make Herm aware of this.

A system QB is a guy with no intangibles. If the system breaks down, he is worthless. The offense is only as good as he is, and he is only as good as the weakest link in the system.

Brian Griese is a good example of a system QB.

Your point is well taken but is there any way you could avoid mentioning that name again?:cuss:

If thats the case.. EVERY QB that is surrounded with a Great Line or Great WR's is a system QB in the NFL.. (system QB's can be great, but they are still in a system to make them look that way..)

I agree on the college level of system QB's, kind of like MU now..

Makes no sense to me. What intangibles are you talking about other than being fleet of foot? And being fleet of foot is quite TANGIBLE in my mind.

What intangible is there? Improvisional ability? WTF is that?

System's QB has to be put in the right situation right offense, and sufficient talent. For anyone to be considered a top 5 QB they'd have to an all-round stud with no weakness what so ever I mean he has to have accuracy, a strong arm, leadership intangibles, ability to run and scramble like an RB ect.. Someone who can take a team on their back to the SB on their sheer talent alone like John Elway.

IMHO there's no such thing as a "system QB" in the NFL. It's a meaningless phrase. Without a good system, no QB in the NFL is any good.

This also makes no sense. What doess "System QB" have to do with being a top 5 QB? If you're not a top 5 QB all-time you're automatically a "system QB"?

Look at the top 5 of all-time the onl yone that wasn't in the right situation and that was John Elway that man had shit around him including coaches for most of his career that man literally took his teams on his back to the SB when he was young.

So....in your mind a System QB is any QB not named what -- Montana, Elway, Unitas, Favre, Marino and Manning (or Brady), or some combination like that.

What's the point of having a specific phrase that means "not among the top 5 NFL QBs in history"?

And, to push it further -- in your mind Michael Vick was a "system QB" I guess.

I don't get it.

Precisely, 98% being successful in the NFL is being in right situation at the right time, and John Elway for top 5 picks concerning talent is the benchmark and anything less is asking for trouble.

You may also add any QB who's played at Texas Tech.

Brock is on target.

People use "system QB" to mean that a QB's talent can only be exploited by one particular system.

Great QBs can generally be imagined to succeed in any system, or when systems break down.

And anyone who thinks that Montana could only thrive in a west coast system....well, ditto brock again: "horse shit"

that's as dumb as gochiefs claiming that Chris Carter couldn't separate from CBs....

back to the point of the arguement unless one is talking about an all-world talent like John Elway which it doesn't matter what situation he's in then I'd pass on the guy who has to be in the right situation and right system. Ryan can be good, but he'll need help

So you feel that Montana would have taken the same Denver teams to the SB that Elway did?

yes, Montana would have still been a great QB if he played for Shanahan instead of Walsh...

anyone who doesn't think so is embarrassingly dumb...

no .... but they wouldn't of built the team the same if it was montana instead of Elway.


just like most other nfl players need to be used in schemes that fit their talents.

Kliff Kingsberry put up huge numbers in Texas Tech's System....couldn't hack it.

Spread the defense out with 4-5 quick wrs and throw slants and fly patterns.....big numbers, but they often can't make the nfl throws.....the 15 yard outs across the field etc.

Probably would have won more.

I don't think of a system QB as worthless outside of a system, like others... I think of it when looking at stats and wondering "is this guy that good or could anyone throw for 4000 yards in that offense?"

I think it's possible to have a system QB in the NFL, it's just that the systems are so close to being the same, NFL teams don't waste the time on them unless they are a Vick-like athlete or they're desperate.

Enter Kurt Warner (uh, the desperate part). He would have been a backup for a while and mediocre at best in the NFL if the Rams weren't desperate and he didn't happen to step into Martz's system. It wasn't the quarterback, it was the system. Anyone can throw for 4000 yards in the system, and Kurt Warner hasn't done a whole lot outside of it.

I would agree somewhat...Montana succeeded with the Chiefs despite Marty. That's the sign of a great QB.

Green was always said to be a system QB...not so great with Wash, but good with KC. A system could also be a QB behind a great line and helped by a super RB.

ROFLROFLROFLROFL
Stop dude,you're killing me. Little Joe wouldn't have lasted 2 seasons.
You either have no idea what the Elway years pre-Shanny looked like or are just being silly.

I wasn't talking about the Shanny teams. Are you familiar with the teams Elway carried to the SB pre-Shanny?

John Elway brought an unmatched ability to improvise and carried some pretty mediocre teams to the SB.

He also overcame handcuffing by Dan Reeves.

Still, Montana brought that leadership and quiet confidence.

I don't know that he could have taken the Donks to those 3 pre-rat SBs, but I wouldn't bet against him.

sure....and your point that Montana would only be a great QB in San Fran remains stupid....

The deal is this... as originally stated, guys like Elway and Favre are rare and you should cherish them while they're playing.

That could be spun around and asked back, could Elway have taken Joes teams to the big one?

uuuh, yeah

I don't why he couldn't... those teams were more talented at WR/TE/RB/DEF.

Uuuuh no. All 4(?), John couldve stepped right in and hit all those precision passes? Doubt that, Joe probably couldnt have done what Elway did with his teams. They each did it their own way.

Hmmm... John was a gun slinger, but that doesn't mean he wasn't precise.

You'd put him in the same category as Joe in that regard?

They were both great... if I were building a team, I'd take John over Joe for all the other things Elway brought to the game.

Agreed they were both something special i just cant commit to say "he couldve done this with that team" or whatever because 1. debates could go on forever :) 2. nobody really knows until they saw it happen. Maybe Joe wouldnt have been able to be the gunslinger John was with the Donks and maybe John couldnt have handled to finesse nature of that offense and turned into a turn over machine. Ya never know. My 2.

Seriously... Montana took over a KC team that had 20 wins the previous 2 seasons and won exactly 20 in his 2 seasons. Hell, Bono followed Joe and had 22 wins in 2 seasons.

Steve Bono > Joe Montana

(sarcasm) :-)

Both were a combine 147 y/o when they played for KC. :)

True. But, we did see what Joe did when he took over KC with what I think is fair to say... less talent than what he had in SF. Granted, he was older. Then, Shanahan changed the dynamics around Elway and they won a ton of games and 2 titles.

It's splitting hairs... there are QBs you debate (Aikman, Bradshaw, Namath, etc) and you can really have fun. Others, like Elway and Montana... well, you should just agree they're 2 of the best ever and few others can be mentioned in the same breath.

Oh and look at that... surpassed the 20k posts mark.

(and it was a post about Elway, how fitting)

Joe did lead us to the Champ game his first year after getting his elbow put back together but i get what your saying. Your last sentence says it all, i wouldnt bet against either.

Does your dumbass realize that Favre spent every year of his starting career as a West Coast QB??

You dipfucks act like Montana had a noodle arm--he actually had good arm strength, and was laser accurate. He could have played in any system--Coryell, WCO, Herm Ball, and won.

People also forget that he was a hell of an athlete. He ran for a lot of yards early in his career and he was very, very mobile.

It was a hell of an accomplishment, but the AFC from the mid 80's to the mid 90's was probably the weakest conference in the history of professional football. They didn't just lose Super Bowls, they got massacred (with the exception of the Bengals and the first Bills team).

That's like praising LeBron for taking the Cavs to the finals in the East when Tim Duncan is going through hell and back (albeit with more talent), coming out of the West, and still stomping a mudhole when he gets to the championship game.

Montana would not have survived a Run-N-Shoot offense

Who gives a rat fuck? That was an awful system that flourished for about 4 years, then burned out faster than Milli Vanilli.

That's like saying that Barry Sanders wasn't an all-around great back because he wasn't designed to run in the Bill Cowher pound-me-in-the-ass 71 times a game offense.

obviously you don't remember how good John Elway was, the guy was an absolute stud. He threw ball very accurately too