What the Hell is a "System QB" and why is it bad to be one? - Page 8

Amnorix · 03-19-2008, 08:00 AM

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.

milkman · 03-20-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

That defense was one of the most dominant of the decade and carried the '49ers that year. SF played a ball-control, dink&dunk offense with Clark catching a lot of short balls and Solomon going long every now and again. Montana played his role within the system very well.

Again, Montana was a fine QB for the offense he was in; however he was not the kind of QB (Favre, Elway) who could carry a team on his own.

Why is it so hard to see this? Why do you take it as some sort of insult?

Just so you don't misunderstand, and mistake me a Montana homer, I've argued before that it was a mistake, long term, for the Chiefs to make the trade that brought Montana to KC.

That being said, Montana was a different kind of QB than Elway and Favre, but I would argue that his time with the Chiefs actually stands as proof that he could carry a team on his own.

What he borught to the table was an understanding of what the players around him were capable of and raising the level of their play.

He was working with guys like Willie Davis and Keith Cash, and still manged to take that team to the AFC Championship game, and this in spite of the worst playoff coach in NFL history.

Mile High Mania · 03-20-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

Just so you don't misunderstand, and mistake me a Montana homer, I've argued before that it was a mistake, long term, for the Chiefs to make the trade that brought Montana to KC.

That being said, Montana was a different kind of QB than Elway and Favre, but I would argue that his time with the Chiefs actually stands as proof that he could carry a team on his own.

What he borught to the table was an understanding of what the players around him were capable of and raising the level of their play.

He was working with guys like Willie Davis and Keith Cash, and still manged to take that team to the AFC Championship game, and this in spite of the worst playoff coach in NFL history.

The did make it to the AFC Title game, so that was improvement... but, he joined a team coming off two 10 win seasons... so, he didn't really carry the team. Know what I mean?

He wasn't taking over a 7 win team...

milkman · 03-20-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

The did make it to the AFC Title game, so that was improvement... but, he joined a team coming off two 10 win seasons... so, he didn't really carry the team. Know what I mean?

He wasn't taking over a 7 win team...

I get that.

But, how many playoff games did the Cheifs win without Montana?

**the Talking Can** · 03-20-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

Again, Montana was a fine QB for the offense he was in; however he was not the kind of QB (Favre, Elway) who could carry a team on his own.

Why is it so hard to see this? Why do you take it as some sort of insult?

because it is just so dumb....just so god damned stupid....

Mile High Mania · 03-20-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I get that.

But, how many playoff games did the Chiefs win without Montana?

Or since... (sorry)

milkman · 03-20-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania

Or since... (sorry)

I'm used to it.

Chiefs_5627 · 03-21-2008, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

That defense was one of the most dominant of the decade and carried the '49ers that year. SF played a ball-control, dink&dunk offense with Clark catching a lot of short balls and Solomon going long every now and again. Montana played his role within the system very well.

Again, Montana was a fine QB for the offense he was in; however he was not the kind of QB (Favre, Elway) who could carry a team on his own.

Why is it so hard to see this? Why do you take it as some sort of insult?

I just dont get how Montana's achievments could be written over so easily bcuz John was a great QB. You make it sound like anyone could have filled in for Joe and did what he did and to me thats foolish. Nobody knows, maybe neither wouldve turned into shit but acting like you have some divine knowledge of what wouldve happened is silly. Just my 2.

JohnnyV13 · 03-21-2008, 05:56 PM

I would say a "system qb" is a guy that plays very well within a particular system, but will not thrive outside that system.

Montana is likely the best "system qb" ever. Though I am not sure he really fits the definition because I think Montana would have excelled in ANY short passing system, not just the West Coast Offense.

Elway is the perfect example of a "non-system" qb, because Elway played in an offense that featured his cannon arm early in his career, and then won two Super Bowls in a West Coast system.

Montana NEVER could have played in the Bronco offense that Elway used to take his team to two Super Bowls in the 80's. I do suspect, however, that Montana would have picked short options within that system and still been a good player. But, he never would have been a superstar had a coach tried to play him that way.

03-19-2008, 08:00 AM
Amnorix In BB I trust Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, Mass. Casino cash: $10029808	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.
Posts: 43,125

03-21-2008, 05:56 PM	#113
JohnnyV13 Veteran Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tucson AZ Casino cash: $5385200	I would say a "system qb" is a guy that plays very well within a particular system, but will not thrive outside that system. Montana is likely the best "system qb" ever. Though I am not sure he really fits the definition because I think Montana would have excelled in ANY short passing system, not just the West Coast Offense. Elway is the perfect example of a "non-system" qb, because Elway played in an offense that featured his cannon arm early in his career, and then won two Super Bowls in a West Coast system. Montana NEVER could have played in the Bronco offense that Elway used to take his team to two Super Bowls in the 80's. I do suspect, however, that Montana would have picked short options within that system and still been a good player. But, he never would have been a superstar had a coach tried to play him that way.
Posts: 4,222