|
|
Post by midsfan on Apr 26, 2008 11:23:20 GMT -6
Ok, so we are a few hours away from the draft and I want to get some feedback from other coaches. I have been watching Colt Brennan since his debut against USC in '05. I knew from then that he was special. He has a quick release, mobile, and his accuracy is amazing. But, since the days of Jenkins' run and shoot at Houston and now June Jones, every QB that has come out of this system has been dubbed a system qb. What are your thoughts on this? In my opinion if you can play, you can play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Apr 26, 2008 11:52:19 GMT -6
Theres lots of guys who can play at the college level who don't produce at the pro level. Jason white was a heisman trophy winner and runner up or 3rd place the next year, played in 2 national title games. He simply wasn't an NFL QB. could the scouts be wrong on this one, sure they could, but they are getting paid to make decisions like this for a reason, they are better at it than we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachgreen05 on Apr 26, 2008 13:10:15 GMT -6
I think the system depends on a certain athlete also...
I do thinf some QBs just dont translate..huge holes in college secondaries...not even close in the pros
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 26, 2008 14:42:31 GMT -6
Again...it depends on how you define "system", and how you evaluate the QB position. I think that generally, a "system" quarterback is simply a representation of how the QB got his statistics. So if you are putting a great deal of stock in the stats (TD passes, yards, completion percentage) then you do need to consider what the qb was asked to do at the college level based on his system. Was the system designed to be efficient with lots of YAC? Was it a system where the running game was essentially replaced by quick screens and 3 step passes? If this is the case, and you are evaluating a qb's stats, then you could be in a bit of trouble.
Also, if the qb's job is to "distribute" the ball, and the offensive system is based on other players making plays and being playmakers...you could be in trouble. The NFL relies on the QB having to make plays, fit the ball in tight spots, make the critical read, stand up under a pass rush that is probably a full second (if not more) faster than in college.
|
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Apr 26, 2008 15:39:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by midsfan on Apr 26, 2008 16:32:55 GMT -6
So what do we think of Colt Brennan and the Run and Shoot? Personally, I think most all Texas Tech QB's are products of the systems. That offense does rely on quick screens and 3 step throws.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Apr 26, 2008 17:10:54 GMT -6
Right which is why texas tech QBs are all playing in the Arena league instead of on sundays in the fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickknx865 on Apr 26, 2008 20:56:19 GMT -6
I think Colt Brennan is a very good quarterback, but he is no NFL-caliber QB. Reminds me a lot of Ty Detmer, at least mechanics-wise
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Apr 26, 2008 20:56:23 GMT -6
As coachd5085 pointed out, most of the people who use the term "system QB", focus a lot on stats. The stats are a product of the system, not the QB. If you throw the ball 60+ times a game, your QB is going to have higher passing stats.
I think that the evaluation process at the NFL can be hit or miss in many situations. There are some very good NFL QBs who did not grade out well within the draft. On the flip side (and even more disturbing) is the number of QBs who grade out highly and completely flop. Personally, I think that this is because they rely on stats and physical stats too much and don't focus on the mental and emotional side of the game.
The great QBs in the NFL don't just have the physical tools; they have the mental and emotional ones as well. They know the position and the game inside and out, they stay calm in difficult situations and they are leaders.
What hurts Colt Brennan is that the R&S is a system that is different from the WCO packages in the NFL. Many other top college QBs have spent the last 4-5 years learning how to make reads within WCO progression. Colt Brennan has been making reads based on choice routes; a different concept. However, I think that this ways too heavily against him in the evaluation process.
Honestly, I think that if signed to a roster and given a chance, Colt Brennan could be an NFL QB. He's got the physical traits, works well with his WRs, and is a solid leader. But then again, it is all subjective; the fiftieth QB taken overall could be a Hall of Famer and Matt Ryan could be the next Ryan Leaf.
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Apr 26, 2008 21:03:18 GMT -6
I think my system lends it's self to the QB's success.. I personally feel I can take an athlete and put him in my system at QB and make the best out of it.. but he could never play QB at the next level.. and here is a player who is expected to throw for at least 2000 yards in a season..
|
|
|
|
Post by midsfan on Apr 26, 2008 21:27:17 GMT -6
FYI...Colt Brennan played in a West Coast Offense in JUCO. Also played in pro style (2 back) system in high school. Sorry, we had a debate in the coach's office Friday and I am still fired up. I hate that everyone thinks this guy is "system" guy. I could be wrong, but I think a team should take a chance on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwpilots on Apr 27, 2008 0:12:23 GMT -6
I personally think that QB's coming out of college running the "Run-n-Shoot" (David Klingler,Andre Ware) do not do as well as veteran QB's running it in the middle of their careers (Warren Moon,Jeff George). Just my thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Apr 27, 2008 7:03:06 GMT -6
There was a comment that the types of reads that the R&S creates are not applicable in the pro game. This is not entirely accurate. The R&S was extremely successful in the NFL.
In many ways I would say that the reads that systems like the R&S and AirRaid offer reflect the superior design of their offenses to those that are envogue in the NFL. Reads should clean up fairly quickly and simply; that reflects the packages design. A QB should not be forced to jam a ball into a space; that's a bad decision. I have plenty of tape of the Lions, Oilers, and Falcons running the R&S and even in the NFL their reads open up much more cleanly than those in traditional offenses.
Also, people make a lot about being in the gun. Tom Brady operates from the gun 60% of the time and even more in some games. Moreover, Charlie Weis being an old R&S guy from his HS days at Franklin High in NJ, still uses R&S principles as the foundation for many of his route structures and concepts. Watch the film, it don't lie.
Also, the QB position in all leagues should not be about "making" plays. It's about ball distribution. The QB is the point-guard, the shortstop of the offense, the conduit through which ball is spread around. Look at how Drew Brees plays the position and how he manipulates and utilizes all of the tools at his disposal. That is the template that teams should look at. Compare that ding dong Vick and ding dong Young and other such yucks and we see that long term success is linked not to one's ability to make entertaining runs etc, but rather one's ability to master the system, to make the routine check downs, shallows, and hook-curl routes that move any offense.
Actually, Brennan would be an ideal fit in an offense like Sean Payton's.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 27, 2008 7:27:18 GMT -6
hemlock...i would disagree...I think that NE and Indy both ask their QB's to "make plays". Not with their feet...but with their eyes, heads, hearts and arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Apr 27, 2008 11:56:20 GMT -6
Too many variables...
Many "system" QBs fail in the NFL, IMO, because they typically go to the worst teams in the league. QBs who have great college careers, in terms of statistics, wins, post-season awards, etc, etc...are usually surrounded by other great players. Then, these kids get drafted by teams with gaping holes...bad OLs, no running game, inconsistency on the coaching staffs and poorly run front offices and it is no wonder why many of these "system" QBs fail.
Would guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have been anywhere near as successful as they have been if they played the bulk of their careers in Arizona? Oakland? Miami the past few years? Chicago?
I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Apr 27, 2008 19:30:53 GMT -6
QB's of heavy passing offenses are branded as system quarterbacks to me is a very offense/position bias in my opinion. Why is it that QB's are only labeled as "system". Take the UCF runningback who is coming back for his senior year. He gets over 30 carries a game and almost rushed for 2000 yards last season yet no one ever labels a RB a system RB. Of curse the more rush attempe you have the more yards to should gain. Just like a Qb that attempts 40 passes a game, theyre expected to throw for big numbers. And what about a RB that has a great O-Line. Are these RB's over-looked because of that? Not really.
Guys like Mel Kiper, Jaws, etc bash Colt Brennan for not playing tough opponents yet I never heard any of them say that about Flacco who played in 1AA.
The whole point of a system is to put up big numbers, yet players are faulted for it when they do in the R&S.
|
|
|
|
Post by midsfan on Apr 27, 2008 21:46:27 GMT -6
Here is my final thought. You can't make the "level of competition". When I was in college I got bored and for a class I decided to take every NFL roster during the 2005 season. By % there are more "small school" players in the NFL by 60-40%. I'll also add on to the system rb thing previously brought up. You can't call a system qb when, regardless how many times he passes, he has a completion % of over 70%. There have been system rb's every year. I think you could consider pretty much every rb of the late 80's and early 90's a system rb. That was when the 2 back power I attacks were alive. (Hershel Walker, Bo Jackson, Emmitt Smith, Eddie George) This list goes on.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 27, 2008 22:04:02 GMT -6
You can't call a system qb when, regardless how many times he passes, he has a completion % of over 70%. But that is Precisely why the label has come about. When one qb throws an extra 15 times a game because those 15 are screens, and quicks and shallows because that is his teams "run game", and he completes 12 out of those 15...that will pull those %'s up compared to a qb who is asked to make many more vertical throws. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 27, 2008 23:11:23 GMT -6
The "system QB" label arises just because it's really, really hard to evaluate talent to go from college to the Pros, and raw numbers alone obviously is not enough. Unlike say, baseball or even basketball, where a guy with a great batting average or on base percentage, or who hits a lot of homers or has a high PPG average can be compared with other guys, QBs for different teams are simply asked to do different things.
Matt Flynn won a Nat'l title but his job description is different than Graham Harrell's, Graham Harrell's was different than Dennis Dixon's or Pat White's, and Brian Brohm and Andre Woodson had their own things to deal with. And I don't just mean the number of times they chuck it. I also mean checks, the types of throws (spread, quick throws, play action throws like Brohm threw a lot of with Petrino, R&S vs. Airraid, etc).
In football, numbers often lie. Texas Tech runs more plays than most teams. Their games go on forever, and they get lots and lots of pass attempts. Nothing wrong with this, it's part of their strategy. But one has to keep it in mind.
But, of course, the term is often used derisively. But there is a point. I'm a passing guy, but if you asked me who I would draft, Brian Brohm or Cody Hodges or BJ Symons out of Tech, I'd have to say that Brohm was the better QB even though he threw for 2000 yards less a season than those guys. And I'd have to say that yes, those guys played well but they played in a great system. There's nothing *wrong* with it, but it is frustrating because you have to ask what you do with numbers in football.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with being a "system QB," but, at least insofar as it means that player X is able to achieve above average performance with average or inferior talent (and usually quite a bit of determination and discipline), then yes, "system QBs" do exist. And you should want to have nothing but system QBs, because then that means you're doing your job correctly.
|
|
