|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 25, 2009 10:19:35 GMT -6
System players... Every year we see some players compile some astounishing numbers, whether its passing, receiving, or running. Many times, depending on where the kids are playing ball, their efforts may get quantified as "system numbers." From HS to College, whether its the DW of Clovis East or the Air Raid of Texas Tech... kids in these programs at certain positions, when good, can rack up some astonishing numbers. The question then becomes, how good are the kids, and does this talent translate to other systems and programs. Air Raid QBs, with outstanding accuracy, completion percentages, tds, and yardage... have not been able to duplicate such success in the NFL... RB's, from DW, Wing T, and don't seem to have similar success at teh collegiate level. From my untrained eye... the Pro I, successful skill positions, seem to be the only players that continually translate previous success, to success at the next leve. Question... system players... is this a reality? Recently witnessed the supremely talented, statistical phenom, Texas Tech, Air Raid All Star, Graham Harrel stink up the joint at the Senior bowl, while slick footed, multi-talented, aerially challenged Pat White... looked very serviceable from under center. Again... just one game... But is there room from which to draw conclusions? I say yes!  |
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jan 25, 2009 10:30:43 GMT -6
On first glance I would say this: In high school if you have that D1 for future pro kid who plays runningback I would put him at TB and run him over and over. I think a lot of coaches do that. As opposed to running him at HB in a wing-t or slot in a flexbone option system where he is not usually the feature kid.
Harder to comment on the QBs because every year in the draft you see Ryan Leaf flame out and a guy like Kurt Warner explode on the scene.
So much of the transition is mental too. The supremely gifted high school kid might not be able to handle the next level.
I don't know just m Sunday morning thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by outlawjoseywales on Jan 25, 2009 18:23:11 GMT -6
Khalfie, nice Topic idea here. Where are the McKinsey Brothers when you need 'em? Hope you get a lot of comment here. System players good for what? Do you mean to play in college or something? We see alot of this in Florida because everybody and their brother runs the Shotgun Spread and throws it 200 times a game. An example of what you are talking about is a kid here that threw the ball for over 3,000 yards I think. I got some film on them becuase they are a small school and I wanted to see the "air show." Sure enough 5-wide threw it every time, good looking kid. But he's about 5'6" tall. And they only won 2 or 3 games against teams they had WAY more talent than. I heard that had dozens of college scouts coming by to see the kid, and they all say, "he's too short." Well maybe he is and maybe he's not. I just know that they lost 8 games because they don't play defense. But since this post is just for fun, I've just been rambling without a real point.  OJW |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 25, 2009 19:29:16 GMT -6
System players... Every year we see some players compile some astounishing numbers, whether its passing, receiving, or running. Many times, depending on where the kids are playing ball, their efforts may get quantified as "system numbers." From HS to College, whether its the DW of Clovis East or the Air Raid of Texas Tech... kids in these programs at certain positions, when good, can rack up some astonishing numbers. Well, the first point here is that numbers don't necessarily = ability or success at other levels. I had the "great fortune" (sarcasm) of playing against Peyton Manning in high school, and then the GREAT FORTUNE (no sarcasm on this one) of being on staff at the school when Eli was playing. Neither one put up the same ungodly numbers that the QB's up in North LA were (ie, Evangel Christian's run of Josh Booty, Phil Deas, Brock Berlin, Brent Rawls and John David Booty. No H.S. passing records for the Manning boys, who simply quarterbacked a conventional pro style offense, and were out of games once the game was decided. Their talent and ability drastically outshone their numbers. Keep in mind, these players became the starters because they had the skill set which outperformed the other players for that particular challenge, whatever it may be. When the challenge changes it isn't automatic that the stud's skill set will match the new challenge. Being able to do one thing well doesn't mean that you can do something else well. I am not sure I would agree with this at all. Reggie Bush was a wing T back, as was Rondell Mealey (LSU)...and I know several local backs who also were successful (but not necessarily a nationally known kid). I would agree with groundchucks point that often in H.S, if you have that caliber back, you put him deep in the middle of the field so that he can be most dangerous. This means either an I formation TB or the single back in a one back set. With regards to system players, I can agree with labeling QB's as system players if you are determining success by stats, and if a substantial portion of his stats come from the work of others (ie, run after catch) Nobody ever talks about "system" offensive lineman, because those guys aren't evaluated by statistics. |
|
|
|
Post by poorbob on Jan 25, 2009 19:42:32 GMT -6
I have watched every game Harrell has ever played in in college and have been to practices. HE IS NOT THAT BAD. Ask anyone at the Senior Bowl practices and they will say he was the best QB there. For some reason, whatever it may be, he turned it the worst QB performance I have ever witnessed.
BTW, Colt Brennan was pushing for PT at wherever he was this year. Graham was really, really bad in that game, but he isn't that bad of a QB. He was a 4 star QB coming out of HS and was going to sign with Georgia before he signed with Texas Tech. I predict he will be a great pro, but I know that performance gave everyone legitimate reasons to knock every Air Raid Qb. Let me just say that it's funny how you forget every game they played in before that. I mean, as horrible as he looked, being in a system does not automatically improve your arm strength. Graham wasn't able to complete 10 yard passes in that game. I assure he is WAY better than that.
And with regards to system players, every player is a system player. Tim Tebow is the biggest system player I have ever seen, but he is a great football player none-the-less. The player still has to execute their assignments.
|
|
|
|
Post by poorbob on Jan 25, 2009 21:07:23 GMT -6
BTW, Graham Harrel was the first recruited QB to start for Tech since Leach got there, the others were walk ons. That is why they haven't done anything in the pros.
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jan 25, 2009 21:13:13 GMT -6
Leach has been there 8 seasons and Harrel is the first QB he recruited that has gotten to start? How in the world does that happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by poorbob on Jan 25, 2009 23:39:33 GMT -6
All QB's not recruited by Leach:
Kliff Kingsbury
B.J. Symons
Sonny Cumbie
Cody Hodges
Leach recruited one QB before Harrell, Phillip Daugherty, who left the team. I guess he was satisfied with the walk ons he had up until then. I'm just telling it how it is. The next QB, Taylor Potts will, imo, be the best yet. He has a WAY stronger arm than Harrell and is more prototypical (6'5" 225). BTW, Chris Todd, the Auburn QB left Tech to go to Auburn.
|
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Jan 26, 2009 6:54:31 GMT -6
It is a reality. I had two fullbacks that shared time. One averaged 10 yards per carry, the other 7 yards per carry. ITs a very big part of playing in our system. Nobody knows where the ball is half of the time so fullbacks often get alot of big runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 26, 2009 8:07:13 GMT -6
Nobody ever talks about "system" offensive lineman, because those guys aren't evaluated by statistics. Before the spread became all encompassing... Didn't the linemen of "pass happy" schools get stigmatized as being unable to drive block? Nonetheless... excellent points. |
|
|
|
Post by justryn2 on Jan 26, 2009 8:08:52 GMT -6
When you talk about "astonishing numbers" are you referring to totals or averages? I think that makes a big difference. High numbers in terms of totals could very well say as much about a system as it does about an individual's skill. Looking at averages, i.e. average yards per carry for a running back, completion percentage for a QB, average yards per pass for a receiver; is probably more indicative of individual skill.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 26, 2009 8:14:09 GMT -6
All QB's not recruited by Leach: Kliff Kingsbury B.J. Symons Sonny Cumbie Cody Hodges Leach recruited one QB before Harrell, Phillip Daugherty, who left the team. I guess he was satisfied with the walk ons he had up until then. I'm just telling it how it is. The next QB, Taylor Potts will, imo, be the best yet. He has a WAY stronger arm than Harrell and is more prototypical (6'5" 225). BTW, Chris Todd, the Auburn QB left Tech to go to Auburn. So if I understand you correctly... QB's were walking on to TT that were so good, that Leach didn't have to go looking for a QB? Kids go down everyday... just because you look good in practice does not mean it will translate to games.... You are telling me, there were no back up plans... no kids that didn't pan out... Just the one QB, and that was it? Hard to believe my man... very, hard to believe. |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 26, 2009 8:47:39 GMT -6
It is a reality. I had two fullbacks that shared time. One averaged 10 yards per carry, the other 7 yards per carry. ITs a very big part of playing in our system. Nobody knows where the ball is half of the time so fullbacks often get alot of big runs. TD... As a coach of a system... how did opponents skill level play into your statistics? I think the beauty of systems is that they don't just allow you to beat the teams you are supposed to beat, but you decimate them... and then are competitive against teams that normally would have your number... But of course are still dominated by the moster dog teams. My question is... against the bad teams... is that where your backs would get the 170 yds on 5 carries? Spread QB's throwing for 6 tds... on 10 attempts for 310 yards... and all were screens? Perverting statistics... in which kids now look like beasts, but really are descent players, having phenomenal games against the also rans... descent games against descent teams, and poor games against the great teams? |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 26, 2009 9:09:31 GMT -6
When you talk about "astonishing numbers" are you referring to totals or averages? I think that makes a big difference. High numbers in terms of totals could very well say as much about a system as it does about an individual's skill. Looking at averages, i.e. average yards per carry for a running back, completion percentage for a QB, average yards per pass for a receiver; is probably more indicative of individual skill. I'll allow you to define the parameters... The way I see it, big numbers are big numbers... |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 26, 2009 9:12:36 GMT -6
how good are the kids, and does this talent translate to other systems and programs. Air Raid QBs, with outstanding accuracy, completion percentages, tds, and yardage... have not been able to duplicate such success in the NFL... what quantifies a phenomenal player? Numbers? explosive plays? technique? Skill sets? I believe part of the issue is the faulty metrics used where these phrases are commonly used. Suffice it to say, the Mel Kipers, Tom Lemmings, and Todd McShay's who proliferate the usage of these terms, I am not quite sold on what they are looking for when they judge players, no more than trusting Paula Abdul to judge great singing. Britney Spears surpases Elvis in record sales, does that metric mean that Britney Spears is a better singer? Or merely a better commodity? Quantifying what it is we are actually referring to would help this (and future) discussions. This comes into play about 'systems' = numbers. You can put up 60 TDs, but if the fundamentals are slop, the consistent output cannot be guaranteed. WHAT makes a player consistently successful? If we don't understand WHAT it is they are attempting to accomplish in the context they are performing in, let alone HOW they go about that process.....there really is no way to judge that 'translation' of talent. For instance, Harrell.....the things that set him apart and make him successful (concise progressions, consistent throwing base=feet) would translate to any throwing offense. Look at Ian Johnson, IMO isn't much different than a Jacob Hester from LSU. He may not be the biggest, fastest, or tallest, but the things that make them successful on a given down remain consistent.....(great fundamental base = leverage & balance, tremendous focus = minimal mental errors/consistent performance, powerful application of explosion, etc) and could flourish in any system. RB's, from DW, Wing T, and don't seem to have similar success at teh collegiate level. Does this go back to skill sets? As a lineman, if I never work on pass sets and orientating my base for kick slides or punches, I need to develop that skill. If I am learning a new language, chances are I will have a greater chance of success if I have a firm grasp of sentence structure, possessive contexts, and masculine/femine applications, rather than just learning 'words'. It is developing the skill set to place the technique within. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 26, 2009 11:08:40 GMT -6
The numbers follow the offensive plan, and players tend to be instruments of the plan. FOr example, if my DW QB throws 10 TD's in a season, and your run and shoot QB throws 33, who's better? Here's the point: successful offenses move the football. One dimensional or balanced (however, generic those terms are) equates the statistics produced. I honestly believe Brady got benched for Henson at Michigan because he was not as great a bootleg/PA thrower. However, paired up with a coach who, love him or hate, is THE BEST at maximizing his player's abilities, you get to go home with her:  And by the way, I had to look long and hard.....and I mean I took my time......to find one of her wearing that much cloth. Anyway, the question is focused on the next level, namely, the NFL. The NFL is pure prostyle offense......the option, advance misdirection, no-TE, etc. offense are just not featured. So, what fits what the offense needs to be successful? Tall, accurate throwers with strong arms. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 26, 2009 11:11:42 GMT -6
I'd also have to add the advent of the hurry up no huddle skews stats even more.
|
|
|
|
Post by poorbob on Jan 26, 2009 15:41:37 GMT -6
All QB's not recruited by Leach: Kliff Kingsbury B.J. Symons Sonny Cumbie Cody Hodges Leach recruited one QB before Harrell, Phillip Daugherty, who left the team. I guess he was satisfied with the walk ons he had up until then. I'm just telling it how it is. The next QB, Taylor Potts will, imo, be the best yet. He has a WAY stronger arm than Harrell and is more prototypical (6'5" 225). BTW, Chris Todd, the Auburn QB left Tech to go to Auburn. So if I understand you correctly... QB's were walking on to TT that were so good, that Leach didn't have to go looking for a QB? Kids go down everyday... just because you look good in practice does not mean it will translate to games.... You are telling me, there were no back up plans... no kids that didn't pan out... Just the one QB, and that was it? Hard to believe my man... very, hard to believe. Those were the QB's. You can look it up. And yes, there were always backups. All of those guys except Kliff Kingsbury were 5th year seniors. I'm sure a ton of kids didn't pan out but they never were the starting QB and weren't recruited. I think that the walkons were better than any recruit Leach could pull to Lubbock at that time, yes. The grasp of the offense and the accuracy are the things that Leach looks for in a QB. If you're there 5 years, you're going to know the offense. You've got to realize that Kliff Kingsbury was a three year starter, then there were three 5th year seniors that started. So it's not like He had all the time in the world to recruit those years. He recruited a QB in 2003, after KK was done if I recall, and he never panned out. Since, Leach has recruited a QB every year starting with Graham Harrell. The whole point was that Graham Harrell was the first Texas Tech "system" QB that was recruited by Leach. So, to say that Harrell wont be good because of those that came before him is a joke of an argument because he was a four star, elite 11 QB coming out of HS. He has talent. The others were walk ons or weren't recruited by Leach (KK). |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 26, 2009 16:24:59 GMT -6
So if I understand you correctly... QB's were walking on to TT that were so good, that Leach didn't have to go looking for a QB? Kids go down everyday... just because you look good in practice does not mean it will translate to games.... You are telling me, there were no back up plans... no kids that didn't pan out... Just the one QB, and that was it? Hard to believe my man... very, hard to believe. Those were the QB's. You can look it up. And yes, there were always backups. All of those guys except Kliff Kingsbury were 5th year seniors. I'm sure a ton of kids didn't pan out but they never were the starting QB and weren't recruited. I think that the walkons were better than any recruit Leach could pull to Lubbock at that time, yes. The grasp of the offense and the accuracy are the things that Leach looks for in a QB. If you're there 5 years, you're going to know the offense. You've got to realize that Kliff Kingsbury was a three year starter, then there were three 5th year seniors that started. So it's not like He had all the time in the world to recruit those years. He recruited a QB in 2003, after KK was done if I recall and he never panned out. Since, Leach has recruited a QB every year starting with Graham Harrell. The whole point was that Graham Harrell was the first Texas Tech "system" QB that was recruited by Leach. So, to say that Harrell wont be good because of those that came before him is a joke of an argument because he was a four star, elite 11 QB coming out of HS. He has talent. The others were walk ons or weren't recruited by Leach (KK). Ok... you are losing me... I first understood your statement to have been... "Graham Harrel was the only QB Leach has recruited." I now understand your statement to be... "Graham Harrel is the only QB to be recruited by Leach to actually start." More so, I am now comprehending that the walk-ons beat out the kids Leach recruited every year, and that Harrel was the only recruit to actually meet his potential? The walk-ons beat out the QB's Leach recruited, because they weren't 4 star qb elites? However, he was recruiting QB's, just not the 4 stars. He had to recruit QB's... in a QB intensive offense... they just weren't as good as his walk-ons... But are we now saying, those walk ons weren't any good? Even with all of their stats? |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 26, 2009 16:34:20 GMT -6
The numbers follow the offensive plan, and players tend to be instruments of the plan. Yeah... but isn't the plan created based upon the talent? If you don't have the QB that can throw for 50 tds... don't you try to develop the qb that can at least hand it off 50 times? What comes first... the plan or the players? Has to be the players... right? |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 26, 2009 16:46:41 GMT -6
Quantifying what it is we are actually referring to would help this (and future) discussions. This comes into play about 'systems' = numbers. You can put up 60 TDs, but if the fundamentals are slop, the consistent output cannot be guaranteed. If I could do that... I'd be getting paid for my poor coaching skills! ;D WHAT makes a player consistently successful? If we don't understand WHAT it is they are attempting to accomplish in the context they are performing in, let alone HOW they go about that process.....there really is no way to judge that 'translation' of talent. You've said a lot bro... but if this comes down to identifying talent, who can do that consistently? And at the HS level... you get what you get. Collegiately, it truly has become a hit and miss... In the NFL, everyone is physically gifted, but still, not everyone achieves success. For instance, Harrell.....the things that set him apart and make him successful (concise progressions, consistent throwing base=feet) would translate to any throwing offense. It didn't in the North South... sure that's just one game... but how many QB's with the aura of being accurate, intelligent, and even a leader, have suffered in their progress to the next level. Look at Ian Johnson, IMO isn't much different than a Jacob Hester from LSU. He may not be the biggest, fastest, or tallest, but the things that make them successful on a given down remain consistent.....(great fundamental base = leverage & balance, tremendous focus = minimal mental errors/consistent performance, powerful application of explosion, etc) and could flourish in any system. And see... I would have said, competing against inferior competition week end and week out, is the major reason for his success. If I am learning a new language, chances are I will have a greater chance of success if I have a firm grasp of sentence structure, possessive contexts, and masculine/femine applications, rather than just learning 'words'. It is developing the skill set to place the technique within. Really? Wouldn't that just confuse you more? Wouldn't the person that knew little, learn easier? English and Spanish are in no ways similar in sentence structure... let's not even get into Japanese. I think the more one knows of english, a language without many sensical rules, the more confusing other languages would seem? I'm not saying... I'm just saying... |
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Jan 26, 2009 16:58:21 GMT -6
Those were the QB's. You can look it up. And yes, there were always backups. All of those guys except Kliff Kingsbury were 5th year seniors. I'm sure a ton of kids didn't pan out but they never were the starting QB and weren't recruited. I think that the walkons were better than any recruit Leach could pull to Lubbock at that time, yes. The grasp of the offense and the accuracy are the things that Leach looks for in a QB. If you're there 5 years, you're going to know the offense. You've got to realize that Kliff Kingsbury was a three year starter, then there were three 5th year seniors that started. So it's not like He had all the time in the world to recruit those years. He recruited a QB in 2003, after KK was done if I recall and he never panned out. Since, Leach has recruited a QB every year starting with Graham Harrell. The whole point was that Graham Harrell was the first Texas Tech "system" QB that was recruited by Leach. So, to say that Harrell wont be good because of those that came before him is a joke of an argument because he was a four star, elite 11 QB coming out of HS. He has talent. The others were walk ons or weren't recruited by Leach (KK). Ok... you are losing me... I first understood your statement to have been... "Graham Harrel was the only QB Leach has recruited." I now understand your statement to be... "Graham Harrel is the only QB to be recruited by Leach to actually start." More so, I am now comprehending that the walk-ons beat out the kids Leach recruited every year, and that Harrel was the only recruit to actually meet his potential? The walk-ons beat out the QB's Leach recruited, because they weren't 4 star qb elites? However, he was recruiting QB's, just not the 4 stars. He had to recruit QB's... in a QB intensive offense... they just weren't as good as his walk-ons... But are we now saying, those walk ons weren't any good? Even with all of their stats? With all due respect, just because they were walk ons does not mean they were less talented than Graham Harrell. We or better yet I don't know why they were recruited. A DW QB could be just as good if not better than some of the Air raid or shotgun offensive QBs that get recruited. However because he is in the DW handing the ball off most of the time. And throwing maybe 1 to 5 times a game, hes' not going to get recruited to TT or many other colleges because he didn't have the opportunity to display that particular skill set as often. So he's not going to have the numbers to attract college coaches. My point is, just because he was recruited does not mean he automatically will be great, good or even average in the pros. Plenty of top rank HS and college QBs watch the NFL on TV jjust like you and I. Not saying he will fail either. Just that we won't know until he gets the on an NFL playing field. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 26, 2009 17:09:53 GMT -6
You've said a lot bro... but if this comes down to identifying talent, who can do that consistently? And at the HS level... you get what you get. Collegiately, it truly has become a hit and miss... In the NFL, everyone is physically gifted, but still, not everyone achieves success. You are missing the point.....It comes down to identifying skill sets that set the foundation of the success achieved. Running a 4.3 isn't a skill set, consistent footplacement and body position in a 5-step drop is. It didn't in the North South... sure that's just one game... but how many QB's with the aura of being accurate, intelligent, and even a leader, have suffered in their progress to the next level. and again, it isn't about results on a given day.... I could handle a poor performance because the other team beat you, but I wouldn't be able to handle being beat because the player ran away from their fundamentals and just winged it....producing erratic behavior/execution ( see Rex Grossman) And see... I would have said, competing against inferior competition week end and week out, is the major reason for his success. That is a throwaway, sportsfan argument. If you don't quantify WHAT makes an athlete great, we'll settle for any perceived 'domination' (see Mike Williams from USC) over the competition as a sign of things to come (which is a false hope that THAT which makes one successful will be unnecessary because of physically superior traits). If I am learning a new language, chances are I will have a greater chance of success if I have a firm grasp of sentence structure, possessive contexts, and masculine/femine applications, rather than just learning 'words'. It is developing the skill set to place the technique within. Really? Wouldn't that just confuse you more? Wouldn't the person that knew little, learn easier? English and Spanish are in no ways similar in sentence structure... let's not even get into Japanese. I think the more one knows of english, a language without many sensical rules, the more confusing other languages would seem? I'm not saying... I'm just saying... If you're talking about understanding English, you may have a point, but if you understand Spanish/French/German/Russian sentence structure and have a basic understanding of the human language, then learning/grasping other languages isn't that difficult. I think you may be missing the point, however. This is about understanding the root fundamentals. If I know chord progression and rhythm (music theory), I can pickup any instrument I choose and have a competent grasp of how things work. If I just pick and pluck on a guitar (without understanding), I will have no frame of reference on a keyboard. Skill Sets not athleticism. Hence, OUR ROLES AS COACHES / TRAINERS OF ATHLETES. We teach skill sets/technique, not just grip-n-rip. At the HS level, the primary quantifier of 'next level' ability is LARGELY a result of physical makeup. If a kid is 6'5", 275lbs....he has the physical makeup to play in college. If a kid is 5'4", 165lbs, chances are, no matter how technically sound he may be, he will be dominated physically in the college game. When projecting talent from college to pros, the physical dynamic is largely already been overcome. |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 26, 2009 17:18:10 GMT -6
The numbers follow the offensive plan, and players tend to be instruments of the plan. Yeah... but isn't the plan created based upon the talent? If you don't have the QB that can throw for 50 tds... don't you try to develop the qb that can at least hand it off 50 times? What comes first... the plan or the players? Has to be the players... right? no. |
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jan 26, 2009 17:21:20 GMT -6
The numbers follow the offensive plan, and players tend to be instruments of the plan. Yeah... but isn't the plan created based upon the talent? If you don't have the QB that can throw for 50 tds... don't you try to develop the qb that can at least hand it off 50 times? What comes first... the plan or the players? Has to be the players... right? I think you change how you do what you do not change what you do. If my kid can not chuck the ball 50yds then I am not going to ask him to do it. We can teach a kid where to throw and to throw on time. When you have that kid that is special then he will put up 50 tds. You also will more than likely will give him a few more chance then other kids. When you look at the numbers of the Trinity QBs you see their numbers on in the same area. From Brian Brohm to well I can not name the others past Petrino's kid. They adapt what they ask their kids to do but they keep doing what they do. |
|
|
|
Post by poorbob on Jan 26, 2009 19:05:53 GMT -6
Those were the QB's. You can look it up. And yes, there were always backups. All of those guys except Kliff Kingsbury were 5th year seniors. I'm sure a ton of kids didn't pan out but they never were the starting QB and weren't recruited. I think that the walkons were better than any recruit Leach could pull to Lubbock at that time, yes. The grasp of the offense and the accuracy are the things that Leach looks for in a QB. If you're there 5 years, you're going to know the offense. You've got to realize that Kliff Kingsbury was a three year starter, then there were three 5th year seniors that started. So it's not like He had all the time in the world to recruit those years. He recruited a QB in 2003, after KK was done if I recall and he never panned out. Since, Leach has recruited a QB every year starting with Graham Harrell. The whole point was that Graham Harrell was the first Texas Tech "system" QB that was recruited by Leach. So, to say that Harrell wont be good because of those that came before him is a joke of an argument because he was a four star, elite 11 QB coming out of HS. He has talent. The others were walk ons or weren't recruited by Leach (KK). Ok... you are losing me... I first understood your statement to have been... "Graham Harrel was the only QB Leach has recruited." I now understand your statement to be... "Graham Harrel is the only QB to be recruited by Leach to actually start." More so, I am now comprehending that the walk-ons beat out the kids Leach recruited every year, and that Harrel was the only recruit to actually meet his potential? The walk-ons beat out the QB's Leach recruited, because they weren't 4 star qb elites? However, he was recruiting QB's, just not the 4 stars. He had to recruit QB's... in a QB intensive offense... they just weren't as good as his walk-ons... But are we now saying, those walk ons weren't any good? Even with all of their stats? The first QB recruited by Leach was Philip Daugherty in 2003. He left the team before he started. The next QB was Harrell in '04. Leach recruited a QB every year since 2003. I am saying that the walk ons were slightly good in the system, but not good out of it. They could not throw the ball thirty yards. B.J. Symons was the best TT QB before Harrell in Leach's system, imo. He had a ton of arm strength, but didn't have the mental part down. I'm saying that to say GH is comparable to all those before him in the Leach era is an insult. He is WAY better and was the only QB to start for Leach recruited by Leach. Potts, imo, will be even better than Harrell if he gets the mental part down. The point is that the previous QB's were not that great. Harrell, and all those after him, are the real deal. They were highly recruited and aren't just system players. Little known fact is that OU consistently offers the QB's that Tech offers. Sam Bradford being one of them. So, if you say Graham Harrell is a system QB, you must say that about Sam Bradford. The only perceived difference between the two is that OU runs more and therefore is a more legitimate system. It's more like they have better RB's and OL and that is why they are better. That is changing as Texas Tech is running a lot more because of their better OL and RB's. So, in summary, all these players are great and you can't say one is a system just because they pass more. They just passed for more yardage. They still have to make the throw. |
|
rock85
Sophomore Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by rock85 on Jan 26, 2009 19:31:08 GMT -6
At our place, we ran the I for years -- all pretty simple stuff: toss, power, iso, counter, etc. We had a pretty good run of success, but in looking back at it, the ONE thing we had: a FULLBACK who could kick out an end, blow an LB out of the hole, fill for the pulling G or T, or lead on toss. Did this make us a "system" team? I'd say so -- when opponents scouted us, I guess there was never much of a secret -- follow the FB to the ball probably 90% of the time. We were also blessed with a pretty good stable of TBs, too....
The past few years, we have not had a fullback of the caliber we had for years...and just had a difficult time trying to mold one. So now, we are becoming more of a spread team....and have liked what we've done so far... we probably won't abandon the I all together, but it was only a very small piece of our offense this past season...
So, if I'm adding my 2 cents -- if you have the right players to fit your system year in and year out, I guess you can credit your system??
|
|
|
|
Post by dg1694 on Jan 27, 2009 15:09:25 GMT -6
BTW, Graham Harrel was the first recruited QB to start for Tech since Leach got there, the others were walk ons. That is why they haven't done anything in the pros. Kliff Kingsbury was NOT a walk on...he was one of the top HS QBs in Texas |
|
|
|
Post by dg1694 on Jan 27, 2009 15:23:43 GMT -6
Very interesting topic. I think the individual player is the one who determines his success at the next level. If the pro I was such a great indicator of success, what about blair thomas and kijana carter as "busts" in the NFL? Likewise, Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Boller, etc. played primarily from under center (and this is no shot on Jeff Tedford, although only Aaron Rodgers seems on his way to a great NFL career -- I have my opinions on that, but we'll save that for another post).
"Making it" at the next level, to me, is not reliant on systems; strong fundamental teaching, the proper skill set, and mental and physical toughness are more often determining factors.
On a side note, I find it sort of funny that people still refer to the "Pro" offense as a ball control, running system; I consider myself a "pro style" guy, which to me means similar to what you actually see on Sunday: lots of personnel groups, shifting, motion, and sophisticated passing. "pro I" seems antiquated; how often do you actually see an NFL team come out and line up in the I? A few times a game, but definitely not a majority of its snaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on Jan 27, 2009 15:40:05 GMT -6
While I agree with most of what you are saying I do not think it is fair to Carter in that group due to injury. He spent almost his entire career injuried. Not sure if it would have made a difference but you do have to think about it.
|
|
