Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

What is a system QB?

7

76Texan

Hall of Fame
I've heard this term thrown around a lot, and I still don't understand the point of it.

I mean, every football team has a system.
How does one determine which system is more QB friendly?

There are cases to be made for the WCO, the spread, the pro-oriented.
All of these systems are being employed in the NFL.

Some of the mix bags are now being incorporated into the pro game to accomodate guys like Newton, Tebow.

Gabbert, for example, ran a pure spread in college and was drafted high.

Dalton also ran a spread, but mixed in with other stuffs, from the pistol, to the diamond out of the shotgun.
The guy wasn't under center all that much.

He's actually under center fewer times than RGIII at Baylor (and what Briles ran with Keenum in 07 at UH).

What says you?
 
They are just being lazy. They don't take the time to watch film or watch the games they think just because the QB is throwing for a lot of yards they are doing it by dumping the ball off on a bunch of screens and short passes. The UH system for example while it does have the short game it also has the long and intermediate routes in it as well.
 
I think it is a legitimate label, but I also think it gets thrown around way too much. I guess I would say that a system QB is a guy who cannot suceed in any system other than the one he is in. Tebow would be a good example of that.

I don't have a problem with a "system QB". The team that drafts that player just needs to realize that they need to draw their system around him instead of trying to fit him into their system.

That's why there is such a priority on guys who don't fit this description. Guys like Luck and Barkley can work within any offensive system and be successfu (my assumption based on scouting them)l. It's easier that way, but I also think it's just lazy coaching. A coaching staff would rather fit players into the system they already have in place than have to draw up a new scheme to fit their personnel.
 
Think:

Tim Tebow
David Klingler
Andre Ware

Offensive schemes that work well at the college level, allowing QB's to rack up some gaudy stats, but do not necessarily translate to the pros.
 
I also think this label fits players at all positions, not just QB. Wes Welker would be an example. He would not be a very effective WR in a pro style i formation offense. That just isn't his skillset.

But instead of forcing him into that the Patriots have created a system that plays to his strengths and maximizes the skills that he does have.
 
Texan_Bill said:
Think:

Tim Tebow
David Klingler
Andre Ware

Offensive schemes that work well at the college level, allowing QB's to rack up some gaudy stats, but do not necessarily translate to the pros.
Click to expand...

On the two bolded, that system translates to the pros very well. The Oilers ran it for years, and while their shortcomings are well documented, they didn't lack for offensive firepower. Most recently, the Pats run it all the time now. Brady had his record setting year running essentially the R&S.

"System QB" is a BS label designed to fill people's needs to pigeonhole things. What matters is whether the QB is having to read defenses and make decisions, and how he handles it. To be honest, I think offensive systems have less to do with how good or bad a QB is going to be (unless it's a dumbed down system like the one VY ran, where decision making is at a minimum) than does the defense he's facing. If a QB is facing a pro-style defense frequently, then he's going to have more recognition going forward into the pros. Pre-snap recognition, decision making, and a quick release are probably the three most important traits in a QB, IMO. When you see a college QB having to choose between multiple receivers out in the route and he spreads the ball around, that means the system is presenting him with enough decision points to be applicable to the process in the pros. At that point, start looking at the defenses he's facing.
 
A system QB is a QB who's game doesn't translate well to all systems.

If the QB's success is largely a product of the system and not really a product of their QB'ing prowess then I'd call them a system QB.
 
76Texan said:
I've heard this term thrown around a lot, and I still don't understand the point of it.

I mean, every football team has a system.
How does one determine which system is more QB friendly?

There are cases to be made for the WCO, the spread, the pro-oriented.
All of these systems are being employed in the NFL.

Some of the mix bags are now being incorporated into the pro game to accomodate guys like Newton, Tebow.

Gabbert, for example, ran a pure spread in college and was drafted high.

Dalton also ran a spread, but mixed in with other stuffs, from the pistol, to the diamond out of the shotgun.
The guy wasn't under center all that much.

He's actually under center fewer times than RGIII at Baylor (and what Briles ran with Keenum in 07 at UH).

What says you?
Click to expand...
Excellent thread as it allows me to address a QB I have on my current mock. Case Keenum. I also enjoyed the posts as thoughtful & offering good info as to fans thoughts. WHen I brought up this topic 2-3 years ago (as I recall), no one was interested in discussing but just blasted that type of player.

My understanding of the term and the way I use it usually is for a QB with a "weaker arm" that is pretty accurate within 15 yds or so. He may have thousands of yards passing but low yards per catch avg. Often this type QB does not have an effective RB and throws constantly or runs a lot. IMO this QB (system) does not throw long often & rather than throw ball away, dinks it for negative yards or minimal gain and allows his WRs/TEs to get crunched.

Texas Tech for years has been known as this type offense but the QB has gone on to little or no fame in NFL.

Keenum's stats for this season is over 10 yds per catch with some long ones mixed in. More importantly id TD/INTs ratio: 38 to 3.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/191981/case-keenum
 
IMO, QBs are just like any other position. You've got your play-makers & you've got your system guys. Put a play-maker in a system he "gets" (mentally) & you've got a HOFer.... Steve Young, Warren Moon, John Elway.... etc

Put a sytem QB in there & you'll have some success.... Jake Plummer, Chad Pennington, Dante Cullpepper.

Arian Foster.... play-maker in a system that fits.

Ben Tate..... player who fits the system (so far; he may turn into a play-maker).
 
b0ng said:
When I think system QB, I think of Graham Harrell and Colt Brennan.
Click to expand...

Those are the type of QB's I think of when 'system QB' is mentioned. The two QB's that jump out to me in the college game right now is Case Keenum & Brandon Weeden. From what I've seen both are pretty much in a spread style offense that is rarely seen in the NFL & are always in the shot-gun.
 
Rey said:
A system QB is a QB who's game doesn't translate well to all systems.

If the QB's success is largely a product of the system and not really a product of their QB'ing prowess then I'd call them a system QB.
Click to expand...

Then Joe Montana was a system QB. I'm OK with that, but I suspect a lot of people wouldn't be.
 
JCTexan said:
Those are the type of QB's I think of when 'system QB' is mentioned. The two QB's that jump out to me in the college game right now is Case Keenum & Brandon Weeden. From what I've seen both are pretty much in a spread style offense that is rarely seen in the NFL & are always in the shot-gun.
Click to expand...

We're going to more & more spread offenses. Greenbay looks like the spread to me, but I won't say so much as some people would get their pee-pees hurt.
 
eriadoc said:
On the two bolded, that system translates to the pros very well. The Oilers ran it for years, and while their shortcomings are well documented, they didn't lack for offensive firepower. Most recently, the Pats run it all the time now. Brady had his record setting year running essentially the R&S.

"System QB" is a BS label designed to fill people's needs to pigeonhole things. What matters is whether the QB is having to read defenses and make decisions, and how he handles it. To be honest, I think offensive systems have less to do with how good or bad a QB is going to be (unless it's a dumbed down system like the one VY ran, where decision making is at a minimum) than does the defense he's facing.
Click to expand...

Right!

There are two very good "system" QBs in the NFL: Brady and Manning.
Neither team has a FB; they work mostly out of the spread.

(although Belichik would use a guy like LB Vrabel as a FB once in awhile near the goal line.)
 
thunderkyss said:
IMO, QBs are just like any other position. You've got your play-makers & you've got your system guys. Put a play-maker in a system he "gets" (mentally) & you've got a HOFer.... Steve Young, Warren Moon, John Elway.... etc

Put a sytem QB in there & you'll have some success.... Jake Plummer, Chad Pennington, Dante Cullpepper.

Arian Foster.... play-maker in a system that fits.

Ben Tate..... player who fits the system (so far; he may turn into a play-maker).
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is an OC that doesn't tailor his offense around his starting QB is only kidding themselves.

We've seen Carolina and Denver adjust their playbook to fit Newton and Tebow.

I haven't watched much of the Bengals (I will in the upcoming weeks) so I don't know what they've been doing with Dalton. As I mentioned, TCU is just "another" spread offense not too much unlike UHouston. The QB (Dalton) isn't under Center much. They have neither FB nor TE. Why wasn't Dalton labeled as a system QB out of college?
Personally, I like Dalton ever since I saw him at the Texans Bowl in 2007 when he was a rookie.
Along with Keenum, these two guys impressed me in the pocket as rookie QBs with their poise and decision making.

The same goes for Gabbert (system QB) out of Missouri (their TEs were in name only; they don't line up next to the OT).
I never did like him because he showed no poise under pressure, and not because he was in the spread offense.
 
While I'm at it, let me mention a few other names:

Nick Foles at Arizona, I like him when I was watching Mitchell and Reed.
The Wildcats also run a pure spread offense (no FB/no TE).
They made the conversion a few years back; that was when Mitchell was converted from TE.
(I haven't watched him - Foles - this year though.)

Weden also runs a spread offense out of Okla. St.
This system is quite close to TCU's.
They have neither FB nor TE.
They both use the diamond as one of their base formations (QB in shotgun with a RB behind him and two on either side.)

RGIII runs Art Briles' multi-formation system at Baylor.
This is the same thing (more or less) that Keenum ran in his rookie year (under Briles.)
I found Keenum under Center (in his rookie year) more often than RGIII at Baylor, however.
 
Rey said:
A system QB is a QB who's game doesn't translate well to all systems.

If the QB's success is largely a product of the system and not really a product of their QB'ing prowess then I'd call them a system QB.
Click to expand...

This is it for me. Tom brady is a system qb. He couldn't play in a downfield offense. Ever notice brady can't throw a deep out?

Shaub,colt mccoy,kolb, are system guys to me. Some guys can play well in a system and some guys can transcend systems.
 
Brandon Weeden is going to get knocked for his age way more than what system he played in. Nick Foles is decent but his knock is probably going to be how well his team performed with him this year than anything else.

To me, the poster who used the words "arm strength" and how far they usually throw the ball are probably the biggest tell tales of the "system QB". If you've got a guy who is allergic to passes longer than 15 yards, and his receivers have to get big YAC numbers in order for the passing game to be successful, they are probably a system QB.

Hell, I think Landry Jones may qualify as a "system" QB, as he certainly doesn't look as good as Bradford did playing in that system, and Bradford hasn't really been that good this year. '

Who really knows though, I mean Alex Smith was probably seen as a poster child for the "system QB" argument, and now that he has coaches with active and working brain stems, he seems to be doing alright.
 
eriadoc said:
Then Joe Montana was a system QB. I'm OK with that, but I suspect a lot of people wouldn't be.
Click to expand...

I don't remember Joe montanna playing so I don't know.

But a qb being known as a great or really good doesn't preclude them from being a system qb. . .for me.

I really can't put a stat on it, but if I look at how a qb plays, the type of throws he makes and the type of throws he struggles with that, gives me an idea of whether or not the system is what boosts his ability or if he is just that good and would do well anywhere.

And there are different degrees IMO. Shaub is helped by this system but he wouldn't completely suck elsewhere. Matt Ryan is good in Atlanta, but I think he'd be a bit better here.

Of course you aren't talked about as being a system qb unless you are doing well. To do well and be a system qb you have to actually be in a good system. Good play calling, good scheme, easy throws, good or great talent around you.

So if montanna fits that bill then so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top