System-atic

Lots of buzz among the sports talk yappers today about Ian O'Connor's Bill Belichick book, particularly the part where one former assistant (who didn't have the grapes to identify himself, naturally) saying that the prevailing opinion among the staff was that Belichick's system was virtually quarterback proof.

Which is to say, there were about 15 guys in the league they felt they could plug into Belichick's system, and they could deliver a Super Bowl.  Not five Supes like Tom Brady, but at least one.

This has been taken as a knock on Brady, whom even the Patriots-averse Blob acknowledges as the greatest QB in NFL history. But maybe it isn't really.

The Blob, see, has its own theory about so-called "system quarterbacks."  It may not be much of a theory, but it's still a theory.

It involves the notion that, in some sense, almost every NFL quarterback is a "system quarterback."

That's because it's the NFL, not your backyard, which means no one is kneeling down drawing up plays in the dirt (except, you know, maybe in Detroit these days.) No one is running a square-out to the oak tree. No one is designing a triple flea flicker followed by a throw to the quarterback, who's running a wheel route to the hydrangea. No NFL playbook's Xs-and-Os involve Gerald the all-time center sneaking downfield and hiding behind Mom's prized rosebush at the back of the end zone, then leaping out to catch a stealth touchdown pass.

No, sir. In the NFL, every team has a system. Some are admittedly more effective (and discernible) than others, but they all have systems. And for those teams who have a solid No. 1 at quarterback, they're all tailored to that quarterback's specific skill set.

Even the QBs famous for their magnificent improvisations -- like, say, Brett Favre -- still operated within some sort of offensive framework. Whether you were Favre or John Elway or Dan Marino or Peyton Manning, the offense you commanded (except, again, maybe in Detroit right now) was designed to take advantage of what you did best.

For instance, it wouldn't make much sense to design an offense to stretch the field if you had a QB who didn't have the arm to consistently throw deep. But if you did, that's what your offense might look like. And you went after burners on the outside to play wide receiver in that offense.

Brady?

He's been enormously successful in an offense designed to give him the optimum chance to be enormously successful. Yet he still had to execute it, and he has.

How's that different than anywhere else?