So, with Matt Cassell, the new QB of the Kansas City Chiefs, sigining his collosal deal on yesterday, which will pay him upwards of $60 million with $28 million guaranteed, it got me to thinking. This guy hasn't started a full season since high school. But he looked sharp last season in the absence of this generation's 1b best QB, Tom Brady (1a being #18 for the Colts). But did he look sharp because he's a fine player, or because New England has a great system in place. I mean, they were contenders with Drew Bledsoe at the helm..Even went to the Super Bowl (albeit with Bill Parcells, but the system was pretty much the same). And take Brady out of the equation, they're still an 11 win team with Cassell. But was it the system, or was it because he still had a good offensive line, Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and a stout defense? Or is it really the system? That defense has gone through a number of changes personnel wise (Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law, Tebucky Jones, Asante Samuel, Roman Phifer, etc..all gone) and hasn't missed a beat.
And this just isn't exclusive to New England. I've often wondered the same things about my team, the SF 49ers. We had great success under Coach Walsh in the 80s with Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Jones, Roger Craig, and Tom Rathman. Okay. So Joe's injuries catch up with him, and he moves on to KC and ultimately retirement. Roger and Rathman both eventually retire. Coach Walsh retires. He's replaced with George Seifert. Roger is replaced with Rickey Watters. Rathman is replaced with William Floyd. And Joe is, of course, replaced with Steve Young. But the system stays in place. Same result. Super Bowl win. Was it the system or was it the players? After all, Steve Young was no slouch. Jerry's often referred to as Jesus in Cleats. And the other guys are all all-pro type players. Which was it? The system or the player?
The same can be said with the Pittsburgh Steeler's defense. Death, Taxes, and the Steelers having at least 3 linebackers each year worthy of all-pro recognition. Lambert, Ham, Russell, Gildon, Greene, Lloyd, Bell, Porter, Farrior, Foote, Harrison, and the list goes on! Is it that these guys are the mobile, agile,and hostile players that they need to be or is it Dick Labeau's system? And that question becomes even more relevant when you see that very few of those guys (especially Lloyd, Gildon, and Bell) have much success once they leave the Steelers' system.
And not only is this question exclusive to the NFL, it also applies to other sports. Basketball for instance. There's no doubt in my mind that Michael Jordan is the best basketball player that I've seen in my lifetime thus far. However, before Phil Jackon/Tex Winters's triangle offense, Michael struggled to get over the hump. Once that system was put into place, Jordan's Bulls proceeded to reel off 6 championships in 8 years. Was it the triangle offense or was it Jordan maturing as a player and as a leader along with the emergence of Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant? Maybe it was the player, because the general consensus is that had Michael not played baseball for a year and a half, he would've had 8 straight championships! But then again, the 2nd set of 3 straight wins came with new players like Ron Harper, Dennis Rodman, and Steve Kerr. So the parts were interchangeable in that system, and they were still successful. However, during the time that Michael was off playing baseball, the Bulls were NOT that successful with players like Randy Brown, Pete Myers, and Jud Bucheler being relied on heavily. So is the system really that good without the player?
So Phil takes the system to LA and has the same success. 3 titles plus 1. The first 3 he had the most dominant center in the history of basketball in Shaquille O'neal, the most clutch player of this generation in Robert Horry, and the closest thing yet to being heir to Jordan's throne in Kobe. So was it the players or the system? Because along the way during those first three, several NBA superstars well past their primes made LA their final pitstop just to collect hardware, like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, Horace Grant, and Ron Harper. So the question is asked again...is it the players or the system? Right after Shaq left, the player, Kobe, was maturing into the premiere perimeter player in the game but playing alongside the Smush Parkers and the Kwame Browns of the world was no threat to win the NBA Title. So clearly the system wasn't that helpful. Plug in Pau Gasol, a player who epitomizes that sort of system, and everything runs smoother and the 2 finals appearances and a title later, the system (and the players) comes out smelling like roses. But what's responsible for it; the players or the system?
No comments:
Post a Comment