Is the system #1 or is it the player?

[mcoomer146]

Everyone knows that the Patriots can win 11 games without Tom Brady. Everyone knows the Colts can't do anything without Peyton Manning. With the way Matt Flynn played when Aaron Rodgers had the concussion against the Patriot in 2010 and when they rested him against the Lions, do you think its the system at work or the players? Can the Packers win 11 games without Rodgers?

 

[SpartaChris]

I think it's a little bit of both. QB's learn and grow comfortable with a system, which certainly helps their ability, but they still have to be able to execute. On the flip side, you'd be hard pressed to find any quarterback who doesn't struggle, at least at first, with a new offensive system.

 

[longtimefan]

How is Matt Cassel doing in KC?

That could be an answer that helps

 

[okcpackerfan]

Everyone knows that the Patriots can win 11 games without Tom Brady. Everyone knows the Colts can't do anything without Peyton Manning. With the way Matt Flynn played when Aaron Rodgers had the concussion against the Patriot in 2010 and when they rested him against the Lions, do you think its the system at work or the players? Can the Packers win 11 games without Rodgers?

I don't think the Patriots win 11 games without Tom Brady, but I am also not sure how good their backup QB is. You named the 3 top QB's in the game in Manning, Brady and Rodgers. Watch them (and brees) throw the football...the eye test is still a reliable way of getting a good feel for a player. The Colts had a TON more problems than just losing Peyton for the year so I don't think that's a fair assessment. On the flipside I think Matt Cassell is a good QB but in a bad situation in KC. I think Matt Flynn will do "ok" in Seattle, I think the few times he got in to play, especially in the Lions game, they were letting him air it out and just go deep ball almost every other play which is usually never going to be the gameplan.

They tend to go hand and hand though, like usually the best rushing attacks in the league have the top running backs in their system. The top offenses almost always have the top QB's in there.

 

[Poppa San]

You get the players to exploit your system. A running offense will try to get the best run blockers, backs that they can. Those teams also appear to build tough, dominating defenses and have at best an OK (don't screw up) QB. A passing offense seems to have middle of the road defense but tries to get an elite QB and a few far above average receivers. The running game for these teams will be an afterthought almost.

 

[bozz_2006]

The system can set you up to succeed and the system can set you up to fail. I think the system is part of what makes Rodgers so good, but I also think if a QB comes in to the system and it is over his head, let's remember the Packers ask their QB to do a lot, it is a setup for failure. No matter who is in the system they still have a make the decisions and make the throws.

 

[VolvoD]

you cant have a great team with a lousy qb...afterall, with more emphasis on passing plays, 50% of the job is getting the ball to the recievers.

 

[TJV]

The missing element in this conversation IMO is the organization. Look at the Colts vs. the Packers and the Pats. In 2010 all three had prolific offenses but the Colts asked Manning to do more on the field than any other team in the league. For how much Brady and Rodgers were asked to do, Manning had even greater responsibility. Unlike the Packers and the Pats, the Colts compounded that risk by having no real insurance behind him. So in a QB driven league the team that relied most on its QB had no backup plan. I put the blame for that situation on the GM and the coaching staff: Either the talent provided was horrible or the coaching staff failed to develop the talent they were provided.

As to the system vs. player, IMO it’s obviously both and both have to be top notch to have an elite offense.

 

[13 Times Champs]

No the Packers can't win 11 games without Rodgers.