|
| Commentary |
| Main NCAA Page | Picks Contest | Rankings | COMMENTARIES | Hall Of Fame | Extra | Links | ? |
 Product Of The SystemIt's one of those college football buzz words like "wanting it more", and at times, the phrase seems just as obtuse. What exactly is a "product of the system"? One of the problems is, it depends on your point of view. If you are a recruiting expert, then tagging someone as a product of the system might be a way for you to explain away the fact that you didn't rate that player highly coming out of high school. As in, he's a product of the system; of course he's going to run for 1500 yards, all that team ever does is run the ball. If you are an NFL guy, then tagging someone as a product of the system is a way of explaining why someone could be good at college football but not succeed in the pros. He was a product of the system, but put him in a pro-style offense in the NFL, and we'll see how good he really is. The only thing you can be sure of is that the term is meant to in some way denigrate a player's accomplishments. It is a way of putting an asterisk on someone's otherwise strong performance. The interesting thing is that players in identical situations with similar numbers might alternately be tagged with the label or not. It is the ultimate spin. Of course you are no doubt aware that, from the perspective of a Gator fan, Danny Weurffel is a classic example of someone saddled with a product of the system label. Weurffel was a highly sought after recruit, but he wasn't considered to be an outstanding prospect. When he excelled at Florida, the explanation seemed easy: the Gators had been good only under Steve Spurrier's system; Florida's only other Spurrier quarterback had been Shane Matthews, a record-setter who also was an unheralded recruit who was not much of a pro prospect. Weurffel fought the product label and it may have cost him the 1995 Heisman Trophy. Although Weurffel eventually won the Heisman in 1996, Weurffel's 1995 numbers were more impressive, his team (at the time of voting) had a better record, and there was less competition for the award in 1995. Did he deserve the label? To be sure, he hasn't been a very effective pro. So for someone who views the term from that perspective, the label seems to fit. Interestingly, though, Weurffel struggled even in the Spurrier system in the pros - so if he were a product of the system, why didn't the system bail him out? And why, when the system stayed the same, did more physically-gifted quarterbacks like Doug Johnson and Jesse Palmer (both in the pros while Weurffel is not) struggle? Does anyone denigrate Rex Grossman's college career by affixing the label? Grossman's numbers and success weren't quite at the level of Weurffel's (and arguably Matthews'), but as a first-round NFL draft choice, what is to explain away? Although the Weurffel story illustrates the complexities of the product label, it wasn't the case that prompted me to write this commentary. Instead I was thinking of two more modern situations. Consider Ken Dorsey at the University of Miami. Dorsey got his props as a gifted college quarterback as did Weurffel, but like Weurffel, the Dorsey evaluation was always presented with an asterisk. Dorsey was seen as a capable but unspectacular player who was carried along by the outstanding team around him (flashbacks of Gino Toretta). Dorsey, in other words, was a product of the system: put him in a Michigan State uniform or a Clemson uniform and he doesn't have nearly the success he had at Miami. But what happens when this similarly-talented Miami team is run this year by Brock Berlin, an undefeated high school quarterback who was the #1 offensive recruit in the nation? The Canes have struggled. Two losses is not a horrible year, but they've struggled as well in a couple of their wins. Should we then re-evaluate Dorsey? Should we only do so if he succeeds in the NFL? Consider Carson Palmer at USC. Here's a guy who turns around a perenially underacheiving program. The guy has all the tools: can make all the throws, is athletic, smart. He's a leader. He emerges as the Heisman Trophy winner late in the season and goes on to be the first overall pick in the NFL draft. Enter Matt Leinart. To be sure, this guy has an NFL body, but no one expected him to step into Carson Palmer's shoes. Leinart wasn't really even mentioned before about 5 games into the season. Yet the Trojans have an 8-1 record and control their own destiny to play for the national championship. And Leinart is one of the principal reasons: his numbers compare quite favorably to Carson Palmer's at this time last year. So hold the phone... SC has a pretty good "system" going under Pete Carroll. Is it time to reconsider Palmer? If this guy flops in the NFL, will he be written off as a product of the system? And what are we to make of the NFL success of Tom Brady and Brian Griese? Here's two guys who weren't highly sought NFL prospects (Griese in particular was a Dorsey or Weurffel, a guy who didn't make mistakes and was carried by the great players around him), and Michigan's "system" could hardly be thought of as conducive to making great quarterbacks, yet these guys are starters in the NFL. (Brady is a Super Bowl Champion.) In the end, the product of the system label doesn't do a whole lot for us. It is a non-specific way of detracting from great performances, and therefore isn't particularly useful. Let's dump it.
|
|