Originally posted by GNielsen:
Originally posted by hofer36:
steve young was good with niners, very bad with tampa----alex smith was bad with nolan, very good with harbaugh....my conclusion, coaching and having good players to work with makes a difference in how a qb performs...
Both of those players are textbook examples of the proposition that bad coaching and systems can make a player look worse than he is and good coaching and good systems can allow a player to live up to his potential.
Your statement is incomplete. Bad coaching and systems can make a player look worse than he is, but good coaching and good systems can make a player look better than he is. That is the case with Alex Smith. That was not the case with Steve Young. Although he played in a West Coast system, Young went through a myriad of offensive coordinators, olines, RBs (some that shouldnt have even been in the league), WRs, and he proved to be successful year in and year out.
Alex succeeded ONLY after he was given a talented coaching staff that tailored the playbook to his liking, and on top of that he had the best oline in the league, top 5 RBs in the league, and a decent WR/TE unit. Even with that, he was considered the weak link on an otherwise explosive offense (proven by Kaep).
Now he goes to KC and it seems like a lot of his old tendencies (holding the ball too long, not seeing open receivers, checkdowns on 3rd and longs) are rearing its head. Which leads me to believe that his supporters will start up the same old argument that it's not Alex but his surroundings that seem to be the problem.
Comparing him to Young on any level is just blasphemous IMO. Even the Chiefs fans had a chuckle on their board when some tried to bring up the Montana early years comparisons.