Browns: Baker Mayfield is not a system quarterback but many Hall of Famers were

One unemployed NFL exec called Baker Mayfield a system quarterback for the Browns.

Baker Mayfield is not a system quarterback. If he is, he’s a pretty dang fine one, as he’s excelled in two different offenses out of three during his time with the Browns. Not many quarterbacks can make that claim. Why are we talking about Mayfield being a “system quarterback”? Well, Mike Tannenbaum, that’s why. Don’t know who he is? He’s the guy who destroyed the New York Jets and Miami Dolphins before someone with a clue was able to take over the franchises.

So a man who was fired for his talent evaluation skills (or lack thereof) is claiming Mayfield is a system’s quarterback. This despite the fact he’s excelled in two very different offenses in the NFL and a third very different offense in Oklahoma. That would seem to negate the “system quarterback” notion all on its own.

That hasn’t stopped Tannenbaum from alleging that Mayfield has only exceeded because of Kevin Stefanski’s offense, however.

Tannenbaum is historically terrible at identifying quarterback talent. He replaced Chad Pennington, who’d lead the Dolphins to the playoffs, with Brett Favre, who hated the Jets so much he re-retired. Then he thought Mark Sanchez was the guy. Talk about a butt-fumble of a draft pick. Then in Miami, as the Executive vice president of football operations, Tannenbaum couldn’t build a winner around Ryan Tannehill and instead went with guys like Jay Cutler and Brock Osweiler to try and get wins after Tannehill got hurt.

Great eye for talent that one.

Some of the greatest quarterbacks were system guys.

It should be mentioned that sometimes guys work really well in systems and that’s not an insult. Tom Brady did really well in the New England system. A system that produced Matt Cassell and Jimmy Garoppolo, two players who were so good in New England, teams made huge trades to get them.

Then there was Steve Young, who was a bust in Tampa Bay before he went to San Francisco and played in the West Coast Offense. His predecessor,  Joe Montana, was just a third-round pick before settling into that same offense.

Put 2002-Peyton Manning in the 2002 Atlanta Falcons offense and Manning is out of the league by 2003. Put 2002-Michael Vick in the 2002 Indianapolis offense and Vick is out of the league by October. John Elways’ skills would go to waste in the late 80s running attack of Pittsburgh, while Russell Wilson would’ve fallen to pieces as a rookie in the 2012 Buccaneers offense.

There’s this odd notion that any quarterback can play in any system, which just isn’t true. Systems, by rule, are designed around a player’s skills. Imagine Baltimore trying to turn Lamar Jackson into Aaron Rodgers. Talk about a bad idea. For the same bad idea, imagine Rodgers in Baltimore’s offense. He’d throw a third of the times he normally would, and would have run the ball far more than he ever should.

Alex Smith busted in mos of San Francisco’s offenses because none of them capitalized on what he did well; being mobile with a quick release. That was until Jim Harbaugh took over.

It’s not just the NFL. Every athlete in pro sports has a skill set. The best coaches know how to maximize that. LeBron James wasn’t turned into a three-point specialist, and Michael Jordan didn’t play center. They had a skillset. They had coaches who knew how to maximize that skill set.

So all of this nonsense about Mayfield being or not being a system’s quarterback is just malarky being spewed by people who want to make decisions in the NFL but weren’t good enough to do so. The only question that needs to be asked is “Can the Browns win with Mayfield?”

The answer is yes.

Why bother replacing him when you already know what you can get with him? What is with this obsession of constantly looking for something better? The Browns did that dance for 20 years. It netted the fans one playoff birth. We’re done with that.