Cart or Horse? (1 Viewer)

[FUBAR]

Looking at the top 15 QBs, with the exception of McNabb, Hasselbeck, and Garrard, each of them has a great WR (or TE, or both) to throw to. McNabb and Garrard benefit from two of the best receiving RBs in the league.

Looking at the top 15 WRs, Fitz, Boldin, and AJ are the only WRs missing a very good QB - although one may say Warner and Schaub are very good for stats.

So a few questions arise.

1. Which is more important to the success of the duo?

2. Is a highly talented QB or WR doomed to never reach their potential without a great partner?

3. Is it the system, or do many coaches make the system meet the players?

4. What QBs or WRs would do a lot better with a different QB/WR?

Any thoughts?

 

[Mimo]

I was just thinking about something similar the other day. Personally I would be more inclined to take an OK WR that has a good-great QB than take a great WR who has OK QB. The situation I was looking at was if the Vikings get Favre. IMO, Berrian and Rice immediately shoot up the boards. Right now with Jackson they are both in the 30s or below in rankings.

 

[travdogg]

I've always valued situation over talent when it comes to RB's and WR's, because they rely on others so much.

QB's will typically put up decent numbers no matter who they are throwing to(Hasselbeck last year or Brady pre-2007)

TE's typically also can produce no matter who is throwing them the ball as lesser(or inexperienced) passers seem to prefer TE's.

 

[BespokeJort]

i think the QB generally plays a huge role in the production of WR2-4's (by talent, not situation), but the stud WR1 can mask a crappy QB. Consider Daunte Culpepper and Randy moss, or steve smith/jake delhomme...anyone with a decent arm can throw up jumpballs to a huge reciever with a 40 inch vert, or loft a deepball in the general area of a guy who nobody can stay in the general vicinity of...it's not hard to lock in and throw to the clear-cut best player on the field.

Whereas you see guys like Brady, Manning, Kurt Warner in the greatest show on turf days and to a lesser extent Hasselbeck culling production from WRs you've never heard of (whether they're the #1 in brady's case with deion branch or reche caldwell a few years back or the #3 or 4 in a powerhouse offense ala shaun mcdonald, brandon stokely, bobby engram, etc). The best QBs see the open guy every time. This leads to success in spread-style offenses, because more guys means it's more likely one will get open on a given play.

By this logic, i wouldn't downgrade a top flight physical freak WR1 talent as much based on QB play, as they should be able to thrive anywhere (although line play is a different story, if the QB doesn't have time to get the ball off a deepthreat WR is obviously screwed while a posession guy may benefit) but a guy with less physical talent but great hands and/or a knack for getting open/finding the seam will probably suffer. If you sent Wes Welker and Randy Moss to Miami or Minnesota, I have a feeling Moss would thrive but welker would not.

Granted i just pulled this analysis out of my ### but it makes sense IMO

 

[tombonneau]

Four words (INPO) should provide the answer you are looking for:

David. Smith. Carr. Steve.

 

[RaiderBones]

I say it takes two to tango.

 

[FUBAR]

Four words (INPO) should provide the answer you are looking foravid. Smith. Carr. Steve.

Perhaps.Randy. Culpepper. Moss. Daunte.EF might have it right, but Smith seems to have top physical skills, except height.

 

[Banger]

Its more important to have a good qb. Look at a guy like Evans, there's only so much you can do if the qb can't get you the ball. I think Evans is more talented than a guy like Housh, yet Housh will outproduce him bigtime.

 

[switz]

Looking at the top 15 QBs, with the exception of McNabb, Hasselbeck, and Garrard, each of them has a great WR (or TE, or both) to throw to. McNabb and Garrard benefit from two of the best receiving RBs in the league. Looking at the top 15 WRs, Fitz, Boldin, and AJ are the only WRs missing a very good QB - although one may say Warner and Schaub are very good for stats. So a few questions arise.1. Which is more important to the success of the duo?2. Is a highly talented QB or WR doomed to never reach their potential without a great partner?3. Is it the system, or do many coaches make the system meet the players?4. What QBs or WRs would do a lot better with a different QB/WR?Any thoughts?

Not that simple. It's actually a synergy that takes place IMO.1. Toss up2. No3. Coaches should adjust system to players strength, though some systems in general suit players better than others.4. Obviously, people are going to point at Tom Brady and Randy Moss last year for evidence that the WR can make all the difference in the world. I would agree to a degree. But the NE offensive system also changed drastically last year. Part of that change was enabled by the fact that Moss is incredible at tracking down poorly thrown balls in the air. Note: Not saying Brady throws balls poorly. Rather, the system called for riskier passes, with the expectation that Moss would make it a completion. I don't believe Moss would be worse off anywhere. Even in OAK and MIN with poorer QBs he put up stats when he wanted to play.You also have Terrell Owens. He has put up huge numbers with various QBs. It doesn't seem like QB play has much of an effect on him at all.On the other hand, look at how good Peyton Manning's WRs have been, regardless of who they are. It doesn't appear that Manning needs a good WR to put up great numbers.Kinda thinking this through... at WR, I believe the type of receiver plays a role in how dependent the WR is on a good QB. A receiver who excels due to tremendous route running, needs a precision passer, for those routes to be valuable. A slot WR who runs slants, needs a QB who can zip it in, otherwise the D is going to be all over the WR. But a long ball reciever generally can do well with a less than spectacular QB, as he can adjust to the ball.QBs on the other hand, a precision QB can make do with almost any WR at all. Learning how the WRs run patterns (regardless of whether they are crisp or not) enables the QB to know where to put the ball best for the WR to make the catch. QBs who perhaps have strong arms, but not the greatest accuracy need WRs that will battle for the ball, or who are able to rack it down in space.In the end, each player is likely dependent on the player at the other end of the pass to a varying degree, based on their own ability. In general though, I believe WRs are less dependent on QBs, than QBs are on WRs.

 

[dgreen]

Its more important to have a good qb. Look at a guy like Evans, there's only so much you can do if the qb can't get you the ball. I think Evans is more talented than a guy like Housh, yet Housh will outproduce him bigtime.

Agreed.I'd saying catching a football is much easier than making a good throw. Take the guy with the best hands of all time and there isn't much he can do about a really bad throw. Take the most accurate QB of all time and there isn't much he can do about a dropped pass. However, most NFL-caliber receivers don't drop a ton of passes while many NFL-caliber QBs make several off-target throws. The VBD for dropped passes is probably pretty small while the VBD for accurate passes is greater.Now, of course getting open can be much more difficult than simply catching the ball. While anyone can catch a football, not everyone can shake an NFL-caliber DB. Again, that's where the accurate QB comes into play. A good QB doesn't need a wide open WR.

 

[Bri]

General, the QB

Warner vs Leinart and other not so great QBs in Arizona. It might not be super obvious in stats but the offense seemed to flow thru Warner and Fitz and Boldin were able to take their game to another level. So I think a real good QB can allow a WR to do his best, while a mediocre QB has WRs that are trying to get it done despite him. Watching the O feels very different even if it's not obvious in the stats. Boldin and Fitz have always been good.

Sorry to throw a wrinkle in here, sometimes I lean toward the OC. Sometimes a QB is an excellent system QB. For example Garcia. He's looked awful at times and terrific at others and the biggest difference to me is simply the system he's working in makes him comfy.

 

[BespokeJort]

Four words (INPO) should provide the answer you are looking foravid. Smith. Carr. Steve.

I don't think those words provide any answer at allSure, examples like this will always happen. If you put stephen hawking in at QB, even TO or Jerry Rice in his prime wouldnt put up recieving numbers. Then again, if Hawking was your best WR, i don't think tom brady would put up great passing numbers either.Thus there's no point looking at situations where one of the players involved is among the worst in the league at his position. It's much more meaningful IMO to look at the effect of stud QBs on middling WRs and the effect of stud WRs on middling QBs. Moss/Culpepper is a good example of the latter, for the former you can look at any Faulk/Warner era rams/ current colts WR3/4's or any WR in seattle or (other than moss) in the patriots' last few years. Not saying the conclusion I drew from it was necessarily right, but to assume any example involving David Carr being on the field is indicative of a general rule of football as played by skilled players is folly.