What position is affected the most by situation? (1 Viewer)

[Clifford]

Between qb, rb, wr, and te, which positional output is affected most by situation (matrix of snaps, offensive pieces they are surrounded with, defense) and which position is least affected by this and relies most on natural god-given talent?

Didn't do a poll since I am more interested in reasoning than aggregate opinion.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

I think WR is the most affected position (See Steve Smith (Car) and many others who don't have a good QB throwing to them. Same goes for college WRs. I think RB is the least affected position but we've seen what a bad OL can do to both the RB and QB. On pure talent a great RB will get his.

 

[RobertBobson]

An interesting question. I think QB is probably the most situation independent position ( assuming that the QB you're talking about is the starter, and not someone like Mallet who's stuck behind a stud. then it becomes the most situation Dependant). There are things that can make a qb more desirable, and some qb's skill sets don't match coaching styles, but if you're a truly great qb, you can produce numbers no matter whom you're throwing to ( see Peyton Manning over the years).

Historically, I would have argued that running back is the most situation independent position, that elite stud running backs can excel on bad teams and bad offenses ( SJax being a shining example of that). However, with the emergence of RBBC, RB is becoming more and more situation Dependant. Studs like Jstew and DeAngelo cannibalizing each others numbers, guys like Charles wasting away behind less talented starters, teams taking stud rbs like Best and Leshoure in successive years in the draft. As the use of running backs become more and more specialized, I think situation will become more and more important.

However, I think the most situation Dependant position are the receiving positions, WR and even more so TE. Receivers are completely dependent on QBs to get them the ball. A bad QB can wither your production. Sure, some studs like LFitz can still put up good numbers, but when he had a HOF quarterback, he was a top 2 receiver. If you have a dynamic passing offense, numbers can be inflated. There has only been one receiver I've ever seen, who I thought boosted his QB's value and not vice versa, and that was Randy Moss at his peak. Most WR production is extremely dependent on system and QB. This becomes even more exaggerated with slot type receivers, who depend on chemistry and timing with a QB over sheer physical dominance. I think this is even more the case with TE's When a guy like Tamme can step in and match Clark's (a top 3 fantasy TE) production, I question how much Clark's talent matters. Sure a guy like Gates would be productive anywhere, but how much has having Rivers throw to him boosted his value? With one QB, Celek was a top 5 TE, with another TE he's forced to block more and is rendered useless. Some systems and schemes don't feature TE's as receivers at all, like Mike Martz's offense. Would Greg Olsen be a pro bowler if he was on Indy?

I think what system a receiver or TE is in, is a very valid consideration when you're making a trade for a veteran player, with the idea that you want to win now. In drafting players, or trading for a young players, I think you can almost disregard situations though, because situations change every year, but talent does not.

 

[squistion]

I think WR is the most affected position (See Steve Smith (Car) and many others who don't have a good QB throwing to them. Same goes for college WRs. I think RB is the least affected position but we've seen what a bad OL can do to both the RB and QB. On pure talent a great RB will get his.

Jonathan Stewart didn't exactly set the world on fire either. I think I would rather have a WR with elite talent on a bad team than an elite RB on a bad team. Look who Larry Fitzgerald had throwing to him last year, yet he still put up 90 receptions for 1137 yards and 6 TDs. IMO the better WRs still can put up decent production on a bad team (Calvin Johnson did pretty well too under the circumstances) but there is only some much any RB can too if the team can't move the ball in the air (or is always playing from behind).The position of QB is rather interesting to me in respect to this discussion in that there are some who believe that Archie Manning was a reallly good QB but couldn't carry the Saints by himself. And I don't think that Steve Young suddenly found talent after leaving Tampa Bay, so I think that situation impacts all positions to some extent. That said I would probably guess that QB is the least affected from a fantasy perspective.

 

[I was in the pool]

Excellent post.

 

[GregR_2]

My first reaction to seeing the title is that RB would be the position most affected. There are all sorts of examples of RBs who did nothing in one place and then turned the world on fire another, even apart from the issue of situational use and RBBC. Thomas Jones and Michael Pittman were a pair of running backs that had a lot to do with forming my beliefs on this. I remember lots of arguments on the board here about how one or the other should be the guy in Arizona, only to find out that both of them pretty much sucked when they had the opportunity there. I came to the conclusion both should be out of the league. Then both end up on Tampa Bay together and both had excellent seasons, with TJ earning himself a contract in Chicago based on his time in TB and he goes on to have very good seasons for the Bears and then the Jets.

A look at the Texans the last couple of years is another great example. Steve Slaton goes from putting up a season that makes him a top ten fantasy pick, to having a 3.3 ypc the next season when 3 of the 5 O-line starters are injured, and losing the job to Arian Foster who goes on the next year (with a healthy OL) to leading the league in rushing. Then there's Derrick Ward, who did very well on the Giants, then went to Tampa Bay and did nothing and had a lot of people saying he was done, gets signed by the Texans and proceeds to put up over 6 yards a carry and looks like a world beater again.

I do think there are some ascendant talents like LT in his prime who can do well even behind a poor line. But I think that's an exception to the rule.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Between qb, rb, wr, and te, which positional output is affected most by situation (matrix of snaps, offensive pieces they are surrounded with, defense) and which position is least affected by this and relies most on natural god-given talent?Didn't do a poll since I am more interested in reasoning than aggregate opinion.

This is a good and interesting question.I'll answer it in a different way.First of all, each position needs several things to succeed - and some of them apply to all of them.1. Opportunity to play - Obviously if you don't see the field, you can't be productive.2. An offensive line - this may not be as obvious as #1, but without effective blocking a running back will not produce nearly as much as he should (nor will as many run plays be called). The O-line affects the passing game similarly. Without a clean pocket, you may never know how good a QB can be (my first example is always David Carr in his first two seasons in Houston - he's never been the same since, and who knows what he might have done with protection). WRs and TEs are also affected by the line, since without a pocket the QB cannot get them the ball. Again - Houston Texans and Andre Johnson. AJ was running very short routes with Carr taking 3-step drops (and still getting hit), limiting both players. Even the TE is affected, but in two ways - if the line cannot pass protect, the TE has to stay in to block more, limiting him as a receiver. With a good offensive line, a TE can be another weapon in the passing game.So I am going to eliminate 1 and 2 as discussion points, since all players need playing time and a good offensive line.I would say that RB is the least affected position. If the RB is getting playing time and blocking, he will get a chance to show what he can do. The scheme may not be a perfect match (zone blocking vs. pulling / lead blocking; FB or no FB) but you will still see production.Next is QB, and a starting QB will have the ball in his hands 60+ times a game and usually at least 20 chances to throw it. Plenty of opportunity to make an impact in the offense. He still needs targets, but even with the worst WR corps we have seen good QBs put up numbers (think Donovan McNabb early in his career with modest at best WRs).Then comes TE. I think he is the most affected by having a good O-line, but assuming he starts then it comes down to how often he blocks and then how often he's in the passing game - and when. TE1s stay on the field most of the time (teams usually don't go 4-wide or 5-wide without one) and then it comes down to the offensive scheme. A good TE will develop rapport with a QB and he'll see his fair share of targets if he has the talent, even from a weak QB. In fact, a weaker QB may favor a TE over the middle or on shorter routes to cover up a modest arm or haste in making decisions.The most affected IMHO is wide receiver. Not only must have have all the above (playing time, O-line) but he must have a QB who can throw most - if not all - of the route tree and he also has to be in the right scheme to be effective. Is the player more of an X (Split End) or a Z (flanker, outside of TE)? Is he more effective in the slot? Is he more of a possession guy or a deep route guy? Must he read and react to defenses pre-snap or is he just running the route called in the huddle? Most important of all - is the rest of the team supporting him to get his chances to be productive. That's a big factor. Are defenses doubling him all the time (Steve Smith in Carolina) or is there another weapon in the passing game that is making coverages more balanced? Is there a ground game to keep defenses honest? Even the best WRs get around 10 targets a game to make their impact on an offense. Fitzgerald had a huge number of official targets, but I'd argue many were off-target targets. So I'd say WR is most affected position, followed by TE, QB and then RB.