The Impact a strong WR/TE Corps has on QB success [FUN STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN]

"KingMotion wrote:

Maybe, just maybe, it's a symbiotic relationship. Even crazier, maybe the QB has more of an effect on WR's than WR's have on QB's. My evidence of the symbiosis in small part are is the relationship between Jay Cutler and Brandon Marshall. Both have played with sub-par talent and only when they get back together do they make sweet music. It's probably no coincidence that good QB's get surrounded by good receivers.

Let us also not forget that Curtis Painter played with the very same receiving corps as Manning and sucked and so did Leinart in Arizona when Warner took them to the Super Bowl.

I'm fairly certain Todd just made the argument that it is a symbiotic relationship.

"Fin D wrote:

I'm fairly certain Todd just made the argument that it is a symbiotic relationship.

yeah, I'm tired. I meant that very sentiment to be included- that the QB-WR dynamic is harmoniously symbiotic, not as QB driven as some are falsely inclined to believe. Thanks for reminding me.

"KingMotion wrote:

Read this tired with a migraine. Never again.

Does that mean your headache is now gone? :shifty:

Todd, if you put as much work into our romance as you do into making threads, you wouldn't be sleeping on the couch every night.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

Todd, if you put as much work into our romance as you do into making threads, you wouldn't be sleeping on the couch every night.

if I put as much work into our romance I wouldn't be making these threads. Besides, I only sleep on the couch b/c you snore like a brontosaurus. hence your pet name- Brontysnorus..... or just Bronty.

Not buying it per se, simply b/c Qb's and Wr's TEND to develop at different rates with different factors involved.

Take Ryan+Roddy White for example, White had a great 07 and was ready to go when Ryan arrived, Julio Jones had Ryan in place but it took him time to develop.

Now I will put forward the notion that either you sign a Wr in FA or draft them with a high pick to maximize the Qb's play, I suspect Wr is no longer really a position where you can just take a 5th rd pick and toss them out there and have your 2nd yr Qb excel.

"padre31 wrote:

Not buying it per se, simply b/c Qb's and Wr's TEND to develop at different rates with different factors involved.

Take Ryan+Roddy White for example, White had a great 07 and was ready to go when Ryan arrived, Julio Jones had Ryan in place but it took him time to develop.

Now I will put forward the notion that either you sign a Wr in FA or draft them with a high pick to maximize the Qb's play, I suspect Wr is no longer really a position where you can just take a 5th rd pick and toss them out there and have your 2nd yr Qb excel.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how it applies to the opening post. Enduring player development is kind of an understandable truth of the game, but I don't see how that relates to QB production being heavily influenced by his surrounding cast. Julio was drafted with the intention of maximizing the Falcons offense's production & efficiency, thus maximizing Ryan's production & efficiency by default b/c he's the one dishing out the passes.

And your allusion to Roddy's great '07 supports what I said about the false belief of the QB making the receiver. White notched 83 catches, 1202 yards, and 6 TDs with mix of Harrington, Redman, and Leftwich.

Wait, what aren't you buying?

The analysis misses the 5 elephants in the room. Take Mark Rypien for example, his QBR for the 4 year with Monk/Clark/Sanders is 88.5. The one year when the Hogs were all healthy for the full season was 97.9. Is the elevated QBR for that period of time due to the guys catching the ball or the guys giving Rypien time to throw the ball. As an aside I have always felt that the '91 Hogs were the best OL I've seen play and that If you put Dan behind that line he would have had 6,000 yards and 60 TDs.

I agree that the receiving corps helps out the QB a lot. It's just that the OL quality is a factor too. The more variables you have to play with the harder it gets to isolate chickens from eggs.

"Pauly wrote:

The analysis misses the 5 elephants in the room. Take Mark Rypien for example, his QBR for the 4 year with Monk/Clark/Sanders is 88.5. The one year when the Hogs were all healthy for the full season was 97.9. Is the elevated QBR for that period of time due to the guys catching the ball or the guys giving Rypien time to throw the ball. As an aside I have always felt that the '91 Hogs were the best OL I've seen play and that If you put Dan behind that line he would have had 6,000 yards and 60 TDs.

I agree that the receiving corps helps out the QB a lot. It's just that the OL quality is a factor too. The more variables you have to play with the harder it gets to isolate chickens from eggs.

Nothing Todd said took anything away form the importance of any other group or position.

What I'm not specifically buying is the lack of mention that Wr's (and now Te's) require as heavy and investment in terms of either draft position, or FA cash, it no longer is enough to simply draft a Qb with a high pick and call it "done".

However as in all things there are caveats, for example a talented Wr w/a proven veteran Qb makes the young Qb's life much much easier, which can be a short cut. However your raw number OP does not acknowledge that caveat, undermining your point.

Just at a glance, several of the Wr's you listed were high #1 picks, several were established NFL veterans (Joiner and Collinsworth for example), in fact in an odd way, if your list holds true Hartline stands to gain the most from Tannehill's maturity, moreso than Wallace as history shows a established Vet w/a up and coming young Qb will tend to excel.

In fact, based on your research, Marshall's failure to elevate Henne was predictable, as history tends to show inplace Wr's or high draft pick Wr's w/a good Qb will outperform the traded for or signed Fa Wr.

"Pauly wrote:

The analysis misses the 5 elephants in the room. Take Mark Rypien for example, his QBR for the 4 year with Monk/Clark/Sanders is 88.5. The one year when the Hogs were all healthy for the full season was 97.9. Is the elevated QBR for that period of time due to the guys catching the ball or the guys giving Rypien time to throw the ball. As an aside I have always felt that the '91 Hogs were the best OL I've seen play and that If you put Dan behind that line he would have had 6,000 yards and 60 TDs.

I agree that the receiving corps helps out the QB a lot. It's just that the OL quality is a factor too. The more variables you have to play with the harder it gets to isolate chickens from eggs.

I appreciate your input, Pauly. To contradict your first paragraph though, the thread isn't about pointing a finger at one variable significant to QB production/success. It's specifically about the QB-WR dynamic, not QB-Oline dynamic which is also significant.....not the coaching impact.... not the scheme fit impact... not the defense at the QB's back... nor how good his run support is. yada yada yada. I'm not isolating single seasons per se.... however, even behind a great Oline, the receivers have to be good enough to pose a threat or else defenses can bring extra pressure to nullify the great oline b/c they can trust their back end to keep the average receivers in check. Brady has a strong Oline, but it's not allowing him to pick apart defenses ATM b/c his receivers do little to dictate coverage or play-calling. So it still goes back to the dynamic between QB-WR. Ultimately you want ALL of it firing in sync, but I'm just focusing here on pass catchers.

"phinsational wrote:

PS: Don't forget to tip your waiter on the way out, and by tip your waiter I mean punch the fist bump button cause I'm in a slutty mood. If you don't, MrClean will drag you to his remote jungle, string you up by your pinky toes, drizzle honey on your privates, and let ants the size of badgers turn you into a woman...... unless you already are a woman, in which that case you'll just get a spanking...... and possibly some tickling.... but mostly just tickling.

I almost didn't fist bump based on the promise of this honey jungle private badger pinky party. In the end, I decided the info deserved a bump more than my prostate.

Thanks for some thorough data collection.

"padre31 wrote:

What I'm not specifically buying is the lack of mention that Wr's (and now Te's) require as heavy and investment in terms of either draft position, or FA cash, it no longer is enough to simply draft a Qb with a high pick and call it "done". Confusingly worded. Are you trying to say it should be mentioned more that there needs to be a greater investment in WR, either with higher draft picks or via free agency? b/c if you are, that pretty much supports my opening post. My opening post is the antithesis of saying "draft a QB with a high pick and call it done".

However as in all things there are caveats, for example a talented Wr w/a proven veteran Qb makes the young Qb's life much much easier, which can be a short cut. However your raw number OP does not acknowledge that caveat, undermining your point. I don't see how you're seeing that.

Just at a glance, several of the Wr's you listed were high #1 picks, several were established NFL veterans (Joiner and Collinsworth for example), in fact in an odd way, if your list holds true Hartline stands to gain the most from Tannehill's maturity, moreso than Wallace as history shows a established Vet w/a up and coming young Qb will tend to excel. I'm not sure the relevance of the receivers' draft status on the list. The list is regarding the capability/talent level of the receivers or lack thereof, not when they were drafted. If attaining WR/TE units like the ones in the OP mean using higher draft picks or spending FA money for premium players, then so be it b/c that's the goal , and if mid-round guys like Hartline step up like he has, then so be it. He shouldn't be discriminated b/c he's not a high draft pick. BTW, this is about what Tannehill stands to gain by his upgraded WR corps and its continued bolstering, not who has more to gain out of Wallace & Hartline.

In fact, based on your research, Marshall's failure to elevate Henne was predictable, as history tends to show inplace Wr's or high draft pick Wr's w/a good Qb will outperform the traded for or signed Fa Wr. I don't understand what the second part of this sentence has to do with the first, sorry. Furthermore, I don't think Marshall's failure to elevate Henne was predictable b/c for that to happen we would have to have known at the time that Henne reached his pinnacle the prior year. And how do you view the banged-up Marshall's 86 catches, 1014 yards, and 3 TDs as being inferior to the incumbent Bess's 76 catches, 752 yards, and 2 TDs [16 games] in '09, especially when defenses NEVER keyed on Bess the way they did Wallace, nor had a flock of defenders within swarming range upon every reception? In fact, Bess owes his best season [79 catches, 820 yard, and an atypical 5 TDs] to less coverage attention that Marshall afforded him. So what happened in Chicago? Didn't Marshall outperform the rest of the Bears' receiving corps combined, including the high draft pick when he was on the field? What'd Anquan Boldin do when acquired by Baltimore? I really don't see any correlation with what you're speaking of, at least not in regards to overall offensive production and success. If a top receiver is added in FA, his presence should provide greater opportunity for his fellow receivers to contribute and narrow the production gap by default.

in blue

"thisperishedmin wrote:

I almost didn't fist bump based on the promise of this honey jungle private badger pinky party. In the end, I decided the info deserved a bump more than my prostate.

Thanks for some thorough data collection.

I think you're vastly underestimating the size of the giver's knuckles.

...... orrr I'm underestimating the size of your..... :shifty:

Look at your list, how many Wr's were traded into similar situations?

(young unproven qb).

None, Chandler, Welker, Joiner all went to established Qb situations, rare to find a proven vet traded to an uncertain situation who still produced, FA is a different deal as it is relatively new.

Arguably, the most successful big name FA wr would be..who?

Appears that Wr/Qb development is difficult to find a shortcut that one can reliably show it works, Drafting or in place Wr's is the norm, over FA's or Trades

BTW, Ahmad Rashad was a great Wr for Tarkington.

"Rocky Raccoon wrote:

Todd, if you put as much work into our romance as you do into making threads, you wouldn't be sleeping on the couch every night.

hey, BTW.... shaddup. It's been like a year since I've gone full blown OCD up in here.

biatch

Great job phin. I've always used the Brady example when discussing this same thread topic. You took that and went ways above and beyond. Great stuff.

The only thing I disagree with is Clayton, Duper, and Moore being top 10 trio all time. Don't get me wrong, I love the Marks bros. but I don't believe they're nearly on the level you seem to put them at. If I had to make a comparison to the modern day NFL, they're DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin. Very talented but not elite. And I can name 10 receiving corps that are arguably better (just pure talent, no QB in the equation).

In no order...

Ocho Cinco, Houshmanzeda, Chris Henry
Nelson, Jennings, Driver
Nelson, Cobb, Jennings, and Jones
Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker, Wes Welker
Fitzgerald, Boldin, Breaston
Andre Reed, James Lofton, Don Beebe
Chris Carter, Randy Moss, Jake Reed
Michael Irvin, Alvin Harper, Jay Novacek
Rod Smith, Ed McCafrey, Shannon Sharpe
Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Stokley
Issac Bruce, Torry Holy, Ricky Prohel
Moss, Welker, Gaffney.

Probably a few others if I took the time to think about it.

Ocho Cinco, Houshmanzeda, Chris Henry
Nelson, Jennings, Driver
Nelson, Cobb, Jennings, and Jones
Demaryius Thomas (#1 pick), Eric Decker, Wes Welker
Fitzgerald (#1 pick), Boldin, Breaston#1 pick
Andre Reed, James Lofton#1 pick, Don Beebe
Chris Carter, Randy Moss#1 pick, Jake Reed
Michael Irvin #1 pick, Alvin Harper, Jay Novacek
Rod Smith, Ed McCafrey, Shannon Sharpe
Marvin Harrison#1 pick, Reggie Wayne #1 pick, Brandon Stokley
Issac Bruce, Torry Holy #1 pick, Ricky Prohel
Moss # 1 pick, Welker, Gaffney.

Just to sort of highlight what my point is, a high #1 pick Qb, as history tends to show, needs a #1 pick Wr OR a young and up and coming Wr to grow with them, FA's and Trades tend to bring in fillin type Wr's #2's and slot Wr's.

Only I'd extend the thought and add you have to now take Te's with high picks, rds #1-#3

In fact the "wr in place' scenario seems rare on second thought, Roddy White is more the exception, Davone Bess is more how things play out, the Wr's in place tend to be shuffled out.

"padre31 wrote:

Look at your list, how many Wr's were traded into similar situations? (young unproven qb). So what. Why does that matter? They don't stay young and unproven forever. They need support to develop, and once they develop they need continued surrounding talent to maintain that level and hopefully achieve maximum potential.

None, Chandler, Welker, Joiner all went to established Qb situations, rare to find a proven vet traded to an uncertain situation who still produced, FA is a different deal as it is relatively new. To clarify, are you speaking generally here or trying to make a point that argues my post? And no, Joiner didn't go to an established QB situation; he went to a situation that previously saw Fouts throw for 2 TD's and 10 INT's in 10 games his third year.

Arguably, the most successful big name FA wr would be..who?
Moss in NE- 98 catches, 1493 yards, 23 TD?
Paul Warfield to Miami?
Cris Carter's HOF career in Minnesota?
Terrell Owens in Philly- 77, 1200, 14?
...then T.O in Dallas- 85, 1180, 13?
Jerry Rice in Oakland- 83, 1139, 9?
Joe Horn to N.O.- 94, 1340, 8?
Vincent Jackson to T.B- 72, 1384, 8?
Irving Fryar in Miami?
.... then Fryar to Philly- 88, 1195, 11?
Plaxico Burress to NYG- 76, 1214, 7?
Henry Ellard to Washington- 74, 1397, 6?
Charlie Joiner to SD- 50, 1056, 7?
Drew Hill to Oilers- 64, 1169, 9?
Santana Moss to Wash- 84, 1483, 9?
Laveraneus Coles to Wash- 82, 1204, 6?
Anthony Miller to Denver- 2100 yards & 19 TD in 2 years?
Our own Tony Martin to SD... then to Atl... then back to Miami?
Roy Green to Phoenix- 68, 1097, 7?
Terrance Mathis to Atl- 111, 1342, 11?
Mark Carrier to Carolina- 66, 1002, 3?
Derrick Mason in Balt- 86, 1073, 3?

For the record, the above is a misleading question b/c the majority of great receivers stay with their drafting teams through the pinnacle of their careers..... and the majority of big name WR FA disappointments have been due to either injury or from being acquired during the twilight of their careers.

Appears that Wr/Qb development is difficult to find a shortcut that one can reliably show it works, Drafting or in place Wr's is the norm, over FA's or Trades I only care about finding the right talented guys who fit the scheme, philosophy, locker room persona, and appear upon investigation that they'd improve both the QB's development and offense's overall success/efficiency, and if I'm lacking in that department then I'll take heavier measures to secure it, either via trade, FA, or the draft. Weigh the options based on who's available and then go after the best fit.

in blue

"Clark Kent wrote:

Great job phin. I've always used the Brady example when discussing this same thread topic. You took that and went ways above and beyond. Great stuff.

thanks buddy. had my coffee today. lol

The only thing I disagree with is Clayton, Duper, and Moore being top 10 trio all time. Don't get me wrong, I love the Marks bros. but I don't believe they're nearly on the level you seem to put them at. If I had to make a comparison to the modern day NFL, they're DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin. Very talented but not elite. And I can name 10 receiving corps that are arguably better (just pure talent, no QB in the equation).

In no order...

Ocho Cinco, Houshmanzeda, Chris Henry
Nelson, Jennings, Driver
Nelson, Cobb, Jennings, and Jones
Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker, Wes Welker
Fitzgerald, Boldin, Breaston
Andre Reed, James Lofton, Don Beebe
Chris Carter, Randy Moss, Jake Reed
Michael Irvin, Alvin Harper, Jay Novacek
Rod Smith, Ed McCafrey, Shannon Sharpe
Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Brandon Stokley
Issac Bruce, Torry Holy, Ricky Prohel
Moss, Welker, Gaffney.

Probably a few others if I took the time to think about it.

I'm just going by the NFL Film's list that has the trio in their Top 10 All Time. IMO it's more than just Clayton & Duper; it's Moore added in as well, which is why the trio makes the Top 10 list. That trio made coverage nearly impossible, and the stats over those 3 years support it. Marino was still great with Duper & Clayton alone once Moore retired, but Dan never again approached that level of '84-86 success, so IMO that makes our trio truly special. If you remove those 3 years, Dan's left with one 30+ TD season in 13 years. I mean- c'mon, they contributed to 14,000 yards & 122 TDs in 3 years amidst a record-breaking season that stood for like 20 years & 28 years. I respect your list, but I think the time during which they played can't be ignored. I don't think Miami's trio should be penalized for doing this in the mid 80's when receivers weren't all jacked up and when rules weren't geared to benefit the receivers.

Joe Montana 1983 (ZERO 1,000 yard recievers) 3900 Yards 26 TD's 94.6 QBR = Lost NFC Championship 24-21 to Washington
Joe Montana 1984 (ZERO 1,000 yard recievers) 3680 Yards 28 TD's 102.9 QBR = WON Superbowl

Joe Montana 1985 (Jerry Rice now on board) 3653 Yards 27 TD's 91.3 QBR = Lost Wildcard game 19-17 to Giants
Joe Montana 1986 (Jerry Rice - 1570 yds 15 TD's) 4289 yards 21 TD's 80.7 QBR = Lost Division game 49-3 to Giants
Joe Montana 1987 (Jerry Rice 1078 yds 22 TD's ) 3054 yards 31 TD's 102.1 QBR = WON Superbowl

As we can see, the addition of Jerry Rice to Joe Montana was nothing but merely a luxury. Joe Montana was great before Jerry Rice showed up and he was great after Jerry Rice arrived. The addition of Jerry Rice likely made it easier on Joe Montana, but he was getting it done without him just fine.

What we notice in the career of Joe Montana, is a steady incline in efficiency over the course of his career, with a definate pinacle and then a decline as he aged and his skills faded. Who his recievers were had little bearing on his greatness, aside from a pure luxury standpoint. He won Superbowls without any Superstar Recievers and He put up excellent efficiency numbers without any Superstar Recievers.

Another telling career is that of Dan Marino - Who had the same set of recievers in Mark Duper and Mark Clayton for 10 seasons, yet his QBR fluctuated from 108.9(1984) to as low as 76.9(1989). The Dolphins went 14-2 in 1984 and 8-8 in 1989. What this clearly tells us, is that WR's are not the influental factor on a Team or QB's success. They are purely a luxury item.

Lets take the career of the greatest most talented Wide Reciever ever to play the game of football.

I speak of none other than Calvin Johnson of the Detroit Lions who amassed an amazing 1954 Yards but had only 5 TD's while seeing his team go (4-12) WHY?? Because the Lions don't have a QB. Calvin Johnson means squat to winning football games ! With the best WR in the game, Matthew Stafford could muster a simpleton 79.8 QBR. Joe Montana put up 100+ QBR without a half of a Calvin Johnson.
In his 4 years in Detroit - The Lions are a WHOPPING (22-42). Plug in Tom Brady or Peyton Manning without changing one single other player and you would have 4 years of playoffs.

When I played QB, the WR position was the last position on the offense I cared about, because it had the least impact towards the teams success. As long as I had 5 guys up front that bought in, gave 100%, and did their jobs with pass pro and a couple of beasts to hand the ball to, we could throw out guys at WR until we found one that could catch. IT DIDN'T MATTER. Can you catch ? Yes - Your in. It didn't matter because as long as I had time in the pocket, we were winning. Really, how hard is it to find a guy that is half way smart enough to run the route he is suppossed to and catch the ball. I knew whether he would be open before he did, just by reading the coverages and knowing his route. If we found a couple that were great, and in some seasons we did, it made it that much easier. I've said "Wow" once or twice under my breath, because a guy took a 15 yarder, made a move, and scored. Thank You very much, but if he didn't, I was still going to score anyway.

Great QB's win ! Great QB's get it done ! and while having a Wallace is a luxury - Great QB's don't need a Mike Wallace.

Ryan Tannehill is becoming a great QB and it has little to do with Mike Wallace. Telling Matthews to get the #$@ off the field, has little to do with Wallace. His quicker decisions and more accurate and zip like throws has little to do with Wallace and much more to do with his reads and the confidence Sherm has in him this season. (This is not the same offensive play calling from last season). He exudes confidence this season, he did not last season. He is a leader this season, he was not last season. There is more to playing QB than throwing the ball to Wallace/Gibson/Hartline.

You are seriously OVER-STATING the importance of Mike Wallace on Ryan Tannehill. Believe what you will - I'm done debating it.

If you want to believe that Ryan Tannehill needs Mike Wallace or Brandon Gibson to be great, then have it. I know he doesn't.

For the record, the above is a misleading question b/c the majority of great receivers stay with their drafting teams through the pinnacle of their careers..... and the majority of big name WR FA disappointments have been due to either injury or from being acquired during the twilight of their careers.

My point is your #1 pick Qb pretty much needs a #1 pick Wr added before they arrive or immediately afterward to achieve a path to long term success.

Second way is a Wr already on the roster who has talent but bad current Qb play is holding them back, adding a #1 pick Qb to that situation can lead to success.

Third way is less than optimal, which is a FA Wr or a Trade, usually it does not help the young Qb develop.

Even then it does not always work, the situation in Jacksonville for example, Blackmon is not going to make Gabbert that much better.

Keep in mind that is for a young Qb, the situation is different for a Veteran Qb, as I look at your list, the FA Wr's who produced and the ones traded for went to a Vet Qb situation when they had continued success.

INOW, your view of situation via just stats is to limited, there are differences between Vet Qb+Wr talent and Young Qb + Wr talent, the young Qb needs to have a high pick Wr added to develop unless there is a Roddy White or Brian Hartline already on the roster when a Ryan or Tannehill are drafted.

"72 Dolphins wrote:

Joe Montana 1983 (ZERO 1,000 yard recievers) 3900 Yards 26 TD's 94.6 QBR = Lost NFC Championship 24-21 to Washington
Joe Montana 1984 (ZERO 1,000 yard recievers) 3680 Yards 28 TD's 102.9 QBR = WON Superbowl

Joe Montana 1985 (Jerry Rice now on board) 3653 Yards 27 TD's 91.3 QBR = Lost Wildcard game 19-17 to Giants
Joe Montana 1986 (Jerry Rice - 1570 yds 15 TD's) 4289 yards 21 TD's 80.7 QBR = Lost Division game 49-3 to Giants
Joe Montana 1987 (Jerry Rice 1078 yds 22 TD's ) 3054 yards 31 TD's 102.1 QBR = WON Superbowl

As we can see, the addition of Jerry Rice to Joe Montana was nothing but merely a luxury. Joe Montana was great before Jerry Rice showed up and he was great after Jerry Rice arrived. The addition of Jerry Rice likely made it easier on Joe Montana, but he was getting it done without him just fine.

What we notice in the career of Joe Montana, is a steady incline in efficiency over the course of his career, with a definate pinacle and then a decline as he aged and his skills faded. Who his recievers were had little bearing on his greatness, aside from a pure luxury standpoint. He won Superbowls without any Superstar Recievers and He put up excellent efficiency numbers without any Superstar Recievers.

Another telling career is that of Dan Marino - Who had the same set of recievers in Mark Duper and Mark Clayton for 10 seasons, yet his QBR fluctuated from 108.9(1984) to as low as 76.9(1989). The Dolphins went 14-2 in 1984 and 8-8 in 1989. What this clearly tells us, is that WR's are not the influental factor on a Team or QB's success. They are purely a luxury item.

Lets take the career of the greatest most talented Wide Reciever ever to play the game of football.

I speak of none other than Calvin Johnson of the Detroit Lions who amassed an amazing 1954 Yards but had only 5 TD's while seeing his team go (4-12) WHY?? Because the Lions don't have a QB. Calvin Johnson means squat to winning football games ! With the best WR in the game, Matthew Stafford could muster a simpleton 79.8 QBR. Joe Montana put up 100+ QBR without a half of a Calvin Johnson.
In his 4 years in Detroit - The Lions are a WHOPPING (22-42). Plug in Tom Brady or Peyton Manning without changing one single other player and you would have 4 years of playoffs.

When I played QB, the WR position was the last position on the offense I cared about, because it had the least impact towards the teams success. As long as I had 5 guys up front that bought in, gave 100%, and did their jobs with pass pro and a couple of beasts to hand the ball to, we could throw out guys at WR until we found one that could catch. IT DIDN'T MATTER. Can you catch ? Yes - Your in. It didn't matter because as long as I had time in the pocket, we were winning. Really, how hard is it to find a guy that is half way smart enough to run the route he is suppossed to and catch the ball. I knew whether he would be open before he did, just by reading the coverages and knowing his route. If we found a couple that were great, and in some seasons we did, it made it that much easier. I've said "Wow" once or twice under my breath, because a guy took a 15 yarder, made a move, and scored. Thank You very much, but if he didn't, I was still going to score anyway.

Great QB's win ! Great QB's get it done ! and while having a Wallace is a luxury - Great QB's don't need a Mike Wallace.

Ryan Tannehill is becoming a great QB and it has little to do with Mike Wallace. Telling Matthews to get the #$@ off the field, has little to do with Wallace. His quicker decisions and more accurate and zip like throws has little to do with Wallace and much more to do with his reads and the confidence Sherm has in him this season. (This is not the same offensive play calling from last season). He exudes confidence this season, he did not last season. He is a leader this season, he was not last season. There is more to playing QB than throwing the ball to Wallace/Gibson/Hartline.

You are seriously OVER-STATING the importance of Mike Wallace on Ryan Tannehill. Believe what you will - I'm done debating it.

If you want to believe that Ryan Tannehill needs Mike Wallace or Brandon Gibson to be great, then have it. I know he doesn't.

Taking your point to its logical conclusion, means a QB can have literally anyone at WR and it doesn't matter, which would negate the practice of ever going after "great" WRs. Your logic absolutely dictates, that if the GM has a choice between Legedu Nannee and Jerry Rice, you might as well pick whoever is cheaper, because WR skill is irrelevant if you have a great QB.

All we're saying is that it is a much more symbiotic relationship.

Oh and if you don't think Tannehill's numbers would have been significantly last year if he had Megatron instead of Legedu, then your opinion is even less valid.

"phinsational wrote:

I appreciate your input, Pauly. To contradict your first paragraph though, the thread isn't about pointing a finger at one variable significant to QB production/success. It's specifically about the QB-WR dynamic, not QB-Oline dynamic which is also significant.....not the coaching impact.... not the scheme fit impact... not the defense at the QB's back... nor how good his run support is. yada yada yada. I'm not isolating single seasons per se.... however, even behind a great Oline, the receivers have to be good enough to pose a threat or else defenses can bring extra pressure to nullify the great oline b/c they can trust their back end to keep the average receivers in check. Brady has a strong Oline, but it's not allowing him to pick apart defenses ATM b/c his receivers do little to dictate coverage or play-calling. So it still goes back to the dynamic between QB-WR. Ultimately you want ALL of it firing in sync, but I'm just focusing here on pass catchers.

I understand what you're saying, and an eyeball Mk I look at the stats supports your argument. There is correlation, but is there causation? An alternate theory could be that great OL play gives QBs and WRs time enough to make plays and what you're seeing could be the result of great OL play, but the credit is being given to the WRs/QBs.
I'm not enough of a stat nerd to run the regressions you'd need to try and separate the effect of the OL from the effect of the WR, but my gut feeling is that some of those QBs with elevated ratings when they had elite WRs playing with them also benefitted from elite OL play at the same time. HOF careers tend not to happen in isolation, they tend to happen when you have some very good team mates. The number of HOF players who predominantly played on average to poor teams is very low. Dick Butkus is about the only player I can think of that fits that category.

The running game's effect on the passing game has been pretty conclusively shown to be a very minor factor from the statistical analyses I've seen.