Chicken or egg (QB vs Receiver)

[HE WITH HORNS]

The end of last year, I thought our WRs looked better with Keenum throwing instead of Foles, but our WRs still aren't very good.

Case in point:
Torry Holt had 1300 yards one year with like 3 differend QBs throwing him the ball.
Fitzgerald had 1300 yards one year under the same QB circumstances in AZ.
Both of those years though, the Rams and Cards failed to make the playoffs because of lousy QB play.

A good QB won't make bad WRs into good receivers, but a good QB can still make a team a winner under the right circumstances.

 

[baconandbread]

I think if you are talking premiere/top talent you go with QB over WR. The problem with this draft is that unless we get Goff or Wentz (which I don't think we will or necessarily should give up the farm for) I feel we're better off going WR in the first, QB in the early second or trade to go QB in the late first. Just my opinion

 

[jrry32]

That's fine, but clearly there are others who view it differently. We all know you think Keenum is garbage and you're tired of losing, and you have a QB in this dra
ft who can turn it all around for us, but that's all speculation. The fact is, this team hasn't had a legit starting wideout since Brandon Lloyd, and he made Bradford (and Feeley) look much better than they did before he arrived. How much better do you think Bradford would have looked with guys other than Gibson, Robinson and Amendola as his starters in 2010? To that end, why did he look (and perform) much better when Clayton and Alexander stepped it up for him? That's the symbiotic relationship between QB and WR that fuels this chicken-egg debate that takes place on every team board at one point or another.

Disagree. There's certainly a reciprocal relationship between the two but it's not symbiotic.

And frankly, I don't know how anyone could view it differently. I'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm simply pointing out that there's far too much evidence out there that proves that QBs have a FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR greater effect on wins and losses than WRs. There is no question which side of the QB/WR equation is more important and plays a greater role in team success. In fact, I'll provide examples:
QBs
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2004.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2003.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2015.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sdg/2012.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sdg/2013.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sea/2013.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sdg/2004.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nor/2006.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/1996.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2001.htm

WRs
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/crd/2011.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/2012.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram/1995.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cle/2013.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/htx/2008.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/atl/2014.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/det/2008.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram/2002.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2003.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rai/1997.htm

What's my point here? You have examples of some of the best WRs being on bad teams and some of the best WR seasons of all time only resulting in 7-8 wins. You also have examples of great QBs producing without good WRs. How does this tie together? With a few questions:
1. How many examples are there in the past 20-30 years of elite all time QBs playing on bad teams?(in terms of W-L record)
2. How many examples are there in the past 20-30 years of elite all time QBs posting all time great seasons and their team not winning?

I can understand why someone would view it differently in terms of not liking the first round QBs this year or being unwilling to trade up but I don't know how a person could consider a WR to be equally valuable or think the Rams have to get a WR for a QB to be successful.

 

[RAMpage28]

Obviously QB is more important and you take a shot on high talent QB early over a high talent WR earlier in the draft.

 

[jrry32]

Do we know this?Personally I haven't seen him play enough to KNOW anything.

I know this. The Rams cut him. The Texans cut him. The Rams brought him back for a 7th. Keenum looked very mediocre against the cupcake part of our schedule. Keenum was not a rookie. He was not a first time starter. He's not good enough. I said the same thing about Austin Davis after the 2014 season.

 

[-X-]

Disagree. There's certainly a reciprocal relationship between the two but it's not symbiotic.

K then. I apparently don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Force16X]

QB.

I see teams w awesome WR1s out there struggle year after year. Teams with awesome QBs contend year after year.

you mean like the detroit lions ?

 

[-X-]

Obviously QB is more important and you take a shot on high talent QB early over a high talent WR earlier in the draft.

Yeah, in a vacuum, QB is clearly more important than WR. I think we all agree on that. And if we have a chance to get THE best QB in the draft this year, then we should. But is that a sure thing? Is it ever? I don't know what the bust rate is for first round wide receivers, but it's gotta be pretty low. My question, I guess, is are we're close to being contenders where we'd be significantly better with a great wide receiver and rolling with Keenum/Mannion/whoever, or are we so far away from being contenders that we need a great QB to pair with Britt/Austin/Quick? There are more than just the two options obviously, but I'm trying to gauge the opinion given those two choices.

In short, are our wide receivers good enough but our QB isn't?
Or are our QBs good enough but our receivers aren't? (given how good the defense/run game is).

 

[jrry32]

Yeah, in a vacuum, QB is clearly more important than WR. I think we all agree on that. And if we have a chance to get THE best QB in the draft this year, then we should. But is that a sure thing? Is it ever? I don't know what the bust rate is for first round wide receivers, but it's gotta be pretty low. My question, I guess, is are we're close to being contenders where we'd be significantly better with a great wide receiver and rolling with Keenum/Mannion/whoever, or are we so far away from being contenders that we need a great QB to pair with Britt/Austin/Quick? There are more than just the two options obviously, but I'm trying to gauge the opinion given those two choices.

In short, are our wide receivers good enough but our QB isn't?
Or are our QBs good enough but our receivers aren't? (given how good the defense/run game is).

As I recall, first round WRs and QBs had similar success rates. They were about equally risky.

 

[Ballhawk]

OK, it's decided. We first draft the next Tom Brady and then we draft the next Megatron and it's all good.
No Problem!

 

[jap]

I say we get Mad Mike on the payroll first, and let him decide who's more important.

 

[tavian]

He's not good enough

Guess you better tell Fisher that cause apparently he is our starter.

 

[jrry32]

Guess you better tell Fisher that cause apparently he is our starter.

Get him on the phone. Because he should be fired today if he actually believes Keenum is an acceptable opening day starter.

 

[jap]

Guess you better tell Fisher that cause apparently he is our starter.

Case is the starter because he's the best we have at the moment. He may be surpassed by Sean in this year's TC/pre-season. However, for now, he's the man until someone else proves otherwise.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Yet, Tom Brady helped the Patriots win 3 Super Bowls in 4 years with WRs that were nothing to write home about.

Really? That's the example you want to pull out? There was much more going on than the golden boy. I refuse to acknowledge those Superbowls.

.

 

[jrry32]

Really? That's the example you want to pull out? There was much more going on than the golden boy. I refuse to acknowledge those Superbowls.

.

Cheating or not, his WRs were nothing special. Yet, he played well and the Patriots won. But there are many more examples.

 

[jap]

Cheating or not, his WRs were nothing special. Yet, he played well and the Patriots won. But there are many more examples.

You could have gone back to Dan "the Man" Marino. Mark Clayton & Mark Duper were alright but hardly really special WRs. Dan possessed that uncanny accuracy. He used to shock Pro Bowl WRs in the Pro Bowl by informing them in the huddle that the ball in the coming bomb was "going to be coming over the left shoulder" before delivering on his promise to the letter. Even those high end wide-outs were not used to QBs speaking/performing with supreme confidence concerning his unreal accuracy.

 

[RamFan503]

you mean like the detroit lions ?

Um... They have both.

 

[tavian]

Get him on the phone. Because he should be fired today if he actually believes Keenum is an acceptable opening day starter.

As I recall, first round WRs and QBs had similar success rates. They were about equally risky.

Not true as you will see in this report

Drafting NFL Wide Receivers: Hit or Miss?
By Amrit Dhar

 

[-X-]

Get him on the phone. Because he should be fired today if he actually believes Keenum is an acceptable opening day starter.

Are you gonna fire him?

Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams - and those are just the winners.

Tony Eason, Craig Morton, Vince Ferragamo, Ron Jaworski, David Woodley, Jim McMahon, Neil O'Donnell, Chris Johnson, Kerry Collins, Rich Gannon, Jake Delhomme, Rex Grossman, Colin Sackorpick - all started in a Super Bowl.

Keenum has every bit the talent that most of those guys have. He probably won't be the starter, but let's not pretend he's Jim Druckenmiller either.