Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TwistofFate

Qb vs Wr, who makes who?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

A lot of controversy has always surrounded the question, who makes who?  Is it the Qb responsible for the Wr's output, or is it the Wr responsible for the Qb's output?  In all actuality it's a bit of both.  But, if the data is analyzed and scrutinized, what would it look like and what would it mean?  Is there a way to determine based on data who is more responsible for the production and if so, what would it look like?

 

I ask this question because I fully expect many fans with logical capabilities to bring various facts and charts to the forefront to support their theory.  I know many on this forum will do so.  This will inject much data from multiple different view points.  This I believe will bring us closer to the question, who makes who?

 

Based on pure theoretical analysis, I will attempt to answer the question, who makes who.  I will supply two graphs as a visual aid to assist in my theory.

 

The first graph I will refer to as "the fall off."

329137576_falloff.thumb.png.0ba9e45abf60043465736adf05d83c92.png

 

 

The fall off graph, as seen above, represents what I would expect to see when a receiver is more responsible for overall yardage production than a Qb.  In this graph, the purple represents a stand out receiver.  An elite receiver, so to speak.  This receiver would make up the brunt of production based purely on his receiving abilities.  The drop off represents the fall off in receiver talent.  The elite receiver is capable of making catches that normally wouldn't be made, example, errant throws, one handed grabs, circus catches, etc.  This fall off would represent the rest of the receiving corps as lagging behind the top receiver, but is that because those receivers are inadequate receivers or that the top receiver is simply more capable of making much more difficult catches?

 

In theory, I would expect the results shown in graphs number 2, dubbed "the decline," as results that would better represent a Qb more responsible for production than a receiver.

 

1497312098_decline3.thumb.jpg.e3a0a08ea890f965b67c86253a067056.jpg

 

The graph above would show clearly there is a number one receiver, but the production is more even distributed among the rest of the receiving group.  The theory behind this would suggest the Qb is more responsible for the passing production than the receiver, as he is elevating the game play of all those around him on a consistent basis.  On time, accurate passes would increase the production of nearly every Wr in the NFL.  There is a clear number 1, but the fall of is not as drastic for the rest, because they all would be catching mostly catchable passes they would be expected to catch.  The gradual decline would suggest a decline in WR talent in terms of not catching passes they shouldn't have caught.  Better WR's catch passes they shouldn't have normally caught. The cream rises to the top, so to speak.

 

Of course there are other variables that are involved in this.  Rooke WRs, new Wr's to the team, rapport between Wr and Qb, and receivers that are simply, not that good. But in pure terms of trying to evaluate who is more responsible for the production, I would expect to see graphs that are similar to these.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Edited by TwistofFate
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your fake graphs. Pretty.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Haha (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use attempts, targets, YPA, literally anything except two random bar graphs you copy pasted from some clipart 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Use attempts, targets, YPA, literally anything except two random bar graphs you copy pasted from some clipart 

 Should I just use ANY/A to determine?  I know its your favorite.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TwistofFate said:

 Should I just use ANY/A to determine?  I know its your favorite.

Are you aware when I plug in the Bills and Texans data it proves Allen is more responsible for his WR production than Deshaun Watson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


According to this Jacoby Brissett is more responsible for receiver production than Mahomes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there needs to be correlating data on your X and Y for any of that to make sense.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

Are you aware when I plug in the Bills and Texans data it proves Allen is more responsible for his WR production than Deshaun Watson. 

And what's wrong with that? 

 

Would you not agree Watson had a better receiver which in turn would lead to a drop off scenario? 

 

This is a theoretical analysis, which I stated in the third paragraph, that has to do with Qb/Wr relationships. 

 

The main topic of the thread is "who makes who."

 

 

Edited by TwistofFate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost always it is the Quarterback who makes the receivers. That isn't to say that even really elite Quarterbacks aren't better with elite receivers, of course they are, but you can't prop up a dud QB by giving him great targets, whereas you definitely can hide a deficient receiving corps with high level Quarterbacking.

 

NOTE: None of what I say above is in any way about Josh Allen. Before anyone tries to misinterpret in that way.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TwistofFate said:

A lot of controversy has always surrounded the question, who makes who?  Is it the Qb responsible for the Wr's output, or is it the Wr responsible for the Qb's output?  In all actuality it's a bit of both.  But, if the data is analyzed and scrutinized, what would it look like and what would it mean?  Is there a way to determine based on data who is more responsible for the production and if so, what would it look like?

 

I ask this question because I fully expect many fans with logical capabilities to bring various facts and charts to the forefront to support their theory.  I know many on this forum will do so.  This will inject much data from multiple different view points.  This I believe will bring us closer to the question, who makes who?

 

Based on pure theoretical analysis, I will attempt to answer the question, who makes who.  I will supply two graphs as a visual aid to assist in my theory.

 

The first graph I will refer to as "the fall off."

329137576_falloff.thumb.png.0ba9e45abf60043465736adf05d83c92.png

 

 

The fall off graph, as seen above, represents what I would expect to see when a receiver is more responsible for overall yardage production than a Qb.  In this graph, the purple represents a stand out receiver.  An elite receiver, so to speak.  This receiver would make up the brunt of production based purely on his receiving abilities.  The drop off represents the fall off in receiver talent.  The elite receiver is capable of making catches that normally wouldn't be made, example, errant throws, one handed grabs, circus catches, etc.  This fall off would represent the rest of the receiving corps as lagging behind the top receiver, but is that because those receivers are inadequate receivers or that the top receiver is simply more capable of making much more difficult catches?

 

In theory, I would expect the results shown in graphs number 2, dubbed "the decline," as results that would better represent a Qb more responsible for production than a receiver.

 

1497312098_decline3.thumb.jpg.e3a0a08ea890f965b67c86253a067056.jpg

 

The graph above would show clearly there is a number one receiver, but the production is more even distributed among the rest of the receiving group.  The theory behind this would suggest the Qb is more responsible for the passing production than the receiver, as he is elevating the game play of all those around him on a consistent basis.  On time, accurate passes would increase the production of nearly every Wr in the NFL.  There is a clear number 1, but the fall of is not as drastic for the rest, because they all would be catching mostly catchable passes they would be expected to catch.  The gradual decline would suggest a decline in WR talent in terms of not catching passes they shouldn't have caught.  Better WR's catch passes they shouldn't have normally caught. The cream rises to the top, so to speak.

 

Of course there are other variables that are involved in this.  Rooke WRs, new Wr's to the team, rapport between Wr and Qb, and receivers that are simply, not that good. But in pure terms of trying to evaluate who is more responsible for the production, I would expect to see graphs that are similar to these.

 

Thoughts?

 

 


 

Honestly neither of those graphs or scenarios would prove or show a thing about who makes who.  All either would show is the pass distribution and catch ratios - it does not show what or who is fully responsible.  It is impacted by play design, offensive system, freedom of QB to make decisions, team talent, coaching and game plans, etc.

 

If you truly want to see who makes who you need year over year studies of QB and WRs that change location and the impact the change had.  Even that is flawed as systems are different so things happen that can not be accounted for.

 

For example in Pittsburgh with a limited sample size - losing AB seemed to have a big impact early in the season on Big Ben, but then he got hurt - destroying the ability to analyze the data set.  If you had the whole year you could see more acutely what the impact of AB was to the passing offense and the impact on the QB and the other receivers.  
 

The same could be done with AB on his new team if he had stayed sane - you can look at the impact and determined if he increased the QB production or not and make some projections on that.

 

You could try using Tennessee and seeing the difference in Mariota versus Tannehill to see if he made the WRs better, but I don’t think you will see a conclusive data set.

 

I believe to be successful need a QB with talent to distribute the ball and WRs to get open and catch the darn thing.  Just based on the current NFL - a good QB can do more because of his singular impact on a game - than 1 game changing WR, but 1 game changing WR can also be the key to unlocking a QBs potential if the timing is right.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As GB said, this comment is not on Allen, just my general feeling is QB’s make the WR.  I know everyone hates Brady, but look at how he made average WR’s look excellent.  We’ll see how Stidham does this year compared to what Brady has accomplished.  Brady is just one example, but you can have excellent WR’s, but if the QB can’t place the ball where only he can catch it, then there are problems.  Certainly excellent WR’s help, but it’s a synergy.  On a positive note, I am excited for what Allen can do this year.  Three excellent WRs, two very promising RBs, and a TE who has promise in Knox.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mariota versus Tannehill is not a good pair to use an an example imo.  The only difference to me is that I think people expect Mariota to run more on designed plays than Tannehill. 

 

Both are decent to good QB's (under most cases). 

Both will never be thought of a Franchise QB.  (ok ok  fans of that team might think so) 

Both QB's have beaten the Patriots. 

Both QB's have won a Playoff game.  

 

 

Tawmy Brady "made" dozens of receivers in NE.  On a regular basis. (or was it the blind refs not flagging ... I digress) Many were "nothing special" before or after the NE**.

Tyrod Taylor is a good example of making receivers look bad.  (Look at the WR list that left during or after TT's Buffalo career) .  How guys like Charles Clay not be used properly at TE?

 

That ^ is the example you should use.  

2 minutes ago, machine gun kelly said:

As GB said, this comment is not on Allen, just my general feeling is QB’s make the WR.  I know everyone hates Brady, but look at how he made average WR’s look excellent.  We’ll see how Stidham does this year compared to what Brady has accomplished.  Brady is just one example, but you can have excellent WR’s, but if the QB can’t place the ball where only he can catch it, then there are problems.  Certainly excellent WR’s help, but it’s a synergy.  On a positive note, I am excited for what Allen can do this year.  Three excellent WRs, two very promising RBs, and a TE who has promise in Knox.

 

Beat me too it by this much lol   ... But I did add a counter ;)  ;)  

Edited by SlimShady'sSpaceForce
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Varies from QB to QB and from WR to WR.

 

More, it's a complex system with a million variables. The correct answer, really, is that they affect each other.

 

But overall, the QB makes the WR more than vice versa. The QB doesn't have to throw to a WR. You look at how great a receiver Will Fuller is and how little he got thrown to because of Deandre Hopkins being on that team. Look at Robert Woods' career.

 

Anyone think Deshawn Watson is going to suck now that he's lost the best WR in football?

Edited by Thurman#1
  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Targets make WR’s look good. Good QB’s also make WR’s look good. Good WR’s don’t make bad QB’s look good.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They make each other, as long as both have a minimum level of skill. Its a chicken or the egg question, can’t have one without the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TwistofFate said:

Thoughts?

 

Bravo! GIF by Reactions | Gfycat

 

Bravo!

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BuffaloBillies said:

The correct answer is...

 

Day 84 Graph Data Structures & ES6 Magic - Jon Ramer - Medium

 

This is way off, you have 1 red dot in the wrong place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Larry Fitzgerald is a good example of a WR who didn't need legendary QB play to make him a hall of fame receiver.

But then again, I think Tom Brady is a good example of a QB who didn't need legendary WR play to make him Hall of Fame QB.

So I guess this debate can go either way based on the player in question.

GO BILLS!

 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...