terps85

4 minutes ago, VermontRaven said:

Not necessarily.  It means 1 player can help put the other player in a better position to succeed. 

For example, if a WR gets separation, it puts the QB in a better position to make a play---However, the QB still has to execute--find the right read to go to that WR and make a good throw, etc. 

OR vice versa--  If a QB has pinpoint accuracy and puts the ball in a position where the WR can make a play--again it puts the WR in position to make the play--however, he still has to execute by making the catch.

 

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.  The "not necessarily" leads me to believe you are not, but everything that followed said otherwise.

Flacco cannot magically make the other players around him better at their job, or execute.  He can put the blockers in the best possible situation or the receivers in the best possible situation, but if they are not any good, the results will be bad.  I really don't understand what's so hard about this.

17 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

where did i say he should execute for everyone else?

 

That's the whole basis of thinking that players can make other players better, is it not?

39 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

flacco can put them in a better position to just that.

its called pre snap adjustments.

if the call is a slant route but the defender is lining to the inside should of the receiver , then by simply changing the route , he can put the receiver in a better position to gain seperation.

it really does not require the receiver to run faster or gain any physical skills tbh.

besides that he is a 9 year vet and SB MVP.

pretty sure he can use his experience to tell receivers such as perriman and young for instance what to do in certain situations.
for instance on when to continue the route when its zone or when to settle down.

he does not have to do it but he can and if the players take it by heart they can become better players.

heck he could try and explain to maxx how he and pitta have such a good report.
it can only make maxx become a better player.

for the record im not saying joe is not doing these things , im just using them as examples on how a QB can make others better.

You just are not reading what I'm writing man.  Flacco can call the right protection and routes, but he cannot execute for everyone else.  He can do all of that pre-snap stuff (which is Flacco playing well btw, not the receivers) with a line and receiving corps consisting of people that post on this board and the results would obviously not be good.  Is Flacco all of a sudden a worse player because those around him are not doing their job?

11 hours ago, ALPHA said:

Nobody drafted between Perriman and Maxx has done anything of note so we're not really missing out on anything with his progression, I mean it could have been worse considering that we were targeting Bud Dupree.

Preston Smith has been pretty good for the Skins and would definitely had filled a need. 

But I'm still not convinced Perriman won't turn it around here soon. 

9 hours ago, Tru11 said:

can you quote where i said anything about becoming more talented tnx to others?

im talking about being better in relation to your teammates.

wallace is better player with someone like flacco or big ben because they play to his strengths.
tannehill did not.

flacco is a better player when the o-line gives him time.
flacco is horrible when he has less then a 2nd.

 

Your definition of a better player isn't the same as mine. Literally the whole point of what I'm trying to say is the first part of what I quoted. The whole saying of "quarterbacks making other players around them better" is what is not true. Flacco can't make his line play better or receivers create separation, much like Mike Wallace couldn't magically give Bridgewater or Tannehill the ability the throw the ball downfield. 

More production doesn't mean better player. Would you take Golden Tate over Odell Beckham because he had more catches last year?

1 minute ago, usmccharles said:

Ok I get you, I interpreted it a little different.  Its crazy how most of us were so excited about our WR corps, me included...and this is what we get. 

Got ya man. Saying players perform the same regardless of situation wouldn't make any sense at all, I agree with you there lol. 

But yeah, it sucks. I don't know how much of it is the receiving corps or the line, but it's definitely frustrating. Revis shadowing Perriman could mean a good thing, but that might be a bit too optimistic. 

2 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

 

Sorry man, but this is just false.  You really think having AP in the backfield doesn't make life a bit easier on the WRs?  What about OL play, our biggest issue, that doesn't elevate the QB any? You think Dak Prescott looks this good behind our OL? Come on man, that's common sense, that's why its a team sport.  No SSr might not run a faster 40, but if there is another player that has to be accounted for and he cant be doubled....im gonna guess hes going to be a bit more open.  This analogy can be used for almost everything in life.....

I've never said players aren't going to perform better in environments more suitable to their strengths though. At the end of the day, the receiver still has to be good enough to beat the guy across from him. The idea that a QB can make it so a receiver can beat the guy across from him is what I'm saying doesn't make sense. 

By your logic, any team with a good run game should automatically have a good passing game and vice versa. But that's not the case because at the end of the day, it comes down to talent. It's what makes football the best game there is. It's such a complex game, but all comes down to beating the guy across from you. 

35 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

in a teams game the amount of talent you can show depends on the players you are surrounded with.

with the right players you can become a better player and thus play at a higher level and thus live up to your full potential.
with the wrong players you can be a bust and out of the league in a few years.

 

You don't become a more talented player based on the players around you. Does Steve Smith now run a faster 40 time because he's playing Flacco instead of some of the scrubs they had in Carolina?

19 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

so last sunday flacco is also the same guy as the flacco that won SB MVP?

Just going to ignore he's coming off knee surgery? But if you're talking about arm talent, you must also be ignoring his 50 yard dime to Wallace. Much like Wallace with changing schemes, Flacco was able to throw that with good protection, further showing he just didn't forget how to throw which is what you're insinuating. No one has said players will perform the same regardless of situation. The idea of Flacco magically giving someone talent is what I'm saying. 

6 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

so a player that plays better is not a better player then a player that does not play better?

better a player that plays to his potential is not a better player then a player who is not playing to his potential?

 

You're confusing talent with production. 

16 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

read the 2nd sentence of the piece you quoted.

He's still not making him any better of a player, he's just in a better situation because the quarterback fits his strengths, which he has always had.

13 hours ago, Tru11 said:

yes.

he now has a QB that can get the ball to him.

he seems a lot more motivated and goes at full speed downfield anticipating the ball , rather then just doing a half butt job knowing he is just a decoy that wont see the ball coming his way.

 

 

With all due respect, you're just throwing out a bunch of generalizations that aren't really true. If you watched Vikings games last year (gamepass or live) you would have realized Wallace still was open deep plenty, but didn't have a QB to get him the ball. Saying a receiver is more talented or better because he has a QB that can get him the ball deep just doesn't make any sense. 

13 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

so do you think a receiver has a better chance of winning when being put in a favorable spot or when being put in a bad spot?

 

Of course. Mike Wallace is a prime example. He's with Tannehill and Bridgewater, two guys who struggle throwing it downfield.  Did Flacco magically make it so Wallace could get open deep again?

5 hours ago, Tru11 said:

do you think a receiver has a better chance of winning when being put in a favorable spot or when being put in a bad spot?

 

Again, this is a quarterback doing a better job.  Ultimately it comes down to the receiver beating his man and the good quarterbacks don't have some magic wand that just magically makes the receiver able to generate separation.  

In the first quarter last week, Wallace beat his guy on a post for tat long gain.  It was a great throw, but obviously would not have been a successful play had Wallace not beaten his guy.  Flacco wasn't involved in the route before he threw it, so he had no impact on the route itself (Wallace beating Skrine).  

If it were true that quarterbacks make players better, then the Patriots would not spend early picks on pass catchers (Gronk, Dobson, and others in the 2nd/3rd round that did not pan out).

It's the same issue that we have seen with the Ravens.  I'm sure most of us can agree that Flacco is at his best when throwing downfield.  The line has been brutal this year and he does not have the time for the deep routes to develop.  Does he magically become a good down field thrower again if he is able to, ignoring the bad footwork, step up and throw the ball deep?

3 minutes ago, Tru11 said:

actually they can create a better situation.

changing a route or play or tell a player to go in motion can create the desire situation.

not to mention adjusting the blocking  assignments can create enough time to get the play off.

when you have 4 wide and the defense still stacks the box with 7 , you are better off checking out of run.

if you already know the coverage before the snap you can make adjustments that can create a better situation for succes.

you can create certain situations with good preperations.

 

 

Ok, but this is still the QB doing his job or playing better. The receiver still has to win, regardless of how favorable of a spot he is put in. 

9 hours ago, Tru11 said:

uhhh its possible.

Ball placement for instance can make a receiver look better or worse.

lets use the slant with the defender in a trailing position:
placing the ball in front of the receiver , so he can catch it and maintain momentum gives you a much higher % at a catch and YAC.
placing the ball behind him increases the difficulty of the catch and usually ends in a drop.
same with placing the ball at the feet.
a jump ball is about the worst options to throw as you are hanging the receiver out to dry and a drop is very high to occur.

now its pretty clear in which of these the receiver will look better and in which ones he will look worse.
1 he can look good with a catch and yac while the others he can be credited for  a drop and the blame for the play failing.

 

The key phrase you keep using is "look better". A good QB will not magically make their receivers beat the defender off the line or create separation. A good QB will take better advantage of these situations, sure, but a good QB cannot create these situations. 

8 hours ago, PurpleCity5 said:

If Breshad was really shadowed by Revis all game, than that would definitely explain his absence. Even if Revis is on a downward spiral he's still a respectable CB. Tough for a guy who is pretty much a rookie to beat him out right like that. Hopefully he can turn it up in the 2nd half of the season. I'm still hopefully for the guy. 

Not only would it explain his lack of stats, but it shows what the Jets think of him and that he might be/probably is doing better than what the fans' perception is. 

1 minute ago, GhostofGrbac said:

Again I stated before that better probably wasn't the best word to use.

From my standpoint I was using better as in more productive. Which obviously you guys wouldn't know since you're not mind readers.

Side note: this forum software is awful on mobile. I've been typing up posts and they randomly disappear.

Oh, I must have missed that post. Sorry about that.

But yeah, I've had problems with it too. Sometimes it disappears and other times the submit button doesn't work. 

6 minutes ago, GhostofGrbac said:

Falling off? He threw 31 td's to a WR/TE group consisting of Jones, Adams, Montgomery, Rodgers, and Cobb (who was banged up throughout the season).

After throwing 38 the previous year with a 112 rating. His rating last year was 92. 

7 minutes ago, GhostofGrbac said:

Calvin Johnson has arguably the best season of his career in Stafford's first fully healthy season. So yeah Stafford made Johnson a more productive (aka better) WR.

The Calvin Johnson thing doesn't even factor in to what I'm talking about though. You're talking about the #2 draft pick while I'm talking about late round guys like Colston.

I didn't dodge your Wallace question. It's hard to follow on a phone when you respond to every single post I make.

Yes Wallace is a more productive (aka better) WR with Flacco than he was in Minnesota and Miami.

Productivity and talent are not the same thing though. Last year, Golden Tate had more receptions and yards than Odell Beckham. Would you consider Tate better than Beckham?

1 minute ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Did Calvin Johnson become a better receiver all of a sudden or was it just more helpful to have a more accurate passer?

Still waiting to hear about Wallace. You're a master dodger.

You also have the whole Aaron Rodgers falling off last year without Jordy or really anything around him. Why didn't he make them better too?

For the whole "a good QB makes everyone around him better" thing, there are plenty of counter-examples. Very obvious one is Aaron Dobson who was drafted in the 2nd round by the Patriots a few years ago and was already cut. QBs don't have magic wands that make receivers run good routes or catch the ball. 

As for Flacco, he's just not good enough to carry an offense without a running game. He makes too many bad throws and his mechanics are atrocious at times. He looks great when he actually steps into his throws, but that rarely happens. It sucks that he's never had a receiver he can rely on to make plays and get 50/50 balls (besides Boldin in the playoffs). 

According to Mike Clay (ESPN fantasy football guy) Perriman was shadowed by Revis yesterday. The Jets obviously don't think he's a bust. 

It would be inexcusable to not take Tim Williams if he was there in the 2nd. Of course, I thought the same thing about Myles Jack this year...

13 minutes ago, GrimCoconut said:

This is true but there are times when Joe can step up into the pocket but he doesn't. 

Yeah it seems like he is creating pressure in his head at times. Underthrew a deep ball yesterday (to Wallace I think) because he unnecessarily fell backwards.