You have options for a, b, and neither but you are missing the option for both. I feel that both have major effects on the other. I dont think any offense can be successful with horrible receivers or with a horrible qb. I think our receivers are more horrible than our qb but thats just us. Want to see a great qb with horrible receivers, look at the 2019 patriots, very mediocre offense and made the qb look done. Brady goes to tampa and gets good receivers suddenly he is good again. But visa versa take Indy the year Manning got hurt and their horrible backup qb played. The receivers were fine but the offense was not good. Both effect eachother a lot, equally. If Brees was still here and a few years younger, we would look like the 2019 patriots offense. If we had Michael Thomas with Trevor Semian throwing to him, we would look like Trevor Semian with the Broncos who had some decent receivers I believe but was mediocre. If we brought back Tom Savage who is worse than Semian and Hill, but equal to our receivers, we would have the worst passing offense in modern nfl history.

Wow! You think the QB's aren't having an effect on the pass catchers? Check this out from Jeff Duncan. Only one team this year in the NFL has a lower catchable pass rate than the Saints!

https://twitter.com/JeffDuncan_/stat...30741443317762

So which one is correct then, because the other stat from twitter that was posted yesterday says Siemian has the 4th best catchable pass rate in the NFL.

Read carefully. Of course both have an impact on the other. The whole question is which is MORE LIKELY to have an impact (negative or positive) on the other.

I did read carefully, but if you literally just want to know which is more likely, then ‘neither has a big effect’ should not be an option either, because even if both effects were small, one would still be less small, unless they are exactly equal. And if they can be exactly equal, the effects could be equal and small which that option seems to imply could be roughly the case, or equal and large which my proposed option would imply could be roughly the case. There is no reason to say the difference can only be negligible if both effects are small, two large effects can have negligible differences too.

What I would say is

Passing yardage = pass throwing ability x pass catching ability. Passing touchdowns = pass throwing ability into the endzone x pass catching ability in the endzone. Receivers and qbs are both judged strongly by yardage and touchdowns, and both require a thrower and catcher to perform for either to gain the stat. In this case the effects are exactly equal, a x b = c, you can’t say a or b affects c more, they both affect c a lot, but the same as eachother.

If we want to get down to meaningless technicalities, the qb may affect the receivers more than the receivers affect the qb because the receivers get 99.5% of their passes from the qb, all except trick plays. But the qb can throw to the running backs too, so the receivers and TE can only control the outcome of like 80% of his passes, but they do greatly affect the ability to spread out the defense for the other 20%, so perhaps the receivers affect the qb about 90% as much as the qb affects the receivers. But if we compare the ability of the qb to the ability of all eligible receivers including running backs, i think they affect eachother totally and equally, if one fails they both fail, and you need to study film to find the weak link because the result is the same either way, less passing offense. I dont think a great qb can make due with horrible receivers or great receivers can make due with a horrible qb, the best you can get combining great and horrible is mediocre overall results.

If any one of the QBs on this roster would match the intensity of effort Brees put into preparation, we're not having a conversation about how good/bad WRs and TEs are...

If any one of the QBs on this roster would match the intensity of effort Brees put into preparation, we're not having a conversation about how good/bad WRs and TEs are...