You might consider looking at the game logs over the past 2 seasons to see who was throwing the ball in the games where Shorts had his best production. 

 

Henne's production as a starter was significantly better than Gabbert's over the last 2 years, and Shorts benefited from that quite a bit.  Granted, Henne made boneheaded mistakes as well, but he wasn't nearly as awful as Gabbert.

 

Receivers can't develop if there isn't at least a competent QB throwing them the ball.  Henne is capable of putting up decent stats. 

 

So you don't get it, either.

 

Stats aren't development.

 

Guys don't suddenly "develop". Guys are developing over long stretches of time. Cecil developed just fine even though he was playing with someone as bad as Gabbert.

 

Demarius Thomas up in Denver developed just fine even though he was playing with Tebow and when a real QB came in he was already developed and ready to produce.

 

It doesn't matter if a guy has low stats. A decent GM can tell who is good, who is getting better, and which end of the passing game problems occur on.

 

So, I'm not afraid of a player "not developing" because we have a bad QB in the game, I'm more concerned with trying to get a better QB.

---

So you don't get it, either.

 

Stats aren't development.

 

Guys don't suddenly "develop". Guys are developing over long stretches of time. Cecil developed just fine even though he was playing with someone as bad as Gabbert.

 

Demarius Thomas up in Denver developed just fine even though he was playing with Tebow and when a real QB came in he was already developed and ready to produce.

 

It doesn't matter if a guy has low stats. A decent GM can tell who is good, who is getting better, and which end of the passing game problems occur on.

 

So, I'm not afraid of a player "not developing" because we have a bad QB in the game, I'm more concerned with trying to get a better QB.

 

You're not some deep thinker. I get your point.  But, a player will only realize the fruits of their development when they have someone who is targeting them, and able to get them the ball to show it.  A good receiver on a team with an historically bad QB is not going to realize his potential, or come close to it in ay way.  It's not rocket science, but apparently you think there's some hidden secret only you're privileged to.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I don't expect the highest level of discourse on a football message board, but you should actually ATTEMPT to get a coherent thought into your post about why you think my point was wrong instead of just lashing out pointlessly.

I don't need to because it's already been explained to you. You're just to ignorant to realize it. 

---

I think Bridgewater at 3 is better value than Mack at 3, yes.

 

<div> 
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Clown.
</div>
 
 
 

You're not some deep thinker. I get your point.  But, a player will only realize the fruits of their development when they have someone who is targeting them, and able to get them the ball to show it.  A good receiver on a team with an historically bad QB is not going to realize his potential, or come close to it in ay way.  It's not rocket science, but apparently you think there's some hidden secret only you're privileged to.

 

No, if you understand then stop trying to split hairs out of a personal agenda, just declare you accept what I'm saying as correct and that those making pointlessly insulting posts should find something better to do with their time.

 

The problem is that most people can't separate production from ability. Cecil has ability and he's been developed into a quality WR. We don't need to see a 1000 yard season from him to know that.

---

No, if you understand then stop trying to split hairs out of a personal agenda, just declare you accept what I'm saying as correct and that those making pointlessly insulting posts should find something better to do with their time.

 

The problem is that most people can't separate production from ability. Cecil has ability and he's been developed into a quality WR. We don't need to see a 1000 yard season from him to know that.

Personal agenda?  Seriously? 

 

It's not splitting hairs.  It's simple fact.  No agenda whatsoever.  A player can certainly develop regardless of who the QB is, but you'll never see that development come to fruition if you've got a QB who can't get you the ball.  It's not that difficult to understand for most.  A player could have all the ability on the planet.  If his QB is too busy curling up in the fetal position, how is that going to translate on the field? 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Personal agenda?  Seriously? 

 

It's not splitting hairs.  It's simple fact.  No agenda whatsoever.  A player can certainly develop regardless of who the QB is, but you'll never see that development come to fruition if you've got a QB who can't get you the ball.  It's not that difficult to understand for most.  A player could have all the ability on the planet.  If his QB is too busy curling up in the fetal position, how is that going to translate on the field? 

 

Yes, your personal agenda is take a stance and defend it by trying to equivocate your way to right next to the argument. When someone else is right just say "oh, sorry, I was mistaken in what you were talking about" or "you've convinced me" instead of trying to argue about a point someone else wasn't making.

---

So Cecil Shorts didn't develop over his first two seasons even though he was playing with one of the worst QBs of the last few years in Gabbert?

 

Just how stupid are you?

 

 

I don't expect the highest level of discourse on a football message board, but you should actually ATTEMPT to get a coherent thought into your post about why you think my point was wrong instead of just lashing out pointlessly.

 

 

No, if you understand then stop trying to split hairs out of a personal agenda, just declare you accept what I'm saying as correct and that those making pointlessly insulting posts should find something better to do with their time.

 

The problem is that most people can't separate production from ability. Cecil has ability and he's been developed into a quality WR. We don't need to see a 1000 yard season from him to know that.

 

That's funny because I didn't insult you. I do, however, want to make my opinion clear. You are an idiot. I didn't say that before this post, but I'm not the one that supposedly started with these "insulting posts".

 

I don't know how many times I can say it, but you simply don't get it.

 

I've already said that a player may progress with a bad QB. I guess you didn't read my posts? I'm arguing against your opinion that the QB position isn't "relevant" in the development of other positions. There's no point in explaining these things to you again. You've already proven that you're more interested in throwing out insults than participating in this debate. 

---

That's funny because I didn't insult you. I do, however, want to make my opinion clear. You are an idiot. I didn't say that before this post, but I'm not the one that supposedly started with these "insulting posts".

 

I don't know how many times I can say it, but you simply don't get it.

 

I've already said that a player may progress with a bad QB. I guess you didn't read my posts? I'm arguing against your opinion that the QB position isn't "relevant" in the development of other positions. There's no point in explaining these things to you again. You've already proven that you're more interested in throwing out insults than participating in this debate. 

 

Don't try to turn it around on me. When you make so many posts free of content simply calling me ignorant that's not trying to discuss anything, it's just lashing out against someone who isn't convinced by your baseless argument.

 

Glad that you finally have realized that player development doesn't depend what QB is in the game.

---

Offensive players can be developed with a bad QB.  (That's why they have 20 coaches on staff.)

 

 It stands to reason that a WR can be developed to a greater degree and more quickly with a more talented QB throwing him the ball.  Seems like basic common sense to me. 

---

That makes sense.  It's rare that a WR can have great seasons with an average or sub par QB.  Though he put up amazing stats for one season, Scott Mitchell was an underperforming QB.  But even in his worst season, Herman Moore and Brett Perriman put up great numbers.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Don't try to turn it around on me. When you make so many posts free of content simply calling me ignorant that's not trying to discuss anything, it's just lashing out against someone who isn't convinced by your baseless argument.

 

Glad that you finally have realized that player development doesn't depend what QB is in the game.

 

I'm sorry you're sensitive to the word. Being called ignorant to an argument can sometimes mean that you're.... ignorant. There's an actual meaning behind the word. It's not strictly derogatory. 

 

Either way, I feel compelled to show you that you, again, didn't read my post. 

 

I've said from the beginning of this stupid debate that a player may develop with a bad QB. I said that the QB position is relevant. A good QB can make a player better. You said that they'll progress fully with or without a a good QB, and that's stupid.

---