It was somewhat solid, though the Tebow>Cutler argument is laughable at best.
Also, great QBs make WRs good much more often than the other way around.
Antonio Freeman for instance was Farve's #1 for a few years and made a few Pro Bowls. He really wasn't that great of a receiver though, but Farve made him much better.
I'd also like to argue that Marvin Harrison was never one of the best WRs in football, but having Peyton there helped him immensely.
On the Cowboys in 2006, Bledsoe had a 69 QB rating through 6 games, Romo came in and had a 95 QB rating with the exact same weapons.
The saints when they got Drew Brees were what, 3-13, 2-14 the year before? They had pick 2 overall in the draft and drafted a gadget running back. The next year they make the playoffs, and I'm positive if Drew Brees wasn't slinging the rock, you'd have no idea who Marques Colston is.
I mean, sure you can argue that Good WRs can survive well with a bad QB and produce, more so than a good QB with no cast. But the thing we are really talking about is one positions ability to effect the others and make a team win. A great QB can make average WRs look good and good WRs look great. A great WR, aside from perhaps 2-3 in history, cannot have that effect. If you have a QB who's mobile, has good pocket presence, great arm, great vision, your WRs suddenly become a whole lot better. Your O-line suddenly becomes a whole lot better ( likewhen romo took over the cowboys in '06 their O-line was doing completely awful).
So perhaps Cutler is going to become a great QB, perhaps he isn't, but to argue that their O-line was the best group of pass blockers in football, or that the Bronco's have one of the top 5-10 receiving cores in football is a losing battle. On a team where the top 7 HBs got injured, and the defense was one of the NFL's worst, cutler threw for 4400 yards and led his team to 8 wins. I'll take it. There are situations where you can argue a QB is a product of the season, Matt Cassel being 1 such case, but to argue that Cutlers situation was near as good as Cassel's is simply incorrect....
All imo of course.
