The problem with these sorts of analyses is always this implication:
Beyond a handful of elite quarterbacks, who exactly would have thrived with an offensive line that yielded 247 pressures and a running game that averaged 3.5 per carry?
The problem there is that even when you look at sub-elite QBs, the year-to-year variation in their career performance isn't a function of variation in offensive line and running game play. And even if it was, one could argue that the better the QB plays, the better those other facets of the offense also play.
There seems to be this bedrock philosophical belief among fans that the relationship between the QB and the other parts of an NFL offense are
unidirectional, such that the offensive line and run game provide some sort of supportive foundation for the QB, without which he doesn't thrive.
If there indeed are significant relationships among these parts of offenses, they're far more likely to be
bidirectional such that they all affect each other in a reciprocal manner.
Take for example the simple finding that the two strongest predictors of pressure on QBs are 1) time to throw, and 2) scoreboard differential. The second of those is presumably attributable to the disadvantageous position offensives line are in when the whole world knows their QB has to pass the ball to mount a comeback on the scoreboard. Well isn't that also a function of QB play? Certainly QBs who are better at moving the ball and scoring are better at staying
out of those situations, thus providing their offensive lines with more advantageous playing conditions.
Thus these relationships are
bidirectional. It isn't:
Offensive line --> QB
Run game --> QB
It's rather:
Offensive line <--> QB
Run game <--> QB
Author