No I don't believe it does, logically speaking...This whole arguement is a bit absurd.
If any aspect is "better" then it logically follows that the sum of the parts should also be better. Does it not?
However, that statement is in a vacuum, and is not really applicable to a "real world" situation.
Surely you both realize that improvement from any unit affects the others in a positive way as well?
It is a team sport, and it takes a complete team to compete with other complete teams. This either/or nonsense is purely theoretical, and though it may be fun to have the discussion from a "debate" perspective, it doesn't really mean much.
You're making a huge assumption that every other 'part' doesn't regress. If a running back improves but the wide receivers' production falls off a cliff then the sum of the offense is not better unless of course the running back's production surpasses the lost production of the wide receivers.
Goes back to the whole team concept, one player doesn't improve the entire team. I really wish that were not true sometimes, our greatest Quarterback would have had multiple rings if the season's outcomes were based on his abilities.