Correct. Some may remember I did a study of teams appearing in the SB since 2000? All but 1-2 teams had 3 or more of top 10 D, top 10 OL, top 10 run game, top QB, top HC. Didn't focus on WRs, but I'm confident top receivers are common for SB teams. That includes, TB, Rodgers, PManning. More weapons make a QB more productive. Weapons are valuable, but not a crutch.
I think it's probably best to focus on teams that made the conference championship, and generally they'll all have a winning blend of OL, WR, pass rusher, and DB. Of these (off hand), I believe that WR (or elite TE's) and pass rusher are relatively strong most often for such teams. But, the great teams that are deficient in any of these areas have to make them up big-time in one or more of the others. Receiving talent imo is the most important of these. It can overcome the most, regarding other deficiencies, and, if you don't have high-end receiving options, it's the most difficult deficiency to overcome.
Receivers who are trustworthy but also have big-play ability separate the haves from the have-nots more than any other non-QB's. You can scheme pressure and coverage, as long as you have one or the other; you can scheme protection to some extent; and, you can scheme guys open (sometimes), but you can't scheme playmaking.
You can't scheme Jerry Rice an 80-yard TD ok a 5-yard slant or Randy Moss out-running 2 DB's and Mossing a 3rd or Tyreek Hill using his burst and speed to outrun a perfect coverage call from the #1 D in the league. A. Brown, C. Johnson, J. Jones, etc. Some teams are so bad they waste these guys, but that just means they're particularly bad elsewhere.
Everything in football is a balance, and everything matters, but some things matter more than others.