You are getting boring, repetitive and wrong. You are neglecting disagregation of individual abilities and efforts in your analysis. Let's back things out to a simpler context of baseball.
The Pittsburgh Pirates suck, you know that, I know that (I live 300 feet from the Squirrel Hill Tunnel and just bought my Bucs-Red Sox tickets this morning).
Using your logic, no contending team would ever want to bring over one or two specific players from the Pirates for a play-off push to improve their offense or to provide better defense or whatever because the Pirates suck, therefore all of their players must also suck.
However, let's take Jason Bay. He does not suck. He is a top tier player that for a long while was on the Bucs. When he got traded to the Red Sox he did not magically go from barely being able to catch a ball to being a legit All-Star --- he maintained his previous level of performance but happened to be on a much better team which his performance made better (counterfactual that Manny would still continue to be Manny...)
Some players on the Pirates suck, some players on the Pirates are just below MLB competent, others are MLB competent, and a few are legitimately above competent MLB players. Almost every team will have at least one player in each of these categories. The problem with the Pirates is that the ratio of suck to almost competent to compent to legitimately good to superior talent is skewed massively to the left, while the Red Sox, Rays, Yanks etc. have a talent distribution curve skewed to the right. However there are a few players on the Bucs that could help a contender despite the fact the Pirates suck.
The same applies to pretty much every NFL team.