Daunte Culpepper will start (1 Viewer)

[Bull Dozier]

You will not find a bigger Culpepper basher on these boards than myself, but there is no reason not to take Culpepper as a #3 QB, unless you are seriously weak at another position and have Manning or Palmer as your #1. Otherwise, in the late rounds of any kind of deep draft you will not find anyone with as much scoring potential.

So you're saying you're envisioning Culpepper putting up the numbers to consider starting him over Brady/Bulger/Brees/McNabb on a regular basis?

Brady and Bulger are excellent fantasy QBs due to their consistency, not as much because of their explosive scoring potential. If, and I'm acknowleding it's a big if, Culpepper played like Culpepper of old, he would be a more explosive scoring option than either of these two.I expect Brees to regress some at this point, and would not expect him to put up the numbers he did last year.

McNabb is a consistent injury risk. If you're drafting a QB early enough to land McNabb, it would make sense to take a flyer late on a player who's scoring could potentially replace McNabb's in case of an injury.

Manning and Palmer are the only two QBs I would not even bother with Culpepper for. Even in Culpepper put up the numbers of old, I'd still start Manning and Palmer based on consistent performance.

Bottom line, the reason to take a flyer on Culpepper is on the one in whatever astronomical chance he duplicates his prime production. If that chance hits, he worth starting over the vast majority of QBs in the league.

It's not that I would predict that would happen, but in the late rounds you have to make a calcualtion. The odds that Culpepper hits, and the payoff that would give, has to be factored against taking a flyer on a WR6, or RB5, and if that RB hits to what might be possible, and how much that might help your team. Culpepper hitting, as astronomical as that may be, could turn your team around. Some deep, deep, deep WR hitting may give you a servicable WR3. That's not going to turn your season around.

 

[Darth Cheney]

Drafting C-Pep in the last couple of rounds might be the sharkiest move of the year.

 

[Bull Dozier]

You will not find a bigger Culpepper basher on these boards than myself, but there is no reason not to take Culpepper as a #3 QB, unless you are seriously weak at another position and have Manning or Palmer as your #1. Otherwise, in the late rounds of any kind of deep draft you will not find anyone with as much scoring potential.

Even during the stretches Viking fans were groaning about Culpepper's failures, Culpepper was uber productive from a FF standpoint and finishing as top point scorer 3 years running in my league. Obviously you need to discount significantly if you get penalized for turnovers in your league. I'd definietly take a chance on him as a #2 QB and #3 is a no-brainer. I'm very much pulling for Miami to eat crow on their asinine handling of him.

We can argue all day (and I think we have) about how good of an NFL qb Culpepper is/was, but there is not debating the FF QB he was (at least).

 

[ncsulaw]

I can't wait until Friday night, stay tuned!!!!!!

 

[jurb26]

Over a full season, that projects out to 24 TDs, 16 INTs, 4272 yards passing, and 400 yards rushing.

I can take a lot of players stats from 4 games and project that out for a season and come up with spectacular numbers.Or take it a step further:

Westbrook scored a 39 yard TD once.

Project that out over a full season and that's over 15,000 yards and 400 TD's. Wow! That's amazing!

But the thing is, Jurb is saying that it was PROVEN that Culpepper "was nothing" without Moss, so those are the only games we can look at. That's all the sample size we have to work with. In my opinion, over any stretch where a player plays at a 4200/35 pace, he cannot be called "Basically Nothing". If he plays for that pace over one game, then you can't say he was "basically nothing" over that one game. If he plays that way for 4 games, you cannot say he was "Basically nothing" for those 4 games. If he plays that way for the entire time that Randy Moss was out, you CAN NOT say that he was "basically nothing" without Randy Moss. End of discussion.

Moss did not play in games for weeks 7-11 (5 games), well he did have one target in week 8, but had no stats otherwise.

Culpepper averaged 234 yards passing and 1.8 TDs over that five game stretch. Projected to a full 16 game season that would be 3,744 yards passing and 29 TDs.

Counting game 5 as w/Moss skews your numbers. Moss missed over a half of that game and Culpepper passed for 450/5. Tally that.

Luckily for you, someone in this thread *HAS* already tallied that. Someone pro-rated his numbers from the second half of week 5 (played entirely without Moss) as well as weeks 6-11. In fact, someone has done that IN THIS VERY THREAD. Unfortunately for you, according to jurb, that someone has no idea what he's talking about because he once read a post 2 years ago that had some laughably incomplete analysis on the subject.

I guess the search function still does not work for you and a few others. Again, everything you have stated in this thread was covered over and over and over and over and over again. It was covered in in about 20 threads, only a few of which I had felt the need to actually participate in for the very reasons I am not participating now. I'm not about to get caught up in a 3 year old debate when every stone has already been uncovered and beaten to death.Here's a hint to the flaw of your entire argument. Moss played in 13 games that year, not 11. I'll leave it to you statistical wizards to figure the rest out.

 

[Routilla]

He was on my WW so I scooped him up...for now.

 

[LawFitz]

Kiffin, while still having much more to prove, early on looks like the real deal.

He looks like the real deal after 2 preseason games?

2 preseason games + training camp, OTAs, NFL Draft, Free Agency, coaching hires, implementing the WCO + ZBS, relationship with Rob Ryan, players' response/enthusiasm. This is a year round job and Kiffin has been stellar so far.Compared to Shell, Turner, Callahan, Bugel, White and all the other retreads and geysers the Raiders have put in charge in the last couple of decades, this guy is a breathe of fresh air. Listening to him speak, he just gets it. He seems wise way beyond his years and at the same time brings a youthful approach that helps relate to young players.You have every right to be skeptical, and like I did say, he still has much more to prove. That said, the only thing he's done so far that I disagreed with was drafting JaMarcus over Calvin, but obviously there's a lot more to that story that's left to be written, so we'll see.History has shown that Al is terrible at hiring old retread coaches, but a freakin genius finding the young unproven guys (Madden, Flores, Shanahan, Gruden). He almost hired Belichek prior to the NE stint and more recently was chasing hard for Urban Meyer and Bobby Petrino.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Relax, y'all. The Raiders are rotating QBs with the 1st team every week. McCown went 1st, Walter 2nd and now it's Pep's turn. FWIW, I've watched the Raider preseason games, and Pep has been my least favorite QB. He has really put the K.O. on the 3rd and 4th string DBs, but he throws a VERY uncatchable ball. Madsen's big gain last week (right before his TD) was almost an incompletion due to the poor throw... and there was nobody within 15 yards of Madsen. The big gain he had to Higgins would have been a TD the week before if it was accurate and just a few plays before he severely underthrew the same exact route. Let's forget the fact that he has fumbled a couple (or a few) snaps from directly under center and has already fumbled under pressure. This dude is a train wreck in this Raider fan's opinion. I'm probably most comfortable w/ McCown week 1.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Kiffin, while still having much more to prove, early on looks like the real deal.

He looks like the real deal after 2 preseason games?

2 preseason games + training camp, OTAs, NFL Draft, Free Agency, coaching hires, implementing the WCO + ZBS, relationship with Rob Ryan, players' response/enthusiasm. This is a year round job and Kiffin has been stellar so far.Compared to Shell, Turner, Callahan, Bugel, White and all the other retreads and geysers the Raiders have put in charge in the last couple of decades, this guy is a breathe of fresh air. Listening to him speak, he just gets it. He seems wise way beyond his years and at the same time brings a youthful approach that helps relate to young players.You have every right to be skeptical, and like I did say, he still has much more to prove. That said, the only thing he's done so far that I disagreed with was drafting JaMarcus over Calvin, but obviously there's a lot more to that story that's left to be written, so we'll see.History has shown that Al is terrible at hiring old retread coaches, but a freakin genius finding the young unproven guys (Madden, Flores, Shanahan, Gruden). He almost hired Belichek prior to the NE stint and more recently was chasing hard for Urban Meyer and Bobby Petrino.

I've been thinking for about the last week, how much this is reminding me of the Gruden regime.

 

[Mr. Bill O'Reilly]

I don't think he's going to start, he's got no knees and he's got these tiny little hands that can't hold onto the football... If somehow he starts (maybe Al Davis demands it since he was a former great player) he won't be in long. I think this is Josh McCown's job and at this point, I even like Andrew Walter backing him up. Pep's numbers have looked good but they were against 3rd stringers and none of his passes impressed me, a lot of screens and so forth, and he fumbles the ball every other play...

 

[SSOG]

Some of us live in the present.

The present where a 22nd round draft pick is better spent on a backup placekicker or WR with a single top-10 season who hasn't been meaningful for... what, 3 years now? It's called a FLIER. If it doesn't pan out, you lose nothing. If it does pan out, you gain everything. Name another player who is being undrafted who is currently a starter and has *EVER* finished #1 at his own position, let alone finished #1 FOUR TIMES.

"It's a flier" is justification to take anyone here. You think that he has potential, I personally don't think he would ever make my starting line-up.Sure there is a chance he could put up decent numbers, but this could be said about anyone drafted in this slot. What do you lose? Opportunity cost. In this position you are grabbing someone that the world thinks will do nothing and you think they will. If that person for you is Daunte then by all means take him, I will take someone else. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, I just disagree with your opinion.I don't care how many times in the past he was #1. In the present he is going undrafted in many leagues. There is a reason for this.

Sure, "it's a flier" can justify taking anyone, but how many of those players finished #1 at their position FOUR TIMES and are currently starters? How many of those players where ever the #1 player at any position in the entire NFL in VBD? Explain to me how Culpepper, who was #1 in 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 (in 2004 despite playing with an offensive cast every bit as putrid as his teammates in Oakland, albeit with a marginally better line), is a worse pick than David Boston, who was #3 in 2001 but other than that has never finished among the top 12 fantasy WRs?You say you personally don't believe Culpepper would ever make your starting lineup. That's fine. We're talking about QB3/QB4 here, meaning someone in the QB30-45 range. Tell me, how many QBs ranked 30-50 have a better chance of cracking your starting lineup than Culpepper?

Here's a hint to the flaw of your entire argument. Moss played in 13 games that year, not 11. I'll leave it to you statistical wizards to figure the rest out.

You're absolutely right. Randy Moss appeared in the week 8 game, where he was the target of one pass (which he failed to catch). He was also on the field in week 7, although he wasn't targeted once. I'm so terribly, terribly glad you brought this up, jurb, because you're absolutely right- just the mere PRESENCE of Randy Moss on the football field projects a supernatural aura that causes Culpepper to play far above and beyond his normal mortal capabilities, so including these two games in Culpepper's pro-rated numbers was a gross oversight on my part. Let's take these two games out and then re-prorate the numbers based entirely on games where Randy "Jesus" Moss wasn't on the field- namely, the latter half of week 6, and all of weeks 9, 10, and 11.Wow, I'm surprised to say it, but you're totally right. Removing the games where Randy "Jesus" Moss graced the field with his presence even though he wasn't even targeted had a DRAMATIC impact on Culpepper's numbers. Instead of being on pace for 4145/35/8, this new analysis shows that Culpepper was actually on pace for 4145/41/4.5. That's right, by removing the games where Randy Moss played but was ineffective, Daunte Culpepper actually INCREASED HIS TOUCHDOWN PACE BY 6 AND ALMOST CUT HIS INTERCEPTIONS IN HALF. Daunte Culpepper was actually on pace for more TDs in the time that Randy Moss missed than during the time when Moss was actually on the field!Please, jurb26, tell me again how I don't know what I'm talking about, or come up with some other criteria that you would like me to further parse the data with. Do you want me to discard the second half of week 6, because somehow Randy Moss is so magical that if he sets foot on the field during the first half, his magical powers will make Culpepper a better QB on through the second half, even while Moss himself remains in the locker room? Sure, I'll gladly throw out the second half of week 6 and pro-rate based just on weeks 9, 10, and 11. Congratulations, Culpepper is now only on pace for 4080 yards, 37 TDs, and 5 INTs. Are there any other superpowers that Randy Moss possesses that I'm unaware of? Any more games that you want me to throw out of my sample? I can do this all day long if you really want me to. Or would you rather just say that you read a post 2 years ago that had some horrible analysis that said that Culpepper was nothing without Moss and that I obviously can't use the search function again? Ignoring my arguments and telling me I just don't know what I'm talking about is practically as good as actually rebutting my arguments!I'm sort of just being a jerk at this point, and I'm sorry about that, but I feel like you've been condescending to me all thread long, telling me that you read some posts back in 2005 that disagreed with me and that as a result I simply must not know what I'm talking about. Trust me, any threads that disagreed with me in 2005 were WRONG. No matter how fine you parse the data, Culpepper was still on pace for 4000+ yards and 35+ TDs passing in 2004 when Randy Moss was not on the field. You can take out games where Randy Moss caught a pass, take out games where he was targeted, take out games where he was on the active list, take out portions of games, leave in portions of games, or otherwise just fiddle with the numbers to your heart's content, but they'll always come out with 4,000+ yards passing and 37+ TDs for Daunte Culpepper. No matter what rational criteria you use for selecting which portions of games to use and which not to use, the absolute *WORST* possible "Culpepper Sans Moss" projection comes out to 387 fantasy points (assuming 400 rushing yards and 0 rushing TDs, which I'm sure you'll agree is very generous), which would rank as the second best fantasy season by a QB in the past 5 years (behind only Peyton Manning's record-breaking 2004 season). Culpepper was about as far from "basically nothing without Randy Moss" in 2004 as is humanly possible to be while still playing the sport of football. He was on pace for 4000 passing yards with Nate Burleson and Marcus Robinson as his leading receivers, and without a single stable RB (Onterrio Smith, Michael Bennett, and Mewelde Moore were all splitting time based mostly on which of the three was currently the least injured).

 

[OCC]

Some of us live in the present.

The present where a 22nd round draft pick is better spent on a backup placekicker or WR with a single top-10 season who hasn't been meaningful for... what, 3 years now? It's called a FLIER. If it doesn't pan out, you lose nothing. If it does pan out, you gain everything. Name another player who is being undrafted who is currently a starter and has *EVER* finished #1 at his own position, let alone finished #1 FOUR TIMES.

"It's a flier" is justification to take anyone here. You think that he has potential, I personally don't think he would ever make my starting line-up.Sure there is a chance he could put up decent numbers, but this could be said about anyone drafted in this slot. What do you lose? Opportunity cost. In this position you are grabbing someone that the world thinks will do nothing and you think they will. If that person for you is Daunte then by all means take him, I will take someone else. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, I just disagree with your opinion.I don't care how many times in the past he was #1. In the present he is going undrafted in many leagues. There is a reason for this.

Sure, "it's a flier" can justify taking anyone, but how many of those players finished #1 at their position FOUR TIMES and are currently starters? How many of those players where ever the #1 player at any position in the entire NFL in VBD? Explain to me how Culpepper, who was #1 in 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 (in 2004 despite playing with an offensive cast every bit as putrid as his teammates in Oakland, albeit with a marginally better line), is a worse pick than David Boston, who was #3 in 2001 but other than that has never finished among the top 12 fantasy WRs?You say you personally don't believe Culpepper would ever make your starting lineup. That's fine. We're talking about QB3/QB4 here, meaning someone in the QB30-45 range. Tell me, how many QBs ranked 30-50 have a better chance of cracking your starting lineup than Culpepper?

Here's a hint to the flaw of your entire argument. Moss played in 13 games that year, not 11. I'll leave it to you statistical wizards to figure the rest out.

You're absolutely right. Randy Moss appeared in the week 8 game, where he was the target of one pass (which he failed to catch). He was also on the field in week 7, although he wasn't targeted once. I'm so terribly, terribly glad you brought this up, jurb, because you're absolutely right- just the mere PRESENCE of Randy Moss on the football field projects a supernatural aura that causes Culpepper to play far above and beyond his normal mortal capabilities, so including these two games in Culpepper's pro-rated numbers was a gross oversight on my part. Let's take these two games out and then re-prorate the numbers based entirely on games where Randy "Jesus" Moss wasn't on the field- namely, the latter half of week 6, and all of weeks 9, 10, and 11.Wow, I'm surprised to say it, but you're totally right. Removing the games where Randy "Jesus" Moss graced the field with his presence even though he wasn't even targeted had a DRAMATIC impact on Culpepper's numbers. Instead of being on pace for 4145/35/8, this new analysis shows that Culpepper was actually on pace for 4145/41/4.5. That's right, by removing the games where Randy Moss played but was ineffective, Daunte Culpepper actually INCREASED HIS TOUCHDOWN PACE BY 6 AND ALMOST CUT HIS INTERCEPTIONS IN HALF. Daunte Culpepper was actually on pace for more TDs in the time that Randy Moss missed than during the time when Moss was actually on the field!Please, jurb26, tell me again how I don't know what I'm talking about, or come up with some other criteria that you would like me to further parse the data with. Do you want me to discard the second half of week 6, because somehow Randy Moss is so magical that if he sets foot on the field during the first half, his magical powers will make Culpepper a better QB on through the second half, even while Moss himself remains in the locker room? Sure, I'll gladly throw out the second half of week 6 and pro-rate based just on weeks 9, 10, and 11. Congratulations, Culpepper is now only on pace for 4080 yards, 37 TDs, and 5 INTs. Are there any other superpowers that Randy Moss possesses that I'm unaware of? Any more games that you want me to throw out of my sample? I can do this all day long if you really want me to. Or would you rather just say that you read a post 2 years ago that had some horrible analysis that said that Culpepper was nothing without Moss and that I obviously can't use the search function again? Ignoring my arguments and telling me I just don't know what I'm talking about is practically as good as actually rebutting my arguments!I'm sort of just being a jerk at this point, and I'm sorry about that, but I feel like you've been condescending to me all thread long, telling me that you read some posts back in 2005 that disagreed with me and that as a result I simply must not know what I'm talking about. Trust me, any threads that disagreed with me in 2005 were WRONG. No matter how fine you parse the data, Culpepper was still on pace for 4000+ yards and 37+ TDs passing in 2004 when Randy Moss was not on the field. You can take out games where Randy Moss caught a pass, take out games where he was targeted, take out games where he was on the active list, take out portions of games, leave in portions of games, or otherwise just fiddle with the numbers to your heart's content, but they'll always come out with 4,000+ yards passing and 37+ TDs for Daunte Culpepper. No matter what rational criteria you use for selecting which portions of games to use and which not to use, the absolute *WORST* possible "Culpepper Sans Moss" projection comes out to 387 fantasy points (assuming 400 rushing yards and 0 rushing TDs, which I'm sure you'll agree is very generous), which would rank as the second best fantasy season by a QB in the past 5 years (behind only Peyton Manning's record-breaking 2004 season). Culpepper was about as far from "basically nothing without Randy Moss" in 2004 as is humanly possible to be while still playing the sport of football. He was on pace for 4000 passing yards with Nate Burleson and Marcus Robinson as his leading receivers, and without a single stable RB (Onterrio Smith, Michael Bennett, and Mewelde Moore were all splitting time based mostly on which of the three was currently the least injured).

uh, owned?

 

[the UFFRM]

Some of us live in the present.

The present where a 22nd round draft pick is better spent on a backup placekicker or WR with a single top-10 season who hasn't been meaningful for... what, 3 years now? It's called a FLIER. If it doesn't pan out, you lose nothing. If it does pan out, you gain everything. Name another player who is being undrafted who is currently a starter and has *EVER* finished #1 at his own position, let alone finished #1 FOUR TIMES.

"It's a flier" is justification to take anyone here. You think that he has potential, I personally don't think he would ever make my starting line-up.Sure there is a chance he could put up decent numbers, but this could be said about anyone drafted in this slot. What do you lose? Opportunity cost. In this position you are grabbing someone that the world thinks will do nothing and you think they will. If that person for you is Daunte then by all means take him, I will take someone else. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, I just disagree with your opinion.I don't care how many times in the past he was #1. In the present he is going undrafted in many leagues. There is a reason for this.

Sure, "it's a flier" can justify taking anyone, but how many of those players finished #1 at their position FOUR TIMES and are currently starters? How many of those players where ever the #1 player at any position in the entire NFL in VBD? Explain to me how Culpepper, who was #1 in 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 (in 2004 despite playing with an offensive cast every bit as putrid as his teammates in Oakland, albeit with a marginally better line), is a worse pick than David Boston, who was #3 in 2001 but other than that has never finished among the top 12 fantasy WRs?You say you personally don't believe Culpepper would ever make your starting lineup. That's fine. We're talking about QB3/QB4 here, meaning someone in the QB30-45 range. Tell me, how many QBs ranked 30-50 have a better chance of cracking your starting lineup than Culpepper?

Here's a hint to the flaw of your entire argument. Moss played in 13 games that year, not 11. I'll leave it to you statistical wizards to figure the rest out.

You're absolutely right. Randy Moss appeared in the week 8 game, where he was the target of one pass (which he failed to catch). He was also on the field in week 7, although he wasn't targeted once. I'm so terribly, terribly glad you brought this up, jurb, because you're absolutely right- just the mere PRESENCE of Randy Moss on the football field projects a supernatural aura that causes Culpepper to play far above and beyond his normal mortal capabilities, so including these two games in Culpepper's pro-rated numbers was a gross oversight on my part. Let's take these two games out and then re-prorate the numbers based entirely on games where Randy "Jesus" Moss wasn't on the field- namely, the latter half of week 6, and all of weeks 9, 10, and 11.Wow, I'm surprised to say it, but you're totally right. Removing the games where Randy "Jesus" Moss graced the field with his presence even though he wasn't even targeted had a DRAMATIC impact on Culpepper's numbers. Instead of being on pace for 4145/35/8, this new analysis shows that Culpepper was actually on pace for 4145/41/4.5. That's right, by removing the games where Randy Moss played but was ineffective, Daunte Culpepper actually INCREASED HIS TOUCHDOWN PACE BY 6 AND ALMOST CUT HIS INTERCEPTIONS IN HALF. Daunte Culpepper was actually on pace for more TDs in the time that Randy Moss missed than during the time when Moss was actually on the field!Please, jurb26, tell me again how I don't know what I'm talking about, or come up with some other criteria that you would like me to further parse the data with. Do you want me to discard the second half of week 6, because somehow Randy Moss is so magical that if he sets foot on the field during the first half, his magical powers will make Culpepper a better QB on through the second half, even while Moss himself remains in the locker room? Sure, I'll gladly throw out the second half of week 6 and pro-rate based just on weeks 9, 10, and 11. Congratulations, Culpepper is now only on pace for 4080 yards, 37 TDs, and 5 INTs. Are there any other superpowers that Randy Moss possesses that I'm unaware of? Any more games that you want me to throw out of my sample? I can do this all day long if you really want me to. Or would you rather just say that you read a post 2 years ago that had some horrible analysis that said that Culpepper was nothing without Moss and that I obviously can't use the search function again? Ignoring my arguments and telling me I just don't know what I'm talking about is practically as good as actually rebutting my arguments!I'm sort of just being a jerk at this point, and I'm sorry about that, but I feel like you've been condescending to me all thread long, telling me that you read some posts back in 2005 that disagreed with me and that as a result I simply must not know what I'm talking about. Trust me, any threads that disagreed with me in 2005 were WRONG. No matter how fine you parse the data, Culpepper was still on pace for 4000+ yards and 35+ TDs passing in 2004 when Randy Moss was not on the field. You can take out games where Randy Moss caught a pass, take out games where he was targeted, take out games where he was on the active list, take out portions of games, leave in portions of games, or otherwise just fiddle with the numbers to your heart's content, but they'll always come out with 4,000+ yards passing and 37+ TDs for Daunte Culpepper. No matter what rational criteria you use for selecting which portions of games to use and which not to use, the absolute *WORST* possible "Culpepper Sans Moss" projection comes out to 387 fantasy points (assuming 400 rushing yards and 0 rushing TDs, which I'm sure you'll agree is very generous), which would rank as the second best fantasy season by a QB in the past 5 years (behind only Peyton Manning's record-breaking 2004 season). Culpepper was about as far from "basically nothing without Randy Moss" in 2004 as is humanly possible to be while still playing the sport of football. He was on pace for 4000 passing yards with Nate Burleson and Marcus Robinson as his leading receivers, and without a single stable RB (Onterrio Smith, Michael Bennett, and Mewelde Moore were all splitting time based mostly on which of the three was currently the least injured).

I would like to nominate this post for best of the year. I know it's early but it's posts like this that are the best part of this site IMO.

 

[jurb26]

Some of us live in the present.

The present where a 22nd round draft pick is better spent on a backup placekicker or WR with a single top-10 season who hasn't been meaningful for... what, 3 years now? It's called a FLIER. If it doesn't pan out, you lose nothing. If it does pan out, you gain everything. Name another player who is being undrafted who is currently a starter and has *EVER* finished #1 at his own position, let alone finished #1 FOUR TIMES.

"It's a flier" is justification to take anyone here. You think that he has potential, I personally don't think he would ever make my starting line-up.Sure there is a chance he could put up decent numbers, but this could be said about anyone drafted in this slot. What do you lose? Opportunity cost. In this position you are grabbing someone that the world thinks will do nothing and you think they will. If that person for you is Daunte then by all means take him, I will take someone else. I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, I just disagree with your opinion.

I don't care how many times in the past he was #1. In the present he is going undrafted in many leagues. There is a reason for this.

Sure, "it's a flier" can justify taking anyone, but how many of those players finished #1 at their position FOUR TIMES and are currently starters? How many of those players where ever the #1 player at any position in the entire NFL in VBD? Explain to me how Culpepper, who was #1 in 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004 (in 2004 despite playing with an offensive cast every bit as putrid as his teammates in Oakland, albeit with a marginally better line), is a worse pick than David Boston, who was #3 in 2001 but other than that has never finished among the top 12 fantasy WRs?You say you personally don't believe Culpepper would ever make your starting lineup. That's fine. We're talking about QB3/QB4 here, meaning someone in the QB30-45 range. Tell me, how many QBs ranked 30-50 have a better chance of cracking your starting lineup than Culpepper?

Here's a hint to the flaw of your entire argument. Moss played in 13 games that year, not 11. I'll leave it to you statistical wizards to figure the rest out.

You're absolutely right. Randy Moss appeared in the week 8 game, where he was the target of one pass (which he failed to catch). He was also on the field in week 7, although he wasn't targeted once. I'm so terribly, terribly glad you brought this up, jurb, because you're absolutely right- just the mere PRESENCE of Randy Moss on the football field projects a supernatural aura that causes Culpepper to play far above and beyond his normal mortal capabilities, so including these two games in Culpepper's pro-rated numbers was a gross oversight on my part. Let's take these two games out and then re-prorate the numbers based entirely on games where Randy "Jesus" Moss wasn't on the field- namely, the latter half of week 6, and all of weeks 9, 10, and 11.Wow, I'm surprised to say it, but you're totally right. Removing the games where Randy "Jesus" Moss graced the field with his presence even though he wasn't even targeted had a DRAMATIC impact on Culpepper's numbers. Instead of being on pace for 4145/35/8, this new analysis shows that Culpepper was actually on pace for 4145/41/4.5. That's right, by removing the games where Randy Moss played but was ineffective, Daunte Culpepper actually INCREASED HIS TOUCHDOWN PACE BY 6 AND ALMOST CUT HIS INTERCEPTIONS IN HALF. Daunte Culpepper was actually on pace for more TDs in the time that Randy Moss missed than during the time when Moss was actually on the field!

Please, jurb26, tell me again how I don't know what I'm talking about, or come up with some other criteria that you would like me to further parse the data with. Do you want me to discard the second half of week 6, because somehow Randy Moss is so magical that if he sets foot on the field during the first half, his magical powers will make Culpepper a better QB on through the second half, even while Moss himself remains in the locker room? Sure, I'll gladly throw out the second half of week 6 and pro-rate based just on weeks 9, 10, and 11. Congratulations, Culpepper is now only on pace for 4080 yards, 37 TDs, and 5 INTs. Are there any other superpowers that Randy Moss possesses that I'm unaware of? Any more games that you want me to throw out of my sample? I can do this all day long if you really want me to. Or would you rather just say that you read a post 2 years ago that had some horrible analysis that said that Culpepper was nothing without Moss and that I obviously can't use the search function again? Ignoring my arguments and telling me I just don't know what I'm talking about is practically as good as actually rebutting my arguments!

I'm sort of just being a jerk at this point, and I'm sorry about that, but I feel like you've been condescending to me all thread long, telling me that you read some posts back in 2005 that disagreed with me and that as a result I simply must not know what I'm talking about. Trust me, any threads that disagreed with me in 2005 were WRONG. No matter how fine you parse the data, Culpepper was still on pace for 4000+ yards and 35+ TDs passing in 2004 when Randy Moss was not on the field. You can take out games where Randy Moss caught a pass, take out games where he was targeted, take out games where he was on the active list, take out portions of games, leave in portions of games, or otherwise just fiddle with the numbers to your heart's content, but they'll always come out with 4,000+ yards passing and 37+ TDs for Daunte Culpepper. No matter what rational criteria you use for selecting which portions of games to use and which not to use, the absolute *WORST* possible "Culpepper Sans Moss" projection comes out to 387 fantasy points (assuming 400 rushing yards and 0 rushing TDs, which I'm sure you'll agree is very generous), which would rank as the second best fantasy season by a QB in the past 5 years (behind only Peyton Manning's record-breaking 2004 season). Culpepper was about as far from "basically nothing without Randy Moss" in 2004 as is humanly possible to be while still playing the sport of football. He was on pace for 4000 passing yards with Nate Burleson and Marcus Robinson as his leading receivers, and without a single stable RB (Onterrio Smith, Michael Bennett, and Mewelde Moore were all splitting time based mostly on which of the three was currently the least injured).

Wow, you will spend all the time in the world to make a post like this but wont spend a single second to actually look up responses that cover every single thing you are talking about. All I have been telling you is that the information and argument you want to get involved in has been covered already. All that information is available to you. You clearly have not even read it, looked for it or even made an effort to look for it. You actualy expect me to take the time and do all this for you or something? I love how what you have essentially broken this down to is 3 games in 2004 to prove your point. That is actually pretty telling IMO. Especially when you have 6 games in 2005's season that provide a far better baseline for Cpep w/o Moss on many levels.

I guess you have proven how much of a stud Cpep is w/o Moss and we should all just ignore 100s of threads from years ago. Even ones like this:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...mp;hl=Culpepper

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...mp;hl=Culpepper

Here is a post from just one of the many other threads regarding the subject jwvdcw wrote:

I've posted a ton on this recently, so I'll just copy and paste many of my arguments(please note that some of what I write here may be a bit confusing because I originally said it in reference to someone else's post and since you can't see his post, you'll be a bit confused). Also, some of the smilies might not show up. Edited to add: I suck at quoting posts, so I just bolded and italicized every other post to distinguish the different posts that I made. Anyway here it is....

And if Brad Johnson's numbers had only went down 20% from the time he was with Moss, then he'd be top 5 as well.

And if Randall Cunningham's numbers had only went down 20% from the time he was with Moss, then he'd be top 5 as well.

And if Jeff George's numbers had only went down 20% from the time he was with Moss, then he'd be top 5 as well.

And if Todd Bouman's numbers had only went down 20% from the time he was with Moss, then he'd be top 5 as well.

And if Gus Frerotte's numbers only go down 20% from the time he was with Moss, then he'll be top 5 as well.

I will bet anyone that Culpepper will not finish the season as a top 3 QB under these rules:

6pts/all TDs

1pt/20 yards passing

1pt/10 yards rushing

-1pt/INT

-1pt/lost fumble

Name your price. It can be monetary, a sig bet, or anything else(we'll just obviously need a reliable mod to handle the money if you want to make it monetary).

Respond here if interested.

Here are Culpepper's averages:

2000: 25.1

2001: 22.3

2002: 22.6

2003: 23.5

2004: 27.1

Now, I could devote a lengthy post about how we should not compare this year to a QB's past years because the rule enforcements have caused everything to change. And I think its clear that the rule change caused a big spike in Culpepper's numbers(going from 23.5 to 27.1!). But whatever...if you'll concece that this year had a huge bump in QBs numbers all around, then I'll take it; If you refuse to concede that, then I'm not going to take my time to argue it.

Also, lets note that you are not taking points off for INTs or fumbles lost which many leagues do. If you did this, then Culpepper's numbers would definitely be a bit lower. Yes, this is a small issue, but it is worth noting.

Now heres the thing with the Vikings QB situation pre-Culpepper: It was up and down with many QBs splitting time in each game. For example, sometimes one QB would start the game, another would finish it, and the both would get credit with a game played even though they only played one half and that would bring their FF points per game average down. To be perfectly fair, lets just look at it by year:

1998(Brad Johnson, Jay Fiedler, Randall Cunningham): 4492 pass yards with 41 TDs and 141 rush yards with 1 TD. A total of 445.78 FF points or 27.86 ppg.

1999(Randall Cunningham and Jeff George): 4291 pass yards with 31 TDs and 105 rush yards with 0 TDs. A total of 368.14 FF points or 23 points per game.

So in the 2 years that Culpepper didn't play, they put up averages of 23 and 27.86 FF points per game at the Vikings QB position. I think that'd still be top 5 those years even taking away 20%.

Now, let us compare how Culpepper did in the same years as other QBs that were on the Vikings...

2000:(almost all Culpepper with the exception of 20 Bubby Brister pass attempts): Since its almost all Culpepper and you all have already covered his fantasy points per game, I'll leave this one alone unless you want to chime in more here.

2001:(Culpepper, Wynn, and Bouman). They list Culpepper with 11 games, Bouman with 9, and Wynn with 3. Obviously there was a lot of shared games here, so to be totally fair, lets just look at pass and rush attempts(if you can think of a more fair way of doing this, then be my guest, but its pretty hard to accurately tell just how much playing time each QB got unless you actually want to go look at the game tape).

Culpepper in 2001: 366 pass attempts and 71 rush attempts for a total of 437 attempts. 2612 pass yards with 14 TDs and 416 rush yards with 5 TDs. A total of 259.48 FF points or .59 FF points per attempt.

Bouman in 2001: 89 pass attemts and 9 rush attempts for a total of 98 total attempts. 795 pass yards with 8 TDs and 61 rush yards with 0 TDs. A total of 85.9 FF points or .88 FF points per attempt.

Wynn in 2001: 98 pass attempts and 8 rush attempts for a total of 106 total attempts. 418 pass yards with 1 TD and 61 rush yards with 0 TDs. A total of 28.82 FF points or .27 FF points per attempt

So for 2001, Bouman was outstanding, Culpepper was very average, and Wynn totally sucked.

2002: Culpepper got all but 6 of the pass attempts. Just like in 2000, since we've already discussed Culpeppers stats, I won't comment here.

2003: Culpepper and Frerotte...I'll do the same breakdown as I did with 2001.

Culpepper in 2003: 454 pass attemtps and 72 rush attempts for a total of 526 total attempts. 3479 yards passing with 25 TDs and 422 yards rushing with 4 TDs. A total of 355.36 FF points or .67 FF points per attempt

Frerotte in 2003: 65 pass attempts and 12 rush attempts for a total of 77 attempts. 690 pass yards with 7 TDS and -2 rush yards with 0 TDs for a total of 69.4 FF points or .90 FF points per attempt

So in 2003, Frerotte clearly outperformed Culpepper on a FF points per attempt basis.

2004: All Culpepper, so no comparison is needed.

CONCLUSION: I've shown that in years in which Culpepper has split duties that the backup QBs have been able to put up just as good of FF points compared to the chances they've gotten. I've also shown that in the two years prior to Culpepper(and I went back only 2 years becasue thats all that Moss played) that the QBs there have put up similar numbers to Culpepper on a points per game basis. In short, I belive I've shown that these QBs are just as good as Culpepper in the Minnesota offense. Now when we look at how these QBs have performed without Moss, I think it is a fair assumption to assume that Culpepper will do similarly.

I again extend my offer of a bet for any amount that Culpepper will not finish this year as a top 3 FF QB.

I never realy meant to get off on such a tangent about the pro bowl skills competition. To be honest with you, I don't think that they matter all that much either. I was just pointing out that Culpepper isn't very accurate.

I do maintain, however, that the reason that Culpepper has looked so great is due to Moss. Your statement that Culpepper had a great year DESPITE Moss having an off year is inaccurate imo. Here are Culpepper's first 5 games of this past year compared with his next 5. The first 5 he had Moss, the next 5 Moss was either injured and did not play or so hurt that he didn't even catch a single pass.

First 5 weeks: Moss healthy

1. 242-5

2. 343-1

3. 360-2

4. 396-5

5. 425-5

average: 353.2 yards and 3.6 TDs

Next 5 weeks: Moss injured

6. 183-1

7. 231-2

8. 169-1

9. 363-4

10. 233-2

average: 235.8 yards and 2 TDs

Oh and just to add...those 5 weeks without Moss were Culpepper's easiest stretch of the season in regards to playing teams with poorly ranked pass defenses(go look it up for yourself if you don't believe me).

Basically, my point is this:

Say that Moss didn't get traded. And pretend that the Vikings came out and said that Gus Frerotte was undoubtedly their #1 QB, no questions asked. Where would Frerotte be drafted? In my opinion, he'd be worthy of a 2nd round draft pick.

But then imagine that same scenario, but Moss gets hurt and is out for the year as well as Culpeper. Now where would Frerotte be drafted? Probably just in the mid rounds.

Well, what I'm trying to show is that Culpepper is no better than Frerotte(or Johnson, Cunningham, or George for that matter) and that we should downgrade Culpepper just as much.

That is the logic behind my arguments.

really feel like you're not listening to my argument at all. Here is basically what has been said:

Person who started this thread: "Culpepper has great stats with Moss. He could lose a lot and still be to 5."

Me: "I'll fully admit that Culpepper had great stats with Moss. However, I believe that many QBs have had great success with Moss and they havn't done that well without him. Furthermore, I can show that Culpepper has not played any better with Moss than these other QBs. Therefore, I predict that he'll fall off as well without him."

You: "Yeah, but Culpepper has great stats with Moss."

Look, I get it...Culpepper's stats with Moss are some of the best in the game and when you compare him to other QBs, he looks great. However, in 1998 the Vikings QBs were the #1 fantasy producers at the quarterback position(compared to any other team). Tons of QBs have put up great stats with Moss. SO YOU RE-TELLING ME HOW GREAT CULPEPPER HAS BEEN WITH MOSS REALLY DOESN'T ADDRESS MY POINT AT ALL.

Edited to add: If you want to disprove my point, then this is what you need to do: Show me why Culpepper is any different than all of those other QBs who were great with Moss(just as great as Pepper in fact, as I have clearly shown with factual statistics) yet merely average without him. You just keep pointing out his stats with Moss and that does nothing to disprove my point because I've already shown that WHILE CULPEPPER'S STATS WITH MOSS ARE IMPRESSIVE, THEY ARE NO MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN AT LEAST 3 OTHER QBS STATS WITH MOSS.

Ok, so using your own stats that you just gave(I'm too lazy to double check them):

Without Randy Moss:

-Brad Johnson had one top 5 season in 11 pro years(7 years in which he was the starting QB for his team)

-Cunningham had four top 5 seasons in 14 years(9 years in which he was a starter)

- Jeff George had 0 top 5 seasons in 11 years(8 years in which he was a starter)

-Todd Bouman had 0 top 5 season in 3 season(0 years as starter)

-Spurgeon Wynn had 0 top 5 seasons in 4 years(0 as a starter)

-Gus Frerotte had 0 top 5 seasons in 9 years(5 as a starter)

Notes about my stats: The years played and years as a starter are only those in which they did not play with Moss. For me to count the year as a starter, they had to start more the majority of their team's games.

I have already shown imo that these QBs have put up just as good of numbers as Culpepper has with Randy Moss. However without Randy Moss, these QBs have put up a total of five top 5 seasons in 52 years(9.6%), 29 of which they were starting QBs(17%). So clearly you would not be willing to bet straight up that one of these QBs could put up a top 5 season without Moss. Yet many are willing to bet that with Culpepper(by drafting him anywhere in the top 3 rounds, you basically are saying that you think he'll be at least top 5). Why?

Edited to add: And really the only reason that there are so many top 5 years among these QBs is due to Cunningham. But heres the thing: Cunningham was clearly not the FANTASY QB in his older age that he was in his younger age(his running was primarily what made hiim a great FF QB when he was young), so that even skews the data more in my favor when you consider that. If we were to eliminate the years the Cunningham was top 5 due to his rushing(which it is obvious to everyone that he did not still have when he played with Moss), then there would only be 1 or 2 top 5 seasons out of all of those years.

, for the last time....

Yes, I realize that his stats WITH MOSS look good. And yes, by studying his stats WITH MOSS you wouldn't think that hes suddenly going to fall out of the top 5.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP FEEDING ME CULPEPPER'S STATS WITH MOSS. I realize that they are good. Before you came into this thread, I had already admitted countless times that Culpepper's stats WITH MOSS were good.

But...

every other QB except for the great(sarcasm) Spurgeon Wynn that has played with Moss has also done great. And every single one of those QBs except Cunningham was very average without Moss. And Cunningham was average at the time in his career that he played with Moss(he was only a FF stud without Moss when his young legs did most of the work). So why is Culpepper different than any of these?

Now please, give me a response that doesn't include Culpepper's stats WITH MOSS as a reason.

I'm still waiting for anyone willing to take me up on the bet that Culpepper won't be a top 3 QB this year.

Sig Bet? I'll do it.

Money Bet? Anything reasonable(nothing over $5000) I'll do it.

Banning bet? I'll do it.

Anyone? Hasn't Culpepper been top 3 for like 5 years in a row? So why are you all so scared

Updated...

Person who started this thread: "Culpepper has great stats with Moss. He could lose a lot and still be to 5."

Me: "I'll fully admit that Culpepper had great stats with Moss. However, I believe that many QBs have had great success with Moss and they havn't done that well without him. Furthermore, I can show that Culpepper has not played any better with Moss than these other QBs. Therefore, I predict that he'll fall off as well without him."

You: "Yeah, but Culpepper has great stats with Moss."

Me: "I already said that I fully admitted that Culpepper had great stats with Moss. Please address my points."

You: "Ok fine. Your main point was that every other Vikings QB who did great with Moss didn't do well without Moss. I disagree- look at these stats."

Me: "Huh? Your stats show exactly what I'm talking about! Only 5 of their 52 seasons did they put up top 5 numbers and 4 of those were due to Cunningham's legs, which he didn't have when he played with Moss!"

You: "Yeah, but Culpepper had great stats with Moss. Look at how he compares to the all time greats."

Me: " "

HERE is the link to the original thread...I really do wn: a lot of people in it...Like when I use Dancing Bear's own stats to prove my point, or when Jason Wood tells me that nobody is saying that Pepper will be that good and that he only thinks he'll be top 7 or 8 and then I show him his own post where he said Pepper would definitely be top 5(I totally got him to back off his stance), or when I continue to tell Dancing Bear that I admit that Pepper's stats with Moss are good but that I don't think that matters(for reasons I've given) and then his only refutation is to continue to give me those very stats....man, I'm good!

P.S. That bet offer still stands for the top 3 for money or the sig bet discussed here.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...mp;hl=CulpepperUnfortunately the link he refers to at the end of the post is no longer active for some reason. Maybe because so many people were owned in it, lol. It was about a 21 page thread IIRC however. It was the most detailed of the bunch, but still I think in just the short amount of time I have spent (about 5 minutes) searching these old threads you can clearly see nothing you are stating here is either new or ground breaking. Just redundant and dated.

Something tells me you still wont try and use the search function, just keep fishing for an argument. At least I can say I've tried. Whats worst of all is that you are so hell bent on proving this point you are highjacking an otherwise perfectly good thread. None of what you are talking about or trying to prove has a single thing to do with Cpep now in Oak. It's 3 years later, he is on a different team with different coaches, all new players, different scheme and recently recovered from an injury. Again, I urge you to use the search function and actually make an effort to read information that already discusses this rather than highjacking a thread.

 

[SSOG]

I love how what you have essentially broken this down to is 3 games in 2004 to prove your point. That is actually pretty telling IMO. Especially when you have 6 games in 2005's season that provide a far better baseline for Cpep w/o Moss on many levels.

I ignored the games in 2005? I'm sorry, perhaps the reason I only looked at games in 2004 because of this little quote from earlier in the thread...

Yes, it was proven rather soundly too. I'm not thinking of the wrong year. It was 2004...

You told me that it was soundly proven that Culpepper was nothing without Randy Moss in 2004, so I addressed that. If you wanted to include the 2005 numbers, all you had to do was say so and I gladly would have done that, as well. In fact, I'll do that right now:Here's a little game for you: outside of Culpepper and Brad Johnson, guess how many pro bowls the Minnesota Vikings offensive players in 2005 have accounted for in their ENTIRE CAREERS. Stumped? The answer is one. Michael Bennett was a pro bowler in 2002. Outside of that, there wasn't a single Minnesota offensive player on the entire team who has made a pro bowl in his entire career (except for K-Rob, but he made the pro bowl as a special teamer). That's 4 RBs, 5 WRs, 4 TEs, and 5 offensive linemen, none of whom has ever been sent to honolulu. That offense was BAD, and to be honest, outside of the first two games, Culpepper wasn't as bad as everyone made him out to be. In the first two games, he was brutal, throwing 8 INTs and 0 TDs. Over the 4 games after that, he had 6 TDs, 4 INTs, 267 yards passing per game, and 25 yards rushing per game. Over a full season, that projects out to 24 TDs, 16 INTs, 4272 yards passing, and 400 yards rushing. Pretty spectacular numbers, if you ask me. The big problem is that he got injured before he had a chance to erase that horrible start from everyone's mind. Here is the complete list of QBs who scored more points per game than Daunte Culpepper from week 3 until he got hurt: Brett Favre, Eli Manning, Marc Bulger.

Sometimes, even good QBs have bad stretches (see Donovan McNabb's early 2003), but those bad stretches never last (see Donovan McNabb's late 2003).

Also, I appreciate you copying and pasting that big long post about Daunte Culpepper. I really appreciate you showing me a post about how Culpepper's backups have done with Randy Moss. We're currently discussing how Daunte Culpepper does without Randy Moss. From what I can tell, the only part of that massive post that dealt with this issue even in passing was a comparison between Culpepper's first 5 games of 2004 to Culpepper's next 5 games of 2004, which is such a flawed comparison that it's laughable (sure, Culpepper's next 5 games were worse than his first 5 games, but they were still on pace for the #2 fantasy QB in the NFL behind record-breaking Manning! Somehow the original poster forgot to mention that point... ). Could you please highlight what portion of that post you quoted demonstrated that Culpepper wasn't a top-5 QB without Randy Moss?

Once again, you brush off my argument by telling me that I obviously haven't read a post, and then you provide a post that deals with my argument only peripherally *AT BEST* (I'd say it's closer to not at all).

 

[CBower4545]

Bouman in 2001: 89 pass attemts and 9 rush attempts for a total of 98 total attempts. 795 pass yards with 8 TDs and 61 rush yards with 0 TDs. A total of 85.9 FF points or .88 FF points per attempt.

Frerotte in 2003: 65 pass attempts and 12 rush attempts for a total of 77 attempts. 690 pass yards with 7 TDS and -2 rush yards with 0 TDs for a total of 69.4 FF points or .90 FF points per attempt

Manning FT points PassAttempts Pts per Attempt02'________380___________591__________0.64

03’________380___________566__________0.67

I guess that means Manning sucked those years because his points per attempt were far worse. The colts should have traded for Bouman and Frerotte when they had the chance.

LT to QB, his fantasy per pass attempt points are sick!

Here are Culpepper's averages:

2000: 25.1

2001: 22.3

2002: 22.6

2003: 23.5

2004: 27.1

Boy that guy sure is lousy.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...mp;hl=Culpepper

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...mp;hl=Culpepper

One thread saying Culpepper sucked then got injured in 05'. Another thread debating Brad Johnson's value filling in for Culpepper. Ground breaking. Please just stick to your argument. Posting tangential links just waste people's time. Then standing behind those links as some sort of irrefutable proof does not make a strong debate. It only frustrates any person trying to have an intelligent debate. being condescending does not help much either. The thing is their is a point in your argument but because of the way you approach it you stunt the discussion of it.

Moss is a great talent no one will argue that Culpepper benefited from that. But to say any below-average QB can come in and post the crazy numbers Culpepper posted, especially in 04 is a little out of touch with reality. Not to mention Culpepper gained valuable points running the ball, which seems pretty hard to attribute to Moss's presence.

 

[jurb26]

I love how what you have essentially broken this down to is 3 games in 2004 to prove your point. That is actually pretty telling IMO. Especially when you have 6 games in 2005's season that provide a far better baseline for Cpep w/o Moss on many levels.

I ignored the games in 2005? I'm sorry, perhaps the reason I only looked at games in 2004 because of this little quote from earlier in the thread...

Yes, it was proven rather soundly too. I'm not thinking of the wrong year. It was 2004...

You told me that it was soundly proven that Culpepper was nothing without Randy Moss in 2004, so I addressed that. If you wanted to include the 2005 numbers, all you had to do was say so and I gladly would have done that, as well. In fact, I'll do that right now:Here's a little game for you: outside of Culpepper and Brad Johnson, guess how many pro bowls the Minnesota Vikings offensive players in 2005 have accounted for in their ENTIRE CAREERS. Stumped? The answer is one. Michael Bennett was a pro bowler in 2002. Outside of that, there wasn't a single Minnesota offensive player on the entire team who has made a pro bowl in his entire career (except for K-Rob, but he made the pro bowl as a special teamer). That's 4 RBs, 5 WRs, 4 TEs, and 5 offensive linemen, none of whom has ever been sent to honolulu. That offense was BAD, and to be honest, outside of the first two games, Culpepper wasn't as bad as everyone made him out to be. In the first two games, he was brutal, throwing 8 INTs and 0 TDs. Over the 4 games after that, he had 6 TDs, 4 INTs, 267 yards passing per game, and 25 yards rushing per game. Over a full season, that projects out to 24 TDs, 16 INTs, 4272 yards passing, and 400 yards rushing. Pretty spectacular numbers, if you ask me. The big problem is that he got injured before he had a chance to erase that horrible start from everyone's mind. Here is the complete list of QBs who scored more points per game than Daunte Culpepper from week 3 until he got hurt: Brett Favre, Eli Manning, Marc Bulger.

Sometimes, even good QBs have bad stretches (see Donovan McNabb's early 2003), but those bad stretches never last (see Donovan McNabb's late 2003).

Also, I appreciate you copying and pasting that big long post about Daunte Culpepper. I really appreciate you showing me a post about how Culpepper's backups have done with Randy Moss. We're currently discussing how Daunte Culpepper does without Randy Moss. From what I can tell, the only part of that massive post that dealt with this issue even in passing was a comparison between Culpepper's first 5 games of 2004 to Culpepper's next 5 games of 2004, which is such a flawed comparison that it's laughable (sure, Culpepper's next 5 games were worse than his first 5 games, but they were still on pace for the #2 fantasy QB in the NFL behind record-breaking Manning! Somehow the original poster forgot to mention that point... ). Could you please highlight what portion of that post you quoted demonstrated that Culpepper wasn't a top-5 QB without Randy Moss?

Once again, you brush off my argument by telling me that I obviously haven't read a post, and then you provide a post that deals with my argument only peripherally *AT BEST* (I'd say it's closer to not at all).

 

[Garrett]

You're absolutely right. Randy Moss appeared in the week 8 game, where he was the target of one pass (which he failed to catch). He was also on the field in week 7, although he wasn't targeted once. I'm so terribly, terribly glad you brought this up, jurb, because you're absolutely right- just the mere PRESENCE of Randy Moss on the football field projects a supernatural aura that causes Culpepper to play far above and beyond his normal mortal capabilities, so including these two games in Culpepper's pro-rated numbers was a gross oversight on my part. Let's take these two games out and then re-prorate the numbers based entirely on games where Randy "Jesus" Moss wasn't on the field- namely, the latter half of week 6, and all of weeks 9, 10, and 11.Wow, I'm surprised to say it, but you're totally right. Removing the games where Randy "Jesus" Moss graced the field with his presence even though he wasn't even targeted had a DRAMATIC impact on Culpepper's numbers. Instead of being on pace for 4145/35/8, this new analysis shows that Culpepper was actually on pace for 4145/41/4.5. That's right, by removing the games where Randy Moss played but was ineffective, Daunte Culpepper actually INCREASED HIS TOUCHDOWN PACE BY 6 AND ALMOST CUT HIS INTERCEPTIONS IN HALF. Daunte Culpepper was actually on pace for more TDs in the time that Randy Moss missed than during the time when Moss was actually on the field!Please, jurb26, tell me again how I don't know what I'm talking about, or come up with some other criteria that you would like me to further parse the data with. Do you want me to discard the second half of week 6, because somehow Randy Moss is so magical that if he sets foot on the field during the first half, his magical powers will make Culpepper a better QB on through the second half, even while Moss himself remains in the locker room? Sure, I'll gladly throw out the second half of week 6 and pro-rate based just on weeks 9, 10, and 11. Congratulations, Culpepper is now only on pace for 4080 yards, 37 TDs, and 5 INTs. Are there any other superpowers that Randy Moss possesses that I'm unaware of? Any more games that you want me to throw out of my sample? I can do this all day long if you really want me to. Or would you rather just say that you read a post 2 years ago that had some horrible analysis that said that Culpepper was nothing without Moss and that I obviously can't use the search function again? Ignoring my arguments and telling me I just don't know what I'm talking about is practically as good as actually rebutting my arguments!I'm sort of just being a jerk at this point, and I'm sorry about that, but I feel like you've been condescending to me all thread long, telling me that you read some posts back in 2005 that disagreed with me and that as a result I simply must not know what I'm talking about. Trust me, any threads that disagreed with me in 2005 were WRONG. No matter how fine you parse the data, Culpepper was still on pace for 4000+ yards and 35+ TDs passing in 2004 when Randy Moss was not on the field. You can take out games where Randy Moss caught a pass, take out games where he was targeted, take out games where he was on the active list, take out portions of games, leave in portions of games, or otherwise just fiddle with the numbers to your heart's content, but they'll always come out with 4,000+ yards passing and 37+ TDs for Daunte Culpepper. No matter what rational criteria you use for selecting which portions of games to use and which not to use, the absolute *WORST* possible "Culpepper Sans Moss" projection comes out to 387 fantasy points (assuming 400 rushing yards and 0 rushing TDs, which I'm sure you'll agree is very generous), which would rank as the second best fantasy season by a QB in the past 5 years (behind only Peyton Manning's record-breaking 2004 season). Culpepper was about as far from "basically nothing without Randy Moss" in 2004 as is humanly possible to be while still playing the sport of football. He was on pace for 4000 passing yards with Nate Burleson and Marcus Robinson as his leading receivers, and without a single stable RB (Onterrio Smith, Michael Bennett, and Mewelde Moore were all splitting time based mostly on which of the three was currently the least injured).

 

[smackdaddies]

Moss did not play in games for weeks 7-11 (5 games), well he did have one target in week 8, but had no stats otherwise.Culpepper averaged 234 yards passing and 1.8 TDs over that five game stretch. Projected to a full 16 game season that would be 3,744 yards passing and 29 TDs.

Counting game 5 as w/Moss skews your numbers. Moss missed over a half of that game and Culpepper passed for 450/5. Tally that.

He actually had 4,717 yards and 39 TDs passing. So, he could have had a good year without Moss, but he had a super year with him there most of the season. Moss by the way had 767 yards and 13 TDs that season finishing 19th WR.Was that so hard?

Was what so hard? Even granting you the benefit of the stat issue above, your point seems to be Culpepper could have a great 3700/29 400/2 year with Burleson/a decripd Mrob/Kelly Campbell as his receiving corps. Implicitly he would have easily surpassed an already historic 5100 yard/41 TDS season with any talent at all at WR? Oh, I guess that wasn't hard.

I think the WRs at Oakland are better than he had with the Vikings and I think Culpepper offers very nice upside late. I didn't look at what point in what game Moss went out. If Cpepp threw a ton in the second half of a game after Moss was hurt, then he possibly could have projected the entire year to 4,000 and 34 TDs. My comment about was that so hard was that there were multiple "look it up" posts and it only took me about ten minutes to find the data.I get irritated when posters take the time to post a long thread without data and then say look it up. Even worse when the responders do the same and nobody wants to quote numbers. The data is here at the site, use it.

As a Badger fan, I hate to agree with a Razorback, but this is a Curry is getting alot of love by ffg's and others. He only has a good year if he has a decent quarterback. Cpep looked ok last night. Way better than qb 32 which is where my vdp has him.In my 12 team redraft tonight, he will get a look at the end of the draft for a flyer.Next week in my 12 team draft 2qb - I will be drafting him if available at the right price point.Oakland has a strong defense, which is always good for your offense.Oakland also has a fairly difficult SOS - there should be some good matchups for qbbc, including starting week 1 v. detroit, as has been mentioned, but in general he wont be a great start for most of the weeks.