Offense Most Likely to Tank (1 Viewer)

[LHUCKS]

Here are the top 10 by Yardage... 1-Kansas City 2-Indianapolis 3-Geen Bay4-Minnesota 5-Denver6-St. Louis7-New England 8-Seattle9-Philadelphia 10-San DiegoEDIT TO ADD: SD was actually the #11 team based on total yardage. The #10 team was Tennessee.I'm going with the Vikings:a) Randy Moss is Goneb) Culpepper less than impressive in games without Moss in '04c) Mike Tice is a moron and the Vikings appear to be deteriorating as a teamd) New Ownershipe) Randy Moss is GoneSo which team are you picking and why?Tank = Significant Drop in Total Offense

 

[Joe T]

I'm picking Minnehaha as well. They have no one to throw the ball to and the running game didn't look as impressive in '04 as it did in '03. They still have one of the top O-lines in the NFL which will still carry them a long way. But without acquiring a top receiver their passing numbers should fall off dramatically. Their rushing numbers may actually be up because of this.

 

[Fallerjw]

I'm thinking Minnesota-lost Moss or Green Bay - lost 2 starting Guards.

 

[datonn]

I'd actually be tempted to take Green Bay, as I think the loss of those two offensive lineman will hurt them a LOT more than people think, both in the running game AND the passing game! My home-town Vikings would probably come in a close second...although I don't think that their offensive production goes down as much as people think...it's just that they won't be chewing up the yardage quite as fast with more of a "grind it out" offense in 2005. I'll gladly take a 20-17 win instead of a 35-31 loss though..... :horns:

 

[Bob Henry]

How about the team that loses it's QB for the longest stretch of games? All things equal if any of those top 10 teams lose their starting QB it could be a loooooong season, though teams like the Rams, Packers, Chiefs and Vikings could be hurt the most.

 

[LHUCKS]

How about the team that loses it's QB for the longest stretch of games? All things equal if any of those top 10 teams lose their starting QB it could be a loooooong season, though teams like the Rams, Packers, Chiefs and Vikings could be hurt the most.

I was just about to write that when I came back into the thread. Of the QBs from the top 10, Bulger and Trent Green would appear to be the most susceptible.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

LHUCKS wrote:

I'm going with the Vikings:

b) Culpepper less than impressive in games without Moss in '04

So which team are you picking and why?



Is this statement true?

I know that somebody has posted Daunte's stats last year in the games without Moss but I can't remember what they were.

 

[Joe T]

How about the team that loses it's QB for the longest stretch of games? All things equal if any of those top 10 teams lose their starting QB it could be a loooooong season, though teams like the Rams, Packers, Chiefs and Vikings could be hurt the most.

How do we predict which one it will be?My guess would be Rams, but that is pure speculation.

That would mean the three most likely to decline in my book would be

1. Vikings

2. Packers

3. Rams

(now we need a thread on bottom ten offenses most likely to improve)

 

[LHUCKS]

I'd actually be tempted to take Green Bay, as I think the loss of those two offensive lineman will hurt them a LOT more than people think, both in the running game AND the passing game!  My home-town Vikings would probably come in a close second...although I don't think that their offensive production goes down as much as people think...it's just that they won't be chewing up the yardage quite as fast with more of a "grind it out" offense in 2005.  I'll gladly take a 20-17 win instead of a 35-31 loss though..... :horns:

Excellent point on the Vikings. I agree that there's an excellent chance we'll see more of a ball-control style offense.

 

[Joe T]

I'd actually be tempted to take Green Bay, as I think the loss of those two offensive lineman will hurt them a LOT more than people think, both in the running game AND the passing game! My home-town Vikings would probably come in a close second...although I don't think that their offensive production goes down as much as people think...it's just that they won't be chewing up the yardage quite as fast with more of a "grind it out" offense in 2005. I'll gladly take a 20-17 win instead of a 35-31 loss though..... :horns:

Did the Vikes step up their defense this off season?thanks.

 

[LHUCKS]

How about the team that loses it's QB for the longest stretch of games? All things equal if any of those top 10 teams lose their starting QB it could be a loooooong season, though teams like the Rams, Packers, Chiefs and Vikings could be hurt the most.

(now we need a thread on bottom ten offenses most likely to improve)

Did it about a week ago JoeTLink to Improved Offense Thread

 

[Mike Herman]

Patriots.Charlie Weis is gone and replaced by an OCBC. IMO last year was somewhat uncharacteristic. The three prior years their O ranked 18, 22, and 19 in yards.

 

[saintfool]

i think minnesota will have a very potent offense still. in the games that moss missed, culpepper was still very effective and put up decent #'s. In the 5 games Dc was without Moss, his QB rating was well over 100 with the exception of 2 games (vs Detroit (98) and Giants (67)). He didn't put up sick #'s but he was still very effective. Now that they have some semblance of a defense, they may very well try to be less explosive and more grind it out. But I doubt that will drop them from the top 10.My bet? Green Bay. Their offensive line is in tatters. Still a very yeoman WR corps. Ahman Green had a disappointing year and could still be in a funk. The only person who might have a good year would be Brett, as he'll have to be scrambling and playing catch-up.

 

[Joe T]

How about the team that loses it's QB for the longest stretch of games? All things equal if any of those top 10 teams lose their starting QB it could be a loooooong season, though teams like the Rams, Packers, Chiefs and Vikings could be hurt the most.

(now we need a thread on bottom ten offenses most likely to improve)

Did it about a week ago JoeTLink to Improved Offense Thread

looks like we should try again.There's no list of the bottom 10 offenses in there.

 

[Joe T]

Patriots.

Charlie Weis is gone and replaced by an OCBC. IMO last year was somewhat uncharacteristic. The three prior years their O ranked 18, 22, and 19 in yards.

yes, but wasn't most of that due to the fact that they had absolutely no running game? Now they have one of the top rushing attacks in the league to go with the still great and still improving passing game.Weis gone is a great point. The fact that they were down in prior years is suspect.

 

[LHUCKS]

Patriots.

Charlie Weis is gone and replaced by an OCBC. IMO last year was somewhat uncharacteristic. The three prior years their O ranked 18, 22, and 19 in yards.

To play devil's advocate I think Dillon really helped that offense last year. But to make a counterpoint, with some key personnel losses on the defensive side they may not be ahead as much as they'd like headed into the 4th quarter.

This is a good one to ponder. Difficult to quantify the loss of Weiss.

 

[schooner44]

The Pats with a new OC and Dillon getting up in age. Plus Dillon is the poster boy for "season-long, nagging" injuries.A close second would be GB with the decimated O-line. I think by year's end, Favre will regret not having retired.

 

[LHUCKS]

LHUCKS wrote:

I'm going with the Vikings:

b) Culpepper less than impressive in games without Moss in '04

So which team are you picking and why?



Is this statement true?

I know that somebody has posted Daunte's stats last year in the games without Moss but I can't remember what they were.

In one of the Culpepper threads BostonFred(I think) made a couple of excellent posts concerning the four/five game stretch. I'll try to find them.I watch every NFL game and I can tell you in those games the Vikings just didn't look very good...I'm sure unbiased Vikings fans will tell you the same. The stats were OK, but when you take into account the caliber of defenses...I think the stretch is a negative when considering the Vikings production in the upcoming year. The has been debated quite a bit though in the Culpepper threads.

 

[Joe T]

In the 5 games Dc was without Moss, his QB rating was well over 100 with the exception of 2 games (vs Detroit (98) and Giants (67)). He didn't put up sick #'s but he was still very effective. Now that they have some semblance of a defense, they may very well try to be less explosive and more grind it out. But I doubt that will drop them from the top 10.

Value in FF is not found in QB rating.In the games Moss missed, here are Culpepper's stats. This confirms my thoughts that Culpepper will be the biggest mistake (drafted way higher than his value) in FF in 2005.

Week 7 Ten 24 30 183 1 0

Week 8 NYG 24 42 231 1 2

Week 9 Ind 16 19 169 1 0

Week 10 Gnb 27 44 363 4 0

Week 11 Det 22 32 233 2 1

Outside of the Green Bay game his passing numbers are significantly down without Moss. This is a guy that passed for over 4,700 yards in '04. These are clearly the majority of his weakest games.

I'll pass on him every time in '05.

 

[LHUCKS]

In the 5 games Dc was without Moss, his QB rating was well over 100 with the exception of 2 games (vs Detroit (98) and Giants (67)). He didn't put up sick #'s but he was still very effective. Now that they have some semblance of a defense, they may very well try to be less explosive and more grind it out. But I doubt that will drop them from the top 10.

Value in FF is not found in QB rating.In the games Moss missed, here are Culpepper's stats. This confirms my thoughts that Culpepper will be the biggest mistake (drafted way higher than his value) in FF in 2005.

Week 7 Ten 24 30 183 1 0

Week 8 NYG 24 42 231 1 2

Week 9 Ind 16 19 169 1 0

Week 10 Gnb 27 44 363 4 0

Week 11 Det 22 32 233 2 1

Outside of the Green Bay game his passing numbers are significantly down without Moss. This is a guy that passed for over 4,700 yards in '04. These are clearly the majority of his weakest games.

I'll pass on him every time in '05.

Like JoeT, Culpepper is on my short list for "biggest bust in '05"

 

[Dancing Bear]

I think that the term "Tank" needs to be better defined.

Is it relative to their production of last year?

Is it relative to the Top 10.

I would say that BOTH Indianapolis and Minnesota will "Tank" if your definition is that they do not meet last years production [i would predict that they both end up with between 85% - 90% of their production compared with last year].

If you say that they "Tank" by falling out of the Top 10 irrespective to their actual production compared with last year, then I would say either Seattle or St. Louis.

Seattle has a lot to prove and little to back why they will. Hasselbeck was horrible last year and dramatically regressed from 2003. K. Robinson is a head-case. They ALL drop TOO many balls. Alexander is not necessarily a Seahawk in 2005, and even if he is how will he respond to being placed on the Trading Block with no takers!

 

[datonn]

In one of the Culpepper threads BostonFred(I think) made a couple of excellent posts concerning the four/five game stretch. I'll try to find them.

I watch every NFL game and I can tell you those games the Vikings just didn't look very good...I'm sure unbiased Vikings fans will tell you the same. The stats were OK, but when you take into account the caliber of defenses...I think the stretch is a negative when considering the Vikings production in the upcoming year. The has been debated quite a bit though in the Culpepper threads though.

I'll agree that the Vikings didn't look all that good when Moss was out last year, but IMHO the Vikings never really look that good on offense when they are constantly playing from behind, or hang their heads after their defense gave up points as fast or faster as the offense could put them on the board! They looked good in the stats department, but stats don't bring home the Lombardi Trophy!2005 will be a different season in Minnesota alltogether, with the addition of P. Williams, F. Smoot, D. Sharper, N. Harris and S. Cowart on the defensive side of the ball. I think the Vikings rushing numbers and time of possession numbers jump WAY up, their passing numbers decline by a significant percentage (over 10-15 percent) and FFLers will be disappointed in the stats of only one offensive starter, Daunte Culpepper. Culpepper will have a much better season in 2005, but not better stats. Since this is a FFL chat though, my guess is that stats are what folks are most interested in.

 

[LHUCKS]

I think that the term "Tank" needs to be better defined.

Is it relative to their production of last year?

Is it relative to the Top 10.

To me, Tank equals significant drop in total offense...when compared to '04.

 

[wannabee]

The Seahawks, on the probability of an Alexander trade, look obvious to me. What else do they have that makes their offense better than the Arizona, Niners, and Cowboys of the world?

 

[Funkley]

Before you write off the Vikings consider that Rosenthal and Kleinsasser will be back to block plus they are still likely to add either a starting WR or RB to the current mix. They are absolutely going more ball control this season so there's no chance that they'll be top 4 again. But to imply that the lower yardage will = worse offense is premature imo.

 

[LHUCKS]

The Seahawks, on the probability of an Alexander trade, look obvious to me. What else do they have that makes their offense better than the Arizona, Niners, and Cowboys of the world?

I love that O-line though and I'm a Hasselbeck fan.It is difficult to quantify the loss of Alexander without knowing who the replacement will be.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Here are the top 10 by Yardage...

1-Kansas City

2-Indianapolis

3-Geen Bay

4-Minnesota

5-Denver

6-St. Louis

7-New England

8-Seattle

9-Philadelphia

10-San Diego

I'm going with the Vikings:

a) Randy Moss is Gone

b) Culpepper less than impressive in games without Moss in '04

c) Mike Tice is a moron and the Vikings appear to be deteriorating as a team

d) New Ownership

e) Randy Moss is Gone

So which team are you picking and why?

OK, first thing I need to understand is this: Is this a "Team Offense" tanking or a QB tanking thread??If it is a team offense, then I don't agree with the Viking inclusion here.

Here are their stats (team offense without Moss):

605 yards 38 points vs NO (Moss only played first half)

313 yards 20 points vs TEN

324 yards 13 points vs NYG

292 yards 28 points vs IND

416 yards 31 points vs GB

319 yards 22 points vs DET

Now, if you find averages then they averaged 378 yards if you include the NO game (would have put them 5th overall last year) and they averaged 333 yards if you throw out the NO game completely (would have put them 12th overall last year). So I don't think there is any reason to say that their offense won't be top ten again this year, because they will add a decent WR in place of Moss. Will it be the same? NO, but it won't be out of the top 10.

Now Culpepper's stats may be the one's going in the tank. There I might agree. But answer the question you posed in the thread.

Plus, how are the Vikings deteriorating as a team? They won a playoff game last year? Tice has improved them each year? That is coaching!!

 

[LHUCKS]

Before you write off the Vikings consider that Rosenthal and Kleinsasser will be back to block plus they are still likely to add either a starting WR or RB to the current mix.

They are absolutely going more ball control this season so there's no chance that they'll be top 4 again. But to imply that the lower yardage will = worse offense is premature imo.

Yeah, we're mostly discussing yardage for the purposes of ff.I agree that yardage totals are far from an absolute indicator of an offense's effecitveness.

Pittsburgh's offense was very effective last year and they're not top 10. The same can be said for the Patriots in prior years.

 

[LHUCKS]

Before you write off the Vikings consider that Rosenthal and Kleinsasser will be back to block plus they are still likely to add either a starting WR or RB to the current mix.

They are absolutely going more ball control this season so there's no chance that they'll be top 4 again. But to imply that the lower yardage will = worse offense is premature imo.

Yeah, we're mostly discussing yardage for the purposes of ff.I agree that yardage totals are far from an absolute indicator of an offense's effecitveness.

Pittsburgh's offense was very effective last year and they're not top 10. The same can be said for the Patriots in prior years.

 

[jurb26]

Here are their stats (team offense without Moss):605 yards 38 points vs NO (Moss only played first half)313 yards 20 points vs TEN324 yards 13 points vs NYG292 yards 28 points vs IND416 yards 31 points vs GB319 yards 22 points vs DET

:rotflmao: Your own number show how important Moss is to that O. Lets see, the only game of the ones you listed that Moss played (a half), they had over 600 yds. Of ALL the rest they had a max of only 420 and most time half as many yds. . Moss in that half had 90 yds and a TD ans was seen running deep blowing by NO DBs on several occasions. Don't fool yourself... Moss GREATLY impacted that game, the stratage, and preperation that NO used going into it.There is absolutly no justifiable way to include that NO game into these numbers.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Here are their stats (team offense without Moss):

605 yards 38 points vs NO (Moss only played first half)

313 yards 20 points vs TEN

324 yards 13 points vs NYG

292 yards 28 points vs IND

416 yards 31 points vs GB

319 yards 22 points vs DET

:rotflmao: Your own number show how important Moss is to that O. Lets see, the only game of the ones you listed that Moss played (a half), they had over 600 yds. Of ALL the rest they had a max of only 420 and most time half as many yds. . Moss in that half had 90 yds and a TD ans was seen running deep blowing by NO DBs on several occasions. Don't fool yourself... Moss GREATLY impacted that game, the stratage, and preperation that NO used going into it.

There is absolutly no justifiable way to include that NO game into these numbers.

I agree completely...that is why I included stats from both. They could drop from the #4 spot, I don't argue that (I think Moss is the most dangerous offensive weapon in the NFL), but the point is they will not "tank" and be a lower echelon offense because of his loss.

 

[jurb26]

I agree with the majority here. Minn and GB look to be the most likely to fall out of the top 10.

 

[kylechoffman]

Here are the top 10 by Yardage...

1-Kansas City

2-Indianapolis

3-Geen Bay

4-Minnesota

5-Denver

6-St. Louis

7-New England

8-Seattle

9-Philadelphia

10-San Diego

I'm going with the Vikings:

a) Randy Moss is Gone

b) Culpepper less than impressive in games without Moss in '04

c) Mike Tice is a moron and the Vikings appear to be deteriorating as a team

d) New Ownership

e) Randy Moss is Gone

So which team are you picking and why?

I disagree with the Minnesota assessment in terms of them losing production on offense. For starters, they will now focus on short pass routes instead of the long bomb all the time to moss. This should open things up a bit and make their offense more strategic. Next, if they do indeed draft a WR with their first draft pick, that wr would add an immediate upgrade. Burleson and Robinson are solid, Wiggins is a great short range pass catcher and another addition, be it Williams, edwards, clayton or williamson would add another element to the passing attack. They vastly improved their defense, which should now give their offense a rest, something they havent had much of in any season for a few years.Green Bay's line losses will hurt them, I agree with the "more than most people expect" assessment. Upsetting any O-line hurts any offense, when it has happened in the past, it always has negative effects.

I put GB up there with NE. NE lost two wrs, one which was their deep threat. I still think they will contend but I think the losses on D and O will impact their "TEAM" effort that has been such a success in the past few years.

Just my opinion of course..

 

[jurb26]

Here are their stats (team offense without Moss):

605 yards 38 points vs NO (Moss only played first half)

313 yards 20 points vs TEN

324 yards 13 points vs NYG

292 yards 28 points vs IND

416 yards 31 points vs GB

319 yards 22 points vs DET

:rotflmao: Your own number show how important Moss is to that O. Lets see, the only game of the ones you listed that Moss played (a half), they had over 600 yds. Of ALL the rest they had a max of only 420 and most time half as many yds. . Moss in that half had 90 yds and a TD ans was seen running deep blowing by NO DBs on several occasions. Don't fool yourself... Moss GREATLY impacted that game, the stratage, and preperation that NO used going into it.

There is absolutly no justifiable way to include that NO game into these numbers.

I agree completely...that is why I included stats from both. They could drop from the #4 spot, I don't argue that (I think Moss is the most dangerous offensive weapon in the NFL), but the point is they will not "tank" and be a lower echelon offense because of his loss.

I see. I think it will be tough for them to be a top 10 O myself with out Moss. I don't really know that I consider that "tanking", but still of the ones listed I see them as one of the most likely.

 

[Weiner Dog]

MIN's improved defense will be the #1 reason their offense will not match '04's production. The Vikings have added five solid starters (Sharper, Smoot, P Williams, Cowart, and Harris). MIN will be playing in less "catch-up" games; therfore, they will not be awarded gimmie yardage in the 3rd and 4th quarters of many games.Another tidbit...In the five games w/o Moss last year, the Vikes were playing pitiful defenses and STILL could not average Top-10 yardage:TEN: #27NYG: #13IND: #29GB: #25DET: #22If you feel the need to include the NO game, you also need to include the fact that NO had the worst-ranked defense in the NFL last year. They allowed an average of 383 yrd/gm.

 

[LHUCKS]

MIN's improved defense will be the #1 reason their offense will not match '04's production. The Vikings have added five solid starters (Sharper, Smoot, P Williams, Cowart, and Harris). MIN will be playing in less "catch-up" games; therfore, they will not be awarded gimmie yardage in the 3rd and 4th quarters of many games.

Another tidbit...

In the five games w/o Moss last year, the Vikes were playing pitiful defenses and STILL could not average Top-10 yardage:

TEN: #27

NYG: #13

IND: #29

GB: #25

DET: #22

If you feel the need to include the NO game, you also need to include the fact that NO had the worst-ranked defense in the NFL last year. They allowed an average of 383 yrd/gm.

 

[-OZ-]

Does a loss in ranking automatically = "tank"Take Minnesota for example, they are probably going from a deep passing team to more of a running team, which will probably mean less points. Of course Moss is a big part of that as well. BUT, they might be able to control the tempo better and, along with an improved defense, win more games for it. Some, I'm not sure how much, of the yards and TDs were scored as "garbage time" which should be a factor against them this year.It pains me to write this, but with an aging line, aging QB, no WRs, and the possibility of Priest or LJ not performing due to those factors, the Chiefs could easily fall off the pedestal this year.

 

[The Steel]

LHUCKS, when you say Culpepper will be a bust, throw out the numbers you think he will have. If you take away Moss's numbers and add nothing, Culpepper is still passing for 4300 yards and 30 TDs, rushing for 450 and 3 TDs. That is top 5 in most leagues. I would say Moss's replacement gets more that 0. He may fall back to the pack, but he is on my short list of Culpepper and Manning to be locks for the top 5 QBs.

 

[LHUCKS]

LHUCKS, when you say Culpepper will be a bust, throw out the numbers you think he will have.  If you take away Moss's numbers and add nothing, Culpepper is still passing for 4300 yards and 30 TDs, rushing for 450 and 3 TDs.  That is top 5 in most leagues.  I would say Moss's replacement gets more that 0.  He may fall back to the pack, but he is on my short list of Culpepper and Manning to be locks for the top 5 QBs.

Hi Rosey,Bust is relative to where he will be taken in drafts this year. My guess is that he'll be the consensus #2 among QBs and I wouldn't be surprised to see an ADP in the top 15.

Further, I believe the absence of Moss will have an overall chemistry effect on the offense, which is what we saw in the games without Moss in '04. Culpepper is going to have to be much more of a cerebral QB now that he wont have 2 or 3 DBs covering Moss on passing downs.

Can the Vikings recover enough to justify his likely, lofty ADP...doubtful IMHO.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, Minnesota's offensive production was going to regress no matter what (especially Culpepper's), as very few QBs even attained the level of production he had let alone stayed there.I still say that there is a major diffeference in game planning KNOWING WELL IN ADVANCE that a player IS OFF A TEAM vs having a guy that's gimpy and may or may not play.If the playbook had Moss as the centerpiece (which he was), and suddenly Moss goes down, it would be A MAJOR adjustment in very little time to adjust for that. The Vikings will have MONTHS to develop a new scheme.Criticizing the production over 5 games (limited sample size) where the Vikings waivered week-to-week on how much Moss would or would not play and how to account for that in weekly practice is an unfair comparison in my book.Minnesota averaged 333 yards per game when Moss was out. The Chargers (last year's #10 team in yardage) averaged 355 yards.All things being equal (which I know won't happen), I suspect the Vikings could come up with another 22 yards a game knowing that Moss is gone without much problem . . .

 

[texasyankee]

The way the NFL ranks offenses & defenses is a bunch of hooeyThe year the Ravens were Champs they did not rank as the #1 D. Even though they set a record for pts allowed.The Vikes O will probably not be top 5 next year but that will be by design.I bet they will be in the top 5 in Troy Aikman's efficiency rankings though.The defense will be top 10 in Aikman's ranking as well.I think (hope) that Green Bay's offense will be awful this year, especially if someone grabs Davenport.

 

[texasyankee]

IMO, Minnesota's offensive production was going to regress no matter what (especially Culpepper's), as very few QBs even attained the level of production he had let alone stayed there.

I still say that there is a major diffeference in game planning KNOWING WELL IN ADVANCE that a player IS OFF A TEAM vs having a guy that's gimpy and may or may not play.

If the playbook had Moss as the centerpiece (which he was), and suddenly Moss goes down, it would be A MAJOR adjustment in very little time to adjust for that. The Vikings will have MONTHS to develop a new scheme.

Criticizing the production over 5 games (limited sample size) where the Vikings waivered week-to-week on how much Moss would or would not play and how to account for that in weekly practice is an unfair comparison in my book.

Minnesota averaged 333 yards per game when Moss was out. The Chargers (last year's #10 team in yardage) averaged 355 yards.

All things being equal (which I know won't happen), I suspect the Vikings could come up with another 22 yards a game knowing that Moss is gone without much problem . . .

I was going to try and say something like this.

 

[LHUCKS]

IMO, Minnesota's offensive production was going to regress no matter what (especially Culpepper's), as very few QBs even attained the level of production he had let alone stayed there.

I still say that there is a major diffeference in game planning KNOWING WELL IN ADVANCE that a player IS OFF A TEAM vs having a guy that's gimpy and may or may not play.

If the playbook had Moss as the centerpiece (which he was), and suddenly Moss goes down, it would be A MAJOR adjustment in very little time to adjust for that. The Vikings will have MONTHS to develop a new scheme.

Criticizing the production over 5 games (limited sample size) where the Vikings waivered week-to-week on how much Moss would or would not play and how to account for that in weekly practice is an unfair comparison in my book.

Minnesota averaged 333 yards per game when Moss was out. The Chargers (last year's #10 team in yardage) averaged 355 yards.

All things being equal (which I know won't happen), I suspect the Vikings could come up with another 22 yards a game knowing that Moss is gone without much problem . . .

I completely agree that taking the five games is unfair...and udoubtedly the Vikings offense will look better than they did in those games.But when you say come up with another 22 yards, I have two points:

1) The defenses the Vikings faced over that stretch were overall very bad...so that 333 number is inflated.

2) If the Vikings fall to the #10 offense...that in my book is a significant drop. Maybe not quite tanking, but significant nonetheless.

 

[LHUCKS]

The way the NFL ranks offenses & defenses is a bunch of hooey

The year the Ravens were Champs they did not rank as the #1 D.  Even though they set a record for pts allowed.

The Vikes O will probably not be top 5 next year but that will be by design.

I bet they will be in the top 5 in Troy Aikman's efficiency rankings though.

The defense will be top 10 in Aikman's ranking as well.

I think (hope) that Green Bay's offense will be awful this year, especially if someone grabs Davenport.

The rankings I provided are based on yards per game...i.e. total offense.As previoiusly mentioned, the intention of this thread is not to discuss an offense's effectiveness. I would prefer for the focus to be on total yardage and TDs, i.e. fantasy repercussions.

 

[David Yudkin]

IMO, Minnesota's offensive production was going to regress no matter what (especially Culpepper's), as very few QBs even attained the level of production he had let alone stayed there.

I still say that there is a major diffeference in game planning KNOWING WELL IN ADVANCE that a player IS OFF A TEAM vs having a guy that's gimpy and may or may not play.

If the playbook had Moss as the centerpiece (which he was), and suddenly Moss goes down, it would be A MAJOR adjustment in very little time to adjust for that.  The Vikings will have MONTHS to develop a new scheme.

Criticizing the production over 5 games (limited sample size) where the Vikings waivered week-to-week on how much Moss would or would not play and how to account for that in weekly practice is an unfair comparison in my book.

Minnesota averaged 333 yards per game when Moss was out.  The Chargers (last year's #10 team in yardage) averaged 355 yards.

All things being equal (which I know won't happen), I suspect the Vikings could come up with another 22 yards a game knowing that Moss is gone without much problem . . .

I completely agree that taking the five games is unfair...and udoubtedly the Vikings offense will look better than they did in those games.But when you say come up with another 22 yards, I have two points:

1) The defenses the Vikings faced over that stretch were overall very bad...so that 333 number is inflated.

2) If the Vikings fall to the #10 offense...that in my book is a significant drop. Maybe not quite tanking, but significant nonetheless.

I don't know what your intent was, but I took it to mean which of these teams will not be Top 10 again next year.I don't have time to find the numbers, but if you look back at the teams that lost a key player due to injury, trade, or retirement (in this case a Top WR), those teams did not tank and several even got better (see Green Bay or SF for examples). Again, the sample size is very small and it's not quite the same situation.

In terms of value, I suspect that neither Culpepper nor Manning will earn back his draft position in a redraft league (if they are first or close to first round picks), as neither one, IMO, will have a season like last year.

Manning could very well be the #1 QB this year, but that does not necessarily mean his production will merit a first round selection. Those that got him in the third round last year reaped the benefits. Manning won't fall far this year (some have said he will be a Top 5 pick overall or better). That's asking a lot in my book.

 

[Jetdoc]

Everyone's focusing on Minnesota in this thread, but I think the more intriguing story will be San Diego. I think that Brees' deal with the debbil will expire before training camp, and the entire Charger offense will come crashing back down to Earth. I envision a bottom-third of the league finish.

 

[-OZ-]

Everyone's focusing on Minnesota in this thread, but I think the more intriguing story will be San Diego. I think that Brees' deal with the debbil will expire before training camp, and the entire Charger offense will come crashing back down to Earth. I envision a bottom-third of the league finish.

Just a gut feeling, or can you point to tangible evidence that would lead to a demise?How long is Brees's leash now? If they struggle in the first few games, does Rivers start?

 

[LHUCKS]

IMO, Minnesota's offensive production was going to regress no matter what (especially Culpepper's), as very few QBs even attained the level of production he had let alone stayed there.

I still say that there is a major diffeference in game planning KNOWING WELL IN ADVANCE that a player IS OFF A TEAM vs having a guy that's gimpy and may or may not play.

If the playbook had Moss as the centerpiece (which he was), and suddenly Moss goes down, it would be A MAJOR adjustment in very little time to adjust for that.  The Vikings will have MONTHS to develop a new scheme.

Criticizing the production over 5 games (limited sample size) where the Vikings waivered week-to-week on how much Moss would or would not play and how to account for that in weekly practice is an unfair comparison in my book.

Minnesota averaged 333 yards per game when Moss was out.  The Chargers (last year's #10 team in yardage) averaged 355 yards.

All things being equal (which I know won't happen), I suspect the Vikings could come up with another 22 yards a game knowing that Moss is gone without much problem . . .

I completely agree that taking the five games is unfair...and udoubtedly the Vikings offense will look better than they did in those games.But when you say come up with another 22 yards, I have two points:

1) The defenses the Vikings faced over that stretch were overall very bad...so that 333 number is inflated.

2) If the Vikings fall to the #10 offense...that in my book is a significant drop. Maybe not quite tanking, but significant nonetheless.

I don't know what your intent was, but I took it to mean which of these teams will not be Top 10 again next year.

Intent wasn't "will not be in top 10", I'd prefer to focus on significant drops in offensive production.

 

[Marvelous]

I will go with Kansas City, Indy, and Minnesota for one simple reason: They all improved their defenses. Especially Minnesota.Minnesota is moving to more of a ball control offense, which will probably put up less points and less yards. But it may also put the defense in better position to give up less points.Indy has also tried to upgrade their defense. If the defense improves, I expect a more conservative offense. Maybe they will run the ball more. I was a little surprised how little they ran last year.Kansas City is also trying to improve their defense, but I think they are the most likely of the three to still have a bad D.

 

[jurb26]

IMO, Minnesota's offensive production was going to regress no matter what (especially Culpepper's), as very few QBs even attained the level of production he had let alone stayed there.

I still say that there is a major diffeference in game planning KNOWING WELL IN ADVANCE that a player IS OFF A TEAM vs having a guy that's gimpy and may or may not play.

If the playbook had Moss as the centerpiece (which he was), and suddenly Moss goes down, it would be A MAJOR adjustment in very little time to adjust for that. The Vikings will have MONTHS to develop a new scheme.

Criticizing the production over 5 games (limited sample size) where the Vikings waivered week-to-week on how much Moss would or would not play and how to account for that in weekly practice is an unfair comparison in my book.

Minnesota averaged 333 yards per game when Moss was out. The Chargers (last year's #10 team in yardage) averaged 355 yards.

All things being equal (which I know won't happen), I suspect the Vikings could come up with another 22 yards a game knowing that Moss is gone without much problem . . .

Ummm this point would be much more valid had Ds not been planning for Moss just as much as Minn was. As a matter of fact Minn left Ds and the media for the most part in the woods about what was going to happen with Moss. Forcing them to still prepare for a guy who wasn't even playing. This seems to be an advatage to Minn IMO. They at leasst knew he wasn't playing in those games. So they had only one game plan to learn, while the Ds had 2. A Moss game plan and a non Moss game plan.