Offense Most Likely to Tank (1 Viewer)

[Weiner Dog]

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.

Not to cherry-pick you response, but Indy has not upgraded their defense. In fact, it may be worse than last year. The Colts have lost (or will lose) two very average starters in Morris and Harper. More alarming, they have not added one substantial free agent on their D.

 

[ShadowMaster]

Hard to argue with Minny. I'd also expect San Diego to drop back to reality a bit with a tougher schedule next year.

 

[LHUCKS]

Hard to argue with Minny. I'd also expect San Diego to drop back to reality a bit with a tougher schedule next year.

I haven't taken a look at SOS yet...I wait for FBG/Clayton Gray to crunch those for me. :lazyefinitely is a factor though.

 

[Mike Herman]

An observation: the only two teams that really haven't been mentioned are Denver and Philadelphia. Are they a "lock" to succeed again, or will they blindside us by tanking?

 

[LHUCKS]

An observation: the only two teams that really haven't been mentioned are Denver and Philadelphia. Are they a "lock" to succeed again, or will they blindside us by tanking?

I think Philly is as close to a lock as you'll find IMHO.Hard for me to see Denver falling off significantly because the system is very consistent.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Seeing Dillon and Faulk rush 399 times for 1,890 yards again seems unlikely. With the loss of Andruzzi and Branch, along with Weis, I think we'll see NE revert back a little. There's not much reason for me to expect them to improve offensively in 2005.The Chiefs had 6,922 yards of offense last year, and 58 TDs.I highly doubt they hit those extremely lofty marks again this year.As for Culpepper and the Vikings, there will certainly be some return to the mean ala Manning and the Colts. Two things to keep in mind though about Culpepper:1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?2) Culpepper ran and threw for more yards than any player in the history of the NFL. More than Marino in 1984.

 

[jurb26]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

 

[Chase Stuart]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

 

[jurb26]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

What exactly was your agruement then? Do we no longer use TDs as a factor to consider for Os and better yet FF? Moss averaged 60 yds and a TD per game last year. There is no way I see this as worse than his 2002 season where he averaged 84 yds and 0.43 tds per game. But hey stick with that guy who scores only 7 TDs in 16 games I'll be glad to have the one who scores 13 in 13.

 

[Chase Stuart]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

What exactly was your agruement then? Do we no longer use TDs as a factor to consider for Os and better yet FF? Moss averaged 60 yds and a TD per game last year. There is no way I see this as worse than his 2002 season where he averaged 84 yds and 0.43 tds per game. But hey stick with that guy who scores only 7 TDs in 16 games I'll be glad to have the one who scores 13 in 13.

My argument was focusing on how many yards the Vikings will get, since that's how offenses are ranked.I'll take the guy ranked 5th over the guy ranked 19th most times

 

[Sinrman]

I'm thinking either GB or Denver. GB, because of the many reasons supplied by others above, and Denver because their offense isn't all that exciting. I'm not entirely sold on Bell, yet. They produce RBs like machines behind that line, but I dunno... their passing game needs to improve.

 

[jurb26]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

What exactly was your agruement then? Do we no longer use TDs as a factor to consider for Os and better yet FF? Moss averaged 60 yds and a TD per game last year. There is no way I see this as worse than his 2002 season where he averaged 84 yds and 0.43 tds per game. But hey stick with that guy who scores only 7 TDs in 16 games I'll be glad to have the one who scores 13 in 13.

My argument was focusing on how many yards the Vikings will get, since that's how offenses are ranked.I'll take the guy ranked 5th over the guy ranked 19th most times

Just becasue he played more games and scored more TOTAL FF points in 2002 doesn't mean he helped teams win more games that year.Moss FF points per game:

2002 = 11

2004 = 11.85

Moss was held w/o a TD in only 1 game he started last year. ONLY ONE!!! He was held w/o a TD on 10 occasions ins 2002 and only surpased 100 yards in 2 of those games as well. Which in most leagues is still little help. Even if you count his injured and missed games, you are looking at 4 games TOPS that Moss didn't perform at least well. But who in the heck would have started him his off weeks anyway?

 

[Joe T]

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.

Losing moss also means losing the double and triple teams he often draws which frees up their other receivers as well as increases the running game potential by drawing so much attention.You can't simply remove Moss' yardage and say, they will still put up the same passing yardage. Moss actually changes the game when he's on the field.

You will see a decline in the Vikings overall offense and this will be due entirely to the loss of Moss.

You can expect to see an increase in the Raiders overall offense... including their running game which will be underrated going into the season.

 

[Joe T]

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 . . .

What? What about when other teams no longer have to game plan for Moss and can concentrate on shutting down their running game?

They will have a harder time coming up with the 22 yards a game BECAUSE defenses know they don't have to stop Moss anymore.

 

[Chase Stuart]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

What exactly was your agruement then? Do we no longer use TDs as a factor to consider for Os and better yet FF? Moss averaged 60 yds and a TD per game last year. There is no way I see this as worse than his 2002 season where he averaged 84 yds and 0.43 tds per game. But hey stick with that guy who scores only 7 TDs in 16 games I'll be glad to have the one who scores 13 in 13.

My argument was focusing on how many yards the Vikings will get, since that's how offenses are ranked.I'll take the guy ranked 5th over the guy ranked 19th most times

Just becasue he played more games and scored more TOTAL FF points in 2002 doesn't mean he helped teams win more games that year.Moss FF points per game:

2002 = 11

2004 = 11.85

Moss had 156 points last year in thirteen games, and 186 points in sixteen games in 2002. That means you would need to have your backup WR to score thirty points in three games. Nate Burleson, WR16 last year, averaged 10 FPs/game. And last year WR scoring was up.Moss in 2002 was more valuable than Moss in 2004. And in weeks 15/16 of 2002, Moss had 223/2. Weeks 15/16 of 2004, Moss had 132/2.

 

[Joe T]

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.

sorry, hadn't read this far... but this is my point as well.

 

[Joe T]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

Did you happen to glance at Culpepper's numbers without Moss on the field?Does the name Aaron Brooks ring a bell for you?

How good was McNabb pre-Owens? Pretty good... but over-rated IMO. With Owens, he is a top 5 QB. We will see something very similar with Culpepper this year.

Yes, he will have a pretty good year. But will not likely be a top 5 QB.

 

[Chase Stuart]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

Did you happen to glance at Culpepper's numbers without Moss on the field?Does the name Aaron Brooks ring a bell for you?

How good was McNabb pre-Owens? Pretty good... but over-rated IMO. With Owens, he is a top 5 QB. We will see something very similar with Culpepper this year.

Yes, he will have a pretty good year. But will not likely be a top 5 QB.

McNabb had one of the best years in a long time in 2002. He missed six games, but he was far and away the top QB. He averaged 26 FP/G That's 2.5 PPG higher than he did with Owens last season.

 

[Joe T]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

Did you happen to glance at Culpepper's numbers without Moss on the field?Does the name Aaron Brooks ring a bell for you?

How good was McNabb pre-Owens? Pretty good... but over-rated IMO. With Owens, he is a top 5 QB. We will see something very similar with Culpepper this year.

Yes, he will have a pretty good year. But will not likely be a top 5 QB.

McNabb had one of the best years in a long time in 2002. He missed six games, but he was far and away the top QB. He averaged 26 FP/G That's 2.5 PPG higher than he did with Owens last season.

:rotflmao: stop....

:rotflmao:

this argument works for you in 2002 for McNabb but does not work for you in 2004 for Moss?

Please at least stay consistent so that I might take your responses seriously.

 

[jurb26]

Moss had 156 points last year in thirteen games, and 186 points in sixteen games in 2002. That means you would need to have your backup WR to score thirty points in three games. Nate Burleson, WR16 last year, averaged 10 FPs/game. And last year WR scoring was up.

Moss in 2002 was more valuable than Moss in 2004. And in weeks 15/16 of 2002, Moss had 223/2. Weeks 15/16 of 2004, Moss had 132/2.

You should also note that Moss was given credit for starting 2 games in which he never even played or received any targets. Both the NYG and TEnn game. So in reality he managed his 767/13 in only 11 games. I admit that this screwed FF players though.

 

[jurb26]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

Did you happen to glance at Culpepper's numbers without Moss on the field?Does the name Aaron Brooks ring a bell for you?

How good was McNabb pre-Owens? Pretty good... but over-rated IMO. With Owens, he is a top 5 QB. We will see something very similar with Culpepper this year.

Yes, he will have a pretty good year. But will not likely be a top 5 QB.

McNabb had one of the best years in a long time in 2002. He missed six games, but he was far and away the top QB. He averaged 26 FP/G That's 2.5 PPG higher than he did with Owens last season.

:rotflmao: stop....

:rotflmao:

this argument works for you in 2002 for McNabb but does not work for you in 2004 for Moss?

Please at least stay consistent so that I might take your responses seriously.

:rotflmao: This is classic

 

[jurb26]

You should also note that Moss was given credit for starting 2 games in which he never even played or received any targets.  Both the NYG and TEnn game.  So in reality he managed his 767/13 in only 11 games.  I admit that this screwed FF players though.

This even futher emphasizes the point that Minn was MORE prepared than their opponents for Moss' absence on a game plan level, not less!:rotflmao: They list him as a starter, then don't play him or use him just to screw with DC's. Nice move, but still funny.

 

[Joe T]

for the record, even thought this is off topic, here's McNabb's results the last four years. Hopefully, Chase can see the improvement with the addition of a top tier receiver (even though I doubt he will)onovan McNabb Pass Yds Pass TD Pass % Rush Yds Rush TD'04 3800 31 64% 220 3'03 3200 16 57% 360 3'02 2200 17 58% 460 6'01 3200 25 57% 480 22002 numbers were good, but inflated because he had to run so much and ran for 6 TDs which also could be said led to him missing 5 games. Yes, Culpepper will have to run A LOT more if he wants to stay a top 5 QB this year. He will not get it in the air.

 

[TheFanatic]

A close second would be GB with the decimated O-line. I think by year's end, Favre will regret not having retired.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think Favre will retire after the 2005 season. I think he will make the decision to do so about week 5....

 

[LHUCKS]

 

[Chase Stuart]

1) Randy Moss only caught 700+ yards last year. What do you make of it that in Culpepper's best year, Moss had his worst?

Funny you don't bring up the TDs he scored... wonder why? Its also nice to note that before Moss was hurt, he was on pace to score over 25 TDs! Even if you don't think he was capable of maintaining the gaudy pace, a healthy Moss last year more than likely would have scored over 20 TDs I think its fair to say.Is that really his "worst" year?

Either way when a WR scores a TD per game in the NFL, there is no way you can convince me that is his worse year ever.

I didn't bring up the TDs because they were meaningless to my argument. I was focusing on total yards for the offense, not total TDs. It's not as if I threw around Daunte Culpepper's TD numbers either.And yes, I'd say last year was Moss' worst year ever.

Did you happen to glance at Culpepper's numbers without Moss on the field?Does the name Aaron Brooks ring a bell for you?

How good was McNabb pre-Owens? Pretty good... but over-rated IMO. With Owens, he is a top 5 QB. We will see something very similar with Culpepper this year.

Yes, he will have a pretty good year. But will not likely be a top 5 QB.

McNabb had one of the best years in a long time in 2002. He missed six games, but he was far and away the top QB. He averaged 26 FP/G That's 2.5 PPG higher than he did with Owens last season.

:rotflmao: stop....

:rotflmao:

this argument works for you in 2002 for McNabb but does not work for you in 2004 for Moss?

Please at least stay consistent so that I might take your responses seriously.

for the record, even thought this is off topic, here's McNabb's results the last four years. Hopefully, Chase can see the improvement with the addition of a top tier receiver (even though I doubt he will):

Donovan McNabb Pass Yds Pass TD Pass % Rush Yds Rush TD

'04 3800 31 64% 220 3

'03 3200 16 57% 360 3

'02 2200 17 58% 460 6

'01 3200 25 57% 480 2

2002 numbers were good, but inflated because he had to run so much and ran for 6 TDs which also could be said led to him missing 5 games.

Yes, Culpepper will have to run A LOT more if he wants to stay a top 5 QB this year. He will not get it in the air.

I'm not so sure what was so hard to follow about the argument. We debated Randy Moss' VALUE as a fantasy player during two different seasons.With McNabb, I never said his 2002 season was better than his 2004. But YOU said that his numbers took a huge leap in 2004, and I said that simply wasn't true. He was absolutely dominant in 2002, but missed six games.

And McNabb got injured while being in the pocket in 2002. So how does that lead to him missing more games because he ran a lot?

And yes, McNabb running a lot might just make him a more valuable fantasy player than the addition of TD would.

 

[Joe T]

But YOU said that his numbers took a huge leap in 2004, and I said that simply wasn't true. He was absolutely dominant in 2002, but missed six games.

link to where I said his numbers took a huge leap?I love in debates where people try to rearrange your words to make it look like you said something you didn't.

What I did say was that McNabb became a top 5 QB after Owens joined the team. Its all recorded above if you'd like to re-read it.

And if you can't see that McNabb has better numbers after Owens joined the team, well then I'm wasting my time with you because you are not very bright.

 

[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 . . .

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.

sorry, hadn't read this far... but this is my point as well.

OK . . . which is easier, the Vikings having to adjust to NOT having the (arguably) best WR in the game- OR -

defenses having to adjust to the best WR in the game NOT playing?

I wonder . . . .

CLEARLY, defenses not having to deal with Moss suddenly was easier to deal with than the Vikings having to deal with not having Moss suddenly.

To use a basketball example, which would be easier to adapt to, the Bulls having to plan around Jordan being out of the lineup, or their opposition having to adjust for Jordan being out of the lineup.

In both circumstances, the opposition would be doing cartwheels that the #1 offensive option would be out for that game.

 

[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.

sorry, hadn't read this far... but this is my point as well.

OK . . . which is easier, the Vikings having to adjust to NOT having the (arguably) best WR in the game- OR -

defenses having to adjust to the best WR in the game NOT playing?

I wonder . . . .

CLEARLY, defenses not having to deal with Moss suddenly was easier to deal with than the Vikings having to deal with not having Moss suddenly.

To use a basketball example, which would be easier to adapt to, the Bulls having to plan around Jordan being out of the lineup, or their opposition having to adjust for Jordan being out of the lineup.

In both circumstances, the opposition would be doing cartwheels that the #1 offensive option would be out for that game.

You are confusing the act of game planning with the act of a VERY talented player playing.No matter who you look at it making and implementing 2 seperate game plans is harder than one. The talent of a Moss or Jordan overrides any game plans simply because of the talent involved with each player.

 

[Joe T]

OK . . . which is easier, the Vikings having to adjust to NOT having the (arguably) best WR in the game

- OR -

defenses having to adjust to the best WR in the game NOT playing?

I wonder . . . .

CLEARLY, defenses not having to deal with Moss suddenly was easier to deal with than the Vikings having to deal with not having Moss suddenly.

To use a basketball example, which would be easier to adapt to, the Bulls having to plan around Jordan being out of the lineup, or their opposition having to adjust for Jordan being out of the lineup.

In both circumstances, the opposition would be doing cartwheels that the #1 offensive option would be out for that game.

please identify your point in this mess.

 

[jurb26]

I'm not so sure what was so hard to follow about the argument. We debated Randy Moss' VALUE as a fantasy player during two different seasons.

With McNabb, I never said his 2002 season was better than his 2004. But YOU said that his numbers took a huge leap in 2004, and I said that simply wasn't true. He was absolutely dominant in 2002, but missed six games.

And McNabb got injured while being in the pocket in 2002. So how does that lead to him missing more games because he ran a lot?

And yes, McNabb running a lot might just make him a more valuable fantasy player than the addition of TD would.

You brought up the FF values, not Joe T. He was simply refering to the passing numbers.

 

[jwvdcw]

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.

The Vikings have proven that their offense doesn't miss a beat without Culpeper.

 

[David Yudkin]

Donovan McNabb Pass Yds Pass TD Pass % Rush Yds Rush TD

'04 3800 31 64% 220 3

'03 3200 16 57% 360 3

'02 2200 17 58% 460 6

'01 3200 25 57% 480 2

2004 Eagles with Owens: 386 points scored2002 Eagles without Owens: 415 points scored

 

[jurb26]

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.

The Vikings have proven that their offense doesn't miss a beat without Culpeper.

Only with Moss in the lineup though.

 

[The Steel]

To use a basketball example, which would be easier to adapt to, the Bulls having to plan around Jordan being out of the lineup, or their opposition having to adjust for Jordan being out of the lineup.

In both circumstances, the opposition would be doing cartwheels that the #1 offensive option would be out for that game.

sometimes it is addition by subtraction. Look at the Kings without Webber. Maybe Culpepper does not force the ball to Moss every time and his INT's go down. Maybe Marcus Robinson starts playing because he will actually get the ball. I agree that I would rather have Moss than not. But the Vikings are not going to fall off a cliff. Now, if losing Moss makes the Vikings change their gameplan entirely in the offseason to ball control, that is a different story.

 

[David Yudkin]

OK . . . which is easier, the Vikings having to adjust to NOT having the (arguably) best WR in the game

- OR -

defenses having to adjust to the best WR in the game NOT playing?

I wonder . . . .

CLEARLY, defenses not having to deal with Moss suddenly was easier to deal with than the Vikings having to deal with not having Moss suddenly.

To use a basketball example, which would be easier to adapt to, the Bulls having to plan around Jordan being out of the lineup, or their opposition having to adjust for Jordan being out of the lineup.

In both circumstances, the opposition would be doing cartwheels that the #1 offensive option would be out for that game.

please identify your point in this mess.

The point was that the defense had a huge advantage over the offense.

 

[Joe T]

Donovan McNabb      Pass Yds  Pass TD  Pass %  Rush Yds  Rush TD

'04 3800 31 64% 220 3

'03 3200 16 57% 360 3

'02 2200 17 58% 460 6

'01 3200 25 57% 480 2

2004 Eagles with Owens: 386 points scored2002 Eagles without Owens: 415 points scored

Point? I still haven't figured out which side you are arguing for/against?Eagles

Year Passing Yards Rank

'04 4206 6

'02 3606 18

 

[reg]

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.

The Vikings have proven that their offense doesn't miss a beat without Culpeper.

Yes him missing 2 games in the last 3 years is large enough of a sample size.

 

[jurb26]

Donovan McNabb      Pass Yds  Pass TD  Pass %  Rush Yds  Rush TD

'04 3800 31 64% 220 3

'03 3200 16 57% 360 3

'02 2200 17 58% 460 6

'01 3200 25 57% 480 2

2004 Eagles with Owens: 386 points scored2002 Eagles without Owens: 415 points scored

Total yds 2002/20045826/5847

Total TDs 2002/2004

42/42

Passing yds&TDs 2002/2004

3606&27/42087&32

Rushing yds&TDs 2002/2004

2220&15/1639&10

So as you can see the manor in which they are scored is VERY different. So why don't we just stop trying to misslead with stats.

 

[jurb26]

OK . . . which is easier, the Vikings having to adjust to NOT having the (arguably) best WR in the game

- OR -

defenses having to adjust to the best WR in the game NOT playing?

I wonder . . . .

CLEARLY, defenses not having to deal with Moss suddenly was easier to deal with than the Vikings having to deal with not having Moss suddenly.

To use a basketball example, which would be easier to adapt to, the Bulls having to plan around Jordan being out of the lineup, or their opposition having to adjust for Jordan being out of the lineup.

In both circumstances, the opposition would be doing cartwheels that the #1 offensive option would be out for that game.

please identify your point in this mess.

The point was that the defense had a huge advantage over the offense.

It wasn't made.

 

[reg]

LHUCKS> you might want to try this again. TIA.

 

[Joe T]

I'm going to wrap up my summary on this thread. Minnesota has the greatest chance of declining dramatically on offense because they are losing the best offensive player in the game. This will also have an effect on Culpepper likely dropping him out of the top 5 Fantasy QB's in 2005. I will grant after looking over the stats that there is a chance he remains top 5, but not top 2, because he will be forced to run more than last year and his rushing stats alone may keep him in the top 5. This will add to an increased chance of injury which will make me even more sure that drafting him at current levels would be a mistake.Given the loss of Moss, defenses will be able to key more on the running game. You will see YPCarry drop for the Vikings in '05. I think you can safely project a lower total touchdown number for them and a much lower passing yardage number for them. Their rushing total yards might increase, but it will be based out of necessity. They will have to increase their number of rushes to increase the total rush yards. As of today, I see Minnesota finishing somewhere near the middle of the pack (ranked 15-20) in total offense in 2005.BTW-I'm exiting the thread until I see a coherent point on why anyone believes the Vikings will remain a top 10 offense in 2005. I haven't seen any reasonable logic yet.

 

[David Yudkin]

Culpepper will have to run A LOT more if he wants to stay a top 5 QB this year.  He will not get it in the air.

I tried explaining this in other threads, but apparently some have missed that this reasoning is majorly flaVVed.Over the last 3 years, Culpepper has averaged 5.2 ppg RUNNING the ball. That's 83 fantasy points over a 16 game season.

USING LAST YEAR'S QB TOTALS (which were high, I might add), the #5 fantasy QB was Jake Plummer with 320 fantasy points.

ASSUMING THE SAME OUTCOME FOR ALL OTHER QB (which won't happen), Culpepper would need 237 fantasy points accumulated via the air if he scored his THREE YEAR AVERAGE on the ground.

Using the standard FBG scoring system that would mean he would only need passing totals equivalent to 3,300 passing yards, 21 passing TD, and 12 INT.

For those unfamiliar with the season Culpepper had in 2004, let me refresh your memories: 4717 passing yards, 39 TD, and 11 INT and still be the #5 fantasy QB.

Culpepper could stand to lose over 1,400 yards passing and 18 passing TD and STILL wouuld be a Top 5 fantasy QB. Over the course of his career, Moss has average 1340/13 over a 16-game season.

If you think that the Vikings passing game will fall to that level without Moss, my hat's off to you becaue that would be a cataclysmic collapse of the passing game.

Since I know inquiring minds want to know, here's how some other offenses have fared upon losing a Top 5 WR in past seasons:

1980 Chargers: 6620 total yards, 48 total TD with John Jefferson (fantasy WR #1)

1981 Chargers: 6878/60 without Jefferson

1983 Redskins: 6390/59 with Charlie Brown (fantasy WR #3)

1984 Redskins: 5671/44 with Brown injured

1994 Packers: 5520/44 with Sterling Sharpe (fantasy WR #2)

1995 Packers: 5967/48 with Sharpe retired

1995 Packers: 5967/48 with Robert Brooks (fantasy WR #5)

1996 Packers: 5776/48 with Brooks injured

1996 49ers: 5707/41 with Jerry Rice (fantasy WR #4)

1997 49ers 5401/36 with Rice injured

2003 Cardinals: 4796/23 with Anquan Boldin (fantasy WR #4)

2004 Cardinals: 4870/29 with Boldin injured

For those saying that the Vikings defensive improvement will directly have a negative impact on the offense, the 1998 Vikings ranked 6th in points allowed. The offense? They only scored 556 points that season.

I'm not saying that the Minnesota offense will repeat their gaudy performance from last season, but I also don't think they will fall flat on their faces either. The answer likely lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Joe T]

Using the standard FBG scoring system that would mean he would only need passing totals equivalent to 3,300 passing yards, 21 passing TD, and 12 INT.

This looks like a pretty good projection for 2005 to me. Although, I'd bump his INT total. Good point.

 

[reg]

Culpepper will have to run A LOT more if he wants to stay a top 5 QB this year.  He will not get it in the air.

I tried explaining this in other threads, but apparently some have missed that this reasoning is majorly flaVVed.Over the last 3 years, Culpepper has averaged 5.2 ppg RUNNING the ball. That's 83 fantasy points over a 16 game season.

USING LAST YEAR'S QB TOTALS (which were high, I might add), the #5 fantasy QB was Jake Plummer with 320 fantasy points.

ASSUMING THE SAME OUTCOME FOR ALL OTHER QB (which won't happen), Culpepper would need 237 fantasy points accumulated via the air if he scored his THREE YEAR AVERAGE on the ground.

Using the standard FBG scoring system that would mean he would only need passing totals equivalent to 3,300 passing yards, 21 passing TD, and 12 INT.

For those unfamiliar with the season Culpepper had in 2004, let me refresh your memories: 4717 passing yards, 39 TD, and 11 INT.

Culpepper could stand to lose over 1,400 yards passing and 18 passing TD and STILL wouuld be a Top 5 fantasy QB. Over the course of his career, Moss has average 1340/13 over a 16-game season.

If you think that the Vikings passing game will fall to that level without Moss, my hat's off to you becaue that would be a cataclysmic collapse of the passing game.

Since I know inquiring minds want to know, here's how some other offenses have fared upon losing a Top 5 WR in past seasons:

1980 Chargers: 6620 total yards, 48 total TD with John Jefferson (fantasy WR #1)

1981 Chargers: 6878/60 without Jefferson

1983 Redskins: 6390/59 with Charlie Brown (fantasy WR #3)

1984 Redskins: 5671/44 with Brown injured

1994 Packers: 5520/44 with Sterling Sharpe (fantasy WR #2)

1995 Packers: 5967/48 with Sharpe retired

1995 Packers: 5967/48 with Robert Brooks (fantasy WR #5)

1996 Packers: 5776/48 with Brooks injured

1996 49ers: 5707/41 with Jerry Rice (fantasy WR #4)

1997 49ers 5401/36 with Rice injured

2003 Cardinals: 4796/23 with Anquan Boldin (fantasy WR #4)

2004 Cardinals: 4870/29 with Boldin injured

For those saying that the Vikings defensive improvement will directly have a negative impact on the offense, the 1998 Vikings ranked 6th in points allowed. The offense? They only scored 556 points that season.

I'm not saying that the Minnesota offense will repeat their gaudy performance from last season, but I also don't think they will fall flat on their faces either. The answer likely lies somewhere in the middle.

How many of them also lost their offensive coordinator, or does that coaching spot not matter?

 

[Joe T]

btw - I like the comparisons. But is Moss really comparable to Jefferson, Brown, and even Boldin?

 

[David Yudkin]

btw - I like the comparisons. But is Moss really comparable to Jefferson, Brown, and even Boldin?

There will never be a complete overlap of situations. No, those guys are not overall in the same talent pool as a Moss. But I would say Rice and Moss are pretty close. The point was that teams HAVE lost a lot of production at the WR position, and the notion that their offenses would be easier to scheme and defenses would be able to cover more of the field hasn't really played out (at least not in the limited times it's happened in the past).There's no way to accurate assess this anyway, as people will ask for other examples where a WR missed part of the aseon with a hamstring injury and was used as a decoy against defenses ranked 27th, 18th, 24th, 22nd, and 14th against the pass in the games that he missed (or whatever they were).

I think most would agree that the Vikings numbers overall will go down. How much is the question.

I suspect that the Vikings may implement a slightly different passing scheme focused on shorter routes to TEs and RBs since those are areas of strength for them. I also think that Minnesota will either draft or sign another WR to at least give them another option.

 

[David Yudkin]

Using the standard FBG scoring system that would mean he would only need passing totals equivalent to 3,300 passing yards, 21 passing TD, and 12 INT.

This looks like a pretty good projection for 2005 to me. Although, I'd bump his INT total.

Good point.

As I mentioned before, QB scoring was up last year (QB 5 = 320 points). If things revert back to more normal levels like 2003 (QB 5 = 295 points), Culpepper would only need 3,000 passing yards, 18 passing TD, and 10 INT (along with his 3-year rushing average) to rank as the QB 5.If you look at ONLY the games Moss DID NOT play last year, projecting Culpepper's passing stas over a 16-game season (again WITHOUT MOSS) would equate to 3773 passing yards, 29 passing TD, and 10 INT.

 

[BlackHole]

btw - I like the comparisons.  But is Moss really comparable to Jefferson, Brown, and even Boldin?

There will never be a complete overlap of situations. No, those guys are not overall in the same talent pool as a Moss. But I would say Rice and Moss are pretty close. The point was that teams HAVE lost a lot of production at the WR position, and the notion that their offenses would be easier to scheme and defenses would be able to cover more of the field hasn't really played out (at least not in the limited times it's happened in the past).There's no way to accurate assess this anyway, as people will ask for other examples where a WR missed part of the aseon with a hamstring injury and was used as a decoy against defenses ranked 27th, 18th, 24th, 22nd, and 14th against the pass in the games that he missed (or whatever they were).

I think most would agree that the Vikings numbers overall will go down. How much is the question.

I suspect that the Vikings may implement a slightly different passing scheme focused on shorter routes to TEs and RBs since those are areas of strength for them. I also think that Minnesota will either draft or sign another WR to at least give them another option.

Rice and Moss situations are not close because the 49'ers had Owens still when Rice left. Burleson is no Owens. I do agree that Culpepper will still be a top 5 QB. However, as you showed already, he can lose almost 100 pts off what he did last year and still be top 5, so top 5 is not really saying much.

I do see Minnesota staying strong. Their offensive line is still dominant and that is a huge part of real football. Since real football usually translates into FF, then Minnesota should still be a good offensive system to have players from. The Tice factor is very scary though. Will they be balanced, or just shooting from the hip on offense all year?

Personally, I think this makes Manning and McNabb that much more valuable next year. The gap between these two and even the rest of the "top 5" should net an owner at least 5 points average a game. Go below the top 5 and the difference gets ugly quick.

Oh yeah the topic, as for the most likely to tank, I too vote NE. The offseason turmoil plus winning 3 of 4 SB will add up to a drop in offensive production. Last year's stats were an anomally for them anyways. Time for them to start taking a dive, the run is over.

 

[David Yudkin]

btw - I like the comparisons.  But is Moss really comparable to Jefferson, Brown, and even Boldin?

There will never be a complete overlap of situations. No, those guys are not overall in the same talent pool as a Moss. But I would say Rice and Moss are pretty close. The point was that teams HAVE lost a lot of production at the WR position, and the notion that their offenses would be easier to scheme and defenses would be able to cover more of the field hasn't really played out (at least not in the limited times it's happened in the past).There's no way to accurate assess this anyway, as people will ask for other examples where a WR missed part of the aseon with a hamstring injury and was used as a decoy against defenses ranked 27th, 18th, 24th, 22nd, and 14th against the pass in the games that he missed (or whatever they were).

I think most would agree that the Vikings numbers overall will go down. How much is the question.

I suspect that the Vikings may implement a slightly different passing scheme focused on shorter routes to TEs and RBs since those are areas of strength for them. I also think that Minnesota will either draft or sign another WR to at least give them another option.

Rice and Moss situations are not close because the 49'ers had Owens still when Rice left. Burleson is no Owens.

You're right . . . this is a bad comparison, because statistically Burleson was BETTER than Owens in each player's second season.The year Rice got hurt, he put up 60-936-8 (year #2 for Owens). Last year, Burleson posted 68-1006-9, so he already put up a year better than Owens did a the same point in their careers.

Totals after two seasons:

Burleson: 97-1461-11

Owens: 95-1456-12

You can't get any closer than that.

I'm not suggesting that Burleson will become the next Moss or the next Owens, but he certainly is in a good situation.

Since there were a lot of posts in this thread about what happened when Moss DIDN'T PLAY, here are Burleson's stats from the 5 games Moss was out (projected across 16 games): 93-950-13 (which would have made him the #11 fantasy WR). As it was, Burleson ranked as the #16 WR (68-1006-9). By comparison, in Owens' second year, he ranked as the #20 WR.

Again, not saying Burleson = Owens, but he could be a decent guy to have on yuor roster if his price tag isn't too high. (Of course, this assumes no other WR are added to the Vikings' roster).