Player Spotlight: Daunte Culpepper (1 Viewer)

[radballs.]

An average of all of the complete projections in this thread have Culpepper's projections at 374 FP across 13 projections. 1 projection left out his Ints so I left it out. That would amount to a line that read like this:

4,000 yards passing, 30 TDs, 15 Ints, 450 rushing yards, and 4 rushing TDs

 

[jurb26]

An average of all of the complete projections in this thread have Culpepper's projections at 374 FP across 13 projections. 1 projection left out his Ints so I left it out. That would amount to a line that read like this:

4,000 yards passing, 30 TDs, 15 Ints, 450 rushing yards, and 4 rushing TDs

Hadn't realized it, but boy mine are really close to that average. Thought I would be on the lower end.

 

[bostonfred]

One of the biggest reasons that I have Manning’s projections dropping so much more than Culpepper’s is because Manning’s season was much higher than his historical average relative to Culpepper’s. I believe that players generally revert back somewhat to their historical averages. The reasons for this can vary and you can either agree or disagree with that. Maybe my approach is too statistical in nature and not qualitative enough. Culpepper’s situation has changed with the loss of Moss. Manning’s targets haven’t changed much. Still, it will be harder for Manning to duplicate the kind of season that he had last year than it will be for Culpepper because Manning does not get many FP from his legs and I doubt he can have everything come together as well as it did for him last year. Culpepper also did not have Moss healthy for quite a few games as well. His performance was not great without Moss playing but it was a very small sample size, and it is more difficult to adjust to the loss of a key player midway through a season than to be able to plan ahead for it like he’ll be able to do this year.

Prior to the 2004 season, Culpepper’s annualized FP averaged 376 and Manning’s averaged 319. In 2004, Culpepper had 433 and Manning had 417. I realize that I’m probably in the minority for having Culpepper projected for more FP in 2005 than Manning. My current projections will probably change a bit as we see things play out in training camp, but for the most part I believe their respective performances will be close. My projections for Culpepper have his FP coming in at 383 which is 1.9% more than his historical average prior to 2004. My projections for Manning have his FP coming in at 346 which is 8.4% higher than his historical average prior to 2004. As you can see, I have discounted Culpepper’s projections for 2005 more from his average than I have from Manning’s. I don’t see a contradiction here. I think both QBs will have a hard time repeating what they did last year. You might disagree with me and say it doesn’t make any sense to have Manning’s FP coming in 17.2% less than he had in ’04 while Culpepper’s is only 11.6% less. But, I believe that my projections for Culpepper’s rushing yardage and TDs are very conservative (projecting only 2 rushing TDs when he averaged over 7 in his previous seasons and almost 90 rushing yards less than his average). There’s some room for upside there. There’s no doubt that Culpepper is a riskier play because of the fact that he runs so much and he has not remained as healthy as iron man Manning. My gut tells me though that Manning had the PERFECT season last year (for him) and Culpepper had room for improvement. Still, Culpepper had 3.8% more FP than Manning during his record breaking year in ’04.

Have a great time at the concert. That should be a great one.

Thanks. It really was a great concert. Bono really has so much charisma, he's got the crowd in the palm of his hand. I agree about the regression to the mean concept. In fact, usually, in hindsight, you can see WHY they overachieved, and why they regressed back to their mean.

In Manning's case, I think factors like the health of his offense, the maturation of their offensive players, the schedule, injuries on defense to his division rivals, his motivation to break the TD record, and the no contact rule all converged to create a perfect storm so to speak, which really pushed him over the top. Since the schedule gets harder, his division rivals got healthy, the enforcement of the no contact rule dips back down, they're bringing in a young TE, he's already broken the record, and there's no way to predict that their offense will stay healthy again, it's perfectly valid to expect him to regress, and significantly at that.

The thing is, in Culpepper's case, the same things happened. His schedule was just as easy. Division rivals had big injuries on defense. His RBs were hurt and he was motivated to carry the team on his shoulders. The no contact rule almost certainly helped him. Almost exactly the same story as Manning. And just like with Manning, almost all of those things are falling back to earth this year.

The big difference with Culpepper is, not only are those things falling back to earth, but he's ALSO losing Moss. That's two huge swings that could happen to his stats. I think if you're building your projections for Culpepper, you take your POST regression numbers for him, then subtract out Moss. And there's other factors that work against him, too, from the improvement of his own defense, to the change in offensive coordinator, and all the things we've already said in this thread.

Of course, in Culpepper's favor, it's not like he had a perfectly healthy offense last year, starting specifically with Moss. So maybe you treat it as if he doesn't COMPLETELY regress. Or as if he wasn't COMPLETELY losing Moss. But he's still got a bunch of bad things going on.

Family Matters made a great point about how the offense could actually improve with Moss out of the locker room. And maybe the annual late season fade of the Vikings has something to do with the attitudes of guys like Carter (early on in his career) and Moss. I think you can add back a little to Culpepper's numbers for that.

All in all, I think when you look at Culpepper you should start with his 2003 season (3479/25/11 and 72/422/4 over 14 games, which prorates to 3976/28/12 and 82/482/4), then subtract from that the impact of losing Moss (which is really, really significant), and add back the theoretical impact of being healthier on offense and possibly happier in the locker room.

I also think we've seen a real reduction in Culpepper's effectiveness as a goal line option, since he ran 26 times from inside the 5 in 2004 and converted only two, compared with running 34 times in 2002 and converting 7, and running 20 times in 2003 and converting 2. His percentages on runs inside the 5 has dropped from 20%, to 10%, to 8%, and I see no reason why teams would focus less on him inside the 5 now that Moss is gone. So I'm not willing to bump up his rush TDs, despite the fact that people are saying he'll try to run inside the 5 more often.

Now I'm not saying that Culpepper can't do well this year. I just think the odds of him having a significantly subpar (for Culpepper) season this year are about 50/50. If things go decently well, though, he could approximate his 2003 numbers. And if things go great, he may crush those numbers, although I would say his 2004 numbers are out of reach. So all in all, I'm going to project:

50% at 3600/23/16 and 82/482/4, good for 292 fantasy points

30% at 4000/28/16 and 82/482/4, good for 328 fantasy points

20% at 4400/32/16 and 82/482/4, good for 360 fantasy points

For a total of:

3880 yards, 26 TDs, 16 INTs, 82 rushes for 482 yards and 4 TDs, or about 316 fantasy points.

That would put him around QB4 or QB5, which is about where I think his real value lies. If you're high on him you could bump down the likelihood of his "worst case" a little, and increase the likelihood of his best case, but even if you made it 30/40/30 instead of 50/30/20, his EV would still come out to 326 fantasy points, which would put him just ahead of Marc Bulger but far behind McNabb as QB3 on FBG's projections.

 

[Muahahaha]

One of the biggest reasons that I have Manning’s projections dropping so much more than Culpepper’s is because Manning’s season was much higher than his historical average relative to Culpepper’s. I believe that players generally revert back somewhat to their historical averages. The reasons for this can vary and you can either agree or disagree with that. Maybe my approach is too statistical in nature and not qualitative enough. Culpepper’s situation has changed with the loss of Moss. Manning’s targets haven’t changed much. Still, it will be harder for Manning to duplicate the kind of season that he had last year than it will be for Culpepper because Manning does not get many FP from his legs and I doubt he can have everything come together as well as it did for him last year. Culpepper also did not have Moss healthy for quite a few games as well. His performance was not great without Moss playing but it was a very small sample size, and it is more difficult to adjust to the loss of a key player midway through a season than to be able to plan ahead for it like he’ll be able to do this year.

Prior to the 2004 season, Culpepper’s annualized FP averaged 376 and Manning’s averaged 319. In 2004, Culpepper had 433 and Manning had 417. I realize that I’m probably in the minority for having Culpepper projected for more FP in 2005 than Manning. My current projections will probably change a bit as we see things play out in training camp, but for the most part I believe their respective performances will be close. My projections for Culpepper have his FP coming in at 383 which is 1.9% more than his historical average prior to 2004. My projections for Manning have his FP coming in at 346 which is 8.4% higher than his historical average prior to 2004. As you can see, I have discounted Culpepper’s projections for 2005 more from his average than I have from Manning’s. I don’t see a contradiction here. I think both QBs will have a hard time repeating what they did last year. You might disagree with me and say it doesn’t make any sense to have Manning’s FP coming in 17.2% less than he had in ’04 while Culpepper’s is only 11.6% less. But, I believe that my projections for Culpepper’s rushing yardage and TDs are very conservative (projecting only 2 rushing TDs when he averaged over 7 in his previous seasons and almost 90 rushing yards less than his average). There’s some room for upside there. There’s no doubt that Culpepper is a riskier play because of the fact that he runs so much and he has not remained as healthy as iron man Manning. My gut tells me though that Manning had the PERFECT season last year (for him) and Culpepper had room for improvement. Still, Culpepper had 3.8% more FP than Manning during his record breaking year in ’04.

Have a great time at the concert. That should be a great one.

Thanks. It really was a great concert. Bono really has so much charisma, he's got the crowd in the palm of his hand. I agree about the regression to the mean concept. In fact, usually, in hindsight, you can see WHY they overachieved, and why they regressed back to their mean.

In Manning's case, I think factors like the health of his offense, the maturation of their offensive players, the schedule, injuries on defense to his division rivals, his motivation to break the TD record, and the no contact rule all converged to create a perfect storm so to speak, which really pushed him over the top. Since the schedule gets harder, his division rivals got healthy, the enforcement of the no contact rule dips back down, they're bringing in a young TE, he's already broken the record, and there's no way to predict that their offense will stay healthy again, it's perfectly valid to expect him to regress, and significantly at that.

The thing is, in Culpepper's case, the same things happened. His schedule was just as easy. Division rivals had big injuries on defense. His RBs were hurt and he was motivated to carry the team on his shoulders. The no contact rule almost certainly helped him. Almost exactly the same story as Manning. And just like with Manning, almost all of those things are falling back to earth this year.

The big difference with Culpepper is, not only are those things falling back to earth, but he's ALSO losing Moss. That's two huge swings that could happen to his stats. I think if you're building your projections for Culpepper, you take your POST regression numbers for him, then subtract out Moss. And there's other factors that work against him, too, from the improvement of his own defense, to the change in offensive coordinator, and all the things we've already said in this thread.

Of course, in Culpepper's favor, it's not like he had a perfectly healthy offense last year, starting specifically with Moss. So maybe you treat it as if he doesn't COMPLETELY regress. Or as if he wasn't COMPLETELY losing Moss. But he's still got a bunch of bad things going on.

Family Matters made a great point about how the offense could actually improve with Moss out of the locker room. And maybe the annual late season fade of the Vikings has something to do with the attitudes of guys like Carter (early on in his career) and Moss. I think you can add back a little to Culpepper's numbers for that.

All in all, I think when you look at Culpepper you should start with his 2003 season (3479/25/11 and 72/422/4 over 14 games, which prorates to 3976/28/12 and 82/482/4), then subtract from that the impact of losing Moss (which is really, really significant), and add back the theoretical impact of being healthier on offense and possibly happier in the locker room.

I also think we've seen a real reduction in Culpepper's effectiveness as a goal line option, since he ran 26 times from inside the 5 in 2004 and converted only two, compared with running 34 times in 2002 and converting 7, and running 20 times in 2003 and converting 2. His percentages on runs inside the 5 has dropped from 20%, to 10%, to 8%, and I see no reason why teams would focus less on him inside the 5 now that Moss is gone. So I'm not willing to bump up his rush TDs, despite the fact that people are saying he'll try to run inside the 5 more often.

Now I'm not saying that Culpepper can't do well this year. I just think the odds of him having a significantly subpar (for Culpepper) season this year are about 50/50. If things go decently well, though, he could approximate his 2003 numbers. And if things go great, he may crush those numbers, although I would say his 2004 numbers are out of reach. So all in all, I'm going to project:

50% at 3600/23/16 and 82/482/4, good for 292 fantasy points

30% at 4000/28/16 and 82/482/4, good for 328 fantasy points

20% at 4400/32/16 and 82/482/4, good for 360 fantasy points

For a total of:

3880 yards, 26 TDs, 16 INTs, 82 rushes for 482 yards and 4 TDs, or about 316 fantasy points.

That would put him around QB4 or QB5, which is about where I think his real value lies. If you're high on him you could bump down the likelihood of his "worst case" a little, and increase the likelihood of his best case, but even if you made it 30/40/30 instead of 50/30/20, his EV would still come out to 326 fantasy points, which would put him just ahead of Marc Bulger but far behind McNabb as QB3 on FBG's projections.

I think your math might be wrong. You only have 100 PaYds, 2 PaTd, 100 RuYds, 1 RuTd less than the official projection, but have 68 less FPs. You should be about 30 points less than the official forecast.

 

[David Yudkin]

In response to bfred's arrival at a conclusion, this is how I would look at it.In essentially 72 starts, Culpepper has averaged 257 passing yards, 1.78 passing TD, 1 INT, 32.3 rushing yards, and 0.38 rushing TD per game.Over a full season, that would total:4,413 passing yards, 28.5 TD, 16 INT, 517 rushing yards, and 6 rushing TD.That would amount to 406.35 fantasy points per season. (Remember, he had missed some time in two years, so these numbers will look high.)In 2004, the "rules enforcement" precipitated an increase in passing yards (+10%) and passing TD (+20%) for those that ranked in the Top 10 in those categories.I suspect that there will be a decrease this year, so we might expect:- Passing yards to be be down by 5% from last year and passing TD to be down 10% from last year OR- Passing yards will be up 5% from 2003 and passing TD to be up 10% from 2003.Either way, the results will be the same (they are the exact same numbers either way).I also think that the loss of Moss might cause Culpepper to lose 20% of his passing yardage and 20% of his passing TD.So blending all that together, I think Culpepper would see a loss of 15% in his CAREER AVERAGE in passing yardage (-20% from Moss' departure but 5% added back in due to the "rules enforcement") and a net of -10% in passing TD (-20% from Moss leaving but 10% added back in for "rules enforcement").While I think Culpepper might run more and get back into the end zone more than in 2004, that is somewhat reflected in using his career averages, so that comes out in the wash. I also think Culpepper has shown some better decision making and his INTs won't be as high, but I'll leave his INTs alone to be safe.Adjusting . . .4413 passing yards, 28.5 TD, 16 INT, 517 rushing yards, and 6 rushing TDto incorporate the numbers I just mentioned would leave . . .3972 passing yards, 26 TD, 16 INT, 517 rushing yards, and 6 rushing TDThat would give Culpepper 374 fantasy points on the season--which represents about a 15% decrease from 2004.I'm not saying that this would be my final assessment on Culpepper, but that would be where I would start and adjust accordingly.This reflects 800 fewer passing yards and 13 fewer passing TD vs 2004. Had Culpepper had 374 fantasy points last year, he would have ranked as the #2 QB.

 

[radballs.]

One of the biggest reasons that I have Manning’s projections dropping so much more than Culpepper’s is because Manning’s season was much higher than his historical average relative to Culpepper’s.  I believe that players generally revert back somewhat to their historical averages.  The reasons for this can vary and you can either agree or disagree with that.  Maybe my approach is too statistical in nature and not qualitative enough.  Culpepper’s situation has changed with the loss of Moss.  Manning’s targets haven’t changed much.  Still, it will be harder for Manning to duplicate the kind of season that he had last year than it will be for Culpepper because Manning does not get many FP from his legs and I doubt he can have everything come together as well as it did for him last year.  Culpepper also did not have Moss healthy for quite a few games as well.  His performance was not great without Moss playing but it was a very small sample size, and it is more difficult to adjust to the loss of a key player midway through a season than to be able to plan ahead for it like he’ll be able to do this year.

Prior to the 2004 season, Culpepper’s annualized FP averaged 376 and Manning’s averaged 319.  In 2004, Culpepper had 433 and Manning had 417.  I realize that I’m probably in the minority for having Culpepper projected for more FP in 2005 than Manning.  My current projections will probably change a bit as we see things play out in training camp, but for the most part I believe their respective performances will be close.  My projections for Culpepper have his FP coming in at 383 which is 1.9% more than his historical average prior to 2004.  My projections for Manning have his FP coming in at 346 which is 8.4% higher than his historical average prior to 2004.  As you can see, I have discounted Culpepper’s projections for 2005 more from his average than I have from Manning’s.  I don’t see a contradiction here.  I think both QBs will have a hard time repeating what they did last year.  You might disagree with me and say it doesn’t make any sense to have Manning’s FP coming in 17.2% less than he had in ’04 while Culpepper’s is only 11.6% less.  But, I believe that my projections for Culpepper’s rushing yardage and TDs are very conservative (projecting only 2 rushing TDs when he averaged over 7 in his previous seasons and almost 90 rushing yards less than his average).  There’s some room for upside there.  There’s no doubt that Culpepper is a riskier play because of the fact that he runs so much and he has not remained as healthy as iron man Manning.  My gut tells me though that Manning had the PERFECT season last year (for him) and Culpepper had room for improvement.  Still, Culpepper had 3.8% more FP than Manning during his record breaking year in ’04. 

Have a great time at the concert.  That should be a great one.

Thanks. It really was a great concert. Bono really has so much charisma, he's got the crowd in the palm of his hand. I agree about the regression to the mean concept. In fact, usually, in hindsight, you can see WHY they overachieved, and why they regressed back to their mean.

In Manning's case, I think factors like the health of his offense, the maturation of their offensive players, the schedule, injuries on defense to his division rivals, his motivation to break the TD record, and the no contact rule all converged to create a perfect storm so to speak, which really pushed him over the top. Since the schedule gets harder, his division rivals got healthy, the enforcement of the no contact rule dips back down, they're bringing in a young TE, he's already broken the record, and there's no way to predict that their offense will stay healthy again, it's perfectly valid to expect him to regress, and significantly at that.

The thing is, in Culpepper's case, the same things happened. His schedule was just as easy. Division rivals had big injuries on defense. His RBs were hurt and he was motivated to carry the team on his shoulders. The no contact rule almost certainly helped him. Almost exactly the same story as Manning. And just like with Manning, almost all of those things are falling back to earth this year.

The big difference with Culpepper is, not only are those things falling back to earth, but he's ALSO losing Moss. That's two huge swings that could happen to his stats. I think if you're building your projections for Culpepper, you take your POST regression numbers for him, then subtract out Moss. And there's other factors that work against him, too, from the improvement of his own defense, to the change in offensive coordinator, and all the things we've already said in this thread.

Of course, in Culpepper's favor, it's not like he had a perfectly healthy offense last year, starting specifically with Moss. So maybe you treat it as if he doesn't COMPLETELY regress. Or as if he wasn't COMPLETELY losing Moss. But he's still got a bunch of bad things going on.

Family Matters made a great point about how the offense could actually improve with Moss out of the locker room. And maybe the annual late season fade of the Vikings has something to do with the attitudes of guys like Carter (early on in his career) and Moss. I think you can add back a little to Culpepper's numbers for that.

All in all, I think when you look at Culpepper you should start with his 2003 season (3479/25/11 and 72/422/4 over 14 games, which prorates to 3976/28/12 and 82/482/4), then subtract from that the impact of losing Moss (which is really, really significant), and add back the theoretical impact of being healthier on offense and possibly happier in the locker room.

I also think we've seen a real reduction in Culpepper's effectiveness as a goal line option, since he ran 26 times from inside the 5 in 2004 and converted only two, compared with running 34 times in 2002 and converting 7, and running 20 times in 2003 and converting 2. His percentages on runs inside the 5 has dropped from 20%, to 10%, to 8%, and I see no reason why teams would focus less on him inside the 5 now that Moss is gone. So I'm not willing to bump up his rush TDs, despite the fact that people are saying he'll try to run inside the 5 more often.

Now I'm not saying that Culpepper can't do well this year. I just think the odds of him having a significantly subpar (for Culpepper) season this year are about 50/50. If things go decently well, though, he could approximate his 2003 numbers. And if things go great, he may crush those numbers, although I would say his 2004 numbers are out of reach. So all in all, I'm going to project:

50% at 3600/23/16 and 82/482/4, good for 292 fantasy points

30% at 4000/28/16 and 82/482/4, good for 328 fantasy points

20% at 4400/32/16 and 82/482/4, good for 360 fantasy points

For a total of:

3880 yards, 26 TDs, 16 INTs, 82 rushes for 482 yards and 4 TDs, or about 316 fantasy points.

That would put him around QB4 or QB5, which is about where I think his real value lies. If you're high on him you could bump down the likelihood of his "worst case" a little, and increase the likelihood of his best case, but even if you made it 30/40/30 instead of 50/30/20, his EV would still come out to 326 fantasy points, which would put him just ahead of Marc Bulger but far behind McNabb as QB3 on FBG's projections.

I think your math might be wrong. You only have 100 PaYds, 2 PaTd, 100 RuYds, 1 RuTd less than the official projection, but have 68 less FPs. You should be about 30 points less than the official forecast.

Excellent post Fred. Very well thought out and I agree with you on all your points. I just discount some of those factors against Culpepper much less than you do. And Mua is right. Given your stat line, Culpepper would have 354 FP not 316. That's probably a lot closer to Manning than you originally had calculated although I'm not sure what your Manning projection is.

 

[Dancing Bear]

jwvdcw,Are you joking? Yeash!Joe Montana is one of the best QB's to have ever lived from a win perspective and a statistics perspective! Brady is not even in his same neighborhood [even with the Super Bowl victories]. Here are Montana's pedestrian credentials [as you call them] from 1981- 1990. Ten straight years in the Top 10. Seven out of 10 in the Top 5!1990 20.5 31989 24.0 41988 17.3 91987 21.8 21986 17.1 81985 20.7 11984 19.1 41983 20.4 21982 22.7 21981 16.4 7Avg 20.1 4.2Here are Brady's numbers.2004 17.8 122003 17.1 122002 18.9 102001 14.9 19Avg 17.2 13.3Not only did Montana lead San Francisco to wins consistently, but he also was among the league leaders in statistical performance.Your argument here is not factual and representative of the general Kool-Aid you have been drinking.The Rice-Montana situation is a very close analogy for the Moss-Culpepper situation, and comparing them clearly shows that Culpepper will not struggle as you presume from your insufficient sample size.

 

[bostonfred]

One of the biggest reasons that I have Manning’s projections dropping so much more than Culpepper’s is because Manning’s season was much higher than his historical average relative to Culpepper’s.  I believe that players generally revert back somewhat to their historical averages.  The reasons for this can vary and you can either agree or disagree with that.  Maybe my approach is too statistical in nature and not qualitative enough.  Culpepper’s situation has changed with the loss of Moss.  Manning’s targets haven’t changed much.  Still, it will be harder for Manning to duplicate the kind of season that he had last year than it will be for Culpepper because Manning does not get many FP from his legs and I doubt he can have everything come together as well as it did for him last year.  Culpepper also did not have Moss healthy for quite a few games as well.  His performance was not great without Moss playing but it was a very small sample size, and it is more difficult to adjust to the loss of a key player midway through a season than to be able to plan ahead for it like he’ll be able to do this year.

Prior to the 2004 season, Culpepper’s annualized FP averaged 376 and Manning’s averaged 319.  In 2004, Culpepper had 433 and Manning had 417.  I realize that I’m probably in the minority for having Culpepper projected for more FP in 2005 than Manning.  My current projections will probably change a bit as we see things play out in training camp, but for the most part I believe their respective performances will be close.  My projections for Culpepper have his FP coming in at 383 which is 1.9% more than his historical average prior to 2004.  My projections for Manning have his FP coming in at 346 which is 8.4% higher than his historical average prior to 2004.  As you can see, I have discounted Culpepper’s projections for 2005 more from his average than I have from Manning’s.  I don’t see a contradiction here.  I think both QBs will have a hard time repeating what they did last year.  You might disagree with me and say it doesn’t make any sense to have Manning’s FP coming in 17.2% less than he had in ’04 while Culpepper’s is only 11.6% less.  But, I believe that my projections for Culpepper’s rushing yardage and TDs are very conservative (projecting only 2 rushing TDs when he averaged over 7 in his previous seasons and almost 90 rushing yards less than his average).  There’s some room for upside there.  There’s no doubt that Culpepper is a riskier play because of the fact that he runs so much and he has not remained as healthy as iron man Manning.  My gut tells me though that Manning had the PERFECT season last year (for him) and Culpepper had room for improvement.  Still, Culpepper had 3.8% more FP than Manning during his record breaking year in ’04. 

Have a great time at the concert.  That should be a great one.

Thanks. It really was a great concert. Bono really has so much charisma, he's got the crowd in the palm of his hand. I agree about the regression to the mean concept. In fact, usually, in hindsight, you can see WHY they overachieved, and why they regressed back to their mean.

In Manning's case, I think factors like the health of his offense, the maturation of their offensive players, the schedule, injuries on defense to his division rivals, his motivation to break the TD record, and the no contact rule all converged to create a perfect storm so to speak, which really pushed him over the top. Since the schedule gets harder, his division rivals got healthy, the enforcement of the no contact rule dips back down, they're bringing in a young TE, he's already broken the record, and there's no way to predict that their offense will stay healthy again, it's perfectly valid to expect him to regress, and significantly at that.

The thing is, in Culpepper's case, the same things happened. His schedule was just as easy. Division rivals had big injuries on defense. His RBs were hurt and he was motivated to carry the team on his shoulders. The no contact rule almost certainly helped him. Almost exactly the same story as Manning. And just like with Manning, almost all of those things are falling back to earth this year.

The big difference with Culpepper is, not only are those things falling back to earth, but he's ALSO losing Moss. That's two huge swings that could happen to his stats. I think if you're building your projections for Culpepper, you take your POST regression numbers for him, then subtract out Moss. And there's other factors that work against him, too, from the improvement of his own defense, to the change in offensive coordinator, and all the things we've already said in this thread.

Of course, in Culpepper's favor, it's not like he had a perfectly healthy offense last year, starting specifically with Moss. So maybe you treat it as if he doesn't COMPLETELY regress. Or as if he wasn't COMPLETELY losing Moss. But he's still got a bunch of bad things going on.

Family Matters made a great point about how the offense could actually improve with Moss out of the locker room. And maybe the annual late season fade of the Vikings has something to do with the attitudes of guys like Carter (early on in his career) and Moss. I think you can add back a little to Culpepper's numbers for that.

All in all, I think when you look at Culpepper you should start with his 2003 season (3479/25/11 and 72/422/4 over 14 games, which prorates to 3976/28/12 and 82/482/4), then subtract from that the impact of losing Moss (which is really, really significant), and add back the theoretical impact of being healthier on offense and possibly happier in the locker room.

I also think we've seen a real reduction in Culpepper's effectiveness as a goal line option, since he ran 26 times from inside the 5 in 2004 and converted only two, compared with running 34 times in 2002 and converting 7, and running 20 times in 2003 and converting 2. His percentages on runs inside the 5 has dropped from 20%, to 10%, to 8%, and I see no reason why teams would focus less on him inside the 5 now that Moss is gone. So I'm not willing to bump up his rush TDs, despite the fact that people are saying he'll try to run inside the 5 more often.

Now I'm not saying that Culpepper can't do well this year. I just think the odds of him having a significantly subpar (for Culpepper) season this year are about 50/50. If things go decently well, though, he could approximate his 2003 numbers. And if things go great, he may crush those numbers, although I would say his 2004 numbers are out of reach. So all in all, I'm going to project:

50% at 3600/23/16 and 82/482/4, good for 292 fantasy points

30% at 4000/28/16 and 82/482/4, good for 328 fantasy points

20% at 4400/32/16 and 82/482/4, good for 360 fantasy points

For a total of:

3880 yards, 26 TDs, 16 INTs, 82 rushes for 482 yards and 4 TDs, or about 316 fantasy points.

That would put him around QB4 or QB5, which is about where I think his real value lies. If you're high on him you could bump down the likelihood of his "worst case" a little, and increase the likelihood of his best case, but even if you made it 30/40/30 instead of 50/30/20, his EV would still come out to 326 fantasy points, which would put him just ahead of Marc Bulger but far behind McNabb as QB3 on FBG's projections.

I think your math might be wrong. You only have 100 PaYds, 2 PaTd, 100 RuYds, 1 RuTd less than the official projection, but have 68 less FPs. You should be about 30 points less than the official forecast.

Excellent post Fred. Very well thought out and I agree with you on all your points. I just discount some of those factors against Culpepper much less than you do. And Mua is right. Given your stat line, Culpepper would have 354 FP not 316. That's probably a lot closer to Manning than you originally had calculated although I'm not sure what your Manning projection is.

I used 4 pt passing TDs and -1/INT. Is that not the standard FBG scoring? I can't remember what they use. If the EV projections work out closer to 354, then he ends up being in the same tier as McNabb (which is about where he should be) and ends up being light years behind Manning (which I expected).

And to be honest, I had actually bumped his numbers up a little because I thought 290, the original number I came up with, was way too low.

 

[Dancing Bear]

jwvdcw,Casting Wynn's performance aside is plain ridiculous! He was the clear starter for 3 full games in 2001! If you are going to insist on speculating against Culpepper based on small sample sizes then this should clearly be one you include and it cannot help but to offset ...Let's see what do we have? 4 small sample sizes of 3 games each.a) Gus Frerotte - 20.0 ppg and a 0.78 ffp/touchb) Todd Bouman - 24.3 ppg and a 0.74 ffp/touchc) Spergon Wynn - 8.0 ppg and a 0.23 ffp/touchd) Daunte Culpepper - 23.3 ppg and a 0.61 ffp/touchIt looks as though Moss certainly assisted Frerotte with his performance, which is way above his historical averages of 12.0 ppg and 0.45 ffp/touch or for that matter any individual season ...It is inconclusive to speculate about Bouman or not as he has had no other experience behind center and looks as though he may never.If Moss were the only factor involved in elevating a QB's performance, then surely Wynn would have faired much better than he did behind center.Given Daunte's performance [which I might add is nearly identical to his larger sample size with Moss; 23.5 ppg and 0.63 ffp/touch], he has a far better chance of performing similarly to his past than not!

 

[bostonfred]

If Moss were the only factor involved in elevating a QB's performance, then surely Wynn would have faired much better than he did behind center.

It's possible that Wynn really sucked, and the other guys were all decent but unspectacular. Or that Culpepper's better than Frerotte or Bouman, but not so great that he will carry that offense by himself. Neither of those cases match your conclusion.

 

[Dancing Bear]

bostonfred,I appreciate your insight ...Because we really have no significant data points, we are all simply speculating ...I think that my Rice-Montana review is very similar to the Moss-Culpepper scenario. It clearly shows that a superior WR does not necessarily dictate that a superior QB's performance is altered either positively or negatively. I believe that Culpepper will continue to perform at a level above the remainder of his peers [with the possible exception of Peyton Manning].Thanks!

 

[radballs.]

I used 4 pt passing TDs and -1/INT. Is that not the standard FBG scoring? I can't remember what they use.

If the EV projections work out closer to 354, then he ends up being in the same tier as McNabb (which is about where he should be) and ends up being light years behind Manning (which I expected).

And to be honest, I had actually bumped his numbers up a little because I thought 290, the original number I came up with, was way too low.

3880 yards, 26 TDs, 16 INTs, 82 rushes for 482 yards and 4 TDs3880*.05+26*4-16*1+482*.1+4*6 = 354

What is your projection for Manning by the way?

 

[bostonfred]

I used 4 pt passing TDs and -1/INT.  Is that not the standard FBG scoring?  I can't remember what they use. 

If the EV projections work out closer to 354, then he ends up being in the same tier as McNabb (which is about where he should be) and ends up being light years behind Manning (which I expected). 

And to be honest, I had actually bumped his numbers up a little because I thought 290, the original number I came up with, was way too low. 

3880 yards, 26 TDs, 16 INTs, 82 rushes for 482 yards and 4 TDs3880*.05+26*4-16*1+482*.1+4*6 = 354

What is your projection for Manning by the way?

Ah. I used 1/25 not 1/20. That's the problem. My original thought was 2 TDs across the board for Culpepper, and 20 INTs in his worst case. I also thought it was closer to 60/30/10 but that seemed a little too pessimistic. So let me go knock off the picks and the rush TDs and leave it at 50/30/20 and go with:

3880 yards, 26 TDs, 18 INTs, 82 rushes for 482 yards and 2 TDs, for a total of 340 in that scoring system.

I'll address Manning later, I have to run now.

 

[diesel7982]

Just to add a projection in here:4150 yards, 31 TDs, 450 rushing yards, 4 TDs#1 or 2 QB depending on scoring system.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

He's a better bet than every QB outside of Manning and McNabb to be QB1 this year.

This much I agree with. As much as I'm presenting the negative case for him, I still agree that he has a decent chance to be the #1 QB. It's the risk that makes me look elsewhere in the first two rounds, not the reward.

Then I don't think we're too far apart. 3 points, and then I'm done.

1. Let's look at Daunte's completion % during Randy's absence. He went 113/166 - 68%. Agreed that his YPA went down, which might be a concern. Given Randy's ability to stretch the field a little, and catch the deep ball, I agree they need to replace that. Williamson is unproven at this point.

2. Last year, Daunte had 7 games of 300 or better (well week 17 was 299, but I counted it) and Randy caught over 100 yards 2 times during those games. Yep, just 2 times. I think we can lose some of what he did, and not see a massive falloff in Daunte's numbers, given his accuracy. It's really more about whether or not the new guys run solid routes, because Daunte will get the ball to the guy.

3. I still like him more than McNabb, who we see was VERY affected by the presence of Terrell Owens. Until Daunte has a year like McNabb did 2 years ago (57% completion ratio, 3200 yards), I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[radballs.]

Just to add a projection in here:

4150 yards, 31 TDs, 450 rushing yards, 4 TDs

#1 or 2 QB depending on scoring system.

Ints?

 

[BroadwayG]

I'm not going to rehash the bazillion opinions out there on Culpepper. Yes, he lost Moss. Yes, the defense is much better on paper. Yes, Culpepper is still good.Passing:3800 yds28 TD16 IntRushing:300 yds3 TD

 

[bueno]

I'm sure everything I'm going to say has been said before. I'm really motivated to read the great Anarchy-Bostonfred debate.He lost Moss. That will be a huge negative. Williamson probably won't hit stride until 1/4 of the season is gone. Culpepper is still the #2 QB on my board.4279/23/11 and 374/3

 

[NYG Endzone]

http://fftoday.com/articles/waldman/05_gc_culpepper.htm.

 

[David Yudkin]

http://fftoday.com/articles/waldman/05_gc_culpepper.htm.

Good article, but I would put down A LOT of money that Culpepper will score more than ZERO rushing TD as the article predicts. Over his career he's averaged a rushing TD every 15 rushing attempts. The writer also projects C-Pep with just a little over 20 rushing yards per game when he's averaged 32 yards per game over his career.I see no reason whatsoever to think that Culpepper's rushing numbers will GO DOWN dramatically in 2005.

 

[NYG Endzone]

http://fftoday.com/articles/waldman/05_gc_culpepper.htm.

Good article, but I would put down A LOT of money that Culpepper will score more than ZERO rushing TD as the article predicts. Over his career he's averaged a rushing TD every 15 rushing attempts. The writer also projects C-Pep with just a little over 20 rushing yards per game when he's averaged 32 yards per game over his career.I see no reason whatsoever to think that Culpepper's rushing numbers will GO DOWN dramatically in 2005.

This stuck out at me and I noticed this as well. Maybe they are expecting not as much room for Cpep in the open field without Moss to keep half the defense pre-occupied?

 

[fsufan]

Culpepper has looked great in the first 2 preseason games without Moss. He is in for another great year. week 1- 5/6 84 passing 1 TDweek 2- 11/13 146 passing

 

[Raiders Fan]

Culpepper has looked great in the first 2 preseason games without Moss. He is in for another great year.

week 1- 5/6 84 passing 1 TD

week 2- 11/13 146 passing

Not ready to say the loss of Moss has little effect yet.. Preseason games are meaningless.

 

[Family Matters]

After reading this thread    and the previous one    I realized we are overanalyzing everything to the point that you become nuts. It's not as complicated as some making this out to be. Let's see exactly what the factors and impacts are that will likely lead us to some reasonable conclusions. We'll start with the negatives:

CONS:

No MOSS, NO MOSS! Clearly a big talent absent will be gone and yes that is a huge factor. Moss cannot be replaced.

The schedule was ridiculously easy last year (NFC North and AFC South, the same schedule Manning had his record setting year against) - this year it gets harder.

They've changed offensive coordinators.

The new coordinator said he wants to run the ball.

In year n+1, you usually see a reversal of short term increases in passing stats from new rule enforcement.

Improved D. Personally, this isn't a negative and I'll explain in the PROS comments.

PROS:

NO MOSS! While Moss was/is and awesome talent, he was becoming a distraction to the team and it began to affect the team's chemistry and performance. Now they work as a team again and excell with the sum of all their parts rather than in spite of Moss.  (repeated as Team Chemistry: As I mentioned earlier, the team chemistry cannot be underestimated on a football team. No more Moss to distract the team from it's focus and goals.)

Improved D. As Culpepper himself said, the improved D means he will be given more opportunites to make plays. Before they were forced to try and make plays because the D couldn't stop anyone. Now they will be able to attack proactively rather reactively. Anyone can tell you that proactive leads to better results than reactive.  I can understand calling this one a wash.  I simply don't see an improved defense helping Culpepper. 

Rule change. We saw the effect throughout the league last year. Well, it works for Cpep too. Even without Moss. Hey, Manning doesn't have Moss and he did ok.  In year n+1, you usually see a reversal of short term increases in passing stats from new rule enforcement.  And Manning had Harrison.  And Wayne.  And Clark.  And a weak D.  And an extremely easy schedule playing the NFC North and AFC South (just like Culpepper). 

Talent. More help was added in Williamson, Fiason & Taylor. But the talent was already there. Cpep, Bennett, Burleson, Wiggins, Kliensasser and et al are not too shabby. Remember, they still have one of the best Olines in the league. Even without Moss.  They have less talent than last year. 

Burleson emerging. Last year we saw Burleson emerge. Wven when Moss was off the field he continued to produce. Like most good WR's in the NFL, you get better with experience. Even without Moss.  Moss > 2005 Burleson, 2004 Burleson and Marcus Robinson > 2005 Marcus Robinson Troy Williamson.  And it's hard to say how well teams will be able to defend against Burleson given time to prepare for him as the WR1. 

Off season perparation. Going into 2005, the Vikings know Moss will not be ther so they have been planning all along. Unlike last year when they had to make changes mid-season, the ability to plan means everything. The offense will not be as explosive but will remain one of the most effective in the NFL.  I'm willing to concede that Culpepper would be better than the 9th QB in the NFL in a 5 game schedule facing the Lions, Packers, Giants, Colts, and an injured Tennessee team.  But do you see that there's a long way to go between there and him being the #1 or #2 QB when facing a complete schedule?

Cpepepper: The number 1 reason the Vikings and Cpep will continue to succeed with Moss. He is very talented passing and provides a unique dynamic in that he can run anytime he wants to. He is near impossible to defend. He is the most effective dual threat QB in the NFL. Last year, Cpep had a career year despite Moss being injured and ineffective for several games and missing a few others. Culpepper is arguably no different than last year. 

If Moss were to cause Culpeppers collapse, then there would be no way he could had a career year last year while Moss had his worse year ever. And that was without forethought or planned knowledge of Moss being gone. Imagine how he'll do when he returns.  That's a False Dilemma.  Moss wasn't the only thing that contributed to Culpepper's great year.  All we know is that during the stretch without Moss, he was just the #9 QB in the league. 

You were missing a few big ones, and I disagree with some of your "Pros", but it's a good list.

I think you're right about the chemistry, and that may be a huge factor. The negative case is that we may find out that there's a void in leadership, and that Culpepper's not ready to be "the guy", or that Burleson tries too hard to fill that void. But I agree that chemistry is most likely to be a net positive.

Well so far all is well in Minn. Like I've said all along, Cpep will be just fine and this offense will be very difficult to defend. No disrespect to Moss but the Vikings are simply good. With or without him.

 

[Da Guru]

I have had Culpepper the last 2 years. C-Pep is the king of fourth quarter and garbage time points! Pep racks up more points in the last 10 minutes of game that any QB in the NFL! That being said I agree with the above poster, If the D is stout these comebacks will not be needed. I used to love to come home..turn on the computer and see the Vikings had lost 38-35. I knew Peppy would have a boatload of points.

 

[jwvdcw]

Update after week 1:Culpepper at home against TB: 699 ft passing, 0 TDs, 3 INTs, 12 yards rushing, 2 fumblesCollins on the road against NE: 795 ft passing, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 2 yards rushing 0 fumbles

 

[Shlon]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

 

[cstu]

Update after week 1:

Culpepper at home against TB: 699 ft passing, 0 TDs, 3 INTs, 12 yards rushing, 2 fumbles

Collins on the road against NE: 795 ft passing, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 2 yards rushing 0 fumbles

Thanks for the yards to feet conversion.

 

[Me & My Uncle]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

 

[madviking10]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I do !! Who the heck would you trade him for at the QB position besides MAYBE Manning.

Name ONE !!!

 

[gigantor]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I do !! Who the heck would you trade him for at the QB position besides MAYBE Manning.

Name ONE !!!

 

[Me & My Uncle]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I do !! Who the heck would you trade him for at the QB position besides MAYBE Manning.

Name ONE !!!

McNabb, Collins, Green, Brady, Palmer, Brooks, Bulger just to name a few off the top of my head. And why are you mad anyway? Is being dead wrong that painful?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

 

[Me & My Uncle]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I do !! Who the heck would you trade him for at the QB position besides MAYBE Manning.

Name ONE !!!

Seeing you put that thumb up has convinced me that Culpepper should be the #1 QB...

 

[Me & My Uncle]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

Fair enough. But tell us, just for the sake of argument, what you think Culpepper is worth? QB2? QB5? QB10? QB20?

 

[jwvdcw]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I do !! Who the heck would you trade him for at the QB position besides MAYBE Manning.

Name ONE !!!

are you talking about FF or real life?In real life, I think hes a completely average QB just like Jeff George, a late Cunningham, B Johnson, Frerotte, etc. They all succeed with Moss. I would trade him for a bunch of guys.

In FF, I would trade him for Kerry Collins.

 

[snogger]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

Fair enough. But tell us, just for the sake of argument, what you think Culpepper is worth? QB2? QB5? QB10? QB20?

1 Game a Season does not make.. Heck, the first 8 games of a season don't make a season, see the last 2 years of the Vikings.

Would much rather they stumble out of the gates instead into the gates.

oh, to answer your question, short of injury, Culpeper ends up a Top 3 QB at the END of the season, IMO.

 

[Hinezer]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

Fair enough. But tell us, just for the sake of argument, what you think Culpepper is worth? QB2? QB5? QB10? QB20?

QB2. One week isn't a season. He had two TDs called back on bad calls (one really bad) and one of his INTs went right off his receiver's hands. He was very shaky in the first half, but the Daunte of last year returned in the second half.Culpepper is a buy right now. His value is probably as low as it will ever get. Next week will prove his value.

 

[gigantor]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I do !! Who the heck would you trade him for at the QB position besides MAYBE Manning.

Name ONE !!!

Seeing you put that thumb up has convinced me that Culpepper should be the #1 QB...

 

[jwvdcw]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

Fair enough. But tell us, just for the sake of argument, what you think Culpepper is worth? QB2? QB5? QB10? QB20?

1 Game a Season does not make.. Heck, the first 8 games of a season don't make a season, see the last 2 years of the Vikings.

Would much rather they stumble out of the gates instead into the gates.

oh, to answer your question, short of injury, Culpeper ends up a Top 3 QB at the END of the season, IMO.

still room left to get in on the sig bet...see link in my sig for details.

 

[jwvdcw]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

Fair enough. But tell us, just for the sake of argument, what you think Culpepper is worth? QB2? QB5? QB10? QB20?

QB2. One week isn't a season. He had two TDs called back on bad calls (one really bad) and one of his INTs went right off his receiver's hands. He was very shaky in the first half, but the Daunte of last year returned in the second half.Culpepper is a buy right now. His value is probably as low as it will ever get. Next week will prove his value.

 

[snogger]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

Fair enough. But tell us, just for the sake of argument, what you think Culpepper is worth? QB2? QB5? QB10? QB20?

QB2. One week isn't a season. He had two TDs called back on bad calls (one really bad) and one of his INTs went right off his receiver's hands. He was very shaky in the first half, but the Daunte of last year returned in the second half.Culpepper is a buy right now. His value is probably as low as it will ever get. Next week will prove his value.

Nothing wrong with that statement.. If he has as bad a day Next Sunday as this Sunday.. LOOKOUT Below!!Watching the game today, k, here come the excuse's so prepare yourself.

But , 2 of the INT's weren't completly his fault.

The first one he threw to the slant, Burleson never slanted=Easy INT for Defense...

2nd INT, hard to say, was thrown a little hard, but went right of Moe's Hands.

The Fumbles are what concerned me. The first one was the "small" Hands Problem.

2nd one was a GREAT play my Rice, but Culpepper HAS to know he's being chased and needs to protect the ball better than that.

He seemed to understand that last year, but I think he was pressing too hard early on to Prove that he could do it without Moss.

Culpepper also had 2 TD's called back, both btw to Wiggins.

1 due to a Phantom Offensive Pass Interference call and the other One I'm forgetting now, but Wigins had a 2nd TD called back due to a Offensive Penalty.

Once they removed the Rookie from the Offensive line in the 2nd half they were able to protect Culpepper better. Now they need to settle on ONE RB. RBBC Rarely equals Great Running Game in the NFL.

 

[jwvdcw]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

Fair enough. But tell us, just for the sake of argument, what you think Culpepper is worth? QB2? QB5? QB10? QB20?

QB2. One week isn't a season. He had two TDs called back on bad calls (one really bad) and one of his INTs went right off his receiver's hands. He was very shaky in the first half, but the Daunte of last year returned in the second half.Culpepper is a buy right now. His value is probably as low as it will ever get. Next week will prove his value.

 

[snogger]

Good thing I passed on Culpepper.

Only one game has been played.

So you still like Culpepper for the rest of 2005? Just to be clear...

I know not to make judegements about players after only one week.

Fair enough. But tell us, just for the sake of argument, what you think Culpepper is worth? QB2? QB5? QB10? QB20?

QB2. One week isn't a season. He had two TDs called back on bad calls (one really bad) and one of his INTs went right off his receiver's hands. He was very shaky in the first half, but the Daunte of last year returned in the second half.Culpepper is a buy right now. His value is probably as low as it will ever get. Next week will prove his value.

Well, It CAN'T Get any worse... Can it?? His Value won't be much lower, he would be a Steal from Panicing owners.