Player Spotlight: Daunte Culpepper (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Then in 1997, they jumped back up to #2 in the league as Randy Moss arrived. Regardless of the quarterback, they were still a top ten passing offense every year since then. That's pretty compelling evidence of the value of a top WR.

And who's to say that they don't have another future HOF candidate on their roster?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Cunningham was only a FF asset due to his rushing, whcih he had lost by that time. From another thread...

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

Without Randy Moss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And the Minnesota offense had been a top tier offense for 10 years before Moss got there. "

The year before Moss got there they were 16th in passing. In his first year, they were 2nd. Same QB both years and Cris Carter was there both years as well....Moss was the only difference. I expect a similar fall this year with them losing Moss.

Why do you think that Randall Cunningham averaged 20.7 FP/G and 14.7 FP/G with Moss, Brad Johnson averaged 15.5 FP/G with Moss, Jeff George averaged 16.1 FP/G with Moss ...is comparable to...

Daunte Culpepper averaging 27.1 FP/G with half a Moss. Culpepper scored 100 more FPs last year than any other Viking QB ever did in a single season with Moss. But I'm sure that's uh, because of how good Moss is.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd be curious as to what the "Moss made Culpepper" theorists think a great QB would do with Moss on his team. How many yards would Tom Brady throw for if he had Randy Moss? How about Peyton Manning? Or Brett Favre?

Maybe they would set the record for most total yards by a quarterback in a season?

Currently held by Daunte Culpepper of course.

If Favre had had Randy Moss, there is no question in my mind he would have broken Marino's record. He threw for 39 TDs with Don Beebe, an injured Robert Brooks, a second year nobody in Antonio Freeman, and a career kick returner in Desmond Howard. In my opinion, Favre has made just about every receiver he's ever had. He's that good. We'll probably have another one of these debates when Favre retires and people are still drafting Javon Walker in the third round.

Of course, Favre also threw for just 20 TDs with a stud in Antonio Freeman (two top two fantasy finishes the previous three years), a 1,000 yard WR in Bill Schroeder, and a young an emerging Donald Driver, along with a soon to be three-time Pro Bowl TE and a great RB to keep defenses honest in Ahman Green.

 

[bostonfred]

My question (considering the 20 year track record) would be to explore the other external factors that also could have contributed to the team's offensive success. These could include consistently having an easy schedule, playing in a division/conference that can't stop the pass very well, playing indoors, good scouting, hiring coaching staffs that focused on the passing game, good drafting of offensive talent, etc.

I agree. The thing is, most of those things look worse for the passing game. They lost Moss. 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. The Lions and Bears should be much better on D this year. For that matter, the Vikings should be better as they won't be behind as often. 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. I could go on. JWB, jwvdcw and I keep bringing up all of these factors, and then you accuse us of only looking at the impact of Moss leaving. Moss leaving is an enormous factor.

Again, I think that heaping all the success of Minnesota's offense for YEARS on the shoulders of Randy Moss is grossly exaggerating his skills and abilities and ignoring a lot of other factors that have also played roles into the equation.

You must have missed this post as we were cross posting - it's not just Moss:Cris Carter arrived in Minnesota 15 seasons ago. He was actually a little slow out of the gate, but so was the Minnesota passing game. The Vikings were not a top ten passing offense until Cris Carter had his 122 catch 1994 and 1995 seasons. In 96, when Carter caught 96 more balls, they were again top ten. In 97, they cooled off, dropping to the #16 pass offense as Carter caught fewer than 90 balls for the first time in four years. Then in 1997, they jumped back up to #2 in the league as Randy Moss arrived. Regardless of the quarterback, they were still a top ten passing offense every year since then. That's pretty compelling evidence of the value of a top WR.

 

[bostonfred]

BF,

Please don't keep lumping Carter with Moss by saying that they're both be HOFers. Apples and oranges. I'll explain with stats to back it up later. TIA

Culpepper deserves a little more respect than you're giving him.

Carter deserves more respect than you're giving him. The three seasons when Carter arguably singlehandedly propelled the Vikings into the top five in passing he had 122 catches for 1256 yards and 7 TDs, 122 catches for 1371 yards and 17 TDs, and 96 catches for 1163 yards and 10 TDs. I agree that over the course of his career, he wasn't as good as Moss, but for that three year stretch he was a difference maker. And as for Culpepper deserving more respect than I'm giving him, why? It's not like I'm saying he's not a good quarterback. If it makes you feel better, I'll call him a super-fantastic-awesome quarterback, the bestest ever to play the game. It's hardly disrespecting him to say I'd take him in a fantasy football league over Favre and Brady, who I think are better players than he is. There's a lot of very good QBs in the league, and Culpepper's one. How is it disrespecting him to say that?

 

[Chase Stuart]

When the Vikings had the lead, Culpepper was 109/161, for 1425 yards. He averaged 8.9 Y/A and a 15/2 TD/INT ratio.When the Vikings were losing, Culpepper was 219/318, for 2543 yards. He averaged 8.0 Y/A and a 17/7 TD/INT ratio.Minnesota RBs ran 131 times when they were losing, and 101 times when they were winning.Minnesota was losing more often than they were winning last year, but some expect an improved defense will have the Vikings winning more often. Culpeper was a better QB last year when Minnesota had the lead, so I fail to see why a better defense, which leads to better field position and more TDs and a great TOP, would make Culpepper a worse QB.

 

[bostonfred]

Of course, Favre also threw for just 20 TDs with a stud in Antonio Freeman (two top two fantasy finishes the previous three years), a 1,000 yard WR in Bill Schroeder, and a young an emerging Donald Driver, along with a soon to be three-time Pro Bowl TE and a great RB to keep defenses honest in Ahman Green.

Oh no you ditten. An "emerging" Donald Driver was far from emerging. He was in his second year and people were talking about whether he was going to be good enough to start, but he was a WR3. Their WR2? Bill Schroeder. And their soon to be pro bowl TE was a rookie. As soon as Favre had any mature targets around him whatsoever, he jumped back up to the 30 TD range.

And honestly, and maybe a topic for another thread, I think what we saw was that your "stud" Freeman was never that good. Even when he had his great seasons, he was dropping the ball a ton. And when he dropped off, he dropped off hard, and never made another team for a full season again. Favre made Antonio Freeman.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Of course, Favre also threw for just 20 TDs with a stud in Antonio Freeman (two top two fantasy finishes the previous three years), a 1,000 yard WR in Bill Schroeder, and a young an emerging Donald Driver, along with a soon to be three-time Pro Bowl TE and a great RB to keep defenses honest in Ahman Green.

Oh no you ditten. An "emerging" Donald Driver was far from emerging. He was in his second year and people were talking about whether he was going to be good enough to start, but he was a WR3. Their WR2? Bill Schroeder. And their soon to be pro bowl TE was a rookie. As soon as Favre had any mature targets around him whatsoever, he jumped back up to the 30 TD range.

And honestly, and maybe a topic for another thread, I think what we saw was that your "stud" Freeman was never that good. Even when he had his great seasons, he was dropping the ball a ton. And when he dropped off, he dropped off hard, and never made another team for a full season again. Favre made Antonio Freeman.

Relax BF, I was just twisting the stats the way you did to prove a point.

If Favre had had Randy Moss, there is no question in my mind he would have broken Marino's record. He threw for 39 TDs with Don Beebe, an injured Robert Brooks, a second year nobody in Antonio Freeman, and a career kick returner in Desmond Howard.

You could also say this:Favre threw for 39 TDs with the best defense in the league setting him up, a Heisman Trophy winning WR, a WR on the cusp of greatness, a FIVE TIME Pro Bowl TE, including four without Favre (you left that out by accident in your first post), and two RBs that kept defenses honest but couldn't score. Add in a phenomenal coaching staff and a passing philosophy in the red zone, and it was a perfect situation.

 

[David Yudkin]

I agree. The thing is, most of those things look worse for the passing game. They lost Moss. 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. The Lions and Bears should be much better on D this year. For that matter, the Vikings should be better as they won't be behind as often. 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. I could go on.

Taking each item as presented . . .Yes, they lost Moss, but I contend that the Vikings will spread the ball more than in previous years (a la Colts 2004), perhaps opening the field up MORE rather than constricting it. There's no statistical evidence at all to argue this point, just more of a hunch than documentable.The schedule was easy for Culpepper as it was for Manning. So IMO there is no net gain or loss vs. Manning prodcution wise on this point. They both will face toucher competition (in theory). (Although I think the Colts schedule will be tougher than Minnesota's but again hard to prove.)The Lions and Bears COULD be better on defense. But I would not call them GOOD on defense just yet.The Vikings changed coordinators to someone that was already there last year--it's not like they brought in an outsider, and in other instances that I can remember, the offenses really didn't change that much in year X+1. Also, as I outlined earlier, even with the team ranked in the Top 10 in rushes, Culpepper's numbers were still the best in the game.Yes, in year X+1, there normally is a decrease in production due to rules enforcement. But this too would impact ALL QB including Manning, so there is no net gain or loss vs other QBs.As for how well the Vikings defense will do, there have been numerous teams that had strong defenses and strong offenses as well. Over the past 20 years, in the NFC alone the Packers, Cowboys, 49ers, Eagles, Saints, Rams, etc. all had years with Top 5 rankings on both sides of the ball. (This assumes that the Vikings actually will perform better than in the past, which may be a premature assumption at this point.)

 

[bostonfred]

When the Vikings had the lead, Culpepper was 109/161, for 1425 yards. He averaged 8.9 Y/A and a 15/2 TD/INT ratio.

When the Vikings were losing, Culpepper was 219/318, for 2543 yards. He averaged 8.0 Y/A and a 17/7 TD/INT ratio.

Minnesota RBs ran 131 times when they were losing, and 101 times when they were winning.

Minnesota was losing more often than they were winning last year, but some expect an improved defense will have the Vikings winning more often. Culpeper was a better QB last year when Minnesota had the lead, so I fail to see why a better defense, which leads to better field position and more TDs and a great TOP, would make Culpepper a worse QB.

You're right, when they had Moss, they were able to get out on top of teams and stay on top. During the weeks Moss was out, Minnesota played just one game with the lead, against Tennessee. He threw for 183 yards and 1 TD in that game. He also was ahead for a single series in the Lions game, but failed to throw for a TD.

So while Moss was out, Culpepper rarely accumulated stats while ahead because they didn't get ahead. What stats he did accumulate without Moss - when he was 9th in the league in fantasy points - were mostly accumulated when they were playing catch up.

 

[Tau837]

the Minnesota offense had been a top tier offense for 10 years before Moss got there.  I still question those that think that Moss "made" the Vikings QBs and Minnesota the offense that has been rolling for 15+ years at this point.

It puzzles me why people think looking at a trend that goes back 15 years is useful when there has not been a consistent coaching staff or any consistent set of players in place over that span.

Actually, that's not true. Minnesota had at least one Hall of Fame receiver (either Cris Carter, Randy Moss, or both) for every one of the last fifteen years. And they've been a good to great passing offense the entire time. That just goes to show the impact that a Hall of Fame receiver has on their passing game.

Of the QBs I listed, I went back 20 years--and the Vikes still had years in the Top 10 in passing/points scored.While others are pointing to only using more recent history to support their cases, excluding anything earlier negates ALL counterpoints. Therefore, you guys are not debating against anyone else, as you have left no other viewpoints AT ALL.

My question (considering the 20 year track record) would be to explore the other external factors that also could have contributed to the team's offensive success. These could include consistently having an easy schedule, playing in a division/conference that can't stop the pass very well, playing indoors, good scouting, hiring coaching staffs that focused on the passing game, good drafting of offensive talent, etc.

Again, I think that heaping all the success of Minnesota's offense for YEARS on the shoulders of Randy Moss is grossly exaggerating his skills and abilities and ignoring a lot of other factors that have also played roles into the equation.

Maybe it's the water.

 

[Tau837]

Yes, they lost Moss, but I contend that the Vikings will spread the ball more than in previous years (a la Colts 2004), perhaps opening the field up MORE rather than constricting it.

Poor example for your case. The Colts didn't replace Marvin Harrison with Travis Taylor and a rookie WR before the 2004 season.

 

[bostonfred]

Yes, they lost Moss, but I contend that the Vikings will spread the ball more than in previous years (a la Colts 2004), perhaps opening the field up MORE rather than constricting it. There's no statistical evidence at all to argue this point, just more of a hunch than documentable.

Fluff.

The schedule was easy for Culpepper as it was for Manning. So IMO there is no net gain or loss vs. Manning prodcution wise on this point. They both will face toucher competition (in theory). (Although I think the Colts schedule will be tougher than Minnesota's but again hard to prove.)

Fine, but in terms of net VBD value we need to look at whether EITHER of them should be taken with a first or second round pick. Let's focus on Culpepper for the moment.

The Lions and Bears COULD be better on defense. But I would not call them GOOD on defense just yet.

The only thing we know is that he played one of the easiest division schedules last year. We don't know if it will get harder, but it's reasonable to say that it won't get much easier.

The Vikings changed coordinators to someone that was already there last year--it's not like they brought in an outsider, and in other instances that I can remember, the offenses really didn't change that much in year X+1. Also, as I outlined earlier, even with the team ranked in the Top 10 in rushes, Culpepper's numbers were still the best in the game.

They promoted a guy with no coordinator experience, a coach who has exactly 0 years of NFL coordinator experience. He joined the Vikings after they got Randy Moss, so he's got very little frame of reference for running a Mossless offense. He's an offensive line coach and likely has a predisposition to running the ball. And as I noted earlier, the only time Culpepper's numbers weren't the best in the game was during the stretch when he didn't have Moss.

Yes, in year X+1, there normally is a decrease in production due to rules enforcement. But this too would impact ALL QB including Manning, so there is no net gain or loss vs other QBs.

I would argue that the Vikings and Colts took better advantage of the new attention to the 5 yard rule than other teams, and thus benefitted more from it. In my opinion it won't affect all QBs equally.

As for how well the Vikings defense will do, there have been numerous teams that had strong defenses and strong offenses as well. Over the past 20 years, in the NFC alone the Packers, Cowboys, 49ers, Eagles, Saints, Rams, etc. all had years with Top 5 rankings on both sides of the ball. (This assumes that the Vikings actually will perform better than in the past, which may be a premature assumption at this point.)

I can't dunk a basketball. Yes, there are people who can dunk a basketball, in fact, there's plenty of people who have done it. But I can't. I'm not denying there's a precedent for teams to be good on both offense and defense. I'm saying that their improvement on defense suggest that Culpepper's not likely to have to pass as often.

Look, none of these things is GOOD for Culpepper. You can make a case that each one, in a vacuum, probably isn't that big a deal. But you can't deny that, if you write up pros and cons for Culpepper's year this year, you have a lot more cons than pros compared with last year.

 

[bostonfred]

You could also say this:

Favre threw for 39 TDs with the best defense in the league setting him up, a Heisman Trophy winning WR, a WR on the cusp of greatness, a FIVE TIME Pro Bowl TE, including four without Favre (you left that out by accident in your first post), and two RBs that kept defenses honest but couldn't score. Add in a phenomenal coaching staff and a passing philosophy in the red zone, and it was a perfect situation.

Desmond Howard? He had 13 catches for 95 yards. You do know he was a kick returner, right?

 

[radballs.]

Look, none of these things is GOOD for Culpepper.  You can make a case that each one, in a vacuum, probably isn't that big a deal.  But you can't deny that, if you write up pros and cons for Culpepper's year this year, you have a lot more cons than pros compared with last year.

Finally, I can agree with you here. But, where I want to chop off 10 to 15% of his 2004 productivity you're implying 35%+. Culpepper alone is a great player and he won't fall off as much as you're predicting. That's pretty much it.

 

[David Yudkin]

As BF mentioned, part of this discussion was whether the right value play has taking a QB in the first or secord rounds. As far as Culpepper goes, this is the one that I think could help in this regard . . .

I'm not denying there's a precedent for teams to be good on both offense and defense. I'm saying that their improvement on defense suggest that Culpepper's not likely to HAVE to pass as often.

If we look at the Vikings running game, they have Smith gone for the season, Bennett a perpetual hospital victim, Moore, Moe, and a rookie. If one of the Top 3 RB were still there for their first NFL draft pick, there was a decent chance they would have taken a RB at that pick.I don't see this RB group as anything other than a mess waiting to happen. If things go as poor as last year, even if they WANT to run more, Culpepper will be passing a lot. And if things don't go well AND without Moss, Culpepper could easily go back to being a goalline force running the ball in like he did a few seasons ago.

The bottom line, IMO, is that teams will try to utilize their best weapon as much as possible. I hope most people will think that Culpepper is the best thing the Vikings have going on offense, so taking the ball out of his hands does not make a whole lot of sense.

 

[bostonfred]

The bottom line, IMO, is that teams their opponents will try to utilize their take away their opponent's best weapon as much as possible. I hope most people know most opponents will think that Culpepper is the best thing the Vikings have going on offense, so taking the ball out of his hands does not make makes a whole lot of sense.

Fixed.

 

[bostonfred]

Look, none of these things is GOOD for Culpepper.  You can make a case that each one, in a vacuum, probably isn't that big a deal.  But you can't deny that, if you write up pros and cons for Culpepper's year this year, you have a lot more cons than pros compared with last year.

Finally, I can agree with you here. But, where I want to chop off 10 to 15% of his 2004 productivity you're implying 35%+. Culpepper alone is a great player and he won't fall off as much as you're predicting. That's pretty much it.

I'm not implying that he will fall off by 35%+. I'm saying the most optimistic case for Culpepper is about a 15% dropoff. Add to that the possibility that he drops off even more significantly, which I happen to think is very likely, and the range by which he could drop off is anywhere from, say, 15% to 35% or more. It's specifically the risk associated with him that makes him a bad pick in the first two rounds.

 

[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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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. 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. 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.So I don't expect Cpep (or Manning for that matter) to repeat career years, I do expect they will continue to produce as the number 1/2 QB's as always, even without Moss!Cpep:

 

[David Yudkin]

I might point out that it's been about 35 posts since someone followed the directions and actually posted a projection for Culpepper for the upcoming season. Jason will be on me tomorrow FOR SURE about this.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Theoretically...if people are downgrading Culpepper because the Vikings will pass less because the defense will be better...doesn't that assume that the offense is just as good? Shouldn't the loss of Moss make the offense worse, meaning they'll need to pass just as much as normal?But I'm staying out of Culpepper threads from now on, I just can't handle it anymore. He's a better bet than every QB outside of Manning and McNabb to be QB1 this year.

 

[bostonfred]

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.

 

[bostonfred]

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.

 

[Family Matters]

Hey bf-the comment about the O coordinator wanting to run more. I think you have incorrect or misunderstood information. Recently, he stated that they want to run more effectively. He even answered that question by saying, "why would we stop doing what we do best?" "we will continue to pass the ball". That's not exact but it is very relevant to this discussion.

 

[radballs.]

Look, none of these things is GOOD for Culpepper.  You can make a case that each one, in a vacuum, probably isn't that big a deal.  But you can't deny that, if you write up pros and cons for Culpepper's year this year, you have a lot more cons than pros compared with last year.

Finally, I can agree with you here. But, where I want to chop off 10 to 15% of his 2004 productivity you're implying 35%+. Culpepper alone is a great player and he won't fall off as much as you're predicting. That's pretty much it.

I'm not implying that he will fall off by 35%+. I'm saying the most optimistic case for Culpepper is about a 15% dropoff. Add to that the possibility that he drops off even more significantly, which I happen to think is very likely, and the range by which he could drop off is anywhere from, say, 15% to 35% or more. It's specifically the risk associated with him that makes him a bad pick in the first two rounds.

You pretty much are ... or you're saying a 25% reduction at best. In any case, I do agree with you that he's going way too early in a lot of drafts right now. I might consider him at the end of the 2nd in some standard leagues, but before the 3rd in a 1ppr is not a good move.

 

[jwvdcw]

Cunningham was only a FF asset due to his rushing, whcih he had lost by that time. From another thread...

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

Without Randy Moss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And the Minnesota offense had been a top tier offense for 10 years before Moss got there. "

The year before Moss got there they were 16th in passing. In his first year, they were 2nd. Same QB both years and Cris Carter was there both years as well....Moss was the only difference. I expect a similar fall this year with them losing Moss.

Why do you think that Randall Cunningham averaged 20.7 FP/G and 14.7 FP/G with Moss, Brad Johnson averaged 15.5 FP/G with Moss, Jeff George averaged 16.1 FP/G with Moss ...is comparable to...

Daunte Culpepper averaging 27.1 FP/G with half a Moss. Culpepper scored 100 more FPs last year than any other Viking QB ever did in a single season with Moss. But I'm sure that's uh, because of how good Moss is.

I've been through all of this so much that I'm just going to paste and copy from another thread...Here are Culpepper's averages:

2000: 25.1

2001: 22.3

2002: 22.6

2003: 23.5

2004: 27.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004: All Culpepper, so no comparison is needed.

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

 

[jwvdcw]

When the Vikings had the lead, Culpepper was 109/161, for 1425 yards. He averaged 8.9 Y/A and a 15/2 TD/INT ratio.

When the Vikings were losing, Culpepper was 219/318, for 2543 yards. He averaged 8.0 Y/A and a 17/7 TD/INT ratio.

Minnesota RBs ran 131 times when they were losing, and 101 times when they were winning.

Minnesota was losing more often than they were winning last year, but some expect an improved defense will have the Vikings winning more often. Culpeper was a better QB last year when Minnesota had the lead, so I fail to see why a better defense, which leads to better field position and more TDs and a great TOP, would make Culpepper a worse QB.

Because last year when they had a lead, they didn't trust their defense to protect it and they knew they had to score more. This year, theres a chance that their defense will be much better and they'll trust their D and just play ball control.

 

[jwvdcw]

Yes, they lost Moss, but I contend that the Vikings will spread the ball more than in previous years (a la Colts 2004), perhaps opening the field up MORE rather than constricting it. There's no statistical evidence at all to argue this point, just more of a hunch than documentable.

That worked for the Colts because they still had Harrison to draw the double team and they found 2 underrated WRs and they had a great QB. The Vikings have lost their double team drawing WR, I don't think anyone besides Burleson will do anything this year, and I obviously don't think Pepper is as good as Manning.

 

[jwvdcw]

When the Vikings had the lead, Culpepper was 109/161, for 1425 yards. He averaged 8.9 Y/A and a 15/2 TD/INT ratio.

When the Vikings were losing, Culpepper was 219/318, for 2543 yards. He averaged 8.0 Y/A and a 17/7 TD/INT ratio.

Minnesota RBs ran 131 times when they were losing, and 101 times when they were winning.

Minnesota was losing more often than they were winning last year, but some expect an improved defense will have the Vikings winning more often. Culpeper was a better QB last year when Minnesota had the lead, so I fail to see why a better defense, which leads to better field position and more TDs and a great TOP, would make Culpepper a worse QB.

You're right, when they had Moss, they were able to get out on top of teams and stay on top. During the weeks Moss was out, Minnesota played just one game with the lead, against Tennessee. He threw for 183 yards and 1 TD in that game. He also was ahead for a single series in the Lions game, but failed to throw for a TD.

So while Moss was out, Culpepper rarely accumulated stats while ahead because they didn't get ahead. What stats he did accumulate without Moss - when he was 9th in the league in fantasy points - were mostly accumulated when they were playing catch up.

part bolded for emphasis...anyone care to address that?

 

[jwvdcw]

Look, none of these things is GOOD for Culpepper.  You can make a case that each one, in a vacuum, probably isn't that big a deal.  But you can't deny that, if you write up pros and cons for Culpepper's year this year, you have a lot more cons than pros compared with last year.

Culpepper alone is a great player

This is where we disagree. Watching him play, I just don't see a great player. Watching him at the pro bowl skills competition, I didn't see a great player. I see a guy who benefitted from playing with Moss. Nothing that Culpepper has ever done has impressed me more than George, Frerotte, or Cunningham when they played with the Vikes.

 

[jwvdcw]

I might point out that it's been about 35 posts since someone followed the directions and actually posted a projection for Culpepper for the upcoming season.

Jason will be on me tomorrow FOR SURE about this.

1500 yards passing with 11 TDs200 yards rushing with 1 TD

benched in the middle of the year due to ineffectiveness.

 

[jwvdcw]

Theoretically...if people are downgrading Culpepper because the Vikings will pass less because the defense will be better...doesn't that assume that the offense is just as good? Shouldn't the loss of Moss make the offense worse, meaning they'll need to pass just as much as normal?

But I'm staying out of Culpepper threads from now on, I just can't handle it anymore. He's a better bet than every QB outside of Manning and McNabb to be QB1 this year.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=152854I'm willing to wager my sig against yours that you are wrong and I've picked my #1 QB.

 

[Me & My Uncle]

I see DC as being in the pack of QBs that are well below Manning and McNabb...and that is a large pack of 10 or so QBs. I would rank him somewhere near the #8 QB at this point, which means I won't be owning him. It looks like he'll end up #3 overall with some chance of going before McNabb even with Owens. In any case, this pack of QBs is better left alone for expensive prices, as it is a crapshoot who does really well among this group. As for why I rank him lower, I have said it in so many threads in so many ways, but it is quite simply, Moss. It amazes me that people still consider Culpepper so highly. He did it with Moss and mirrors people!

 

[Family Matters]

When the Vikings had the lead, Culpepper was 109/161, for 1425 yards. He averaged 8.9 Y/A and a 15/2 TD/INT ratio.

When the Vikings were losing, Culpepper was 219/318, for 2543 yards. He averaged 8.0 Y/A and a 17/7 TD/INT ratio.

Minnesota RBs ran 131 times when they were losing, and 101 times when they were winning.

Minnesota was losing more often than they were winning last year, but some expect an improved defense will have the Vikings winning more often. Culpeper was a better QB last year when Minnesota had the lead, so I fail to see why a better defense, which leads to better field position and more TDs and a great TOP, would make Culpepper a worse QB.

You're right, when they had Moss, they were able to get out on top of teams and stay on top. During the weeks Moss was out, Minnesota played just one game with the lead, against Tennessee. He threw for 183 yards and 1 TD in that game. He also was ahead for a single series in the Lions game, but failed to throw for a TD.

So while Moss was out, Culpepper rarely accumulated stats while ahead because they didn't get ahead. What stats he did accumulate without Moss - when he was 9th in the league in fantasy points - were mostly accumulated when they were playing catch up.

part bolded for emphasis...anyone care to address that?

Well it's been addressed before but it's worth repeating. When the focus of your offense is suddenly gone, you have to make adjustments. With Moss the focus of the attack they had to find new ways playing. You don't do that overnight. It takes a few games to make the adjustments. If you were to look closer, you will find that they began to improve while Moss was completely ineffective. Check the stats game by agem and you'll see it happeneing. When they tried to bring Moss back and found that he just couldn't play or was nothing more than a decoy, the offense was beginning to find itself.

Further, to suggest that your best offensive weapon took you from 1st out of 32 all the way down to 9th and some think that's terrible? Seriously, it's a heck of a testament to Cpep that he was still putting up top 10 numbers without Moss. It's not like he had a replacement for him to come in and play. Robinson was dinged & Kleinsasser was out. 3 important parts to your offense are missing and yet you still put up top 10 numbers?

For those of that are making the Moss argument, this really makes Moss look bad in some ways. They only dropped to 9th? If you ask me, that's not the type impact I expect from a guy many of you say is the greast WR ever and the only reason Cpep accomplished what he has to date.

Now that I wrote that I realize even more just how good Cpep really is! Wow. Thanks for making my case for Cpep even stronger guys!

 

[jwvdcw]

When the Vikings had the lead, Culpepper was 109/161, for 1425 yards. He averaged 8.9 Y/A and a 15/2 TD/INT ratio.

When the Vikings were losing, Culpepper was 219/318, for 2543 yards. He averaged 8.0 Y/A and a 17/7 TD/INT ratio.

Minnesota RBs ran 131 times when they were losing, and 101 times when they were winning.

Minnesota was losing more often than they were winning last year, but some expect an improved defense will have the Vikings winning more often. Culpeper was a better QB last year when Minnesota had the lead, so I fail to see why a better defense, which leads to better field position and more TDs and a great TOP, would make Culpepper a worse QB.

You're right, when they had Moss, they were able to get out on top of teams and stay on top. During the weeks Moss was out, Minnesota played just one game with the lead, against Tennessee. He threw for 183 yards and 1 TD in that game. He also was ahead for a single series in the Lions game, but failed to throw for a TD.

So while Moss was out, Culpepper rarely accumulated stats while ahead because they didn't get ahead. What stats he did accumulate without Moss - when he was 9th in the league in fantasy points - were mostly accumulated when they were playing catch up.

part bolded for emphasis...anyone care to address that?

Well it's been addressed before but it's worth repeating. When the focus of your offense is suddenly gone, you have to make adjustments. With Moss the focus of the attack they had to find new ways playing. You don't do that overnight. It takes a few games to make the adjustments. If you were to look closer, you will find that they began to improve while Moss was completely ineffective. Check the stats game by agem and you'll see it happeneing. When they tried to bring Moss back and found that he just couldn't play or was nothing more than a decoy, the offense was beginning to find itself.

Further, to suggest that your best offensive weapon took you from 1st out of 32 all the way down to 9th and some think that's terrible? Seriously, it's a heck of a testament to Cpep that he was still putting up top 10 numbers without Moss. It's not like he had a replacement for him to come in and play. Robinson was dinged & Kleinsasser was out. 3 important parts to your offense are missing and yet you still put up top 10 numbers?

For those of that are making the Moss argument, this really makes Moss look bad in some ways. They only dropped to 9th? If you ask me, that's not the type impact I expect from a guy many of you say is the greast WR ever and the only reason Cpep accomplished what he has to date.

Now that I wrote that I realize even more just how good Cpep really is! Wow. Thanks for making my case for Cpep even stronger guys!

so when Moss came back and played decoy, they got better...yes, I understand that. Moss just being on the field helps. Why should they be any better this year? Who have they replaced Moss with? A rookie and Travis Taylor? You're right...they will have time to prepare more this year...and I think they are preparing by improving their defense and toning down their offense.

 

[Donnybrook]

I see DC as being in the pack of QBs that are well below Manning and McNabb...and that is a large pack of 10 or so QBs. I would rank him somewhere near the #8 QB at this point, which means I won't be owning him. It looks like he'll end up #3 overall with some chance of going before McNabb even with Owens. In any case, this pack of QBs is better left alone for expensive prices, as it is a crapshoot who does really well among this group.

As for why I rank him lower, I have said it in so many threads in so many ways, but it is quite simply, Moss. It amazes me that people still consider Culpepper so highly. He did it with Moss and mirrors people!

Please explain to me how Culpepper managed to complete 69% of his passes when Moss only caught less than 13% of them last year. DC did a pretty good with those mirrors

 

[radballs.]

I might point out that it's been about 35 posts since someone followed the directions and actually posted a projection for Culpepper for the upcoming season.   

Jason will be on me tomorrow FOR SURE about this. 

1500 yards passing with 11 TDs200 yards rushing with 1 TD

benched in the middle of the year due to ineffectiveness.

or insane. Take your pick.

 

[jwvdcw]

I see DC as being in the pack of QBs that are well below Manning and McNabb...and that is a large pack of 10 or so QBs.  I would rank him somewhere near the #8 QB at this point, which means I won't be owning him.  It looks like he'll end up #3 overall with some chance of going before McNabb even with Owens.  In any case, this pack of QBs is better left alone for expensive prices, as it is a crapshoot who does really well among this group. 

As for why I rank him lower, I have said it in so many threads in so many ways, but it is quite simply, Moss.  It amazes me that people still consider Culpepper so highly.  He did it with Moss and mirrors people!

Please explain to me how Culpepper managed to complete 69% of his passes when Moss only caught less than 13% of them last year. DC did a pretty good with those mirrors

Moss drew multiple defenders which opened things up for everyone else. See Peerless Price and how much he dropped off after losing Moulds who drew coverage away from him...same thing will happen to Burleson this YEARYEARYEARYEAR!

 

[Family Matters]

When the Vikings had the lead, Culpepper was 109/161, for 1425 yards. He averaged 8.9 Y/A and a 15/2 TD/INT ratio.

When the Vikings were losing, Culpepper was 219/318, for 2543 yards. He averaged 8.0 Y/A and a 17/7 TD/INT ratio.

Minnesota RBs ran 131 times when they were losing, and 101 times when they were winning.

Minnesota was losing more often than they were winning last year, but some expect an improved defense will have the Vikings winning more often. Culpeper was a better QB last year when Minnesota had the lead, so I fail to see why a better defense, which leads to better field position and more TDs and a great TOP, would make Culpepper a worse QB.

You're right, when they had Moss, they were able to get out on top of teams and stay on top. During the weeks Moss was out, Minnesota played just one game with the lead, against Tennessee. He threw for 183 yards and 1 TD in that game. He also was ahead for a single series in the Lions game, but failed to throw for a TD.

So while Moss was out, Culpepper rarely accumulated stats while ahead because they didn't get ahead. What stats he did accumulate without Moss - when he was 9th in the league in fantasy points - were mostly accumulated when they were playing catch up.

part bolded for emphasis...anyone care to address that?

Well it's been addressed before but it's worth repeating. When the focus of your offense is suddenly gone, you have to make adjustments. With Moss the focus of the attack they had to find new ways playing. You don't do that overnight. It takes a few games to make the adjustments. If you were to look closer, you will find that they began to improve while Moss was completely ineffective. Check the stats game by agem and you'll see it happeneing. When they tried to bring Moss back and found that he just couldn't play or was nothing more than a decoy, the offense was beginning to find itself.

Further, to suggest that your best offensive weapon took you from 1st out of 32 all the way down to 9th and some think that's terrible? Seriously, it's a heck of a testament to Cpep that he was still putting up top 10 numbers without Moss. It's not like he had a replacement for him to come in and play. Robinson was dinged & Kleinsasser was out. 3 important parts to your offense are missing and yet you still put up top 10 numbers?

For those of that are making the Moss argument, this really makes Moss look bad in some ways. They only dropped to 9th? If you ask me, that's not the type impact I expect from a guy many of you say is the greast WR ever and the only reason Cpep accomplished what he has to date.

Now that I wrote that I realize even more just how good Cpep really is! Wow. Thanks for making my case for Cpep even stronger guys!

so when Moss came back and played decoy, they got better...yes, I understand that. Moss just being on the field helps. Why should they be any better this year? Who have they replaced Moss with? A rookie and Travis Taylor? You're right...they will have time to prepare more this year...and I think they are preparing by improving their defense and toning down their offense.

Oh come on. You can't be serious to have us think that professional football players and coaches are intimidated by a player who can't even push off or run down the field. Moss really isn't that powerful. He's just another WR making a living. They can tell when he can't play. Now, as for the they got better comment. Who was making those catches when Moss wasn't? I think if you check the stats you'll find the answer.

BTW-how many of you watched Moss and the VCikings play last year while he was playing "decoy"? If you watched the game you'd know Moss really didn't do anything. One game he was in for what 1 series or play or two. Then another aborted attempt to play the next week. I'm pretty sure the other team knew Moss wasn't on the field. And yet the Vikings continued to roll. Unbelievable.

 

[Family Matters]

I see DC as being in the pack of QBs that are well below Manning and McNabb...and that is a large pack of 10 or so QBs.  I would rank him somewhere near the #8 QB at this point, which means I won't be owning him.  It looks like he'll end up #3 overall with some chance of going before McNabb even with Owens.   In any case, this pack of QBs is better left alone for expensive prices, as it is a crapshoot who does really well among this group. 

As for why I rank him lower, I have said it in so many threads in so many ways, but it is quite simply, Moss.  It amazes me that people still consider Culpepper so highly.  He did it with Moss and mirrors people!

Please explain to me how Culpepper managed to complete 69% of his passes when Moss only caught less than 13% of them last year. DC did a pretty good with those mirrors

Moss drew multiple defenders which opened things up for everyone else. See Peerless Price and how much he dropped off after losing Moulds who drew coverage away from him...same thing will happen to Burleson this YEARYEARYEARYEAR!

So now Moulds is the same level of player Moss is?:sorryicouldn'thelpit:

 

[Family Matters]

I might point out that it's been about 35 posts since someone followed the directions and actually posted a projection for Culpepper for the upcoming season.   

Jason will be on me tomorrow FOR SURE about this. 

1500 yards passing with 11 TDs200 yards rushing with 1 TD

benched in the middle of the year due to ineffectiveness.

or insane. Take your pick.

Consider the source.

 

[Donnybrook]

I see DC as being in the pack of QBs that are well below Manning and McNabb...and that is a large pack of 10 or so QBs.  I would rank him somewhere near the #8 QB at this point, which means I won't be owning him.  It looks like he'll end up #3 overall with some chance of going before McNabb even with Owens.   In any case, this pack of QBs is better left alone for expensive prices, as it is a crapshoot who does really well among this group. 

As for why I rank him lower, I have said it in so many threads in so many ways, but it is quite simply, Moss.  It amazes me that people still consider Culpepper so highly.  He did it with Moss and mirrors people!

Please explain to me how Culpepper managed to complete 69% of his passes when Moss only caught less than 13% of them last year. DC did a pretty good with those mirrors

Moss drew multiple defenders which opened things up for everyone else. See Peerless Price and how much he dropped off after losing Moulds who drew coverage away from him...same thing will happen to Burleson this YEARYEARYEARYEAR!

Moss who was hobbled for a good portion of the year didn’t draw that many defenders away. I thought you would say that Moss got on his radio headset and told him where to throw the ball.

 

[NoLimit]

The O-Line is good. If Culpepper has time to throw, he will do good.3,957 yards passing for 31 TD's and 14 INT's434 yards rushing with 4 TD's

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I'd be curious as to what the "Moss made Culpepper" theorists think a great QB would do with Moss on his team. How many yards would Tom Brady throw for if he had Randy Moss? How about Peyton Manning? Or Brett Favre?

Maybe they would set the record for most total yards by a quarterback in a season?

Currently held by Daunte Culpepper of course.

I don't think Moss made Culpepper.......but I do think having one of the greatest WR's ever helps Culpepper or any QB. Culpepper is still good, and we'll see just how good this year. I think he's a huge risk to take No. 2.I think BFred mentioned that if Harrison left the team and a rookie WR came in....would that effect Manning's numbers. I'd say yes, definately. How could losing one of the great receivers today not effect how that team gels on offense.

Common sense should tell you when you lose a great player from a team, that some production will be lost. That's where I'm coming from. I think there are other owners who are still just as high on Culpepper and will take him as though he still had Moss on his team, to me that's crazy.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Theoretically...if people are downgrading Culpepper because the Vikings will pass less because the defense will be better...doesn't that assume that the offense is just as good? Shouldn't the loss of Moss make the offense worse, meaning they'll need to pass just as much as normal?

But I'm staying out of Culpepper threads from now on, I just can't handle it anymore. He's a better bet than every QB outside of Manning and McNabb to be QB1 this year.

I hope you don't, I appreciate your view and enjoy reading it even though I don't agree with you.

 

[David Yudkin]

Others have mentioned turnovers as Culpepper's potential undoing, but he has improved dramatically in the past two seasons.In terms of QB touches, I included passing attempts and rushing attempts (which really does not account for sacks) which was the best way I could think of to assess this.2000: 563 total attempts, 22 turnovers, 25.5 touches/turnover2001: 437 total attempts, 20 turnovers, 21.9 touches/turnover2002: 655 total attempts, 31 turnovers, 21.1 touches/turnover2003: 527 total attempts, 17 turnovers, 31.0 touches/turnover2004: 636 total attempts, 15 turnovers, 42.4 touches/turnoverCulpepper had half as many turnovers as he had in 2002. Perhaps he has improved some as a QB and has made some better decisions?

 

[bostonfred]

Look, none of these things is GOOD for Culpepper.  You can make a case that each one, in a vacuum, probably isn't that big a deal.  But you can't deny that, if you write up pros and cons for Culpepper's year this year, you have a lot more cons than pros compared with last year.

Finally, I can agree with you here. But, where I want to chop off 10 to 15% of his 2004 productivity you're implying 35%+. Culpepper alone is a great player and he won't fall off as much as you're predicting. That's pretty much it.

I'm not implying that he will fall off by 35%+. I'm saying the most optimistic case for Culpepper is about a 15% dropoff. Add to that the possibility that he drops off even more significantly, which I happen to think is very likely, and the range by which he could drop off is anywhere from, say, 15% to 35% or more. It's specifically the risk associated with him that makes him a bad pick in the first two rounds.

You pretty much are ... or you're saying a 25% reduction at best. In any case, I do agree with you that he's going way too early in a lot of drafts right now. I might consider him at the end of the 2nd in some standard leagues, but before the 3rd in a 1ppr is not a good move.

I haven't given any projections, and I've never said a 25% reduction at best. I've said on more than one occasion that it's possible Culpepper is still the QB1 this year. It's the huge, huge risks associated with him that drop him out of the first two rounds for me. From the sounds of your post, we're not that far apart. I would probably consider Culpepper in the third, and almost certainly in the fourth, when the sure RBs, WRs and TEs are gone, because the risk/reward is worth it. But there's no way I pass on a starter quality RB to take a QB who might be very good, but might be middle of the pack.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Look, none of these things is GOOD for Culpepper.  You can make a case that each one, in a vacuum, probably isn't that big a deal.  But you can't deny that, if you write up pros and cons for Culpepper's year this year, you have a lot more cons than pros compared with last year.

Finally, I can agree with you here. But, where I want to chop off 10 to 15% of his 2004 productivity you're implying 35%+. Culpepper alone is a great player and he won't fall off as much as you're predicting. That's pretty much it.

I'm not implying that he will fall off by 35%+. I'm saying the most optimistic case for Culpepper is about a 15% dropoff. Add to that the possibility that he drops off even more significantly, which I happen to think is very likely, and the range by which he could drop off is anywhere from, say, 15% to 35% or more. It's specifically the risk associated with him that makes him a bad pick in the first two rounds.

You pretty much are ... or you're saying a 25% reduction at best. In any case, I do agree with you that he's going way too early in a lot of drafts right now. I might consider him at the end of the 2nd in some standard leagues, but before the 3rd in a 1ppr is not a good move.

I haven't given any projections, and I've never said a 25% reduction at best. I've said on more than one occasion that it's possible Culpepper is still the QB1 this year. It's the huge, huge risks associated with him that drop him out of the first two rounds for me. From the sounds of your post, we're not that far apart. I would probably consider Culpepper in the third, and almost certainly in the fourth, when the sure RBs, WRs and TEs are gone, because the risk/reward is worth it. But there's no way I pass on a starter quality RB to take a QB who might be very good, but might be middle of the pack.

Come on Fred, you're telling me you'd think about taking Culpepper in the 3rd and certainly in the 4th??????? Well, I'll consider taking Edgerin James at the beginning of the 2nd. Let's be realistic........you are not going to see Culpepper in the mid 3rd and early 4th rounds. I think it's safe to say that you won't have Culpepper on your teams this upcoming year.

 

[reg]

Culpepper had half as many turnovers as he had in 2002. Perhaps he has improved some as a QB and has made some better decisions?

He has been using hand growth hormone.

 

[David Yudkin]

Not to be accused of being blinded by taking a pro/con position, here are all the games that Moss had 3 or fewer receptions when Culpepper was QB.

2000Week 3	19   28   177   2   1  |   12    59   0Week 14	19   32   160   1   2  |    6    25   02001Week 1	22   38   236   1   3  |   12    57   1 Week 7	13   24   150   1   1  |    9    49   0 2002Week 10	9   20    91   0   0  |    6    42   0Week 14	15   28   136   1   1  |    4    26   12003Week 3	7   13   105   0   0  |    2    16   22004Week 6	26   37   425   5   2  |    7    13   0Week 7	24   30   183   1   0  |    3     4   0Week 8	24   42   231   1   2  |    5    32   0Week 9	16   19   169   1   0  |    5    27   0Week 10	27   44   363   4   0  |    3    19   0Week 11	22   32   233   2   1  |   11    35   0Week 16	16   23   285   3   0  |    3    21   0

Prior to last season, Culpepper's numbers really suffered in these situations (although he did do well running). Again, most of this is reading between the lines, as Moss did play in most of these games.