This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Do a quick search on Culpepper. You'll find that, in short, he put up mediocre numbers in all but one of his Moss-less games, despite playing four of the bottom ten pass defenses in the league. In games when Moss played, he was outpacing Manning in TDs.Didn't he put up record breaking numbers despite Randy Moss being injured half of the year?
There's a difference in not having a player on your team and losing a player suddenly. Moss also had some games where he was a game time decision or played hobbled, and that didn't help Culpepper's cause.For example, look at the Patriots and Steelers. The Pats lost Ty Law and then got killed until they adjusted IN THAT ONE GAME.Do a quick search on Culpepper. You'll find that, in short, he put up mediocre numbers in all but one of his Moss-less games, despite playing four of the bottom ten pass defenses in the league. In games when Moss played, he was outpacing Manning in TDs.
That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. I suspect Minnesota will be just as agressive with the pass as they were when they had Moss, and definitely more successful than they were in the '04 games withou Moss. The question is to what degree.There's a difference in not having a player on your team and losing a player suddenly. Moss also had some games where he was a game time decision or played hobbled, and that didn't help Culpepper's cause.For example, look at the Patriots and Steelers. The Pats lost Ty Law and then got killed until they adjusted IN THAT ONE GAME.Do a quick search on Culpepper. You'll find that, in short, he put up mediocre numbers in all but one of his Moss-less games, despite playing four of the bottom ten pass defenses in the league. In games when Moss played, he was outpacing Manning in TDs.
By the time they had their rematch, the Patriots were able to scheme and adapt to having Law out.
I suspect that Minnesota KNOWING that Moss is gone for good will be a bit more prepared.
True, but opposing teams that had to prepare for Moss's phantom starts were at a bigger disadvantage than the Vikings, who likely knew Moss couldn't play. Minnesota preparing to not have Moss has only said "We want to run more". Just because they're prepared doesn't mean Culpepper's numbers will benefit.There's a difference in not having a player on your team and losing a player suddenly. Moss also had some games where he was a game time decision or played hobbled, and that didn't help Culpepper's cause.For example, look at the Patriots and Steelers. The Pats lost Ty Law and then got killed until they adjusted IN THAT ONE GAME.Do a quick search on Culpepper. You'll find that, in short, he put up mediocre numbers in all but one of his Moss-less games, despite playing four of the bottom ten pass defenses in the league. In games when Moss played, he was outpacing Manning in TDs.
By the time they had their rematch, the Patriots were able to scheme and adapt to having Law out.
I suspect that Minnesota KNOWING that Moss is gone for good will be a bit more prepared.
Why would they "definitely" be more successful than in the 04 games without Moss? Will they be playing Indy, Green Bay, Detroit and Tennessee for 80% of their schedule like they did in their 04 games without Moss?That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. I suspect Minnesota will be just as agressive with the pass as they were when they had Moss, and definitely more successful than they were in the '04 games withou Moss. The question is to what degree.There's a difference in not having a player on your team and losing a player suddenly. Moss also had some games where he was a game time decision or played hobbled, and that didn't help Culpepper's cause.For example, look at the Patriots and Steelers. The Pats lost Ty Law and then got killed until they adjusted IN THAT ONE GAME.Do a quick search on Culpepper. You'll find that, in short, he put up mediocre numbers in all but one of his Moss-less games, despite playing four of the bottom ten pass defenses in the league. In games when Moss played, he was outpacing Manning in TDs.
By the time they had their rematch, the Patriots were able to scheme and adapt to having Law out.
I suspect that Minnesota KNOWING that Moss is gone for good will be a bit more prepared.
I should've been more specific. I meant relative to who they're playing. Take that same four game stretch in '05, I'd bet that Minnesota would put up better numbers.Why would they "definitely" be more successful than in the 04 games without Moss? Will they be playing Indy, Green Bay, Detroit and Tennessee for 80% of their schedule like they did in their 04 games without Moss?That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. I suspect Minnesota will be just as agressive with the pass as they were when they had Moss, and definitely more successful than they were in the '04 games withou Moss. The question is to what degree.There's a difference in not having a player on your team and losing a player suddenly. Moss also had some games where he was a game time decision or played hobbled, and that didn't help Culpepper's cause.For example, look at the Patriots and Steelers. The Pats lost Ty Law and then got killed until they adjusted IN THAT ONE GAME.Do a quick search on Culpepper. You'll find that, in short, he put up mediocre numbers in all but one of his Moss-less games, despite playing four of the bottom ten pass defenses in the league. In games when Moss played, he was outpacing Manning in TDs.
By the time they had their rematch, the Patriots were able to scheme and adapt to having Law out.
I suspect that Minnesota KNOWING that Moss is gone for good will be a bit more prepared.
I generally agree with this - taking the defenses out of the equation, he should be as good or maybe slightly better without Moss than he was during the same stretch without Moss. But he played against some very weak pass defenses and for the most part, didn't do very well, so it's hard to quantify how good that will be. That's why I think there's a lot of risk.I should've been more specific. I meant relative to who they're playing. Take that same four game stretch in '05, I'd bet that Minnesota would put up better numbers.Why would they "definitely" be more successful than in the 04 games without Moss? Will they be playing Indy, Green Bay, Detroit and Tennessee for 80% of their schedule like they did in their 04 games without Moss?That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. I suspect Minnesota will be just as agressive with the pass as they were when they had Moss, and definitely more successful than they were in the '04 games withou Moss. The question is to what degree.There's a difference in not having a player on your team and losing a player suddenly. Moss also had some games where he was a game time decision or played hobbled, and that didn't help Culpepper's cause.For example, look at the Patriots and Steelers. The Pats lost Ty Law and then got killed until they adjusted IN THAT ONE GAME.Do a quick search on Culpepper. You'll find that, in short, he put up mediocre numbers in all but one of his Moss-less games, despite playing four of the bottom ten pass defenses in the league. In games when Moss played, he was outpacing Manning in TDs.
By the time they had their rematch, the Patriots were able to scheme and adapt to having Law out.
I suspect that Minnesota KNOWING that Moss is gone for good will be a bit more prepared.
Lee Suggs... .Player 33 wow!
LOFL...we're bumping after Week One?
Personally, I think it should be bumped every week regardless of what happens. It was probably the most heavily debated topic of the off-season. Settle down Cpep lovers, he can rebound. It's still 1-0 Collins though.LOFL...we're bumping after Week One?
Not only that but he's bumped at least 3 threads with the same update. Is that really needed?LOFL...we're bumping after Week One?
The exact same update in at least 3 threads is more than 'some' attention.this was THE most heavily debated topic here this offseason. It deserves some attention.Not only that but he's bumped at least 3 threads with the same update. Is that really needed?LOFL...we're bumping after Week One?
Much more debated than is Manning worth the #1 overall pick or should I take Larry Johnson in the 4th.The exact same update in at least 3 threads is more than 'some' attention.this was THE most heavily debated topic here this offseason. It deserves some attention.Not only that but he's bumped at least 3 threads with the same update. Is that really needed?LOFL...we're bumping after Week One?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but this was the only topic that Joe and Shick started locking threads about as soon as they started because we already had enough discussion about them.Much more debated than is Manning worth the #1 overall pick or should I take Larry Johnson in the 4th.The exact same update in at least 3 threads is more than 'some' attention.this was THE most heavily debated topic here this offseason. It deserves some attention.Not only that but he's bumped at least 3 threads with the same update. Is that really needed?LOFL...we're bumping after Week One?
