dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 i'm not saying that one inept guy can't ruin an offense. what i'm saying is that there are varying levels of importance in an offense, and a qb is usually #1. in the case of the vikes -- who averaged something like 30+ points when moss was gone last year (check it on pro football reference if you're curious) -- culpepper was clearly the straw that stirred the drink. moreover, they have one of the best centers in the league and are very solid at the tackle spots. when kleinsasser -- a guy donohoe allegedly covets -- is healthy (and he's supposed to be healthy now), he's one of the best all around TEs in the game. wiggins is a lousy blocker, but as a short range receiver you'll find few who are more reliable. burleson played really well last year, and the new guy is by all accounts quite good. if he's as good as evans was last year, then the vikes are in good shape. it's a lot less of a stretch for a WR to come in and perform reasonably well than a qb, although i haven't ruled it out for losman (read through my posts - i've never predicted anything approaching failure for the guy). with regard to the #2 slot on the bills, i assume you're referring to the 03 season. that's not fair, because moulds' injury would have made him a #3 level talent on a good team. josh reed couldn't get it done, and bobby shaw was what he was -- a former 6th round possession guy who had lost a step. plus no tight ends and no fullbacks who could get open. that's hardly comparable to the vikes situation. 380347[/snapback] p.s. they didn't average 30 points per game - i just checked. still they averaged in the 23-24 ppg range, which was among the best in the league. however, they did wind up #1 passing overall (ahead of even the colts!) and #3 in offense. their problem was a horrible defense. we'll see if their signing binge addresses that issue. also, to be fair, since 2002 they've been 23-25 - same as the bills.
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 p.s. they didn't average 30 points per game - i just checked. still they averaged in the 23-24 ppg range, which was among the best in the league. however, they did wind up #1 passing overall (ahead of even the colts!) and #3 in offense. their problem was a horrible defense. we'll see if their signing binge addresses that issue. also, to be fair, since 2002 they've been 23-25 - same as the bills. 380364[/snapback] Of course, you are taking into account their schedule and the opponents they played while Moss was out, correct? I mean it was a veritable "who's who" of elite NFL defenses. 20 points against Tenn 13 against the Giants (All scored in the 4th quarter after trailing 34-0). The Giants went on the following week to lose to the BEARS at HOME. 28 against the Colts (One TD on a punt return) 31 against Green Bay (worst secondary this side of the expansion Buccaneers) 22 points against the Lions (two fourth quarter TDs) But hey, they are a virtual juggernaut.
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Of course, you are taking into account their schedule and the opponents they played while Moss was out, correct? I mean it was a veritable "who's who" of elite NFL defenses. 20 points against Tenn 13 against the Giants (All scored in the 4th quarter after trailing 34-0). The Giants went on the following week to lose to the BEARS at HOME. 28 against the Colts (One TD on a punt return) 31 against Green Bay (worst secondary this side of the expansion Buccaneers) 22 points against the Lions (two fourth quarter TDs) But hey, they are a virtual juggernaut. 380373[/snapback] remember, that this whole argument is about how i think they'll be*this* year, not last year or the year before. they've gotten much better on defense - i don't think anyone can deny that. and their offense is good -- better than most, as is evident from the stats and the skills of the players on board. in any event, when looking at their overall offensive production last year, it's hard to deny that it was pretty damn good. even in the weeks you mention above, they averaged 23 points a game, which for a down set of weeks (as all teams in the nfl have, even the bills in the early 90s) is pretty good. as for scoring on a punt return, well every team pads their offensive production with those types of scores - just think of the bills last year and all of their points on returns (they led the league, no?).
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 remember, that this whole argument is about how i think they'll be*this* year, not last year or the year before. they've gotten much better on defense - i don't think anyone can deny that. and their offense is good -- better than most, as is evident from the stats and the skills of the players on board. in any event, when looking at their overall offensive production last year, it's hard to deny that it was pretty damn good. even in the weeks you mention above, they averaged 23 points a game, which for a down set of weeks (as all teams in the nfl have, even the bills in the early 90s) is pretty good. as for scoring on a punt return, well every team pads their offensive production with those types of scores - just think of the bills last year and all of their points on returns (they led the league, no?). 380517[/snapback] Their offense wouldn't be anywhere near as good if they played in the conditions we faced most of last season. Nor would it be anywhere as good if their schedule wasn't as "cream puffy" as it was last season. As far as how good they're going to be THIS season, on paper they look good. It remains to be seen whether Ted Cotrell can put together a cohesive defense. They had plenty of high round draft choices on the defensive side of the football last year and for whatever reason couldn't work together. It got so bad that Tice called TC out after one game, saying he called perhaps the worst game in the history of the sport. He changed his stance after watching the film, stating that TC actually called close to the perfect game but that his players didn't execute at all. NFL games ain't played on paper - which is why NE has 3 titles in the last 4 years. As far as padding stats with special teams points, I was simply showing the flaw in your "argument." They struggled mightily without Moss in the Giants' game and the 28 they supposedly put on the Colts was really only 21 offensive. That means they really averaged 21 points a game in the span Moss was out. In the grand scheme of things, despite playing in a weaker division with an easy schedule, the juggernaut that was the Minnesota Vikings outscored the very pedestrian Buffalo BILLS by 10 whole points (their offense did score 11 more TDs than the BILLS did, while we had 6 more FGs - to make your point). And they didn't have Rian Lindell as their kicker, nor play outside in at least 9 of their games.
Buftex Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Of course, you are taking into account their schedule and the opponents they played while Moss was out, correct? I mean it was a veritable "who's who" of elite NFL defenses. 20 points against Tenn 13 against the Giants (All scored in the 4th quarter after trailing 34-0). The Giants went on the following week to lose to the BEARS at HOME. 28 against the Colts (One TD on a punt return) 31 against Green Bay (worst secondary this side of the expansion Buccaneers) 22 points against the Lions (two fourth quarter TDs) But hey, they are a virtual juggernaut. 380373[/snapback] If I remember correct, the Vikings defense played very well, statistically, for the first half of the season, but started to fall apart in the second half...there are lots of good coordinaters in the NFL, give them a good sampling of game film, and they can likely expose most weaknesses. This good half/bad half is fairly common among middle of the road teams...remember our offense in 2002!
stuckincincy Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Minnie is a funny franchise. They seem to have the talent to be in the running at the end in the division for several seasons, for a number of years. Perhaps that's Culpepper's doing.
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 If I remember correct, the Vikings defense played very well, statistically, for the first half of the season, but started to fall apart in the second half 381010[/snapback] Wrong. Points given up: Week 1: 28 Week 2: 31 Week 3: 3 Week 4: 34 Week 5: 31 Week 6: 34
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Minnie is a funny franchise. They seem to have the talent to be in the running at the end in the division for several seasons, for a number of years. Perhaps that's Culpepper's doing. 381014[/snapback] If we had Culpepper and they had Drew, we'd have been no worse than 12-4 and they'd have likely been the exact opposite.
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 If we had Culpepper and they had Drew, we'd have been no worse than 12-4 and they'd have likely been the exact opposite. 381023[/snapback] absolutely true. that guy is awesome. re ted cottrell, i think he's a very good coordinator who's been cursed with a lack of playmakers the last few seasons in ny and minnesota. this will be the season in which he shows whether i'm right or wrong. they're strong at the corners, have at least one competent safety (chavous), and made major upgrades at LB (napoleon harris might not be great, but he's good, which is better than what they've had) and defensive line.
Buftex Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Wrong. Points given up: Week 1: 28 Week 2: 31 Week 3: 3 Week 4: 34 Week 5: 31 Week 6: 34 381022[/snapback] My memory is for sh*t these days!
ganesh Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Minnie is a funny franchise. They seem to have the talent to be in the running at the end in the division for several seasons, for a number of years. Perhaps that's Culpepper's doing. 381014[/snapback] Culpepper is usually very strong in the 1st half of the season when the weather is nice (plus they play indoors)...However once the 2nd part kicks in and with trips to Chicago and Green Bay included they falter....He has been a pretty average QB come the 2nd half.
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 My memory is for sh*t these days! 381034[/snapback] It hits us all. Stats I remember - people's names? Forget it.
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Culpepper is usually very strong in the 1st half of the season when theweather is nice (plus they play indoors)...However once the 2nd part kicks in and with trips to Chicago and Green Bay included they falter....He has been a pretty average QB come the 2nd half. 381035[/snapback] That's the norm in the NFL - has nothing to do with individual players. The sense of urgency increases as the season draws to a close and teams play closer to the vest (weather is also a factor, as you mentioned). Every sport is pretty much the same, which is why guys who have a great first half and are ahead of record pace rarely break said records.
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 As far as padding stats with special teams points, I was simply showing the flaw in your "argument." They struggled mightily without Moss in the Giants' game and the 28 they supposedly put on the Colts was really only 21 offensive. That means they really averaged 21 points a game in the span Moss was out. 381007[/snapback] for a few years now (actually, going back to the 2000 nfc championship game), the giants have had the vikes' number. they've crushed them repeatedly year after year regardless of whether the they're good or bad. at some level, they must match up well.
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 That's the norm in the NFL - has nothing to do with individual players. The sense of urgency increases as the season draws to a close and teams play closer to the vest (weather is also a factor, as you mentioned). Every sport is pretty much the same, which is why guys who have a great first half and are ahead of record pace rarely break said records. 381037[/snapback] anyone here ever heard of drew bledsoe??
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 for a few years now (actually, going back to the 2000 nfc championship game), the giants have had the vikes' number. they've crushed them repeatedly year after year regardless of whether the they're good or bad. at some level, they must match up well. The Giants intercepted the Vikes' play-calls on their headsets, so they knew what the Vikes were going to run, in that 2000 NFCCG. That's the ONLY reason they beat them, since the Vikes should have represented the NFC that year (it would have made for a better SB). But the effect lingered.
stuckincincy Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 The Giants intercepted the Vikes' play-calls on their headsets, so they knew what the Vikes were going to run, in that 2000 NFCCG. That's the ONLY reason they beat them, since the Vikes should have represented the NFC that year (it would have made for a better SB). But the effect lingered. 381045[/snapback] Really?
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 anyone here ever heard of drew bledsoe?? 381039[/snapback] Has he sucked less as the season went on?
dave mcbride Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Has he sucked less as the season went on? 381048[/snapback] no, the opposite - confirming your theory.
bdelma Posted July 13, 2005 Posted July 13, 2005 Pat nobody cares!. Did you sell your automotive business. we got the best out of you. You'll played two downs and then take a break. See ya.
Recommended Posts