|
|
#342
10-23-2007, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, while Culpepper put up some good numbers over 4 years, I don't think he ever qualified as "very, very good," by NFL standards. [/ QUOTE ] ??????????????????????????????????????????????? [/ QUOTE ] He stepped in to a very very good offense and managed to be nearly as good as the washed up mediocre QBs who preceded him. My main complaints are just that he was never good at getting the ball out quickly and while he had a very strong arm, he wasn't terribly accurate. While very athletic, his "pocket presence" left a lot to be desired. He also fumbled WAY too much. 78 times in 80 games in MN. 1998 Cunningham, 8.7y/a (next best was 7.7) 1999 George, 8.6y/a (next best was 7.5) 2000 Cullpepper 8.3y/a 2001 Cullpepper 7.1y/a 2002 Cullpepper 7.0y/a 2003 Cullpepper 7.7y/a 2004 Cullpepper 8.6y/a 2005 Cullpepper 7.2y/a (12int in 7 games) 2004 games w/ Moss 9.03y/a (11 games) 2004 games w/o Moss 7.1y/a (5 games) I didn't/don't mean to imply that I don't think he was any good, he was. I just think that if you judge him based solely on the numbers he put up, you will have an unrealistically high opinion of him. [/ QUOTE ] His exceptional running ability pushed him into very very good. He was a top 5 QB. 
|
|
#343
10-23-2007, 11:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Also, while Culpepper put up some good numbers over 4 years, I don't think he ever qualified as "very, very good," by NFL standards. [/ QUOTE ] ??????????????????????????????????????????????? [/ QUOTE ] He stepped in to a very very good offense and managed to be nearly as good as the washed up mediocre QBs who preceded him. My main complaints are just that he was never good at getting the ball out quickly and while he had a very strong arm, he wasn't terribly accurate. While very athletic, his "pocket presence" left a lot to be desired. He also fumbled WAY too much. 78 times in 80 games in MN. 1998 Cunningham, 8.7y/a (next best was 7.7) 1999 George, 8.6y/a (next best was 7.5) 2000 Cullpepper 8.3y/a 2001 Cullpepper 7.1y/a 2002 Cullpepper 7.0y/a 2003 Cullpepper 7.7y/a 2004 Cullpepper 8.6y/a 2005 Cullpepper 7.2y/a (12int in 7 games) 2004 games w/ Moss 9.03y/a (11 games) 2004 games w/o Moss 7.1y/a (5 games) I didn't/don't mean to imply that I don't think he was any good, he was. I just think that if you judge him based solely on the numbers he put up, you will have an unrealistically high opinion of him. [/ QUOTE ] His exceptional running ability pushed him into very very good. He was a top 5 QB. [/ QUOTE ] This is true, and his struggles in 2005 are a little exaggerated as well. He threw 5 INTs in that Cincinatti game but I don't think any of them came until they were already down several scores, and most of them came when they were WAY down. And he didn't just lose Moss. He lost Moss and Birk and Linehan. Its really unfortunate that the injury appears to have completely wrecked him, because I am a huge biased Daunte fan and would have loved to see what his career looked like for 5 or 6 years without Moss. I'm sure he would have suffered LDO but I always thought he got a really bum rap. At least within the Twin Cities. He fumbled a lot, but his fumbles lost stats arent NEARLY as bad and are much more in line with a QB who runs as much as he does. Obv fumbles lost has a lot more variance and luck than just straight fumbles, though.
|
|
#344
10-24-2007, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
i just noticed you tried to discredit culp's performance in 04 by showing the splits. for one, moss played 13 games so i don't know where you get five games from. secondly, look who he had -- correction, made -- outside of moss:
Nate Burleson: 68 rec, 1006 yds, 14.8 avg, 9 TDs, 6th in DPAR and DVOA Marcus Robinson: 47 rec, 657 yds, 14.0 avg, 8 TDs, 38th in DPAR and 36th in DVOA And though he didn't get enough passes, Kelly Campbell had a 26.6% DVOA, which was better tham Moss's 24.1%...
|
|
#345
10-24-2007, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
[ QUOTE ]
He fumbled a lot, but his fumbles lost stats arent NEARLY as bad and are much more in line with a QB who runs as much as he does. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have any way of proving it, but I suspect that very few of Culpepper's fumbles were the result of open field running. I don't think you can attribute his exceptionally high fumble rate to the fact that he is a scrambler.
|
|
#346
10-24-2007, 03:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
QBs who run usually fumble more than those who don't. I'm pretty positive it's a noticeable trend. I think that is what he was touching on.
|
|
#347
10-24-2007, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
[ QUOTE ]
i just noticed you tried to discredit culp's performance in 04 by showing the splits. for one, moss played 13 games so i don't know where you get five games from. secondly, look who he had -- correction, made -- outside of moss: Nate Burleson: 68 rec, 1006 yds, 14.8 avg, 9 TDs, 6th in DPAR and DVOA Marcus Robinson: 47 rec, 657 yds, 14.0 avg, 8 TDs, 38th in DPAR and 36th in DVOA And though he didn't get enough passes, Kelly Campbell had a 26.6% DVOA, which was better tham Moss's 24.1%... [/ QUOTE ] First, I said Moss played 11 games, which is essentially correct. There were 2 other games after he got hurt in which he appeared but it was basically just to keep his "consecutive starts" streak alive... and yes I realize how dumb that sounds, but I'm pretty sure it is true. Second, what point were you trying to prove by listing all the other receivers? Whatever it was, you missed Jermaine Wiggins (16 DPAR) and the 4 RBs who comined for a 30.5 DPAR receiving. In the games Moss was out Culpepper was like the master of the check-down. And fine, in 2004 he was very good. Its just that before that he was average and afterwards he was bad. At no point during his career, except for maybe in the offseason after 2004, would I have drafted him in the top5 in a Madden style league draft... and even then it would be close.
|
|
#348
10-24-2007, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
The only thing you could possibly be implying by showing w/ Moss and w/o Moss is that Culpepper's numbers were largely inflated by playing with Moss that season. In which case doesn't explain the career years of basically every other pass-catcher who played alongside Culpepper in 2004, years they have not come close to remotely repeating.
In 2004 he wasn't just "very good." He was absolutely incredibly amazing, posting the 3rd highest DPAR for a QB in this century and the highest for any QB not named Peyton Manning. Nearly 70% completion percentage yet 8.6 Y/A? 41 TDs to 11 picks and 5123 total yards? We're talking about one of the greatest seasons from a QB ever that only got overshadowed because Peyton Manning had THE greatest season ever. I don't know where your hate of Culpepper is coming from. He's had three top 5 QB seasons.
|
|
#349
10-24-2007, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He fumbled a lot, but his fumbles lost stats arent NEARLY as bad and are much more in line with a QB who runs as much as he does. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have any way of proving it, but I suspect that very few of Culpepper's fumbles were the result of open field running. I don't think you can attribute his exceptionally high fumble rate to the fact that he is a scrambler. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know how to refute that. Except to say that, due to his ability to scramble, he held the ball a lot longer than many other QBs, since he was almost never looking to throw the ball away. Which led to more hits and more fumbles. These fumbles ALSO should be discounted because of his running ability. But yeah he fumbled the center snap a lot too I guess. Which is bad but not nearly as bad as an INT or even a sack.
|
|
#350
10-24-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Official \"Tom Brady re-writes the record books in 2007\" Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He fumbled a lot, but his fumbles lost stats arent NEARLY as bad and are much more in line with a QB who runs as much as he does. [/ QUOTE ] I don't have any way of proving it, but I suspect that very few of Culpepper's fumbles were the result of open field running. I don't think you can attribute his exceptionally high fumble rate to the fact that he is a scrambler. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know how to refute that. Except to say that, due to his ability to scramble, he held the ball a lot longer than many other QBs, since he was almost never looking to throw the ball away. Which led to more hits and more fumbles. These fumbles ALSO should be discounted because of his running ability. But yeah he fumbled the center snap a lot too I guess. Which is bad but not nearly as bad as an INT or even a sack. [/ QUOTE ] I'd love to see a breakdown of QB fumbles, something like: snaps, handoffs, sacks, other. It really is absurd to lump them all together. Also, I think a fumbled snap has got to be worse than taking a sack. The extra burden of a couple more yards is going to be more than offset by the times the defense recovers the fumbled snap, although the addition of the times a sacked QB fumbles probably makes it pretty close.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
