AirScott Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jul 25, 2005 -> 01:45 PM) Kinda like the Redskins and Dan Snyder; eh? Yea. See how that works out for them. Incohesiveness will sink them.. theyll finish last. the Vikings situation is nothing like the Redskins. they'd been bad for years and adding free agents didn't help. the Vikings were a great offensive team with no defense, now they're a good offensive team with a solid defense. that'll get them 2 more wins than last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Tomlinson rushed for 3.9 yards/carry. Henry carried for 4.4 and 4.1 in 02 and 03, and McGahee 4.0 yards/carry. Jones had 4.0, missed 2 games and split a bunch of carries with Anthony Thomas. and besides, Tomlinson is arguably the best running back in the NFL. so in years past when he rushed for more yards per carry, he was succeeding with nothing. I'd say great players succeed when they have nothing, and Thomas Jones is not a great player. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tomlinson played the whole season with a bad groin. He would've gone for 5.0 + if he had been 100%. Dont compare Jones to any good HB in the NFL. He's a bust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 the Vikings situation is nothing like the Redskins. they'd been bad for years and adding free agents didn't help. the Vikings were a great offensive team with no defense, now they're a good offensive team with a solid defense. that'll get them 2 more wins than last year. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We'll see how Culpepper does without Randy Moss; I think they'll finish below #15 in offense. No Smith, No Moss. Not too mention how often get Bennett gets hurt. Culpepper is a good QB, but he isnt good enough to win a division with a rookie as his #1. The Defense on that team was terrible. No matter what you say. They were piss-poor, 2 good players. They still have 2. Smoot is solid, Sharper is too old, Pat Williams can only play 1/2 the downs. Not to mention they have one of the worst LB trios in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palehosefan Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Should help Carolina even more, nice deal as long as its not a 1st or 2nd round choice. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=2118132 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 03:45 AM) We'll see how Culpepper does without Randy Moss; I think they'll finish below #15 in offense. No Smith, No Moss. Not too mention how often get Bennett gets hurt. Culpepper is a good QB, but he isnt good enough to win a division with a rookie as his #1. The Defense on that team was terrible. No matter what you say. They were piss-poor, 2 good players. They still have 2. Smoot is solid, Sharper is too old, Pat Williams can only play 1/2 the downs. Not to mention they have one of the worst LB trios in the league. I wouldn't count Smith as an important part of that offense. Bennett at his best is the best RB on that team, and even if he does go down, they can plug in Meweldi Moore or Ciarick Fason. Williamson isn't going to be the #1 receiver on that team, they've got Burlison, Taylor etc. to start. Who cares if Williams only plays 1/2 the downs if he's a top 5 run stuffer in the league which is what he's being PAID to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jul 27, 2005 -> 12:45 PM) We'll see how Culpepper does without Randy Moss; I think they'll finish below #15 in offense. No Smith, No Moss. Not too mention how often get Bennett gets hurt. Culpepper didn't have Randy Moss for about 5 games last year(IIRC, weeks 7-11). He wasn't awful, but he was not horrible by any means(too lazy to post, but you can see his splits here). Now that they have "replacements" for Moss in Williamson and Taylor, that Culpepper is gonna be worse? I think not That, and the fact that they also do have Mewelde Moore and Ciatrick Fason, along with Moe Williams still as well. Losing Smith means very little to them at all. It's not like the Dolphins losing Ricky Williams...it's more like the Broncos losing Quentin Griffin/Reuben Droughns. Culpepper is a good QB, but he isnt good enough to win a division with a rookie as his #1. Nate Burleson's 68 catches, 1006 receiving yards, and and 9 TD catches as the #2 receiver much of the year is not worthy of being the #1 receiver in Minnesota? The Defense on that team was terrible. No matter what you say. They were piss-poor, 2 good players. They still have 2. Smoot is solid, Sharper is too old, Pat Williams can only play 1/2 the downs. Not to mention they have one of the worst LB trios in the league. The defense was bad...but they added depth to an already very good defensive line, they added depth to the secondary(and I'm sure Sharper is better than Brian Russell). The defense is improved, and I would venture to guess that they are a team that will probably gel in the second half, rather than the first half, with so many new faces on defense. Or perhaps they will be very good offensively in the first half and poor or inconsistent defensively and later on their offense will start to falter while their defense begins to gel. They got Pat Williams to stuff the run...something they had no chance of doing last year, at any point. They are getting exactly what they paid for. I would be very, very surprised if the Vikings do not win the NFC North. It would take a hell of an emergence by some other team, or it would take the Vikings to underachieve very badly for anything like that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 07:25 AM) Nate Burleson's 68 catches, 1006 receiving yards, and and 9 TD catches as the #2 receiver much of the year is not worthy of being the #1 receiver in Minnesota? That was with most of the defense's attention towards Moss..... their WR core is crap now w/out Moss but I think their offense will be ok. Culpepper is a better QB than some people give him credit for and their running game is pretty good... But its definitely wont be near as good as it was with Moss... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 03:41 AM) That was with most of the defense's attention towards Moss..... their WR core is crap now w/out Moss but I think their offense will be ok. Culpepper is a better QB than some people give him credit for and their running game is pretty good... But its definitely wont be near as good as it was with Moss... That was also with the defense knowing Minnesota is going to pass it almost every down. Minnesota's run game will be much more involved this year, even in losing Smith. A 4 headed beast of Bennett, Williams, Moore, and Fason will be enough of a running game for Minnesota, since all could probably be starting on bad teams, or being a good 2nd back on almost all teams. You start to mix in the play-action more, and Burleson will be open just as much in all likelyhood. That is a good point, because Burleson was not nearly as solid as the #1 last year with Moss out then he was with Moss in...he had 1 big game(11 rec, 141 yds, TD against GB...then again, my grandma could have a good game receiving against GB's secondary), 3 very mediocre games(6 for 53 against Tennessee, 6 for 43 against the Giants with a TD, and then 5 for 52 against Detroit with a TD), and 1 bad game(1 for 8, a TD, against Indianapolis). You just consider that the Vikings do have a lot of depth at WR(Burleson, Robinson, Taylor, Williamson, Campbell on his fly patterns), and how good Culpepper really is, and I think they will be just fine offensively. Culpepper won't throw for 4700 yards again in all likelyhood, but somewhere around 3500-4000 would probably be more reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 W/out Moss their recieiving core is just a bunch of avg. players 2-3's.... Burleson, Taylor, and Robinson all are solid 2's but none are a 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 06:31 PM) W/out Moss their recieiving core is just a bunch of avg. players 2-3's.... Burleson, Taylor, and Robinson all are solid 2's but none are a 1. I think I hinted at that in my post. And I really still do not think it matters. They have a crazy amount of depth in that receiving corps...4 players all basically at the same skill level, all having their own special talents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 11:33 PM) I think I hinted at that in my post. And I really still do not think it matters. They have a crazy amount of depth in that receiving corps...4 players all basically at the same skill level, all having their own special talents. Are recieving core used to be like that Terrell, Booker, Robinson, Gage.... and look at how that worked... Booker and Robinson had some ok years but nothing special.... I guess its time to find out how good of a QB Culpepper really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev211 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 (edited) NFC NORTH: Bears NFC EAST: Eagles NFC SOUTH: Falcons NFC WEST: Cardinals NFC WILD CARD: Lions NFC WILD CARD: Rams AFC NORTH: Steelers AFC EAST: Patriots AFC SOUTH: Colts AFC WEST: Chargers AFC WILD CARD: Ravens AFC WILD CARD: Texans NFC Champion: Falcons AFC Champion: Patriots Super Bowl Champion: Patriots Bears Record: 10-6 Edited July 28, 2005 by ScottPodRulez22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev211 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 another prediction im certain that the packers will finish in last place in the nfc north Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirScott Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jul 27, 2005 -> 12:45 PM) We'll see how Culpepper does without Randy Moss; I think they'll finish below #15 in offense. No Smith, No Moss. Not too mention how often get Bennett gets hurt. Culpepper is a good QB, but he isnt good enough to win a division with a rookie as his #1. The Defense on that team was terrible. No matter what you say. They were piss-poor, 2 good players. They still have 2. Smoot is solid, Sharper is too old, Pat Williams can only play 1/2 the downs. Not to mention they have one of the worst LB trios in the league. Culpepper won't do as good without Moss, but Culpepper's no Jeff George, either. Burleson is his #1. he's not a rookie, he's in his 3rd year now. they HAD 2 players, then they ADDED 2 players. that gives them 4, and Sharper's old but better than what they had, and their LB corps is actually pretty solid with Cowart, Harris, and Thomas, who could have a big year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirScott Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(DukeNukeEm @ Jul 27, 2005 -> 12:39 PM) Tomlinson played the whole season with a bad groin. He would've gone for 5.0 + if he had been 100%. Dont compare Jones to any good HB in the NFL. He's a bust. did you even read that I also said Tomlinson is the best back in the NFL? I don't feel like repeating my posts from before, but Jones was a borderline bust, but he played pretty GOOD in Tampa Bay, came to Chicago, and did damn good without the help of a competent offensive line OR a passing game. those backs you've mentioned didn't play on teams that were desperate enough to sign Jeff George or start a 38 year old Chris Chandler or Craig Krenzel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(AirScott @ Jul 29, 2005 -> 12:12 AM) Culpepper won't do as good without Moss, but Culpepper's no Jeff George, either. Burleson is his #1. he's not a rookie, he's in his 3rd year now. they HAD 2 players, then they ADDED 2 players. that gives them 4, and Sharper's old but better than what they had, and their LB corps is actually pretty solid with Cowart, Harris, and Thomas, who could have a big year. You cant honestly believe their LB corps is good... Cowart will be injured and the other 2 are nothing special Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan1 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 08:26 PM) You cant honestly believe their LB corps is good... Cowart will be injured and the other 2 are nothing special Napoleon Harris is good....very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirScott Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 07:26 PM) You cant honestly believe their LB corps is good... Cowart will be injured and the other 2 are nothing special QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 07:32 PM) Napoleon Harris is good....very good. so maybe the other 1 is nothing special... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChWRoCk2 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 minnesotas defense is gonna be a sleeper this year, maybe worth a fantasy mention Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Jul 29, 2005 -> 12:32 AM) Napoleon Harris is good....very good. He is good.... not very good.... Before he was traded I bet half the people here didnt even know who he was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChWRoCk2 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 08:07 PM) He is good.... not very good.... Before he was traded I bet half the people here didnt even know who he was i knew who he was, and he is a solid LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Napoleon Harris IS NOT a VERY good linebacker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirScott Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 08:07 PM) He is good.... not very good.... Before he was traded I bet half the people here didnt even know who he was what does that matter? I knew who he was back when he was with Northwestern, but that's not the point, the point is he is a damn good athletic LB that will really help Minnesota's defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChWRoCk2 Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 08:16 PM) Napoleon Harris IS NOT a VERY good linebacker. hes an upgrade on who they had there before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirScott Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Jul 28, 2005 -> 08:39 PM) hes an upgrade on who they had there before he'd be an upgrade on a lot of teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.