Jets sign both 1st rounders

[nyjunc]

Vinny was in his 17th season when he started those 4 games in 03 and was on the decline, but I agree that Vinny was not the Jets only problem in 03. Chad only won 2 more games than Vinny did that year so, that says something. Brad was not a sure thing, but he was relatively young compared to Vinny. Last year was Brad’s 15th season as a pro, and Vinny was in his 17th when he started for you guys in 03. So, if you consider Vinny as a quality backup in 03, you have to consider Brad as an even better backup.

I never said Brad wasn't a quality backup but his career was clearly moving in the wrong direction until he took over that team last year.

As for Brad helping the Vikings beat the Giants; the Vikings had their worst offensive performance up to that point in the season. They won the game because they actually played defense and special teams. They were the first team in NFL history to have a kick, punt, and an interception returned for a TD.

You want to know why Brad was important despite poor #s and why #s can be meaningless at times? He didn't turn it over, he didn't try to do too much and it kept them in the game. Daunte is the type who will take chances and TOs meant the difference btw winning and losing, then when the Giants tied it he led Minny down for the GW FG taking over at Minny's 28 w/ 1:15 to play and he went 4 for 5 on the drive and set them up for the GW FG.

Brad had similar numbers against Pitt, but the rest of the team did not play as well as they did against NYG.

The difference is he made some Daunte-like mistakes. he had 2 INTs, 1 at the Pit 5 which prevented 3-7 points(the game was 3-0 Pitt at the time) and another in the Pitt EZ preventing points. That's a major reason why they lost that game.

The Vikings defense forced 22 turnovers during the 6 game win streak Brad had.

and Brad had just 2 INts and 1 fumble in that 6 game streak.

Do you really believe that the starter is responsible for the loss when he only attempted 4 passes in the game? In the 02 game against Jacksonville, Chad attempted 34 passes, with 1 int and no TDs, but he is not responsible for the loss Vinny attempted 4 passes with no turnovers.

it goes on the record. It was also Chad's 1st real action as a QB, a tough spot for him. If we give that loss to Chad then we need to take away the loss at Buff in '04 when he got hurt and we had the lead and we need to take away the Jax loss last year when he got hurt and we had the lead.

Chad gets the credit for the loss in games he came out in, because he got injured. If you can’t lead your team because you got injured, you should get credit for the loss.

Then why doesn't it apply when Vinny got injured in the Jax game?

Vinny attempted 4 passes in the game against the Jaguars, and 11 passes with a TD against the Eagles, and he should get credit for both losses? The backups are 5 - 7.

You just wrote "if you can't lead your team b/c you got injured, you should get credit for the loss". That doesnt' apply here? he wasn't injured in Philly but he had plenty of time to do things and his only success was a trick play for a TD. The backups are 5-9.

If Chad stays healthy this year, how many games do you think he will win as a starter? If he only wins 6 or 7, will you say he is a bad QB, or will you say it was because the team around him was bad? A QB needs a team around him to be successful.

If Chad is completely healthy and stays completely healthy we'll win 8-9 games. Chad's a winner, remember he took over when we were 1-4 in 2002 and led us to the division, we were 6-10 in '03 where he missed almost half the year and we went 10-6 when he came back. If he's truly healthy all year we'll be pretty good, if he's not all the way back and misses some games then that's different.

I am going away for a few weeks so I may not be able to respond to your response. It's been a good, civil debate and I look forward to debating more topics in the future. I'll have a computer and may be able to respond from time to time but I can't guarantee it so i'll try to respond when I get back.

 

[The New Guy]

You want to know why Brad was important despite poor #s and why #s can be meaningless at times? He didn't turn it over, he didn't try to do too much and it kept them in the game. Daunte is the type who will take chances and TOs meant the difference btw winning and losing, then when the Giants tied it he led Minny down for the GW FG taking over at Minny's 28 w/ 1:15 to play and he went 4 for 5 on the drive and set them up for the GW FG.

I agree that Brad did a good job at not turning the ball over, but when you have great special teams play, and play great defense, that takes a lot of pressure off the QB. Brad only had to help the Viking score 3 points to win that game.

Culpepper had some terrible games in 05, but those games came against much better teams than what Brad faced. When Brad played against teams that were similar to what Culpepper faced, he did not do so well. The Vikings were a mess in 05, and the only teams they could beat were bad teams.

The difference is he made some Daunte-like mistakes. he had 2 INTs, 1 at the Pit 5 which prevented 3-7 points(the game was 3-0 Pitt at the time) and another in the Pitt EZ preventing points. That's a major reason why they lost that game.

Every QB makes mistakes at times. Some teams have the ability to overcome those mistakes, and other teams don’t. In 2004 Culpepper threw 39 tds, and only 11 ints. He threw at least 1 Td in every game he played in, and only had three games where he threw more than 1 interception, yet the Vikings were 8-8.

If Culpepper had that kind of performance with the Dolphins, I am very certain that he would have won a lot more than 8 games.

Brad had just 2 INts and 1 fumble in that 6 game streak.

Good defensive play makes it easier not to turn the ball over. The Qb does not feel that he has to force things, and does not have to worry about the defense losing the game. In the 7 wins with Brad at QB, the Vikings defense averaged about 14 ppg. In the three losses with Brad the defense averaged about 28 ppg.

it goes on the record. It was also Chad's 1st real action as a QB, a tough spot for him.

It does not go on the record in my book. It does not matter to me if it was Chad’s first action as a QB, or not. I am counting the losses Chad is responsible for. The backup attempted 4 passes and had no turnovers in that game. There is no way that the backup QB can be held responsible for that game.

If we give that loss to Chad then we need to take away the loss at Buff in '04 when he got hurt and we had the lead and we need to take away the Jax loss last year when he got hurt and we had the lead.

The game against Buff you are talking about in 04, the Jets were losing the game by 7 points before Chad even got injured. On Jets last three possessions with Chad, he had two ints and one sack, and the score was 20 –10 before he left the game. Carter came with with 6:11 to go in the game. He threw a total of 3 passes, (2-3 one of which was a TD), but it was too late, the damage had been done. There is no way that Carter can be responsible for that loss. It is not like Chad was winning the game, and got hurt and Carter came in and blew the game for them.


The game you are talking about against Jax last year, the Jets were again down by 3 in the 3rd quarter before Chad even got injured. Jay came in and only attempted 3 passes (no turnovers) before Chad came back into that game. Chad was only out for 1 1/2 possessions, and played the rest of the game. Getting injured may be the reason why the Jets lost that game, but Chad is still responsible for the loss.

Then why doesn't it apply when Vinny got injured in the Jax game?

Because Vinny was only in the games for a little over 2:00 minutes, and only attempted 4 passes. He did not do anything that cost the Jets. It’s a totally different situation than Chad in 04.

You just wrote "if you can't lead your team b/c you got injured, you should get credit for the loss". That doesnt' apply here? he wasn't injured in Philly but he had plenty of time to do things and his only success was a trick play for a TD. The backups are 5-9.

I am talking about games where Chad still played when he was injured. The games against Jax and Buff, Chad was the guy. He made the mistakes, probably because he was injured, but he is still the guy who is responsible. You have to look at each QBs performance to determine who is responsible for the loss.

Vinny led the Jets to 10 point in three possessions against the Eagles. He was 7 – 11 with 1 Td, and no ints. Chad came in mid way through the third quarter, and the Jets were up by 3 points by the start of the fourth. Chad was the QB who threw two picks, (One which led to a Philly score in the fourth quarter) not Vinny.

It is crazy to say that the backup Qbs are responsible for those losses. Do you honestly feel that they are? What would you say if Vinny threw 3 pick and had put the Jets in a 21-0 hole, and then Chad came in and threw 4 tds and won the game? Would you still say the starter should get the credit for the win?

If Chad is completely healthy and stays completely healthy we'll win 8-9 games. Chad's a winner, remember he took over when we were 1-4 in 2002 and led us to the division, we were 6-10 in '03 where he missed almost half the year and we went 10-6 when he came back. If he's truly healthy all year we'll be pretty good, if he's not all the way back and misses some games then that's different.

It takes more than a good QB to win games. Chad played in 10 games in 03, and was 4-6. I think the Jets have other concerns besides the QB. I do believe the Jets will do better if they have a healthy Chad, but I don’t know if they can win 9 games. You did not answer my question though. I was asking “if” the Jets go 6-10 with a healthy Chad, will you say he is a bad QB, or will you say it was because the team around him was bad? My opinion of a QB is not solely based on his team’s record. I believe that you have to look at the Qb’s individual performance.

In 1985 the Dolphins won 12 games with Marino. That year he threw for 4,137 yds 30 tds and 21 ints.
The next year, Marino had an even better year at QB (4,746 yds 44 tds, and 23 ints), but the Dolphins only won 8 games.

In 1990 the Dolphins again won 12 games with Marino. That year he threw for 3,563 yds 21 tds and 11 ints.

The following year Marino had a better year at QB, (3,970 yds 25 tds and 13 ints) but the Dolphins only won 8 games.

You can have the best QB in the world, but if he is on a bad team, you are not going to win games.

I am going away for a few weeks so I may not be able to respond to your response. It's been a good, civil debate and I look forward to debating more topics in the future. I'll have a computer and may be able to respond from time to time but I can't guarantee it so i'll try to respond when I get back.

Thanks for letting me know. Have a great trip.

 

[nyjunc]

I agree that Brad did a good job at not turning the ball over, but when you have great special teams play, and play great defense, that takes a lot of pressure off the QB. Brad only had to help the Viking score 3 points to win that game.

It was 7-6 minny at the half, it wasn't like the D and Sts got them toa big lead, it was still critical that he didn't make big mistakes and he did not and he led them on the GW drive in the final minute. That's a game Minny loses w/ daunte.

Culpepper had some terrible games in 05, but those games came against much better teams than what Brad faced. When Brad played against teams that were similar to what Culpepper faced, he did not do so well. The Vikings were a mess in 05, and the only teams they could beat were bad teams.

Daunte didn't beat a team as good as the Giants, did he? when he faced playoff teams he was atrocious and the team had no chance. Brad was the QB for the only Giant home loss in the reg season(and they had 1 more home game then everyone else so they won 8 home games in '05) and the Pitt game was close throughout while daunte's leed team was blown out against playoff teams where they lost by an average of 22 points per game.

If Culpepper had that kind of performance with the Dolphins, I am very certain that he would have won a lot more than 8 games.

Maybe but remember he steps up in class in the AFC so those #s are a)very unlikely and b) teams have more ability to opvercome that than in the NFC.

Good defensive play makes it easier not to turn the ball over. The Qb does not feel that he has to force things, and does not have to worry about the defense losing the game. In the 7 wins with Brad at QB, the Vikings defense averaged about 14 ppg. In the three losses with Brad the defense averaged about 28 ppg.

why was it the D all of a sudden gave up over 10 PPg LESS w/ Brad? It's b/c he wasn't turning it over and when he did they lost.

The game against Buff you are talking about in 04, the Jets were losing the game by 7 points before Chad even got injured. On Jets last three possessions with Chad, he had two ints and one sack, and the score was 20 –10 before he left the game. Carter came with with 6:11 to go in the game. He threw a total of 3 passes, (2-3 one of which was a TD), but it was too late, the damage had been done. There is no way that Carter can be responsible for that loss. It is not like Chad was winning the game, and got hurt and Carter came in and blew the game for them.

The jets were up 10-7 in the 2nd qtr when Chad was hurt and the game was tied at 10 at the half. he clearly could not throw and for some reason they left him in. He should have been removed at the half.

The game you are talking about against Jax last year, the Jets were again down by 3 in the 3rd quarter before Chad even got injured. Jay came in and only attempted 3 passes (no turnovers) before Chad came back into that game. Chad was only out for 1 1/2 possessions, and played the rest of the game. Getting injured may be the reason why the Jets lost that game, but Chad is still responsible for the loss.

Chad was hurt and led us back for the tie and if Chrebet holds on to a catchable ball we win in regulation.

Vinny led the Jets to 10 point in three possessions against the Eagles. He was 7 – 11 with 1 Td, and no ints. Chad came in mid way through the third quarter, and the Jets were up by 3 points by the start of the fourth. Chad was the QB who threw two picks, (One which led to a Philly score in the fourth quarter) not Vinny.

10 pts and 7 of them were on a trick play that fooled Philly. Again it was Chad's 1st action back in months, I cannot fault him for that.

It is crazy to say that the backup Qbs are responsible for those losses. Do you honestly feel that they are? What would you say if Vinny threw 3 pick and had put the Jets in a 21-0 hole, and then Chad came in and threw 4 tds and won the game? Would you still say the starter should get the credit for the win?

That's how they keep the records. Glen Foley has a career record that includes ZERO wins yet he led us from behind twice for wins.

It takes more than a good QB to win games. Chad played in 10 games in 03, and was 4-6. I think the Jets have other concerns besides the QB. I do believe the Jets will do better if they have a healthy Chad, but I don’t know if they can win 9 games. You did not answer my question though. I was asking “if†the Jets go 6-10 with a healthy Chad, will you say he is a bad QB, or will you say it was because the team around him was bad? My opinion of a QB is not solely based on his team’s record. I believe that you have to look at the Qb’s individual performance.

8-9 was before i knew Curtis may be out. I still think if Chad is healthy and we get decent OL play we'll win 7-9 games but I'm not sure he can stay healthy so i am thinking 6-7 wins.

IF we go 6-10 w/ Chad it's not necessarily a poor reflection on him, he has been through 2 surgeries on his throwing shoulder the last 2 years. If he's 100% I think we'll win at least 8 but again I can't count on that.

In 1985 the Dolphins won 12 games with Marino. That year he threw for 4,137 yds 30 tds and 21 ints.
The next year, Marino had an even better year at QB (4,746 yds 44 tds, and 23 ints), but the Dolphins only won 8 games.

he had 23 INts and who knows how many fumbles plus marino was adifferent. he never had close to the talent that Daunte had around him. he had 2 good Wrs he made look much better than they were and never had a ground game. You can't compare the 2.

In 1990 the Dolphins again won 12 games with Marino. That year he threw for 3,563 yds 21 tds and 11 ints.

The following year Marino had a better year at QB, (3,970 yds 25 tds and 13 ints) but the Dolphins only won 8 games.

You are telling me that in 1 year the team completely lost it besides Marino? In '91 he had more INTs, you don't think that plays a role? In the week 17 game vs. the jets he had a couple of key TOs including 1 at the Jets goal line. If he's not forcing things there the Dolphins win that game and make the playoffs. I can't speak for the other games I didn't see but that game for sure his TOs had a huge impact.

You can have the best QB in the world, but if he is on a bad team, you are not going to win games.

I partially agree, a great QB can elevate a team which is why you guys never sucked w/ Dan. he never had a great team around him but he guided you to a SB and multiple title games and a ton of PO appearances. A QB cannot win on his own but a great QB can turn a bad team to mediocre, a mediocre team to good and a good team to great(see Tom Brady- actually NE was bad when he took over so he turned them from bad to great).

 

[Gardenhead]

False Start--D'Bustashaw Ferguson!!!

 

[The New Guy]

Welcome back nyjunc!

It was 7-6 minny at the half, it wasn't like the D and Sts got them toa big lead, it was still critical that he didn't make big mistakes and he did not and he led them on the GW drive in the final minute. That's a game Minny loses w/ daunte.

I give credit to Brad for not making mistakes, but he did not win that game. If a team scores 24 points and 21 of those points come from defense and special teams, I can’t give the credit to the QB. As for Minny losing that game with Culpepper, no one can know for sure, but I really doubt it. I am very confident that he could have completed 4 passes to get the Vikings in field goal range.

Daunte didn't beat a team as good as the Giants, did he? when he faced playoff teams he was atrocious and the team had no chance. Brad was the QB for the only Giant home loss in the reg season(and they had 1 more home game then everyone else so they won 8 home games in '05) and the Pitt game was close throughout while daunte's leed team was blown out against playoff teams where they lost by an average of 22 points per game.

Brad did not beat the Giants either, the special teams and defense did. Culpepper did play bad against good teams last year, but so did Brad. Like I said before, the Vikings were a mess last year. The first 6 games, Culpepper faced 4 pretty good teams and was 2-4. In the 10 games Johnson played, he only had to face 3 good teams (Car, NYG, Pitt) and was
7-3, and 1 win came against the Giants when special teams and defense scored most of the points.

why was it the D all of a sudden gave up over 10 PPg LESS w/ Brad? It's b/c he wasn't turning it over and when he did they lost.

That is a part of it, but they also had an easier schedule when Brad took over.

The jets were up 10-7 in the 2nd qtr when Chad was hurt and the game was tied at 10 at the half. he clearly could not throw and for some reason they left him in. He should have been removed at the half.

The score was 17-10 before the Jets even got the ball after the half. I agree that he probably should not have played the second half, but he did, and he is responsible for the loss.

Chad was hurt and led us back for the tie and if Chrebet holds on to a catchable ball we win in regulation.

I also agree, but Chad is still responsible for the loss.

10 pts and 7 of them were on a trick play that fooled Philly. Again it was Chad's 1st action back in months, I cannot fault him for that.

It does not matter to me how Vinny threw the TD, he did and led the Jets to 10 points. The Jets were leading the game by 3 points in the fourth with Chad at QB. Chad threw 2 picks in the fourth and cost the Jets the game. First action or not, he is responsible for the loss.

That's how they keep the records. Glen Foley has a career record that includes ZERO wins yet he led us from behind twice for wins.

That may be how they keep records, but it is not how I keep records. I look at who is responsible for the wins and losses.

8-9 was before i knew Curtis may be out. I still think if Chad is healthy and we get decent OL play we'll win 7-9 games but I'm not sure he can stay healthy so i am thinking 6-7 wins.

IF we go 6-10 w/ Chad it's not necessarily a poor reflection on him, he has been through 2 surgeries on his throwing shoulder the last 2 years. If he's 100% I think we'll win at least 8 but again I can't count on that.

Hypothetically, if Chad was 100% healthy, (never had any shoulder surgeries in the past), and the Jets went 6-10 this year, would you say that Chad was a bad QB or would you say it was because the team around him was bad?

he had 23 INts and who knows how many fumbles plus marino was adifferent. he never had close to the talent that Daunte had around him. he had 2 good Wrs he made look much better than they were and never had a ground game. You can't compare the 2

He had 21 ints and who knows how many fumbles in 85, but the team still won 12 games. Why did the Dolphins win only 8 games the next year? It was because the team was worse.

You are telling me that in 1 year the team completely lost it besides Marino? In '91 he had more INTs, you don't think that plays a role? In the week 17 game vs. the jets he had a couple of key TOs including 1 at the Jets goal line. If he's not forcing things there the Dolphins win that game and make the playoffs. I can't speak for the other games I didn't see but that game for sure his TOs had a huge impact.

Marino only threw 2 more picks in 91 but the Dolphins lost 4 more games than they did the year before. I am not saying that Mariono did not cost the Dolphins any games, as I know he did, but he did not cost them 4 games. The Dolphins defense was 4th in points allowed in 1990 and 24th the following year. That played a major role in the 4 extra losses. It is the same in 85 and 86. They were 12th in 85, and 26th in 86.


Culpepper is a major upgrade over Frerotte, and I believe was the best QB we had a chance to get. It will be fun to see how he does now that he has a good defense on the other side of the ball.

 

[nyjunc]

Welcome back nyjunc!

thanks! 3 weeks is too long away but I did get to see the Jets in tampa a few weeks ago.

I give credit to Brad for not making mistakes, but he did not win that game.

I never said HE won the game I said that's a game minny would have lost w/ Daunte b/c he would have gotten frustrated, tried to force things and turn it over. The key to Minny having a chance in that game was no turnovers, if Brad throws an INt or fumbles and sets up the Giants they never have a chance to win so while he didn't necessarily play a good game he didn't play a bad game either and when the lights went on he marched them down for the GW FG.

Brad did not beat the Giants either, the special teams and defense did.

Brad didn't beat the Giants but a major reason the Vikes lost to Cincy, TB and Chi was Daunte so Brad didn't lose it either.

That is a part of it, but they also had an easier schedule when Brad took over.

How come the easy scheds in 2003 and 2004 didn't help Daunte? In 2003 it couldn't have been any easier w/ the playoffs on the line at 3-12 Arizona who had given up then in '04 at 5-10 Wash and he couldn't get it done. Schedule plays a role but just b/c you play an "easier" tam doesn't mean you chalk it up as a W and under Brad Minny took care of business against lesser teams. Under Brad they lost to 1 team w/ a losing record in '05 while in '04 under Daunte they did it 3 times including week 17 when they thought the playoffs were on the line and in '03 they lost to FIVE teams w/ losing records. Dosn' Brad get credit for only losing 1 when under daunte they did it more consistently?

The score was 17-10 before the Jets even got the ball after the half. I agree that he probably should not have played the second half, but he did, and he is responsible for the loss.

That was coaching error, the Jets were up 10-7 and it was tied 10-10 at the half and he should have been removed no later than the half.

Hypothetically, if Chad was 100% healthy, (never had any shoulder surgeries in the past), and the Jets went 6-10 this year, would you say that Chad was a bad QB or would you say it was because the team around him was bad?

If Chad was 100% healthy and played all 16 games I don't think we'd win only 6 but disregarding that it's hard to say what I would think b/c there are circumstances. Did he play well in big spots? If he threw big INts or had big fumbles that cost us games I'd say Chad had a bad year, actaully if we go 6-10 he has had a bad year regardless. It doesn't make him bad, if he was healthy again in '07 and had similar results then i'd started talking about bad.

He had 21 ints and who knows how many fumbles in 85, but the team still won 12 games. Why did the Dolphins win only 8 games the next year? It was because the team was worse.

How did the team get so much worse in 1 year? Maybe they relied TOO MUCH on the pass in '86? You ran it almost 100 times less in '86 than you did in '85 and probably had quicker drives b/c of it thus sending out more tired D's on the field. it's hard to give reasons when I am just looking at #s.

Marino only threw 2 more picks in 91 but the Dolphins lost 4 more games than they did the year before. I am not saying that Mariono did not cost the Dolphins any games, as I know he did, but he did not cost them 4 games.

In '91 the division was tougher which could have been a reason for the dropoff. basically Mia and Buf ran away from the other 3 in '90 but in '91 Buf ran away w/ it while the next 3 were w/in 2 games of each other. In '90 you swept us and in '91 we swept you- that's 2 games right there.

Culpepper is a major upgrade over Frerotte, and I believe was the best QB we had a chance to get. It will be fun to see how he does now that he has a good defense on the other side of the ball.

Physically no doubt but to me the extra money and the extra expectations aren't worth it for a guy who has never been a winner. Maybe things change and all of a sudden he can get it done in big spots but w/o a trip deep into the playoffs this trade was a bust, not quite as bad as the Ricky trade but it can set your program back a couple of years if you are looking for a new QB in '07 or '09.

Frerotte is not a great QB but he did help you win 9 games w/ a mediocre team while w/ Daunte's "great" year of '04 where he set all kinds of records he led his team to 8 wins in a terrible div and conf. The perfect scenario for you guys would have been to keep Gus as a backup.

 

[The New Guy]

thanks! 3 weeks is too long away but I did get to see the Jets in tampa a few weeks ago

Cool! I watched that game on T.V.

Brad didn't beat the Giants but a major reason the Vikes lost to Cincy, TB and Chi was Daunte so Brad didn't lose it either.

Daunte was a part of the reason the Vikings lost to those teams, but there were other areas that cost them those games. Culpepper did throw a 4th quarter Int against Tampa, but it was the defense that gave up the 70 yard TD run by Williams. Culpepper did have 5 turnovers against Cincy, but it was the defense that gave up a 70 yard TD pass the second play of the game. It was the defense that had the Vikings in a 27-0 hole at halftime.

How come the easy scheds in 2003 and 2004 didn't help Daunte? In 2003 it couldn't have been any easier w/ the playoffs on the line at 3-12 Arizona who had given up then in '04 at 5-10 Wash and he couldn't get it done. Schedule plays a role but just b/c you play an "easier" tam doesn't mean you chalk it up as a W and under Brad Minny took care of business against lesser teams. Under Brad they lost to 1 team w/ a losing record in '05 while in '04 under Daunte they did it 3 times including week 17 when they thought the playoffs were on the line and in '03 they lost to FIVE teams w/ losing records. Dosn' Brad get credit for only losing 1 when under daunte they did it more consistently?

Just because the team was bad does not mean Daunte was bad. How can you blame Daunte for the week 17 loss in Arizona? The last two drives he led the Vikings to 10 points and a 17-6 lead with under 6 minutes in the game. He never saw the field again after that, and the defense gave up the 12 points. How is Culpepper at fault?

In 04, Culpepper only cost the Vikings 1 game against the Bears. It was the defense that cost the Vikings the rest of the games including giving up game winning drives against the Packers twice, and the Colts.

I give Brad credit for not turning the ball over, but it is a two way street. Brad did not turn the ball over in part because the defense was playing much better.

If Chad was 100% healthy and played all 16 games I don't think we'd win only 6 but disregarding that it's hard to say what I would think b/c there are circumstances. Did he play well in big spots? If he threw big INts or had big fumbles that cost us games I'd say Chad had a bad year, actaully if we go 6-10 he has had a bad year regardless. It doesn't make him bad, if he was healthy again in '07 and had similar results then i'd started talking about bad.

Yes, there are circumstances. Daunte has cost the Vikings some games, but the reason the Vikings were bad in 2003 and 2004 was not all Daunte’s fault. I don’t just look at a record when I am judging a QB, because I know there are other reason why a team can be bad.

How did the team get so much worse in 1 year? Maybe they relied TOO MUCH on the pass in '86? You ran it almost 100 times less in '86 than you did in '85 and probably had quicker drives b/c of it thus sending out more tired D's on the field. it's hard to give reasons when I am just looking at #s

.

Maybe so, but is that the QB’s fault? Dan played just as well as he did in 85, but for whatever reason the team only won 8 games. My point is, you can have good Qb play and still not win many games.

Physically no doubt but to me the extra money and the extra expectations aren't worth it for a guy who has never been a winner. Maybe things change and all of a sudden he can get it done in big spots but w/o a trip deep into the playoffs this trade was a bust, not quite as bad as the Ricky trade but it can set your program back a couple of years if you are looking for a new QB in '07 or '09.

Frerotte is not a great QB but he did help you win 9 games w/ a mediocre team while w/ Daunte's "great" year of '04 where he set all kinds of records he led his team to 8 wins in a terrible div and conf. The perfect scenario for you guys would have been to keep Gus as a backup.

I really doubt we will be looking for a new QB in 07, and I would not consider this trade a bust if we don’t go deep in the playoffs. If we make the playoffs, it will be an improvement over last year. You say Culpepper has never been a winner, but you would rather Frerotte be your QB. Frerotte has lost more games than he had won, and has never won a playoff game in his entire career. You give Freotte the credit for helping us win 9 games, but don’t think our defense and running game had anything to do with it? Don’t get me wrong, I liked Frerotte and thought he played well for us, but he is not even close to Culpepper.


Culpepper only won 8 games in 04 because he had a bad team around him. Put Frerotte with the Vikings in 04 and I doubt they win 6 games. I think you will see a more wins for Culpepper now that he is on a better team. No matter how you look at it, Culpepper is a huge upgrade.

 

[nyjunc]

Daunte was a part of the reason the Vikings lost to those teams, but there were other areas that cost them those games. Culpepper did throw a 4th quarter Int against Tampa, but it was the defense that gave up the 70 yard TD run by Williams. Culpepper did have 5 turnovers against Cincy, but it was the defense that gave up a 70 yard TD pass the second play of the game. It was the defense that had the Vikings in a 27-0 hole at halftime.

The Cincy game I'll buy, it wouldn't have mattered who the QB was so even as atrocious as Daunte was I can't blame him but the Minny game he played a large role in the outcome. he threw 3 INTs and lost a fumble. That's 4 TOs in a pretty close game including 1 INT at the TB 7 in the first half and a 2nd one w/ 4 mins left trailing 17-13 at the TB 6. Following that backbreaking INt is when Williams had the long run but you can't blame the D for that loss when your QB turns it over 4 times including 2 inside the TB 10.

Just because the team was bad does not mean Daunte was bad. How can you blame Daunte for the week 17 loss in Arizona? The last two drives he led the Vikings to 10 points and a 17-6 lead with under 6 minutes in the game. He never saw the field again after that, and the defense gave up the 12 points. How is Culpepper at fault?

That team was on a 7 game losing streak, that D was giving up 33 points a game during that losing streak but Daunte only led them to 17 pts. The D held them to 6 points through 3 qtrs, the O has to get some speration in that time but they let Ari hang around. he also had 2 more TOs including one that led to 3 pts for Arizona.

In 04, Culpepper only cost the Vikings 1 game against the Bears. It was the defense that cost the Vikings the rest of the games including giving up game winning drives against the Packers twice, and the Colts.

He and his O put up 10 pts in the competitive portion of the Washington game(they scored a garbage time TD w/ 2 secs left). Daunte's stats LOOK pretty as he was 27 of 44 for 299 yds w/ 2 TDs and 0 INTs w/ a 97 rating BUT as w/ his career he puts up nice #s but fails to lead his team to wins in big games. 10 pts against a 5-10 team w/ what they thought was the season on the line is just not cutting it. Blame the D all you want but it was the failures of Daunte and the O that cost them.

I give Brad credit for not turning the ball over, but it is a two way street. Brad did not turn the ball over in part because the defense was playing much better.

The D was playing much better b/c Brad wasn't turning it over and wasn't putting them in bad spots every single week.

Yes, there are circumstances. Daunte has cost the Vikings some games, but the reason the Vikings were bad in 2003 and 2004 was not all Daunte’s fault. I don’t just look at a record when I am judging a QB, because I know there are other reason why a team can be bad.

I never said it was all his fault, my point has been Daunte is not a winner as he doesn't show up in big games. The D gets blame as well as does the STs, alot of those losses were team efforts but Daunte is the leader, he's the guy who gets credit when they win and when he plays poorly in big games he deserves blame for losses.

I really doubt we will be looking for a new QB in 07, and I would not consider this trade a bust if we don’t go deep in the playoffs. If we make the playoffs, it will be an improvement over last year. You say Culpepper has never been a winner, but you would rather Frerotte be your QB. Frerotte has lost more games than he had won, and has never won a playoff game in his entire career. You give Freotte the credit for helping us win 9 games, but don’t think our defense and running game had anything to do with it? Don’t get me wrong, I liked Frerotte and thought he played well for us, but he is not even close to Culpepper.

I would only rather have kept Freotte for cap purposes. No he isn't as good as Daunte but when you compare the salaries and production of the team it doesn't justify getting a Daunte. I'd rather go 9-7 w/ a cheap QB and have more cap room than go 9-7 or 10-6 w/ an expensive QB.

The deal does become a bust w/o a deep playoff run. You can make the WC this year or next year but that doesn't justify the deal. Teams don't make big moves like this just to make it to the WC rd.

Culpepper only won 8 games in 04 because he had a bad team around him. Put Frerotte with the Vikings in 04 and I doubt they win 6 games. I think you will see a more wins for Culpepper now that he is on a better team. No matter how you look at it, Culpepper is a huge upgrade.

In Gus's 2003 starts for Minny he won both games, I'm pretty sure the Vikes win at least 8 w/ Gus in '04. Daunte only had 15 TOs in '04 so he doesn't get the bulk of the blame BUT you can't put up 10 pts in a game that was supposed to determine their season especially a year after putting up only 17 against a team that was giving up 33/gm.

In week 2 of '04 he fumbled at the philly 1 w/ his team down 10-6. That's a HUGE play and a momentum swinging play and Philly never looked back after that play. Blame the D but who knows what happens if they score a TD there instead of coming away empty?

Against the Giants he had 3 TOs. One was down 10-0 early he threw one at the NYG 25 and it was returned to the Minny 36 and led to a Giant TD, another was at the NYG 34 and returned near midfield and led to a NYG TD. Blame the D all you want but the D only allowed 283 net yards.

The Indy and 2 GB games he did nothing to help them lose, he was very good but the D let them down.

The Chi game they lost 24-14 and he had 3 INTs and 1 fumble. W/ the game scoreless he threw an INT at the Chi 11 and they returned it to the Minny 37 leading to a Chi TD. Then w/ 1st and G from the Chi 3 he throws another INt and this one os returned to the Chi 45(luckily for Daunte the D held). Daunte then fumbled at his own 14 but luckily for him his D got it right back w/ a TO. Daunte threw 1 more INT at the Chi 12.

That's FOUR TOs, 3 inside the Chi 10. He didn't cost them any games in '04? All Minny needed was a QB who could protect the ball and they have 9 or 10 wins in 2004.

 

[The New Guy]

The Cincy game I'll buy, it wouldn't have mattered who the QB was so even as atrocious as Daunte was I can't blame him but the Minny game he played a large role in the outcome. he threw 3 INTs and lost a fumble. That's 4 TOs in a pretty close game including 1 INT at the TB 7 in the first half and a 2nd one w/ 4 mins left trailing 17-13 at the TB 6. Following that backbreaking INt is when Williams had the long run but you can't blame the D for that loss when your QB turns it over 4 times including 2 inside the TB 10.

Looking back at the play by play on that game, Culpepper does deserves the blame for the Tampa loss. I did not think he threw that pick so late in the game. Minny was a Mess in 2005 though. The offensive line allowed too much pressure on Culpepper, which I believe is one of the reasons for the turnovers.

That team was on a 7 game losing streak, that D was giving up 33 points a game during that losing streak but Daunte only led them to 17 pts. The D held them to 6 points through 3 qtrs, the O has to get some speration in that time but they let Ari hang around. he also had 2 more TOs including one that led to 3 pts for Arizona.

On any given Sunday right? Culpepper did his job. The Vikings were winning the game 17-6 with 6 minutes left in the game, and he never saw the field again. If the special teams recover the onside kick, there is no way the Cardinals win that game. You can’t blame Daunte for not blowing teams out. He led the Vikings to 10 points the last two drives he was on the field. A 17-6 lead with 6 minutes to go should have been enough for the Vikings defense and special teams to win that game.

He and his O put up 10 pts in the competitive portion of the Washington game(they scored a garbage time TD w/ 2 secs left). Daunte's stats LOOK pretty as he was 27 of 44 for 299 yds w/ 2 TDs and 0 INTs w/ a 97 rating BUT as w/ his career he puts up nice #s but fails to lead his team to wins in big games. 10 pts against a 5-10 team w/ what they thought was the season on the line is just not cutting it. Blame the D all you want but it was the failures of Daunte and the O that cost them.

Daunte is only the QB, he can’t do it all. He did his job and had no turnovers. It is not his fault the running backs rushed for only 28 yds on 12 carries. He ran for 24 yards himself on 2 carries. Football is a team sport, and it takes a team effort to win games.

The D was playing much better b/c Brad wasn't turning it over and wasn't putting them in bad spots every single week.

In 2004 in the 8 games the Vikings lost, the defense gave up a score on the first drive of the game in 6 of those 8 games. I call that putting the team in a bad spot to start the game. In the 7 games that the Vikings won with Brad in 05, the defense only gave up points on the opening drive twice, (Bears, Lions) and they were only field goals.

Daunte is the leader, he's the guy who gets credit when they win and when he plays poorly in big games he deserves blame for losses.

I agree. When Daunte plays poorly in big games he gets the blame, but a lot of times there are reasons why he plays poorly. (defense putting them in a hole, offense allowing to much pressure, no running game Ect…) Every Qb has turnovers, but some teams have the ability to overcome them while others do not. I think Daunte is in a much better situation now, and I believe he will have a much better win/loss record with the Dolphins than he did with the Vikings.

I would only rather have kept Freotte for cap purposes. No he isn't as good as Daunte but when you compare the salaries and production of the team it doesn't justify getting a Daunte. I'd rather go 9-7 w/ a cheap QB and have more cap room than go 9-7 or 10-6 w/ an expensive QB.

That is assuming we would win 9 games again if Frerotte had stayed. Other things have changed for the Dolphins (Ricky suspension, new secondary , coaches Ect..) Hopefully, the new guys play well like I think they should, but anything can happen in the NFL. If we don't go deep in the playoffs that would not be a direct reflection on the QB. I would have to see how Daunte plays.

The deal does become a bust w/o a deep playoff run. You can make the WC this year or next year but that doesn't justify the deal. Teams don't make big moves like this just to make it to the WC rd.

Teams make moves to improve each position. If we get better QB play, then it was a good move regardless of how many games we win.

In Gus's 2003 starts for Minny he won both games, I'm pretty sure the Vikes win at least 8 w/ Gus in '04. Daunte only had 15 TOs in '04 so he doesn't get the bulk of the blame BUT you can't put up 10 pts in a game that was supposed to determine their season especially a year after putting up only 17 against a team that was giving up 33/gm.

Culpepper was the Vikings offense in 2004. He scored 41 Tds and only had 11 Ints, and the Vikings only won 8 games with him at QB. Frerotte would have been hard pressed to match that kind of production. (Remember, Frerotte had a career high 18 tds last year, and his career low for ints in a full season is 11). The only way the Vikings would have won 8-9 games with Frerotte at is if the rest of the team stepped it up in a big way. The Vikings lost 8 games in 2004 because the defense was so bad. The games against the Packers (twice), and the Colts the defense let them drive for the game winning scores.

I don’t think that the Vikings would have even been in half of those games had Frerotte started for them.

In week 2 of '04 he fumbled at the philly 1 w/ his team down 10-6. That's a HUGE play and a momentum swinging play and Philly never looked back after that play. Blame the D but who knows what happens if they score a TD there instead of coming away empty?

Yes, that turnover was costly, but I don’t think it cost them the game. McNabb fumbled before that, so that was just a turnover that they did not capitalize on. It was the defense that let Philly score on the first drive after halftime. It was the special teams that missed a field goal in the fourth that could have cut the lead to 5 points, but instead Anderson misses, and the defense gives up 45 yd TD pass to Owens four plays later.

The Chi game they lost 24-14 and he had 3 INTs and 1 fumble. W/ the game scoreless he threw an INT at the Chi 11 and they returned it to the Minny 37 leading to a Chi TD. Then w/ 1st and G from the Chi 3 he throws another INt and this one os returned to the Chi 45(luckily for Daunte the D held). Daunte then fumbled at his own 14 but luckily for him his D got it right back w/ a TO. Daunte threw 1 more INT at the Chi 12.

That's FOUR TOs, 3 inside the Chi 10. He didn't cost them any games in '04? All Minny needed was a QB who could protect the ball and they have 9 or 10 wins in 2004.

I said he cost them the Chicago game. It was the other games were I do not feel it was Daunte’s fault. Culpepper has had plenty of bad decisions in his career, but so has every other Qb in the NFL. Manning has had playoff troubles, but would I take him on my team? In a second. There are reasons why Qbs have bad games. Part of it is the coaching, part of it is the defense, and part of it is how well the other phases of the game go. I truly believe that if you put Manning with the Pats, and put Brady with the Colts, you would have seen Brady struggle just like manning did the last few years.

We will never know, but that is just my opinion.

 

[nyjunc]

On any given Sunday right? Culpepper did his job. The Vikings were winning the game 17-6 with 6 minutes left in the game, and he never saw the field again. If the special teams recover the onside kick, there is no way the Cardinals win that game. You can’t blame Daunte for not blowing teams out. He led the Vikings to 10 points the last two drives he was on the field. A 17-6 lead with 6 minutes to go should have been enough for the Vikings defense and special teams to win that game

When you are playing a 3 win team in week 17 and fighting for a playoff spot you can't allow an any given Sunday moment. i know if the STs recover the OS kick and if the D doesnt' allow a prayer they win but it shouldn't have been close, 17 pts against that D is a pitiful performance and allowed Ari to hang around.

Daunte is only the QB, he can’t do it all. He did his job and had no turnovers. It is not his fault the running backs rushed for only 28 yds on 12 carries. He ran for 24 yards himself on 2 carries. Football is a team sport, and it takes a team effort to win games.

He gets the credit when he throws 40+ Tds so of course he deserves blame when the team doesn't produce pts in big games.

In 2004 in the 8 games the Vikings lost, the defense gave up a score on the first drive of the game in 6 of those 8 games. I call that putting the team in a bad spot to start the game. In the 7 games that the Vikings won with Brad in 05, the defense only gave up points on the opening drive twice, (Bears, Lions) and they were only field goals.

and most games it took Daunte multiple possessions to score thus allowing the team to fall behind big early and climbing out of a hole. the D played a big part but so did Daunte and his O.

I agree. When Daunte plays poorly in big games he gets the blame, but a lot of times there are reasons why he plays poorly. (defense putting them in a hole, offense allowing to much pressure, no running game Ect…)

There's also reasons why the D plays poorly and it had alot to do w/ bad TOs.

I think Daunte is in a much better situation now, and I believe he will have a much better win/loss record with the Dolphins than he did with the Vikings.

We'll see, he's in a much tougher conf now and even w/ the Jets and Bills down it's still a tougher division. He doesn't have as many weapons on O(he has excellent skill players but not quite as much as he had up until last year inMinny) but he has a better D(but not a big time D YET) so we'll see where it leads.

Teams make moves to improve each position. If we get better QB play, then it was a good move regardless of how many games we win.

I disagree completely, it's not about #s it's about wins. You brought Daunte in to win more games and if he puts up better #s but you go 8-8 then year 1 is a failure. Ricky had an all-time great season in 2002 but you missed the playoffs and after that he's never been the same so that trade was a miserable failure despite him putting up great #s in yr 1.

Culpepper was the Vikings offense in 2004. He scored 41 Tds and only had 11 Ints, and the Vikings only won 8 games with him at QB. Frerotte would have been hard pressed to match that kind of production.

You don't need to throw 41 TDs to win games, I gave you multiple instances where protecting the ball would have led to a few mroe wins. if they had a QB who protected the ball better they would have won more than 8.

 

[The New Guy]

When you are playing a 3 win team in week 17 and fighting for a playoff spot you can't allow an any given Sunday moment. i know if the STs recover the OS kick and if the D doesnt' allow a prayer they win but it shouldn't have been close, 17 pts against that D is a pitiful performance and allowed Ari to hang around.

You can’t control how a team is going to come out to play. The Cardinals had nothing to play for most of the season, but in week 17 they had several reasons to play hard. The bottom line is, Culpepper had them in position to win, and the rest of the team blew it. Culpepper had nothing to do with the rest of the game.

I disagree completely, it's not about #s it's about wins. You brought Daunte in to win more games and if he puts up better #s but you go 8-8 then year 1 is a failure. Ricky had an all-time great season in 2002 but you missed the playoffs and after that he's never been the same so that trade was a miserable failure despite him putting up great #s in yr 1.

Yes, the ultimate goal is to win games, but just because you improve in one area does not mean you are going to automatically win more games. Ricky was no doubt a lot better than Lamar Smith was, but we only won 9 games and missed the playoffs. The season was a failure, but the trade for Ricky was not. The Dolphins accomplished what they set out to do that offseason, improve the running game. The reason we missed the playoffs and only won 9 games had nothing to do with Ricky’s season. I agree that the Ricky Williams trade has not worked out so well, but not because we have not made the playoffs since we traded for him.

The Jets signed Ty Law in 2005, and their secondary was better, but the Jets only won 4 games. Does that mean that signing Ty Law was a bad move? Of course not. The Jets only won 4 games, because of injuries, which had nothing to do with Ty Law. That is not a great example because a Qb or Rb is much more important to a team, but I think you get my point.

I believe that if the Dolphins get better Qb play, they will win more games, but other things can happen which would not be a reflection on Daunte.

You don't need to throw 41 TDs to win games, I gave you multiple instances where protecting the ball would have led to a few mroe wins. if they had a QB who protected the ball better they would have won more than 8.

You win games by scoring Tds. I am aware that Daunte made some mistakes that led to points for the other team, but Daunte is also responsible for putting up most of the points for the Vikings offense in 2004. You can’t win games by just protecting the ball, you have to score points. Frerotte is not really a ball protecting Qb, but even if he was, I don’t see how the Vikings would have even been in half of those games unless the rest of the team stepped it up in some way. The Vikings defense averaged 24 ppg in the 8 wins that they did have. I don’t think Frerotte could have put up enough points to keep those games close, let alone win any of the 8 games that they did lose.

 

[DrewAlmighty]

False Start--D'Bustashaw Ferguson!!!

How's A.J. Feeley doing?

 

[nyjunc]

You can’t control how a team is going to come out to play. The Cardinals had nothing to play for most of the season, but in week 17 they had several reasons to play hard. The bottom line is, Culpepper had them in position to win, and the rest of the team blew it. Culpepper had nothing to do with the rest of the game.

you can't let a 3-12 team hang around when your season is on the line. The D held them down all day until midway through the 4th, there was plenty of time to put the game away and Daunte was unable to do so.

Yes, the ultimate goal is to win games, but just because you improve in one area does not mean you are going to automatically win more games. Ricky was no doubt a lot better than Lamar Smith was, but we only won 9 games and missed the playoffs. The season was a failure, but the trade for Ricky was not.

the trade for Ricky was not a failure? he was brought into help you get over the 2nd rd hump as you had made the playoffs 5 years in a row and 3 of them made the div rd yet you ahven't even made the playoffs once since you acquired him AND you gave up 2 1st rd picks. That was one of the worst trades in the history of the sport.

The Jets signed Ty Law in 2005, and their secondary was better, but the Jets only won 4 games. Does that mean that signing Ty Law was a bad move? Of course not. The Jets only won 4 games, because of injuries, which had nothing to do with Ty Law. That is not a great example because a Qb or Rb is much more important to a team, but I think you get my point.

Our secondary was not better in 2005 than 2004. The situations are completely different, we didn't give up 2 1st rd picks and we had an out after year 1 so the move wasn't good or bad. if we gave up picks then it would have been bad.

I believe that if the Dolphins get better Qb play, they will win more games, but other things can happen which would not be a reflection on Daunte.

This is where we differ, better QB play to you means better stats but better QB play to me means more wins. i'll take a few less TDs if in big moments my QB makes the right decisions and my team wins rather than great fantasy #s and screwing up in big moments and we lose.

You win games by scoring Tds.

Sure but they all don't have to be through the air, Minyn was too reliant on daunte when they shouldn't have been. In '04 he threw 41 TDs and they won just 8 games while in '05 Brad and Daunte combined for 18 TDs and they won 9 games.

 

[The New Guy]

you can't let a 3-12 team hang around when your season is on the line. The D held them down all day until midway through the 4th, there was plenty of time to put the game away and Daunte was unable to do so.

I don’t see it that way. I think a 17 to 6 lead with less than 6 minutes to go is a large enough lead to win a game. The defense did a good job at holding them to 6 points for 3 1/2 quarters, but failed in the most important time of the game.

the trade for Ricky was not a failure? he was brought into help you get over the 2nd rd hump as you had made the playoffs 5 years in a row and 3 of them made the div rd yet you ahven't even made the playoffs once since you acquired him AND you gave up 2 1st rd picks. That was one of the worst trades in the history of the sport.

I said the trade has not worked out well, but only because of Ricky’s poor decisions off the field. The Dolphins missing the playoffs the last 5 years has nothing to do with the trade. Ricky rushed for nearly 400 more yards than the whole team did the previous year, but the Dolphins only won 9 games that year. Do you really think that the reason we only won 9 games was because of Ricky? The worst trade in the history of sports could be by the Dolphins, but it would have to be A.J Feely not Ricky Williams.

Our secondary was not better in 2005 than 2004. The situations are completely different, we didn't give up 2 1st rd picks and we had an out after year 1 so the move wasn't good or bad. if we gave up picks then it would have been bad.

That was a bad example. My point is, you can trade for a player that is a proven commodity, but that will not equals wins. There are too many variables that can make or break a season
(schedule, injuries, coaching Ect…). The 2002 Dolphins are a good example. Ricky rushed for 1,853 yards, but because of other circumstances the Dolphins only won 9 games. The Jets only won 4 games, but Ty Law had nothing to do with that. He had a good year, and did his job. Other circumstances are why the Jets only won 4 games.

This is where we differ, better QB play to you means better stats but better QB play to me means more wins. i'll take a few less TDs if in big moments my QB makes the right decisions and my team wins rather than great fantasy #s and screwing up in big moments and we lose.

No, better Qb play does not mean just stats to me. If Culpepper throws 4 tds a game, but always makes bad decisions when the games is close, then I would say we are not getting better QB play.

The receivers could drop the ball, which could make Culpepper have bad stats, but I still might say he played a great game. I look at how the individual performs to determine whether or not he played well.

Sure but they all don't have to be through the air, Minyn was too reliant on daunte when they shouldn't have been. In '04 he threw 41 TDs and they won just 8 games while in '05 Brad and Daunte combined for 18 TDs and they won 9 games

They do when the team does not score them any other way. The only reason the 2005 Vikings won 9 games was because the team played better. The 2005 Vikings threw 21 less Td passes, and more ints in 2005 than they did in 2004, yet they won 1 more game than they did in 2004. The Vikings did not get better QB play than they had in 2004, they got better team play. I know you are going to say that the reason the Vikings played better in 2005 was because the Qb did not turn the ball over, but Culpepper did not turn the ball over that much in 2004.

 

[nyjunc]

I don’t see it that way. I think a 17 to 6 lead with less than 6 minutes to go is a large enough lead to win a game. The defense did a good job at holding them to 6 points for 3 1/2 quarters, but failed in the most important time of the game.

Going into the most important game of the season w/ a poor D and against a team that was giving up 33/gm the ofense has to produce more than 17 pts. By not leading them to more points he allowed Ari to hang around and then a couple of fluke plays and they lose, they never should have been in position to lose on 2 fluky plays.

I said the trade has not worked out well, but only because of Ricky’s poor decisions off the field. The Dolphins missing the playoffs the last 5 years has nothing to do with the trade. Ricky rushed for nearly 400 more yards than the whole team did the previous year, but the Dolphins only won 9 games that year. Do you really think that the reason we only won 9 games was because of Ricky? The worst trade in the history of sports could be by the Dolphins, but it would have to be A.J Feely not Ricky Williams.

Ricky was not good during 2003, you traded away 2 1st rounders and got back 1 excellent individual season-it's one of the worst trades ever.

Stats are nice but don't always translate to wins. there are 2 reasons why you missed out in '02 even though Ricky was great- the first was Fiedler getting hurt and the 2nd was relying too much on Ricky. No made their only playoff appearance in the last decade when ricky got hurt in 2000 and they never came close w/ him otherwise. Ricky has never been on a playoff team. Again Numbers are nice but it's about team accomplishments and if the increased #s don't lead to increased wins then who really cares?

No, better Qb play does not mean just stats to me. If Culpepper throws 4 tds a game, but always makes bad decisions when the games is close, then I would say we are not getting better QB play.

in a way that's what he's done his entire career. he has nice #s but come big moments he folds.

The receivers could drop the ball, which could make Culpepper have bad stats, but I still might say he played a great game. I look at how the individual performs to determine whether or not he played well.

i agree a QB can play well and the team can still lose BUT not consistently. A game here, a game there I'll agree but not 4,5,6,7,8 games a year.

They do when the team does not score them any other way. The only reason the 2005 Vikings won 9 games was because the team played better. The 2005 Vikings threw 21 less Td passes, and more ints in 2005 than they did in 2004, yet they won 1 more game than they did in 2004.

The TOs weren't bad TOs like in 2004. Brad gave his D a chance rather than repeatedly putting them in tough spots.

The Vikings did not get better QB play than they had in 2004, they got better team play. I know you are going to say that the reason the Vikings played better in 2005 was because the Qb did not turn the ball over, but Culpepper did not turn the ball over that much in 2004.

There are 2 reasons for this as well, the first Daunte didn't throw many INts or fumble alot but when he did most were critical TOs and secondly they relied too much on Daunte to carry them when he wasn't capable. they needed to run the ball more which is why i feel you guys will go as far as Ronnie Brown carries you, if yuo rely too much on Daunte you'll get burned.