Fantasy Football Today - fantasy football rankings, cheatsheets, and information
A Fantasy Football Community!




Create An Account  |  Advertise  |  Contact      







Staff Writer
Email Matt

Matt's Articles

The Weekly Gut Check - Vol. 39
Don't Take Old Pepper?
7/26/05

Rookie Scouting Portfolio The “Gut Feeling” is often synonymous with a sense of desperation resulting from a lack of preparation. The Gut Check is a huge proponent of studying the numbers, but there’s a point where one can place too much emphasis on the wrong information. This can result in the undervaluing or overlooking a player’s potential. Therefore, The Weekly Gut Check is devoted to examining the frame of reference behind certain number-driven guidelines that fantasy football owners use to make decisions.

Although The Weekly Gut Check doesn’t claim to be psychic, he does believe that he can dispel certain numbers biases and help you make the best choices for your team. We’ll keep a running tally of The Weekly Gut Check’s insights. This way you can gauge his views as something to seriously consider, or at least seriously consider running the opposite way as fast as you can!



This week’s column has two subjects. The primary topic is one of the more interesting subplots of the 2005 season: The departure of Randy Moss from the Vikings and how it will impact Daunte Culpepper’s 2005 fantasy performance. There’s little argument that the combination of Culpepper to Moss will go down in history as one of the greatest long-ball combinations in NFL history. Virtually everyone believes Moss will still be the game’s most dangerous deep threat in Oakland. Many fans anticipate Kerry Collins to have a career year. But public opinion is split (at best) on Daunte Culpepper in 2005.

There is no debate about the Vikings quarterback’s performance last year. Culpepper’s 2004 season was one for the fantasy record books:

For The Record:
Last Name Year Pct Pass Yds Pass TDs INTs Rush Yds Rush Atts Rush TDs FF Pts
Culpepper 2004 69.16% 4717 39 11 406 89 2 444.5
Manning 2004 67.61% 4557 49 10 38 25 0 427.7

Forget about Manning’s awesome season. Depending on minor differences in league scoring, Culpepper’s 2004 season topped that of Dan Marino’s legendary 1984 campaign. So what is The Gut Check on Daunte Culpepper in 2005? Yours Truly doesn’t believe Daunte Culpepper will be a top-three, fantasy quarterback in 2005. This doesn’t mean The Gut Check thinks Culpepper will be a bust—far from it. Culpepper will prove to be a fine quarterback without the services of Randy the Raider, but he’ll no longer be a sure thing to put up elite stats. Yours Truly is more comfortable projecting Culpepper as a top-10 fantasy quarterback, but performing closer to the middle portion of this group.

The secondary point to this article is to add more depth of analysis to a growing generalization among many astute fantasy owners: the tendency to believe that quarterbacks experience a significant decrease in performance the year following a historic season. The Gut Check agrees this occurs, but the reasons behind the stats are not always made a part of the analysis.

Should owners simply slap the “adjustment” tag on Manning and Culpepper because they are simply coming off great years? Sounds like the kind of logic that loses investors money when the stock market goes through a correction. To examine this phenomenon in more detail, here are the 20 all-time fantasy seasons for an NFL quarterback based on a standard scoring system of 1 pt per 20 yards passing; 4 pts per passing td; 6 pts per rush td; and 1 pt per 10 yards rushing:

QBs: Top 20 All-Time Fantasy Seasons
Last First Year Team Pct Pass Yds Pass TDs INTs Rush Yds Rush Atts Rush TDs FF Pts
Marino Dan 1984 Dolp 64.18% 5084 48 17 -7 28 0 445.5
Culpepper Daunte 2004 Vik 69.16% 4717 39 11 406 89 2 444.5
Young Steve 1998 49er 62.28% 4170 36 12 454 70 6 433.9
Manning Peyton 2004 Colts 67.61% 4557 49 10 38 25 0 427.7
Culpepper Daunte 2000 Vik 62.66% 3937 33 16 470 90 7 417.9
Cunningham Randall 1990 Eag 58.28% 3466 30 13 942 118 5 417.5
Marino Dan 1986 Dolp 60.67% 4746 44 23 -3 12 0 413
Young Steve 1994 49er 70.28% 3969 35 10 293 58 7 409.8
Favre Brett 1995 Pack 62.98% 4413 38 13 181 39 3 408.8
Garcia Jeff 2000 49er 63.28% 4278 31 10 414 72 4 403.3
Moon Warren 1990 Oiler 61.99% 4689 33 13 215 55 2 400
Warner Kurt 1999 Rams 65.13% 4353 41 13 92 23 1 396.9
Warner Kurt 2001 Rams 68.68% 4830 36 22 60 28 0 391.5
Beuerlein Steve 1999 Pant 60.07% 4436 36 15 124 27 2 390.2
Majkowski Don 1989 Pack 58.93% 4318 27 20 358 75 5 389.7
Culpepper Daunte 2002 Vik 60.62% 3859 18 23 603 105 10 385.3
Cunningham Randall 1988 Eag 53.75% 3808 24 16 624 93 6 384.8
Mitchell Scott 1995 Lions 59.35% 4338 32 12 104 36 4 379.3
Lomax Neil 1984 Card 61.61% 4614 28 16 184 35 3 379.1
Fouts Dan 1981 Char 59.11% 4802 33 17 56 22 0 377.7

Peyton Manning made the list once—twice if one extends the list to the top 25 seasons (Manning’s 2000 season ranked 24th overall). Randall Cunningham, Steve Young, Kurt Warner, and Dan Marino each had two seasons ranked in the top 20—exactly half the list. Daunte Culpepper? In just a five-year career, the Vikings quarterback has three all-time fantasy seasons in the top 20—two in the top five overall. The Gut Check has to say it again, Culpepper put up fantasy totals in 2004 that were literally on par with Dan Marino’s legendary fantasy season.

The Gut Check noticed with more research that the “adjustment” these QBs tend to experience after a great season is not necessarily something fantasy owners should apply to their draft strategy. Yours Truly compared each of the performances from the top-20 listed above with that quarterback’s performance the following season. It’s true that all 18 of the performances (Manning and Culpepper’s 2004 excluded due to the 2005 season serving as the following year.) were followed by seasons with fewer fantasy points. Yet, nearly 2/3 of the players on this list (10) missed games due to injury in that following season.

Moreover, 6 of the 10 were on track to be within and average of 3 fantasy points per game of their previous totals when their performances were projected over a 16-game period. And 4 of the 10 were playing well enough to within +/- 1 fantasy point per game of their previous season’s average. In addition, 3 players were injured so early in the season following their historic performances that there weren’t enough games played to reasonably project meaningful stats for an entire season. Cunningham played 1 game in 1991; Young played 3 games in 1999; and Warner played 7 games in 2002.

One can draw some interesting conclusions from the fact nearly 2/3 of the quarterbacks with historic seasons failed to complete their following season. The first is wear and tear. The problem doesn’t have to do with quarterbacks wearing down from wear and tear on the arm, but from punishment as a result of defensive pressure on the pocket:

  • Marino 1987: Ruptured Achilles Tendon while in the pocket
  • Culpepper 2001: Torn cartilage in knee
  • Culpepper 2003: Ankle
  • Young 1999: Career-ending concussion from sack
  • Young 1995: Shoulder injury from scrambling
  • Cunningham 1991:Leg
  • Warner 2000: Broken finger and concussion while in the pocket
  • Warner 2002:Broken hand while in the pocket
  • Majkowski 1990: Shoulder
  • Fouts 1982: Knee injury while in the pocket

The point that defenses focused more on these quarterbacks after their historic seasons doesn’t make any sense. It’s not like opposing defenses from the year before weren’t expecting these players to air it out! NFL teams have always preached the mantra: get to the quarterback often enough and you win the game.

Many fantasy owners noticed a number of these quarterbacks rebounded two years after their great season. These people naturally want to theorize there’s some sort of “rebound” trend, but Yours Truly believes they are missing the bigger picture. The more plausible conclusion is that many of these quarterbacks were playing at a high level for at least a 3 to 4 season span. The drop only occurred because injuries cut short at least one of those seasons during this window of elite performance. Steve Young, Daunte Culpepper, Dan Fouts, Kurt Warner, and Dan Marino all fit this description. In addition, Brett Favre, Randall Cunningham, and Warren Moon had three-year windows of significantly high-performing fantasy seasons without missing significant time. Furthermore, Peyton Manning has been playing this way for twice as long with a total of six seasons of elite play and has yet to miss a game.

This point is one of the reasons why most believe that Manning remains the better choice to predict a smaller “adjustment” than Culpepper. Manning is behind the helm of an offense that will maintain its continuity of personnel and offensive scheme. Although the Colts defense is expected to continue improving in small steps, they aren’t expected to be among the NFL’s best. The Gut Check agrees this continuity makes Manning a safer pick as an elite fantasy quarterback for 2005.

There are a number of reasons why Culpepper won’t maintain his great level of consistency that marked the first phase if his career. First, Mike Tice is telling anyone who will listen that the Vikings will be a more conservative offense. Tice says the team will emphasize the running game. If the Vikings walk their talk, a high-flying offense won’t be necessary. The defense appears vastly improved on paper with the addition of key veterans to supplement the natural progression of their recent high draft picks on the defensive side of the ball.

The Gut Check is fully aware that Mike Tice’s words and corresponding actions haven’t always matched up during his tenure as the Vikings head coach. Yours Truly remembers Tice in 2004 talking about one running back emerging from the RBBC in Minnesota. Just remember that in a short span of a month, Michael Bennett was injured and Onterrio Smith smoked his way out of a chance to take the starting job and never give it back. Smith’s misstep cannot be underestimated here, because Tice was clearly looking for a feature back and made it known Smith blew a golden opportunity.

Just as important as the desired emphasis of running the football is the Randy Moss factor. The Gut Check doesn’t believe Daunte Culpepper is a bad quarterback that hung onto the coattails of Randy Moss. But Moss was the difference in making a good quarterback produce like a great one. Most Culpepper supporters heading into 2004 argue the Vikings’ quarterback had his spectacular year without Moss in the lineup for nearly one-third of the season. If anything, this should demonstrate Culpepper “will be fine.”

If “fine” is production on the level of a starter, then The Gut Check agrees, but if “fine” is the same level of elite performances that made Culpepper the first or second quarterback taken in fantasy drafts, then Yours Truly has something to show you. Let’s take a closer look at Culpepper’s 2004 season alongside his top-target, Randy Moss:

2004: Culpepper & Moss
Name Opp Wk R
Att
R
Yds
Comp Atts P
TDs
P
Yds
YPC R
TDs
FF
Pts
Name Rec Yds YPC TDs FF
Pts
Daunte dal 1 6 25 17 23 5 242 14.24 0 34.6 Moss 4 27 6.75 2 14.7
Daunte phi 2 8 41 37 47 1 343 9.27 0 25.25 Moss 8 69 8.62 1 12.9
Daunte chi 3 6 13 19 30 2 360 18.95 1 33.3 Moss 7 119 17 2 23.9
Daunte hou 5 6 30 36 50 5 396 11 0 42.8 Moss 5 90 18 2 21
Daunte nor 6 7 13 26 37 5 425 16.35 0 42.55 Moss 2 89 44.5 1 14.9
Daunte ten 7 3 4 24 30 1 183 7.63 0 13.55 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj.
Daunte nyg 8 5 32 24 41 1 231 9.63 0 18.75 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj.
Daunte clt 9 5 27 16 19 1 169 10.56 0 15.15 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj.
Daunte gnb 10 3 19 27 44 4 363 13.44 0 36.05 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj.
Daunte det 11 11 35 22 32 2 233 10.59 0 23.15 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj.
Daunte jax 12 8 18 19 27 1 235 12.37 1 23.55 Moss 4 40 10 1 10
Daunte chi 13 6 50 23 33 2 279 12.13 0 26.95 Moss 4 31 7.75 0 3.1
Daunte sea 14 6 32 21 33 1 270 12.86 0 20.7 Moss 4 104 26 1 16.4
Daunte det 15 4 22 25 35 3 404 16.16 0 34.4 Moss 4 102 25.5 1 16.2
Daunte gnb 16 3 21 16 23 3 285 17.81 0 28.35 Moss 2 30 15 1 9
Daunte was 17 2 24 27 44 2 299 11.07 0 25.35 Moss 5 66 13.2 1 12.6
Totals 89 406 379 548 39 4717 12.45 2 444.5 49 767 15.7 13 155

Culpepper was scorching hot for the first five weeks of the season with Moss in the lineup:

  • 353 yards per game
  • 13.96 yards per completion
  • 3.6 passing touchdowns
  • 35.7 fantasy points per game

Furthermore, when one examines Culpepper’s combined stats for his games with Moss in the lineup both before and after the receiver’s injury, the performance remains phenomenal:

  • 322 yards per game
  • 13.84 yards per completion
  • 2.7 passing touchdowns
  • 30.7 fantasy points per game

Although there’s a difference of 5 points per game between the two ranges, the average of all 11 games with Moss is still pretty large. Either stat split projected for an entire season would blow away any fantasy performances in quarterback history.

The most telling pieces of data is when Moss was out of the lineup:

  • 236 passing yards per game
  • 10.37 yards per completion
  • 1.8 passing touchdowns per game
  • 21.33 fantasy points per game

A lot of people want to tell you that Culpepper did a great job without Randy Moss, but that’s only in terms of his performance as a quarterback—not a fantasy quarterback. The Vikings faced some of the worst pass defenses in football without Moss. The only non-Moss game where Culpepper’s yardage and touchdowns matched his stats with Moss in the lineup was against division rival, Green Bay.

Culpepper’s completion percentage for the other four games without Moss was an impressive 68% (113/166), but The Gut Check will illustrate why the Vikings clearly missed Randy Moss’ contribution. Love him or hate him, there should be no denying that Randy Moss is the football equivalent of having a second queen on one’s chessboard. Unfortunately, people get hung up on Moss’ “I play when I want to play,” statement and other bouts of extreme immaturity. The fact is Randy Moss has the skills that demand coordinators to play a safety deep or blatantly double cover.

The impact is enormous. First, the safety has to play deep enough to avoid Moss running by him. This makes it easier for wide receivers running short and intermediate routes over the middle, or in the flat. The lack of immediate support from the safety allows them to gain significant yardage after the catch or made an adjustment to go deep. Look at the difference in yardage per catch among the Vikings receiving corps when Moss was in and out of the lineup:

Minus Moss, YPC Impact On Burleson
Name Opp Wk Rec Yds YPC TDs FF Pts Name Rec Rec Yds YPC TDs FF Pts
Moss dal 1 4 27 6.75 2 14.7 Burleson 3 34 11.33 0 3.4
Moss phi 2 8 69 8.625 1 12.9 Burleson 5 67 13.4 0 7.6
Moss chi 3 7 119 17 2 23.9 Burleson 2 71 35.5 0 7.1
Moss htx 5 5 90 18 2 21 Burleson 3 16 5.33 1 7.6
Moss nor 6 2 89 44.5 1 14.9 Burleson 6 134 22.33 0 13.4
Inj. oti 7 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Burleson 6 53 8.83 0 5.3
Inj. nyg 8 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Burleson 6 43 7.17 1 11.1
Inj. clt 9 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Burleson 1 8 8 1 6.8
Inj. gnb 10 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Burleson 11 141 12.82 1 21.2
Inj. det 11 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Burleson 5 52 10.4 1 11.2
Moss jax 12 4 40 10 1 10 Burleson 2 21 10.5 0 2.1
Moss chi 13 4 31 7.75 0 3.1 Burleson 3 31 10.33 1 10.1
Moss sea 14 4 104 26 1 16.4 Burleson 4 42 10.5 0 4.2
Moss det 15 4 102 25.5 1 16.2 Burleson 5 134 26.8 2 25.4
Moss gnb 16 2 30 15 1 9 Burleson 2 110 55 1 18.1
Moss was 17 5 66 13.2 1 12.6 Burleson 4 49 12.25 0 4.9
Totals 49 767 15.7 13 155 68 1006 14.79 9 160

Nate Burleson is developing into a quality starting receiver, but his skills are more reminiscent of Darrell Jackson: nice routes, solid hands, and runs well after the catch, but isn’t going to get deep without help on the other side to occupy a safety’s attention. This is why Burleson was a third-round pick. The yards per catch averages with and without Moss to occupy that safety makes a strong statement:

Burleson's Season Breakdown:
Moss Rec Yds Avg TDs
Starting 39 709 18.179 5
Out 29 297 10.241 4

When Moss was stretching the field, Burleson had enough room to gain an impressive 18 yards per catch! Although Burleson remained a consistent scorer with Moss on the bench, his yards per catch were significantly lower. Marcus Robinson and Kelly Campbell are known as capable deep threats, but neither player can instill the fear in a defensive coordinator like Randy Moss.

Minus Moss, Robinson Can't Score?
Name Opp Wk Rec Yds YPC TDs FF Pts Name Rec Rec Yds YPC TDs FF Pts
Moss dal 1 4 27 6.75 2 14.7 Robinson 3 54 18 1 11.4
Moss phi 2 8 69 8.625 1 12.9 Robinson 2 14 7 0 1.4
Moss chi 3 7 119 17 2 23.9  
Moss htx 5 5 90 18 2 21 Robinson 9 150 16.67 2 27
Moss nor 6 2 89 44.5 1 14.9 Robinson 4 32 8 2 15.2
Inj. oti 7 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Robinson 3 33 11 1 9.3
Inj. nyg 8 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Robinson 4 91 22.75 0 9.1
Inj. clt 9 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Robinson 3 23 7.67 0 2.3
Inj. gnb 10 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Robinson 2 39 19.5 0 3.9
Inj. det 11 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Robinson 1 7 7 0 0.7
Moss jax 12 4 40 10 1 10 Robinson 4 48 12 0 4.8
Moss chi 13 4 31 7.75 0 3.1 Robinson 6 90 15 1 15
Moss sea 14 4 104 26 1 16.4 Robinson 1 13 13 0 1.3
Moss det 15 4 102 25.5 1 16.2 Robinson 1 9 9 0 0.9
Moss gnb 16 2 30 15 1 9 Robinson 1 3 3 0 0.3
Moss was 17 5 66 13.2 1 12.6 Robinson 3 51 17 1 11.1
Totals 49 767 15.7 13 155 47 657 13.98 8 114

Like Moss, Marcus Robinson is a dangerous vertical threat with his height, speed, and leaping ability. At the same time, a barnstormer and an F-18 are both airplanes but one wouldn’t dare say the two are similar other than they can both fly. At one time Robinson had elite athletic skills for an NFL receiver, but injuries took their toll. At this point, the difference between Robinson and Moss is evident in the touchdowns.

Robinson's Season Breakdown:
Moss Rec Yds Avg TDs TDs/G
Starting 34 464 13.647 7 0.7
Out 13 193 14.846 1 0.2

When Moss was in the lineup, Marcus Robinson had a slightly lower yard per catch average, but was a much more prolific scorer with Moss on the other side. Robinson benefited from fade routes against man coverage in the end zone or slants with the safety out of position to compensate for Moss. When Moss was out, Robinson would logically seem to be the one to take over Moss’ role in the offense. Yet he could only muster one score during this five-game stretch against suspect pass defenses. Moss on the other hand, scored 13 touchdowns in 11 games.

When Moss makes a reception on a deep route the result is more likely to be a touchdown. Defensive coordinators realized Marcus Robinson may win one-on-one battles on deep routes, but he was not as likely to get the kind of separation against a defensive back in man coverage resulting in a long score. This is what the general fan sorely under-estimates about Randy Moss. This is a player that makes acrobatic 40+ yard receptions in double coverage look so effortless that some fans act as if Moss just scored with Jimmy Kimmel and Andy Milonakis on him. Nate Burleson’s depressed yards per catch without Moss supports the fact that defensive coordinators weren’t nearly as worried about Robinson in the role of the primary vertical threat.

Since it’s obvious Marcus Robinson couldn’t fill Randy Moss’ role, what about speedster Kelly Campbell?

Minus Moss, No Improvement For Campbell
Name Opp Wk Rec Yds YPC TDs FF Pts Name Rec Rec Yds YPC TDs FF Pts
Moss dal 1 4 27 6.75 2 14.7 Campbell 1 43 43 1 10.3
Moss phi 2 8 69 8.625 1 12.9 Campbell 2 30 15 0 3
Moss chi 3 7 119 17 2 23.9 Campbell 2 50 25 0 3.6
Moss htx 5 5 90 18 2 21 Campbell 2 21 10.5 0 2.1
Moss nor 6 2 89 44.5 1 14.9 Campbell 1 23 23 0 2.3
Inj. oti 7 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Campbell 2 16 8 0 1.6
Inj. nyg 8 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Campbell 3 18 6 0 1.8
Inj. clt 9 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Campbell 1 30 30 0 3
Inj. gnb 10 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Campbell 1 10 10 0 1.2
Inj. det 11 Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Inj. Campbell 1 61 61 0 6.1
Moss jax 12 4 40 10 1 10 Campbell 1 48 48 0 6.4
Moss chi 13 4 31 7.75 0 3.1  
Moss sea 14 4 104 26 1 16.4 Campbell 2 14 7 0 1.4
Moss det 15 4 102 25.5 1 16.2  
Moss gnb 16 2 30 15 1 9  
Moss was 17 5 66 13.2 1 12.6  
Totals 49 767 15.7 13 155 19 364 19.16 1 42.8

Campbell’s stats indicate his production was fairly consistent with or without Moss. Nonetheless, Campbell gained significantly more yardage when Moss’ presence allowed him to run free.

Campbell's Season Breakdown:
Moss Rec Yds Avg TDs
Starting 11 229 20.818 1
Out 8 135 16.875 0

Campbell averaged an additional four yards per reception with Moss distracting defensive backs. One may say that mentioning differences between two yard per catch averages that any receiver would be happy to own is pointless, but Campbell played a very small, and specialized role in the offense. With Moss in the lineup, Campbell primarily ran deep routes against a desired mismatch in the opposing secondary.

Offensive coordinators design passing routes to complement each other. If the defense reacts to one route, it opens up the other. When Moss went down, the offensive system didn’t have an adequate replacement to run the same kind of vertical packages with consistent success. Campbell wasn’t that receiver. If he were, his production would have increased when Moss was out. Instead, Campbell’s yard per catch average dropped enough to indicate Moss’ presence was the key to the mismatches the Vikings’ scheme created for the rest of the receiving corps.

The Vikings decision to draft Troy Williamson illustrates Minnesota doesn’t feel comfortable that they had a player on the roster capable of fulfilling Moss’ old role. The first round draft pick out of South Carolina may have speed, but his hands and ability to track the ball don’t compare to Moss—a player with unique talents at his position. As the Gut Check will point out again, Moss makes the skill of deep receptions in tight coverage look deceptively simple.

Other teams have lost great receivers and the passing game still maintained or improved its production, but none of these receivers could approach Moss in this one aspect of receiving. These players may have better hands, run better routes, or display more toughness but Moss has no peer in the deep game. Other teams had other players that could step in and their additional production would compensate for the loss of one player. To believe the Vikings’ passing game will remain as productive when their entire offense thrived on what defenses had to do to adjust to Moss is naïve. A player with unique talents is not replaceable.

Another way to gauge how opposing defenses adjusted to the Vikings without Randy Moss is to view the production of the backs and tight ends during the star receiver’s absence. As one would expect, the yards per catch averages for the backs and tight ends were mostly better when Moss was healthy and occupying much of the defense’s focus.

Jermaine Wiggins' Season Breakdown:
Moss Rec Yds Avg TDs
Starting 43 434 10.1 2
Out 28 271 9.6 2

Michael Bennett's Season Breakdown:
Moss Rec Yds Avg TDs
Starting 10 147 14.7 1
Out 11 60 5.4 1

Onterrio Smith's Season Breakdown:
Moss Rec Yds Avg TDs
Starting 30 352 11.7 2
Out 6 42 7 2

Moe Williams' Season Breakdown:
Moss Rec Yds Avg TDs
Starting 12 139 11.5 1
Out 9 94 10.4 3

Mewelde Moore's Season Breakdown:
Moss Rec Yds Avg TDs
Starting 21 182 8.6 0
Out 6 56 9.3 0

What stands out to The Gut Check is the production from Michael Bennett and Onterrio Smith when Moss was on the field. Onterrio Smith had 15 receptions for 223 yards and a score in the first three games of the season—clearly a player benefiting from Moss stretching the field. Smith’s production in the passing game did not return to the same level when Moss came back from injury, but at that point the back was splitting time with teammate Michael Bennett. Bennett’s production as a receiver was excellent for the last three games and combined with Smith’s totals for the same period, the two backs were accumulating numbers on par with a starting receiver.

The Gut Check believes this information is a good basis for predicting how Culpepper will fare in 2005. If one takes the his 2004 stat-line while Moss was out and projects it for an entire season without the receiver, Culpepper would have scored 100 fewer fantasy points.

Culpepper Withoout Moss in '05?
Rush Atts Rush Yds Rush TDs Comp Atts P TDs P Yds YPC FF Pts
86 374 0 362 531 28.8 3773 166 341.3

This sounds like a lot, but the total would place Culpepper 4th among fantasy quarterbacks in 2004—still an impressive season—but it would have dropped him behind Manning, McNabb, and Green. The Gut Check believes Culpepper’s numbers will drop further in 2005, because the Vikings defense has strengthened its depth at linebacker, and defensive back. The improvements should allow Minnesota to stick to a more run-oriented game plan—something that could also affect the productivity of a quarterback like Trent Green if the Chiefs can get their defense to play respectably this season. As with Green in previous years, Culpepper’s stats also benefited from being on a team that depended on the offense to remain in the game.

It is Culpepper’s running that will give him that extra fantasy boost. But the loss of Moss removes Culpepper from that elite status, and should lower his phenomenal consistency average for the past 5 seasons:

5 Years - Culpepper The Consistent:
Last First G FF Pts/G Elite #1 QB #2 QB Sub Par Max Min
Culpepper Daunte 57 25.05 59.65% 80.70% 94.74% 3.51% 42.90 7.00
Manning Peyton 64 22.73 42.19% 76.56% 90.63% 7.81% 45.65 0.30
Bulger Marc 36 21.47 38.89% 75.00% 88.89% 8.33% 38.55 0.55
McNair Steve 53 19.9 32.08% 67.92% 84.91% 13.21% 39.45 0.10
McNabb Donovan 56 21.83 42.86% 66.07% 87.50% 12.50% 43.20 3.10

The Gut Check believes taking Culpepper in the same area he generally went in previous fantasy drafts will be a mistake. Yours Truly predicts Culpepper will have a 2005 season closer to the productivity as seen from Steve McNair in this table: fantasy points per game worthy of a quarterback ranked 7th or 8th overall, but not with the amazing consistency.

In other words, let other owners make the mistake of over-valuing Culpepper. At the same time, if he falls far enough—rounds 5-7—he’ll be at the very least, a solid choice. No bold prediction here in either direction, but identifying subtle changes is an underrated part of the hobby. Remember, smart choices in the middle to late rounds can make you, but early round mistakes will break you.