Is Culpepper god?

[mattb47]

The predictions about Chris Chambers are all over the place in the cafe, check out the predictions forum. The predictions about Miami definitely being SB contenders are all over the place, not necessarily at the cafe but all over the sporting world.

Personally, I agree that Chambers is going to have a monster yr. One of the premier deep threats in this league finally gets a QB that can throw a good long ball? Yeah, Im buying Chambers in '06.

I have no idea how good the team will be or if they will be playoff contenders, but based on the system they run and the upgrade at QB, Chambers should be a stud.

I hope everyone else thinks like this then in my drafts because then Chambers is going to go way to high....and a better WR will drop to me.

My league uses a pretty standard scoring system and Chambers was the #8 ranked WR with Gus and Sage throwing him the ball. You think Culpepper will make him no longer a top 10 WR???

edit: He was 2 points away from being the #6 WR.

Why is everyone putting words in my mouth? I have not said a single word about Chambers not being a top 10 WR. I think he is a top 10 WR but guys that finished below him this year like (in my league) Holt, Boldin, and R. Moss probably won't finish behind him again in my opinion....or they will have similar numbers at best. I see Chambers at around the 7-8 WR this year again, but in my opinion he doesn't even approach the #1 WR spot.

[Ydub]

Ydub - unfortunately the way you are trying to use statistics to prove skill is flawed. The "hard numbers and incontrovertible facts" you posted only say what happened given the situation - they do not measure Culpepper's or any other QB's skill or talent.

Now, while I agree Cpepp will be pretty good down in MIA, it has nothing to do with the kind of statistics you are using.

Why? What "kind" of statistics am I using? Dirty statistics? Stinky statistics? I don't get it. Stats are stats.

Seriously Cornbread, the only thing I'm "trying" to prove is the common perception that Culpepper was "downright terrible" or "awful" in '05 is flawed (or just plain wrong). His first two games were indeed "downright terrible", but he was quite competent after that (even borderline spectacular at times). And the "kind" of statistics certainly support this conclusion.

[flotsamnjetsam]

The predictions about Chris Chambers are all over the place in the cafe, check out the predictions forum. The predictions about Miami definitely being SB contenders are all over the place, not necessarily at the cafe but all over the sporting world.

Personally, I agree that Chambers is going to have a monster yr. One of the premier deep threats in this league finally gets a QB that can throw a good long ball? Yeah, Im buying Chambers in '06.

I have no idea how good the team will be or if they will be playoff contenders, but based on the system they run and the upgrade at QB, Chambers should be a stud.

I hope everyone else thinks like this then in my drafts because then Chambers is going to go way to high....and a better WR will drop to me.

My league uses a pretty standard scoring system and Chambers was the #8 ranked WR with Gus and Sage throwing him the ball. You think Culpepper will make him no longer a top 10 WR???

edit: He was 2 points away from being the #6 WR.

Why is everyone putting words in my mouth? I have not said a single word about Chambers not being a top 10 WR. I think he is a top 10 WR but guys that finished below him this year like (in my league) Holt, Boldin, and R. Moss probably won't finish behind him again in my opinion....or they will have similar numbers at best. I see Chambers at around the 7-8 WR this year again, but in my opinion he doesn't even approach the #1 WR spot.

I don't think we'll truly find the answer to this question until 2007 when Chambers and Culpepper actually have a full season together.

[mattb47]

Ydub - unfortunately the way you are trying to use statistics to prove skill is flawed. The "hard numbers and incontrovertible facts" you posted only say what happened given the situation - they do not measure Culpepper's or any other QB's skill or talent.

Now, while I agree Cpepp will be pretty good down in MIA, it has nothing to do with the kind of statistics you are using.

Why? What "kind" of statistics am I using? Dirty statistics? Stinky statistics? I don't get it. Stats are stats.

Seriously Cornbread, the only thing I'm "trying" to prove is the common perception that Culpepper was "downright terrible" or "awful" in '05 is flawed (or just plain wrong). His first two games were indeed "downright terrible", but he was quite competent after that (even borderline spectacular at times). And the "kind" of statistics certainly support this conclusion.

Read my response to your post.....I pointed out some flaws in your reasoning.

[VaderFin]

The predictions about Chris Chambers are all over the place in the cafe, check out the predictions forum. The predictions about Miami definitely being SB contenders are all over the place, not necessarily at the cafe but all over the sporting world.

Personally, I agree that Chambers is going to have a monster yr. One of the premier deep threats in this league finally gets a QB that can throw a good long ball? Yeah, Im buying Chambers in '06.

I have no idea how good the team will be or if they will be playoff contenders, but based on the system they run and the upgrade at QB, Chambers should be a stud.

I hope everyone else thinks like this then in my drafts because then Chambers is going to go way to high....and a better WR will drop to me.

My league uses a pretty standard scoring system and Chambers was the #8 ranked WR with Gus and Sage throwing him the ball. You think Culpepper will make him no longer a top 10 WR???

edit: He was 2 points away from being the #6 WR.

Why is everyone putting words in my mouth? I have not said a single word about Chambers not being a top 10 WR. I think he is a top 10 WR but guys that finished below him this year like (in my league) Holt, Boldin, and R. Moss probably won't finish behind him again in my opinion....or they will have similar numbers at best. I see Chambers at around the 7-8 WR this year again, but in my opinion he doesn't even approach the #1 WR spot.

Stop being so defensive man. Notice the question marks?? That was my way of asking if that is what you thought because by your comments it seems that way. Projecting him somewhere between 5-8 seems fairly accurate.

[RocketsDWM]

The predictions about Chris Chambers are all over the place in the cafe, check out the predictions forum. The predictions about Miami definitely being SB contenders are all over the place, not necessarily at the cafe but all over the sporting world.

Personally, I agree that Chambers is going to have a monster yr. One of the premier deep threats in this league finally gets a QB that can throw a good long ball? Yeah, Im buying Chambers in '06.

I have no idea how good the team will be or if they will be playoff contenders, but based on the system they run and the upgrade at QB, Chambers should be a stud.

I hope everyone else thinks like this then in my drafts because then Chambers is going to go way to high....and a better WR will drop to me.

My league uses a pretty standard scoring system and Chambers was the #8 ranked WR with Gus and Sage throwing him the ball. You think Culpepper will make him no longer a top 10 WR???

edit: He was 2 points away from being the #6 WR.

Why is everyone putting words in my mouth? I have not said a single word about Chambers not being a top 10 WR. I think he is a top 10 WR but guys that finished below him this year like (in my league) Holt, Boldin, and R. Moss probably won't finish behind him again in my opinion....or they will have similar numbers at best. I see Chambers at around the 7-8 WR this year again, but in my opinion he doesn't even approach the #1 WR spot.

Top 10 list for WR's for next yr?

[mattb47]

The predictions about Chris Chambers are all over the place in the cafe, check out the predictions forum. The predictions about Miami definitely being SB contenders are all over the place, not necessarily at the cafe but all over the sporting world.

Personally, I agree that Chambers is going to have a monster yr. One of the premier deep threats in this league finally gets a QB that can throw a good long ball? Yeah, Im buying Chambers in '06.

I have no idea how good the team will be or if they will be playoff contenders, but based on the system they run and the upgrade at QB, Chambers should be a stud.

I hope everyone else thinks like this then in my drafts because then Chambers is going to go way to high....and a better WR will drop to me.

My league uses a pretty standard scoring system and Chambers was the #8 ranked WR with Gus and Sage throwing him the ball. You think Culpepper will make him no longer a top 10 WR???

edit: He was 2 points away from being the #6 WR.

Why is everyone putting words in my mouth? I have not said a single word about Chambers not being a top 10 WR. I think he is a top 10 WR but guys that finished below him this year like (in my league) Holt, Boldin, and R. Moss probably won't finish behind him again in my opinion....or they will have similar numbers at best. I see Chambers at around the 7-8 WR this year again, but in my opinion he doesn't even approach the #1 WR spot.

Top 10 list for WR's for next yr?

Sure:
S. Smith
T. Holt
C. Johnson
A. Boldin
L. Fitzgerald
R. Moss
T. Owens
C. Chambers
M. Harrison
D. Jackson

I think Chambers could end up a little higher but I think he'll be hard pressed to beat out the guys in front of him in my opinion.

[Ydub]

I would put a lot more stock in this argument if his last two games were games with the 123+ QB rating but in between those 2 good games he had games of 74.4 and 50.4 QB ratings. So if he was "getting it" wouldn't he have strung together good games in a row instead of spacing them out like that? You also fail to mention that in those two good games he was sacked 11 times and lost a fumble.

Good point. But is 74.4 "downright terrible"? I don't really think so. Average or OK? Sure. But "downright terrible"? No. On the other hand I will grant you that 50.4 is indeed "downright terrible. Maybe even "awful".

So I guess it goes a little something like this:

140.0 = Culpepper is God
74.4 = Meh. Not good, not "awful"
50.4 = "Downright terrible"
123.3 = Spectacular

Add it all up I think the total comes out to....pretty damn good. And you're right, those two "good" games where C-Pepp was sacked 11 times, guess what? You're right. He was clearly taking too many sacks which is an indication that he was holding on to the ball too long. You know what? The Vikings won both of those ballgames.

To take a 4 game span and say what he would have gotten over an entire season from that short time is ridiculous

Usually, I'd agree with you. I normally don't late to prorate numbers to prove a point. But I applied to this situation because the cumulative result is almost identical to Culpepper's totals in 2004. Quite telling if you ask me. And you did....so there

[mattb47]

I would put a lot more stock in this argument if his last two games were games with the 123+ QB rating but in between those 2 good games he had games of 74.4 and 50.4 QB ratings. So if he was "getting it" wouldn't he have strung together good games in a row instead of spacing them out like that? You also fail to mention that in those two good games he was sacked 11 times and lost a fumble.

Good point. But is 74.4 "downright terrible"? I don't really think so. Average or OK? Sure. But "downright terrible"? No. On the other hand I will grant you that 50.4 is indeed "downright terrible. Maybe even "awful".

So I guess it goes a little something like this:

140.0 = Culpepper is God
74.4 = Meh. Not good, not "awful"
50.4 = "Downright terrible"
123.3 = Spectacular

Add it all up I think the total comes out to....pretty damn good. And you're right, those two "good" games where C-Pepp was sacked 11 times, guess what? You're right. He was clearly taking too many sacks which is an indication that he was holding on to the ball too long. You know what? The Vikings won both of those ballgames.

To take a 4 game span and say what he would have gotten over an entire season from that short time is ridiculous

Usually, I'd agree with you. I normally don't late to prorate numbers to prove a point. But I applied to this situation because the cumulative result is almost identical to Culpepper's totals in 2004. Quite telling if you ask me. And you did....so there

Well if you take those numbers i put, they are close to Favre's numbers in 1995. Like I was saying, you can make statistics say what you want a lot of the time. And you didn't answer my statement of if Culpepper was "getting it" why didn't he string together those good games all in a row? Gus Frerotte had a 71.9 QB rating for 2005, and so there were two Gus Frerotte level performances or worse 2 of the 4 games. I don't see that as showing that he was "getting it".

You are trying to downplay the sacks he was taking by saying that the Vikings won those games, but I think it is a problem if your QB consistently throughout those 6 games failed to get rid of the ball in time. For those six games he was on pace to get sacked 77 times, throw 32 INTs, and lose 8 fumbles with only 16 TDs. Statistics work both ways almost all the time....

[Cornbread Maxwell]

Ydub - unfortunately the way you are trying to use statistics to prove skill is flawed. The "hard numbers and incontrovertible facts" you posted only say what happened given the situation - they do not measure Culpepper's or any other QB's skill or talent.

Now, while I agree Cpepp will be pretty good down in MIA, it has nothing to do with the kind of statistics you are using.

Why? What "kind" of statistics am I using? Dirty statistics? Stinky statistics? I don't get it. Stats are stats.

Seriously Cornbread, the only thing I'm "trying" to prove is the common perception that Culpepper was "downright terrible" or "awful" in '05 is flawed (or just plain wrong). His first two games were indeed "downright terrible", but he was quite competent after that (even borderline spectacular at times). And the "kind" of statistics certainly support this conclusion.

Well - I guess it goes back to exactly what a statistic is. When you say quarterback X threw for 4000 yds and 30 TDs - what does that actually mean? Does it mean quarterback X is a great QB? No. It means that given the circumstances thats what QB did. Were they based on the kind of offensive scheme that team runs? Was it based on the talent around him? Was it based on the kind of defenses and teams they faced? Was it based on injuries? Indoor or outdoor stadiums? Or was it purely skill? The answer is all of the above and more.

The numbers themselves suggest nothing. All they do is report the outcome of a situation.

Stats are stats - you are right. Stats are not indicators of skill however.

As for Cpepp being awful or downright terrible last yr - he was - at least those times I saw him play and from clips Ive seen that highlighted the problems he was having. The Vikings fans will tell you he was injured prior to the actual injury, they will say the Oline was pourus, they may even point to a lack of a running game - but the problem with all that? What about those times when Cpepp had more than 5 seconds in the pocket, had 3-5 windows of opportunity to throw to an open target, yet still took the sack? The Oline was as good as can be expected and the WRs were getting open for him - so what happened?

Look - if you want to have a discussion on skill or talent, dont bring statistics into it - thats just not what they measure. Thats why its so vital to actually watch the players play before one tries to get a feel for that player's skill. Looking at statistics to judge talent is just beginning with a false premise.

Now we may agree or disagree about Cpepp or other players - but reciting their statistics is basically meaningless in a conversation about talent. Tell me what you actually saw from him.