PDA

View Full Version : burleson and robinson



slowlow
03-10-2005, 08:10 PM
we need to replace moss not really really bad but we do can burleson and robinson step it up?

VikingsTw
03-10-2005, 08:11 PM
There will be no replacing moss, We need to get another WR but we cant replace moss.

parsongeorge
03-10-2005, 08:13 PM
"vikingstw" wrote:

There will be no replacing moss, We need to get another WR but we cant replace moss. I wonder if smoot got a flagrant foul for that facemask in your pic?

VikingsTw
03-10-2005, 08:15 PM
Good question but its a great pick, looks like he's trying to rip on a cowboys head!

sitandbehitski
03-10-2005, 09:19 PM
As long as it's a cowboy!!!

vikes09
03-10-2005, 09:24 PM
does that count as a face mask since its the top of the helmet? odds r that cowboy deserved it.

enlvikeman
03-10-2005, 11:14 PM
"slowlow" wrote:

we need to replace moss not really really bad but we do can burleson and robinson step it up?

http://pic7.picturetrail.com/VOL210/1362680/4079806/50550150.jpg

TheHumanComa
03-10-2005, 11:18 PM
I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for plaxico Burress. he's an amazing WR and belongs in Minny. Big meeting tomorrow, hopefully they sign him

coreyd
03-10-2005, 11:20 PM
"vikingstw" wrote:

There will be no replacing moss, We need to get another WR but we cant replace moss.

My guess is that his career is going to fizzle out now.....

Call me crazy, but I think that injury took a larger tole on him than what people think....

koolkev8
03-10-2005, 11:21 PM
"enlvikeman" wrote:

"slowlow" wrote:

we need to replace moss not really really bad but we do can burleson and robinson step it up?

http://pic7.picturetrail.com/VOL210/1362680/4079806/50550150.jpg


LMFAO... NICE

XTAP59
03-10-2005, 11:25 PM
combine burleson, robinson, and campbell, and you still don't have moss.
No dig on the other receivers, but Moss was Moss.
We need to add two quality receivers to ease the burden.

koolkev8
03-10-2005, 11:29 PM
"XTAP59" wrote:

combine burleson, robinson, and campbell, and you still don't have moss.
No dig on the other receivers, but Moss was Moss.
We need to add two quality receivers to ease the burden.

Wow that was a stupid statement... Three recievers too one... I totally disagree with that!!! I would agree that u cant replace moss with any one reciever but those three right there are going to dominate any defence we play next year!!!

PurplePeopleEaters
03-10-2005, 11:29 PM
"XTAP59" wrote:

combine burleson, robinson, and campbell, and you still don't have moss.
No dig on the other receivers, but Moss was Moss.
We need to add two quality receivers to ease the burden.

Plax and Mike Williams will do the job!

:thumbright:

XTAP59
03-10-2005, 11:38 PM
"koolkev8" wrote:

"XTAP59" wrote:

combine burleson, robinson, and campbell, and you still don't have moss.
No dig on the other receivers, but Moss was Moss.
We need to add two quality receivers to ease the burden.

Wow that was a stupid statement... Three recievers too one... I totally disagree with that!!! I would agree that u cant replace moss with any one reciever but those three right there are going to dominate any defence we play next year!!!

Wait, did you say those three will DOMINATE any defense next year?
LOLOLOLOL......And you say my statement was stupid?
C'mon, Burleson contributed because the double teams on Moss. Robinson, what has he done the last 5-7 years? Campbell, he is a good punt returner. Dominant receiver, no way in hades. If we don't sign a premium receiver and select Williams or Edwards in the draft, our offense will sputter in 2005.

I would trade all three right here and now for Randy Moss.

TheHumanComa
03-10-2005, 11:44 PM
what'd Moss do last Year? not much.

TheHumanComa
03-10-2005, 11:46 PM
we're talking a real T-E-A-M this year not a team with moss on it. they'll spread the ball around like a normal football team is suppose to. Look at the pats, a dozen different receivers each game.

finnishvikingsfan
03-10-2005, 11:47 PM
I think Burleson is one year away from being an all pro wideout. He stepped it up when Moss went down. Now lets see how good he can be without Moss at all.

fourdoorchevelle
03-11-2005, 02:37 AM
i'm pretty sure that burleson started putting up bigger numbers when moss got hurt and after culp seen what he could do was able to look for burl more. didn't see huge #'s till late in the season , way after moss' #'s had dropped consirderably

eclipse_2303
03-11-2005, 03:07 AM
"parsongeorge" wrote:

"vikingstw" wrote:

There will be no replacing moss, We need to get another WR but we cant replace moss. I wonder if smoot got a flagrant foul for that facemask in your pic?


Its not really a facemask, He is yanking the helmet not the mask. I wonder if that is a penalty? :|

XTAP59
03-11-2005, 11:38 AM
"TheHumanComa" wrote:

what'd Moss do last Year? not much.

When Moss was healthy the first 6 games of the season, Culpepper was averaging well over 300 yards passing per game and had three games of 5 TD passes. He was on course to shatter all QB records. Moss gets hurt and Peps numbers drop drastically.

What did the other receivers do? Pep averaged 178 yards passing in games that Randy Moss did not play in. To me, that speaks volumes of the quality of receivers we now have on our team.

XTAP59
03-11-2005, 11:44 AM
"fourdoorchevelle" wrote:

i'm pretty sure that burleson started putting up bigger numbers when moss got hurt and after culp seen what he could do was able to look for burl more. didn't see huge #'s till late in the season , way after moss' #'s had dropped consirderably

Take a look at the game logs. You will see peps numbers are big when Moss was healthy, and trailed off considereably when Moss was out, and then began to rise again when Moss came back and played hurt.

briboy75
03-11-2005, 12:24 PM
"TheHumanComa" wrote:

what'd Moss do last Year? not much.

True, but what did the Vikings do last year? not much.

PurplePackerEater
03-11-2005, 01:00 PM
"TheHumanComa" wrote:

what'd Moss do last Year? not much.Your another idiot that listens to news reproters for your sporting news! Just putting Moss on the field helps the whole offence-ask ANY defensive coordinator in the NFL. Why do u think they put him out there for two games after his injury? Not to catch passes, I'll tell you that much!!!

PS -this is why I joined this site -to argue this sort of madness. Do we really care what Moss does off the field? I don't, I don't live with him. I care if a guy has talent and puts his heart into the game.

For the record -I lMAO when Moss "pretended" to moon the GB croud!!!!

Mr Anderson
03-11-2005, 01:05 PM
"eclipse_2303" wrote:

"parsongeorge" wrote:

"vikingstw" wrote:

There will be no replacing moss, We need to get another WR but we cant replace moss. I wonder if smoot got a flagrant foul for that facemask in your pic?


Its not really a facemask, He is yanking the helmet not the mask. I wonder if that is a penalty? :|


Yes they still call you on a facemask.

The face mask extends around the entire open part in the front of the helmet.

and that was probably a 15 yarder. The same penalty applies for when you grab someone from behind, underneath the back of their helmet.

You basically can not grab their helmet.

elgordo
03-11-2005, 01:05 PM
To answer your question about the facemask penalty...

Yes it is a penalty.

If a player grabs a hold of any part of another players helmet it is considered a facemask penalty.[/quote]

PAvikesfan
03-11-2005, 01:14 PM
moss is gone.

we will get another wide reciever either Plex or someone in the draft. the 1st pick will go to the best WR available guaranteed. also, even if we don't add another WR, we will still win more games because our defense will be much better. all those games in which the other team comesback from behind in the 4rth quarter won't happen this year. we will need to play smarter, not score over 30 points to win. if loney stands by his statement that we will run more, we won't score as much anyway, but we will ontrol the clock. we lost big play ability when moss left, but i can think a bunch of times burleson and robinson had big plays. we will not miss moss when we finish the season 10-6 or higher. in the games moss was out, we still figured out a way to score over 30 points in most of those games to just lose by a FG (GB, Indy...) . we will be fine.

XTAP59
03-11-2005, 05:59 PM
"PAvikesfan" wrote:

moss is gone.

we will get another wide reciever either Plex or someone in the draft. the 1st pick will go to the best WR available guaranteed. also, even if we don't add another WR, we will still win more games because our defense will be much better. all those games in which the other team comesback from behind in the 4rth quarter won't happen this year. we will need to play smarter, not score over 30 points to win. if loney stands by his statement that we will run more, we won't score as much anyway, but we will ontrol the clock. we lost big play ability when moss left, but i can think a bunch of times burleson and robinson had big plays. we will not miss moss when we finish the season 10-6 or higher. in the games moss was out, we still figured out a way to score over 30 points in most of those games to just lose by a FG (GB, Indy...) . we will be fine.

I hope the Vikes do well next year, but we added Smoot, and P. Williams DT, and that is it so far. And we lost Randy Moss. We lost a 15 TD 1400 yard 80 plus catch defense changing wide receiver. Moss made the offense run and in doing so, helped our defense as well.

We need to add a premier receiver, a premier linebacker, (Not Harris) and a Safety before the draft.

About the games Moss was out, I do not believe we averaged over 30 points in those games.

XTAP59
03-11-2005, 06:33 PM
To bolster my position, here are the stats I am talking about....

Culpepper complete 2004 season stats.
4717 passing yards, 39 TD passes, 294 yards per game average, and 2.43 TD passes per game.
Those are pretty darn good numbers.

Now, look at Culpeppers first five games when Randy Moss was not hurt.
1766 passing yards, 18 TD passes, 353 yards per game average, and 3.6 TD passes per game.
Culpepper was on pace at that time to have for 5648 passing yards and 57 TD passes. All NFL records.

Now look at Culpeppers stats after the Moss injury.
2951 passing yards, 21 TD passes, 268 yards per game average, and 1.9 TD passes per game.
It shows Culpeppers numbers went down significantly without Moss in the lineup.

If you calculate those stats for a full season,
4288 passing yards, 30 TD passes, 268 yards per game average. Still pretty impressive numbers but without Moss the stats are 1360 yards less and 27 TD passes short.

Remember, Randy Moss would not have the 27 TD catches extra, or the 1360 yards extra, but the entire offense would.
This is why I said Randy Moss made the offense go.

It is already apparent that Burleson, Robinson, and Campbell cannot keep up the pace without Moss. That is why I am saying we need a premier wide receiver to lesson some of the burden.

I also didn't mention the win loss record before and after the injury with Moss this season. That just wouldn't be fair.

chennegar
03-11-2005, 06:37 PM
I give you credit Moss is by far the best receiver in the game and i'm very upset that he is gone. But, your statement about Burelson only excelling because of the double teams on Moss is ludicris. While Moss was out, Burelson still excelled if not stepped it up a notch. And the offense still scored in the high 20s to low 30s, if the defense had stepped up in any of those games we would have had at the very least two more wins.

XTAP59
03-11-2005, 08:21 PM
"chennegar" wrote:

I give you credit Moss is by far the best receiver in the game and i'm very upset that he is gone. But, your statement about Burelson only excelling because of the double teams on Moss is ludicris. While Moss was out, Burelson still excelled if not stepped it up a notch. And the offense still scored in the high 20s to low 30s, if the defense had stepped up in any of those games we would have had at the very least two more wins.

First, about the scoring issue. Vikings first five games with a healthy Moss scored 150 points or 30 points average.

The last remaining games with a absent and injured Moss, Vikes scored 255 points, or 23 points per game. They only scored 31 points twice in the 11 game span after Moss was injured. That is 7 points less per game, every game on the average. I think someone in a previous post stated that the Vikes lost those games by 7 points or under. So, if Moss would have stayed healthy, we more than likely would have had a higher point total, like 7 more points per game on average, thus, winning more games.
We wouldn't have had the defense step up if we had scored that extra 7 points per game.

Burleson was the 25th ranked wide receiver this year. He had the luxury of having single coverage for a good portion of the season as Randy Moss commanded double and even triple team at times. Even when Moss was hurt, he was getting plenty of double teams. This afforded Burleson to work with the second bes corner and usually only single teamed. That is a huge advantage and still he was only ranked 25th.

Now don't get me wrong. I think Burleson is a good receiver, but please, no one should think that he can step it up enough to make the offense work as good as when Moss was on the team.

This gets back to my point that the three WR's we have now is inadequate and we need a premier WR and then we need to draft a premier WR to lesson the burden.

misteralay
03-11-2005, 08:31 PM
I'm sure they can step it up but they wont sell tickets like moss. Vikings need to think about that too.

collegeguyjeff
03-11-2005, 08:35 PM
yeah we can't replace moss, especially when someone like him quits playing in the middle of the game and he has that hamstring injury. i remember how great griffey jr was in baseball then he hurt his hamsting and he was never the same. this will probably happen to moss too i don't feel bad about him leaving

midgensa
03-11-2005, 09:02 PM
"TheHumanComa" wrote:

what'd Moss do last Year? not much.

Yeah, 13 touchdowns on a bum leg and in only 11 games is not much, we need much better production than that, I mean ... oh wait ... NO OTHER RECIEVER IS THAT PRODUCTIVE!

XTAP59
03-11-2005, 09:40 PM
Face it guys and gals, Moss made the offense go.
Say what you will about about the other receivers and how they can step up. Well, they cannot. If they could have, they would have.
Fact.....When Moss got injured, the offense production went down, way down. The wins also stopped coming. That was not a coincidence.

Coach Tice said the offense was built around Moss, not around Culpepper, Bennett, or any other player, but Randy Moss. Why? Because he has that kind of talent. If Burleson was that talented, it would have shown already. Same with Campbell, Robinson, was a fringe good receiver, but after ibjury plagued seasons, he has become average.
Burleson is a good choice for a #2 receiver, not the primary, but secondary. We need to sign a premier receiver to compliment him. Anyone who thinks that the three amigo's we have now is going to dominate the league is very wrong.

BBQ Platypus
03-11-2005, 09:51 PM
"XTAP59" wrote:

combine burleson, robinson, and campbell, and you still don't have moss.
No dig on the other receivers, but Moss was Moss.
We need to add two quality receivers to ease the burden.

You wouldn't have Moss even if you combined their talents and put them into one receiver!

KY Vike
03-11-2005, 10:15 PM
burleson is more of a possession receiver. we need a deep threat.

fourdoorchevelle
03-12-2005, 01:35 AM
"XTAP59" wrote:

"fourdoorchevelle" wrote:

i'm pretty sure that burleson started putting up bigger numbers when moss got hurt and after culp seen what he could do was able to look for burl more. didn't see huge #'s till late in the season , way after moss' #'s had dropped consirderably

Take a look at the game logs. You will see peps numbers are big when Moss was healthy, and trailed off considereably when Moss was out, and then began to rise again when Moss came back and played hurt. just curious what were the scores with out moss?

fourdoorchevelle
03-12-2005, 01:44 AM
20 , 13 , 28 , 31 , 22 . not to bad for an offence that couldn't run

snowinapril
03-12-2005, 01:46 AM
"coreyd" wrote:

"vikingstw" wrote:

There will be no replacing moss, We need to get another WR but we cant replace moss.

My guess is that his career is going to fizzle out now.....

Call me crazy, but I think that injury took a larger tole on him than what people think....

THe only thing that will slow Randy down is Collins. It depends on if Kerry can get him the ball, and Porter, and Curry............Moss should only catch Touch Downs, atleast he will catch 15 if he stays healthy.

As far as, Nate and Marcus, they will do well. Marcus will have to step it up a notch and stay healthy. He wasn't healthy last year but was playing through it.

fourdoorchevelle
03-12-2005, 01:57 AM
"fourdoorchevelle" wrote:

20 , 13 , 28 , 31 , 22 . not to bad for an offence that couldn't runonly 1 game below 20, 23pts/game still top half of the ranks

VikingsTw
03-12-2005, 02:59 AM
Hey uhhhh, Who did the Ravens have at WR the year they won the Superbowl?

UTVikfan
03-12-2005, 03:12 AM
Nice skewed stats Xtap. How many of the first 5 games that were so righteous did we have Jimmy K in? How many of the first five games did we have a starting right guard? How many of the first games did our tight end that was shopping play in? How many of our first games etc...Nice stats, horrible conclusion.