burleson and robinson

**XTAP59** · 03-10-2005, 10:25 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, 10:29 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, 10:29 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, 10:38 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, 10:44 PM

what'd Moss do last Year? not much.

**TheHumanComa** · 03-10-2005, 10:46 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, 10:47 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, 01:37 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, 02:07 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, 10:38 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.