Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    144

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    "entertain the idea of trading culpepper" NOT!!!!! Do you really want another blow to the team-please-we already lost moss-the best receiver in the leauge- when he was on the vikings!!!! randy is slipping away-and lenihan who had the offense in step;now....nevermind, you know!! Why couldnt we have just kept lenihan, kept randy, and signed sharper-we would have been so good-but u cant talk about what if's right?
    Get Your Roll On!!!!!
    I hate the moldy cheeseheads!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    144

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    p.s who cares about smoot he was doing crap anyways!!
    Get Your Roll On!!!!!
    I hate the moldy cheeseheads!

  3. #23
    Eyedea's Avatar
    Eyedea is offline Pro-Bowler
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    430

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    I do think we have been better with johnson than with cpep. but that doesnt mean he is a bad player or should be traded. johnson is a better qb for the players we have. like someone said, he throws quick passes so our line has less time to make mistakes. coaches should have relized this and called short three step drops, but they didn't. also, other players have rised thier game to account for cpep being hurt. maybe, there play will carry on when he comes back
    Make love to the present, fuck the past
    --Sage Francis

  4. #24
    DCPologirl is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,280

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    "Prophet" wrote:
    Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper
    Carrots cause cancer.

    Prophet...lmao that's hysterical.

    DCPologirl:Maybe Randy will make Aaron Brooks look better......roflmao Del Rio: I guarantee he will

  5. #25
    DCPologirl is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,280

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    "singersp" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    So with all this being said, am I still going to be criticized for saying entertaining trade offers for Pep can be a good thing?
    You can entertain anything you like. Just don't invite me to your party. :grin:
    I'm not coming either! lol :roll:

    DCPologirl:Maybe Randy will make Aaron Brooks look better......roflmao Del Rio: I guarantee he will

  6. #26
    gregair13's Avatar
    gregair13 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    14,576

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    "DCPologirl" wrote:
    "Prophet" wrote:
    Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper
    Carrots cause cancer.

    Prophet...lmao that's hysterical.
    that is funny.
    i dont see how you can be better without your franchise quarterback. sure we ahve won 2 games, but so did pepper. our first bit of the season shed was way harder than what is ahead of us.
    We're bringing purple back.

  7. #27
    Big C is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    828

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    What you saw against the Giants is what Culpepper saw all season. Our WRs are unable to make plays. Wiggins is the only reliable receiver we have who will catch anything he can get his fingertips on. Did Brad win the Giants game? No. He just made sure he didn't throw any interceptions.

    Should we get rif of Dante? No F-ing way. He is a pro-bowl QB. He will learn this season while rehabilitating that he doesn't have to bear the weight of the team. Now that he is out, there is no one to bear the weight, so everyone is finally stepping up to help carry some of the load. The rest of the team will finally gel now this season.

    So watch out next year when Dante is back and not carrying the whole load. All of you who want him traded are going to eat your shorts. Hopefully.
    Halo 4. Start another fight.

  8. #28
    StillPurple is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,255

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    I have a hard time ragging on a QB who had the 5th best season of any QB ever. And if Moss was the reason, let's check Kerry Collins' stats at hte end of this year, and compare them. I think people always say, Moss was the reason Culpepper did so well, but never the other way around. Moss was just as lucky to have Culpepper as the other way around.

    I think over the short term, we are better off without Culpepper, for the reasons sited in the SI.com article. I agree that the team knows it is "on them" to win now, and that means TEAM is the thing, not the QB.

    But just wait when one of our receivers is open and about 60 yards from the QB, and Brad can't hit him... then, we'll see how we miss Culpepper.

    But I agree, for now, Brad is good. He manages the game well, and he is not losing it for us. Having a QB in the pocket who reads and releases fast is really helping us right now. Culpepper spent all day in the pocket. That works in a great system, but not in the system we have now.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    915

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    How can anyone say we are better off with BJ as qb. K. Robs long pass would have been a TD if pep was throwing the ball BJ missed his target by 10 yards there. The reason why our O sucks this year has nothing to do with pep, our line has problems and the gophers line would out perform in the NFL, our coaches are on their way to coach a comm college team. We would have scored more points against both the giants and the lions with pep. We were lucky to beat the giants they did not show up for the game it had nothing to do with how the vikings played. The true test is mon. If bj and the offence continue to play like they did last week, the score will be 0-28 in a heartbeat. PEP is the QB for a long time, with a decent game plan and a new o-line pep will do wonders like in 04.
    You republican whore!

  10. #30
    K-Robbing18 is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    66

    Re: Vikings may actually be better without Culpepper

    better without Peper, Hmm yeah Our defense must is, wait he doesnt play Defense, about time they start getting their act together.
    Do i think our offense is better.

    HMM let me think 280yrds Passing per/game with CPEP or 120yds passing with Brad
    hmm, thats a tough one.

    I think were getting some breaks and playing good defense so far without Pep (But our offense is pretty Boring without him)
    I do think we would still would of won two games with CPEP in there also.

    Its' because of Brad that we are winning, it's our Defense+Special teams, that has been stepping up BIG TIME!

    Yeah thats right, me with probably the onlu K-ROB jersey Autograph, and Nate "the great" Burleson

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Culpepper says Vikings are misrepresenting him
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-17-2006, 06:03 PM
  2. Vikings: What to expect from Culpepper?
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-15-2005, 01:31 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •