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

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:

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:

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:

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.