A message board dedicated to the discussion of Minnesota Viking Football.
https://beta1.vikingsmessageboard.com/
PurpleMustReign wrote:Randall Cunningham is underrated imo. His 1998 season was spectacular.
Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2
I think you just illustrated why Kleinsasser belongs on that list. Referring to him as a small guard is a needlessly disparaging remark. He was so much more than that. You think could find a 100 guys who could do what he did at least as well as he did? A TE who can block that well yet still has the athleticism to catch as many as 46 passes in a season is uncommon and it's certainly nothing a guard could do.Eli wrote:This list is more like what I'd expect to see. I don't know about Larsen - you could easily argue that he benefited more from playing on a DL with three all-world players than he contributed to that line's greatness. A lot of people would argue that Joey Browner was not underrated, having made six Pro Bowls, but I've mentioned this several times before - you'd be hard pressed to find any non-Viking football fan old enough to remember that era of the 80s who would name Browner as one of the best safeties of his day. Kleinsasser? I've argued many times before - if you want a small guard to line up at TE and block, it's not hard to find a hundred guys who could do that at least as well as Jimmy K. And, yes, they could catch a football every other game as part of the job.
No, he was little more than that. It's not disparaging, it was how the Vikings used him. Didn't he come into camp one year at close to 290 lbs? Ridiculous. You're not going to outrun any LBs at that weight, but the Vikings didn't care. He functioned for most of his career as very little more than a sixth lineman.Mothman wrote: I think you just illustrated why Kleinsasser belongs on that list. Referring to him as a small guard is a needlessly disparaging remark. He was so much more than that.
Athleticism to catch passes??? Please. It takes some talent, but not exactly what many people would term "athleticism". A _lot_ of offensive linemen come out of college who were former tight ends. Yeah, they can catch passes if asked to.You think could find a 100 guys who could do what he did at least as well as he did? A TE who can block that well yet still has the athleticism to catch as many as 46 passes in a season is uncommon and it's certainly nothing a guard could do.
How many double teams do you think Larsen drew? How many times do you think he broke free because someone had to double down on Page, Eller or Marshall? This is one of those chicken and egg things, like asking why the Vikings passing game is so godawfully bad. Is it because the starting QB sucks, or is it because most of the receivers suck? There is no real answer when both are true.As for Larsen, he benefitted from the presence of Marshall, Eller and Page but he was also a difference-maker who helped them excel. He's definitely underrated.
Unfortunately, Brad Childress often used him that way but during the Tice years, Kleinsasser was actually used as a receiver and H-back and not just a blocker.Eli wrote:No, he was little more than that. It's not disparaging, it was how the Vikings used him. Didn't he come into camp one year at close to 290 lbs? Ridiculous. You're not going to outrun any LBs at that weight, but the Vikings didn't care. He functioned for most of his career as very little more than a sixth lineman.
What I meant was that it takes athleticism to run routes effectively, play h-back or fullback (and not just in the "short yardage" sense that an o-lineman occasionally plays it), get open and catch passes and Kleinsasser could do all of the above. He was much more athletic than the average offensive lineman.Athleticism to catch passes??? Please. It takes some talent, but not exactly what many people would term "athleticism". A _lot_ of offensive linemen come out of college who were former tight ends.
In this case, I think there's a real answer: Larsen contributed to that line's greatness. I don't know how many times he broke free because someone was doubling Page or Eller but his primary role was as a run stopper, not a pass rusher, so I'm not sure that's significant. His job was to anchor the line and help free up the pass rushers and he excelled in that role. Does that make him underrated? That's debatable since it depends on who was "rating" him in the first place but I think he deserves better than to be written off as a player who just benefitted from good company.How many double teams do you think Larsen drew? How many times do you think he broke free because someone had to double down on Page, Eller or Marshall? This is one of those chicken and egg things, like asking why the Vikings passing game is so godawfully bad. Is it because the starting QB sucks, or is it because most of the receivers suck? There is no real answer when both are true.
Any excuse to post this:Eli wrote:No, he was little more than that. It's not disparaging, it was how the Vikings used him. Didn't he come into camp one year at close to 290 lbs? Ridiculous. You're not going to outrun any LBs at that weight, but the Vikings didn't care. He functioned for most of his career as very little more than a sixth lineman. Athleticism to catch passes??? Please. It takes some talent, but not exactly what many people would term "athleticism". A _lot_ of offensive linemen come out of college who were former tight ends. Yeah, they can catch passes if asked to.
wow. Flying Saucer? I'd never seen that clip before, that was great. Just to pile on here, I think Sauce was way under utilized as far as is skills go. But he did play in a Viking era that had plenty of offensive talent...Robert Smith, Moss, Carter, Reed, Glover, Jordan, AD, Rice,Shank, Harvin etc.It's a great play!
Was it THE buddy ryan?VikeMike wrote:To add to Moth's comments on Larsen (and Sutherland) ... His job was to stay at home and fill the middle. Page, Marshall and Eller were so good at penetration, the philosophy at the time was to use the other DT as a safety gap, so to speak. This isn't a theory, it's what Grant and then-defensive line coach Buddy Ryan said at the time (sorry, I don't have any links to that, but I do know that they stated it many times). You can ask the other three whether or not Larsen and Sutherland were integral parts of the success of that DL, and they would say yes.
Yes, he was an assistant for the Vikings for a few years during the '70s.PurpleMustReign wrote: Was it THE buddy ryan?
NextQuestion wrote:Adam Rank is a hack. I tweeted him about this and he said "this was an era where guys were getting 100+ receptions all the time. Guys like Herman Moore".
Which played a big part in the overrating of Nate Burleson (still a good WR though). I think Culpepper needed to show more than one year that he could ball without Randy. Looking back, it's a lot more clearer that Daunte was a gunslinger that excelled from the confidence he gained from throwing to #84. Career may have played out differently without the injuries, but you can't assume much from that.losperros wrote: Quite honestly, I think Culpepper actually proved he could put up big numbers even without Moss. That's what happened in 2004. Moss was injured for much of the season and Pep carried the entire team on his shoulders and played his best ball. Because his career abruptly ended due to injury, we don't know if Pep could have continued to be a stud QB but he sure was during 2004.
Now that you bring Daunte up, I confess that I miss him. Culpepper played with heart in every game and he definitely had amazing physical skills, what with his accuracy, arm strength, and surprising mobility. I'm not saying he was perfect by any means but I'd love to see a young and healthy Culpepper as our current QB.
Well said.The Breeze wrote: I get the feeling that a lot of media types have a disdain for CC due to the way he expresses himself as a analyst. Just my feeling. He can come across as a know it all...I guess. But they all do IMO. I don't see how the # of receptions is relevant other than in relation to the league leaders
From 91-2000 Carter was top 5 in receptions 6 times (#1 once) and in the top 10 2 other times (11th in 98)
During the same stretch he was top 5 in TDs 6 times with 3 seasons leading the league.
Also named to 8 probowls and 2 1st team all-pro
If he has 100 catches or 80 catches and is in the top 5 it doesn't matter what era it takes place in. I think his greatness was defined by his longevity and consistency.
Herman Moore didn't have the same success for as long but he did have 5 great seasons and was 1st team all-pro 3 times....Rank probably has Moore under rated IMO.
That's what I was thinking and why I looked up the numbers. I thought he was implying that 100 rec is a "token" stat the way 1000yds rushing has become. So, I was looking at when the 100 rec era began, and it turns out it began with CC's string of great seasons. Sterling Sharpe, Jerry Rice, Chris Carter and Herman Moore....just looking at the stats, those guys really ushered in the receiving end of the new passing era. From the late 80's through the 90's and currently, the number of 100 catch WRs has been pretty consistent. Some seasons there are a bunch and others there have have been 1 or 2. So, I don't understand the point he's trying to make.Mothman wrote:
Well said.
All Rank did by using Moore as an example to be dismissive of Carter was reveal his ignorance about both players. moore was a terrific receiver.
Maybe Rank failed to notice that the era in which receivers topped 100 receptions hasn't ended or that topping 120 is still pretty rarefied air, the kind of catch totals that put Carter in the company of players like Rice and Harrison.