Red McCombs signs...

[SeductiveNun]

Kleinsasser's receiving stats:

 

Year TM | G | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+-------------------------+

| 1999 min | 13 | 6 13 2.2 0 |

| 2000 min | 14 | 10 98 9.8 0 |

| 2001 min | 11 | 24 184 7.7 0 |

| 2002 min | 14 | 37 393 10.6 1 |

| 2003 min | 16 | 46 401 8.7 4 |

| 2004 min | 1 | 2 24 12.0 0 |

+----------+-----+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 69 | 125 1113 8.9 5 |

 

And Wiggin's receiving stats:

 

Year TM | G | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+-------------------------+

| 2000 nwe | 4 | 16 203 12.7 1 |

| 2000 nyj | 11 | 2 4 2.0 1 |

| 2001 nwe | 16 | 14 133 9.5 4 |

| 2002 car | 4 | 8 45 5.6 1 |

| 2002 ind | 3 | 2 17 8.5 0 |

| 2003 car | 16 | 8 80 10.0 1 |

| 2004 min | 14 | 71 705 9.9 4 |

+----------+-----+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 68 | 121 1187 9.8 12 |

 

Now, add in the appropriate caveats and conditions here:

 

1. Kleinsasser's receiving numbers increased the last couple years with the Vikes

2. Aside from total TDs, they both have very similar stat lines. Granted Kleinsasser has one more year under his belt, however he was a fullback converted to TE, and not used exclusively and/or prominently in that role until around 2002. Prior to that we had Byron Chamberlain. Kleinsasser was listed and mostly used as a running back from 1999-2001.

3. Exclusivley as a TE, Jimmy played in 31 games, had 85 rec. for 818 yards, averaged 9.6 ypc, and tallied 5 TDs.

4. When Moss was injured last year, Culpepper used Wiggins more often, and in some cases was the leading reciever that game. The injured WR situation never came up when Kleinsasser played, so this is a bit of a reach on supposition to presume Jimmy would have had the same offensive relevance.

5. Hypothetically, would Kleinsasser have topped 70 receptions last season had he stayed healthy? I don't know, but he was figuring into the Minnesota passing game based on the last two seasons.

6. Wiggins only year as a bona fide pass catching TE was last season with the Vikes.

 

All in all, looking at it from the Vikings point of view, they see a returning player who is a better blocker, and has put up similar numbers as a TE as did Wiggins. The team has always been keen on keeping Kleinsasser as well, as he tends to open up running lanes for the RBs much better than Wiggins.

 

Now then, with Moss gone, keeping Wiggins would do wonders out of a 2 TE set, as both TEs are capable pass catchers, and one is a very good blocker. For that reason, I could see the rationale of keeping Wiggins in a Viking uniform. Hoever, we are dealing with Red, so logic is thrown out the window at this point.

 

Freddie Jones may be a bit longer in the tooth, but if he comes cheap enough, we really aren't losing all that much with him replacing Wiggins from a production standpoint. Here are Freddie Jones's stats.

 

Year TM | G | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+-------------------------+

| 1997 sdg | 13 | 41 505 12.3 2 |

| 1998 sdg | 16 | 57 602 10.6 3 |

| 1999 sdg | 16 | 56 670 12.0 2 |

| 2000 sdg | 16 | 71 766 10.8 5 |

| 2001 sdg | 14 | 35 388 11.1 4 |

| 2002 ari | 16 | 44 358 8.1 1 |

| 2003 ari | 16 | 55 517 9.4 3 |

| 2004 ari | 16 | 45 426 9.5 2 |

+----------+-----+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 123 | 404 4232 10.5 22

 

Keep in mind, Arizona wasn't exactly the place to be if you played TE, and the VIkings have been using that position much more in recent years. I don't see this as a terrible downgrade in this case.

 

However, I do agree with missing out on Feely and any of the WRs that were out there was a colossal mistake. And if they don't sign a DB out of free agency, then Red better sell the team and never show his wrinkled up "purple prahd!" shouting puss north of Iowa ever again.

[alexgaddis]

Hey Cap'n...

 

 

Two words for ya..

 

 

"WE DON'T NEED YOU!"

[Whiskey Pimp]

Hey Cap'n...

Two words for ya..

"WE DON'T NEED YOU!"

 

724099[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Is there an inside joke here that I missed somewhere?

Edited March 7, 2005 by Whiskey Pimp

[Big Score 1]

Hey Cap'n...

Two words for ya..

"WE DON'T NEED YOU!"

 

724099[/snapback]

 

 

FYI

 

That would be four words.

 

Technically five, as one of the words you used, is actually a combination of two words.