aaronvh Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 This is a continuation of First Topic since the trade has changed a few times I figured I would start a new post. So now the question is would you trade.... I give up... Bledsoe or Plummer and.. Lloyd or Chambers I get... Culpepper and Burleson I think if he goes for it I am stoked down the road, that is unless Culpepper is really hurt and doesn't make it all year, or Burleson never comes back. Even then I am not totally up S-Creek because I am giving up by backup QB's and WR's So now what do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhoops Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 This is a continuation of First Topic since the trade has changed a few times I figured I would start a new post. So now the question is would you trade.... I give up... Bledsoe or Plummer and.. Lloyd or Chambers I get... Culpepper and Burleson I think if he goes for it I am stoked down the road, that is unless Culpepper is really hurt and doesn't make it all year, or Burleson never comes back. Even then I am not totally up S-Creek because I am giving up by backup QB's and WR's So now what do you think? 1042469[/snapback] With your team trading Plummer and Bledsoe and Chambers for Culp wouldn't hurt you since you have Favre and ELI. You don't need 4 QB's, heck you don't need 3 so trade one of them for an upgrade at WR or RB right now Culp will get you less than Eli or Favre until he has a couple of decent weeks. Good Luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronvh Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 With your team trading Plummer and Bledsoe and Chambers for Culp wouldn't hurt you since you have Favre and ELI. You don't need 4 QB's, heck you don't need 3 so trade one of them for an upgrade at WR or RB right now Culp will get you less than Eli or Favre until he has a couple of decent weeks. Good Luck. 1042646[/snapback] No it's Plummer OR Bledsoe AND Chambers OR Lloyd... And we start 2 QB's so having 4 QB's may seem excessive but not really when you start 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quincyxg Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I dunno. I am inclined to say stay with what you have. The vikings look bad - real bad. Return the favor and see mine --> http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=115092 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronvh Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 Ok, the Culpepper owner has a counter offer now. Culpepper and Burleson for Steve Smith and Plummer Something in my gut tells me that Culpepper will get back on track and if he does then Burleson ends up being a stud. I don't know, my gut is telling me yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Ok, the Culpepper owner has a counter offer now. Culpepper and Burleson for Steve Smith and Plummer Something in my gut tells me that Culpepper will get back on track and if he does then Burleson ends up being a stud. I don't know, my gut is telling me yes. 1042793[/snapback] wow, thats a HUGH risk...he better offer something better than burleson....something I don't think he has... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blaw23 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Culpepper will probably turn it around and not be as bad as he has been. I don't think Burleson will be a stud at any point. Based on your team, I don't see that as being a bad trade for you, but I really don't see what benefit it gives you either. I would probably say no, based on your team as it looks now, unless you really think Minnesota will turn it around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronvh Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 I do think the Vikes will turn it around and start putting up some big offensive numbers again. It's not like they don't have the talent. I mean Randy Moss is a great WR but he isn't a team. I counter offered a bunch of different options to him so we will see. I don't want to get rid of Steve Smith for Culpepper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I do think the Vikes will turn it around and start putting up some big offensive numbers again. It's not like they don't have the talent. I mean Randy Moss is a great WR but he isn't a team. I counter offered a bunch of different options to him so we will see. I don't want to get rid of Steve Smith for Culpepper. 1042841[/snapback] I would not make this trade either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I do think the Vikes will turn it around and start putting up some big offensive numbers again. It's not like they don't have the talent. I mean Randy Moss is a great WR but he isn't a team. I counter offered a bunch of different options to him so we will see. I don't want to get rid of Steve Smith for Culpepper. 1042841[/snapback] I think the loss of Birk AND Moss is huge....that's 2 pro bowlers who weren't on the 'downswing' of their career... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weasel Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 No way. I think you have huge upside, obviously, with Culpepper, but Burleson has yet to show he was anything more than a scavenger of Moss' scraps. Meanwhile, Smith, while streaky, is the real deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazmi Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I do think the Vikes will turn it around and start putting up some big offensive numbers again. It's not like they don't have the talent. I mean Randy Moss is a great WR but he isn't a team. I counter offered a bunch of different options to him so we will see. I don't want to get rid of Steve Smith for Culpepper. 1042841[/snapback] Just like John Madden said. There is no way that Minnesota and make up for the loss of Moss. How can you account for the loss of a player who had 90 TD? And make no changes to replace him? Minnesota is done. Tice is done. Culepepper is done. Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.