You have the right to dream, just don't get too caught up in that dream. After all it is Kyle Boller we're talking about here. :cheesey:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BRavens)</div><div class='quotemain'>hopefully Boller can crack that list after this season. I can dream right.</div> yea the chances that Boller would crack anyones top 10 lists can't be to high. Sorry.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TOMW74)</div><div class='quotemain'>Culpepper sucks... lets get that straight first. i would say McNabb is better than Culpepper. but neither of them should be in the number 2 spot.</div> Culpepper sucks? Are you crazy? What are you getting straight, that you don't know a good QB when you see one? Culpepper's stats from last season: 4717 Yards 69.2% Completion Percentage 39 TDs 11 INTs 110.9 Qb Rating Now please explain to me how Culpepper sucks...if you can give me 10 active QBs with numbers better than that (currently I can only give you Manning) then I'll be happy to agree with you.</div> Those are some good numbers. I don't think there's a active QB, other than Manning and Warner, with that good of numbers in one year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bleedblk&gld)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TOMW74)</div><div class='quotemain'>Culpepper sucks... lets get that straight first. i would say McNabb is better than Culpepper. but neither of them should be in the number 2 spot.</div> Culpepper sucks? Are you crazy? What are you getting straight, that you don't know a good QB when you see one? Culpepper's stats from last season: 4717 Yards 69.2% Completion Percentage 39 TDs 11 INTs 110.9 Qb Rating Now please explain to me how Culpepper sucks...if you can give me 10 active QBs with numbers better than that (currently I can only give you Manning) then I'll be happy to agree with you.</div> Those are some good numbers. I don't think there's a active QB, other than Manning and Warner, with that good of numbers in one year.</div> I think Favre had a couple of years like that before but what Manning did was in human. Culpepper will do better this year in my opinon.
Peyton Manning is gonna have a better year than Culpepper is because Manning has better WRs and a better RB. Culpepper has Burleson as the only proven starting WR. The RB positon isnt secure because Moore could overtake Bennett as the starter
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (panthersare#1)</div><div class='quotemain'>Peyton Manning is gonna have a better year than Culpepper is because Manning has better WRs and a better RB. Culpepper has Burleson as the only proven starting WR. The RB positon isnt secure because Moore could overtake Bennett as the starter</div> Although I agree that Manning is going to have a better year than Culpepper, I don't agree with your reasons. I think our WR are going to surprise some people, but then again I am a homer. I doubt Bennett will give up his spot to Moore. Tice doesn't like Moore...Ciatrak Faison has a better chance of being the starter than Moore at this point.
Harrison is a lot better than Burleson. Harrison is probly the 2nd best WR in the NFL. Reggie Wayne and Stokely are proven they can do it. They are the only 3 WR tandem to all go over 1000 yards. Williamson could be good, but right now he is unproven
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TOMW74)</div><div class='quotemain'>Culpepper sucks... lets get that straight first. i would say McNabb is better than Culpepper. but neither of them should be in the number 2 spot.</div> Culpepper sucks? Are you crazy? What are you getting straight, that you don't know a good QB when you see one? Culpepper's stats from last season: 4717 Yards 69.2% Completion Percentage 39 TDs 11 INTs 110.9 Qb Rating Now please explain to me how Culpepper sucks...if you can give me 10 active QBs with numbers better than that (currently I can only give you Manning) then I'll be happy to agree with you.</div>
