SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
5123
In baseball, the numbers 511 and 714 have a significance that's unparalleled in football. You probably don't know what 5,123 signifies. If I asked you to name the record for total yards by a single player in a season, it's unlikely you'd know that the answer is 5,123. Even worse, I'd expect very few people even know who holds the record. It's not Dan Marino (5,077), although he is the only other player to accumulate 15,000 feet in a season. Warren Moon, Kurt Warner, Dan Fouts and Rich Gannon all topped 4800 yards in a year, but none of them is the record-holder, either. Warner, Fouts and Moon all have two seasons among the top 11 of all time, alongside some career years from Neil Lomax and Mark Brunell.
The player who has gained more yards in a single season than anyone else in the history of the sport was escorted off his team's practice field last Friday, and appears set to play for his third team in three years despite being just 30 years old.
Daunte Culpepper
It was just two and a half years ago when Daunte Culpepper passed for 4,717 yards, 39 TDs and only 11 INTs, while rushing for an additional 406 yards and a couple of scores. Culpepper's 28 more passing touchdowns than interceptions ranks third all time, behind Dan Marino (1984) and Peyton Manning (2004). Culpepper averaged 320.2 yards per game that year, and followed that up with 679 yards and 6 scores in two playoff games. Daunte Culpepper took the field 18 times in 2004, and recorded over 300 yards in twelve of those games. When something happens that consistently, it's difficult to dismiss it as a fluke. Culpepper combined passing and rushing brilliance as well as anyone besides Steve Young in the history of the league. And now? Not a single team appears to want him.
But back to the title of this post: 5123. How did he do it? The typical explanation is two parts "he had Randy Moss" and one part "he was never really that good." But that can't be it, for lots of reasons. For starters, it has to be more than Moss since no other QB has done the 5,000 yards in a season thing while playing with him. And really, how good has Moss been without Culpepper? Ronald Curry led the Raiders in receiving yards in 2006, not Randy Moss. Even if you believe Moss to be the greatest WR of all time, is he so much better than Marvin Harrison or Jerry Rice, so that Manning, Young and Montanta couldn't do what Culpepper did?
Further, 2004 was Randy Moss' worst season as a Viking. He played in just 11 games (and suited up but did not record a reception in two others) while recording then-career lows in receptions (49) and receiving yards (767). To put it another way, Daunte Culpepper accounted for 4,356 non-Randy Moss yards in 2004, which would have ranked as the 36th best season of all time. So 5123 has to be explained by a lot more than just "Randy Moss."
Moss was hurt that year and unproductive, but many argue that Moss' mere presence on the field opens things up for his teammates, leaving his true impact immeasurable. That may be true, of course, but it leaves one to wonder: why wasn't the mere presence of a healthy Moss for all those years enough to allow a Vikings QB to record 5,000 yards? In 1998, the Vikings had Cris Carter and Randy Moss and an unbelievable season out of Randall Cunningham, but Vikings QBs in the aggregate still accounted for "just" 4,633 yards.
Nate Burleson led the Vikings in receiving in 2004, not Randy Moss. But this just adds to the confusion for explaining how 5123 came about. Nate Burleson stinks. He's not any good. Despite being in the prime of his career and being handed starting roles, he's recorded only 520 yards since 2004. I'm not sure how you can start in 16 games, play in 12 others and only get 520 receiving yards, but Burleson did it. In 2006, Burleson ranked sixth among Seahawks WRs and TEs in receiving yards, despite the five men in front of him all missing games last year. And somebody once claimed that Nate Burleson may be the worst receiver to ever have 1,000 yards in a season. The explanation that Nate Burleson was a good receiver is simply not acceptable in deciphering how Daunte Culpepper set the NFL single season record for yards in 2004.
So it's not Burleson, who led the team in yards. And it's not (entirely) Moss, who has some ethereal ability to change defenses but had the worst season of his career. It certainly wasn't the great coaching, as Mike Tice was widely recognized as a below average head coach. The Vikings defense was porous in 2004, although far from historically bad. And a bad defense can only pad individual offensive player stats to the extent that it results in many attempts. But the Vikings ranked 8th in pass attempts that season, and Culpepper's 637 pass + rush attempts isn't out of line with the other all time great single seasons (Warren Moon had 639 and 688, Gannon 668, Fouts 631, Brunell 637).
Marcus Robinson and Jermaine Wiggins put up big yardage numbers, but really, are they unusually talented for a third wide receiver or tight end? Robinson was on his third team in three years and Wiggins was on his fifth team in five years. The Minnesota running backs didn't get many touches and weren't great, but they weren't bad, either. Onterrio Smith, Mewelde Moore, Moe Williams and Michael Bennett rushed 289 times for 1,360 yards, at a healthy 4.7 YPC clip.
When thinking about who should set the all time record for yards in a season, here's what I envision. A great QB, two excellent wide receivers, a strong offensive line, good receiving but bad rushing RBs, and maybe a terrible defense. Or perhaps an extremely deep set of skill position players with great coaching and an accurate and mobile QB; a team that created tons of mismatches for defenses every week.
Seven teams have had a pair of players record 1300 or more yards in a season, and the '95 Lions, '00 Rams and '05 Cardinals each had two WRs top 1400 yards. The 1989 Redskins, 1980 Chargers, 2004 Colts and 1995 Falcons all had three 1,000 yard wide receivers, with the Redskins and Chargers trios each topping 1100 yards. The '90 Oilers, '00 Rams and '84 Chargers had four players top 700 receiving yards, and last year's Saints would have joined that group if Joe Horn had been a little healthier. The 1984 Chargers and '83 Dolphins each had five players with 600+ receiving yards. Yet none of those teams with incredibly talented players and QBs matched what Culpepper did with the '04 Vikings. No, the best the Vikings skill position players can do is claim to be one of two teams with 9 players to record 207 receiving yards in a season, an honor shared with the 2001 Detroit Lions.
How would you describe the '04 Vikings? Their top WR (Nate Burleson) should be out of the league soon, their second WR is a Hall of Fame talent who was hurt for a good chunk of the season, the supporting cast of receivers and tight ends was largely retreads, the running backs were mediocre but with good hands, the defense stunk and the coaching wasn't any good. That hardly sounds like a recipe for excellence.
So what's the explanation? I have nothing else to presume other than Daunte Culpepper's a lot better than people realized. Or maybe, rather, it's Daunte Culpepper was a lot better than people realized. Let's scroll back in time and re-examine Culpepper's career. Culpepper was drafted in 1999 but sat his entire rookie season.
In 2000, Culpepper had one of the greatest seasons ever by a first time starter. His 4,407 combined yards currently ranks 33rd best all time. He averaged 8.3 yards per pass, and had twice as many passing TDs as interceptions.
In 2001, Culpepper was injured and played in only 10 full games. The Vikings went 1-5 in those other games, and 4-6 when he played in every game. He actually averaged more yards per game in 2001 than his incredible 2000 season.
In 2002, Culpepper really regressed as a passer. He had five more INTs than TDs, but it's worth noting that he rushed for over 600 yards and 10 TDs. Do we have an explanation for why Culpepper became a great runner but a bad passer in '02? Well Randy Moss was in the middle of his "play when I want to play" routine, and Mike Tice had created the ill-conceived 'Randy Ratio'. D'wayne Bates -- the Northwestern product who recorded 13 catches his first three seasons with the Bears before signing with Minnesota -- was the team's number two WR with Cris Carter gone. Byron Chamberlain was the main TE, and he recorded 29 yards the rest of his career. Chris Walsh and Kelly Campbell were the backup WRs, and Michael Bennett was the RB. And the Vikings had one of the worst defenses in the league. Going 6-10 on that team doesn't sound too bad, considering the coaching and defensive disadvantage the Vikings had most weeks, along with the inferior supporting cast. And it's not like Culpepper was terrible: his 4,462 total yards that year ranks as the 22nd most in a single season.
In 2003, Culpepper missed two more games, but once again set a career high for total yards per game. And unlike the previous year, he had a sparkling 25/11 TD/INT ratio and played like a star.
We know what happened in 2004, and since then it's been all downhill. But it's easy to forget how absolutely brilliant Culpepper was the first five seasons of his career. He was a yardage machine, and usually had a strong TD/INT ratio, averaging 1.74 touchdowns to INTs over that period. So if the explanation for the record isn't that Nate Burleson's the next Jerry Rice or that Mike Tice is the next Bill Belichick, I'm left with the thought that Culpepper used to be a superstar QB. And it wasn't all that long ago.
Perhaps a look at who should own the record will shed some light on this one. The 2000 Rams QBs totalled 5,578 yards, easily the most of all time. The '90 Oilers (5339), '85 Chargers (5,166), '04 Vikings (5123), '84 Dolphins (5,099) and '95 49ers (5,000) are the only teams to have their QBs as a group top 5,000 yards in a season. What did the 2000 Rams have? The greatest receiving RB of all time still in his prime, two HOF WRs both in their primes, an excellent third WR with great speed and a veteran 4th wide receiver that has 669 career receptions. The Rams had one of the best offensive minds coaching them of this era and a historically bad defense that forced the Rams to get into shootouts every week. And, of course, two pretty darn good QBs in Warner and Trent Green, both who were playing as well as they ever did. The two QBs ranked first and second in adjusted yards per pass that year.
Does that sound anything like the 2004 Vikings? Randy Moss wasn't playing near the level of Torry Holt that year, but that's as close as the Vikings got. Replace Isaac Bruce with Nate Burleson, Az-Hakim with Marcus Robinson, Marshall Faulk with Onterrio Smith and Mike Martz with Mike Tice, and somehow I doubt that Rams team comes within shouting distance of 5,123.
Which begets the question of the day. We know no QB has ever done as much (5123) as Culpepper did in one year. But has any QB ever done as much...with as little?
This entry was posted on Monday, June 11th, 2007 at 4:29 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Yeah, Culpepper's 2004 season was greatly overlooked, because of the season Peyton Manning had. Culpepper was really the perfect storm for this situation, I think. As you say, the next closest QB was Dan Marino, with 5,084 passing yards, and -7 rushing yards. So just having the most passing yards the NFL has ever seen obviously isn't enough. You need to be a good rusher as well.
Using your Historical Data Dominator, I looked at the QBs who threw for 3500 or more yards in a season while rushing for 400 yards or more.
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/histdatadom.php?groupyears=0&minyr=1960&maxyr=2006&tm=all&pos=qb&minage=19&maxage=46&minexp=1&maxexp=25&stat1=pyd&stat1min=3500&stat1max=&stat2=rshyd&stat2min=400&stat2max=&stat3=none&stat3min=&stat3max=&stat4=none&stat4min=&stat4max=&sortby1=s1&ad1=desc&sortby2=alph&ad2=asc&display=p
We've got Culpepper (3 times), Steve Young (twice), Jeff Garcia, and Randall Cunningham. These guys seem like the only ones who could pass enough and have the rushing ability as well (maybe Warren Moon? I don't know enough about his actual playing ability).
But, wasn't 2004 the crazy passing year? I think a Steve Young or a Randall Cunningham in their prime in 2004 could have done the same thing. Does Culpepper still rank #1 if you adjust for how much passing is going on that year?
I'm not entirely sure you need to have any rushing ability to hold the record, Zac. Remember that Marino held this record for 20 years, and that the combination of Warner/Green would have held the record if either had played every game for the '00 Rams. I don't think the total yardage record is skewed towards rushing QBs, although I'm not sure it's skewed against them, either.
(2004 was the crazy passing year. And that's certainly something worth considering.)
Moss missed three games and dressed but failed to do anything in two others.
That season, everything looked so easy for the Viking offense. Even though Moss's stats showed less effectiveness, he was coming off his best season and defense's focused intensely on Moss (I attended the Jax game when Moss came back from injury--even though he was clearly not at full-speed, Jax always had a safety rolled his way). Somehow because defenses keyed on Moss, everybody else--RBs, TE, WRs--was often quite open. Those same players that were reasonably effective in '04 were much less effective in '05 when Moss was gone entirely.
The schedule helped: Green Bay was horrible against the pass (two games for Daunte), as was Detroit (two games for Daunte), and Chicago was about average against the pass (two games for Daunte).
And the Vikings' bad defense helped: Daunte rarely got to sit on a decent lead that year. Look at the scores: you'll see a lot of high-scoring, close games that the Vikes either won or lost that Daunte was throwing in constantly.
And Culpepper had two very good seasons (00 and 03) and one monster season (04), so he was better than a lot of people probably now remember.
PV,
The schedule is an often overlooked thing, and I'm glad you brought it up. For awhile, I thought that was a big explanation for Manning and Culpepper's strong season -- both had really weak seasons. But with a ton of help from Doug, we were able to come up with a formula to help solve the big problem there: Manning and Culpepper faced the same teams that year. Detroit played those two three times, which really inflated how bad they were. Same with GB, Chi and Houston. In the end, Culpepper had an easier schedule than average and a slightly harder schedule than Manning. Both had nice schedules, and they certainly helped, but neither had insanely easy schedules as the raw numbers might have you believe. (I actually plan to have a full post on how we solved that problem and the final results for the past few years sometime in the next few weeks.)
I think that part of the reason why 5123 is not known like 511 and 714, is those two are career statistics, not season statistics. Another reason why is because I think football is more about the wins-and-loses, at least that is what is talked about at the water-cooler; while baseball fans do a lot more tracking and counting down to record breaking performances. Thirdly, football has always been "what have you done for me lately". There is little reverence like there is in baseball. And Dante hasn't done squat.
Here is the REAL reason Dante did so well. I had him on my fantasy team, and as you probably know, it was the Year of the Monkey on the Chinese calender. You do the math. I won it all, of course.
Chase, yeah, I did think about correlation/causation (how Culpepper's great season could have caused those teams to have bad statistical defenses). I wasn't sure how 2-3 of 16 games would sink the numbers.
When doing the study, did you compare Detroit, Chicago, and Green Bay to other teams, while also taking away other teams' 2-3 worst defensive games? Because any defense looks better if you take away its 2-3 worst games.
PV,
I'll unleash the full description in the future post, but rest assured, the method should escape any criticism fairly easily. Doug did an excellent job with it.
My brother thinks the most important stat of that season was Daunte's completion percentage, which hovered at the 70% mark all year and dipped to 69.2% at the end.
As I recall, it seemed like Daunte was scrambling for his life on most passing plays, which let him find Wiggins or Burleson in the flat for easy completions and consistent 8-12 yard gains.
My opinion is that Daunte is a good "improv" quarterback, probably even better than someone like Vick because he has some touch on his passes, but I've heard people say he's below average at reading defenses and being a "smart" QB like Peyton Manning. Oddly enough, he might actually be a BETTER QB when he has a bad offensive line, provided he has a couple sure-handed short threats. I think he can't succeed as a pure "pocket" quarterback, but with his knee issues, he may have no choice but to become one, and that could be as big a reason why he won't succeed in the future.
I think the adjusted passing is something to look at. I'd have to say I'm pretty certain that passing yards/game are up since 1984, and significantly so, so I would guess that if you adjust, Culpepper's season, while still phenomenal, isn't the best ever.
Being on the field for pretty much every single play offensively, defensively, and on special teams, Sammy Baugh lead the league in passing, interceptions (caught as DB, not thrown to DB) and punting. Not 100% certain he did all three in the same season, but I think he did. Now THAT is a strange triple crown will never be broken.
Well, the numbers 2,108 and 5,084 mean something to me.
No, I think the difference is that COMBINED YARDAGE is not a stat that we think about very often. The yearly leaders are not discussed. The stat is rarely flashed on the TV screen. I have no idea what the single-game record is for that stat either. (It must be close to 600 yards.)
I agree with your analysis of Culpepper's fall from grace.
But the total yards number combines his rushing yards and passing yards. But passing yards count not only the yards through the air but the yards after the catch, which belong far more to the receiver than the passer.
I look forward to seeing it.
I just discovered the blog and you guys are doing a tremendous job with it. I can't get enough of this type of analysis. Keep up the good work.
Culpepper's problem has always been a lack of consistency, season to season.
He looked like a HOF QB in 2000, only to fall apart in the NFC-C in New York (4 turnovers and a 13.7 passer rating). 2001 he was solid but unspectacular. 2002, he was just awful, throwing 23 picks and fumbling 23 times (lost 9). 23 fumbles ties a NFL record shared by him and Kerry Collins for the most in a season.
Come 2003 he seemed to get back on track, only to see a force out go Arizona's way in the final seconds to knock him team out of the playoffs after a hot start. 2004 has already been detailed, where he was just amazing. On top of all the yards that year, he was also great on 3rd down, converting them to first downs 49.7% of the time. He's always been great on 3rd down (better than Brady, on par with Manning), at least until 2005, which he begins with 10 turnovers in his first two games. It's been all downhill since, and now it seems like no one's even interested in him.
A Culpepper without mobility is a scary thought. I don't think his great years are a fluke, but his career is still a bit of an enigma. Probably will end up being considered one of the most underachieving QB's in NFL history.
Regarding the "doing so much with so little" comment...
I happened upon the '92 Dolphins page today and what stood out to me was the lack of a premier receiver. Even though Dan Marino threw for 4116 yards, his top receiver (Mark Duper) only had 762 yards receiving.
4116/762 = 5.40
By comparison, Daunte's 4717 yards passing divided by Burleson's 1006 receiving nets a ratio of 4.69. Marino's big 1984 season has a mediocre ratio of 5084/1389 (Mark Clayton) = 3.66.
If you could compute similar ratios for a wide variety of QBs, I'd be interested to see them. Might not prove much, but it'd be fun.
The greatest ratio I found (since the 1970 merger) was the 2003 Detroit Lions
Joey Harrington det2003 2880 6.41 Az-zahir Hakim 449
Roger Staubach dal1973 2428 6.19 Billy Joe Dupree 392
Kyle Boller rav2004 2559 6.08 Travis Taylor 421
Steve Bono kan1995 3121 5.92 Willie Davis 527
Jake Plummer crd2002 2972 5.80 David Boston 512
The lowest ratios:
Chris Simms tam2005 2035 1.58 Joey Galloway 1287
Mark Malone pit1984 2137 1.53 John Stallworth 1395
Jeff Blake nor2000 2025 1.51 Joe Horn 1340
Chris Miller ram1995 2623 1.47 Isaac Bruce 1781
Joe Montana sfo1986 2236 1.42 Jerry Rice 1570
Jake Plummer crd1997 2203 1.39 Rob Moore 1584
Trent Green ram2000 2063 1.26 Torry Holt 1635
Is that 5123 combined yardage excluding yards lost due to sacks? Football Outsiders has him at 4446 passing yards, not 4717, and I believe that they include sack yards (they also have him at 418 rushing, not 406, excluding kneel downs). That would give him only 4864 total yards, including running, passing, and sacking (but not kneeling); I'm not sure how that compares to the competition.
The FO stats also suggest that easy opponents were a relatively small part of the story; Culpepper's Points Above Replacement (for passing + rushing) drops from 155.7 to 148.1 after adding in opponent adjustments, which is much smaller than Manning's 19-point drop for the same year. Although that is almost a 5% drop in PAR, and a 5% drop in total yards would cost him around 250 yards (bringing him to 4873 opponent adjusted yards excluding sacks, or 4627 including sacks).
Re: 18 "Lowest Ratios" Was simms the sole QB? I think you need to prorate Galloway to receiving yards from Simms or compare Galloway to "Team QB". I guess I am saying these "Lowest Ratios" can be seriously skewed by injured or otherwise replaced QB's.
20: Those are "Team's Leading Receiver" divided by "Team's Leading Passer." It shows which receivers had great years despite injuries at QB, and you've got to admit, that's a pretty good list of wideouts.
On the other hand, the first two names on the other list are Joey Harrington and Roger Staubach. I suspect that's the only time those two men will ever appear at the top of any list ever again.
monkey, yeah I realized after I did the calculations that I forgot to filter out QBs who missed games.
Here's the low ratios for QBs who played in every game.
Tom Flores rai1963 2101 1.61 Art Powell 1304
George Blanda oti1960 2413 1.64 Bill Groman 1473
Matt Robinson nyj1978 2002 1.71 Wesley Walker 1169
John Hadl sdg1965 2798 1.75 Lance Alworth 1602
John Hadl sdg1964 2157 1.75 Lance Alworth 1235
Cotton Davidson rai1964 2497 1.83 Art Powell 1361
Here's the lowest ratio in recent times with 16 games:
Troy Aikman dal1995 3304 2.06 Michael Irvin 1603
Marc Wilson rai1984 2151 2.14 Todd Christensen 1007
Kordell Stewart pit1997 3020 2.16 Yancey Thigpen 1398
Jake Delhomme car2005 3421 2.19 Steve Smith 1563
Though his stats were rather impressive at times, the simple fact of the matter is that Culpepper was never, even during his brief "glory years," one of the NFL's elite quarterbacks. He was a consistent starter with a few playoff appearances under his belt, but at no time was he ever in the upper echelon of the NFL's elite QB's.
I thought this was a numbers site?
"And it’s not (entirely) Moss, who has some ethereal ability to change defenses but had the worst season of his career."
DC's game averages when Moss actually played in 2004:
11 games 321 yards 2.7 TD's .7 int's
Didn't play
5 games 235 yards 1.8 td's .6 ints
That's some serious evidance right there.
Now. Lets look at 2003. Two signifigant things to look at.
1. Vikings QB's aggregate yards (DC missed two games) was 4,589. 603 QB play attempts rushing or passing. 2004 637 QB attempts. Less then .4 yards per attempt difference.
2. 2003 Vikings running backs ran the ball 308 times. In 2004 189 times.
In 2003 the Vikings were nursing more leads and running the ball more. It easily could account for the slight upgrade in productivity in QB yardage.
Look at the passing offenses of the Vikings. I included the two years before and after Moss was there to help establish a baseline. Its pretty compeling.
1996 3899
1997 3537
1998 4492
1999 4318
2000 4019
2001 3854
2002 3951
2003 4169
2004 4754
2005 3449
2006 3402
Dakota is right, it was Moss.
When Randy got hurt that season, Daunte only had one more great game against the Packers. Aside from that he was very mediocre, and he wasn't hurt either.
Since Moss was coming off his best season, teams were playing him very deep allowing Pep to accumulate yards through other players.
Also, Peyton Manning got 4500+ yards in about 14 games (counting the quarters he rested), so he is right there with Daunte. Marvin Harrison was also having a nice, but not historic season either. Even Brandon Stokley got almost 1100 yards and 10 TDs.
I used to be a Vikings fan so i remember that season well. Daunte can be so reckless with the ball sometimes, you should give him some more heat for that. Most of his fumbles are his fault, don't give him a pass (remember that one losses yards while running or getting sacked too).