Sit Stafford, Start Stanton.... Not Culpepper
by CLF on Dec 9, 2009 10:45 AM EST
52 comments
That same philosophy should be attached to the quarterback and that's why Stanton, a former second-round draft choice, should get the nod over Daunte Culpepper, who is not expected to be in Detroit next season.
And the Lions cannot use the crutch that Culpepper gives them a better chance to win. Signing Ty Law would give them a better chance to win, too, but there are other issues involved here.
Stanton finally got some good coaching under offensive coordinator Scott Linehan and quarterback coach Jeff Horton. It's time to see how much he has learned and what he is capable of.
From a fan's perspective... I'd much rather watch Stanton on Sunday than Culpepper. I want to see if Stanton can be the reliable backup that I think he can be. Sorry Culpepper, thanks for your services, but the Lion's philosophy of "letting the young guys" play has to hold true. And to be honest, I don't have ANY faith that Culpepper would do any better than Stanton. He certainly didn't show it in the 2 games he played this year.
What say you? Start the Young, or go with the Older veteran who probably won't be here next year?
-CLF
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pride of Detroit or its writers. FanPosts are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable fans.
0 recs |
52 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Mentioned it in a differant thread.
If Schwartz wants to keep Baltimore guessing, as he mentioned, he should start Stanton. That is only if Stafford is shelfed because of his shoulder. If Staff is cleared by docs, let him play.
Baltimore's defense....
….would slaughter Stanton. They would be chomping at the bit to take advantage of his inexperience. Not to say that they wouldn’t slaughter CPepp.
GO LIONS! RESTORE THE ROAR!
BTW
I voted Stanton. But that “keep ’em guessing” argument isn’t true in the least. The Ravens are better than that.
GO LIONS! RESTORE THE ROAR!
I agree with Baltimore is better than that.
I don’t know if he would get staughtered anymore than Cpepp or Staff. Guess that depends on if the o-line decides to show up. IMO, he is an NFL QB, put him out there and let him do what he is paid to do. I suspect he can’t do any worst than Cpepp.
I voted Cpep
only because I think CPep gets the nod this week at Baltimore. If we were playing a weaker opponent I would give Stanton a 50/50 chance at starting. I would love to see Stanton play though and Lead makes a good point – that would throw off the Ravens for sure if Stant started.
I spray paint my dog Honolulu Blue and Silver
Pic - me vs. Bears fans
Dante Culpepper should start...
Let’s see what he can do. Why? To get Stafford healed. To keep Stanton healthy – I think we all know he can be a solid backup to Stafford for next year.
And Finally, to see what Dante Culpepper has left in the tank. If he were to have a few awesome games, maybe, just maybe, we could get some value for him in the offseason. Any kind of draft pick, or trade prospect – say WR or DB, we could pick up for him would be gravy.
If he sucks, then no regrets – thanks Dante – good luck. Bye. And we stay closer to drafting Suh! (wink!)
Just livin' the dream...
Compelling argument
I feel like Schwartz can’t go wrong with who he starts. Culpepper brings veteran leadership and we know the team would feel comfortable enough out there with him. He’s been there, he’s done that. We could get by, even if it would probably not result in a win.
However, Stanton is young. He’s proven he has some talent in the little time he has had on the field. He’s more likely to be a backup on the team next year. He could really use the experience on the field this week against a tough Baltimore team to prepare him to perhaps take over the No.2 spot next year.
I won’t hate Schwartz for starting either one of them because I see reasoning for both. Schwartz wants to win, so it will be Culpepper most likely that he will feel gives us a better chance of winning. I can’t argue with him except for just my emotional desire to see Stanton get some minutes.
I voted Stanton, but I support Schwartz’s decision either way.
GO LIONS! RESTORE THE ROAR!
Culpepper's been there and done that, all right......
Of course, the only thing he’s done in Detroit is lose every game he’s started. Pep’s still 0-for Detroit. If Schwartz feels Pep gives us a better chance to win,….well, ok. All I feel is nausea. After watching Culpepper lose every time in uninspiring fashion, I don’t think he gives us any chance to win. It’s like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. At first, it may seem like fun, but eventually, you realize it may not be such a good idea.
What? He can’t block a dead gopher? Humph, details.
I agree 100% with this post....
….what do we have to gain by starting a QB thats not going to be here next year and throws a hissy fit on Thanksgiving…..Start Stanton…..He deserves a shot to play…..I really dont understand why Cpep would start…..Hes washed up and we have nothign to gain by starting him in any game this year.
I chose "Young Guy", but...
if Stafford knows he can go without pain affecting his performance… he gets the nod in my book. If not, I’ll say this for the 100 bazillionth time… there is no upside to starting Culpepper. None in the least. That argument is even more relevant now that we are 2-10. What value is there at all to starting Culpepper? Anyone got a valid reply to that? Nobody better even mutter the phrase “trade value” either. He’s got none regardless what he would/could do against the Ravens.
I’d rather watch Stanton get massacred over Culpepper winning at this point. Why? Because I’d rather have a better shot at Ndamakong Suh over being 3-13, that’s why. Because we need to know if Stanton can be an adequate back-up to Stafford next year, that’s why. Because Stanton is more exciting to watch than Culpepper, that’s why.
Number 100 bazillion and one…. there is NO value to starting Culpepper!
WORD!
I’d rather watch Stanton get massacred over Culpepper winning at this point. Why? Because I’d rather have a better shot at Ndamakong Suh over being 3-13, that’s why. Because we need to know if Stanton can be an adequate back-up to Stafford next year, that’s why. Because Stanton is more exciting to watch than Culpepper, that’s why.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
by CLF on Dec 9, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
and its....
“Dom-a-con” for those that are afraid.
by CLF on Dec 9, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
Actually... isn't it "Nn-dom-a-kin Soo"?
That’s how I heard him pronounce it in the YouTube vids on Sean’s post. Could be wrong, though……
That's where I got it from...
you actually heard the ‘Nn’ ?
by CLF on Dec 9, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
If I can offer a reason to start Culpepper
I wonder how a team responds when they have a message drilled into them the entire offseason and regular season that the best player will start, period, and then the coaches suddenly shuffle around the depth chart as an experiment for who should be the backup QB next year.
There’s a reason why Stafford has been our starter and Culpepper (not Stanton) has trotted onto the field every time Stafford came out with an injury this year—it’s because the coaching staff believes Stafford is a better QB than Culpepper, who is a better QB than Stanton.
The guys in the huddle, who have played hard to win, who have practiced with all of our QB’s for the entire grind of this season and offseason—they know who the best QB is. And if the coaches suddenly shake up the depth chart at the QB position, not because Stanton has clearly separated himself from Culpepper, but as an experiment for who the backup should be next year, what message does that send?
“Hey guys, this season is a wash, it’s like the preseason again, don’t try too hard to win, just be careful out there on the field, go through the motions, throw some blocks, and let’s all look forward to this season being over. Plus if you win, we’re less likely to get to bring in a specific 21-year old college player who everybody thinks is going to be really good, but he’s not even a rookie yet, and you guys are already professionals in this league, but we’re thinking about Ndamukong Suh more than about you guys trying to win this football game.”.
Players don’t play for the draft, they don’t think like that. They play hard to win games—at least players worth having on your team do.
If Stanton marches out onto the field and throws three picks, and the players know that Culpepper gives them a better chance to win, why would they not quit at that point? Why keep grinding it out, through the pain, trying to win, when the coaches have already sent the message that it’s more important to evaluate our bench than to beat Baltimore?
Now if we start Culpepper, and he’s just not getting it done, then put Stanton in. I really don’t think Culpepper has to play all that bad—Baltimore’s D against our pass protection will make Culpepper look bad in a hurry, and when that happens, then I think there’s no harm from yanking him and putting in Stanton.
But unless Stanton has earned the #2 spot, wait until Culpepper loses it to put Stanton in. Stay consistent with the message that the best guy will be the guy on the field, and that the coaches aren’t thinking about the offseason, but they’re thinking about winning on Sunday.
Yeah, but that's a pretty week point and I'll tell you why
First, is the season not a wash? We’re 2-10. The players know what it is. What you’ve missed here is that players do not ever “not try”. Why? Because their jobs are on the line, that’s why. Even if the coaching staff was dumb enough to go into the locker room and say… “Well, that’s it. Our season is over. Just go out and try not to embarrass yourselves.”… the players on the field would be playing their asses off so they can keep their jobs – or at least be auditioning for other teams.
To be politically correct and not send the locker room message you’ve described above, all Schwartz has to do is say, “Stanton has improved in practice over the course of the season and has earned the right to compete with Daunte for the back-up role. We are going to split reps this week, then determine who plays if Matt can’t go.” Then when Sunday comes… play Stanton and say he had an excellent week of practice. It could all be a steaming pile of horse puckey, but it doesn’t matter. Schwartz knows as well as the fans that they have no idea of whether Stanton is a capable number two and at some point, he needs to be tested. Schwartz also knows, as do fans, that Culpepper will almost definitely not be here next year. So again I ask… where is the Culpepper upside sitting here at a miserable 2-10??? Anyone?
oh, I know Schwartz doesn't have to convince the fans
He doesn’t even have to make up any horse puckey, I think the majority of us would like to see Stanton start.
But you wanted a reason to start Culpepper, the coaches keeping messages consistent to the players is a reason, I think. Also, the fact that you can yank Culpepper and put in Stanton at any time if he’s not getting it done is another. Also, if this team can go on the road and win a game against decent team, that’s a confidence-builder, when’s the last time that happened for us?
That said, I won’t be disappointed either way. I’d like to see Stanton start. But I won’t be as upset as others here if Culpepper is the QB on Sunday.
I see what you're saying, n4ry4...
and it’s kind of valid. But I think players understand that the consistency thing goes out the window when you reach 2-10. It’s time to find out what else you have on the roster.
The one thing that you mention that is probably much more valid than the consistency message is the confidence building by getting a win. I think that Culpepper probably does give us a better chance to win versus Stanton. If the Lions could win a game or two to end the season, it could give the whole team a boost heading into the off-season. But I think that’s still a lesser element than getting reps for younger, more unknown players. In other words, I don’t think it’s enough to play Culpepper, IMO.
With the way Culpepper played in GreenBay... I'd say
…. nuf said.
by CLF on Dec 9, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
His numbers overall aren't bad for a backup on a bad team
37 / 65 (56.9%) 433 yds (6.7 ypa) 1 td – 2 int
He played average against Chicago, pretty well against Pittsburgh, and bad against Green Bay.
+100000 GREAT Point in Starting Culpepper
The players bust their butts all year long to win games. They don’t give a hoot about the draft OR developing the future. They want to see TANGIBLE rewards for their hard work and that means WINS TODAY.
Culpepper is the #2 guy (i don’t agree with it, but just stating a fact) because the coaches believe he gives them a better shot to win than Stanton. If they started the 3rd stringer for ANY reason, they would be lying to the team when they say NO EXCUSES. Then the players will quit too…and that creates a bad foundation for the future.
Stanton will get his shot in the future, but it won’t be until they think Stanton gives them a better chance to win than Culpepper.
Just give me 25 guys on the last year of their contracts; I'll win a pennant every year....Sparky Anderson
Let me ask you this....
Is Culpepper really that much better than Stanton… in your opinion. Is it really that much of a stretch to start Stanton over a washed up veteran? I know that we all haven’t seen much of Stanton (which is why he should play if Stafford can’t go), but during the preseason, I thought Stanton was nearly as good or maybe as good as Culpepper. It’s a tough comparison because Stanton was typically playing against the scrubs.
My point is this… it’s not like we would be giving time to some unknown rookie free agent that hasn’t a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace of playing well simply for the sake of trying something. Stanton is a third year quarterback that was a 2nd round pick! Don’t the Lions owe it to themselves to see if he’s capable? Culpepper means nothing to the Lions…. absolutely nothing. He represents zero long-term value.
So…. the busting of butts and tangible rewards bit goes out the window once you lose your tenth game of the season. Sure, we all want wins… especially the players. But if now is not the time to comb the roster for the future… when is? BTW…. not a “+1000000 GREAT point” for starting Culpepper. Think future……..
I agree....
To give Culpepper the start because he “deserves it” or the Lion’s “OWE IT” to him or just because he’s the #2… to me goes against the future of this team.
In NO WAY has Culpepper ever shown he is capable in winning an NFL game. Personallly, I think Mayhew has something against Stanton left over from the Millen days. Ever since day one when Culpepper was signed, Stanton has been treated like a 2nd class player.
Its really a shame. Bad pick or not, Stanton is a decent QB who has shown nothing but class and determination in the 4 seasons he’s been with the Lions….
He deserves better, but unfortunately, I can see the LIons ruining what ever career he could’ve had if this type of bullshit continues.
+1
CLF your right – if now isn’t the right time to play him when will the right time be?? Just release him then – let him try somewhere else if you are never gonna play him.
I spray paint my dog Honolulu Blue and Silver
Pic - me vs. Bears fans
by NYCLionsfan on Dec 10, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Stanton always seems to be shoved into the corner and ignored, regardless of how well he plays. He outplayed “Captain Dumpoff” Culpepper in the preseason and got the bottom rung on the depth chart as a reward. And there’s always some excuse to discount Stanton’s play and emphasize how we somehow (how?) have a “better chance to win” with Orlovsky/Culpepper/the neighbor’s dog. The neighbor’s dog has won as many starts in Detroit as Orlovsky and Culpepper combined.
What? He can’t block a dead gopher? Humph, details.
Well it's Dante getting the start.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/09/lions-backup-gets-thrown-to-the-ravens/
Good luck Dante!
Just livin' the dream...
Good find
That ends this debate. I am 0% surprised by this
I spray paint my dog Honolulu Blue and Silver
Pic - me vs. Bears fans
I have to say,
I am surprised they announced who would start this early in the week. You know, with Schwartz being all secretive about injuries and who will start.
I think you guys are reading into this too much
It will be CPep – it makes sense. He really does give us the best chance to win and if Staff is watching ANYONE play at least it should be a veteran, not a guy with 0 starts and virtually no game experience.
I spray paint my dog Honolulu Blue and Silver
Pic - me vs. Bears fans
I'd like to watch Stanton
But CPep has the start so, best of luck to him, for all our sakes.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
Zack Follett: he will hurt your mind.
I'm going to be sick
Excuse me while I go barf in Culpepper’s shoes.
What? He can’t block a dead gopher? Humph, details.
Maybe we can put the neighbor's dog in for the second half
What? He can’t block a dead gopher? Humph, details.
i know i'm referring to preseason but it was the only time we saw both play
stanton moved the ball. stanton made comebacks. stanton showed confidence. cpepp, i can’t stand watching. please will somebody finally give stanton the ball and see what he can do? i really don’t want cpepp back next year…and i really would love to see stanton be the number two man behind staff. at least give the kid a shot…and if he goes he goes…but let him prove what he’s got. he is invested in detroit & the michigan area…i have been a fan of his…and am really dissappointed he hasn’t at least had his opportunity
Absolutely
And as far as sending a message to the team, what kind of message is it when a guy makes plays in games, makes comebacks, wins games in the 4th quarter, doesn’t have a hissy fit and run to the the GM when he doesn’t start………..and ends up 3rd on the depth chart and is never given a chance? Makes you wonder why other guys on the bench would even want to try to play hard.
Give Drew his chance!
What? He can’t block a dead gopher? Humph, details.
I don't know...
if this has been said already but, what would we get from winning? Absolutely nothing but our reacord in history looking better. I say we should lose out. LOL. At least that way we get a higher pick.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
