The title of the article did seem kind of presumptuous, but it pretty well summed up the “start Stafford now” point of view.

I won’t be disappointed either way. I’ve flip-flopped my view of this personally, but ultimately I think the best quarterback, who gives us the best chance to win, should start that Sunday.

However, there are some ideas, stated or assumed, in this article that I really don’t accept as a foregone conclusion:

1. Starting a QB as a rookie is a better idea than waiting, as a general rule.

This is one of those areas where you can really get into a historical example/counterexample debate.

The author seems to accept positive examples of QB’s starting right away (e.g. Manning), while disregarding or “explaining away” negative examples of QB’s starting right away (e.g. Car, Couch, Harrington).

The facts are…

There are QB’s who started right away and became successful (Manning, Aikman).
There are QB’s who started right away and did not succeed (Carr, Couch).
There are QB’s who did not start or hardly played as rookies, and ultimately became successful (Favre, Brady).
There are QB’s who did not start or hardly played as rookies, and ultimately did not succeed in the following years (JP Lossman, Drew Stanton).

I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all rule for when a QB should start in order to maximize his long-term potential. Every player develops differently.

2. Stafford will be a better QB in 2010 and 2011 if he starts a lot in 2009.

If a rookie QB like Matt Ryan can step in and immediately be successful as a rookie, couldn’t a second-year QB (Stafford in 2010) step in year 2 and be all-the-more ready to start, if Culpepper happens to be the better option at QB in 2009?

3. Stafford should start right away because we’re in a “rebuilding year”. Getting Stafford experience is more important than winning games in 2010.

I recognize the reality that it is not likely we will be in the playoff hunt after last year’s disaster. But on the other hand, Miami went from 1-15 to 11-5, and that was just last year. Other teams have had quick turnarounds too. Is winning football games every Sunday so unimportant or unlikely to matter during a “rebuilding year” that we should play a rookie for his own experience, at the expense of a better chance to win, if the veteran happens to offer that?

I think winning always matters, no matter what conventional wisdom tells you you’re supposed to expect during any given season. I think winning games matters a lot more than gaining experience for a young QB. imo.

Now, I wouldn’t argue that Culpepper is definitely a better QB than Stafford and gives us the better chance to win in 2009. But I think it’s possible that Culpepper is a better QB than Stafford and gives us the better chance to win in 2009. Maybe he is. Or maybe Stafford’s talent and learning ability beat Culpepper’s experience, and Stafford really gives us the best chance to win right away. I think either situation is at least a reasonable possibility.

And honestly, I’m really looking forward to seeing what Stafford can do after hearing all the positive buzz. I really am. And I was totally on the “Draft Aaron Curry” bandwagon.

But I believe that if we start Stafford right away “because he needs experience”, or “because that’s what the Colts did with Manning”, or “because we’re in a rebuilding year”, or “because the fans want to see our talented new rookie”, then we’re starting him for the wrong reasons.

We should not play Stafford for any other reason than because he’s the best QB available that Sunday. If Culpepper is the best option in the immediate term to win games, then I’m fine with him starting right away.

Actually, Prisco’s hype job moved me in the other direction. He made a point about how the Lions would take to year 3 of the Schwartz regime to have a shot at the playoffs if Stafford were to sit this year. Well, guess what, that’s probably going to be the case regardless. I’m not a fan of just giving the reins over to a guy because he’s the hot shot #1 pick. If he’s the better option at quarterback, then Schwartz should start him. If Culpepper is the better guy at the start of the season, then he should start.

Know this, though, regardless of who start, the Lions will have a losing season in 2009. If Culpepper starts and gets off to a rocky start, you can bring in Stafford at that point and let him take his shot. But if you start Stafford, and the season goes downhill, what will the Lions do then? Leave him in there to continue taking a beating on the scoreboard, and perhaps even on the field? Or yank him in favor of Culpepper, and risk damaging the Stafford ego?

The best quarterback, as determined in practice and pre-season play, as assessed by Jim Schwartz, should be under center when the regular season begins. If that is Matthew Stafford, so be it. But all else beng equal, and assuming similar performances in those pre-season games, etc, I’d be putting Culpepepr into the game, if I were Schwarz….

He never did mention anything about Aaron Rodgers. He sat for a couple years, came in and did pretty good. Although one could argue that he would have been WAY better(this last season) if Favre had left earlier, giving Rodgers more snaps.

Not many receivers better than him. Fitzgerald or CJ maybe. I’d take him.

make solid points. And I do hope that Culpepper is the new Warner. At the very least let culpepper play with the first team through the preseason so I feel better when stafford struggles in his early starts.

We found Culpepper already under the bus, so Prisco was simply putting him back where we found him.

Still not sure why you feel CP is going to be so great this year. I think he’s damaged good. Also, I still think there is something to the element of potential involved here. I know you don’t see this the same way, but I believe that you can justify a few less wins this year playing Stafford to help in his grooming of the future. Yes… even if he is not the best quarterback (but gotta be fairly close). There is nothing like experience in this league and Stafford can’t get it on the bench. I think that was Prisco’s main point. I’m not much for Petey Boy either, but his point here is valid. Culpepper is simply not in the long-term plans of the Lions, so if Stafford is progressing through camp, throw him in and let him take his lumps. CP is an insurance policy.

BTW… I posted this article simply so you and I could have Round 2. Again… JOKING!

The Lions gave up 52 sacks. Both teams attempted 509 passes. So you are right CL, the Lions were not the worst. The Bengals, Vikings and Raiders were not far behind the top two in sacks given up per pass attempts. The Raiders and Vikings did not throw that much so their lower sack totals covered up this problem a bit.

You Nate, have summed up my feelings.

As far as I’m concerned, Staff is the future of the Lions, we all know this. But right now, at this very moment and coming up to this season, it’s an open competition. I’m expecting Daunte to start this season but I wouldn’t be surprised to see Staff pushing Daunte quite hard this camp.

As far as this article goes, I don’t put to much stock into it, we all have talked quite a lot about each scenario and there are very solid points to each side. I’m just looking forward to the start of this training camp…let the competition begin.

IF Matt Stafford is as good as or better than Daunte Culpepper…..he should be the starter from day 1.