Poll: When Will Matthew Stafford Start for the Lions?
by Sean Yuille on Jun 4, 2009 12:05 PM EDT
in Polls
204 comments
The great debate this summer and until it actually happens will be when No. 1 overall pick Matthew Stafford should step into the role of starting quarterback for the Lions. Many think he should sit an entire year to be even more prepared for year two in the league, whereas others believe he can't ever be truly ready until he plays and want him to be the starter from day one. In the end, obviously only the opinions of Martin Mayhew and Jim Schwartz will really matter in regards to when he should play, so I'm posing this question to you guys: When will Stafford become the Lions' starting QB?
Many variables go into answering a question like this, so let's first remember what Jim Schwartz said about when Stafford will play for the Lions.
"We've got two criteria for when Matthew will play. One is he'll play when he's ready. The second is when he's the best quarterback for us."
What makes this such a tough thing to predict is all of the different factors in play. First things first, Stafford has to learn the offense and perform at a level that shows he is ready to become a starter in the NFL. Even if that happens, though, we can't forget about Daunte Culpepper. This is where the second part of what Schwartz said comes into play. Even if Stafford is looking good, what if Culpepper is looking even better? Potential and talent down the road aside, Culpepper could very well be better than Stafford even if Stafford is ready to play, making this question even more complicated.
My guess is that Culpepper will be the starter when the season begins, making it necessary to add the variable of the Lions' performance into the equation. Even if Stafford is ready to play, the Lions may opt to wait on starting him until Daunte Culpepper gives them a reason to. If the team is playing well with Culpepper at the helm, why make a change that could potentially disrupt the team's chemistry? At the same time, if the Lions start the season off with more losses or get on another cold streak, the calls for Stafford to start will be very loud. That doesn't mean he will start, as I doubt Schwartz will let the fans dictate what he does. However, if the Lions are struggling, making a change at QB, if that's one of the problems, would make perfect sense.
When voting in the poll below, make sure to consider when Stafford will be ready, when he will be the Lions' best QB, and the Lions' performance in general. Unless you think Stafford will open the season as the starter, you need to basically go through the Lions' schedule and make predictions for each game to truly get a sense of when he will take over for Culpepper. Once you take all of that into account, I pose this question to you:
0 recs |
204 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
My prediction, BTW:
Is coming out of the bye week.
Pride of Detroit, SB Nation's Lions Blog
by Sean Yuille on Jun 4, 2009 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I say bye week too
The first 6 games are rough… I wouldn’t want to throw Staff into that
1 – NO Saints – much improved defense from last year but no where near elite
2 – Jared Allen and possibly the Williams Wall – no thanks
3 – Look at our last 5 games against the Redskins and the addition of Big Al
4 – Not nearly as scared of the Bears defense as years past – I think they’ll be mediocre
5 – Harrison, Lamar, Lawerence Timmons, Polamalu, etc = yikes
6 – @ Lambeau – at least it’s not December 31 this year
If Culpepper can survive these weeks i think we come out of this stretch at 2-4 and Staff could start after a Kitna/Iverson-esque back injury to Culpepper
by calvins got a job on Jun 4, 2009 12:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No comment
My thoughts on the matter are well known.
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I voted after the Bye week.
But I believe if there is any hope at all of the Lions going 8 and 8 or better, Stafford must start at week one.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 4, 2009 12:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Week 1
I don’t see the point in waiting a few weeks and handing him a hot plate of garbage. Either he is ready and plays day 1 or he is not and starts next year. Daunte Culpepper has not played at a level in the top two thirds of the league for like five years or more now. Schwartz has compiled a ton of blocking options with these new tight ends and tackles. Put them on the field give Stafford lots of max protect and build up the kid’s confidence. The Raven’s did it with success last year, the Lions should do some of the same things that Cameron did there.
by Russ Aronson on Jun 4, 2009 1:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree and disagree
I agree that Stafford should either start week one or not start until next year. I disagree with the notion and implication that Daunte Culpepper can not possibly play at a very high level again. Even the great Kurt Warner has had bad years. Kerry Collins sucked for years and all of a sudden he leads the Titans on an incredible journey (even if they did fall short of the SB, he still played very well). Yes, DC is 5 years removed from playing at a very high level, but he suffered a near career ending injury. He is in the best shape he has ever been in since being drafted, and he seems determined to prove that he still has what it takes to play at a high level. I would not be at all surprised to see him return to playing at a high level, and even if he only hits 80% of his 2004 mark, he will be awesome. If anyone thinks that Matthew Stafford can come right in and throw for 3774 yards, 31 TDs, 15 INTs or less, and pass for a minimum of 60% completions (80% of DC’s 2004 stats, not including completion % which I feel should be at least 60%), just take a look at Troy Aikman’s stats in his rookie year of 1989 in Dallas. He played in and started 11 games, going 0-11 as a starter, and passing for 1749 yards on 52% completions for 9 TDs and 18 INTs. It took Troy Aikman 4 years to become a good QB, and it was not until 1992 that he was able to start in all 16 games. In 1991 he was getting better, throwing for over 60% completions with 11 TDs and 10 INTs with 2754 yards…..much improved, but still not very good. The situations are very comparable between Dallas then and Detroit now. Dallas took 4 years to build their offensive line, and when they finally had a good one, Aikman hit his stride. I feel that Aikman could have produced much better numbers starting as a rookie, if Dallas already had that O-line in place when he stepped in. That is why I feel that Stafford should sit at least a year. We need a couple more key additions to the O-line before I think he will be in an environment where he can succeed. Yes, the kid has skills, and he has the potential to be the next Aikman. No, it did not ruin Aikman by starting as a rookie, and it may have helped SOME, but was that lucky or was Troy just that invulnerable? The game of football is won and lost in the trenches. The offensive line is the foundation of the offense. Can anyone say that the Lions O-line (even with the FA additions) is good enough that we are sure that Stafford will not get injured? I say he should be the backup this year. If Daunte goes down, then he can have his shot. The only way I see him starting day 1 is if he is the better QB, without a doubt, and if he knows the playbook inside and out. I can see him knowing the playbook, because he is a smart guy, but will he prove beyond a doubt that he is better than DC, and does the Lions FO believe that their investment will be adequately protected? If the answers to all of those questions are a resounding YES, then I would love to see what this kid can do for our team. I would say bring on Matt Stafford, if all of those answers are yes.
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
K-dawg
I respect you and your views but please use the enter key a bit, your big block of text is a bit daunting :D
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jun 4, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
I should add some paragraph structure to my posts….I was just being lazy….:o)
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ahha
no problem, you’re not the only one :D i haven’t done a fanpost in ages, I have to start it back up again
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jun 4, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a very low level of confidence in Daunte
I first believed that Stafford should sit and learn the NFL game while Daunte plays. However, if he demonstrates to the coaches that he is their best QB they should play him week one. If we wait until we have a pro bowl offensive line, the guy may never play.
It is interesting that you used Aikman as an example. I will say that Dallas handled him correctly. His stats are not what this is about. I don’t care if Stafford throws for 50% and more INTs than TDs in 2009. It will be about him working with his teammates and earning their respect on the field by going through a tough year with them. Not being held off the field to protect him and his ego.
My view on the 2009 season is that it is a rebuilding year. It will not be pretty, but this is the time to work in some new faces and be in a position to really excel in 2010. Delaying the learning curve for Stafford will not help the Lions in the long run and will only increase the pressure on him when he does get the starting nod.
I will leave it up to Schwartz and Linehan to make the decision whether he starts the first week……..but if they call and ask my opinion….there it is.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 4, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dallas wasn't sure Aikman was the man for the job at first. They brought in Walsh to compete.
Jones and Johnson knew they needed a young stud but wasn’t sure who it would be.
by Runnin' Rebel on Jun 4, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah yes....the opposing viewpoint
I’m not surprised, to say the least. I agree, as I stated in my post above, that if Stafford proves to be the better QB, and if he is ready, he should start in week 1. To me, putting the QB on the field that will win us the most games IMMEDIATELY is the most important thing. Like I said before, without the fans, we do not have a football team in Detroit. I think that the stats do matter very much, in that respect. Stafford has not taken snap 1 as the starter, yet he already has the respect of his teammates. It does not matter if he sits for a year or plays right away, the players will still respect him when he becomes the leader of the offense. Not only will they give it willingly, but he will command it because that is what good QBs do. Everyone on the team knows that he has no control over the decisions that are made by the coaching staff and the FO, other than going out there in practice and giving it all he has. As long as he works hard, he will have respect whether he plays immediately or not, and he will also be very much involved with the team if in fact they do have another bad year.
His ego has nothing to do with the argument, in my opinion, but his physical well being does. If the kid gets into the game as the starter and breaks his neck (God forbid) then what do we have? Nothing. I think it is sad that so many people think that getting on the field right away is so important to his “learning curve”. I agree that it makes a small difference, but he will learn pretty much the same things in practice as he will in actual games. By playing in actual games, he will gain experience playing against other teams and different players. In the long run that will be significant, but in the short term (over 1 year) it will not make a big difference.
I too will leave the decision to Schwartz and Linehan…..as I have no other choice.
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am a bit confused KDawg
When we have discussed ‘respect’ issues before, you said that it has to be earned not given. I think that sitting Stafford when the other players can see that he is the better QB would be a mistake. The risk of physical injury is always there, but lets not get carried away, the chances of him getting his neck broken are infinitesmal. The chances of him getting seriously injured will always be there, but will be extremely low. Harrington was never seriously injured. Neither was Kitna, or pretty well any other Detroit QB that I can think of. And that covers some pretty bad teams with bad offensive lines. Hopefully, the moves that have been made [Salaam, Jansen, Loper] on the O Line will reduce those chances even more.
My comment about Stafford’s ego is more to other posters here who think he is going to be emotionally destroyed if he starts this year. Come on! That’s ridiculous.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 4, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
I don’t think he will be emotionally destroyed if he starts this year. I am not even really inclined to believe that he will get injured. I just think that he better be ready and able to read all of the defenses, call the audibles, and make the throws or else his quick release will not mean a damn thing because he will be holding on to the ball to long (and we both know what happens in Detroit when you hold on to the ball). I have said it a bunch of times already….if he is “ready” and he is better than Culpepper, then he should and will start. I agree that it would be a mistake to sit him if he is the better QB, as long as he is ready (in all aspects).
I agree that respect is to be earned and not given. What I meant was that he has already earned the respect of many players in his short time in OTA’s. The players will willingly give him more respect when he takes over as the starter (whether it be now or later) because he has, and will continue, to earn their respect in practice through his work ethic and personality. He will also command their respect, as he will prove worthy of it. The players are impressed with how well he has performed as a rookie, and they respect his demeanor, leadership ability, and potential. Do you really think that they will be disrespectful to him if he doesn’t start this year?
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me put it this way.....
I have been on teams and situations where things/seasons have not gone well. There is something to be said for the shared experience of battling through that and sticking together. I don’t think standing on the sidelines and watching is anywhere near as important as working hard in practice. I think they will respect him more and have a higher confidence level in him if he is on the field with them.
Like I have said [as one of the pessimists], 2009 will be a tough year, but important to the Lions to begin to build a real team. I’m predicting a lot of improvement in the play and execution this year which may not translate into many wins. But that will set up this team for 2010 success.
I think if Stafford starts the whole year they may win more games than if Daunte starts, but more importantly, they will have the core of this team [especially on offence] playing together one year and more prepared for a great jump forward.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 4, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to argue
But I too have been on teams where things went very poorly, and also on teams where things went very well. Case and point comes in an example, once again from my own HS experience. I was on the Varsity Basketball team as a junior in HS. I rarely played at all. In fact, my nickname was 2.2….because I was once put into the game for 2.2 seconds. It’s not that I was no good, or that I did not have the ability to play the game, but the other guys who were starters were just plain better than me (in the coaches opinion). I sat the bench all year long, but the team was very good. WE only lost 6 games that year (one being the division championship game in double OT). I did not play much, but I helped make that team better by playing my heart out in practice. I did my part by making the starters work to keep their spots. They respected me for it.
Maybe they would respect Stafford more for being on the field with them, and maybe they would show more confidence in him, but that would also mean that he was the better player who earned the starting role. I would not respect Stafford if I were on that team, just because he was made the starter from day 1. I would respect him if he earned the starting role. He will not earn that role unless he is better than Daunte Culpepper in practice! If Daunte is the better QB, and he starts this year, then Stafford can learn from the things that he does correctly and the things that he fails to do correctly. With that knowledge he can add his own ability to the experience he gained on the sideline and then begin to learn from his own successes and failures. No matter what way you spin it, there is an argument for both opinions. One thing I can say for sure is that I personally would rather be a part of a team that wins, with me sitting on the bench, than part of a team that loses with me starting.
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NorthLett and Dawg!!!!
I respect your posts and opinions, but in High School were you both surrounded by millionaire teamates? C’mon. Reality here. Earn it! Al Bundy scored 4 touchdowns in one game in High School. Where did it get him? Rowing the same boat as you? Jeez.
by dylan415 on Jun 4, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, My High School was on a cruise ship. They took our story and made it into an American TV series.
I’m hoping they decide to make a movie of it!
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 5, 2009 5:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
!
Well,
I played against a Super Bowl winner as a player and Head Coach in the city High School Championship in 1973. Today I am still honored to say that I made one tackle on that quarterback. I also played baseball against him in the City Championship/ He excelled in football, baseball, basketball, and I think, track. If any of you are old enough to remember, there used to be a feature in Sports Illustrated magazine called ‘Faces In the Crowd" he was featured as an eighth grader. At the time of that football game, we were rated #1 in the state of Michigan in Class B. They were rated #1 in Class A. Both in the same city of Jackson. He wouldn’t remember me, but I remember him. His name is Tony Dungy. Ther might be a movie about him.
by dylan415 on Jun 5, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OH!
Oh, and we mopped up the field with them 41-14.
by dylan415 on Jun 5, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude
That is awesome….:o) Did he blink back then?
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is hilarious
We used to count the number of times that he actually blinked during the draft coverage…..one year it was only twice in all of the times that we saw him! :o)
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
!
He looked a lot different with hair, too. Remember, that was back in the ‘FRO’ days.
by dylan415 on Jun 6, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man that had to be great....
Dungy with a fro….HAHAHA!!
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't show with a football helmet
But with a baseball cap, remember Reggie Jackson with a fluff around the ears? Same thing LOL.
by dylan415 on Jun 6, 2009 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
After the Bye as well......
Not because of a underperforming Culpepper but due to injury, whether its a Kitna injury or a real one
by CR on Jun 4, 2009 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2010 Because
Drew suprise`s everyone and causes a Anderson-Quinn mess ( I mean battle ) like in Cleveland, earning himself a new contract with his next team.
by lionsfan64 on Jun 4, 2009 1:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I highly doubt it
Drew may not make it through training camp…
by DrewsLions on Jun 5, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanksgiving Day
If we’re not doing as good as I think we will, look for our big gun to be debuted on Thanksgiving Day, one game that you can guarantee will be shown nationally, and in front of 80,000 Lions fans begging for a W against GB.
By the way, Staff will shred GB’s defense for a resounding victory that day. :)
by Nate D. on Jun 4, 2009 1:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes!
unveiling the top pick on Thanksgiving would be a PR win for the NFL. It also gives Stafford enough time to learn and Culpepper enough time to get injured (I don’t think he will last the season regardless of who his backup is).
But forget all that. Tell me about your high school sports days. Were you better or worse than NorthLeft and Kdawg?
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed -
Daunte will get his shot, but I do believe he will fall short, and it may even be by design. Staff will get his starts in, and I totally agree with the ‘PR win’ statement.
Hmm… in HS football, I played K, P, and backup FS… I was tiny and not any good, so I doubt it. Our team only won one game one year! :p
by Nate D. on Jun 5, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2010 because of Culpepper
Everything seems to suggest to me that Daunte Culpepper will succeed for us this year:
- a full, healthy offseason on the same team
- he’s whipped himself into shape, so he’ll be strong and mobile
- a reunion with the OC (Linehan) who helped make him really good in his best years
- the talent around him has improved:
> Calvin Johnson
> Kevin Smith coming into his 2nd year
> O-Line improvements (FA acquisitions, Gosder coming into his 2nd year)
> We got the best Tight End in the draft
> a better defense will mean we can run more, less pressure on the QB
- the coaching around him has improved
- he is still a 3x ProBowler, and he’s only 32 years old
And none of the problems that hurt him in the past will be an issue this year:
- he is not coming in off-the-street to start five days later, with no playbook familiarity
- he is not 290 pounds
- he is not recovering from injury
- he is not switching teams
- his coaching staff this year is not inept, incohesive, or out-of-their-league
Unless Culpepper gets injured, I think we will have an “Anderson-Quinn situation” on our hands this year, and I think the coaching staff will stick with Culpepper for the now, because this year he is the best QB.
by n4ry4 on Jun 4, 2009 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You forgot one!
One of the problems that hurt him in the past will be an issue this year:
- he’s a terrible quarterback, and always has been
Peace
Ty
http://thelionsinwinter.blogspot.com
by ty@thelionsinwinter on Jun 5, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not a huge Culpepper fan, but
Never been a good QB? Lets be reasonable.
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon guys, you didn't know...
…terrible QB’s make it in this league every year and start for 5-6 years. Where have you been?
by TonyDC on Jun 5, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
Maybe look at the guys stats. I know he had Moss with him, but there is no way Gus Ferrote would have had the same numbers that Culpepper did over his career.
I’m not saying he hasn’t lost a step or three, but to say he was NEVER a good QB? That’s like saying Marino was never a good QB.
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
. . . except
Except that Jeff George and Randall Cunningham, each hovering around 40, DID have the same numbers that Culpepper had in Minnesota.
Oh, and I’m going to go ahead and guess that you saw Dan Marino mostly in the mid-90s, when he was dragging one leg around behind him like a stump, or you wouldn’t have made that comparison.
Peace
Ty
http://thelionsinwinter.blogspot.com
by ty@thelionsinwinter on Jun 5, 2009 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you kidding?
Jeff George and Randall Cunningham never threw for over 4000 yards or close to 40 TD’s in a season.
by KDawg on Jun 5, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I take that back
In 1995 with ATLANTA, Jeff George passed for over 4000 yards with 24 TDs and 11 INTS.
Cunningham never threw for 4000 yards…..his best year was in 1998 in Minn. He had 3704, 35 TDs and 10 INTs. Close to Culpeppers numbers, but 1000 yards less passing.
by KDawg on Jun 5, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure thing
Everyone looks at the stats for those few years in Minnesota and says, “Hey, he almost had 40 TDs! That’s great!” What they don’t, or didn’t, do, was actually watch him play. He’s a horrible decision-maker, especially when it counts. He threw a lot of jumpballs to Randy Moss, yes, but constantly committed crucial turnovers—picks, yes, but also many, many fumbles (which don’t usually show in passing stats). The prevalence of fantasy football has blinded people to the difference between a QB that generates stats and a GOOD quarterback. In 2004, Culpepper’s “MVP-caliber” season, they went 8-8.
8-8!
And that’s WITH the #1 overall rushing attack in the NFL. Let me tell you something: teams with the #1 rushing attack, and with quarterbacks that throw 39 TDs? They win more games than they lose. Do you know why the Vikings didn’t? Duante Culpepper. Over and over and over again, his crucial turnovers cost his team games. Remember when Jon Kitna threw for 8000 yards in two years, yet also lost what seemed like dozens of games with stupid turnovers in the last five minutes? That, my friends, was Culpepper—and you saw it on the field last year. He cost us chances to win, multiple times, with his stupid mistakes. No amount of weight loss is going to change that.
Without Randy Moss, his passer rating has consistenly been in the mid-60s. That is HORRIBLE. WRETCHED. AWFUL. NOT NFL-CALIBER. I’ve been saying this for almost ten years now . . . and still people don’t understand. It’s not the knee, it’s not the weight. It’s not the coaching, and it’s not the supporting cast. The problem is between Duante Culpepper’s ears.
Peace
Ty
http://thelionsinwinter.blogspot.com
by ty@thelionsinwinter on Jun 5, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But in 2004
He had a 41/20 TD /turnover ratio (39/11 pass, 2/9 run). That was his best average. So the blame wasn’t Culpepper’s turnovers.
I will admit that after looking them up, his stats shine less than my memory of his play.
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, but
Again we fall prey to the total/average fallacy . . . go to the actual games.
In Week 5, against Houston, Culpepper had 5 TDs and no picks in a blowout win (HOU scored 3 garbage TDs in the 4th quarter). In Week 13, at a brutal Chicago team QB’d by Chad Hutchinson, with the Vikes fighting for their playoff lives, he throws three picks, is sacked FIVE TIMES, and the Vikes suffer a brutal road division loss against a far inferior team.
THAT is Duante Culpepper. It’s not just that he commits turnovers, it’s that he commits brutal turnovers at the worst possible times. He’s ANTI-clutch, like A-Rod. No matter how many stats he compiles in his career, he’s still the last guy you want under center when it counts.
Peace
Ty
http://thelionsinwinter.blogspot.com
by ty@thelionsinwinter on Jun 5, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make some valid points Ty.
My take on Culpepper as an NFL QB is that he has had great physical skills, but was/is below average in his recognition/vision/judgement skills.
Unfortunately, injuries and age have diminished his physical skill set and I don’t believe he has much improved his softer skills. We will soon see whether he has recaptured some of his physical skills and improved his other skills over the offseason. For his sake and the Lions I am hoping for the best.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 5, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Culpepper
Did fumble the ball alot in 2002 and 2003…..but every other year of his career he did not fumble any more than any other QB in the league.
by KDawg on Jun 5, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't Culpepper
have some brutal number on his wonderlic too. I know, I know who cares about it but might have something to do with his ability to read the coverage
by CR on Jun 5, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Daunte Culpepper
Scored an 18 on the Wonderlic test…..
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to beat a dead horse
In 2004, they had an 8-8 record.
In the 8 losses, he was picked 6 times in 3 games (in 5 losses he had 0 picks)
In the 8 wins, he was picked 5 times in 4 games (in 4 games he had 0 picks)
In this rudimentary analysis, I don’t think you can say Culpepper lost games that season because he was throwing picks. Other than that Chicago game (3 picks) he was not a turnover machine.
The guy may have faults, you can question if he is clutch or not, but I can’t figure out a way to point at the 2004 season and call it anything but a great season for him as a QB.
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and again
It’s not the raw numbers, it’s when they occurred. I don’t know if you follow MSU basketvall, but it’s like Maurice Ager. When the Spartans were routing somebody at home, Ager would drop 35. When the Spartans were having a tough go of it in an important road game, he’d go 1-for-12. Culpepper sparkled when it didn’t matter, and was awful when it did.
Let me throw another doozy at you: in the three years Linehan was offensive coordinator at Minnesota—the “glory years” everyone talks about—Culpepper threw for 12,049 yards and 82 TDs. The Vikings went 23-25 in that same timeframe.
Yes, you heard me right, even if Duante Culpepper “REGAINED HIS MVP FORM FROM BACK IN THE DAY” he’d still be a losing quarterback.
Peace
Ty
http://thelionsinwinter.blogspot.com
by ty@thelionsinwinter on Jun 6, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And since the NFL is an individual sport
It must be all the QBs fault.
If the guy threw for 82 TDs lets complain about how crappy his DB skills were because their defense had to give up a ton to offset 82 TDs.
I understand that a QB can win the game for you and also lose it for you. I didn’t watch Culpepper so carefully that I can recall exact games and places he won/lost the game himself. I can really only go by the stats to see if they back up your argument. I think I showed that in 2004 you might be able to claim that at most they lost 3 extra games due to his turnovers. I don’t think that makes him a flop. Add to that his obvious lack of a running game (he was the #2 rusher on the team) and a defense that couldn’t keep the other team under 39 TDs and I don’t think you can say Culpepper was NEVER a good QB.
I hate being in a position to support culpepper because I think he is done as a QB, but I think you can’t put your head in the sand and just say that he was never any good. There are tons of QBs in the league that would have to play 30 years to have the numbers you quoted above. Even the win/loss.
by ATL Lion on Jun 8, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait
They had far from the #1 rushing attack. Their top 3 guys had 544, 406 (pepper himself), and 379 for a total of 1329. As a point of reference, the same year Curtis Martin ran for 1697 himself.
I don’t know the rank of Minn’s running game (ATL was #1 that year), but it was FAR from great. I am not a huge Culpepper fan, but he did have some great years and we should at least be able to recognize that.
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whoops
Sorry, I misremembered. They led the league in rushing yardage in 2002, and were 4th in 2003. In ’04 their attempts declined dramatically, but they still rushed for 4.7 ypc as a team—2nd in the NFL on a per-carry basis, 18th overall.
The cold hard facts are that Duante Culpepper put up some unbelievable numbers, yes—but they never translated to wins, and his untilmely turnovers and rotten decision-making were, if you were watching the games, the primary problem.
Peace
Ty
http://thelionsinwinter.blogspot.com
by ty@thelionsinwinter on Jun 6, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ty, You have convinced me!
Speaking as a completely unbiased observer [LOL] I believe you present an unshakeable case for Staff to start and Daunte to ride the pines.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 6, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While your argument may be valid
I contend that in all reality the past is the past and has no bearing on what DC will do at present and in the future. This team is currently operating under the policy of “do not mention last year”. They are focusing on this year and the future. Everyone has a clean slate, including Culpepper. If Stafford can show that he is the better QB leading up to the season, especially once the pads are on and they start utilizing contact drills etc and when he has a chance to play in some preseason games where the opposing team is out to kill him, then I am all for him starting. Until then, there is no justification or logical reasoning to support Matt Stafford as the starting QB for the Lions this year, period.
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well if the Lions
are the focusing. Stafford is obviously the future. If he can show that he can grasp the playbook. Read the defenses. He should start. And there is plenty of logical resoning for Stafford to start, period.
by JCruize on Jun 6, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank God for stress management.....
I really want to attack the poster, but I am just going to restate myself instead:
If Stafford can show that he is the better QB leading up to the season, especially once the pads are on and they start utilizing contact drills etc and when he has a chance to play in some preseason games where the opposing team is out to kill him, then I am all for him starting. Until then, there is no justification or logical reasoning to support Matt Stafford as the starting QB for the Lions this year, period.
So like I already said, there is no justification or logical reasoning to support Matt Stafford as the starting QB this year. IF he proves that he is the better man for the job before the regular season starts, then of course there will be logical reasoning to justify him being the starter at that point….no sooner.
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should have added "YET"
There is no justification or logical reasoning to support Matt Stafford as the starting QB this year YET….
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really get stressed out
if someone disagrees with you opinion? You should have said “YET” and not " PERIOD". I took as your post is the only opinion that matters. But in the NFL. There are know absolutes. There is no one way to guaranteed success. And there is plenty of reasons to start Stafford even if he does not completely out plays Culpepper in the preseason. They are the same reasons. That let guys like Aikman, P Manning, Elway, ect. Some “experts” believe that a rookie QB’s learning curve is much greater when the he starts in his rookie season. And I am one for that logic. My reasoning is that the NFL quarterback is the most demanding position to play. Both mentally and physically. We know he has the physical tools. Lets find out if he has the mental tools. And we find out. By having him on the field. Not holding a clipboard.
by JCruize on Jun 6, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am sure that is why
phillip rivers, aaron rodgers, and however many other QB’s that had to sit behind a veteran have failed right? Every QB is different in strengths and weaknesses. Tom Brady sat behind Drew Blodsoe I am sure that made him better not worse and more than likely helped him be as successful as he is today. Truefully there are more QB’s that succeed that sat behind a veteran than there are rookies. Maybe I should pull stats but where I am at I don’t have the time to do it. Maybe some else will have more first hand knowledge and can add to what I am saying.
But the main issue is Matthew Stafford can benefit form both ways depending on himself not what you me or anyone else thinks. If hew shows that he can start then start him but to me ha has yet to show that so keep his ass on the bench. The NFL is a business, it may be a hobby for you and me, but to them it is a business and throwing away games you could win by starting a veteran is not a business decision that is going to make you money.
by shanndiggit on Jun 6, 2009 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you serious?
did you just compare Culpepper to Bret Favre and Drew Brees? And no there are not more QB’s that became successful by sitting a year. As to QB’s that started. And what has Culpepper shown so far to keep Stafford’s ass on the bench? Culpepper started last year. And we know how well that work. Yeah I know he jusgt came off the streets. But why was he still there for the taking? The fact is the guy( Culpepper) has had only one winning season in his career. What would Stafford learn by sitting behind Culpepper? How to play football? Where do you think Stafford would get the better education. On the bench. where he would not practice with CJ, Pettigrew, KSmith. He needs to develop a relationship with those players. The O-line needs to know how he moves in the pocket. All of these things he will not learn on the bench.
by JCruize on Jun 6, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and just for a point of ...
referrence. There have been 13 quarterbacks drafted since the first Super Bowl. That when on to the Hall of Fame. And out of those 13. EVERYONE of them started at least one game in their rookie season.
by JCruize on Jun 6, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
your missing the point
- what your are saying is screw the coaching staff they have no clue what the hell they are doing. Start a rookie becuase he needs to learn. Not becuase he earned it or becuase he is the best QB on the team. I am pretty sure if he beats CP they will start him. But i doubt he beats out CP. And yes game experiance is the fastest way for the team to gel but practice counts too and so what you are saying is he can’t develop a relationship with the offense outta practice? The most important thing he will learn by starting is opposing teams palyers and what they do and how to handle those teams. I am pretty DAMN sure he will develop a relationship with the offense on the practice field becuase he wilol see at LEAST 30% of all snaps there at the least. NO CP isn’t as good as Brett Favre adsn Drew Brees I am not a idiot. But he has had some success (maybe he wasn’t the perfect QB) but I am sure he knows how to play the game or else why would a EXPERIANCED OC call him the starter for the season and a new HC take that chance if he wasn’t ready to handle the team. ANd you only name 13 QB’s in how many years? How many 1st round QB’s were drafted since the 1st SB? How well did they do? Not everyone can be the SAVIOR right out of college. I am sorry I don’t agree with your view point but there are platy of facts to support my arguement I am sure. Maybe I will take time here in Iraq to get them but give me some time to compile the list especially considering the internet is so poor out here.
by shanndiggit on Jun 6, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn straight brother
JCruize, you accuse me of getting stressed out when someone disagrees with my opinion, yet here you were arguing with me, and when someone else got involved that shared my opinion you continued the argument with them. No, I am not stressed out that you disagree with me….not in the least. You took what I was saying as an attack, and once again your interpretation of my words (on a computer screen with no tone) is wrong. The argument didn’t even get heated until you joined it, so chill out.
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And thank you Shan
For serving our beloved country…..God bless you.
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks much
Alwasy appreciate that someone realizes we are still over here.
by shanndiggit on Jun 7, 2009 3:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i am not stressed out..
or I am arguing, I am defending my opinion. To me this is not really a heated agrument. And to have discussion is the whole point of the P.O.D. I interjected a counterpoint to your post. And the first thing you say is if was for stress management or you were going to attack me. You basically said that there was no logical reasoning to disagree with your opinion.
by JCruize on Jun 6, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
But you are not making any sense to me, so I am done replying to your comments on this subject.
by KDawg on Jun 7, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok....one more comment
I said “Thank God for stress management” meaning I would be stressed out if I did not know how to manage my stress. Then I said “I really want to attack the poster” meaning I wanted to verbally bash your post in a manner not conducive to attacking the argument. At no point did I say “If not for stress management I would attack JCruize”. Lastly, your argument of “logical reasoning” is all based on a bunch of hypothetical IFs. You did not even attempt to explain your reasoning, except for restating what I already said. “IF he can do this, IF he can do that, he should start”. Did you even take the time to read what I said, or did you just get caught up in interpreting my comment as condescending from the get go? That is how I see it. You didn’t care what was said, as you had a tone already set in your mind when you read my comment. Back the truck up and try again buddy.
by KDawg on Jun 7, 2009 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KDawg
First off. The hole subject is a hypothetical. Do you think that there is a set criteria in which Stafford has to meet? What if it is Culpepper that has to beat Stafford out to start?
Second, what you reply to someone else’s post. Than write period at the end. That is condescending. I felt like you were saying You have spoken. that is all that needs to to said on the subject.
Third. You accused me of the an agrument with Shan. All I did was comment on his direct reply to my post.
Forth. " I really want to attack the poster." I am the “poster” You never said I want to attack this post. But if that is what you meant. It’s cool.
Fifth. You are the only one calling this a heated agrument.
So I guess I need to back up a truck or something. Sorry, I am not totally sure what that means.
by JCruize on Jun 7, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shan
I do agree that there are plenty of facts to support your view, But there are many facts to support my view as well. My point in using Hall of Fame QB’s that were drafted since Super Bowl I. That is the only individual testament to a player’s career in the NFL. And it is cool that you dont agree with me. And I know it is just talk between two fellow Lions fans. And I know that what I think and what you think. Will have no bearing on what Schwartz thinks. My original disagreement was with Dawg. He said there was no logical reasoning to start Stafford. Believe there is. I never said he should or he should not. But I do think that there is some reasoning to start Stafford.
by JCruize on Jun 6, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh and by the way..
Here is the breakdown you wanted. Since Super Bowl I. There has been 82 QBs drafted in the first round. And of that 82. 72 of them started in their rookie season. Now, I am not saying all those players when on to be good. But of the 10 that did not start. Culpepper, Rivers, Pennington, Rodgers. Are the best of the bunch. Not one Hall of Famer sat out his first year. And one thing I found interesting. The great class of 1983. Only Todd Blackledge did not get a start in his rookie season.
by JCruize on Jun 7, 2009 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
intersting stats
thank you for doing it because i got busy this morning with work. but seriously 13 out of 72? so that is what 35% or so? better than thought it would be to be honest. But still not great chances. And I was not argueing either just joining in on a debate that interested me is all.
by shanndiggit on Jun 7, 2009 3:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you guys saying that Staff must be HOF to be a success?
If so, that is a pretty high bar. There are a lot of very good QBs who will not make the Hall.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 7, 2009 6:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no I am not saying that
all I said is that no Hall of Fame QB sat out his rookie season.
by JCruize on Jun 7, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said Bye-week...
…but I would rather we wait a year. I want to se him play and I want him to be ready to play now, but I think it would be best for him to sit and learn.
by TonyDC on Jun 4, 2009 2:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wanna see something unbelievable
Click this link and look at #4
http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/06/04/10-young-players-who-can-impact-09/
by Runnin' Rebel on Jun 4, 2009 2:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
wow. just wow.
Maybe the author is just going for some “insider” cred by picking names of higher-drafted young players nobody’s heard of.
Still, if you’re looking for potential young stars from the 2008 Lions’ defense (and good luck with that), why not Avril or Sims? At least they’ve had some good NFL performances.
by n4ry4 on Jun 4, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are a few guys on that list
that I agree could potentially make an impact, but unfortunately I do not see Jordan Dizon as being one of them. With Peterson and Sims, when will Dizon get enough playing time (barring injuries) to make an impact? I agree that Breaston, Gay, Avery, and Kalil could definitely make an impact for their teams.
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will just say that ...
I am looking forward to seeing Deandre Levy develop.
by TonyDC on Jun 4, 2009 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a hypothetical question...
Suppose Culpepper is playing pretty well consistently, but we’re 6-7 or 7-7 in December and we just got eliminated from playoff contention…
Does Schwartz stick with the Culpepper the last two or three games because Culpepper has earned the start by playing well, or switch to Stafford because we have nothing to gain by going 9-7 or 8-8, and the rookie needs some experience?
According to Schwartz’ criteria 1. when he’s ready and 2. when he’s the best QB, we would stick with Culpepper and go for more (“meaningless”) wins, but if we still have nothing to lose by giving Stafford some experience because we’re out of the playoff hunt.
How well would Culpepper have to play to keep the starting spot at a point in the season where winning “now” doesn’t matter anymore, and playing Stafford would be the best move for the future?
by n4ry4 on Jun 4, 2009 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
9-7
Could win our division…..but if we are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, and Stafford is ready, I could see them playing him in that situation.
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was supposing that it would be a “you need 10-6 or better” situation at that point.
But I wonder if Schwartz would really go back on what he said earlier that “Matt will play when he’s the best QB”, just to give Stafford some experience.
If Culpepper really is playing well (and a QB can play extremely well and not make the playoffs, see Drew Brees 2008), but through no fault of his own (suppose our run game or defense underachieves) the team won’t advance into the playoffs, would they really bench Culpepper when he’s earned the start?
I think it would be great to give Stafford some experience to build on late-season, if not sooner, but at the same time, I wouldn’t want to alienate a solid veteran like Culpepper. One of the best things you can have on your roster is a good (or at least decent) veteran QB in case you’re rookie struggles (e.g. Warner-Leinhart, Collins-V.Young, etc).
If we benched Culpepper when he wasn’t playing poorly, wouldn’t that send a bad message? Like, “Hey Daunte, I know we said you would start if you were the best QB, but since winning doesn’t matter much anymore, we’re just gonna bench you for the rookie. Thanks for playing really well in all those tough losses that weren’t your fault, here’s your clipboard. By the way, are you motivated to be our solid veteran backup next year?”
If we play Stafford in 2009, he has a better foundation to build on in 2010. But if we bench Culpepper for the wrong reasons in 2009, we lose the potential to have two good, motivated QB’s on our roster for the next few years, right?
by n4ry4 on Jun 4, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
I agree. If Culpepper is the starter at the beginning of the season, the only way I (personally) would bench him is if Stafford is the better man, regardless of record. However, this does not change my opinion that I could see Schwartz and the Lions getting Stafford into the mix if we are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, and if Stafford is ready (ready meaning the better QB and ready to be a starter).
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget about Drew.
If were eliminated from the playoffs, and Stafford is doing OK but still isn’t quite “ready”…I’m sure this staff is very interested to see EXACTLY what they have in Stanton. They’ll need to throw him into a couple regular season games to find out how he’s going to react.
by BIGWalt2990 on Jun 4, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tailor made for Stanton
Let that game make him appetizing trade bait.
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice question
I have to say that with our teams history, it would be a mistake to bench the guy that brought you back to mediocre. They have to handle the hand off of power better than that or they will torpedo Stafford. Look at how Chicago handled the Thomas Jones/Cedric Benson thing a coupel years ago. They ended up with nothing.
I think if we are 7-8 they should let pepper finish out the season and have Stafford ride pine until 2010.
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm for starting Stanton over Stafford also.
Maybe he could play his way into a trade for a high draft pick for the Lions.
by Runnin' Rebel on Jun 4, 2009 3:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How about if....
Stafford is the starter on day 1, and we are 0-8 but he is completing less than 60% and has less TDs than INTs? Do we then bring in Stanton, or does Culpepper take over at that point or sooner?
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or
Do we let Stafford lead us to another 0-16 season, killing what little moral the team has at this point, and making our 1 year FAs want to leave? Do we stick with him no matter what, since he is the future of the team, or do we put someone in who can win us some games and show the league some sort of improvement?
I’m not saying that Stafford won’t win any games if he is the starter, but since we are speaking hypothetically, what if he doesn’t?
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if he's playing moderately badly, we keep him in there I guess
If he’s playing really badly, we bench him. He’s not exempt from having to earn and maintain his starting time.
It’s a rebuilding year, but we won’t go 0-16. It’s impossible for a team to be that bad. um, twice in a row. If Stafford wins only two games over the entire season, it will only be one less victory than Peyton Manning had as a rookie.
by n4ry4 on Jun 4, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Impossible?
Nothing is impossible…..improbable, yes, but this is a hypothetical conversation….:o)
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stafford starts Week 1
I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, but everything being said at this point just leaves me feeling all jittery that Stafford, not Culpepper, is going to have to lose the starting job this offseason.
Regardless of which one is better right now, I’d still like to see the kid sit for a year. I have never been thrilled with the pick from the get-go, and I’m still repulsed by the contract (even if by some crazy aligning of the starts it may only end up $17 million), but now that he’s here I want to see him succeed. I think giving him the year to adjust to the professional aspect of the game, the locker room, the off field intangibles will give him a much better shot at being worthy of the number one pick (even if no one will ever be worth that much money).
I know Peyton Mannings philosophy on this, and it’s hard to disagree with someone who has been so successful himself, but I don’t think there’s a whole lot of benefit in spending the season getting knocked around. Less we forget, this 0-16 team has a lot of adjusting to do at just about every other position this year, I just don’t think it’s the right time for a quarterback to learn the professional game the hard way.
That being said, I still think he starts Week 1.
by Mushy on Jun 4, 2009 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is there an article where Peyton Manning says....
that a rookie should start immediately? If so, I would like to read that. I agree with you, obviously.
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Different school of thought...
…this is what makes this general debate so interesting. While I do respect Peyton Manning completely for what he iss able to do on the field, it’s not like Steve Young was a bum either and he has an almost different opinion on Stafford’s situation.
by Mushy on Jun 4, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is a great article
How ironic that Steve Young said “Don’t expect Stafford to be Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco….” and then made a reference to Troy Aikman’s situation being more like it. He also said that Aikman’s Cowboy’s were “…on the rise. I don’t know if you can say Detroit is on the rise.”
So who do you go with? The HOF QB or the future HOF QB? I am of the opinion of Steve Young, minus the basic expectation that Stafford will undoubtedly start this year. Both Young and the elder Manning brother are/were great QBs. If you ask me, the difference between the two opinions is exemplary of the difference of opinions here. The only way to tell who is right and who is wrong is to wait and see what happens. Even then, is there really a right or wrong in either opinion? Things could turn out my way, and I could be right about what I said…..but even if that were the case, if things had played out as NL says they should, it is not impossible that he too could be correct and his scenario come true. We could both be wrong too. Stafford could bust. The possibilities are endless.
by KDawg on Jun 4, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Week one.
And won’t be announced until week one. TMT.
It makes more sense than putting him in mid season.
by CLF on Jun 4, 2009 4:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We have to give Culpepper a chance but...
If Stafford is making all the throws, is more mobile, knows the whole playbook, is confident enough to start… Then start him.
Just like Rick Porcello, he was one of the best 5 pitchers coming out of Spring Training so Jimmy put him in the rotation and look what hes done. All odds were against him, a 20 year old starting pitcher but hes panned out.
I know footballs different than baseball with a playbook and defenses to read but the confidence issue is the same. If Stafford is confident enough and is better than Culpepper, we need to do whats right for the team and start the best QB that will give us a chance to win games, no matter if its Culpepper, Stafford or Stanton.
by lionsfan22 on Jun 4, 2009 4:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Stafford Will Start in Week 2
Matty boy will get the start early in the season because I have a feeling that Daunte will get injured. Call me crazy, but Daunte is injury prone and you all know it.
by weath26 on Jun 4, 2009 5:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There's a difference...
Culpepper has been injured for the last 4 years…. same injury that he has not let healed. It’s now healed.
Injury prone is 3 games here, 4 games there… all different piddly, nagging injuries.
At least that’s my take.
by CLF on Jun 5, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have always predicted week 12
And I shall stick to it.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Jun 4, 2009 7:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
To expand on my prediction
I believe it will be week 12 because I see this happening during the season. We start off pretty well with CP. We get a few wins but lose a lot fairly closely. Culpepper’s form is solid if not unspectacular. However, after the bye week, things start to downward spiral. Culpepper starts playing through a minor injury which forces his numbers and the team’s performance way down. Losses come thick and fast. Then, as if it were meant to be, Schwartz signs off on the order to give Staff the start on Thanksgiving against GB. From then on, I have no idea.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Jun 4, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
week one
If he plays as well or better in training camp. And in the preseson. Start him. See what he has got. Quarterbacks have to be thick-skinned. I am not worried about his mental state. If he can play the game. It will show early. Sitting for a year does not make a difference in my opinion. How does practicing with the second team help. He needs to feel comfortable with Calvin, Pettigrew, K-Smooth, and the others. And they need to get comfortable with him. When Aikman, the Mannings, Marino, and others. Started their rookies seasons. A lot of them went through some very tough times. But you could look that them and tell. They had " IT ". You just knew they would be good. So I say lets see. Lets see if Matthew Stafford can fulfill the prophecy. Is he the one to break the " 50 Year Curse".
by JCruize on Jun 4, 2009 9:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
When will Mathew Stafford become the starting Qb for the LIONS
I chose Week 8 Because thats when I would Like to see him Start.
Not that I don’t think that he will be ready before that! I think that Stafford is a Fast Learner and is not afraid at all to take over!
But,i think that there are things that he can learn on the sidelines!
Small things that might mean a lot later on!
Things that he can learn from wearing a headset! And carrying the clip board!
And By that time we and the coaches will know how the rest of the team is going to perform! Weather or not the OL is going to hold up?
And Dante is allready used to running for his life ?So why through Stafford out to the Wolfs until you know?
I really think that Stafford will be ready before that,as far as BEING the QB he could come right in and start! But,I don’t think that that would be the way to handle it .
And If the line doesn’t hold up then there is a large chance that Dante wont either.
And if that is the case?when watching Stafford play at Georgia he seemed to be mobile enough to get away if he has to!
Go LIONS!
by 4thand2 on Jun 4, 2009 10:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i think Daunte is gonna have a fantastic year
The only way #9 plays is if #11 gets injured
Proud Detroit Lions season ticket holder since.......2009 !!
by BoscoHB on Jun 5, 2009 1:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Voted for Week 8
I fully support the two criteria by Schwarz.
If Culpepper stays healthy, I believe he will remain the better QB. However, I don’t think, given his history and the fact he is playing with the team that was the worst in NFL history, that he will stay healthy the entire year. My guess is that something will happen to limit him physically before Week 8.
That being said, if Stafford blows the doors off the learning curve and becomes the better QB, the other critereon still needs to be met. Stafford must be ready. Unfortunately. there is no definition offered as to what this means.
I, personally, would feel ready to enter a new level of competition a heck of a lot faster if the supporting cast was one of the best in football. That’s not yet the case here. I gotta believe that Schwarz will want to start Culpepper to begin the season, if for no other reason than to see if Stafford has enough talent in his supporting cast to survive. If that proves to be the case (and I believe it will), it would be nice to have an extra week of practice for Stafford to play with the first unit.
What I would like to see happen is for Culpepper to have a very good year, stay healthy and return with us in 2010. In this scenario, I see Stafford sitting for the year. I don’t believe this would stunt his growth in the slightest. A motivated player will continue to develop and take advantage of the position he’d be in to learn from Linehan and Culpepper.
by jimoska on Jun 5, 2009 1:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So what does the consummate Stafford bandwagoneer think?
It is of no surprise to anyone that I believe Stafford can, should and will start by week one. I don’t think that I have to list all the things I feel about Culpepper… just see Ty’s comments above and reduce the intensity by about 25% and that pretty much sums it up.
Stafford is showing those flashes that made him the top pick and it’s only mini-camp. The players and coaches are trying very hard to contain their excitement about his early progression, but they just can’t. Since Stafford’s showed up to OTAs and Mini-camps, you have heard word one about Culpepper… except that he lost weight and hasn’t looked as sharp since he’s had Stafford to be compared to. That’s enough for me to say the writing is already on the wall. I think it’ll ultimately be enough for Schwartz as well.
I believe the staff is coming to the realization that they got one of the gems… the guys that come along once every few years, that from the get-go are winners and simply have “the stuff”. You know, the hutzpah… charisma… leadership… ability… intelligence… maturity… all that “stuff”, right from the start. He oozes confidence and intelligence and I think we all are starting to realize that this kid will most likely succeed due to his character, leadership and work ethic. Sure, Schwartz can play the guessing game for a couple more months with fans and the media, but I bet there is no doubt in his mind that he wants to start the season with Stafford.
Maybe Stafford takes a step or two backwards during camp, like a lot of rookies do. Maybe Culpepper gets a few games at the beginning of the season. To me, it’s all just fluff and filler until Stafford is ready to go. So why even play games with Culpepper? Mayhew & Schwartz are looking forward… to the future. Not just at getting wins this year, but turning the tide and making Detroit a perennial contender. I firmly believe that they might sacrifice a win or two this year to get Stafford more games and snaps to better the future.
Please don’t misconstrue that to mean they’ll play Stafford even if they think Culpepper is a lot better at week one… that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if the competition is mildly close… you go with the kid with the golden arm who is already crowned the future of the franchise. If Culpepper wins the job, whenever the race closes a bit… unless Culpepper is having a pro bowl year and like, 6-0 as starter… you yank is washed out butt out of the lineup and replace him with Stafford. Because NO ONE here can argue that it’s not going to happen anyway. In my mind… better much sooner than later.
by DrewsLions on Jun 5, 2009 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Maybe let Culpepper hang in there for the first 6 games
Those look brutal. Better he take the hits than Stafford
by ATL Lion on Jun 5, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drew, You are the driver of the Stafford Bandwagon! The rest of us are trying to catch up.
Seriously, Daunte is over four years removed from his peak. He is best suited to be the veteran back up, and Stanton stays as the developmental third stringer.
And enough of the concern for Stafford’s safety. This is football for pete’s sake! Everyone gets hit. Our O Line is supposed to be better. We have a real Tight End. A real Running Back. And a WR who could be the best in the NFL if we have a QB who can make the throws.
If you guys are serious about wanting a winning record in 2009, Stafford is our only chance to get it.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 5, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Screw it…..start Stafford week 1. He is superman, infallible to rookie error and injury. Who cares that he has a bunch of pop-warner offensive linemen in front of him? He will just toss defenders aside like a troop of girl scouts trying to sell him cookies that he doesn’t like. He will make Barry Sanders look like a wimp, tecmo bowl look like reality, and nobody will be able to get to him with his supersonic, lightning quick release. He already looks like the Flash, Batman, and the Incredible Hulk all rolled into one at the OTA’s….Culpepper is just a weak version of Robin, or maybe Wonder Woman. LOL!!
You guys are hilarious…..the kid has proven nothing. Let’s see how great he is after two a days and the conditioning program. Let’s see how well he does when he has pads on. Let’s see how he does in training camp when things are a little more like reality before we anoint him as team savior. You want to talk about curbing your excitement and thus your predictions? Well I am reserving my excitement towards this pretty boy QB until he shows me something. Until then, Culpepper is the man, and he is just the rookie backup.
I can’t help but comment on this quote “We have a real Tight End. A real Running Back. And a WR who could be the best in the NFL if we have a QB who can make the throws.” A real TE…..unproven rookie…..a real running back…..2nd year back (I think he is pretty good, but sophomore slumps are common)…..a WR who could be the best in the NFL if we have a QB who can make the throws…..key word in that sentence is IF. I am actually very optimistic that CJ will be in the pro-bowl this year, I am hopeful that K-Smooth has a great season, and hopeful that Pettigrew is the complete package at TE. However, we do not know if any of these things will come to fruition. Thus, they can not be used as facts to justify starting a rookie QB IF we have a veteran who can do the job just as well.
Drew, you make good points but unless we were actually at the practices to see for ourselves, we have to rely on the media to tell us their opinion. Then we as fans must speculate based on what may or may not be hype. I for one am taking the cautious approach on this one, and I think Culpepper will be the starter and that he will play well.
by KDawg on Jun 5, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's all speculation, buddy!
But I speculate that Culpepper is not deemed by management as a long-term option. I speculate that Stafford is deemed by management to be the long-term option. I speculate that because of his draft status and contract that Stafford will get every chance to start as soon as humanly possible.
I also speculate that Culpepper cannot erase the last four horrible years with dexatrim!
by DrewsLions on Jun 5, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh.. by the way, KDawg
You’re right, Stafford really hasn’t proven anything and will have to truly beat out Culpepper to be the starter. But… Culpepper hasn’t proven anything in Detroit, Oakland or Miami, so he has a LOT to prove as well. I’m just not sure how you can be so confident in him simply because he’s dropped a few pounds. I wish I felt better about him.
by DrewsLions on Jun 5, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't explain it Drew
But when I get a certain feeling about someone, in my gut, I’m usually right. I have a pretty good feeling about Culpepper this year….can’t explain it, I just do. Something about the look in his eyes and his body language I think. Just my instincts kicking in, and I have been wrong before so who knows….it’s just the way I feel.
by KDawg on Jun 5, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somehow, though...
your “gut feeling” doesn’t constitute a “logical” argument for Culpepper as you stated to JCruize above. Not trying to start anything, but I think there are a ton of logical reasons such as potential, draft status, etc. to start Stafford over Culpepper that are not solely based on merit. I personally don’t think Stafford has to be better than CP to start over him… he just has to be pretty close.
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've got to be kidding
And I am laughing…..lol. If you were serious, I would have to rant. I have stated a million logical reason why it is DC’s job to lose. My gut feeling is merely icing on the cake.
by KDawg on Jun 8, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
Potential, draft status, etc are not logical arguments as to why a rookie QB should start over a proven veteran, unless that rookie is obviously the better QB.
by KDawg on Jun 8, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Proven veteran" is a point of view, KDawg
If we had what I would consider a proven veteran, there would be a little less room for discussion here. But I would hardly call Daunte a proven veteran. If anything, he’s about an unproven commodity as you’ll find in a veteran. In my opinion, the Lion’s are simply taking a chance with Culpepper in hopes that they might get lucky in the form of a career revival. If not, they hedged their bet with Stafford.
Again, you can argue the Culpepper point until you are Honolulu blue in the face, but you’ll have a tough time convincing me that he can be a) labeled as a proven veteran at this point in his career, b) any better than he has been the last four seasons (I believe the injury to be merely an excuse at this point – many quarterbacks lose mobility – also, how does that affect his arm or decision-making?) and c) better for this team in the short run than Stafford will be for the long-term (i.e. give Stafford snaps to better the team for the future versus give DC snaps to try to win now).
And I also feel that potential IS a logical argument as to why a rookie should start over a subpar, average-at-best veteran. See, it’s a point of view type of thing.
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Have you ever tried to plant and throw on a bad knee?
Not only did he have a bad knee over the seasons prior to coming out of retirement, but also he came in off the street (30 pounds over his playing weight) and started 5 days after the Lions signed him. You base whether or not he is a proven veteran based on years in which he had not fully recovered from what was (by all means) a career ending type injury? I see your point, but I disagree that he is an unproven commodity.
However, I am not stupid. I agree with you that the Lions are gambling on Culpepper. It is either going to be BOOM or BUST, and I like his chances. I’m not here to attempt to sway your opinion, because that would be pointless. You would just buck against everything that I said anyway, just for the sake of argument. I am here to state my opinion. It is my opinion that the “logic” of anyone who thinks that Stafford should be the starter, even if he is not the best QB on the roster, is absolutely flawed. I think that the job is Daunte Culpepper’s job to lose, and that Stafford should have to prove he is ready and the best QB on the team before he starts, just like Schwartz said.
I believe that Daunte Culpepper CAN be much better this season than he has over the last four seasons, and not only do I think it is entirely possible, but I also know that it is true (He absolutely can be better, as shown in the past). Yes, DC has made some bad decisions at QB in the past, especially over the last 4 seasons, but can you honestly say with a straight face that Matt Stafford will come in and execute flawlessly? Do you think that he will make less bad decisions, as a rookie, than DC will as a vet? I do not, and I think Stafford could learn a great deal by watching DC and learning from his mistakes.
I can not argue with the idea that Matt Stafford will be better for the team “in the long-term” than Daunte Culpepper will be for the team “in the short-term”. I believe that is true, but I also think it is a moot point. I see that statement as obvious. Lastly, potential is not a logical argument as to why a rookie should start (Did you think I would let that slide? :o) ). I say this because the nature of potential is that it has not yet developed into actuality. Matt Stafford may very well be capable of developing into a great NFL QB. He may have that “potential”. However, at this point it is only a possibility that he will develop into that role, and he has proven nothing. Therefore making a decision to start him based on the mere possibility that he will be good is not sound logic in my opinion. If he proves that he is the best QB on the roster, that he is ready to be an NFL QB, and that he can handle the pressure once the pads are on and he is getting hit (IE in the pre-season games) then it could be logical to start him based on the “potential” that he will continue to get better and better over time. If Daunte proves to be subpar and average at best, I will agree with you 100% that Stafford should start…..if he too is not subpar and average at best.
by KDawg on Jun 8, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This all looks pretty reasonable to me
I’ll still have to see something from Daunte in the preseason or early in the season to show that he is capable of playing at a high level. I did say that Stafford should be at least very close to Daunte to start over him… so it’s a potential/ability mix that gives him an edge in my book. You make it seem like I’m blindly throwing him in there without competition. Close… but that’s not what I said.
I also think that Stafford will make mistakes. But I’ll afford him more than I will Culpepper based on experience… meaning, as a fan, I’ll give CP a much shorter “contentment leash” than I will Stafford. Fair? Probably not, but hey… that’s the fan’s prerogative.
One more thing on the “potential” issue. How does one develop ability that is merely potential at this point if not given field time? At some point, you have to try to translate that potential into reality. There is no way to do that from the bench. So, in my humble opinion, it is sound logic to give your “investments in potential” the tools to translate said potential into production. Fair enough?
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KDawg, Did someone piss in your cornflakes?
Man, I get ripped for being too negative, so finally I show a high level of enthusiasm for our boys in Hawaii blue, and who but KDawg jumps all over me.
Talk about role reversal!
I don’t get the love for Daunte. The guy has been horrible or out of the league for the last four years plus. Even when he played he was very inconsistent, going from MVP to worse than mediocre in the same season. Last year he was brutal. I’ll take the ‘unknown’ quantity that is Stafford over Daunte anyday.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 5, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't sya CP love
I wouldn’t say CP love. But I will say it is as simple as this yes CP had down years but he still has a vetran perspective on the play book with multiple systems he had to learn over the years. Stafford has seen 2 playbooks in his carrer one at college and now this one. In truth I don’t like either player atm. I think CP has a better chance becuase he has more than a few months in the NFL and knows the ropes where as Stafford is new to the NFL.
Is there a ton of hype? Of course there is everyoen is searching for a story right now just to post to get some ratings and earn a paycheck. But as I stated below I wouldn’t believe the hype till training camp actually begins. I say prove to me what you have becuase I have seen the predictions and hype for too many years. IE Kitna “We will make the palyoffs and win more than 10 games.” Harrington “Savior of the franchise and future All-pro” Scott Mitchell “1 good year”.
I am sorry but I reserve judgement on who the starter is till we see some actual play from all our quaterbacks. The lions past in selecting QB’s is still too fresh in my mind for me to beleive Stafford is our savior. As the old saying says “Put up or Shut up!” And that is what I want to see form all 3 of our QB’s. Prove to the fans that you deserve for us to watch you.
by shanndiggit on Jun 5, 2009 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about this?
The Lions are keeping their intentions quiet, even secretive. Pretty good about that lately. I’m happy to wait and see how the RECEIVERS respond. The timing on routes is bound to be different. Can Pepp and Staff both throw the ball 75 yards? Probably. But who threads the needle? Who finds the holes in the zones? Who has the touch? Is the ball there when the receiver turns around, or does he have to wait for it for 1 second and get plowed? King Schwartz and Prince Linehan are looking at this stuff. Are you?
by dylan415 on Jun 5, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Northleft
Daunte came in FIVE days after he was pulled from retirement, 25-30 pounds overweight and no knowledge of the playbook….what did you expect of him? Considering those things, I think he did surprisingly well. Now that his injury is fully healed, and he will have a full offseason with the same team (something he hasn’t done since the end of 2004….also check out his stats in 05 before the injury), and he knows the playbook, there is no reason in my mind why he can not make a solid comeback. Nobody pissed in my cornflakes….didn’t you see where I said that my sarcasm was an attempt at humor? I did not intend to “rip” you, and I apologize if that is how it came across. I was just trying to point out my opinion of what was wrong with your logic for that particular set of statements.
By the way Drew…..I agree with your speculation. It is a given fact that DC can not be the “long-term” option at QB for the Lions at his age. It is a given fact that Stafford will be the “long-term option”. I’m not going to even attempt to justify the last 4 years of DC’s career….all I can say is his injury was especially bad, and by all accounts was equivalent to a career ender. The fact that he is even running now is amazing to me. That is the kind of determination, heart, and desire I want to see in my leader.
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KDawg, Stop taking everything so personal.
I knew you were being sarcastic, I was just surprised that you punked [if that’s the right word] fan faves Pettigrew and Smith. I honestly think they are both going to be solid NFL players. Top ten talent at their positions.
And I did look at Daunte’s stats for 2005. In his six full games, he had two really good games and four horrible games. Of the four losses, three were blow outs [sound familiar?] and the closest one [24-13 vs TB], he had five turnovers and the Minnesota TD was scored by their defence.
Look at Daunte’s stats for sacks. His best season ever for sacks was 2000. He had one sack every 14 attempts. That is not very good. His average at Minnesota was around one sack every 12 attempts. Worse. In 2005 through 2008, he has been sacked once every 7, 6, 9, and 8 attempts. That is just plain brutal. It indicates to me that he has trouble recognizing defences and open players, has a slow release, and tries to run his way out of trouble. He has not been very successful doing that. And add in a guy who is fumble prone? Yikes!
The 2008 Detroit Lions played far worse with him than with Orlovsky, or even [shudder] Kitna. You asked me what I expected from Daunte last year? Pretty much what we got. I expect more of the same in 2009.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 6, 2009 4:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that Stafford...
has all of those same qualities without the injuries. Both guys are going to try like heck to beat out the other and that competition is great for the team. The only place Stafford really can’t compare with Culpepper is experience… and that is an area where he simply can’t catch up. But the Lions need to play him to get that experience and that can’t happen with Culpepper on the field. Now, that’s not an excuse to play him, but just a fact.
Again, I’ll say that if Culpepper has a lights out camp and preseason and he is just a lot better than Stafford at that point in time… he should play. But there has been nothing this offseason – other than a couple missing pounds and a few media reports saying he’s looked better – to tell me to expect anything other than what Daunte’s done the past four years. For now, my logical conclusions always lead me to Stafford starting as soon as possible.
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only logical argument you have
is that it is inevitable that Stafford will eventually replace Culpepper. While your conclusions are reasonable, they do not force a decision that is apart from or in opposition to such reasoning (which is one definition of logic). Reasoning alone (in reference to Daunte Culpepper) says that he looks better, is in shape, and has the experience to start over Stafford. Reason could also argue that Stafford was the number 1 pick for a reason, that he has a ton of potential, and that he needs to play to gain experience. Logic, however, shows that Daunte Culpepper is the proven commodity, that his stats alone warrant him the opportunity to be the starter in Detroit, and that Matt Stafford should have to prove not only to be ready to be a starter in the NFL, but also to be the best QB on the roster before he starts. Those arguments are apart from and in opposition to the reasoning as to why Stafford should start from day 1.
by KDawg on Jun 8, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for defining logic for me...
I was about ready to crack open my dictionary…
Seriously though, your entire argument is based on Culpepper being this proven commodity. How you come to that assessment is very unclear to me. I would say that Daunte’s last four years of play and Stafford’s last few years as a college starter are about a wash in terms of value.
I’m also confused on why you don’t think Culpepper has anything to prove. I assume this is because of his past successes, right? If so, that was a long time ago in NFL years and even then, some of his achievements are suspect. I won’t list again some of the things that ty@lionsinwinter discussed above, but I agree with a lot of his sentiment. I think that Culpepper has as much or maybe even more to prove than Stafford. Why should we trust Daunte anymore than Matt with this offense? I’d like you to answer that for me. Maybe it will shed some light on why you feel so strongly in him.
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Deja Vu All Over Again!
I think I read these same two posts a time or two earlier.
And Drew points out exactly what I have been asking, What has Culpepper done to merit the job of starting QB?
Anybody?
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 8, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wager
That since we aren’t watching practice everyday we won’t know as much as the coaches that are going to make this decision.
But that has never stopped internet chatter before. I think that CP has a leg up on Stafford because he has been in the NFL longer (you can argue merits all day, but that is my opinion). I think CP will start the season as #1 QB because the coaches think he has it all together more than Stafford on day one. I also think that mediocre QB play will get us a 2-6 record halfway through the season and that Stafford will have learned enough by then to surpass CP as the #1 QB.
That said, I hope the coaches who are watching all the practices think that Stafford is the #1 QB day one and send him out there. That would mean that Stafford is better than the QB play we had last year and right now I would be happy if we were better at every position than we were last year.
I also hope that CP plays so well that the coaches have a tough decision because that means our backup will be pretty good also.
by ATL Lion on Jun 8, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well put ATL Lion.
I pretty much agree with your summary.
Especially the part about the internet chatter. We have to talk about something and this is a hell of a lot more interesting than what we can get for Calvin in a trade [ LOL ].
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 8, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, what fun is it...
to just let the coaches decide?
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
that Culpepper has everything to prove….where did I ever say that he has nothing to prove? I said that the job is Daunte’s to lose….and it is. If they had to play week 1 today, DC would be at the helm. See my post above (in response to another of yours) for my rebuttle to your first full paragraph here.
One word answers your question about why I feel that we should trust DC over MS in this offense. Experience. Tell me that you wouldn’t do things differently if you knew 20 years ago what you know today, and I’ll call you a bold faced liar. Nothing can replace experience, and with experience comes wisdom. Hind sight is always 20-20. I just can’t hang my hat on some young punk who thinks he has it all figured out, especially since he hasn’t even cut his teeth yet on an NFL mouth guard. I feel that everything we have heard from the media is hype. I want to believe it. I want it to be true and I want this kid to be the next John Elway, Brett Favre, Joe Montana, Steve Young, Dan Marino (except for the part where he never gets a SB ring), or whatever other top notch HOF QB you can think of. But this is the one spot where I can not get myself to feel 100% optimistic…..I hope he is great, but I am going to take the wait and see approach on Matt Stafford. I will be happy if he is our starter from day one, as that will tell me that our coaching staff truly believes that he is the best QB on the roster. I will cheer for him and support the team’s decision if that is the case, but until I see it with my own eyes you will have a hard time convincing me otherwise as well.
by KDawg on Jun 8, 2009 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that...
CP would be the starter right now. By week one… who knows?
As for the “snot-nosed rookie brat” approach… not sure I completely agree. Usually, I feel the same as you… I’d rather have the veteran play. But with the Stafford/Culpepper mix, it’s a little different to me. Like I said before, I don’t really see Daunte as proven at this point. But if he does come out and show his stuff, I’ll be happy in the moment. But the back of my mind will always be waiting for Stafford to come off the bench. I know that’s not fair loyalty-wise to DC, but I can’t help it. I think Stafford will be heads and shoulders better than DC was in his prime and I would just rather see him get his feet wet as the team matures. In other words, I think it would be good for him to be involved and feel like he has ownership in building success. Maybe I’m wrong… but my gut tells me I’m right :0) – couldn’t resist
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To each his own
My gut is bigger than yours….:oP lol
by KDawg on Jun 8, 2009 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gut
Dawg, I’m sure mine is bigger than yours. Some men have six-packs. I have a keg. It’s all paid off. By the way dude, after 2 years of unemployment in Michigan, I start a new job on Monday. I wish you the same good fortune.
by dylan415 on Jun 10, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gut
I have to lift it when I pee. Can you beat that Dawg? LOL
by dylan415 on Jun 10, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Luckily I don’t have to do that yet…lol. You own the biggest gut award Dylan. :o)
by KDawg on Jun 11, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just Kidding Dawg
But I’ll be happy to accept the award on behalf of all the girls in Wisconsin.
by dylan415 on Jun 11, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember one thing...
Stafford can shine all he wants in the OTA’s this great but until he shines with pads on and physical contact coming at him he hasn’t proven a thing to me. We have a long time before a starter can be proven. When the hits start flying and the pads come on and he excells and looks better than CP then yes he should start week one. But the pads are off and things haven’t even got started yet. Come Opening day I would say CP proves to be the better QB just becuase of experiance. But if he falls flat on his face which may happen becuase I think he will try to force to many plays to prove he still has it. Stafford will be there and he will see what CP does and know not to do it then we will really see just how much 40+ million gets us.
by shanndiggit on Jun 5, 2009 3:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Jun 5, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with starting Daunte in Game 1 but here's the thing...
A lot of people use the old excuse that “Stafford needs to learn the playbook first”, or things of that nature.
But really, Culpepper has only been on the roster for what, half a season? In addition to that, we now have a new offense with new offensive coaches. Add in the fact that Culpepper was out of football for a while before the Lions signed him and I really don’t see how this is a valid arguement. Culpepper doesn’t have a whole lot more experience (in this offense) than Stafford does. The whole “Stafford not being ready” thing doesn’t make sense…he’s just as ready as Culpepper is.
You can argue that Culpepper has an advantage because he was coached by Linehan several years ago, and I can see that, but this is a new team with new teammates, new assistants, a new HEAD COACH, and different strengths/weaknesses than the Vikings of yesteryear.
by Tagne13 on Jun 5, 2009 5:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point
But Culpepper still had the playbook before Stafford, and like you said he has worked with our OC before. He has a big advantage over Stafford in that department.
by KDawg on Jun 6, 2009 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who will take the most pre-season snaps?
I’m thinking it’s going to be mostly Drew’s gig for the first 4 weeks.
80% Stanton
10% Culpepper
10% Stafford
by BIGWalt2990 on Jun 5, 2009 5:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I would say prolly
50% CP
30% Stafford
20% Stanton
by shanndiggit on Jun 5, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
caveat to that
we know CP or Stafford is the starter and Stanton is odd man out so they aren’t going to give him more snaps than the other 2.
by shanndiggit on Jun 5, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stanton will get the fewest
I agree with shanndiggit’s numbers. Those seem to be fairly accurate.
Pride of Detroit, SB Nation's Lions Blog
by Sean Yuille on Jun 5, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
too be honest
Those numbers are giving Staton more than he deserves it could realistically be
50% CP
40% Stafford
10% Stanton
but that will depend on how much the coaches want or need to see of Stafford or in how well he does. If Stafford does well he will see the numbers above. If Stafford needs more snaps they will give them to him before Stanton and we could see hese numbers.
Basically meaning CP gets most of the 1st half of all games then Stafford comes in and Stanton cleans up the rest. It all depends on the performance of each individual. If CP does very well we could actually see less of him and more and Stafford and Stanton.
by shanndiggit on Jun 5, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pre-season to me is practice time for the depth guys. You always see the starters in the first quarter of the game, then for the rest of the game its mostly 2nd stringers. I cannot see the Lions risking Stafford or Culpepper to a preseason injury.
by BIGWalt2990 on Jun 6, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
at the same point...
teams that only play thier starters for 1 quarter have a starter already in place with no competition. We do not have that. We have a competition and they will give the guys that are in competition the reps. Stanton is set to be third string no matter what. Swartz has stated numerous times that no position is set in stone. NONE period. The guys competeing for starting posions will get the reps. Nothing says CP or Staff will go in for one play not suffer a season ending injury. The guys competeing will get the reps. I see us still picking up a 4th QB (veteran) still in the middle of preseason and Stanton actually going to the practice squad by the start of the season. If this doesn’t happen it means Stanton has proved that he deserves to be the backup next year when CP leaves and Stafford definately starts the year.
by shanndiggit on Jun 6, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One option I didn't see
How about WHEN Culpepper gets hurt? That’s when we’ll see Stafford. Culpepper hasn’t made it through a full season in like 5 years. I don’t care how in shape he is. He’s still 33 and he’s got the injury bug. The question is what week that knee will give out.
by wumanchu01 on Jun 5, 2009 5:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Culpeppers job to lose...
First of all let me say I am a firm believer in the phrase “the right time the right place”. And that’s where I think Culpepper is right now. There are many NFL players that get injured have some down years and change of scenery a couple of times before their in the right place. " Kurt Warner, chad Pennington to name a couple". 2nd he knows our OC and the OC knows what Culpepper can do given the proper weapons “Calvin Johnson, Kevin Smith and a improved offensive line”. If Culpepper can keep the team at .500 and in wild card contention I see no reason to rush Stafford into the line up.
Now it’s that I don’t have faith in Stafford right from week 1 but I have a hard time believing he could keep the team in contention in the NFC north. There are many growing pains that come with starting a rookie, and I know he has to learn them sooner or later but I wonder how many errors he could cut back on by watching for a year or as long as possible. 59% passing 20 TD to 20 INT year two is a hell a lot better than 55% passing 12 TD to 19 INT year one.
If Culpepper turns ugly fast or gets hurt, then I’ll be the first one cheering to bring in Stafford but let’s just wait for Culpepper to tank before we start picking Stafford 1st starting date.
by msivits on Jun 5, 2009 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Stafford will start when either of these 2 things happen C-Pep gets hurt or they are out of the playoff hunt… unless he beats him out at camp.
by chucka on Jun 5, 2009 11:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Back to the question: When will Staff start?
Speaking from the Stafford Day One side, I just want to ask one question:
Why do a lot of posters here think Daunte is at all worthy of being the Lions starting QB?
We saw what he could do last year, which was basically what he has been doing for the last three years for three different team [Vikings, Dolphins, and Raiders]; ie. losing a lot of games. He has been 5-16 those four years. And he has looked awful while he was doing it.
I don’t understand what people think Daunte can teach Stafford. The judgement and cerebral part of being a QB has never been his strong suit. Frankly, I am more concerned about Stafford picking up some bad habits from Daunte.
There is really no logical reason to expect Daunte to return to his 2004 performance level. For his sake I hope he does well, but for Detroit’s sake I think it will be better if Staff starts from week one.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 7, 2009 5:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Daunte and all the QBs last year were forced to become one dimensional. When your defense gives up the second most points in NFL history, the offense is going to be predictable. I can’t blame any of the QBs last year for not being great, they were all put in a position to fail.
by BIGWalt2990 on Jun 7, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not only that but.....
DC never was allowed to fully heal from his knee injury in 2005, he was never with a single team for a full offseason, and he proved to everyone, by losing 30 pounds, that he is ready and determined to make a comeback. There are no guarantees that he will be the starter, or even successful if he is the starter, but in that case we have Stafford. It is illogical to think that Culpepper can not make a comeback. At this point, I am of the mind that none of our QB’s are worthy of being the starter. All of them have to prove their worthiness, and I feel that Culpepper will prove to be most worthy, at least in the beginning.
by KDawg on Jun 7, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with
KDAWG’s last points. No one deserves to be the QB imo till they win it. I would love for Stafford to win it to tell the truth. I am not a CP lover or fan but I think he will win the battle. I have learned in my young amount of years experiance counts to alot of success. CP has experiance with Scott Linehan and with multiple playbooks. He has played against a lot of different NFL caliber Defenses. This will help him win the job. From what I have read and seen of Stafford I think he will be a great QB if things go right. But he has yet to prove he deserves the reins yet. CP has proved as much as he could with the limited time he has had. He came off the streets and tried his best to help a horrible franchise last year. He stayed and lost wieght and has done everything asked of him by our coaching staff. He has become a leader in the locker room from reading comments by the players. He is trying his best to prove he can be the guy this year. He knows the team will be Staffords in due time but he has not quit and is still there trying. I have nothing agaisnt Stafford but atm this is CP’s team to lose imo.
by shanndiggit on Jun 7, 2009 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think....
anyone is saying that DC can’t make a comeback… it’s just that it seems unlikely to most compared to what he’s done lately. KDawg, are you getting some reports from somewhere that say that Daunte is like this “new man” or has all of his former mobility back? I’ve read a few reports from the early spring that said he looked in shape and has “recommitted” himself (whatever that means… was he not committed before?) But since Stafford’s come to town, I’ve heard nothing about Culpepper. Actually, what I have heard has been mostly negative (i.e. he looks sloppy next to Stafford).
Just wondering where all the optimism is coming from, because I can’t find that same information out there that says that Culpepper looks spectacular and is on his way to a breakout, Kurt Warner-like comeback. For all our sakes, I hope he is, but I just can’t see it happening.
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No phantom reports
But I have seen video of Culpepper this offseason, somewhere (maybe the official website?). Since Stafford has come to town we have heard nothing but hype, as expected. It was the same thing when Joey Harrington came to town. Never did I say that DC was the same QB he was in 2004….I can not truly expect him to be 100% of his former self. Like I said before, if he can be 80% of what he was in 04, he will be great. The word is that he has “recommited” himself, because he was injured and out of shape for 4 years. Now he is healthy and in the best shape of his career. To me that says he has the motivation and desire to be the starter.
Any reasoning to support a statement that he is on his way to a breakout year would be speculation at best. Again, I am not arguing against the idea that if Matt Stafford is ready to be the starter and obviously a better QB than DC, that he should not start from day 1. I agree that if those things are true, that Stafford should be the starter. However, unlike you I can see DC leading this team and being successful, thereby keeping young Stafford on the sidelines for at least this season. Basing the likelihood that Culpepper will or will not be successful, in a comeback attempt, on stats and performances that came since his serious injury in 2005 is no good in my opinion. Like I already stated:
DC never was allowed to fully heal from his knee injury in 2005, he was never with a single team for a full offseason, and he proved to everyone, by losing 30 pounds, that he is ready and determined to make a comeback. There are no guarantees that he will be the starter, or even successful if he is the starter, but in that case we have Stafford. It is illogical to think that Culpepper can not make a comeback
by KDawg on Jun 8, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know that you see DC being successful and...
capable of leading this team, but I’m still not sure that you have fully explained why? Maybe I missed it somewhere in this fanpost. You’ve said that he’s lost weight and looks committed… and all that is great and good to hear, but what about his past performances makes you think he will be better than say… his last year in Oakland. I think he was pretty healthy and should have had enough around him to show some success there. I’ll even throw last year in Detroit out of the argument… because it was a bad situation for him. Even so, I can’t get what makes you so sure that he is that much ahead of Stafford even as we speak, let alone at week one.
by DrewsLions on Jun 8, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His last year in Oakland....
You keep bringing up instances from the last 4 years. Daunte Culpepper was injured in the 7th game of the 2005 season (week 8). He was off to a terrible start that year already, but he wasn’t even half way through the season yet. Who knows if he would have turned it around or not? That is also the first year that he no longer had his go to receiver to throw to. I have always said that WR’s are half of a QB’s success.
Anyway, he had what was thought to be a career ending injury half way through the 05 season. He was released at the end of 05 and picked up by the Dolphins the next year. he did not have a full off season with Miami, but he was their starter at the beginning of the 06 season. He was not looking too bad statistically, but the team sucked. He re-injured the same knee in the 4th game of the season (as it was never fully healed) and was out for the rest of the year (Joey Harrington took over). DC was released by the Dolphins at the end of 06 and picked up by the Raiders the next year. He did not have a full off season with Oakland either.
He came into play during the middle of the game in week 3 of the 07 season (after an injury to Josh McCown) and completed 8 passes on 14 attempts (Oakland was, and is, a running team). He then played in the spanking of Miami in week 4, rushing for 3 TD’s and only throwing 12 passes with 5 completions for the game, but had 2 TD passes (Fargas had 179 yds rushing and the Raiders won 35-17). After the week 5 bye, DC again was the starter in week 6 against the Chargers. The Raiders could not establish the run, and had to rely on the arm of DC. He was 24-37 for 229 yds with 1 TD and 2 INTS. They lost the game, but he played well considering his surroundings. In week 7, again the Raiders struggled to establish the run. DC was 18-30 for 228 with 1 TD and 1 INT. It was a defensive game and KC won 12-10. Again DC played well considering the one dimensional offense. Week 8 against the Titans….no running game….Titans D on fire….5 sacks….DC 15-32 for 167 and 1 INT….his first really bad game as a Raider, but it came against Tennessee so I understand considering his surroundings. It was a defensive game and Tenn won 13-9. Week 9 McCown was back from his injury, and the inept Lane Kiffin said that McCown was their QB. After sucking for 2 weeks straight, McCown was benched an DC got the nod in week 11 against Minnesota. Again Oakland had no running game and DC was 23-39 for 344 and 1 TD with 1 INT. Chester Taylor blew up the Raiders D and they lost a shootout 29-22. In week 12 vs KC, Oakland finally got their running game going again, DC was 15-22 for 170 with no TDs or INTs. Oakland won 20-17. At this point, the Raiders were 4-8 and the QB merry-go-round began with McCown starting again in week 13, and JaMarcus Russell seeing his first action as a rook. Josh McCown was completely ineffective for the rest of the season, and Russell got into a couple more games that McCown started, finally getting the start for the last two games of the season. Lane Kiffin resigned after the season take the job for the University of Tennessee.
Culpepper did not play badly when he was in Oakland….Oakland was just that bad. They went 4-12. Daunte Culpepper retired at the end of the season, and we know what happened next. He did show some success in Oakland, and Lane Kiffin felt that Josh McCown was the better QB….it was controversial then if I remember correctly, and I disagreed then and now. Daunte has had a full offseason with Detroit. He has lost 30 pounds and gotten in the best playing shape of his career. Our new OC is his old OC with whom he was most successful. He knows Linehan’s system and what is expected of him in it. That is why I say he has the advantage over Stafford currently. I do not believe that it is impossible for Matt Stafford to win the starting job from day 1, but if Daunte plays as well as he can, stays healthy, and is as determined as I think he is, he will be our starter until he proves that he is not worthy of that role.
by KDawg on Jun 8, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Daunte was terrible in Oakland
You can try and make excuses for and gloss over his time in Oakland but he was not a good QB. His overall QB rating was 78, which is poor and would have made him 26th in the 2008 less than stellar group of QBs.
He was sacked 21 times which was a rate of one sack every nine attempts, with nine fumbles. McCown was also terrible, even worse than Daunte, but he was sacked at a rate 50% less than Daunte.
Daunte invites a lot of sacks. He always has, and always will. Our O Line is not our strong point. Daunte will make them look worse than they actually are.
I just think that Daunte is not the right QB for the Lions.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 9, 2009 6:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sean Boy
Time for some new business. This is about worn out. Get back to work Censor.
by dylan415 on Jun 8, 2009 12:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, some of us are just getting our second wind.
I am asking the Minnesota Viking fans for some feedback on Daunte. I put up a FanPost on the Daily Norseman SB site. Some interesting feedback which I will summarize and pass on.
Surprisingly [to me] it is mostly positive.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 8, 2009 8:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think daunte needs to be the stand in whipping boy for a year
We got our franchise quarterback of the future in Stafford. At least that is the idea we drafted him with. We still need to address our O-line issues though. If we get a decent draft position next year (I figure at least a top ten pick is coming) we should be able to do that. There is no sense in throwing Staff in there and getting him killed. He is a great young talent and if we can get him some protection he will prosper. if not I believe it will be Joey blue skies all over again at a much higher price tag. Or worse, a career ending injury This franchise can not afford either of those to happen. Daunte may never be what he used to be, but he is more than capable and seemingly willing to take the abuse while we wait. Detroit would be foolish not to take him up on that. Let Stafford learn for a year and get him some help through the draft next year.
by riki42972 on Jun 8, 2009 11:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope the coaching staff are spending as much time on this subject as we
and you HAVE to assume that it is on their minds just as much as ours. I mean, they used the FIRST OVERALL PICK, for christ’s sake, you KNOW that they want to use him. But, patience is a virtue. I don’t want to see the young man’s career handled as badly as Harrington’s was. That would be a classic LIONS mistake…and I’m NOT expecting this kind of fumbling around in the franchise anymore.
I, for one, think that Dauntless Culpepper is going to perform well with his newly overhauled body. There is no going back, and the past is gone, but he should have a solid year. He’s certainly going to have the necessarry weapons at his disposal. Should he NOT perform …
by myPride on Jun 8, 2009 11:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Now this is football talk!!!
I love it. lol
by JCruize on Jun 8, 2009 9:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I asked Georgia fans and Viking fans what they thought of their ex QBs........
The links to their responses are here:
http://www.dawgsports.com/2009/6/8/902310/matt-stafford-can-he-start-week
http://www.dailynorseman.com/2009/6/6/901185/daunte-culpepper-how-will-he-do
Overall, the Viking fans mostly think Daunte will do okay, although their standards seem to be quite low in some cases. The Georgia fans are a lot more positive about Stafford, though not as numerous as the Viking fans.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 9, 2009 11:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Very nice
I love the responses from the Vikings fans….most of them feel the same way I do about DC. I found it especially hilarious that even they said “it sounds like you already have your mind made up”. I couldn’t agree more. You already have your mind made up and there is nothing that anyone can say to change it. No matter the argument, you will continue to be a Culpepper hater, and that is fine.
As for the Georgia fan’s comments, I also like the fact that they said he has trouble with touch passes. I also said this somewhere on the forum. He can make throws into traffic that nobody else can make, but what happens when he tries to make a touch pass? So he can hammer in the 5-15 yard throws….that is only half of what he needs to be able to do. Can he start day one? I say yes he can, if he proves that he is better than DC and he is ready to be an NFL starter. In my opinion, as previously stated, he will not be ready because he can not make all of the required throws. He will not prove to be better than DC, who can make all of the throws with accuracy (as stated by the Vikings fans).
My last comment here will be in response to your statements that “Daunte was terrible in Oakland.
You can try and make excuses for and gloss over his time in Oakland but he was not a good QB. His overall QB rating was 78, which is poor and would have made him 26th in the 2008 less than stellar group of QBs”. Once again, your mind is already set, so this is really pointless other than for my own peace of mind. Oakland was terrible, not Daunte, the entire team. I was not making excuses or glossing anything over, I was stating the facts. Lane Kiffin is an idiot, and Daunte proved that he was the best QB in Oakland that year, only to be benched for Josh McCown (Gee he sure was awesome in Detroit). The QB rating is not indicative of his play overall. It is indicative of a horrible offensive line, no consistent running game, and the opposing defenses ability to drop back in coverage on every play to stop the pass. Yeah, DC threw some INTs in Oakland and his passer rating was not great. He only had a chance to really air it out in 2 games that year, and both times he threw for over 300 yards, WITH the opposing defense dropping back in coverage and not worrying about a running threat. Josh McCown was sacked half as much as DC…..why? Because he would close his eyes and throw the ball away at the first sign of his protection breaking down. DC is a guy who is not afraid to take a sack, a guy who will step up in the pocket and keep trying to find an open receiver, a guy who will tuck the ball and run if he can, and a guy who will take a hit like a man. I don’t care what negative things you say about him, in my opinion you are wrong and simply prejudiced.
by KDawg on Jun 9, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KDawg, I don't think that North and I are the only ones...
with our minds set on something here. Are you saying that you don’t already have a opinion leaning heavily towards Culpepper? You have to realize it’s not necesarily about having our minds made up and being stubborn towards your point of view – it’s more like we’re saying, we have an opinion based on our own interpretations and investigation. I don’t hate Culpepper. I just don’t really care for him as the Lions quarterback right here, right now under these circumstances. I have no faith in his ability whatsoever. He can change that mindset some by playing well. But I simply believe the future is already set in motion with Stafford. So I think you can drop the “prejudice against your opinion” stuff. It’s all opinion and hypotheticals.
Also, from a lot of the media reports I’ve read, the one thing commented on was that Stafford has more touch than he was given credit for coming out of Georgia. I know you’re looking to knock him to support your point of view, but I think he’ll be fine with his touch passes.
by DrewsLions on Jun 9, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't get it
I didn’t say prejudiced against my opinion. I said prejudiced, meaning strongly biased against Culpepper (nothing racial either). No Drew, I am not biased against Matt Stafford. I do not understand why you guys can’t see what I am saying. I have said it over and over again. If Matt Stafford can prove that he is the best QB on the roster and that he is ready to be a starting QB in the NFL, then I am ALL FOR IT!! However, it is my opinion that he will not do that right away and that it will be best for him to be the backup, continue learning from the coaches and what he can from DC, and work on perfecting his throws in practice. And BS on your idea that I just want to knock Stafford to support my opinion. I have watched him play in an actual game, and seen how much “touch” he has. Not only that, but there are some Georgia fans who would also agree with me. Never once did I say that the kid is no good, or that he is not the future of the Lions. I also never said that he could not possibly prove me wrong and be the starter this year. I believe it is unlikely, especially right away. I respect your opinion, and you are entitled to it. It is fine by me that you agree with NL too, but in reality the comment above yours was directed at him.
by KDawg on Jun 9, 2009 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We get you and see your point...
we always have… it’s just that we don’t see it the same way. I really don’t think that you like the fact that we disagree with your point of view, that’s where all of the personal defensiveness comes to play. My bias is based on opinion that I’ve gained over time…. just like yours. We could go on and on about this, but I’m kind of tired of it. Don’t get me wrong, I like a good debate. But with you it seems that I just spend my time responding to your defensive rebuttals and “stop attacking” me rants. That’s not really much fun. You just take this stuff waaaay to personally.
I’m out of this one….
by DrewsLions on Jun 10, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LMAO
You can think whatever you like Drew. I grow tired of the contentiousness of this argument as well, and while you see it as me being the one who is defensive, I see it the other way around. It’s a point of view thing…..sorry, I couldn’t resist.
by KDawg on Jun 10, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeez KDawg, How did you feel about the guy who said we should go 1-15 with Daunte?
And be satisfied. Not just one year, but two years? Will you be satisfied with one win with Daunte?
By the way, I stated up front my bias, and reconfirmed it when the Viking poster mentioned it. My bias is based on Daunte’s performance the last four years, especially what I saw in 2008. My bias is based on cold, hard facts. Not what my gut tells me, or what I hope to happen.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 9, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is the 'informed' comment from a Viking fan on Daily Norseman
Back to Culpepper. He has had a few great years in Minnesota, but wether injury, or play, seems he followed up a good year with a less then steller one. I could be worng, but think one was injury shortened and I don’t think he really has fully recovered, then the first time he had a great year, reverted to the Culpepper 2 years previous, forcing the ball, stupid turnovers. And this was with Moss and a few other good players as well. So, I think two years for him, then Staffords turn in 3. Even if you guys finished 1-15 the next two seasons, I think it would be a mistake to put Stafford in right away.
KDawg, if you want to take that guy’s opinion as gospel, go right ahead.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 9, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty Selective, Aren't you KDawg?
At the Georgia SB site [link here http://www.dawgsports.com/2009/6/8/902310/matt-stafford-can-he-start-week , I got four comments from Georgia fans. One guy who made a joke about Kevin Smith the director/actor, two from the same guy, and one other comment. One comment mentioned that
I still question his ability to truly drop a touch pass over the top of a linebacker and underneath a free safety..
Who is the “they” you mentioned above?
At least I admit my bias and am objective in reporting that Minnesota fans think Daunte would do well for Detroit. They did not think he would set the world on fire but thought he would win us a few games. Some of them thought we were making a big mistake.
You completely mischaracterized the small number of responses from Georgia fans who both thought he could play from day one, but felt he would not put up ridiculous [good] numbers. The same one who said he did not throw touch passes said he felt he was a better option than Daunte.
I don’t expect you to change your mind, just don’t misreport what you read to others.
by NorthLeft12 on Jun 10, 2009 6:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
About Culpepper
In his magical season of 2004. He was sacked 46 times. Even if he has lost 30 lbs. He has had major knee surgery. And he is five years older. And he has not thrown more TD’s than INT’s since 2004. He has only been healthy enough to play in entire for season three times. I dont see Culpepper ever coming close to what he did in 2004. And if he just going to be mediocre. Than start Stafford. Get his first out of the way. And start building for the future.
by JCruize on Jun 9, 2009 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna wait to preseason
I’ve read all the comments in this thread about Culpepper and Stafford and to be honest, I think it’s all a bit premature. Sure, we’ve seen Culpepper but not in this current system and not fully recovered. And we haven’t truly seen Stafford. I like all this talk and it’s a lot of fun to read but I don’t really think we can properly talk on this subject until preseason, when we can actually see how these guys go round in pads.
BTW, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have these conversations since this is why I love POD. I’m just sort of justifying why I haven’t got involved.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Jun 9, 2009 8:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Another fine point HE
Your comment goes right along the same lines as what I have been saying all along. In the good nature of the situation, may the best man win.
+1
by KDawg on Jun 9, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you, KDawg...
The best man should win. I just hope that Stafford turns out to be the best man!
by DrewsLions on Jun 10, 2009 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Pride Of Detroit
Related FanShots on Pride Of Detroit
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
