Stafford V. Culpepper
by msivits on Aug 24, 2009 3:15 PM EDT
98 comments
Two games into preseason and the line has been drawn, do you want Culpepper to start or Stafford. I'm not going to bore you with stats and numbers all I'm going to do is make a pitch for each one on why they should be the starter week 1.
Stafford:
1st game against Atlanta the kid looked confident, almost as if he commanded respect in the huddle, and he showed all of Michigan his potential by looking off one receiver then going to Williams while taking a hit. 1st year QB's don't do this. 2nd game from what I gathered from highlights, espn, and Drewslions scary break down of the game, things could of gone alot better. There are always going to be growing pains with a rookie QB, seems like half want Stafford to start and get the growing pains out of the way with some on the job training. Then the other half see the mistakes that are waiting to be made and would like him a little more seasoned before taking over. My pitch for Stafford is he's a moxie young QB with natural confidence you don't usually see in rookie QB's. If he was named the starter today and took all 1st string reps the rest of the way and started the last 2 preseason games playing the 1st half in both games I'm pretty confident he would make believers out of us by week 1. And for people who are going to cry about all the mistakes, get over it and get on board. Stafford is going to make a lot great plays, he's also going to make some horrible INT's on the way. And if he learns a little from each game and makes improvements it would be a worthy investment starting him now then later.
Culpepper:
Not many QB's retire and stay out of the game for a 1/2 season then get a phone call on Thursday and are the starting QB of that team by Sunday. The Lions truly are a special organization, I was not a big fan of Culpepper to start but after losing over 30lbs and getting into football shape in the off-season I'll respect any man for that. He has seemed to have a better understanding of the offense and has done nothing to be knocked out of the line up week 1. If your a true dreamer like me you do believe the Lions can turn it around in one year and be in the play off hunt again. To do that you need a experienced QB with a past history of success which Culpepper has, not a rookie QB making rookie mistakes. Think how Culpepper would look week 1 if he was named the starter right now and given all 1st team reps and playing with the 1st team the rest of the games. Culpepper has been a proven NFL QB, he's not that old yet and has worked with Scott Linehan before with great success. And if you don't want to endure another possible 3-13 season he's probably the way to go.
My opinion:
Stafford has had one good outing and one bad one, and as much as it pains me to say it let the kid play. Culpepper has played a little better but he's not head and shoulder above Stafford yet, and he should be. From all counts in practice there neck and neck, and Culpepper is barely in front in preseason games. In my opinion you have to pick one of the 2 and back them. I'm picking Stafford believing he'll progress faster then most, I've seen a lot of QB's come through Detroit. And he's the 1st one where I watch and just say WOW there's really something different about him. Kitna didn't have it, Joey didn't have it, McMahon, Batch, Detmer, Case, Garcia and Orlovsky "I like him though"
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pride of Detroit or its writers. FanPosts are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable fans.
0 recs |
98 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Culpepper and Stafford........
……..Im not even sure i Culpepper has lead the team on td drive in 2 games….I know staff has….. say play the rook
by BennieBladesFan on Aug 24, 2009 4:09 PM EDT reply actions
Bennie
If we are going on TD drives in the preseason, then neiher Staff or Culpizzle shoud start it should be the 3rd/4th year player STANTON, who has led the lions too 3 td drives and has moved the ball the most consistantly.But we all throw that right out the window because “it was against he 3rd string D-fences” even thou our 3rd stringers have been starting the games for us, so Stanton has been doing it with less than practice squad players.If we all want to see the best qb out there the Let Stanton have a shot with the 1st stringers.Then we will all have seen all 3 of them against the other teams 1st string D.Everyone remember this he is in his 3rd or 4th year with the same team and should know just as much of the playbook as either Staff or Culpepper.
Stanton has been good
But like you said, it was against 3rd stringers. And while he has 2 TD drives, one was all Aaron Brown as it was a dump off. Stanton has shown flashes, but obviously, he hasn’t shown enough in practice for the coaches to consider him a viable starting option.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 26, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
It's just a sad thing
That when a coach comes too a new team and (reguardless of what team) says that it is an open competition that it usually means open for 2 of the incumbants. I reall don’t think he could last a whole year but like I said I would just like too see what he could do in 1 lousy game. Even if he has; and I steal Mr. Vince McMans WWE entro music here: NO CHANCE; NO CHANCE IN HELL! of being the #1.
Ah, our favorite topic for debate :-)
Ultimately, I think it comes down to:
“Is Stafford better than Culpepper—i.e. more likely to win—at this point in time?”
If you could put either QB on the field, right now, playing with the starting squad against the opponents’ starting squad, which QB is more likely to contribute to a win?
If the coaches believe Stafford is more likely to win the game in front of us, Stafford is our starting QB. If Culpepper is more likely to win the game at hand, then Culpepper it is. Best man gets the job.
Jim Schwartz said:
“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."
Schwartz did NOT say:
“We’ve got two criteria for when Matthew will play.
One is he’ll play when he’s ready.
The second is when he has the most upside, and we want him to gain experience, so he can get his rookie mistakes out of the way early and be better for next year, because, you know, winning doesn’t matter because we’re rebuilding."
As soon as Stafford demonstrates that putting him under center is more likely to result in a win that game than starting Culpepper, Stafford starts.
It’s gonna happen, it’s just a matter of time. But right now, Stafford has really hurt his case with his performance against Cleveland. While Culpepper hasn’t been spectacular, his error-free consistency hasn’t done anything to hurt his status either. And neither guy has had the first-team receivers yet. At this moment, I’d say our starter is Culpepper.
I agree
It all comes down to preseason snaps, I’m sure Culpepper will get the start in game 3. What I wonder is if Culpepper has another error free outing but Stafford rebounds with another decent game. I wonder if the coaches will put Stafford in week one not because he’s ready or the better option but because Culpepper hasn’t proved much better.
So again
If Shwartz is looking for the best qb n our team why not let Stanton have 1 game as starter? What’s it going to cost us? Another preseason game? I don’t want you guys to think that I think of Stanton as good as Vick, but Vick can’t throw very good either and have better speed than Stanton but Stanton just keeps the chains moving at any cost, and at the end of the day that’s all that matters, can he or any of our 3 headed monster get us wins?
Culpepper
Stafford hasn’t been too good so far this preseason. Culpepper is supposed to be in the best football shape he has ever been in, and knows how to throw it up too a dominant WR. I say give him a chance, and if he doesn’t work out let Stafford have a go. I just think Stafford looks like he is in a little over his head at this point, and I think starting him when he’s not ready could hurt his maturation process. Just my opinion though!
In the past yes,
but I don’t recall him throwing a deep pass yet in either game so far. He is just dumping them off trying to get a better completion percentage than Staff. I don’t like Culpepper and never have. In fact I can’t wait til we get rid of him. I wish I had a link but years ago bot chris Carter and Randy Moss rejoiced when he was benched. He throws the ball only if a receiver is wide open. He never throws real timing patterns which is what they complained about. I can’t wait for him to go. I wish we signed Leftwich and dumped this bum. He may be in the best shape of his life but that doesn’t change the mental aspect of a game where he is miserable at. Moss and Carter made him. Look what he did in Miami and Oakland.
by Usmarine0341 on Aug 25, 2009 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Mr. Marine
We can’ use that “deep ball theory yet”. It would be different if these guy were trowing to guys that were actually rec’s in the NFL but these gus have been trying to do their jobs throwing to guys like you and me and thats just not fair to any of them.
I never said I thought he was a great QB, because I don’t. But he is good at throwing the deep ball like I said, and CJ can make him look good as well.
by packallday555 on Aug 26, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm a Bears Fan
and I personally think if your goal is to win games this year, play Culpepper
Stafford is not NFL ready, especially now that Calvin Johnson is slightly injured
If you want to crown em...
The Bears just don't want to see Stafford light their asses up!!! BOOOYAAAAA @#$@#$$#@##$ GOOOOO LIONS!!!
I love resonses like that….
http://cmufootball.blogspot.com/
by CapitolLions on Aug 24, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Johnny
Megatron has been held out of practice for a hurt thumb. Thats all. Nothing else.I am pretty sure that everyone knows what he is capable of, so why risk injury in a meanngless game. It’s not like the Bears camp whre you have NO #1 rec, or your best option at WR is a converted return guy, who is still trying to learn how to run propper routes. I’m not trying to bash on your rec’s just making a point. Hester needs all the rep’s he can get with Cutler, I don’t see Megatron in the same catagory as the Bears rec’s.
I would say Calvin Johnson is better than any one receiver that the Bears have
But at the same time I think the Bears receiving corps is better (including the TEs), especially after this past game against the Giants.
What I was trying to say is that if you’re going to play Stafford then you need your best receiver to be 100% healthy, even if it’s a hurt thumb, plus Calvin Johnson has those lingering back issues.
Also if you were trying to bash the Bears for not having a #1 WR I’m in the minority where I would prefer to not have a #1 WR and spread the ball out, like New England did in the early 2000’s. It is much more difficult to plan for an entire team rather than shut 1 man down, and it allows you to properly attack weaknesses on the opponents defense.
If you want to crown em...
by JohnnyTruant on Aug 26, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
NE had a #1 back then
And he played not only on Offence but on D as well(troy Brown), and lets not forget about a certain “soft” wr that played for them back then.At least Billy Parcells thought he was “soft”(Terry Glenn). I am not sure what year you are refering too so I can’t narrow it down but the Pat’s have always had a go-to guy. Even after that they had Deon Branch who was a pro-bowler for a min.I understand where you are coming from Johnny i really do but how can you effectively judge a qb when he’s playing against a first string D with practice squad guys, who couldn’t catch a ball with stick-em on their hands.and I don’t think our TE’s are in the same caliber as the Bears as of yet, but give us another year or 2 and we will see. Pettigrew could be more dominant than either of your bears TE’s in years too come but as of now I would take both of yours over what we have not seen here yet. Just saying.
The Patriots won the Superbowl
would you really consider Glenn a #1 WR???
Maybe we have different ideas of what a #1 WR is. I think a #1 is a gamechanger, a Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, Steve Smith, and Calvin Johnson (has the ability with a better team to definitely be a #1).
your best option at WR is a converted return guy, who is still trying to learn how to run propper routes.
Steve Smith was in this role once too, I personally think Devin Hester is more explosive than Steve Smith, but Hester had 665 yards last season with a mediocre QB who was injured the last half of the season. I believe that Hester could become a #1 WR but only time will tell.
I don’t think that receivers who get 1,000 yards are necessarily elite, especially if they only do it 1 or 2 years.
Glenn was deactivated the 2001 season, and didn’t play in the 2003 and 2004 superbowl years.
Brown
2001 – 101 rec 1199 yards 5 touchdowns (good numbers, but not #1 numbers, and unreliable in the endzone)
2003 – 40 rec 472 yards
2004 – 17 rec but played defense that year
Brown in my opinion is not a #1 receiver.
Deion Branch –
drafted in 2002 so did not play in 2001 SB
2003 53 rec 803 yards
2004 35 rec 454 yards
not even close to #1 numbers
My point stands, NE did not have a #1 WR when they started their dynasty in the early 2000’s (2001, 2003, 2004). It’s kind of funny too, because now one could argue that NE has 2 #1 WR’s (Moss and Welker) but that they did not win the SB.
all stats were taken from Pro Football Reference
If you want to crown em...
by JohnnyTruant on Aug 26, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Thats why I added my disclaimer.
And I was never a fan of Glen but did you or have you ever played anygame (Madden/Tecmo) back then. Terry wasn’t the fastest guy in the league but he sure did make catch after catch from Bledsoe.see Johnny I can’t truly get behind my comment about Glenn because he was a buckeye and me being a Wolverine fan I just can’t lke any of them. I had the damndest time getting behind Speilman for all those years because of where he played his college ball. To this day I still hate C Carter, and every other damn Buckeye that was spawned to play the game.Including 1 Mr. O Pace. lol thou And for what ever it’s worth they really didn’t have a true #1 in 2001 but they addressed that with the drafting of Deon Branch in 2002.
I'm worried about Hester
I think he has a shot at being a very good wideout, I also think Earl Bennett is a bit of a sleeper. Personally, I’m just hoping Cutler gets injured ;)
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 26, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Cutler has started every game he's ever been asked to
curse your Aussie blood sir!
p.s. he’s only been injured once (Lions-Leg injury)
If you want to crown em...
by JohnnyTruant on Aug 26, 2009 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Ahhh...I remember that game fondly
Big Shaun Rogers rumbling down the field for an interception TD. Those were the good days.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 27, 2009 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Thats funny stuff Johnny
Cursing our Aussie and all. Hey I was overthere on the WCG the other night and I was reading about a couple of young guys that were a real surprise so far in camp. Do you in your opinion think that these 2 (please give me their names) are going to be viable options in a FantasyFootball world this year. Big draft is coming up soon and I’m trying to get an upperhand on all my sleepers this year.
The only sleeper that'd I would really go for on the Bears
is Earl Bennett. He’s been really solid, I don’t expect huge numbers out of him but I do see him getting at least 500 yards this season and a ton of receptions. His chemistry with Cutler is undeniable (played at Vandy together) and his knowledge of the game is apparent in his route running and he makes adjustments on the fly.
A lot of people are talking about Johnny Knox (unbelievably fast and caught everything in camp) but he might be a camp darling, because I haven’t been impressed in the preseason games, he seems iffy over the middle and in the first game he bobbled a ball that led to an interception so I’m not sure if he will even make the team (it seems that the Bears may only carry 5 WR’s this year because we have so many injuries in the secondary, and Hester, Bennett, Davis are all locks)
So that leaves 2 open positions, we have 2 Practice squad guys that have been looking really good. Rideau (6’3’’ and runs a 4.4 40) and Devin Arashamoudou (spelling is way off on that, ha, everyone just calls him DA) who has been balls to the wall trying to get a roster spot (he played for Indy for a year) and he had an amazing 38 yard diving catch against the Giants. Out of these two guys only 1 will probably make the final team because we have Juaquin Iglesias who has high draft position and our GM doesn’t like wasting draft picks.
Both DA and Rideau are Special Teams players too, so I expect one of them to make the team since primarily the 4th and 5th WR’s are used almost solely for ST. If I had to guess out of both of them I’d say DA makes the team because Cutler has mentioned him a lot in interviews lately and even though GM will say players opinions don’t matter Cutler’s does.
If you want to crown em...
by JohnnyTruant on Aug 27, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm definetly looking at Bennett down the line in my fantsay draft
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 27, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions
the best part of that video
is how Rogers dives into the endzone like people do when they play Madden
If you want to crown em...
by JohnnyTruant on Aug 27, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
lol
I didn’t even notice that, they must’ve modelled it off him.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 27, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd go with Stafford.
1. He’ll fill the stadium
2. He has a better arm than Culpepper
3. He is more mobile than Culpepper
4. His receivers have dropped more passes than Culpepper
5. all of the above
Every QB has issues with the 3-4… Why do you think Manning holds the rookie record for most INTs? I’ll give you 4 reasons for starters…. Ravens, New England, NYJets… 5 games, 12 picks due to the 3-4 D… (maybe more due to the fact I can’t remember if Miami ran a 3-4 or not)
The CLE game was a stepping stone for Stafford. That game will make him better. If he’s the competitor that Schwartz and the local beat pundits say he is… then he should be the starter.
Fairly True...
Staff is more mobile than I though would be…and Pep is more mobile than I thought he would still be…
And they both have strong arms…staffs is maybe stronger than anyone not named cutler in the NFL though.
http://cmufootball.blogspot.com/
by CapitolLions on Aug 24, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Or Jamarcus Russell...he has a gun too.
http://cmufootball.blogspot.com/
by CapitolLions on Aug 24, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Dude I'm watching the raven V. jets game
and the ravens run a 3-4 defence, Sanchez got picked on 1st pass, almost got picked 2nd pass. You were on the money with that 3-4 defence being hard on rookie QB’s. Mad props to you!!!!
I'm with n4ry4, packallday, and even JohnnyTruant here
As you all well know…..
I love the potential that the kid has, and I am happy to have a young buck like him who we will be able to rely on in the future. However, I feel Culpepper gives us the best chance to win NOW. Like Herm Edwards said, “You play the game to WIN! You don’t play the game just to play it!”. Until DC proves that he can not get the job done, I say he should start. If and when the Lions are out of the playoff picture, then bring Stafford in and let him get some real game time experience.
I can't wait...
When week 1 hits and the starter is finally named the shit will be done with… Like KDawg said a while ago.. Linehan calls the plays and it is the QB’s job to hit the OPEN man… If it is a bunch of six yard dump-offs, I will take it. Six and Six is still a first down. The rook does take chances but chances lead to big plays or big mistakes. We need consistency…
Live and Die by the LIONS
Hell no...
I want to see exposion! Big plays!
Harrington was a dink’n’dunk…. Go deep or go home!
Play the Rookie!
I want Manning’s INT record broken!
Go Lions!
I'd love Stafford and Culpepper
to be able to throw to Johnson and Johnson, Northcutt and Pett. Might get a better feel on both of them.
I'll stick to my guns
And say Culpepper, right now. Two more pre-season games may change my mind. My thinking is, if things stay much the same during the rest of pre-season, start Culpepper and give him around 8 games and then re-evaluate. If Culpepper hasn’t managed to put wins on the board, I say switch in Staff and give him a good half of the season to really get used to NFL football. The reason I’d give 8 games to C-Pep is because our first 6 are quite tough and winning may not come easily.
In the end though, It’s still early on and things may change quite rapidly in this battle.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
You ever wake up on Xmas and you see that shiney new bike under the tree
then your parents had to tell you had to look at it for 6 months before you could ride it!!!!!!!!!!! I want the new toy NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! gimie, gimie, gimie,gimie gimie, gimie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heres a Billy Sims Rookie card for your spokes
And look at the back of that card it will tell you that he was run into the ground and what could of been a HOF carreer was only a bright flash. Sit staff and let him develope.
2 reasons
1 He’s not mentally ready yet. 2 His body isn’t NFL ready yet. I def. don’t want another Joey project with this guy. Refering to shell-shocked.
Personally, I don't understand this shell-shocked thing
As far as I’m concerned, if a QB’s play gets hampered mentally by being hit too much, then he doesn’t have what it takes to be a QB and will always be destined to fail. Football is a contact sport and as a QB, it should be expected that you will be hit hard by guys 50-100 pounds bigger than you. A QB should be used to it after coming out of college, because, let’s face it, the kids are nearly as big these days, and I’d suspect they hit pretty hard.
If a QB is afraid of getting hit or something to that effect, then I say he’s not gonna be great, even with a good O-line. It’s not like these guys haven’t been sacked before. Stafford played in college under a fairly average O-Line, but went well regardless. He took his hits and came back. I’d find it hard to believe that he would get ‘shell-shocked’ now.
Now, my knowledge is obviously limited in regards to the history of the game, especially on other teams, but maybe someone could offer an example of someone who was ‘shell-shocked’ who would’ve been a good QB if he had a better line.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 26, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Vinny Testaverde
Not only would he have been a great QB in Tampa if he had a good line, but he was a servicable QB after he left and played on a team that had a half way decent OL.
Was he really shell-shocked though
He threw 35 interceptions in 1988, but was only sacked 34 times, I know that doesn’t count hits and the like, but it wasn’t like he was decimated back there.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 27, 2009 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Hyper
If you look back at the “joey years” And see ho in his first year or so he looked , almost sure of himself, when he was in the pocket. And as time went by it seemed likehe lost his confidence and got happy feet within a year or two. I know our O-line was absolutely horendous for him, but he lost his moxi from getting chased around and drilled into the turf so many times. I just don’t want to see the same thing happen to Staff. I personally think that Staff has more Moxi right now then any previous QB that we have drafted in my lifetime, and I just don’t want him to be rushed into the chaos that is our lions backfield. Just remember that Staff should only be a JR in college this year, so his body has some growing to do still. That’s gotta scare the rest of the NFC North knowing what kind of arm the kid has already and it’s going to get stronger still.
Our O-line wasn't that bad for Joey
They only allowed 20, 11, and 37 sacks in his first three years.
Yeah, that's what I thought
Our O-line was like the best in the league during those years.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 27, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, at least in pass protection they were
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 27, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes
I think right now Culpepper has the edge because Stafford has to prove that he is better in order to play.
I would say that if Culpepper starts day 1 and we go 4 games without a Win, we will see Stafford week 5. unless we are losing because our line is playing like last year.
Let Staff play
For those of you who argue Culpepper gives us a better chance to win -
Can you quantify that? How is he more fit? If he can (arguably) barely outplay a rookie, then why is his experience such a turn-on? Do you really think the oodles of experience Daunte has gotten in the league is going to translate into enough success that it will outweigh his declining physical attributes?
I like the guy, but the Lions don’t owe him anything, and I certainly hope that he isn’t a better player than our #1 overall QB, green or not.
If Peyton f’ing Manning says that its a better idea to throw an intelligent, mature young QB into the fracas (Manning went, what, 3-13 his rookie year?), then I say do it. I’d rather see that INT record than see Culpepper wash out and give us another 4-12 season.
Face it: If anyone is going to lead us to the playoffs, EVER, its going to be Matthew Stafford. Daunte Culpepper is not going to come back from a year on the couch, bum knee and all, and miraculously lead a brand new Lions team into the offseason.
Give the team to Staff. Send a message to the team that this is our guy, and we’re going to stand behind him. I know I already am.
by Nate D. on Aug 25, 2009 2:20 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Very shortsighted
Peyton Manning has his own agenda for saying what he did…..he doesn’t want to go down in the history books with the INT record.
I’ve already said what i needed to say about how and why I feel DC has been the better QB in this competition. We can banter back and forth all day long about whether or not he is “barely” outplaying Stafford. I say he is definitely outplaying the rook, without a shred of doubt.
No, the Lions do not owe Daunte Culpepper anything…..but the DO owe us fans the courtesy of putting the best team on the field that they can, regardless of how much they paid a rookie QB who was drafted #1, and regardless of what anybody thinks about why he needs to start immediately. Until he is the best QB on the roster (tried, true, and proven) and until he is ready (without a doubt) he needs to sit unless there is no other choice. Luckily for those of us fans who would rather see us win than flounder around with a rookie who is trying to learn, we have another choice.
you and me, KDawg
tag-teaming these Staffordophiles :-) (I say that lovingly, guys. I want to see Stafford play too, just not as an immediate starter over Culpepper at this point in the QB competition, until he proves otherwise).
The only player who should start at any position is the best man for the job.
This is football. It’s a rough, phyiscal game and a it’s team game. These guys don’t drag their tired, sore bodies out of bed, tape up their wounds, and put on their pads so they can go out on the field and run around buying time for one young rookie to learn and grow, so that he can hopefully be a little bit better in 2010 or 2011, because 2009 is a “rebuilding year”.
They play to win the damn game. It’s unfair to the other 52 guys on the roster first and foremost to put somebody in the game who is less likely (even a little bit less likely) to contribute to a win.
And as KDawg points out, it’s unfair to the fans too.
Until he is the best QB on the roster (tried, true, and proven) and until he is ready (without a doubt) he needs to sit unless there is no other choice.
How, exactly, is the guy supposed to prove he’s the guy if he’s benched all season?
It’s almost cyclical logic; you guys want him to prove and show he’s the best without giving him a shot to show it. In 2 preseason games, you think we fully know what Stafford is or is not capable of?
I want to see Stafford throw to 1st string WRs before I hear anything, to be honest.
My guess is Staff + Grew and Megatron > Culpepper
Definitely
But (Culpepper) < (Culpepper + Grew + Megatron).
Getting our first-string targets will help either QB play better.
I think Culpepper would be fine QB
and I havn’t watch enough preseason lions football, “not my fault” but I just thought Culpepper would have out flashed the rookie by now and from what I gather he hasn’t. So I’m looking forward going to my local watering hole to watch the next 2 games and see which one pulls ahead.
How, exactly, is the guy supposed to prove he’s the guy if he’s benched all season?
It’s almost cyclical logic; you guys want him to prove and show he’s the best without giving him a shot to show it. In 2 preseason games, you think we fully know what Stafford is or is not capable of?
There’s training camp—that’s how they decide who starts in the preseason. Then there’s the preseason games and practices during the preseason—that’s how they decide who starts the regular season. If Culpepper wins a narrow QB race during the preseason, then he starts day 1.
Once the season starts, there’s practice during the week and there’s (more importantly) the results on the field. If Culpepper is playing well on game day, then he gets to start because we want a QB who can play well and he’s proving to be that guy.
As soon as Culpepper is not playing well (whether it’s the preseason or the regular season), as soon as the coaches believe, based on what they’ve seen of Stafford in practice, and what they’re seeing Culpepper fail to do on the field, that Stafford can play a better game than Culpepper, who is struggling on Sunday, then they switch to Stafford.
Culpepper starting the season doesn’t prevent Stafford from having a chance to become a great QB, and it doesn’t prevent Stafford from having a chance to prove himself to the coaches. All he has to do is be consistently good in practice and he’ll get his shot as soon as his potential to win that Sunday is better than Culpepper’s.
If Culpepper earns the start, he has to maintain it by playing well. If he doesn’t play well, then he’s not convincing the coaches that he’s the right guy for the job. Then Stafford starts.
Dude....
You are saving me SO much time by posting what I am thinking!! LOL!! Thanks man!
I would also add that Matt Stafford can showcase his talents and abilities in a backup role, much like Dan Marino and many other GREAT QBs have done in the past. Starting Daunte at the beginning of the season, does not prevent (nor eliminate) Stafford from having a chance to prove that he is ready.
I have to agree
I want Stafford to play day one, but not because I have a hard on for him. It’s because then our starting QB is considered better than Culpepper and thus better than last year.
But because I don’t want KDawg loving up on me, I have to add that right now I still think it is neck and neck. Culpepper is not impressing me with what he has shown. I think his play in game 1 and 2 make it easier for Stafford to beat him out of the starting job.
Don't get me wrong
I want you to come love up on me. I just don’t want to do it under false pretenses.
ATL
for Kdawgs sake. Please leave the Red Bull and the little blue pill at home when you two go out. And now that my curiousity is “aroused” who’s the pitcher and who’s going to catch? ;-)
Until Stafford proves otherwise, Culpepper gives us a better chance to win the next game.
For those of you who argue Culpepper gives us a better chance to win -
Can you quantify that? How is he more fit? If he can (arguably) barely outplay a rookie, then why is his experience such a turn-on? Do you really think the oodles of experience Daunte has gotten in the league is going to translate into enough success that it will outweigh his declining physical attributes?
Culpepper has a better completion %, more yards per attempt, fewer turnovers, and a better td/int record than Stafford through two preseason games.
Our first game this year is on the road in a noisy dome. I trust a 10-year veteran more than a rookie in his first real NFL game to have a better chance to win a game like that.
Schwartz has said it himself. Stafford will start when:
1. Stafford’s ready to lead the team (which I think he is), and
2. Stafford’s the best QB to do so (which he has not proven yet through 2 games in the preseason)
Schwartz did NOT say he will start Stafford when:
1. Stafford’s ready to lead the team, and
2. Stafford hasn’t clearly won the QB race, but needs experience as part of some calculation for future success, and because wins during a rebuilding year don’t matter, and some people don’t like Culpepper.
I’m excited for Stafford’s future. really. But he does not need to start day 1 against New Orleans. Stafford should play when he gives us a better chance to win the football game than Culpepper. I don’t think he’s proven that yet.
I think I read most of this in another post
And I know, I felt the same way too. But the way I see it, I want my quarterback to be in step with the progression of this team. We (in my opinion) took a pretty big step forward this offseason. When the team gels and is running well (yes, in the future) I want the QB to be on the same page, not have some kid who’s still getting used to the league and actually playing.
I just don’t think Daunte is or has shown us through 2 preseason games that he’s justifiably better.
The Lions are not the Packers or similar team that can afford to let their QB sit. And Stafford is up to the challenge. Culpepper is barely beating him out for the job, and that’s if you give him the veteran discount. The pros outweigh the cons.
You share Drew's opinion
And while I respect your POV, I disagree wholeheartedly. I have the opposite opinion, and I feel that DC HAS shown that he is justifiably better, at this point of the preseason, in more than one aspect.
That is why I like my fence sitting approach
Give Culpepper the start, if he can’t produce results in 8 games, give Stafford the team and begin the hope that he starts a great career. Personally, I think it’s the smartest of the possibilities, unless things change rapidly during the pre-season.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 25, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions
How do you or anyone know
that he is barely better than staff right now? Have you personally seem any of the 3 qb’s with our first string? Or with guys that can actually catch a pass? NO then stop the debate. I don’t want to have to go find a picture of a dead horse and post it on here but I will if thats what it’s going to take.
Poke Poke
That’s all we can do R2D2, sit back and keep poking this dead bird. I hope tht R2D2 doesn’t anger you I just liked that nickname for you. And I am on the Culpizzle train as well as you and Rev Kdawg( still nice to have you back bro). But If we are going to keep poking the dead bird here lets throw Stanton into the Mix and see if we get something out of this. For as many shout outs as I’ve been throwing around on Stanton, only 1 person has stepped up to shoot that down; thanks Bishop.
Gloyvin, Hoyvin, Moyvin
with the pass downfield and a catch for TD, makes me feel Hoyvin O so good, Boyvin
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
