Starting More Games as a Rookie Will Not Make Stafford Better (Or Worse) in the Future
by n4ry4 on Aug 25, 2009 5:15 PM EDT
108 comments
Our favorite subject, I know.
One of the biggest reasons many Lions fans support starting Stafford right away, even if it's still not clear that he is a better NFL Quarterback than Daunte Culpepper right now (yet) during the preseason, is that more starting experience will help Stafford become a better QB later on.
That is, let him start more games, make some rookie mistakes this year, and he'll be a better quarterback in 2010 and 2011, his second and third years.
Based on my research, I don't believe this is true.
History is relevant here, and while it's easy to get into an extremely anecdotal example/counterexample argument over stuff like this ("Peyton Manning started all 16 games." "Oh yeah, well so did David Carr, and Carson Palmer sat his entire rookie year" etc. etc.), it is a lot more useful to look at the entire trend for a large number of talented quarterbacks who were expected to start for the team. (By "talented" and "expected", I used first-rounder draft picks as the qualifier).
To do this, I went back to the most recent ten years' worth of first-round-drafted quarterbacks who have had at least three years in the league (that is, 1995 - 2006, as the 2007 and 2008 QB's haven't had much time to prove themselves yet). Note that I excluded 1996, as there were no first-round quarterbacks, and 1997, as the only first-round QB, Jim Druckenmiller, did not attempt a pass in his second or third year.
Here are all 28 recent first-round-drafted quarterbacks, with the number of Rookie STARTS on the X axis, and the AVERAGE of their second-year passer rating and third-year passer rating on the Y axis. Every gray point represents one quarterback. I'm too lazy to label all of them, but I'll include the list below.
Second- and Third-year passer rating, I believe, is the best measure to use. Presumably, by the time a quarterback gets into his fourth, fifth, and sixth years in the league, he's had so much experience that it really doesn't matter what happened way back when he was a rookie, so I'm only using years 2-3, the years Matthew Stafford is expected to really blossom into a good quarterback (please God, let it be so).
The red line is the linear average of the two variables (rookie starts and year 2-3 average passer rating). It represents the trend, given all these quarterbacks.
As you can see the red trend line is almost horizontal. This means there is a very slight negative correlation between rookie starts and year 2-3 passer rating (i.e. more starts as a rookie actually correlates to a worse performance later on). This correlation is very weak. Removing one quarterback would probably affect it significantly.
To summarize...
Starting more games in 2009 will not likely make Matthew Stafford a better quarterback in 2010 and 2011.
Starting Daunte Culpepper, if he turns out to be the best QB at the start of the season, will not likely hurt Stafford's development and his success next year and the year after.
Start the best QB on Sunday, even if it's the veteran. Stafford will be successful in the future. Go Lions.
(edit: the Y axis is mislabeled. It says "Year 1" and "Year 2", and it should read "Year 2" and "Year 3")
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.
5 recs |
108 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Wow.....
……..It doesnt matter he will be the starter week 1 or at least by week 5……Go Staff!!!!…..I think we win the same amount of game if Staff or Culpepper start….So start Staff
by BennieBladesFan on Aug 25, 2009 5:30 PM EDT reply actions
n4ry4
I want to call you R2D2……LOL!!
Dude, this was a great post that clearly illustrates and supports my entire argument. Stafford does not have to start immediately to be good in the future, and sitting him for at least part of the season will not hinder his development in any way, shape, or form. Outstanding work!
Awesome stuff
Do more of this sorta stuff and Sean might give you an author job.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
that role would be too much pressure :-)
I don’t think I could come up with nearly the volume of original stuff worth putting on the front page that Drews does on a regular basis. thanks tho
This is fantastic stuff, n4ry4
From a historical perspective, this is telling. But… (always a “but”, right?)… statistics cannot factor in any individuality or team situations. There are so many factors involved, you just can’t simply use hardline statistics to determine when or if a player becomes a “good” starter. It’s nice… and it paints a bit of a picture and it might be useful if you want to play the “odds” game. But aside from that, it tells us no more about Matthew Stafford’s future than anyone of us can guess.
I guess the moral of the story is that Stafford will be Stafford and starting now or starting later will not dictate what his abilities already dictate what he will become in the NFL. I can somewhat agree on that. However, I simply have a hard time believing that if he plays this year, he will not learn more about the game and being an NFL quarterback than sitting on the sidelines. That point is a “jagged little pill” for me to swallow.
Maybe he would
learn more about the game and being an NFL QB by playing right away…..maybe he wouldn’t. Maybe it would help, and maybe not. The fact of the matter is that history (and statistics) shows that a QB does not have to start immediately to be great in the NFL, as shown in multiple examples of HOF QBs who did not start right away (which you at least agree with, albeit “somewhat”). I agree that history and stats can not predict the outliers involved with individuality and team situations, and i also agree that you can’t use stats to predicts when, or even whether or not a QB will be “good”.
However (I like however over “but”), should we go on the chance that a rookie QB will be the exception to the rule, which has been established over historical time and hard numbers, or should we view the real trend as more telling of what is most probable? Do you think a CEO makes business decisions based on potential outcomes that are not the norm, or do they make a majority of their decisions based on trends and norms? If I had a choice between the odds of 6:1 and the odds of 156,000:1 (I made these up), I would go with the 6:1 odds, whether I were playing the lottery, making a business decision, or deciding what route to work has better odds of being safe. I know, risk = reward, but professional football is more of a business than it is a game. I just do not see how it is not a safer bet to take a wait and see approach on Stafford (giving him at least part of the season to watch and learn), especially given the trends and statistical facts of the past. History (in this case stats) clearly shows that a QB’s development is typically not hindered by sitting some during their rookie year. Why rush the kid into the game when we have a valid alternative that seems safer?
lol...156,000:1
That’s some big odds there. Maybe 6:1 and 15:1 would be a stronger example. I get your point though.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 25, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions
If Always an if.
If Nascar drivers use X-box’s and playstations to practice driving on the tracks that they drive, why can’t Staff learn from playing X-box’s and Playstations?
An interesting perspective I suppose
Would have it’s flaws though…lol.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 25, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice that you would use a Corporate example
Most companies have a department called Risk Management. To no one’s surprise, they calculate risk to the company and allow for acceptable risk to further the company’s assets in hope of a larger return on investments down the road. Honestly, what has the bigger risk/reward here in terms of the Lions? That Culpepper plays well for a season or two or that Stafford plays well for his entire career?
See… you and I can do this over and over… spin each others words and examples to meet our own ideologies. We’re just looking through this world with different colored lenses, my friend. I just won’t concede that Culpepper is the better investment. He has very little reward if you ask me. BTW… what IS Culpepper’s reward? Don’t even say that you think he can get us to the “P-Word”. So if he can’t get us there… what in tarnation is the reward with Culpepper??? An extra win or two? So we can pick 10th instead of 8th in the draft? I just don’t get it.
an extra win or two
…that’s worth it, to me. I would have killed for an extra win or two last December. You play to win the game, like Herm Edwards said. I don’t want a QB on the field if the coaches think another QB on our roster gives us even a slightly higher chance to win the ball game.
I wouldn’t worry about taking chances away from Stafford either, and this goes along with the “P-Word”…Culpepper knows that unless he’s playing at a Play*ff-bound level, he’s getting benched for Stafford. The writing is on the wall. It is very, very unlikely that Culpepper will be our starter unless he’s playing very well and leading the Lions to a winning season.
There’s a slim chance of that happening, but it’s still a chance.
This is the NFL, Miami went from 1-15 to 11-5 after a regime change, a scheme change a bunch of new talent, and some smart new coaches. We just had a regime change, we’re making a scheme change, and brought in a bunch of new talent and some smart new coaches. And it probably won’t take 11 wins to win our division.
If Culpepper is playing really well, that is the reward for playing Culpepper. As soon as he’s not playing really well, we go to Stafford, who has more upside.
Whether Stafford gets 6 starts, 10 starts, 13 starts, or 15 starts, he’s still getting a lot of experience as a rookie.
I guess I don’t see the long-term difference in value between starting 10 games and starting 16 games. I think it’s marginal. Either way, he’s getting lots of rookie starting experience.
Stafford doesn’t lose anything in the long run if there happen to be a few games at the start of the season where Culpepper gets a chance to show us what he can do for us this year.
Let’s put the best QB on the field every game, even if it takes a few weeks for that to be Stafford.
(and again, they can change my mind yet this preseason based on how they play).
I understand all of that, n4ry4....
So why – if you all concede that Culpepper will most likely get replaced this year – do you want him to start? Will it make you feel better about Stafford to see Culpepper fail first? Also, doesn’t it seem premature to say… after only two quasi-meaningless preseason games… that Daunte would be the quarterback with the best pedigree for the “slim chance” “P-Word” hope? I just feel that there is a lot of speculation going on about Culpepper’s abilities here.
Remember this… Culpepper, regardless of his handful of passes this preseason, has done NOTHING in over four years. Injured… I know… yada, yada, yada. He has not done anything and was retired for part of last year. All of this Culpepper is better stuff is being generated by simply taking a few preseason snaps and mixing it up with a whole lot of speculation. The “fact” that Culpepper is indeed the better quarterback here and now as I type is nothing more than speculation. Culpepper had far worse games last year than Stafford had last week and he’s been in the league for a long time. Just remember, it’s not like we signed Culpepper after a pro bowl season. I think a lot of people are taking some liberties with Culpepper’s abilities and with each pass he throws, those liberties get more and more embelished to serve a “sit Stafford” point of view. Remember how good Kitna looked in preseason last year? I think we are in line for more of the same with Culpepper.
It's totally possible that that all comes true
and Culpepper just doesn’t cut it this year, and then we go to Stafford.
But, I still can’t ignore all the things Culpepper has this season that he hasn’t had in his four-year career slump. He’s whipped himself into great shape, he’s back with the OC who helped him be successful in the past, he’s had a full season with the team (completely different than coming in from retirement mid-season, no matter who the QB is), and he’s healthy.
I guess if I try to imagine August 2010, and we’ve all found something different to argue about on PoD because there is no QB race, and Stafford has been the the clear starting QB of the team for the entire offseason and the entire preseason, just as he was the Lions starting QB for the last _ games in 2009, well, it won’t matter whether that number happened to be 9 games or 16 games back when he was a rookie.
Our first game this year is on the road in a noisy dome. That’s a tough place to play. Unless Stafford separates himself and shows he can play better than Culpepper during the rest of the preseason, I think, based on everything I’ve seen right now, I think the 10-year veteran gives us a better chance to win that Game 1.
But that’s more of my Pro-Pepp spin :-)
U 2 are killing me here
I guess I’m the only FOOL beating the Stanton drum here? A 4th year guy who just seems to get us to the next set of downs almost every time he’s been on the field.
I too would love for Stanton to get a shot
But that is not going to happen, so there is no point in discussing it.
I agree with you R2…..but that was obvious I think.
Real quick
On the dome thing -
Stafford started since his freshman year, right?
So in 4 years worth of college starts he played in domes and fields that were just as large, if not larger, than NFL fields, with MUCH louder fans. I’m gonna assume you’ve been to some college games, and leave it to you to determine if crowd noise is going to make as much of an impact on his play.
Yeah, I understand crowd noise + increase in talent level = more difficult than college players, but still. IF Staff is worth the #1 pick, (which I think he is), he should be able to get in there and be just as serviceable as Daunte, who still has yet to show a spark to me.
What message are you sending to the team? It may not be as dramatic as my argument would suggest, but "Let’s let our guy sit the bench for a year, after professing that he wants to be the man, and try out this washed up ex-pro bowler. I said it before, it goes beyond stats. If Stafford is who we hope he is, let’s find out. If he’s utterly destroyed by one season of sacks and 4-12 or whatever, then he obviously is not the stud we thought.
You really say these stats are indicative of a starting QB?
5 games started
60-115 for 52.2% completion rate
786 yards for 157.2 yd/game average
4-6 TD to INT
QB Rating of 63.8
5 fumbles
I’ll ask you this, and end it: If the vet QB in question was, say Dan Orlovsky (check his and all the other QB’s stats in the NFL last year), would this even be an argument? It’s his name, and his past that drives this talk, IMO.
And, for now, I’ll leave it at that. I can’t wait to see how many of you guys draft Culpepper on Monday :P
Can't edit my post
But I do realize Staff came out as a junior… I have the flu and I just woke up, so sue me.
You really say these stats are indicative of a starting QB?
Culpepper last year:
6.8 ypa, 52% comp %, .66 TD-INT ratio
Stafford in two preseason games:
5.5 ypa, 44% comp %, .50 TD-INT ratio
You really say these stats are indicative of a starting QB? ;-P
If Culpepper can come out of retirement, overweight, onto the 2008 Lions of all teams, and still put together better numbers against starters in the regular season than Stafford has so far this preseason (and the majority of Stafford’s passes have been against backups), then think how much better a rejuvenated, in-shape Culpepper with a full healthy offseason will be better than Stafford, at least in the immediate term.
If Stafford is not yet playing as well as last year’s Culpepper, then I don’t see how he’s about to give us a better chance to win than this year’s Culpepper.
This comparison does not work
The context is completely different. Thos Culpepper stats were with a 1st string Lions offence, with Calvin Johnson. Matthew Stafford’s stats came with 4th string receivers. I’m not saying Stafford is better, just saying this comparison doesn’t work.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 28, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
'so far this preseason'
So you’re matching up, what, 3 or 4 quarters of preseason stats vs 5 regular season games?
Tell me Matthew Stafford is going to do worse than that.
Tell me Daunte Culpepper is going to do so much better that it makes sense to put him in TO WIN GAMES.
To me as well.....
but now he might not be able to go on Saturday and he might not win the starting job because he cut his foot….
Oh i love to play RISK
ohhhhhhh management! lol Drew. I’m going to put all my reinforcements on North America and attack Central America. I need some new “stuff”
So Drew
If I see things with a red lence, and you see them through a blue 1 why can’t we meet in the middle and have 3D glasses? the ball will jump right out of our TV’s especially if we have Hi-def.
Now thats what I'm talking about bro.
I love that pic R2D2 or C3PO, Hey if those nicknames offened you n4ry4 I’ll stop it O.K.
Great pic
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 26, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm gonna regret this.
I’ve tried my best to stay as close to the outside of this debate as possible, but I can’t help but respond to one question here.
The reward to starting Culpepper, in my opinion, is not one that involves the development of Stafford but rather the development of a team. The Lions are trying to go from an unprecedented 0-16 record to not just a winning season or even the playoffs, but eventually a Super Bowl (or at least I hope that is the long term goal). No doubt that they have, and we will have to, put our faith in Matt Stafford being the quarterback to eventually take us there. That said, Matt Stafford, regardless of how good he may be, will need a team around him when he does make it to the promised land. I know this team is a reclamation project, but for my money I would rather bank on the presence of a veteran QB (regardless of how good/bad he is) to man the reigns until at the very least the new coaching staff can truly assess the situation that they are in.
To me the reward is to allow the team to learn the system, learn their roles, and develop as a cohesive unit while using Culpepper as nothing more than a veteran presence in the huddle. Let him be the punching bag both literally and metaphorically while the team is coming together. Then when the coaches can honestly say “you know what this team is missing….a quarterback”, that’s when Stafford should play.
good points
It’s easy to focus so much on Stafford learning the game that we forget about all the other talented young guys out there who also need to learn.
It might be slightly easier for the rest of our young guys on offense to learn and grow in a stable system with an established veteran who protects the ball, does his job well, and runs the offense, than with a young rookie who carries more upside but also carries more unpredictability and risk.
Or not, maybe that’s just another way to put spin on things though, I guess.
the flip-side of that would be...
Since Stafford is the long-term guy, wouldn’t we get a benefit to having our guys develop a rapport, a synergy, a groove with him in the pocket and the huddle?
The sooner Stafford & Johnson can develop anything close to this kind of relationship, the better.
That comment was really for the last guy who said "I don't want Kdawg lovin up all over me"
followed by whatever “disclaimer” they posted that was supposed to ward me off….lol. Seriously guys, I am with everyone who says put the best QB on the field….it is just my opinion that it is Daunte Culpepper right now.
So Mushy...
should we take that same approach with Delmas and Pettigrew? Until the team around them is better, Heller and Manuel should start, right? Neither of them has proven anything yet, so why should they start?
Look, I’m all for vets playing as long as we don’t have a good, young, potentially better option waiting in the wings. I’m not sure why we aren’t feuding about Delmas and Pettigrew starting? Just because Matt’s a QB, things are so different? Culpepper has proven no more right now than Heller and Manuel. Culpepper used to be good. Right now… he should still be in the “show me something” stage, but everyone is giving him a free pass because he hasn’t thrown a pick in the preseason yet.
So I guess we should just get a whole team of veterans and sit ALL of the draft picks, let them learn on the sidelines and when we become contenders with the veterans… swap them all out for the young guys. This make sense to everyone?
Not picking on you specifically, Mushy. This response is just to the philosophy, not at you directly.
LOL
Dude……you have got to be kidding me! You know damn well that Stafford is a Quarterback! The Quarterback is the leader of the team and is the man responsible for making the offense tick! Pettigrew and Heller are not QBs…..Delmas and Manuel are not QBs……they are TEs and Safties…..the QB position is the most important position on the entire offense….you said that yourself! Trying to compare Stafford and Culpepper’s situation to Delmas and Manuel or Pettigrew and Heller is definitely comparing apples to oranges. Now if we were talking about having Larry Foote and a stud prospect at MLB, I would be making the same argument for Larry Foote! Play the vet until you have the other pieces of the puzzle around him….MLB being the QB of the defense…..
I know that Stafford is a quarterback...
..and that is different animal (a lot of that comment is me being very facetious). But still… it’s a starting position just like the rest. So why doesn’t that same mentality apply to all positions? If everyone is so anti-rookie and so pro-veteran, why is everyone so geeked for Pettigrew and Delmas? Hell, Brandon hasn’t played a freakin’ snap yet, but he’s penciled in as starter in everyone’s mind. Same with Delmas. He didn’t have a very good game against Cleveland, yet no one wants to yank him in favor of Manuel.
It’s about potential, my friend… isn’t it? That’s why we want Delmas and Pettigrew to start. Because we THINK they are better than Heller and Manuel. Are they? I don’t know…. do you? I think they are, but are they really?
There’s a double-standard with Stafford. He has that same potential, but because is a QB, he has to actually PROVE his worth before everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt. Yes… I know that the QB position is special. But the fact is… it’s still only one of 22 starting positions and each are important. Stafford’s capable and his potential should put him in the lineup… just like Delmas and Pettigrew.
You said it
I am not sold on Pettigrew either…..so not everyone…..:o) I just do not make that argument because I think TE is a far less important position than QB. That said, I hope he is better than Heller (since Heller is a blocking TE and not a pass catcher). I want Pettigrew to start, and I want him to be better than Heller or any other TE we have…..but I am not penciling him in as of right now.
As far as Delmas is concerned….what I have seen of him made me think that he was better than the others….even in a bad game. If Manuel was as good as Culpepper, comparatively, then I might make that argument. If we had a former pro bowl safety who was in the best shape of his career sitting behind Delmas, I might make that argument. But we do not, and I think Delmas deserves to start as I think he is the best man for the job.
Hard to assess Pettigrew
When we haven’t seen a single piece of evidence to confirm he can play at this level. Pettrigrew could still start based on his stature and collegiate experience, and the fact that TE is (in my opinion) still one of those “luxury” positions that can certainly make your team better but isn’t likely to make or break the team.
Double Standards
Yes there is a double standard with quarterbacks. It may be just one of the 11 starting positions on offense, but I know there isn’t a person who watches football that doesn’t believe it is the single most important position in all of football.
Thanks for replying for me KDawg
Pretty much took the words right off my computer screen.
No offense taken on my part though, I know Drew is simply trying to make a point. It is a valid point at that, but my opinion is what it is.
Ditto
I didn’t mean to step on your toes, but Drew has a way of drawing a response from me….almost every time.
Interesting article
I always appreciate it when people crunch numbers and try to look through the anecdotal evidence.
However, I think you may have made a mistake going with only the 2nd and 3rd years of these QB careers. Many QB careers take longer to develop, and that may, indeed, be because of the extra years they got as a rookie.
Another small flaw in this experiment is the fact that you only included QBs who have played at least 3 years. Some will argue that QBs who start early will get thrown to the wolves, and may not last 3 years.
But, again, great article. It would be really interesting to see how this study would play out with more, fine-tuned data.
Read about the Lions at: http://www.studyofsports.com/?cat=142
I explained the reason why I picked years 2-3
Second- and Third-year passer rating, I believe, is the best measure to use. Presumably, by the time a quarterback gets into his fourth, fifth, and sixth years in the league, he’s had so much experience that it really doesn’t matter what happened way back when he was a rookie, so I’m only using years 2-3
And 3 years, I think, is not asking too much of a quarterback, especially a first-rounder. Those guys get signed to long-term deals, and their teams give them as much opportunity as they can over their initial contract period to justify the investment (Alex Smith, for example, is still being given a chance to compete for a starting job in SF going into his 5th season). All of the first-round QB’s I used, except Cade McNown (who only played in years 1-2) had at least 3 years on the league. For Cade, I just used his year 2 rating.
also
if a guy is in his 4th year of Qbing, chances are he’s pretty good, obviously some exceptions, like Alex Smith
Friend:why do you love ripping on Jeff Francoeur?
Me: Because hes an idiot, who posseses huge physical tools but will not, nay, cannot, harness those tools into any sembelance of usable baseball skill and refuses to make any effort to do so. Hes like a tragic greek figure. doomed by his own stupidity and 80 raw power.
by harendaman365 on Aug 26, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh like STANTON!
He has looked the best this pre-season. I wonder if all the Cardinal fans are calling for there younger QB to start over Warner? Also a guy that changed teams and was “WASHED UP” until he got his chance in AZ.
Starting Stafford
WOW – something is not right with the way this analysis was completed. Why else would every team in the league prefer a QB with games under his belt VS no playing time. It runs much deeper than a couple of metrics and helps teams to review tendancies and in effect make adjustment outside of the position that impact the team.
Sometimes statistics do lie.
ok, where is this "lie"?
I was only comparing QB’s success in years 2-3 to how many games they started as a rookie, that’s all. It’s a simple comparison to make, and there is not a correlation.
I looked at a large, complete, recent set of 10 years worth of first-round QB’s—guys who are talented enough to select in round 1, and who their teams will want to give starting opportunities to.
Why else would every team in the league prefer a QB with games under his belt VS no playing time.
Do you believe that our only two options this year are:
A. Start Culpepper 16 games?
or
B. Start Stafford 16 games?
Stafford will still likely have games under his belt and playing time this year, plenty of it, even if he doesn’t happen to be the QB most likely to win the first __ number of games.
If putting Culpepper on the field is more likely to result in a win than putting Stafford on the field, then I want Culpepper on the field. I want the best QB to play. I want the best guy to play at every position on the field on Sunday. You play to win the game, and all that.
As soon as Culpepper is not winning, then he’s certainly hurting his case that putting him on the field is likely to result in a win (obviously). So we switch to Stafford at that point.
Very good work n4ry4!
I think you are closer to the truth of the situation in your last retort, which is that 2009 will likely end up being split between Daunte and Stafford, either by injury [I hope not] or ineffectiveness. The starter of game one in 2009 should be the best QB coming out of training camp and preseason.
In my opinion it would be better for the Lions if Staff took earned the job early and ran with it but that is not the way it looks right now. There does not seem to be a clear winner at this position.
by NorthLeft12 on Aug 26, 2009 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions
To me, it seems to be the most effective solution
If nothing changes, performance-wise, give Culpepper the start, see what he can offer and if he’s not up to scratch, sub in the rookie and off we go. Sounds pretty awesome to me.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 26, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Very good analysis
something which I think we should see more of on this site. It basically just reafffirms common sense. Start the guy who gives us the best chance to win. And the quarterbacks who do the best are the ones who are the best.
Friend:why do you love ripping on Jeff Francoeur?
Me: Because hes an idiot, who posseses huge physical tools but will not, nay, cannot, harness those tools into any sembelance of usable baseball skill and refuses to make any effort to do so. Hes like a tragic greek figure. doomed by his own stupidity and 80 raw power.
Even if that guy
Has the weakest arm of the 3 and the second best running legs on the team? Yes I’m beeting the Stanton drum today, WAYYYYYYYYY to much, but he is the ONLY qb that has moved the ball down field with the most consistancy.
hey id like to see him get some first team reps
Who knows? He could be a decent QB.
Friend:why do you love ripping on Jeff Francoeur?
Me: Because hes an idiot, who posseses huge physical tools but will not, nay, cannot, harness those tools into any sembelance of usable baseball skill and refuses to make any effort to do so. Hes like a tragic greek figure. doomed by his own stupidity and 80 raw power.
by harendaman365 on Aug 26, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
TY
I really don’t think he has a shot in hell,but he is a 4th year guy (I think) and when he’s had his very few shots he has shown flashes in the past. Like all of us I just want to see our boy’s in blue kick some ass reguardless of who is behind center.Man the Wolverine in me is really getting pissed off at me.
Just a couple of q's
What happens if you set a stnadrad deviation and remove the outliers from the data? You said there was a slight negative correlation between starts and rating. What happens if you remove Peyton Manning, who’s all the way in the corner there? Perhaps he’s an outlier.
Friend:why do you love ripping on Jeff Francoeur?
Me: Because hes an idiot, who posseses huge physical tools but will not, nay, cannot, harness those tools into any sembelance of usable baseball skill and refuses to make any effort to do so. Hes like a tragic greek figure. doomed by his own stupidity and 80 raw power.
Well, removing Manning would make it slightly MORE negative
since Manning has the highest possible number of rookie starts and he has the highest passer rating.
Either way, with the number of QB’s, there, it would still be pretty close to horizontal.
As for finding the standard dev and removing outliers, go for it man. I pasted the data up there, but I don’t feel like taking the time.
i have absolutely no idea how to do that
im just a peanut gallery, thats all
Friend:why do you love ripping on Jeff Francoeur?
Me: Because hes an idiot, who posseses huge physical tools but will not, nay, cannot, harness those tools into any sembelance of usable baseball skill and refuses to make any effort to do so. Hes like a tragic greek figure. doomed by his own stupidity and 80 raw power.
by harendaman365 on Aug 26, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Peyton Manning IS an outlier
To this data…..which even further supports the argument that Stafford starting right away is not necessary to his future success in the league.
Peyton Manning is not quite an outlier, in fact there are no outliers
I took the full set of average year 2-3 qb ratings.
The average is 75.85357
The standard deviation is 9.513955914
So, if an outlier is three standard deviations above or below the mean, that means a quarterback with a rating below 47.3, or above 104.4
In fact, Manning falls within two standard deviations of the mean. Ryan Leaf does too, just barely.
Man, you gotta love mathematics...
…that is all.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 26, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
see?
I just ask the questions, and you do the math to prove me wrong. It’s like my high school math classes all over again…
Friend:why do you love ripping on Jeff Francoeur?
Me: Because hes an idiot, who posseses huge physical tools but will not, nay, cannot, harness those tools into any sembelance of usable baseball skill and refuses to make any effort to do so. Hes like a tragic greek figure. doomed by his own stupidity and 80 raw power.
by harendaman365 on Aug 27, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
another thing that could affect it
teams that started their QB’s right away did so because they needed to, which could possibly mean they werent on such great teams, while teams that could afford to sit their rookies would end up having better teams for the QB to work with. Like David Carr starting for the Texans, as opposed to Phillip Rivers sitting for the chargers
Friend:why do you love ripping on Jeff Francoeur?
Me: Because hes an idiot, who posseses huge physical tools but will not, nay, cannot, harness those tools into any sembelance of usable baseball skill and refuses to make any effort to do so. Hes like a tragic greek figure. doomed by his own stupidity and 80 raw power.
by harendaman365 on Aug 26, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, that's definitely true
and whether the team was good or not, the presence of a veteran backup on the roster, competing for the spot, is probably one of the biggest determinants of when the rookie starts.
Great point harendaman
So ar we a team that has to start him or are we a team that can afford to sit him? I think about Ryan last year and they had Joey( I can’t even say that without laughing). And in Baltimore they had the Buckeye? Again I am laughing as a type that.
And R2D2
(I liked that name as well). You should not have put Palmer on this post. You are talking about a guy who has not done all that much, other than under achieve, mst of his carreer, Has Palmer won his division? NO. Has he made the Bengals a contender? NO. Has he even played even close to all the hype that he he ad since being a pro? 1 time that’s it. Why does everyone hink that he is all that?
1. He put Palmer on the post because he was a QB drafted in 2002. WHat was he suposed to do, “No, I dont like you, you’re not in the data!”
2. If an 89.1 Qb Rating is “underachieving” then by god, I hope Stafford underachieves
3. Perhaps the Bengals would have been a contender if half of them weren’t in jail.
4. There’s this team called the Steelers in the Bengal’s division, you might have heard of them
Friend:why do you love ripping on Jeff Francoeur?
Me: Because hes an idiot, who posseses huge physical tools but will not, nay, cannot, harness those tools into any sembelance of usable baseball skill and refuses to make any effort to do so. Hes like a tragic greek figure. doomed by his own stupidity and 80 raw power.
by harendaman365 on Aug 26, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Hmmmm Steelers
Arn’t they that 1 team that had a bus or something a few years ago? And I think they were real good in the 70’s. J/K ofcourse. But if wins is what we are all wanting and comparing here, Then Palmer shouldn’t be on this list, He has good stats (when healthy) but he just can’t seem to win enough games to be considered an elite QB in my books.
davis,
Do you mean I should not have listed Carson Palmer’s name in my quick example in the fourth paragraph, or that I should have excluded Palmer from the data?
I can’t exclude a QB from the data if the point of the study is to look at all first-round QB’s over a long period of time. That would make it inaccurate. The point of a statistical analysis is to help avoid an arbitrary “pick-and-choose” methodology, and to look at the trend as a whole.
As for Palmer not being a “successful” QB, he had two Pro Bowl selections in his first three years as a full-time starter, and his career passer rating of 88.9 is one-half off from Ben Roethlisberger’s 89.1.
You can’t really blame Palmer for the Bengal’s underachieving defense, or his torn ACL. I’d still say he’s a good QB, and, like harendaman says, I’ll be happy if Matthew Stafford gets a career passer rating of 89.
Bengals defense, points allowed, since Carson Palmer was drafted:
2003 – 28th overall
2004 – 21st overall
2005 – 22nd overall
2006 – 17th overall
2007 – 24th overall
2008 – 19th overall
Unlike Eli Manning and others, Palmer hasn’t really had a defense that could put the offense in a position to win.
starting
if you went back far enough, Troy Aikman started and went 1-15 his rookie season, I think he’s in the hall of fame…So you can do what you want with your rookie stats…
Eli Manning says games played in,,did more for him than sitting on the sidelines….just saying.
Well, if we went back far enough, Bobby Layne started zero games as a rookie and led Detroit to 3 championships…but that puts us back in the anecdotal “example/counterexample” argument.
The game has changed over the decades, so if we were going to pick a full decade to compare first-round quarterbacks over their first three years in the NFL, it would be the most recent ten-year period ending three years ago.
All 29 recent first-round quarterbacks, and their numbers of starts and passer ratings are all over the board with no correlation, I think is a big enough sample set to be relevant.
But if you give Troy Aikman as an example, he didn’t start 16 games as a rookie. He only started 11. For us, that would be something like starting Culpepper the first third of the season, and switching to Stafford sometime in October.
Then, in 1990, one year after Aikman, Jeff George was selected #1 overall, and he started 12 games as a rookie—one more game than Aikman. And he went on to have a long, unimpressive, journeyman career…so there’s my counterexample :-)
SIGH
Troy Aikman DID NOT start all 16 games his rookie season…..he started 11 games. Steve Walsh started the other 5 and he also split time with Aikman during some of Aikman’s 11 starts.
Aikman
Thanks for the input, I stand corrected on the aikman starts, point being, there are two strategies on starting rookies..
I would argue that the success rate on rookies holding a clipboard for a year or two does not make a starting quarterback successful either…
The fact that a franchise would pay a rookie millions of dollars and sit him, passing his salary on to the fans who buy tickets is assanine(sp) also. The braintrust saw something in Stafford to pick him first, watching on the sidelines can only teach so much,,,its nothing like game experience…
Keep up your good work on this site, as its one I use to follow the Lions.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don.t…
Discodan.
What's up with Stanton?
I can not believe that very few postive remarks have included Drew Stanton as a starting quarterback for the Lions? Did he piss somebody off or what? Look at his stats. He has surpassed Stafford/Culpepper. I realize he had some injuries when he came to Detroit but come on, WHY would you sacrifice another dismal year in losing to “train” Stafford. Let him work his way up. College doesn’t always convert to Pro playing. Stanton has it all the arm, the legs, the brain. Look at his career with MSU. SO, again what did he do to go to the back of line????
I disagree with your contention that Stanton has "the arm".
I like Drew Stanton. I believe he has worked hard in practice and he gives his all in the preseason. He does not have an NFL quality arm. His deep passes flutter and do not get to the receiver very quickly. The bombs that I have seen [I have seen two in preseason] have been short.
He is okay as a back up but in my opinion he will not be an NFL starter.
Experience
Sorry do disagree with you my friend, but starting more games will make him better and more experienced. Nice chart, but i believe differently. Lets look at Alex Smith: the more games he started the better he got. The least games he started, he aged on the bench and was never the same. It is all about experience.
49's messed that one up
Should have taken the home town guy in Rodgers. Outside of the injury history Rodgers is a top 5 QB in this league.
Hopefully Im not saying the same thing about Sanchez in 4 years…
When angry, count four; when very angry, swear. ~Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson, 1894
Hopefully not lol
Didn't come up here to read. Came up here to hit.
-Hank Aaron
by br0nxb0mbers23 on Sep 3, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Stanton
Thanks fellow fans for your input on Stanton. However, I still get this feeling that Stanton must have done something to offend SOMEONE. Even when he comes for the few minutes to play he seems to win the game for the Lions. But, do the paper jockey’s talk about Stanton’s contribution, NO, it’s all about Cullpepper and Stafford. I read a lot of sports pages/writers and they all seem to be saying very little about Stanton. Hmmmm, is it just ME?
It’s kinda like when AI went off on his sick leave for injured back, then he quitely disappeared and to my knowledge he really hasn’t surfaced yet. I found that strange and I find the lack of Stanton support strange in such a diversified society of fans.
The reason
Stanton was written off as a bust before he ever even stepped foot on the field. The so called “experts” never gave him a chance to prove himself before they already said that he was a backup at best. It did not help matters that he did not get along with the coaching staff in Detroit until now either. Martz liked him, but he made him change all kinds of things with his mechanics that had him all screwed up. If you read Stanton’s blog, he even says that he did not like coming to work his first two years in the NFL because he was not getting any attention from the coaches and he had nobody to work with. He was losing interest in football because it was no longer fun for him.
Now, he likes the coaching staff, he is getting personalized attention, and he is having fun again. That is the difference that we have seen translate to the field this year. Nobody gives him a chance to be the starter in Detroit though, because he has been here for two years (going into his 3rd season) and he has never been more than a 3rd QB for the Lions. He was drafted in the 2nd round as a backup for Kitna (injuries prevented him from actually taking that role) Now we have a 42 million dollar rookie #1 draft pick, and a former pro bowl veteran QB, and people are so focused on whether or not the shiny new rookie is better than the formerly polished veteran that once again Drew Stanton, to the national media, is just another outsider looking in (it does not help that Matt Ryan was so successful as a rookie, nor does it help that Joe Flacco did a decent job as a rookie too…..not to mention Peyton Manning and other successful NFL QBs that started as rookies). He is not even being considered as a potential starter (at least by the media) because we drafted a QB with the #1 pick (if we are drafting a QB that high, it sort of does send the message that there is no confidence in Stanton’s ability) and we also have a former pro bowl veteran who lost 30 pounds just to make it interesting.
I have said it before…..if Drew Stanton leaves Detroit and goes to a team where they have no clear cut option at QB (Tampa Bay this year is a prime time example) he will succeed and probably thrive as an NFL QB. I agree 100% that Drew Stanton has not gotten a fair shake in Detroit, and it would be justice in my opinion if he actually did get a chance to prove himself.
I do feel sorry for Stanton
He’s never really had a chance and has just been very unlucky with how things have turned out. In many ways, I’d like to see Stanton get a chance somewhere else.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 31, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Satfford's the only one standing
Culpepper needed eight stitches and Stanton needed an MRI. WE NEED A BACKUP!!!
by br0nxb0mbers23 on Sep 1, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
All in all....
it depends on the guy. I don’t know what made teams start guys like Carr or even Tim Couch right away, but simply some guys need time, some need to get out there right away.
It really all depends on the Front Office and if they can surround the guy with talent.
One thing that Stafford has above all other guys……Calvin Johnson. THis cannot be understated how much this guy will help Stafford along. Hell, it had to have helped my boy Eli Manning all this time.
When in doubt, throw in the general vicinity of Megatron…good things can happen right?
This year was a throw away anyway…might as well get some playing time correct? And if that means all 16, then so beat it. If he wins a few games, that’s another good thing is it not?
So still, it all depends on the future. Can Stafford stay healty? That is probably #1. Most guys that become busts is not because of lack of talent, they WERE drafted at the top for a reason.
If Stafford stays healty, doesn’t get sacked 70 times (he seems to make more pocket presence than Carr and similar mobility if more, so that helps). He will put up numbers cuz he has a legit top 5 WR to throw to. Sometimes that’s all you need.
What the f$%k is the internet?
I hope you are right
Eli had Shockey, Hilliard, Toomer, and Tiki Barber to throw to in his rookie year right? Stafford has CJ, Bryant Johnson, Kevin Smith, and Pettigrew……
In 7 games started in 2004, Eli Manning was 95 for 197, 1,043 yards, 6 td, 9 int, & 6 rushes for 35 yards and 0 td. Double that and add 12.5% of the total to it…..214 for 443 (48%), 2347 yards, 13 TD, 20 INT, & 13 rushes for 79 yards and 0 TD….over 16 games. If that is what we can expect out of Stafford this year (even if our receivers, TE, and RB matched up with Eli’s) we are in for a long season.
I can see him (and even Eli as a rookie….don’t flip out FB….lol) doing quite a bit better than that actually. I will make a bold prediction here….why not? Matthew Stafford will throw for 60% completions at a minimum….say 300 for 500 for 3000+ yards and 20 TDs with 20 INTs (10% of his incompletions). He may even add a score on the ground, but he will not run a whole bunch I am betting. Jason Hanson will have a banner year, as our offense will stall in FG range often, and Stafford will do a lot more dinking and dunking than he throws downfield. Kevin Smith will rush for 1500 yards and 500 receiving with 10-12 rushing TDs (pro bowl). CJ will score 10 of Stafford’s 20 passing TDs and also haul in 1500 yards worth. Bryant Johnson might get 3 or 4, Pettigrew 3 or 4, and Northcutt will get the difference. If Matt Stafford throws for 20 TDs in his rookie year, he will be better than Matt Ryan was in his rookie year. If he completes 300 passes for over 3000 yards and K-Smooth can do what I think he can do, we might very well pull off a Miami-esque turnaround. However, the key in my opinion will be whether or not the kid can keep the offense on the field and keep the defense rested. If we lose the time of possession battle, we are screwed. Mark my words….:o)
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 © 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.
