2008 – A Retrospective
Disclaimer: No, no, no. I am not going to rehash the Lion's 2008 season for you. No one needs that sort of misery brought into their lives. Not with the dawn of a new season bringing a little hope to our existence here in Lionsland. This is a self-retrospective only.
Even with training camp beginning this week, the information flow has still been a bit slow - well, at least for me. The kids and I have been ill over the weekend, so out of sheer boredom I believe I have read every single Lions article on the internet and in print. It was that same boredom that brought me back to Pride of Detroit and got me digging in my old posts. Reading through them was very interesting to say the least. I'm pretty outspoken, so it was fun critiquing myself and seeing what predictions came true and where I was totally off-base. I thought I'd share some of those things with you. Please don't take this as an ego trip for things I was right about, because I was wrong a lot, too. Just a fun retrospective that I thought I'd share.
A little background before I start...I joined POD just after the regular season started last year, but had been reading the site since about mid-summer. After the loss to Green Bay and things started to really go south, I started posting weekly, becoming an author of the site around the middle of the season. So I have a pretty good week-to-week snapshot of my thoughts and feelings throughout the year. It was fun to read through them, but it brought back a lot of bitterness about that season.
September 17th:
Even though the Lions were only 0-3, I gleaned that first post-Marinelli perspective. I was already calling for a new head coach and my selection was the ever-popular Bill Cowher. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with Schwartz so far, but Cowher would have been an excellent coach for this organization. That just tells me once again how bad the first three losses were.
October 22nd:
I was staying resilient and as positive as I could. I wrote a piece that discussed the historical data behind bad teams and that it was nearly impossible to go 0-16. I gave them less than a 1% chance of doing it. Man would I have liked to wager on that 1%!
October 29th:
I'll give myself a small pat on the back here. This was when I first mentioned Stafford coming to Detroit. It was a small mention and more along the lines of him being one of the few players worth taking with the number one overall pick. But he had not even declared at that point and we were still a little ways from inking the first overall pick. What I take from these comments is this: It was late October and I was already talking about the draft! That's how "over" the season already was at that point. Boy, I hope it's different this year.
November 4th:
Made two predictions based on our interest in Culpepper at that time. First, I stated that we would not resign Orlovsky. Mayhew did not view him as a long-term solution and that seemed apparent to me. Second, I made my first strong opinion that we would draft a quarterback this year. I didn't really say that it would definitely be with the first pick, but felt pretty confident even then that we would.
November 6th:
Made an initial reference to Linehan coming in to replace Colletto if they signed Culpepper. I think that was a pretty common thought. I believe Culpepper was signed later that week.
November 12th:
Reiterated that the Lions would get a win. I think it was my last ditch attempt at generating one final gasp of optimism. I remember just refusing to believe that they wouldn't win just one game. Still seems a bit unreal that they couldn't simply pull one off.
December 1st:
This was the week after the Thanksgiving game. It was when I finally relented and gave in to the assumption that the Lions would go winless. My hope from the week before was crushed along with our offense and defense by our new head coach. But it was in this week that I fully realized my feelings for both Culpepper and Stafford. For Culpepper it was the realization that he simply doesn't have the same ability he once had. That's probably why I have such a hard time understanding why people have put so much faith in him for this season. I also gave the first, strong endorsement for Stafford. I began to realize that winning starts with the leadership in the huddle and that we would be perennial losers until we found a good quarterback. I remember going into a film frenzy with Stafford during this time. I was watching everything I could find to try and tell if this guy was legit or just another Kiper man-crush.
December 11th:
Brought up the scenario of bringing Scott Pioli, Josh McDaniels and Matt Cassel to Detroit. Still think that it would have been a good plan. Pioli did in fact bring Cassel with him and no doubt that he would have brought him to Detroit had he been offered the job. McDaniels has had a shaky start in Denver, but let's give the guy a season or two before labeling him a coaching bust. Little did I know that WCF never really entertained the thought of hiring outside of the organization for GM. Stubborn old ass. I think Mayhew has done a great job so far, but Pioli should have at least gotten an interview. As for Cassel, time will tell if this would have been a great move. As of right now, I would much rather have Stafford over Cassel. Both are relative unknowns at this point, but I believe Stafford to have a much higher ceiling.
December 15th:
This was when it first began leaking that WCF was entertaining the idea (more like he had his mind made up) about keeping Mayhew, Lewand and Marinelli. The fanbase was irate - as was I. I think by this time, losses mounted and emotions boiled over. My post was about loyalty and what we could do to get the point across to WCF that we wanted to start over with new management. I began to question my own status as a fan. I was never one to walk away, stop buying merchandise, watch games, etc. So I pegged myself as an enabler of sorts for organizational complacency. This was a real low point for Lion's fans. We were on the cusp of 0-16 and it didn't look like there was going to be a lot of change for the next year. I could really feel my own angst and trepidation in that post. Not pleasant.
January 6th:
I end it here as the season was over for us. We lost ‘em all and the draft became the obsession. But just to note, it was on this date that I initiated the first "QB with number overall pick" debate. It got quite heated and remained that way until after the draft. Now it's simply Stafford versus Culpepper for the starting position. Stafford wins, by the way ;o)
Hopefully, this was an entertaining read for you and didn't drudge up too many unpleasant memories about last year. I think there are definitely brighter days ahead and sometimes they seem all the brighter when you remember how truly bad they were last year. It's a good perspective to keep close to you.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If Stafford earns the job give it too him
But I don’t want the keys to the car to be handed to him, I think we learned our lesson from Joey. Every now and then I wonder if drafting Jason Smith and resigning Orlovsky could of been a faster way of building a good core team… Just me I’ve had a man crush on Orlovsky for a while and still think he’ll do fine in Houston.
No way
The only way Dan Orlovsky even sees the field in Houston is if Matt Schaub gets injured. I’ll be surprised if he can even beat out Rex Grossman for backup duty. I agree with Martin Mayhew, Dan Orlovsky was not a long term option at QB.
However, I think drafting one of the premier LTs in the draft and letting Culpepper lead the team for one more year might not have been a bad idea. Maybe we would have signed one of the FA veterans as a backup. Stafford is looking good though, so it is kind of hard to argue with the way things went. If he turns out to be as great as everyone thinks he will, then we made the right choice as there will be more LTs in next years draft. On the other hand, if he is the topic of ultra hype and turns out not being as great as everyone thinks he is, then maybe people will go back and say “We should have drafted a LT and waited on a QB”.
I'm happy the way the draft went and do like Stafford now
But considering the amount of playing time he had before he was thrown to the wolves I thought he could of been worth another look, no need going down that road now. KDawg with the amount Schaub gets injured there a good chance Danny boy will see some field time : )
I respectfully disagree
And again, I don’t think Danny O has what it takes to even beat out Rex Grossman.
Why down on Culpepper?
Culpepper suffered both physically and psychologically in 2005. The near destruction of his knee might not have hurt him as badly as his presence on the love boat. While he was later exhonerated in court, the scandal robbed him of most of his remaining dignity. New head Vikings coach Childress took the last shred with a ridiculously rude and mean-spirited dismissal.
2006 — a whole new offense at Miami and Culpepper wasn’t recovered. He should never have played that year.
2007 — another new offense at Oakland. Culpepper still wasn’t well. Predictably, he struggled. Like the Raiders quarterbacks before and after him. He was still the best quarterback on the field when Oakland played Minnesota that year. But having drafted Jamarcus Russell, and with a new coaching staff, there was no future at Oakland.
2008 — Culpepper doesn’t get a contract, decides to retire, gets really out of shape, then gets recruited by Detroit with less than half the season remaining. With no conditioning and no chance to learn the offense, he steps on the field anyway. And you expected what?
2009 — Culpepper will probably never recover the astonishing speed that allowed him to run down linebackers from behind after an interception. He never just stood and watched his opponent score, ala Favre. Maybe his pysche is permanently tweaked by fall from MVP runner-up in 2004 to damaged goods in 2005. But Culpepper has demonstrated that even post injury, even without a training camp or familarity with his receivers or offense, he can step on the field and outperform a lot of guys holding the quarterback position in the NFL. He will be much, much better this year.
I hope Stafford is as good as you think he is. I hope he is so good he can take the job away from Culpepper. I’m not sure that will happen before this year is over.
Looks like you are new to the site Montesa_vr...
but the Culpepper – Stafford comparison has been the point of some hotly contested debates over the past few months.
I am on the Stafford bandwagon (I think you can tell), because of many reasons. But one is that Culpepper has given very little in the past four years and there is no indication (aside from weight loss) that tells me he can regain his Minnesota form. Yeah, I think the injury was a significant one and was a definite factor in derailing his career. Even if he’s healthly, there is nothing to gain but a few wins this year with Culpepper. They’ve sunk $40MM+ into Stafford and they need to see that entire investment through. Had they not drafted Stafford, I’d be all about watching Culpepper’s every move. But now, I don’t care. I just want to see Stafford get all the snaps to further his success. He is our future, Culpepper is not. For me, it is that simple.
BTW… welcome to POD!
LOL
You sound just like me Montesa_vr……Drew and I have argued this point to death. I agree with you 100%.
Drew, it matters not that Stafford is guaranteed 41.7 million dollars. If the kid busts, they will cut him after 4 years. If he is a pro-bowl caliber player, they will shred the last 2 years on his contract and extend him. They already signed the papers….he is going to get that money whether he plays or not. It remains logical to me that they will act to protect their investment, as well as doing what is best for the team immediately. If they feel that Matt Stafford gives the team the best chance to win now, without getting him injured (or worse, breaking his confidence), then so be it. If they think he is better off watching and learning from the veteran Donte Culpepper, then that is what will happen. The money is gone either way.
We have already decided that we could argue until blue in the face over whether or not Stafford should start as a rookie, and whether or not it would be better for him to gain actual game experience versus learning from the sideline. I would say that there are an equal number of proponents for either side of the argument. However there are far fewer examples of NFL QBs, who started in their rookie year, being successful than there are of successful QBs who sat for a year or more behind a veteran, or even those who got in some snaps in a situational context as a rookie. As you know, unless Matt Stafford is obviously just that much better than DC, it is my opinion that he would be better off following the greater trend rather than the lesser.
Ahh... the battle. 'Tis renewed in thy name of training camp!
It does matter that the Lions sank $40MM in Stafford. It matters in the sense of an “all-in” investment in a quarterback. Yeah, they could cut him in 4 years, but that’s all an unknown and needs to be treated as an unknown. In other words, get every bit of return on that investment. Nuture it. Protect it… not in the sense of QB protection, but in the sense of not playing 90 year old quarterbacks with blown knees over valuable snaps for the rook (taking a few friendly digs there… I know Dauntless is not 90, his birthday is not for few months).
As for the “greater than / less than” trend of your last sentence… not sure it exists, my friend. Both of us could throw different situations where both have panned out and failed, with neither being the wiser after the outcome. What I put this on is Stafford’s shoulders. Can his confidence be broken? Is he capable of leadership? Is he ready both mentally and physically? Can he be as capable or even more so of winning than Daunte? Right now, I see all of those answers as a yes. And if all signs point to yes, I’ll be a happy man come the opener.
I am armed and ready.....
Wait until after the first pre-season game and the debate continues. Drews… I proudly stepped aside and let you be the champion of our cause. And also I just ran out of free time to keep up with the debate.
I'm waiting for this to really heat up in a few weeks time
Once there’s a few pre-season games to go on, I expect we’ll see some exciting discussions, especially between you Drew, and your arch-nemesis, KDawg. Can’t wait.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 3, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Arch-nemesis... cute.
So the big question there is am I the super hero or the super villian? Hmmm… that’s a tough one? KDawg… I’ll let you take the first stab and answering that one…
Ummm
I would rather think of us as co-constituents to the argument…..if you were my arch-nemesis, I would have to hate you. There is no way to say who would be the hero or the villain, as such terms are typically subjective. I am willing to bet that I am seen as the villain here….trying to keep some kind of order in the insanity, yet looking like the one who is insane.
There will be no argument, that is what I think. Once both men have been on the field with the first team offense, against the opposing first team defense, I think it will be abundantly clear who the better QB is and which of the two men should lead us to begin the season. At that point, if it is Matt Stafford, I will concede. However, if Stafford never gets into the game with the first unit during the preseason….I will stand by Culpepper. So put away your banners and signs JC and HE….there will be no colossal war here.
And by the way.....lol
Name off the QBs who have been successful after starting their rookie year, and then LIST the ones who sat a year or more behind a vet. There is most certainly a large disparity between the numbers.
since the first SB
there have been drafted 18 Hall of Fame QB’s drafted in the first round. Out of the 18. ALL started in the rookie season. And the famous ’83 draft. All started in their rookie season. EXPECT Todd Blackledge the only bust of the group
First rounders drafted since Super Bowl I
I believe that their were about 38 drafted. 28 had a starts in the first year. 10 did not. The notables of the 10 that sat. Aaron Rogers, Culpepper, Rich Campbell, and the great Art Schlister. To name a few. I will double check my numbers. But I have done the comparison’s recently. And it is late. And I do have a list. And I will post it in a few days. There were some years where a QB was not drafted in the first round.
no no no....
HOF is not the only indicator of success, and I meant started all 16 games not a few here and there.
okay i will get you that list
but it will only be Peyton, Aikman, Ryan, Flacco and a few others. Would you consider Jim Kelly in ’86 as a rookie? And I use the HOF quarterbacks. Because that is a very telling stat. No HOF quarterback sat their entire rookie season.
I will give you that much JC
It is true that no HOF QB has ever sat their ENTIRE rookie season. Even Dan Marino was given his first NFL start in Week 6 versus the Buffalo Bills at the Orange Bowl. I’m not calling for Stafford to sit the entire season either. I would rather see him be brought in gradually than handed the keys to the car right away, that’s all.
You pretty much made my point though….the list of successful NFL QBs who started every game in their rookie season is small. Aikman didn’t even start every game, and he split time with Steve Walsh. Jim Kelly was a rookie in 1983, and even though he never played a snap in the NFL until 1986, he still played professional football (albeit at a lower level of competition) and was brought up by a professional coach (Mouse Davis). On the other hand, the list of NFL QBs who have been successful after sitting for awhile is much larger.
I am still interested in seeing the comparison between successful NFL QBs who started every game of their rookie season, versus at least pro-bowl caliber QBs who served as backups during their rookie season. As we all know, there is a first time for everything.
I agree with you to a point...
Aikman was named starter in the pre-season He got injured and only played 11 games. Dallas opened the season at New Orleans. What a coincidence. But it is hard to compare how a quarterback were groomed in the 70’s and 80’s. Verus hpw they are brought along know. Very different philosophy. And even the college game has changed. In the 80’s. It was unheard of for to have a freshman starting quarterback. Now, look just in the past five years. You have Stafford, Tebow, McCoy, Bradford, and Ryan and others. And these are big time programs. What I am getting at is this. Todays quarterbacks are more ready than the previous generations. If Marino, Elway and so on. Came out today. I strongly think that they would be starting day one. Just like Peyton, Aikman, Ryan, and Flacco did. I am not against Culpper really. It is just I feel that there is so much more up-side to Stafford starting now. Look, when you were learnign how to drive a car. Did you learn more from watching videos and reading about it? Or, did you learn more from just getting behing the wheel and just doing it? It may be an over-simplistic analogy. But Stafford has been playing football for awhile. And if the college game was like drive in the suburbs. And the NFL is like driving on the highway in rush hour traffic. I say let him drive. I know he is going to hit a few trees. Side swipe a few cars. But that is all in the learning process.
Was Aikman injured in week 4 vs the Giants in 1989?
He was out for 6 weeks, I know that much for sure. Funny that the only win the Cowboys managed that year was with Walsh at the helm.
it was in really in week 3
against Washington. Tried to go against the Giants. Just could not do it.
Well you guys aren't any fun ;)
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).
by Hyperion Ecta on Aug 4, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions
You were pretty on the ball back then Drew
I seem to remember reading some of those fanposts. I think I came around the site around the same time as you, although I didn’t start posting until latish in the season.
2009 = The start of the Lions Golden Age (We hope).

by 















