When should Matt Stafford start?

[zdunklee]

I don't know if I can buy that argument. Yes, Peyton started his rookie year.. and had a horrible season (set the rookie record for most INT's in a season). Yeah, Aikman started as a rookie.. and had a horrible first few years. But for those two, I bet I could dig up 10 others that started as rookies and bombed and never made an impact in the NFL. If you ask me, the Lions are in win NOW mode because if they don't, they risk losing an enormous chunk of an already shrunken fan base.. and winning 3 or 4 ain't gunna be good enough.

I agree, if the competition is close or he's flat out incredible in camp, Stafford should start. But if it's obvious that Culpepper will give you a better chance to win now, I think you have to let him have the reins until he proves otherwise and then hope Stafford will develop into "the franchise" by the beginning of next year (a la Palmer). But hey, if they lose out again or go 2-14 or some crap, they could go ahead and draft Bradford or maybe snag Tebow in the second round. :roll: Oh, right.. Millen's gone. My bad.

Did you even take the time to read my link at all? If so you would see the guy actually studied it and put together emperical proof of there really not being any difference between them sitting and then starting except that they become better earlier if they start as a rookie. He did this using EVERY QB from 1980 to 2004 and he doesn't care about the Lions or Stafford, he just wanted to see if it was worth it for any QB to start as a rookie compared to sitting their first year or at least part of it.

His findings were that a good QB is a good QB no matter when the start and thus it doesn't matter if they sit or start their first year. Also, I think 3 or 4 wins would be great this year. They had 0 last year and any improvement is a good sign because they aren't going to get anywhere near .500 this year at all.