Posts: 2,212
Threads: 77
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
Here's an intersting artical I just read, and after thinking it over a little I tend to agree:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11906144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11906144</a><!-- m -->
"Sir, You need to get out of your car, there is a train comming."
"Why ummm... uhhh did you ummm... feel the need to errrrr, god why can't I type!!"
Posts: 2,801
Threads: 55
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
I dunno, there are also at least 25 if not all 30 other QB's not named Peyton Manning that didn't start their rookie year and have played just fine (Aaron Rodgers and Carson Palmer, and Drew Brees are three examples)
Although with the Lions I also really don't see any reason for him to not start they can't be any worse off.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/05/should-rookie-qbs-start.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/05 ... start.html</a><!-- m -->
"What you are about to see is top secret. Do not tell my mother."
Posts: 216
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
I think whoever wins the preseason battle will start.. and I'm betting that's going to go Culpepper's way. As much as everyone wants the bonus baby to get out there and prove his worth, I think the Lions will go with who gives them (based on preseason results) the best chance to win. Culpepper's more familiar with the system, he's got a stronger arm and even at this point I'm betting he's more mobile than Stafford.
With that said, though, if the Lions are any worse than 2-4, or possibly 3-3, after six games (their bye is week 7) I'm betting Stafford will get thrown in there. At that point, the Vikes or the Packers will probably be too far ahead in the division for the rest of the season's W/L record to matter.
Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?
Posts: 2,801
Threads: 55
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
After thinking about it more I agree with starting him off the bat, why start Culpepper anyway he is washed up and old, but a good vet for backup and mentoring of young Stafford. If you want someone to be the face of your teams Stafford should start so that he learns right from the get go and is ready in a year or two when Culpepper is no longer a viable option (if he is really one now...)
The dude in my link actually studied it and said that if they are going to be a good QB his findings show that it doesn't matter if they start as a rookie, thus they have no reason to not start him. Afterall he also saw that those who don't start as rookies take a little longer to get to the good point anyway.
"What you are about to see is top secret. Do not tell my mother."
Posts: 216
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
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. 
Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?
Posts: 2,801
Threads: 55
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
professorpinasheep Wrote: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.
"What you are about to see is top secret. Do not tell my mother."
Posts: 216
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
zdunklee Wrote: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.
Yes, it was an interesting article. My point wasn't about whether sitting or starting Stafford will help or stunt his development. My point was that if Culpepper appears to give them a better chance to win now, then he's the guy that should start. Like I said, if it's close you go with Stafford.. but if it isn't, you don't start Stafford just because you want him to be the franchise guy.
I'm looking at it from the perspective of Lions ownership. They cannot afford another horrible (Any worse than 4-12, by Lions' standards) season. They've already lost a ridiculous portion of their fan base, and people finally stopped showing up at Ford Field last season. Wins are probably the only thing that will bring most, especially casual, fans back. The Bengals went through the same thing. Everyone thought Kitna was washed up, and they had Palmer waiting in the wings. Kitna beat Palmer out in camp, and so he sat and learned for a year. Next year, Palmer comes in and is ready to go and the Bengals begin a slow climb to a few years of respectability (playoff runs, double digit win totals, etc). Yes, I know they suck now.. but that has to do more with personnel choices than player development.
Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?
Posts: 216
Threads: 14
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
zdunklee Wrote: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.
zdunklee Wrote: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.. isn't that kind of contradictory?  Because based on the first statement it would seem then that starting any rookie quarterback would be a necessity because of the acceleration of their development. I think guys like David Carr, Health Shuler and Akili Smith would have something to say about that..
This discussion is also completely disregarding the team around them, too. I realize it's probably impossible to quantify teammate's contributions.. but if you have a bunch of third-string no-name receivers, it's going to be different than if you're throwing to Marvin Harrison, Hines Ward, or Randy Moss.
Finally.. a statement from the link:
He should start his best QB, rookie or not, and not worry about incubating him under a ballcap on the sidelines. In the end, it should be the coach's qualitative judgment on the readiness of the player.
Whoever gives you the best chance to win NOW, period.
Where would we be without the agitators of the world attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance?
Posts: 2,069
Threads: 26
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
Quote:When should Matt Stafford start?
Last season… :thumbup:
Wiener Poopie 2.0! Now fatter and less credible!
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 131
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
who?
"Golf requires goofy pants and a fat ass. You should talk to my neighbor the accountant. Probably a great golfer. Huge ass!"
Posts: 23
Threads: 4
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation:
0
What do the Lions have to lose? They already went 0-16. You can't get any worse than that
He's pouting, he's pouting...
Posts: 2,069
Threads: 26
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
Letterbomb316 Wrote:What do the Lions have to lose? They already went 0-16. You can't get any worse than that
Losing 50-0 all 16 games would be a lot worse than what they did last year.
Wiener Poopie 2.0! Now fatter and less credible!
Posts: 4,283
Threads: 137
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
When should he start? When he's told he's the starting QB the next day. That would be a good time to start.
Posts: 2,212
Threads: 77
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
Here's what probably will happen:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://bleacherreport.com/articles/209816-should-matt-stafford-be-the-starting-quarterback-of-the-detroit-lions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2098 ... roit-lions</a><!-- m -->
"Sir, You need to get out of your car, there is a train comming."
"Why ummm... uhhh did you ummm... feel the need to errrrr, god why can't I type!!"
Posts: 814
Threads: 20
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation:
0
I say start him now...but make sure there are plays drawn up that will make him successful
pants on the ground! pants on the ground!
|
