Should Stafford start? (2 Viewers)

[NFLFan80]

Here's an article on why Stafford should not be starting:

http://www.thegridironpalace.com/tgpsite/?p=70

If you thought the Detroit Lions, who recently went winless in their last season, had anything left to lose, then you were foolish. It is probable that the Lions will win a few games this upcoming year just out of shear luck but there is still plenty for them to lose; Mainly, Matthew Stafford.

I call upon the Detroit organization to resist the temptations of starting the number one draft choice and instead hand the starting role over to the seasoned Daunte Culpepper.

There is so much to gain from sitting Stafford from the beginning of the season. Sure he has a textbook release and great accuracy and power, but he is also very inexperienced and immature, all while being a part of the worst team in the league. Two words: Joey Harrington. Do Detroit fans want a repeat of the disaster that occurred in 2003? For those who do not remember or were never Lions fans, I shall explain to you what happened: Joey Harrington was the third pick in the draft that year by the Detroit Lions, and one which I was frankly very excited for. He was a great kid. He was mature, had a great arm, and was even on the cover of a video game. And what happened to him? He played for a few seasons, but he crumbled under the hideousness that was (and still is) the Detroit Lions at that time. Since then he has played for a few other teams but has failed to make a name for himself.

Let’s look at Daunte Culpepper now. He was at one point in his career UNSTOPPABLE. There wasn’t a corner in the league that could stop the duo of Culpepper and Moss. (By the way, does anyone see any similarities between Moss and Calvin Johnson? I do.) He became very injury prone and stumbled a bit but recent reports indicate that he has lost weight and is returning to his old form.

I call upon the Lions to let Stafford develop under the veteran leadership of Daunte Culpepper and then when the team itself has developed, feel free to dump the mess on a 23 year old kid out of Georgia. Until then, hand the reins over to Mr. Culpepper.

I disagree with him. There really isn't anything to lose to start Stafford. You want him to get some experience and if he does bad it won't really hurt the team. They aren't going to the playoffs this year, so I think it is a good idea to let him play and get some experience and maybe even create some bonds with his teammates. Your thoughts?

 

[doubletrouble]

They say he is looking better than what they expected...grant it's OTA.

Wait til training camp starts and 300 lbs linemen chase him around and then we shall see how good he is.

I agree let him start, no sense on letting him sit. Has a decent running game and one of the best WR...

 

[Biabreakable]

Hopefully they don't start him until like mid-season if the offensive line is coming together by then. I am not sure how long CulPepper will be healthy/effective enough to hold him off.

Pettigrew should help with protection. Hate to see a young talent wasted in trial by fire.

If CulPepper can play decent I think it would be ideal to let Stafford understudy the 1st year. But this is Detroit so there is a lot of risk.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Here's an article on why Stafford should start the whole season:

http://www.thegridironpalace.com/tgpsite/?p=70

If you thought the Detroit Lions, who recently went winless in their last season, had anything left to lose, then you were foolish. It is probable that the Lions will win a few games this upcoming year just out of shear luck but there is still plenty for them to lose; Mainly, Matthew Stafford.



I call upon the Detroit organization to resist the temptations of starting the number one draft choice and instead hand the starting role over to the seasoned Daunte Culpepper.

There is so much to gain from sitting Stafford from the beginning of the season. Sure he has a textbook release and great accuracy and power, but he is also very inexperienced and immature, all while being a part of the worst team in the league. Two words: Joey Harrington. Do Detroit fans want a repeat of the disaster that occurred in 2003? For those who do not remember or were never Lions fans, I shall explain to you what happened: Joey Harrington was the third pick in the draft that year by the Detroit Lions, and one which I was frankly very excited for. He was a great kid. He was mature, had a great arm, and was even on the cover of a video game. And what happened to him? He played for a few seasons, but he crumbled under the hideousness that was (and still is) the Detroit Lions at that time. Since then he has played for a few other teams but has failed to make a name for himself.

Let’s look at Daunte Culpepper now. He was at one point in his career UNSTOPPABLE. There wasn’t a corner in the league that could stop the duo of Culpepper and Moss. (By the way, does anyone see any similarities between Moss and Calvin Johnson? I do.) He became very injury prone and stumbled a bit but recent reports indicate that he has lost weight and is returning to his old form.

I call upon the Lions to let Stafford develop under the veteran leadership of Daunte Culpepper and then when the team itself has developed, feel free to dump the mess on a 23 year old kid out of Georgia. Until then, hand the reins over to Mr. Culpepper.

I agree with him. There really isn't anything to lose to start Stafford. You want him to get some experience and if he does bad it won't really hurt the team. They aren't going to the playoffs this year, so I think it is a good idea to let him play and get some experience and maybe even create some bonds with his teammates. Your thoughts?

I think you guys disagree on your opinions.Stafford should play if he looks like the best option at QB. Worrying about him becoming the next Joey Harrington because he is thrown to the wolves is a weak argument at best. Any successful QB needs to be head strong so might as well test that early, delaying exposing any weaknesses is just putting off the inevitable. Let the kid play if he is ready, if Culpepper is the better option let him sit.

 

[JKL]

Here's an article on why Stafford should start the whole season:

http://www.thegridironpalace.com/tgpsite/?p=70

If you thought the Detroit Lions, who recently went winless in their last season, had anything left to lose, then you were foolish. It is probable that the Lions will win a few games this upcoming year just out of shear luck but there is still plenty for them to lose; Mainly, Matthew Stafford.

I call upon the Detroit organization to resist the temptations of starting the number one draft choice and instead hand the starting role over to the seasoned Daunte Culpepper.

There is so much to gain from sitting Stafford from the beginning of the season. Sure he has a textbook release and great accuracy and power, but he is also very inexperienced and immature, all while being a part of the worst team in the league. Two words: Joey Harrington. Do Detroit fans want a repeat of the disaster that occurred in 2003? For those who do not remember or were never Lions fans, I shall explain to you what happened: Joey Harrington was the third pick in the draft that year by the Detroit Lions, and one which I was frankly very excited for. He was a great kid. He was mature, had a great arm, and was even on the cover of a video game. And what happened to him? He played for a few seasons, but he crumbled under the hideousness that was (and still is) the Detroit Lions at that time. Since then he has played for a few other teams but has failed to make a name for himself.

Let’s look at Daunte Culpepper now. He was at one point in his career UNSTOPPABLE. There wasn’t a corner in the league that could stop the duo of Culpepper and Moss. (By the way, does anyone see any similarities between Moss and Calvin Johnson? I do.) He became very injury prone and stumbled a bit but recent reports indicate that he has lost weight and is returning to his old form.

I call upon the Lions to let Stafford develop under the veteran leadership of Daunte Culpepper and then when the team itself has developed, feel free to dump the mess on a 23 year old kid out of Georgia. Until then, hand the reins over to Mr. Culpepper.

I agree with him. There really isn't anything to lose to start Stafford. You want him to get some experience and if he does bad it won't really hurt the team. They aren't going to the playoffs this year, so I think it is a good idea to let him play and get some experience and maybe even create some bonds with his teammates. Your thoughts?

I'm not sure you are agreeing with him. The author seems to be making a call for Stafford to sit this year.Stafford should start when he is the quarterback that gives the Lions the best chance to win, whether that be in game 1, game 10, or next year. I wouldn't sit him just for the sake of it. History is full of young quarterbacks who played right away and turned out very good. We've had some guys like Palmer and Rivers and Culpepper who didn't start at all as rookies, sitting behind guys that were playing well those seasons. Clearly, sitting didn't hurt them, but I'm not convinced it helped them, either. The teams they played on just had no reason to start them because all were in playoff contention through the end of the season with the quarterbacks who started the season.

The Joey Harrington example is just one limited case and I don't think anything he did as a rookie changed his career path. Do we really think he would be making pro bowls now, instead of not starting at all, if he had sat for one season and then began starting in 2003?

 

[NFLFan80]

Wow, typo on my part.

 

[inzanitee]

Horrible move to start Stafford IMO. You can ruin a QB by playing him too early. Let him sit a year and learn. You're rebuilding anyway, there are no real playoff aspirations. Sure, Matt Ryan and Flacco did well but they are the exceptions. The ground is littered with bodies of highly touted QBs like Carr, Harrington, Alex Smith; all were broken because they were thrust into the starting job too early IMO.

 

[Junta]

Here's an article on why Stafford should not be starting:

http://www.thegridironpalace.com/tgpsite/?p=70

If you thought the Detroit Lions, who recently went winless in their last season, had anything left to lose, then you were foolish. It is probable that the Lions will win a few games this upcoming year just out of shear luck but there is still plenty for them to lose; Mainly, Matthew Stafford.

I call upon the Detroit organization to resist the temptations of starting the number one draft choice and instead hand the starting role over to the seasoned Daunte Culpepper.

There is so much to gain from sitting Stafford from the beginning of the season. Sure he has a textbook release and great accuracy and power, but he is also very inexperienced and immature, all while being a part of the worst team in the league. Two words: Joey Harrington. Do Detroit fans want a repeat of the disaster that occurred in 2003? For those who do not remember or were never Lions fans, I shall explain to you what happened: Joey Harrington was the third pick in the draft that year by the Detroit Lions, and one which I was frankly very excited for. He was a great kid. He was mature, had a great arm, and was even on the cover of a video game. And what happened to him? He played for a few seasons, but he crumbled under the hideousness that was (and still is) the Detroit Lions at that time. Since then he has played for a few other teams but has failed to make a name for himself.

Let’s look at Daunte Culpepper now. He was at one point in his career UNSTOPPABLE. There wasn’t a corner in the league that could stop the duo of Culpepper and Moss. (By the way, does anyone see any similarities between Moss and Calvin Johnson? I do.) He became very injury prone and stumbled a bit but recent reports indicate that he has lost weight and is returning to his old form.

I call upon the Lions to let Stafford develop under the veteran leadership of Daunte Culpepper and then when the team itself has developed, feel free to dump the mess on a 23 year old kid out of Georgia. Until then, hand the reins over to Mr. Culpepper.

I disagree with him. There really isn't anything to lose to start Stafford. You want him to get some experience and if he does bad it won't really hurt the team. They aren't going to the playoffs this year, so I think it is a good idea to let him play and get some experience and maybe even create some bonds with his teammates. Your thoughts?

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being. Team around him will be an unknown until they play a few regular season games and if they suck as hard as last year, his chances of experiencing any success are very low. Let him observe and digest the gametime operations of an NFL team for 4-6 games while also assessing the progress of team overall. If running game is clicking and protection is coming along, begin inserting him into series where field position

and game situation are favorable to seeing fewer blitzes. From there they can increase PT as quickly as he can handle.

Stafford is a huge investment and this season should be all about grooming him to be the franchise QB of the future they drafted and are paying him to be.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Horrible move to start Stafford IMO. You can ruin a QB by playing him too early. Let him sit a year and learn. You're rebuilding anyway, there are no real playoff aspirations. Sure, Matt Ryan and Flacco did well but they are the exceptions. The ground is littered with bodies of highly touted QBs like Carr, Harrington, Alex Smith; all were broken because they were thrust into the starting job too early IMO.

As were Peyton Manning, Dan Marino and Ben Roethlisberger.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

 

[Junta]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

There is no evidence to indicate that shooting yourself in the head guarantees you will die either but it is probably not a good thing to do if that is not your intention. Maybe just common sense says safer to keep those 3 factors intact for a very young player than to risk.Do you think there is a preponderance of evidence that NOT playing a young QB right away jeopardizes his chances of success?

 

[ScottyFargo]

Daunte Culpepper should start for them. I think that there is a mixed bag of anecdotal rookie starters who have either succeeded or failed coming in the NFL, and each situation is different. Rookie QBs on a good team might have more of a chance to shine, while rookie QBs on a bad team are swimming upstream in attempt to learn the game and succeed at the same time. I don't think it does Stafford any favors to have him start right away, trial by fire.

That, countered with a chance to see what Culpepper is capable of after an offseason dedicated into getting himself into football shape. I expect Detroits offense to improve this year if Culpepper starts, I think that Stafford as a starter would hold the offense back from gelling as he figures out defenses and learns the game. He can learn from the bench, which is obviously different than the trial and error he'd experience from actually playing. Playing will absolutely be invaluable to him, he'll learn more from playing than from not, but I don't think there's a need to rush him out there to get that experience. Why not let the team grow naturally and insert him in when he'll have a better chance at making a difference?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

There is no evidence to indicate that shooting yourself in the head guarantees you will die either but it is probably not a good thing to do if that is not your intention. Maybe just common sense says safer to keep those 3 factors intact for a very young player than to risk.Do you think there is a preponderance of evidence that NOT playing a young QB right away jeopardizes his chances of success?

There is evidence that shooting yourself in the head is likely to kill you. There is no evidence that starting a QB early is likely to inhibit his future success. I don't think common sense suggests that a QB permanently loses self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away. I think QBs are helped by playing, and learn from that. There's only so much studying you can do, and while you may lose your confidence after a bad game, when you have a good game, that helps boost your confidence back up.There's no evidence to suggest that young QBs that play right away end up better than young QBs that sit. There's some evidence that weakly suggests that young QBs are better off playing right away, but I think it's probably a moot issue. If Stafford is ready to play, there's no reason not to play him week 1. If he's not ready to play, then there are lots of reasons not to play him.

 

[JKL]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

There is no evidence to indicate that shooting yourself in the head guarantees you will die either but it is probably not a good thing to do if that is not your intention. Maybe just common sense says safer to keep those 3 factors intact for a very young player than to risk.Do you think there is a preponderance of evidence that NOT playing a young QB right away jeopardizes his chances of success?

That is a horrible analogy on so many levels. I'm pretty sure that shooting yourself in the head would increase the odds of death quite dramatically. I don't think anyone has argued that NOT playing a young quarterback jeopardizes his chance of success.Playing early is a sign of 1 of 2 things (or perhaps both): 1) you are talented, and/or 2) the team doesn't have any quarterbacks on the roster they think are better than you (whether they are right or not). Some high draft picks have played early and done well, even on "bad" teams. Some have played poorly. Some of those who played poorly continued to play poorly. Some of them played better later in their careers. We cite to guys like Harrington or Carr. Bob Griese got his brains beat in for three years, starting as a rookie on a new franchise, and he was able to overcome that. Bradshaw had about as bad of a rookie year as a top pick could have, on the only franchise that hadn't won an NFL Championship in their history to that point. He won four Super Bowls with that same franchise a few years later. Bartkowski struggled early on a bad Atlanta team, but played well during his prime. Jim Plunkett came back and won two Super Bowls later in his career after playing for a bad New England franchise. Phil Simms struggled for several years early in his career and missed games to injury. Vinny Testaverde struggled with Tampa, but had a long career and made multiple pro bowls after turning 30. I submit that the guys who didn't make it weren't good enough to make it (we just didn't know it yet), and it didn't matter if they played as rookies or not. I don't know if Stafford is any good, so I'm not saying he must start. I'm just saying that sitting him for the sake of it, and disregarding how he is progressing, because you want to build the team around him, well he could be waiting ten years in Detroit if that's your goal. If the Lions think Stafford is better than Daunte right now, after watching them play in mini camps and pre season, then Stafford should start on game 1. If Daunte is performng better, he should start game 1.

 

[doubletrouble]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

See Drew Brees

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't know if Stafford is any good, so I'm not saying he must start. I'm just saying that sitting him for the sake of it, and disregarding how he is progressing, because you want to build the team around him, well he could be waiting ten years in Detroit if that's your goal. If the Lions think Stafford is better than Daunte right now, after watching them play in mini camps and pre season, then Stafford should start on game 1. If Daunte is performng better, he should start game 1.

In light of your work on how a QB progresses after two seasons, this is a good point. Getting two full seasons out of Stafford right away will help Detroit decide whether to cut bait or not sooner than later. If he sits season 1, is okay season 2, and plays poorly in season 3, you're still somewhat unsure what to do with him -- you're now three years into the process and probably have to commit to at least one more season.

 

[Junta]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

There is no evidence to indicate that shooting yourself in the head guarantees you will die either but it is probably not a good thing to do if that is not your intention. Maybe just common sense says safer to keep those 3 factors intact for a very young player than to risk.

Do you think there is a preponderance of evidence that NOT playing a young QB right away jeopardizes his chances of success?

There is evidence that shooting yourself in the head is likely to kill you. There is no evidence that starting a QB early is likely to inhibit his future success. I don't think common sense suggests that a QB permanently loses self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away. I think QBs are helped by playing, and learn from that. There's only so much studying you can do, and while you may lose your confidence after a bad game, when you have a good game, that helps boost your confidence back up.There's no evidence to suggest that young QBs that play right away end up better than young QBs that sit. There's some evidence that weakly suggests that young QBs are better off playing right away, but I think it's probably a moot issue.

If Stafford is ready to play, there's no reason not to play him week 1. If he's not ready to play, then there are lots of reasons not to play him.

The gun analogy was in response to the statement that "There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being " which is basically asserting that erosion of those factors does not guarantee debilitation of a young QB's chances of success. My argument is that if those factors are compromised there is a lower probability of subsequent success.Whether or not those factors are damaged by starting a rookie QB early is a seperate argument and IMO is situation specific.

Of 1st Rd Qbs since 1998 (29 total, Vick excluded for obvious reasons)

started 10+ games as rookie and starter today 5

started 10+ games as rookie and not starter today 9

did not start 10+ games as rookie and starter today 8

did not start 10+ games as rookie and not starter today 7

 

[massraider]

There might not be concrete evidence of it, but I'd sure like to see what would have happened to a guy like Carr if he had landed in Rothlisberger's situation as a rookie.

These young QBs need two things IMO: Protection and coaching stability--the same offense, same offensive coaches.

Highly drafted QBs that failed, some of them just stunk, but almost all of them had a bunch of different coaches/offenses early in their career, and got the crap kicked out of them.

Stafford has had some experience, he came from a big program, I doubt he's intimidated by starting, if they can block for him and give him a running game, why not?

Question is, do the Lions trust Backus to cover his blindside, and does Kevin Smith demand attention from the defense?

 

[PrimUomo]

You have to decide depending on the situation. Peyton Manning was thrown into the fire and failed his first season, but his first real offseason changed things. Others weren't so lucky. In the case of the Lions, they should stay with Culpepper. Considering the Lions OC was involved with the Vikings when they had Moss/Culpepper, the offense could be pretty successful if the O-Line gets coached up. (Bryant Johnson was pretty good when he was opposite Boldin and Derrick Williams has great upside).

It also depends on the ground game. If the Lions can put in an offense in which the qb can hand it off Stafford has a better chance getting under center. Also, the sooner he grasps the offense, the sooner he will be the starter. If Culpepper gets injured (a toss-up IMO) Stafford is going in.

 

[puckalicious]

Just throwing in my :X as a Lions fan. I agree with the "let the best QB start" theory but if it is close, go with the veteran. I hope that Cpepp has enough left to beat out a rookie and keep him on the bench for at least 6 games. I have a feeling Stafford will be starting after the bye week this year (week 8).

 

[Ollie235]

Should Stafford start No Way.WHY ? Answer Schedule @New Orleans Minnesota Washington @Chicago Pittsburgh @Green Bay

When should he start Nov 1 St. Louis

 

[NFLFan80]

Should Stafford start No Way.WHY ? Answer Schedule @New Orleans Minnesota Washington @Chicago Pittsburgh @Green Bay

When should he start Nov 1 St. Louis

That's a good point. Maybe let Culpepper go a few games and let Stafford learn and then start him against a weak Rams defense. Gives him a better shot at starting off his NFL career well and could boost up his confidence

 

[Mr. Black]

Teams go from good to bad and bad to good every year so I think it's a little naive to assume starting him against the Rams is the way to go. When did starting a rookie QB in the middle of the year become the norm? I will say this once you learn the game by playing the game not holding a clip board. I'm sick of hearing people say don't throw them out there to soon because it may hurt their confidence. If that is the case then you don't want that guy to be your franchise QB anyways. I don't care what teams these guys go to the cream always rises to the top. If a guy can play it will show. You took him # 1 he needs to play.

 

[Joe Paterno]

Horrible move to start Stafford IMO. You can ruin a QB by playing him too early. Let him sit a year and learn. You're rebuilding anyway, there are no real playoff aspirations. Sure, Matt Ryan and Flacco did well but they are the exceptions. The ground is littered with bodies of highly touted QBs like Carr, Harrington, Alex Smith; all were broken because they were thrust into the starting job too early IMO.

As were Peyton Manning, Dan Marino and Ben Roethlisberger.

Too much is put on 'confidence' and being 'too early'. You've either got it or you don't.Football players don't get to the NFL by being weak.

 

[Sinrman]

If he just blows the coaches away, then I say start him. But the cautious side of me says to let Culpepper take the licks early on and plug Stafford in later in the season to get some experience and be better prepared for 2010. Their O-line still needs a lot of work, though signing Jansen helps a lot...

 

[puckalicious]

Horrible move to start Stafford IMO. You can ruin a QB by playing him too early. Let him sit a year and learn. You're rebuilding anyway, there are no real playoff aspirations. Sure, Matt Ryan and Flacco did well but they are the exceptions. The ground is littered with bodies of highly touted QBs like Carr, Harrington, Alex Smith; all were broken because they were thrust into the starting job too early IMO.

As were Peyton Manning, Dan Marino and Ben Roethlisberger.

Too much is put on 'confidence' and being 'too early'. You've either got it or you don't.

Football players don't get to the NFL by being weak.

No, but weak (mentally) players do get to the NFL. Ryan Leaf. I'm 100% confident Stafford is NOT Leaf. I still think that training camp will sort out who the better QB is at that point in time, and that QB should be the starter until he falters, whoever it is. So to answer the OP, Stafford should start IF he is clearly better at camp and preseason. If it is close, Cpepp should start until he shows otherwise, or until Stafford shows improvement to the point the coaching staff feels he gives the team a better chance to win.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

There is no evidence to indicate that shooting yourself in the head guarantees you will die either

I'm going to disagree.

 

[Junta]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

There is no evidence to indicate that shooting yourself in the head guarantees you will die either

I'm going to disagree.

This study reflects a 56% mortality rate from gunshot wounds to the head. Certainly not guaranteed death.http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/1870690

 

[Biabreakable]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

See Drew Brees

See Alex Smith.It makes more sense for a team like the Jets with a decent Oline and defense to support a rookie QB than it does for a 0-16 team still working on these things.

If Stafford were on the Jets or other better situation than Detroit then I would be more comfortable about putting him out there right away. I think they should work on their pass pro a few games at least before throwing this guy into the fire.

 

[drunkenmonks]

No way.

The Lions were last in rushing.

The Lions had the worst defense.

The O line gave up 52 sacks.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I think if you were a rookie QB that was going to be starting from day 1 I don't think having a bad team (arguably the worst team ever from one year ago) would be the worst thing going.

I think the pressure for Stafford to win or turn this team around in one year is definitely not there by anyone. He can have 20 ints this year but as long as he is learning and getting better I think you should start him. I mean this team is obviously rebuilding and I think as a player you get better by being out there and learning the game. Take your bumps and bruises along the way and learn from them.

I am in the crowd that thinks you either have it or you don't.

 

[TitusIII]

Ideally, he is super-stud with other-worldly self-confidence and he has what it takes to start from day one. Since this isn't very likely, it would be wise to let the young man learn, especially considering how bad the Lions will probably be. Losing confidence isn't a joke, and I hope the Lions make the right call, but I expect to see him getting flattened by DE's in week 1.

 

[pollardsvision]

If the Lions think he's ready to play and is at least as good as Culpepper, I'd lean towards playing them.

I'm generally a fan of going ahead and getting young QBs in the game. If you've got a young potential franchise QB, I think you need to find out what he's made of. I don't think you can find that out on the practice field. Young QBs will take their lumps and make plenty of mistakes. It's not until that happens that you can see how they respond and figure out if they've got what it takes.

His 1st year of playing will be rough whenever it is and it's hard to tell just what kind of QB he might be until the 2nd and 3rd seasons. I think you need to find out if he's a franchise QB before his contract's halfway up.

If the Lions want to wait until they have a good enough team around him to keep from ruining his confidence, history tells us they'll be waiting a very long time.

He's a football player, not a china doll.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Do not rush this kid.

I hope Schwartz learns from his old boss Fisher who sat McNair for awhile before letting him play.

 

[Balance]

If the Lions want to wait until they have a good enough team around him to keep from ruining his confidence, history tells us they'll be waiting a very long time.

this is the best argument for starting him now imo.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Do not rush this kid. I hope Schwartz learns from his old boss Fisher who sat McNair for awhile before letting him play.

THis is not nearly enough proof. For all we know McNair could/would have been fine the other way as well. Not a valid argument.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I think there is plenty to lose starting him right away. Namely his self confidence, attitude and physical well being.

There is no evidence to indicate that good QBs become bad QBs by losing self-confidence, attitude and physical well being by starting right away.

There is no evidence to indicate that shooting yourself in the head guarantees you will die either

I'm going to disagree.

This study reflects a 56% mortality rate from gunshot wounds to the head. Certainly not guaranteed death.http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/1870690

Did they all shoot themselves?

 

[jurb26]

The O line gave up 52 sacks.

This is what is critical and the single most important reason Stafford should not start IMO. Young (especially rookie) QBs who start under the conditions of a poor Oline and inconsistent coaching struggle for obvious reasons. There are several factors that are essential for young QBs to grow into quality starting NFL players. The speed of the game, the complex defensive looks and read progression are only a few, but they are the ones that are greatly compromised when young QBs start in catastrophic circumstances. If your Oline is exceptionally poor (indications are that the Lions is) and your running game is thus not effective enough to keep Ds honest then they will prey on young QBs in situations like this. The problem is that you want your young QB to go through his reads and run the offense but when he is under consistent amounts of pressure there simply isn't enough time to do so. So he will naturally take short cuts in his progression and analysis of the D. This is of course an abbreviated version of all that is compromised. Still I think you can see the point. This is not to say that QBs under this situation are sure to fail. If any QB is prepared to handle such a plight I think Stafford is. He did go through a similar learning curve stating as a freshman at Georgia. It would say it increased the probability of extending his learning curve however and reduces the probability of him reaching his potential. I'm also not saying that Det is sure to be this type of team. Things change quickly in the NFL and who knows maybe they can as well? I don't think they will, but you never know.

 

[CalBear]

History is full of young quarterbacks who played right away and turned out very good.

In the 16-game era through 2004, there were a total of 11 QBs, age 23 or younger, who had at least 300 pass attempts as rookies. The list:Byron Leftwich

David Carr

Tim Couch

Peyton Manning

Tony Banks

Kerry Collins

Drew Bledsoe

Rick Mirer

Jeff George

David Woodley

Jeff Komlo

So, one Hall of Famer (Manning), one very good career (Bledsoe), one decent starter (Collins), and a whole lot of crap. Of the busts, five of them were drafted high in the first round, including three 1.01 picks.

The jury's still out on guys since 2004; the group includes Kyle Orton, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Bruce Gradkowski, Matt Ryan, and Joe Flacco.

Sure, historical data doesn't prove anything about whether Stafford himself will succeed if he starts. But it's obvious he won't succeed this season. I think there is a plausible human argument to be made, that putting someone in a situation where you know he is going to fail is not a good long-term way to manage his performance. If I had a young guy with potential working for me, I wouldn't put him on a project I know to be doomed. Let the guy I'm hoping to get rid of work on the doomed project.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

The question I ask now is this when reflecting on QB flameouts.

Would so-and-so still have stunk if he was given a year on the bench?

So would Joey Harrington or David Carr be tearing up the NFL if they got more clipboard time earlier in their careers? Kyle Boller? Cade McNown? Or did scouts simply get it wrong with these guys. I think it's the latter. Not many rookie seasons will wind up like a Matt Ryan's or Joe Flacco's, but if the QB is good, he'll eventually find his way.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

History is full of young quarterbacks who played right away and turned out very good.

In the 16-game era through 2004, there were a total of 11 QBs, age 23 or younger, who had at least 300 pass attempts as rookies. The list:Byron Leftwich

David Carr

Tim Couch

Peyton Manning

Tony Banks

Kerry Collins

Drew Bledsoe

Rick Mirer

Jeff George

David Woodley

Jeff Komlo

So, one Hall of Famer (Manning), one very good career (Bledsoe), one decent starter (Collins), and a whole lot of crap. Of the busts, five of them were drafted high in the first round, including three 1.01 picks.

The jury's still out on guys since 2004; the group includes Kyle Orton, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Bruce Gradkowski, Matt Ryan, and Joe Flacco.

Sure, historical data doesn't prove anything about whether Stafford himself will succeed if he starts. But it's obvious he won't succeed this season. I think there is a plausible human argument to be made, that putting someone in a situation where you know he is going to fail is not a good long-term way to manage his performance. If I had a young guy with potential working for me, I wouldn't put him on a project I know to be doomed. Let the guy I'm hoping to get rid of work on the doomed project.

any list that has Komlo on it, you do not want to be a part of

 

[TitusIII]

Do not rush this kid. I hope Schwartz learns from his old boss Fisher who sat McNair for awhile before letting him play.

THis is not nearly enough proof. For all we know McNair could/would have been fine the other way as well. Not a valid argument.

Confidence is confidence, it's what seperates the great one's from the mearly average. I know the term is vague, and has a different meaning to all of us, but it's as real as this computer sitting in front of me. Some of us are blessed with more than enough of it, and if Stafford falls into that group, he can take the beating that is coming to him as a rookie starter on a terrible team and be just fine come year 2. On the other hand, if he 'aint blessed, his brain can/will play tricks on him for quite a while. It doesn't mean his career will be ruined, but it could certainly hinder his development. There will never be any proof regarding concepts/mental states/etc like confidence, it simply is what it is...

 

[pollardsvision]

History is full of young quarterbacks who played right away and turned out very good.

In the 16-game era through 2004, there were a total of 11 QBs, age 23 or younger, who had at least 300 pass attempts as rookies. The list:Byron Leftwich

David Carr

Tim Couch

Peyton Manning

Tony Banks

Kerry Collins

Drew Bledsoe

Rick Mirer

Jeff George

David Woodley

Jeff Komlo

So, one Hall of Famer (Manning), one very good career (Bledsoe), one decent starter (Collins), and a whole lot of crap. Of the busts, five of them were drafted high in the first round, including three 1.01 picks.

The jury's still out on guys since 2004; the group includes Kyle Orton, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Bruce Gradkowski, Matt Ryan, and Joe Flacco.

Sure, historical data doesn't prove anything about whether Stafford himself will succeed if he starts. But it's obvious he won't succeed this season. I think there is a plausible human argument to be made, that putting someone in a situation where you know he is going to fail is not a good long-term way to manage his performance. If I had a young guy with potential working for me, I wouldn't put him on a project I know to be doomed. Let the guy I'm hoping to get rid of work on the doomed project.

So, of the 11, over 25% turned out to be pretty good to great QBs. 2 of them (Leftwich and George), I'd exempt from this list b/c I think it's more than clear that starting so early had nothing to do with their career being a disappointment. Starting as a rookie didn't give Leftwich is painfully slow release and Jeff George is his own special case. That doesn't really matter, though. I'd bet that if we looked at QBs that cleared the 300 pass threshold in the 2nd year, 3rd year, or 4th year, the numbers would be pretty ugly there too. Alot of QBs bust.

The work project example makes sense, but that's not always the proper method. Sure, if you've got someone with alot of potential, you want to help them experience some success early on. However, you've also got to test them early and often so they learn how to bounce back from temporary failure.

 

[CalBear]

any list that has Komlo on it, you do not want to be a part of

To be fair, Komlo was a ninth-round draft pick.

 

[CalBear]

So, of the 11, over 25% turned out to be pretty good to great QBs. 2 of them (Leftwich and George), I'd exempt from this list b/c I think it's more than clear that starting so early had nothing to do with their career being a disappointment. Starting as a rookie didn't give Leftwich is painfully slow release and Jeff George is his own special case.

That doesn't really matter, though. I'd bet that if we looked at QBs that cleared the 300 pass threshold in the 2nd year, 3rd year, or 4th year, the numbers would be pretty ugly there too. Alot of QBs bust.

Looking at the same time frame, for second-year QBs 24 years old or younger with 300 attempts, we get 41 cases. Those include (on the positive side)aunte Culpepper

Tom Brady

Drew Brees

Donovan McNabb

Peyton Manning

Jake Plummer

Kerry Collins

Trent Dilfer

Drew Bledsoe

Brett Favre

Troy Aikman

Don Majkowski

Jim Everett

Bernie Kosar

Boomer Esiason

John Elway

Dan Marino

Doug Williams

So, 18 out of 41 are Pro Bowlers or Super Bowl winners. Six are sure Hall of Famers, with Brees and McNabb still having a shot. This is a much better sampling than the rookie starters. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the historical path to QB greatness has been to wait until year 2 to become the full-time starter.

Think about it: at least 15% of QBs who got 300 attempts in their second season went to the Hall of Fame, and almost half went to the Pro Bowl.

[statistical glitches I noticed: Marino had 296 attempts as a rookie. Montana had 274 attempts as a second-year player. Neither of those is why I chose 300 attempts.]

 

[Chase Stuart]

Looking at the same time frame, for second-year QBs 24 years old or younger with 300 attempts, we get 41 cases. Those include (on the positive side):

Daunte Culpepper

Tom Brady

Drew Brees

Donovan McNabb

Peyton Manning

Jake Plummer

Kerry Collins

Trent Dilfer

Drew Bledsoe

Brett Favre

Troy Aikman

Don Majkowski

Jim Everett

Bernie Kosar

Boomer Esiason

John Elway

Dan Marino

Doug Williams

So, 18 out of 41 are Pro Bowlers or Super Bowl winners. Six are sure Hall of Famers, with Brees and McNabb still having a shot. This is a much better sampling than the rookie starters. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the historical path to QB greatness has been to wait until year 2 to become the full-time starter.

Think about it: at least 15% of QBs who got 300 attempts in their second season went to the Hall of Fame, and almost half went to the Pro Bowl.

[statistical glitches I noticed: Marino had 296 attempts as a rookie. Montana had 274 attempts as a second-year player. Neither of those is why I chose 300 attempts.]

I don't get this at all. A lot of the guys on your list started as rookies -- Marino, Bledsoe, Aikman, Elway, Manning, Collins, Kosar, Plummer, etc.Are you saying Detroit should start Stafford but make sure to yank him before he hits 300 attempts?

 

[CalBear]

Looking at the same time frame, for second-year QBs 24 years old or younger with 300 attempts, we get 41 cases. Those include (on the positive side):

Daunte Culpepper

Tom Brady

Drew Brees

Donovan McNabb

Peyton Manning

Jake Plummer

Kerry Collins

Trent Dilfer

Drew Bledsoe

Brett Favre

Troy Aikman

Don Majkowski

Jim Everett

Bernie Kosar

Boomer Esiason

John Elway

Dan Marino

Doug Williams

So, 18 out of 41 are Pro Bowlers or Super Bowl winners. Six are sure Hall of Famers, with Brees and McNabb still having a shot. This is a much better sampling than the rookie starters. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the historical path to QB greatness has been to wait until year 2 to become the full-time starter.

Think about it: at least 15% of QBs who got 300 attempts in their second season went to the Hall of Fame, and almost half went to the Pro Bowl.

[statistical glitches I noticed: Marino had 296 attempts as a rookie. Montana had 274 attempts as a second-year player. Neither of those is why I chose 300 attempts.]

I don't get this at all. A lot of the guys on your list started as rookies -- Marino, Bledsoe, Aikman, Elway, Manning, Collins, Kosar, Plummer, etc.Are you saying Detroit should start Stafford but make sure to yank him before he hits 300 attempts?

Bledsoe, Manning, and Collins were on both lists; that was the totality of the good results from the rookie starter list. The guys who started as rookies but didn't reach 300 attempts, generally didn't start game 1; they were given a chance to play later in the season, rather than being thrown to the wolves.

 

[candymanvandyfan]

The Lions should try this: Play the guys who are good at football. That Stafford guy is good at football. Those other guys aren't good at football.

If you want to see a mob of angry fans, play those same palookas from last year. No fan should tolerate that kind of thickheaded, inflexible stubbornness. You know they can't play.

No matter what you think of his politics, good or bad, FDR said a very American thing in 1932. He said, "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

The Lions drafted Stafford and paid him. They should let him play. If it doesn't work out, admit it and try something else.

The worst thing they could do is sit Stafford. When has he ever sat the bench? When was he ever unsuccessful? The Lions need more of the Stafford magic than Stafford needs that Lions magic. I'd start him, but I wouldn't stop there. I'd ask him to sneeze on every Lions player who was there last year to see if the rest of the team might catch what Stafford has.

I think a good benchmark for Stafford might be Troy Aikman's first few years.

Through Aikman's first 38 starts, he threw for 31 touchdowns and 46 interceptions and had 14 wins and 24 losses.

I'll say through 38 games Stafford has a better TD/INT ratio than Aikman, and comes in 3-4 games under Troy's 14 wins.

We'll see.

 

[Ray_T]

I agree that Stafford should not start the season as the starter.

I do believe that even if he is an extrordinary talent, has an amazing camp, and appears to be all they expect him to be, there is value in having him sit for a game or two (at the very least) just to see what a true NFL calibre defense looks like that isnt playing an exhibition game.

the key would be to prevent him from facing a top defense before he was fully ready.

The team opens against New Orleans (which isnt too bad) but then Plays Minnesota (solid D), Washington, Chicago, Pittsburgh.

Once you insert him as the starter, you dont wanna take him out, so If I was to play him this year at all, I would wait until the game against Pittsburgh & Chicago have come & gone. By the time they play the next really tough defense in week 14 (baltimore) he would have watched a few games, and played in a few games and probably would have learned a fair bit.

Personally, I think he should sit the whole year, however if they want to play him this year, this is the way I think they should do it.

 

[Biabreakable]

I agree that Stafford should not start the season as the starter.I do believe that even if he is an extrordinary talent, has an amazing camp, and appears to be all they expect him to be, there is value in having him sit for a game or two (at the very least) just to see what a true NFL calibre defense looks like that isnt playing an exhibition game.the key would be to prevent him from facing a top defense before he was fully ready. The team opens against New Orleans (which isnt too bad) but then Plays Minnesota (solid D), Washington, Chicago, Pittsburgh.Once you insert him as the starter, you dont wanna take him out, so If I was to play him this year at all, I would wait until the game against Pittsburgh & Chicago have come & gone. By the time they play the next really tough defense in week 14 (baltimore) he would have watched a few games, and played in a few games and probably would have learned a fair bit.Personally, I think he should sit the whole year, however if they want to play him this year, this is the way I think they should do it.

Yes. And IIRC the bye week follows the Steelers game. It really depends on how Culpepper does. If Culpepper isn't getting it done then by all means get Stafford in there then. Not against one of the better defenses in the NFL before the coaching staff has had a chance to work out some kinks with the Oline and protection packages. Any establishment of the run at that point would be a blessing.The whole team is going to be making adjustments in the early games. Solve some of those problems or at least identifying them will allow you to better put your rookie QB in a situation to succeed.Been hearing Lions fans say they think he will be the starter after the bye. They bye week does give the team an extra week to work stafford with the starters in practice too. I think he will get a lot of practice snaps with the starters regardless. These decisions are usualy made in practice but practice is not the same as game day. I think it is in the best interest for the Lions as a team to see what they have going for them on game day, against some good defenses. Make adjustments then use the bye week for the switch to Stafford.Without seeing Stafford in a regular season game yet. There is going to adjustments there. I think it is easier to solve one problem at a time than trying to resolve many of them all at once.I think David Carr was a better player as a rookie than he is now. He got shell shocked playing for an expansion team who's main investment in protecting him (Tony Boselli) did not play. I think David Carr's chances to be decent got destroyed by the situation as much as anything. Maybe he never would have been that good but I think he could have been a lot better if he got the chance to develop in a more stable situation.Yes the Lions are an established team. And hopefully the coaching influences coming from the Titans leads to a big improvement. But an 0-16 team is pretty close to being a expansion team or possibly worse. This isn't going to be fixed over night.I have some similar feelings about Cleveland QBs a decade or so ago. Their Oline wasn't good enough to support a QB. This is a situation they have put a lot of focus and investment into fixing now.