Very Interesting Comments by John Clayton

In speaking about Matthew Stafford this morning, John Clayton said that he felt Daunte Culpepper might be better to start the season because, "he has experience losing games."

Asked to clarify what he meant, Clayton said that Culpepper is a veteran who has lost games, so if he starts off 0-5 for the Lions, it won't be the end of the world. But for a rookie like Stafford, he has about 20-30 games before he is judged and labeled a bust. If the first five games are hopeless because the rest of the team has no chance against a tough schedule, then it could negatively affect Stafford's confidence. So throwing him into the fire too quickly as the number one pick could be a bad idea.

Remind you of anyone whose first game was against a dominant Colts team? Rodgers was able to sit for a year or two and learn the Green Bay playbook and system thoroughly, while observing and learning from a Hall of Fame quarterback. The other guy learned from an unwilling backup quarterback and a defensive-minded coach.

wrong forum?

Maybe they're hoping Stafford will have a Ryan/Flacco type of season.

Originally posted by Psinex:
In speaking about Matthew Stafford this morning, John Clayton said that he felt Daunte Culpepper might be better to start the season because, "he has experience losing games."

Asked to clarify what he meant, Clayton said that Culpepper is a veteran who has lost games, so if he starts off 0-5 for the Lions, it won't be the end of the world. But for a rookie like Stafford, he has about 20-30 games before he is judged and labeled a bust. If the first five games are hopeless because the rest of the team has no chance against a tough schedule, then it could negatively affect Stafford's confidence. So throwing him into the fire too quickly as the number one pick could be a bad idea.

Remind you of anyone whose first game was against a dominant Colts team? Rodgers was able to sit for a year or two and learn the Green Bay playbook and system thoroughly, while observing and learning from a Hall of Fame quarterback. The other guy learned from an unwilling backup quarterback and a defensive-minded coach.

more like 3 or 4

In before the move...

definitely Niner Talk worthy

keep this open

i thought this was about Crabtree

Soooooo, start Alex Smith and let Nate Davis sit and learn?

Who the heck cares about Stafford and the Lions....NO ONE DOES.

it's not the wrong forum as at the end of his post, he ties it back to Alex Smith's situation. It is an unnecessary thread however, cus we don't need another Smith thread.

we all know that Nolan and his staff did a terrible job handling Smitty, and we all now that Smith got probably the worst possible situation he could have in his first 4 years. Sorry OP, this ain't really news.

Originally posted by Psinex:
In speaking about Matthew Stafford this morning, John Clayton said that he felt Daunte Culpepper might be better to start the season because, "he has experience losing games."

Asked to clarify what he meant, Clayton said that Culpepper is a veteran who has lost games, so if he starts off 0-5 for the Lions, it won't be the end of the world. But for a rookie like Stafford, he has about 20-30 games before he is judged and labeled a bust. If the first five games are hopeless because the rest of the team has no chance against a tough schedule, then it could negatively affect Stafford's confidence. So throwing him into the fire too quickly as the number one pick could be a bad idea.

Remind you of anyone whose first game was against a dominant Colts team? Rodgers was able to sit for a year or two and learn the Green Bay playbook and system thoroughly, while observing and learning from a Hall of Fame quarterback. The other guy learned from an unwilling backup quarterback and a defensive-minded coach.

If we think of this as a "start-over" year for A. Smith, as if he was just drafted and is beginning this season as a rookie, then wouldn't the smart way to go about his development be to name Hill the starter and let Smith gradually work his way up to a point where he takes over?

Its a rare opportunity for Smith, and should be developed a bit more deliberately than his last one. IMHO.

Originally posted by oldninerdude:

Originally posted by Psinex:
In speaking about Matthew Stafford this morning, John Clayton said that he felt Daunte Culpepper might be better to start the season because, "he has experience losing games."

Asked to clarify what he meant, Clayton said that Culpepper is a veteran who has lost games, so if he starts off 0-5 for the Lions, it won't be the end of the world. But for a rookie like Stafford, he has about 20-30 games before he is judged and labeled a bust. If the first five games are hopeless because the rest of the team has no chance against a tough schedule, then it could negatively affect Stafford's confidence. So throwing him into the fire too quickly as the number one pick could be a bad idea.

Remind you of anyone whose first game was against a dominant Colts team? Rodgers was able to sit for a year or two and learn the Green Bay playbook and system thoroughly, while observing and learning from a Hall of Fame quarterback. The other guy learned from an unwilling backup quarterback and a defensive-minded coach.

If we think of this as a "start-over" year for A. Smith, as if he was just drafted and is beginning this season as a rookie, then wouldn't the smart way to go about his development be to name Hill the starter and let Smith gradually work his way up to a point where he takes over?

Its a rare opportunity for Smith, and should be developed a bit more deliberately than his last one. IMHO.

Yeah, I agree that Smith should be groomed to start behind Hill as if he were a rookie again. Clayton's point about the number one quarterback's predecessor "having experience losing games" really struck a chord. If Rattay had been kept in to keep losing games with a pathetic supporting cast while Alex watched and matured on the bench, his confidence might have been preserved. Stafford has the opportunity back up Daunte Culpepper, without the pressure of being thrown into the fire the way Alex was.

I think a big part of what made Alex's 2007 season a semi-successful one was a big season from Frank Gore and Norv Turner. Matt Ryan had Michael Turner to help keep defenses honest. I remember when Alex's first season, his offensive line was horrible, his receivers could not get open, so on almost every down, he was running for his life.

Being able to sit behind Shaun Hill this year would give Alex a chance to mature fully, and step in with a lot more experience and poise when he's called upon.

I think it's the smart thing for them to sit Stafford

Comments by JC are usually 'interesting' as in 'where did my dog relieve herself this morning'....other than that why at this pt in the season would you give my dogs poop what JC says about that?!!! Go find where my dog relieved herself and let me know so you do something constructive with your day. And don't step in it coming to tell me where it is and track it all in my clean house.

Originally posted by Psinex:
In speaking about Matthew Stafford this morning, John Clayton said that he felt Daunte Culpepper might be better to start the season because, "he has experience losing games."

Asked to clarify what he meant, Clayton said that Culpepper is a veteran who has lost games, so if he starts off 0-5 for the Lions, it won't be the end of the world. But for a rookie like Stafford, he has about 20-30 games before he is judged and labeled a bust. If the first five games are hopeless because the rest of the team has no chance against a tough schedule, then it could negatively affect Stafford's confidence. So throwing him into the fire too quickly as the number one pick could be a bad idea.

Remind you of anyone whose first game was against a dominant Colts team? Rodgers was able to sit for a year or two and learn the Green Bay playbook and system thoroughly, while observing and learning from a Hall of Fame quarterback. The other guy learned from an unwilling backup quarterback and a defensive-minded coach.

I originally started laughing when I read the opening quote; but you know what, it absolutely dead on. Whether Smith would have or could have been better had his situation been different, I don't think you can argue that he was thrown to the wolves. In fact, I think you could make a very easy case that Alex Smith is a classic example that all teams could learn from on how not to treat the potential future face of your franchise. So I think Clayton has made a valid point and maybe Detroit ought to take it to heart. Besides, Culpepper, the human fumble machine, should already know that he has no real future in football so who cares if he starts out 0 & 5 or whatever.