The Future Is Now for Stafford and the Lions, But Is It the Right Move?

The Detroit Lions have named their starting quarterback, and in doing so, they have made the decisive move on declaring their path towards the future.

They even picked the appropriate day for doing so—Labor Day.

For most Lions fans (two words when viewed together tend to suggest irony), this in itself hits the nail on the proverbial head.

For Matthew Stafford, this marks the day when the real hard work begins.

And for Lions Head Coach Jim Schwartz, it represents a curiosity at best.

So, why did Schwartz do it?

Before the preseason began, Schwartz confronted all the questions regarding his starting quarterback by insisting that the starting quarterback job will go to the player that represented the Lions best opportunity to win.

This obviously makes sense.  By starting the best player, you are not only putting yourself in a better position to win, but you also are sending a message to everyone in your locker room that finances will not determine who gets the playing time and who doesn't. 

In any type of team environment, this is a very important message.  It strengthens morale and gives the coaching staff credibility.

So why did Schwartz go back on his word?

For anyone that watched the Lions in the preseason this year, it was obvious that Daunte Culpepper had a better feel for the Lions' offense.  Given his past success in offensive coordinator Scott Linehan's offense while he was in Minnesota further underscores this point.

During the preseason, Culpepper completed 65 percent of his passes, throwing no interceptions with a quarterback rating of nearly 90.

Stafford had a middle-of-the-road 55 percent completion rating, he threw an interception in each of his four preseason games, and finished with a dismal 53 quarterback rating.

Furthermore, he showed the same type of mistakes that are appropriate for a rookie to make.  He forced passes, held onto the ball too long, and often did not feel the defensive pressure until it was too late.

This is not to say that Stafford won't make a great quarterback someday.  But it does mean that Culpepper is the safer choice—for many reasons.

Okay, full disclosure time.  I have been a vocal critic of the Lions selection of Schwartz as coach and I was equally against picking Stafford as the No. 1 pick.

When the Lions were on the verge of signing Schwartz, they put together a press conference in which the media was permitted to ask the prospective coach some questions. 

During this question and answer session, Schwartz joked that it was important for the Lions to finally find legendary Lions quarterback Bobby Layne's replacement. 

This is what I said at the time regarding Schwartz and this strategy:

This is not the correct answer, and Lions fans know it. What is surprising is that Schwartz should know it too. So why was the answer Schwartz gave to the media regarding the No. 1 pick so troubling?  Because he has seen first hand what must happen in order for a team to win, and it is not a flashy first-round quarterback.

Keep in mind that this was before the Lions selected Stafford No. 1 overall, but also keep in mind that Stafford went to the same high school as Bobby Layne in Texas.

It was, and continues to be, my contention that the best move for the Lions is to build up their offensive and defensive lines first, and everything else should be addressed after that.

If you can stop the run on defense and run the ball on offense, you will win in this league.  Instead, if you wish to go the route of winning with a quarterback, that quarterback needs to be incredibly special.

Over the past decade, here are the quarterbacks that have won the Super Bowl: Kurt Warner, Trent Dilfer, Tom Brady, Brad Johnson, Ben Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning and Eli Manning.

Of those, only Warner, Brady and Peyton Manning were unquestionably superstar quarterbacks whose success directly effected how far their team went.

All of those teams had dominant offensive and defensive lines, and could run the ball at will. 

The main point is that the teams that win it all are able to impose their will, most commonly by running the ball and stopping the run.

But I digress.

So I have not been wild about this strategy in general since it was floated seven months ago.

But now that the Lions have gone in this direction, it is important to make the most of the situation, and throwing Stafford to the wolves is not the right answer.

Since the Lions drafted Stafford, they have not substantially improved either their offensive or defensive lines. 

On offense, they have added depth at tackle and Gosder Cherilus has one more preseason under his belt, but it is still essentially the same line that gave up 52 sacks last year, second worst in the entire league.

Their defensive line has actually taken a substantial step back, and their are gaping holes to fill at defensive tackle and end.

True, the Lions have improved their defensive backfield and secondary.  However, without a strong defensive line, linebackers tend to get eaten up and cornerbacks tend to get burned. 

Just ask Ray Lewis and the Baltimore Ravens who were destroyed once their defensive line was decimated by injuries, and revived once that line was rebuilt.

The point is that this Lions team is not built for immediate success, and only truly special quarterbacks can be thrown to the wolves and live to tell about it.

A few months back, I wrote an article that analyzed each of the first quarterbacks taken in their drafts over the past 30 years.

Based on history, the safest bet is for the Lions to sit Stafford for his first year, but if Stafford is one of the great ones, it is best for him to start right away.

So by that logic, it would seem like starting Stafford is a huge gamble that could lead to greatness.  Therefore, by all means start him.

But this is not the point.  The point is that Schwartz stated that the best quarterback on the roster would start, and Culpepper has proven himself to be that player.

Therefore, you have to ask yourself why Schwartz is doing this.

Obviously, it could just be a case of injury.  Culpepper has an issue with his toe that required eight stitches.  If it is just an issue of health, that makes sense.

However, Stafford was not just named the season-opening starter.  It appears that Stafford is now the man in Detroit.

So this leads to the possibility that this decision is based on economics.  Stafford is the crowd favorite, the new darling of Detroit, and perhaps management stepped in and thought that this could sell more tickets.

If this is the case, it shows that this is really not Schwartz's team, but rather management is pulling the strings. 

Sadly, we have seen how this management team has fared.

Besides, this does not seem to make sense along those lines either.  If you bring in Culpepper and allow him to try, you are in a no-lose situation. 

He appears to be the quarterback that is most prepared to play, therefore he gives you a better shot at pulling off a few upsets and winning some games.

The worst thing that could happen is that he fails, and then you can always turn to your franchise savior, the young Stafford.

By starting Stafford, you are guaranteeing that you are looking at this team as being in a rebuilding and educational year, and therefore the signing of middle linebacker Larry Foote and the acquisition of outside linebacker Julius Peterson seem to be questionable at best. 

These guys are not long term answers for the Lions, but rather one year mercenaries brought in to help you win ball games now. 

By starting Stafford, it's unlikely the Lions are going to win ball games now, and your young quarterback is going to take his lumps for a below-average football team at best.

You can call it the Matt Ryan-Joe Flacco effect.  Those two quarterbacks bucked the historical trend of first year signal callers suffering in their first year. 

However, those two quarterbacks came to teams with strong running games and even stronger defenses.

The Lions have neither, and as a result, Stafford will likely follow in their unsuccessful footsteps.

Instead, Stafford will lead a team that has lost 17 straight games into one of the league's toughest schedules.  This, folks, is more than just a recipe for disaster.

This is leading lambs to the slaughter.

If great leaders are born through adversity, now is Stafford's time to prove his mettle.

And now is the time for Lions fans to stock their antacids.