Detroit Lions Fans Miss the Mark on Their Daunte Culpepper Criticism

Throughout the interwebz, the Lions faithful have almost unanimously moved to support of Matthew Stafford. Lions columnists, Tom Kowalski (Mlive), John Niyo (DetTimes), and Brian VanOchten (GR Press) have all began to comment on Stafford with almost unfettered optimism.

It is well deserved.

I am the first to admit that Stafford is miles and miles ahead of where I thought he would be. I will admit I was against drafting him—I wanted (and still covet) Aaron Curry. I will admit I was against starting him—I was (and still am) scared of injury while playing with little offensive line help and no real running game.

However, the decisions were made. While there is no way to say they were the "best" decisions, it can certainly be said that the decisions look to have great upside. 

Stafford has impressed.

When debating such things, it becomes foolish to prognosticate on what "could have" happened if your way would have transpired. Fans have no idea what the Lions' record would be if Culpepper had started all season long.

Fans have no idea what Michael Oher would be doing if he were in Honolulu Blue. Fans can't know how Aaron Curry would be performing in Detroit.

However, Lions fans did get a taste of what the Lions offense might look like with Culpepper taking the snaps this past week against Pittsburgh. Most, rightfully, desire some mouthwash.

Culpepper made some mistakes on Sunday—he held the ball too long, he didn't go through his progressions, he didn't check out of plays in blitzing situations. 

Yet, the biggest criticism on the net about Culpepper—both this week and throughout the preseason—is that he checks down to much.

That criticism is, at best, misguided. At worst, it is patently false.

Let's check the math:

• Culpepper-7 yds/attempt; 11.6/completion
  Stafford- 6.43 yds/attempt; 11.3/completion
• 46/79 (58%) of Stafford's completions have been to RB/FB/TE
  11/37 (30%) of Culpepper's completions went to the same group of guys.

Culpepper is actually ahead of Stafford in every statistical measure of a quarterback hitting longer passes.

For those critically watching the game against Pittsburgh, one saw Culpepper with only three active wide receivers routinely hitting them deeper down the field then fans are accustomed to. 

For much of the first have, "check downs" were a game planning decision. As I wrote in my "Lions Offensive Playbook" last week, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Tennessee all used similar tactics against the Steelers.

In fact, the one moment Culpepper absolutely should have checked down, at the end of the game, no receiver, tight end, or running back were visible in the view provided by CBS—both a criticism of the playcalling and Culpepper's lack of audible.

I'm not a Culpepper apologist.

I agree that Stafford is both the quarterback of the future and the quarterback of now. If he continues to progress, the rookie should start every game he is healthy between now and his retirement.

The Lions need to do much to improve this offense. A quarterback change is not the highest priority—not at the top and not at the backup position.