start culpepper as hes playing a horrible texan defence that has been shredded these last few weeks by other QBs. warner is playing a tough falcons defence that will be looking for revenge after last weeks lost.
2006-10-01 05:26:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by vortex 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends who they are playing against. Like if Culpepper is playing against the Titans and Wraner is playing against the Bears you obviously start Culpepper. But if you're looking for a consitant starter i would start Culpepper becasue he doesnt get hurt as much as Warner, has a stronger arm than Warner, and doesnt fuble as much as Warner. Also the Cardinals want to get Lienart on the field soon so Warners days are numbered with Lienart breathing down his neck and Culpepper has no one battling him for the starting job.
2006-10-01 17:33:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by TheRealDeal 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Defintely Culpepper! The Texans have a very poor defense
2006-10-01 13:11:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Frankie 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Culpepper most definetly against one of the worst backfields in the NFL. Warner is going up against a angry Atlanta team.
2006-10-01 12:26:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jodatoa 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Culpepper - Houston defense is bad!
2006-10-01 13:17:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ray R 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
culpepper. little late to be asking this though
2006-10-01 14:33:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by fro2short 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Culpepper is due.
2006-10-01 12:45:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Go with Culppeper, this is the game that he will prove to everyone that he was worth sining because 1)The texans have have THE WORST defence in football history. 2)He has had 2 weeks to prepair for them 3) his TE and WR will be hungry for the ball.
Expect at least 2 passing TDS and over 300 passing hards bacause remember what peyton manning did to the texans a week ago!
2006-10-01 14:05:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by J.G. Racing Domination 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Both QBs will get you a few Turnovers..
Warner has chemistry with his WRs and turns over the ball less than Dumb and Dumber.
2006-10-01 12:34:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
culpepper
2006-10-01 12:29:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Rusty Shackleford 5
·
0⤊
0⤋