History Lessons: Aaron Curry & 3rd Preseason Games

I’ve rarely called out the leaders of the Detroit Lions. Neither the coaches nor executives receive much criticism on this blog. For starters, The Lions in Winter exists partly as a haven from brain-dead “fire the lousy bums” talk. For seconds, the Lions’ leadership hasn’t done much to deserve criticism. When they have, I’ve been quick to say so—publicly and privately.

The other reason is, the closer I get to the business of football and football media, the more I realize just how far removed fans are from the reality of the game. I have to be awfully sure that I, professional IT nerd, armed with nothing but my HDTV and DVR and iPhone and Mac Pro, know better than the men paid millions of dollars to run this team with every conceivable resource at their fingertips for me to speak out. Every once in a while, though, I’m convinced I’m right—and I do something silly like write an open letter to the Lions’ brass, demanding that they draft Aaron Curry:

Not long ago, the Lions' players were well known for being great leaders in the community, providers who put down roots in Detroit, and gave back to the city as much as the city had given them.  As you know, Robert Porcher won the NFL's Walter Payton Man of the Year award multiple times; [Ed.- Actually, he didn't.] Aaron Curry will surely follow in his footsteps.  Look out the window, gentlemen; read the papers on days when they can afford to be printed.  On the heels of the news that Michigan again leads the nation in joblessness, it would speak volumes about the class, the character, and the priorities of the Detroit Lions organization to ignore the hype.  To ignore the pundits and the shellacked talking heads.  To ignore the common wisdom and the conventional thinking.  To forget value charts and stopwatches, "big boards" and salary slots.  To yoke your franchise to the shoulders of a bold young man who will help Lions fans to their feet, on the field and off, again and again and again.  To restore pride to the Lions.

To draft Aaron Curry.

Aaron Curry has just restructured his contract, lopping the last two years and five million guaranteed dollars off of it. Suddenly, this year becomes a make-or-break; if he doesn’t perform up to his incredible potential the ‘Hawks may trade or release him without a cap hit. Even if they don’t deal him in this next offseason, he’ll likely be playing in Seattle to audition for a contract elsewhere.

This doesn’t mean fans are always wrong and the professionals are always right; otherwise Rod Marinelli would still be using his bully pulpit to harangue Detroit media for their ignorance of the invisible. No, the lesson here is to use the past to gain perspective on the present. Not for the first time, we see that a combination of height, weight, and speed doesn’t necessarily translate into an impact player. Not for the first time, we see that 4-3 outside linebackers have to be truly incredible to have a significant impact. Not for the first time, we see that a player’s off-field personality doesn’t necessarily translate to on-field anything.

One of the hardest things to do is temper expectations for this weekend’s game. After a glorious trouncing of the Bengals, and an unpalatably sloppy win over the Browns, facing the Patriots on national TV with both coaching staffs gameplanning and all available starters going at least a half? It’s a legitimate, and very scary, measuring stick. It seems the Lions always a tough out for this matchup, and it almost never goes well.

In 2007, the Colts, fresh off a Super Bowl win, dismantled the Lions 37-10. In 2006 Rod Marinelli flew the Lions into Oakland the day they were supposed to play, to prove they could show up and beat anyone, anywhere, anytime. The about-to-go-2-14 Raiders beat the Lions 21-3. In 2005, the Rams came to town—with the Monday Night Football crew—and punked the Lions 37-13 (after a last-minute garbage time Lions TD). In 2004, the Lions played the Ravens in Baltimore and, predictably, lost.

In 2009, though, the Lions again took on a lesser Colts team and—with some late-game Drew Stanton heroics—won 18-17. Last season, the third game was the Great Lakes Classic, and Matthew Stafford’s excellent performance kickstarted a 35-27 win over the unimpressive Browns. Now, for the first time, Jim Schwartz has followed Mariucci and Marinelli’s precedent and set the preseason bar as high as it will go.

History tells us that preseason wins and losses are meaningless; we need look no further than the 2008 Lions for the most definitive possible proof. However, history also tells us that in the third preseason game, the “eye test” of starters versus starters, starters versus backups, and overall quality is perfectly valid.

Let’s take the lesson history gives us, then. Let’s wipe the slate of the first two games clean. Let’s see what the Lions can bring to bear, and how they handle the onslaught from Boston. Let’s see Matthew Stafford face the blitz, and Ndamukong Suh chase Tom Brady. I’m ready to see just what these Lions are made of. Are you?

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,new england patriots,matthew stafford,tom brady,ndamukong suh,preseason

Read more...

Haunted By Hope: The Ghosts of Lions Past

So here’s the headline on Tom Kowalski’s latest mailbag:

Three reasons why the Detroit Lions have 'real' hope this year

Those quotes express life as a Lions fan. When has our hope been real? When have the Lions truly been building something worthwhile? When has it all been a fraud? What’s the tipping point between being sure success is right around the corner, and living in a fantasyland?

History sees only the scoreboard; many insist it’s the only real metric. In this respect Jim Schwartz’s Lions have yet to eclipse Rod Marinelli’s, or Steve Mariucci’s. In fact, of the eight non-interim Lions head coaches in my lifetime, only Marty Mornhinweg and Daryl Clark failed to notch at least one 6-win season. At this point, the 2011 Lions are no different than the 2008 Lions, or the 2005 Lions, or 1998, or 1996, or . . . All rode on waves of exceeded expectations from the year before, all were full of reasons to hope, and all took a unexpected step back—or an unimaginable plunge into the abyss.

It’s hard to forget these hopes, these expectations; it’s the unexpected flipside of my role as the Flamekeeper. My constant vigil and long perspective allows me to accept harsh disappointment, internalize it, and keep cheering. Yet, when I’ve been convinced the Lions were on a forkless Yellow Brick Road to success, and they’ve failed, it’s stuck with me. These collapsed Lions teams, these unmade dynasties-in-the-making, they haunt me like ghosts.

In the NFL, success and failure balance on the edge of a knife. I’ve pointed before at October 2, 2005 as the day Mariucci’s Lions were undone. When five years of kitting the Lions’ roster together by the 49ers’ pattern unravelled:

It was Harrington’s first signature comeback drive, an efficient 81-yard march ending with a well-placed 12-yard touchdown pass—that got taken away by review. Despite the play being ruled a touchdown on the field, and the ball being in Pollard’s hands while he was in bounds, the ref overturned the call, and the Lions’ season momentum evaporated.

Obviously, Joey Harrington was not then, never became, and likely never would have become a great NFL quarterback. But flip that one bit from “0” to “1”, and instead of the Thanksgiving Day loss to the Falcons sealing Mariucci’s fate, it’d have been the first time the Lions dipped below .500. Yes, that’s right: if that touchdown doesn’t get called back, the Lions carry a .500 or better record into Thanksgiving.

Instead, it all fell apart. With fans publicly, and teammates privately, incensed with Harrington’s subpar play, Mariucci didn’t support his quarterback. Instead, he made plain his frustration with Harrington, and propped up Jeff Garcia at every opportunity. Mariucci’s failure to groom Harrington into a winner—and by extension, failure to make Millen look good—cost Mooch his job.

In an alternate universe somewhere, the Mariucci Lions worked. Charles Rogers’ collarbone held together, Roy Williams remained a terrifying big-play threat, and Mike Williams developed into a stalwart possession receiver [Ed.—Heck, that happened in this universe]. Joey Harrington became the triggerman for an offense bristling with diverse weapons. Space was opened up in the front seven for Kevin Jones to work his magic. A solid scoring defense, and exceptional special teams units, rounded out a team you could rely to win about 59.1% of its games—just as Mariucci did in San Francisco.

I loved that team. The hometown coach, the star wideout I partied with in college, cerebral, misfit quarterback I always said I’d be were I born into a 6’-4”, 240-pound body with a rocket arm. I believed that team was on its way—just as I believe this team is, too. I had more doubts in 2008 and 2005 than I have in 2011, but I knew the Lions were on the path to success. For every nice thing an analyst has said about Jim Schwartz, I can someone citing Mariucci’s track record, or claiming they’d run through a brick wall for Marinelli after interviewing him. We can wax philosophical until we’re blue in the face, and we can cite Statistical Great Leaps Forward—but if the Lions go 5-11 this season, all of the optimism this offseason will seem just as ludicrous as me claiming Mariucci was a bad call away from taking the Lions to the promised land.

Look, I know the Lions are doing it right this time. I know Jim Schwartz was an excellent hire. I know the Lions are going to make the playoffs this year. But don’t forget, Joey Harrington once knew he could play in this league . . . I and knew he was right.

“The Young Guns of The NFL.” Drew Brees, Michael Vick, and Tom Brady, all getting second billing to Joey Ballgame—it makes us shake our head now, but it made our heads spin then. Was it madness to hope the Lions were building something great? Foolishness? To borrow a phrase, audacity? Or was it something real, something true, unjustly undone by the pernicious whims of fate and a razor-thin margin for error?

I can’t mull this over without considering the reverse: what if the Lions are successful this year, and it’s not for real? What if fortune and variance smile on the Lions, and they make a deep playoff run—followed by years of mediocrity? What if this is all the prelude to another Fontes era, where tantalizing tastes of glory are chased with bitter failure, year after year after year? How cruelly will that Lions team haunt us?

As we speak of madness and fantasy worlds, let me quote the great Albus Dumbledore who said “It is our choices that define us, Harry, far more than our abilities.” It’s our choice to make of the Lions what we will. The battle between Optimists and Pessimists has raged on Lions message boards since there’s been an Internet, and it rages still. Anyone can point to any number of reasons to hope, just as anyone can point to any number of reasons to believe it “when they see it.” I choose to hope, and so that hope is real.

Read more...

Watchtower Review: Lions vs. Bears

Okay, last thing first:

The one thing I’ve learned over the past two years of doing this preview, is that when the same teams play twice in a season, the results are rarely the same. But the data points to a repeat—and the injury problems for the Lions should be offset by the difference between a season-opening road game, and a midseason sellout. This is a statement game in many respects, and turnovers will likely make the difference. Last time, there were five fumbles (three lost), two picks, and 6 sacks for –42 yards. I see a similarly messy game this time around; how those turnovers and sacks are distributed will be the difference in the outcome. I am tempted to call this a draw, but at this point in the season, I’ll go out on a limb one more time—despite having a limb hacked out from underneath me three times already this season. I hesitantly project a 21-20 Lions victory, if for no other reason than the Lions need it much more than the Bears want it.

Right.  At this point, I’m not even going to slap myself on the wrist—the numbers said this game was a push, and that’s pretty much what played out.  The one thing I was most confident, about though, was wrong: the Lions played a nearly clean game and lost.  Stanton was sacked only twice, for a loss of 20 yards.  He threw no interceptions, and the Lions lost no fumbles.  Meanwhile, the Lions sacked the Bears 4 times for a loss of 37 yards, and one of those was a sack-fumble inside the Bears' 10 that the Lions recovered.  Clearly, the distribution of sacks and turnovers wasn't the difference in the game, as I said it would be.

Here’s where I tip my cap to Mike Martz.  The offensive gameplan we saw in Week 1 was Mike Martz football: four wide, spread it out, throw throw throw, lots of yards, lots of picks, a tailback doing more damage through the air than on the ground.  Here’s what I projected based on the numbers the Bears have put up all year:

It looks as though the only statistical trend for these two coaches, when facing off against one another, is that both units will play to their means: the 20.2-ppg Bears scored 19 against the 22.4-ppg Lions. Note, however, that that included about thirty minutes of shutout play in between Matt Forte receiving touchdowns. Given the data at hand, I’m inclined to project a repeat performance: 17-21 points, 7.50-8.00 YpA, and 4.0-4.25 YpC. I have medium confidence in this projection.

Here's what actually happened: the Bears scored 24 points, completed 21 of 26 for 9.00 YpA, and carried 28 times for 4.07 YpC.  That's not Martz football, that's Bears football.  The game plan went like this: run, screen, draw, slant, run, run, draw, screen, slant, run, draw, screen, slant, run, run.  They partially neutralized the Lions’ blitzing, and put Cutler in great situations that minimized his opportunity to make mistakes. 

Chester Taylor, a misfit toy who’s been paid a lot of money to not really do anything this season, had his coming-out party: 9 carries for 33 yards and a score, plus five catches for 31 yards.  Forte, though not as devastating with the long receptions this time, was equally effective: 13 carries for 64 yards and a score, plus two catches for 36 yards.  The Bears ruthlessly attacked the Lions’ outside linebackers, who were rendered helpless by Earl Bennett’s speed up the seam, and overmatched on screen by the Bears’ tight ends.  Again, Mike Martz has found out how to make the Bears’ talent go, and had a perfect gameplan to attack the Lions’ defense.

This isn’t to say that Gunther didn’t do his job, too.  Despite the steady diet of screens and draws, the Lions’ pass rush got to Cutler over and over again; both with well-timed blitzes and great front-four performances.  The Bears’ gameplan was to minimize Cutler’s exposure and they still brought him down four times; that is impressive indeed.  What we’re left with is what we knew all along: the Lions’ back seven cannot cover anybody

Everyone wants to know why the Lions can’t close out games; look at the opponent’s quarterbacks completing pass after pass after pass in the fourth quarter and you’ll see why. Eventually, the front four can no longer hold back the flood; the dam bursts.  This is purely due to lack of talent, and cannot be fixed until the offseason.

Offensively, here’s what I projected:

Given a mild yard-producing advantage for Scott Linehan balanced offenses against Lovie Smith aggressive Tampa 2 defenses, I project the Lions to roughly meet expectations: 17-21 points, 5.50-6.0 YpA, and 3.50-3.75 YpC. I have medium-to-high confidence in this projection.

What the Lions did was move the ball better than they have all year.

They rushed for 4.96 yards per carry.  They completed 16 of 24 passes, for 7.42 yards per attempt.  On a per-play basis, this was the most balanced, most efficient offensive game the Lions played all year—and they failed to commit a single turnover.  Let me tip my hat to Scott Linehan as well; he did a similarly masterful job in tailoring his offense to his quarterback’s strengths.  Unfortunately, it only resulted in 20 points.  Both teams were taking long, slow, controlled trips across the field—the Lions’ opening drive burned four minutes off the clock and only went 26 yards—so the Lions’ offense only had nine possessions.  Part of it is simply missed opportunities; when you get a sack-fumble inside your opponents’ ten-yard-line, you have to score.

What’s funny is, every seasoned Lions observer threw up their hands when the Lions had to settle for a field goal there.  The Lions’ radio play-by-play man, Dan Miller, fought to keep the frustration out of his voice as he talked about the importance of getting a touchdown in that situation.  Sure enough, it was the difference in the game.  This is why I don’t put a lot of stock in the “learning how to win” thing.  The Lions don’t need to go to “put the boot on the throat” school, it’s the sum total of made mistakes and unmade plays throughout the game putting them on the wrong side of the ledger at the end.

This team's talent and execution is right there.  I fully believe the Lions have made the jump into the Great Middle of the NFL; they can play and compete with anyone.  However, their youth, inexperience, and lack of depth push them to the edge of their margin for error.  If anything—anything—fluky goes wrong, they simply can’t make up for it.  This is why the keep coming close, but can’t hang on.  This is why they keep being right there, except for . . .  This is why they’re 2-10, and not 6-6.  

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,chicago bears,jim schwartz,mike martz,scott linehan,drew stanton,gunther cunningham,lovie smith,rod marinelli

Read more...

The Watchtower: Lions at Bears

Last season, I started a series of posts I called The Watchtower; intense statistical analyses of each opponents’ coaching staff, as they’ve faced their Lions counterparts throughout history.  By comparing the coordinators’ head-to-head performances with their statistical means for the year, I hoped to isolate and expose systemic advantages for either side.  Historians argue about how predictive the process is—but in terms of breaking down the upcoming game, it’s interesting, and unique.  So.

Scott Linehan vs. Lovie Smith

Lin	Smit	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Drnk	PpG	YpA	YpC	PTS	YpA	INT	YpC	Sack
MIN	STL	6th	26.0	7.60	4.75	17th	20.5	7.60	4.75	17	6.88	1	7.27	8-54
MIN	CHI	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	13th	20.7	6.49	4.13	27	11.61	0	4.04	4-10
MIN	CHI	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	13th	20.7	6.49	4.13	14	8.45	3	6.64	5-34
STL	CHI	10th	22.9	6.69	4.26	3rd	15.9	5.36	3.96	27	6.47	1	4.59	3-24
DET	CHI	27th	15.9	5.30	3.95	21st	23.5	6.36	4.33	24	7.45	1	2.46	5-42
DET	CHI	27th	15.9	5.30	3.95	21st	23.5	6.36	4.33	23	7.70	1	4.00	2-13

The massive advantage this year’s edition has over last year’s is the inclusion of actual Schwartz-coached Lions data—we’re not reconstructing the theoretical scheme from what these coordinators have run in the past, these are the actual systems in place today.  Further, when the Lions face opponents they faced last season, the results will be incredibly relevant.  Unless, of course, said opponents do something crazy like replace both coordinators.
Enter Chicago, a team whose 2009 results fell well short of preseason expectations—and as often happens in such situations, the coaches bore the responsibility.  They replaced OC Ron Turner with Mike Martz, and demoted LB coach Bob Babich—the nominal defensive coordinator—back to a pure LB coach.  Still, Lovie did most of the defensive playcalling last season, and Marinelli is a disciple of the same Tampa Two that Lovie runs.  Nothing should be different, schematically, on the defensive side of the ball.
Last season, looking at the data for the first Bears Watchtower, I concluded:

Given greater, equal, or lesser talent, Lovie Smith's relatively aggressive Tampa 2 will surrender a disproportionate amount of yards to Linehan's balanced offense, but also generate high numbers of sacks and turnovers, disproportionately disrupting scoring.
The most likely outcome involves Stafford getting rattled by the Bears, getting sacked 3-to-5 times and surrendering at least two turnovers. Despite moving the ball as well as they have all season, the Lions should score below expectations (currently 19, though a 3-game average is nearly useless).

At the top of the second Bears Watchtower, I lauded my own foresight by pointing out the results:

• Stafford was sacked five times, for a loss of 42 yards.
• Stafford lost a fumble on one of those sacks, and threw an interception.
• The Lions generated a season-high 398 yards of total offense.

The symphony of accuracy ended with a clunk when it came to the points projection though; the Lions scored 24 points on the day, their highest total of offensive points in the the first ten weeks of the season.  However, that was only Week 4, and “normal” scoring expectations hadn’t been established.  After twelve weeks of Daunte Culpepper, Drew Stanton, and injured Matthew Stafford deflating the Lions’ season means, I tried again in the second Bears Watchtower:

If we apply that to the Lions’ current averages, and account for the Bears’ defense’s averages, my projection looks like this: 13-16 points, 6.00-6.25 YpA, and 4.50 YpC.  I have medium to high confidence in this prediction.

Of course, in one last glorious Screw You Ty Moment, Culpepper played the game of his Detroit life.  The Lions put up 23 points, as Culpepper’s stat line looked mysteriously NFL-caliber: 23-of-34 for 262 yards, 2 TDs, and only 1 INT.  The Lions did fumble twice, losing it once, but on the whole, the Lions clearly outstripped my “medium to high confidence” prediction.
My original conclusion, that the Tampa 2 suppresses Linehan offense’s scoring through sacks and turnovers, even while allowing far more yardage than said offense usually amasses, didn’t apply to last year’s games.  The sacks definitely occurred at an above-average clip, especially against Matthew Stafford in the earlier contest.  Turnovers happened, though not at an extraordinary clip.  The yardage came in bunches—but so did the points.
What was different last year?  The talent level.  In prior seasons, Lovie’s defense was ranked 17th, 13th, and 3rd in scoring allowed—but last season, the Bears’ defense was mediocre indeed, ranked 21st.  They allowed the same amount of points to the Lions that they’d been allowing to their average opponent. Since the Lions’ offense was obviously poor, either the Bears were going easy on the Lions, or there’s a systemic advantage.  Given the unlikeliness of the former, we’ll go with the latter and say . . .
Given greater or equal talent, Lovie Smith's relatively aggressive Tampa 2 will surrender a disproportionate amount of yards to Linehan's balanced offense, but also generate high numbers of sacks and turnovers, disproportionately disrupting scoring.  Given mediocre or poor talent, Lovie Smith’s Tampa 2 surrenders disproportionately high yardage and points, respective to the Linehan offense’s talent level.
Given the return of Brian Urlacher, and the addition of Julius Peppers, it’s safe to say that the talent and execution of the Marinelli/Smith defense will improve over last season’s iteration.  Assuming they improve to at least median level, I don’t anticipate this “unless they suck” qualification to be in effect.  So, back to lots of yards, sacks, turnovers, and probably-fewer points.  Now, what of the Lions?
Clearly, the Lions will be much improved over last season in both talent and execution; the additions of Jahvid Best, Nate Burleson, and Rob Sims have led to an obviously more potent attack.  Moreover, the offensive line as a unit looks much sharper, and Matthew Stafford’s decision making is much faster and much better.  I believe the offense will be above-average, ranked 8th-to-14th.  If we project the Lions to score to an average of 24 points per game, and the Bears’ defense to allow an average of 20 points per game, that leaves the Lions far short of what they’ll need to win.
Unfortunately, with zero real data as to the relative talent and execution levels, and a strong pattern suggesting that the Bears will bottle up scoring via sacks and turnovers if they’re notably better than last year, it leaves me high and dry.  But, from the data I have, the Lions should score between 20 and 24 points.  I have low confidence in this prediction.

Mitigating/Augmenting Circumstances

Given that the above section is almost entirely mitigating circumstances, this part seems redundant.  If the Bears are not improved over last season, and the Lions are as improved as we hope they are, the Lions will move the ball at will and score in bunches.  If either of those two conditions are false, this game could be much less exciting, and much more depressing, than we’re expecting.  Sigh.

Mike Martz vs. Gunther Cunningham

Martz

Gun

Ornk

PgG

YpA

YpC

Drnk

PpG

YpA

YpC

PTS

YpA

INT

YpC

Sack

STL

KCC

1th

33.8

8.91

4.81

19th

22.1

6.32

3.83

34

8.48

3

3.30

4-28

The only data point we have is a rough one: deep in the heart of the Greatest Show on Turf, Mike Martz’s offense was the best in the NFL—and one of the best ever.  Scoring 33.8 points per game, averaging an astonishing 8.91 yards per attempt, and Marshall Falk still rolling up 4.81 YpC, this offense was a juggernaut.  Gunther’s defense, meanwhile, was waning in his tenure as Chiefs head coach/DC.  Only the 19th-best scoring defense, allowing 22.1 points per game, they were nonetheless successful in depressing per-play effectiveness in passing and rushing, 6.32 YpA and 3.83 YpC.
When the two teams faced one another, it was a study in averages: Martz’s offense produced exactly to its season mean in points, and very nearly so in YpA.  Now, the Chiefs did manage to bottle up the run game, allowing only 3.3 YpC—and they also snared three interceptions, and garnered four sacks.  Then again, Martz’s offense was notorious for surrendering both picks and sacks in the name of scoring.  So, we only have one data point, and it points toward neither side having a systemic advantage or disadvantage.  The two teams should play to their (relatively unknown) talent and execution levels.
Given that the Lions allowed 30.9 points last season, and given that they’re presumably improved, I’ll presume that they’re presumably good enough to allow the Bears to reach their season averages for 2010—which, of course, is a total guess anyway, since the one thing Martz does everywhere he goes is inflate scoring over the prior year.  Let’s just call it thirty points.  This is a guess and not a prediction, and I have extremely low confidence in it.

Mitigating/Augmenting Influences

Yeesh.  It’d be shorter to list what the data tells us for sure than what it doesn’t.

Conclusion

There are limitations to what past performance can tell us about future performance, and this week I’ve frustratingly hit them.  With a strong trend from last year contradicting itself on Linehan vs. Smith, and no useful data from the other matchup, we’re left with a total crapshoot.  I’ll say that based on extremely weak data, the most likely outcome of the game is close Lions loss, with lots of sacks and turnovers for both sides, and a final score of 24-30.

Read more...

Matthew Stafford’s Day(s) Off

As many outlets have reported, the Lions have been docked two days’ worth of OTA practices for CBA violations.  Specifically, the Lions’ OTA practices exceeded allowed limits for tempo and contact.  This might sound familiar—indeed, the Lions lost two OTA days due to fiesty practices back in 2006, as well. Guessing which player had filed the NFLPA grievance turned into a favorite parlor game for Lions fans, bloggers, and newsmedia.

Ultimately, ProFootballTalk.com reported that Marcus Bell had blown the whistle on Rod Marinelli and the Lions coaches.*  At the time, most observers belonged to one of two camps:

• “If there’s dissension in the ranks, Marinelli’s ‘Pound the Rock’ message is already falling on deaf ears.  ”
• “GOOD!  Those lazy goldbrickers need to be whipped into shape!  Let ‘em whine, the wheat will be separated from the chaff.”

Of course, Marinelli was trying to make an impact.  He was touting himself as a hard worker, a motivator who demanded his player be motivated.  His mission was to cut out the deadwood and have 53 rowers all swinging their invisible pickaxes in harmony, or something.  That all 53 weren’t buying in right off the bat was troubling; wasn’t Rod supposed to be able to get a cat to want to run through a brick wall?  It seemed an ill omen for building a truly cohesive unit.

So, what are we to make of this?  Jim Schwartz, the Grandmaster?  The one whose intellectual approach and meticulous preparation made his name legend amongst the football dorks of the Internet?  How could he be so careless as to violate the rules, even as the Ravens, Raiders, and Jaguars had already been caught?  Indeed, Paula Pasche of the Oakland Press just finished blogging about how Schwartz is too smart, and too careful, to violate the OTA guidelines (and contradicting PFT’s fingering of Marcus Bell in the process).

Nick Cotsonika also just posted a piece explaining the creative lengths Schwartz and company are going to stay on the right side of the law.  Apparently, these lengths weren’t creative enough—or, possibly, were they too creative?  Did a player, or player, decide that flipping and catching a tire was the football equivalent of cruel and unusual punishment? 

More importantly, what does this mean for the Lions and their team chemistry?  This isn’t a lazy, underperforming group going into their first practices under a hardnosed taskmaster.  This is a talented young team, handpicked by Mayhew and Schwartz for their New Era Of Awesome Lions.  Who’s not buying in?  Who’s so disgruntled with Schwartz that they’d go to the NFLPA?  Could this be a sign of the upcoming CBA-pocalypse?  Is this whistleblowing the first shot in the upcoming labor war between Lions players and Lions management?

No.  You see, in the wake of years of tacit, wink-nod slides from non-contact, to kind of a little contact, to mostly-full-speed OTAs, the NFLPA is now reviewing tapes of OTAs.  Apparently, the tempo and contact crossed the line.  There was no whistleblowing.  There is no dissent.  The Grandmaster’s plan is still intact, ready to be executed . . . he’ll just have fewer days to tell the players how to do it.

*UPDATE: At the time of writing, I wasn’t aware that PFT’s report wasn’t the final word on the issue.  Corrected the language to reflect this.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,OTAs,jim schwartz

Read more...

Neither Rain nor Snow nor sleet . . . Post-Draft Mailbag!

Two weeks after the NFL draft, we’ve had some time to digest, to mull, to ruminate . . . and now, I’ll take some time to postulate, regurgitate, and bloviate.  First, two weeks hence, the annual NFL Draft “silly season” seems like a bad nightmare.  People were talking about the Lions dealing for Albert Haynesworth, and the Browns moving up for Sam Bradford, like actual things that might actually happen.  How ridiculous does that seem now?

I've always used this rule of thumb: whatever the "consensus" is two weeks before the draft is most likely what will happen. Therefore:

The Rams will rectify their smoking crater at quarterback, and draft Sam Bradford.

The Lions, despite clearly wanting to trade down, won't have a partner. They'll happily take Ndamukong Suh, they just won't be happy about his contract.

The Buccaneers will giddily take whichever of the DTs makes it out of the top 3.

The Redskins will draft Chris Samuels' eventual replacement, and Jon Jansen's next temporary replacement, at 1.4--either Okung or Williams, whomever they fancy.

The Chiefs will either continue rebuilding their incredible offensive line of the past decade with a left tackle, or address their odious secondary with Eric Berry.

Yeah, pretty much.

I’ve gotten some nice email in the aftermath of the draft, so I figured I’d answer the burning questions while they’re still . . . uh, burning.  First up, Beau asks:

I'm one of those lions fans who was on the not so fired up side of the Best pick. After watching some highlight film I'm trying to have a change of heart. Best seems to have great speed and vision and seems to give 110% every time he touches the ball, but he's just so dang small. I could he him catching a screen or bootleg or even kick returning but an every down between the tackles back??? I'm not so sure. What are your thoughts on Best? How will he be used??

First of all, Jahvid is listed at 5’-10”, 199.  Barry Sanders was generously listed at 5’-8”, 180 [UPDATE: several commenters correctly have cried foul: Barry measured 5'-7 5/8", 203 pounds at the 1989 combine].  Even if Best didn’t have ideal size for an NFL speed back, which he does, I’ve never believed in the generally accepted truism that small backs are injury-prone.  Warrick Dunn spent over a decade running hard between the tackles and rarely got hurt, while big, powerful backs like Brandon Jacobs and Stephen Davis have struggled mightily with injuries.

Kevin Smith is theoretically on track to be completely healthy by the start of the season, but “completely healthy” and “peak form” are two different things.  Silent Bob brings a lunchpail mentality to his job, and he’s been rehabbing hard—but you can’t blow three knee ligaments to shreds at the tail end of one season, and be at the top of your game by the start of the next.  Smith will have a role to play, and an important one—but right now Best is the lead dog, and will be until someone takes that collar from him.

I don’t think Best will get 30 carries a game, but only because that’s not really the way the NFL works anymore.  I could see Best getting 15-25 carries, while Smith gets 5-15 depending on his health, effectiveness, and the game plan.  I could also see the two of them on the field at the same time—and no, not with Smith at fullback.

The next email comes from Daniel, who was completely stoked about the draft:

I was reading some of the latest posts on your site, and obviously saw your writings about the draft. On that point, this is the best I have felt coming out of the draft weekend EVER . . . . These six selections, in addition to our trades, make for a truly excellent draft. It has to be in the running for best in the entire NFL. Here's to the Lions in 2010! RESTORE THE ROAR!!!

I didn't quote the whole email; Daniel (rather effectively) broke down every single pick, and came up with much love for every one of them.  I, honestly, have been more excited about a Lions draft; I was a huge Barry Sanders fan when he was in college; in like second grade I was such an Oklahoma State Cowboy booster I made T. Boone Pickens blush.  When he came to the Lions it was like a decade of unbridled glee.

I had a similar level of stoked-ness after the 2003 draft: Charles Rogers, a kid I went to State with, a dude I’d hung out with, and a phenomenally talented weapon that would be the Marvin Harrison to Joey Harrington’s Peyton Manning.  Boss Bailey, the Next Derrick Brooks; Cory Redding, Shaun Rogers’ former linemate; Artose Pinner, the SEC offensive player of the year, Torry Holt’s little brother, to finally help nail down the secondary . . . I was probably more thrilled after that draft than this one.

Part of it is just my age: at twenty-eight, and a rabid draftnik for the balance, I know that half these guys are going to wash out.  At this time in 2020, Tim Toone could be announcing his retirement after ten-year run as one of the NFL’s best possession receivers, and Ndamukong Suh could be yet another in a line of DL hype balloons long burst: Courtney Brown, Gerard Warren, DeWayne Robertson, Chris Long . . .

I’m not saying that either of those things will happen, or are even likely.  I’m just saying, it’s almost impossible for all six of these players to become significant contributors to the team; it just doesn't happen that way.

Don't get me wrong, I AM excited about this draft, and I DO think the Lions did exceptionally well.  But there are too many questions about Spievey and Fox, and too few picks after Suh and Best, for me to be running naked through the streets about what an incredible, unbelievable, no-doubt-about-it-we-got-six-future-starters draft this was. 

The next question actually comes from the newest Lions blogger, Joe Dexter.  Joe’s not new to Detroit sports blogging—check out Motor City Bengals for some of his past work—but he’s now on the masthead at the SideLion Report!  Via Twitter, Joe asked:

Was there any mind boggling picks that didn't make sense to you considering players still available and team needs?

The Jets' entire draft! Of course, I was infuriated by the Jets snaring Kyle Wilson; a perfect fit for the Lions, and an salve for all of their cornerback wounds.  The Jets already have Darrell Revis and Antonio Cromartie, so either Cro or Wilson will platooning, or they took the most complete corner in the draft to be their nickel guy.  Fellas, I don’t know if you were paying attention, but you got to the AFC Championship game on the strength of your defense, and your beleaguered rookie quarterback won’t even get to use his best weapon until five weeks into the season.

They made up for it a bit with OT/OG Vladimir Ducasse, though he’s a project and they needed an impact player.  But then, Joe McKnight?  With Tomlinson and Greene already in the fold?  Why didn’t they  just hang on to Leon Washington, who’s the same player, only better?

The Chargers letting Tomlinson go, then trading way up for Ryan Mathews, then totally failing to address the interior line was mind-boggling.  Look at how both Tomlinson’s and Sproles’s per-carry numbers fell off the face of the Earth last year, even as Rivers played well and Vincent Jackson finally had that breakout season.  The holes just weren’t there, and they won’t be there for Mathews either.

I have no idea what the Bills are going to do with C.J. Spiller, Fred Jackson, Marshawn Lynch, no quarterback, no offensive line, and a good 4-3 defense's talent playing in a 3-4 alignment.  The Bills then reached for the DT they need but don’t have in the second round . . . we’ve seen how well reaching for rookies in the second round, because they fit your new defensive scheme, works.  This is going to be a total disassembly-and-reassembly by Gailey, and I don’t think anyone believes he’s that kind of a franchise architect.

Jermaine Gresham's a tremendous prospect—but the Bengals' OC, Bob Bratkowski, has absolutely no use for him.  No Bengals TE has caught more than 31 balls since Bratkowski took over signal-calling duties, so what they’re going to do with a pure pass-catching tight end, I don’t know.

Finally, Dustin (@Dustin_aka_D on Twitter) asked:

do you think any of the Millen era coaches could win with the new front office? Were there good coaches in bad situations?

Marty Mornhinweg, many felt at the time, was an up-and-coming young QB coach, on track to become an excellent offensive coordinator, and maybe someday even a head coach—when the Lions hired him as a head coach.  He landed as an offensive assistant in Philly, and slowly moved his way up the ranks to offensive coordinator.  If Kevin Kolb explodes in 2010, Marty Mornhinweg is going to be a hot candidate in 2011 or 2012.

Clearly, however, he was nowhere near ready for the top job back in 2001, and some of his mistakes—like opening traning camp by aping Mike Holmgren’s dramatic Harley ride—were borne of that inexperience.  Since he was only ever a placeholder for Steve Mariucci, I don’t think Mornhinweg could possibly have been a long-term success here at the time . . . but I do think he’ll be either an excellent OC, or a reasonably good head coach, at some point in his career.

Steve Mariucci was an excellent coach, and he absolutely got railroaded here.  His performance was handcuffed to Joey Harrington’s, though, and it’s clear that he had no regard whatsoever for Joey.  You could see, through Mooch’s managing of Harrington and Jeff Garcia, that he thought plugging in Garcia would provide an immediate upgrade, obvious to all—unfortunately, Garcia was hurt, and wasn't that great to begin with.

Ultimately, I think Mooch was a poor fit.  His NFL head coaching success came at San Francisco, at the tail end of the great dynasty.  Everything about the organization dripped class and excellence, and the roster was full of savvy veterans who’d spent their entire careers in the same system Mariucci was coaching.  In Detroit, Mooch did all the little things really, really well . . . but he was given a roster of total greenhorns who had no idea how to play professional football.  The Lions needed a forceful leader and a teaching coach, not a polished professional who trusted his players to be the same.

If *this* front office had hired Mooch?  I think it would have worked.  Look how the front office has gone out and gotten guys like KVB and Burleson, players who were clearly picks of the coaching staff.  Look how they’ve dramatically cleaned house, and addressed obvious needs with right-price players.

There’ve been no “Ooh, shiny!” picks like Boss Bailey—where a pressing need was “addressed” by handing the starting job to the prospect with the best combine numbers.  Further, there’s been no pressure to play the players that were “management picks”.  Note that when Derrick Williams made the least of his opportunities in training camp, he wasn’t promoted to the starting lineup midseason, with a grumpy “no comment” from Schwartz.

Going forward, if Mooch could take over a franchise where the WCO is in place, where he could either sign or draft his starting quarterback, and the front office is both competent and fully behind him, he could make a glorious return.  However, I think he’s come to realize that he’s pretty damned good at this TV analyst thing—and his wife and children, who always preferred life on the Left Coast, are happier this way.  I can’t fault the guy for making that decision.

Rod Marinelli?  I’m told he’s a great defensive line coach.

Technorati Tags: detroit lions,nfl draft,steve mariucci,rod marinelli,marty mornhinweg,jahvid best

Read more...

. . . and so it goes

Detroit News writer John Niyo, amongst others, is reporting that CB Leigh Bodden won't be retained.  Mlive.com's Tom Kowalski has an excellent piece on it here.

Group A: Cory Redding, Kalimba Edwards, Jeff Backus, Dominic Raiola. 

Group B: Roy Williams, Shaun Rogers, Jeff Hartings . . . Leigh Bodden?

Group C: Kevin Jones, Johnnie Morton, Luther Eliss . . . Leigh Bodden?

Much has been made of the Lions' consistently poor drafting.  After all, it seems evident: so few of the many high Lions draft picks are still with the team!  Yet, as bad as the Lions' drafting has occasionally been, I actually don't think the Lions' pattern of first-day failure has been extraordinary.  Go look back through NFL Draft history: every first round, from every year, has some stars, some decent players, quite a few disappointments, and several laugh-out-loud busts.  What slot in the first round you're talking about doesn't matter--I believe the figure most often quoted is that 50% of all first-round picks are busts.  And when you consider that first-rounders are both theoretically the most talented of all draftees, and definitely command the greatest financial commitment from the franchise that drafted them, that means that the other rounds probably have similar--if not higher--percentages of failure.  Think about it, folks: every team invites 80 players to training camp; 2,560 guys enter July with a shot at an NFL job.  By mid-August, that number has gradually shrunk to the 53-man active roster--that's 1,696 real jobs to go around.  The NFL draft is seven rounds long, times 32 teams, plus compensatory picks; let's call it 250 rookies drafted every year.  Plus, most teams bring in 5-15 undrafted free agents.  That means that every year, ~350 kids come looking for one of 1,696 jobs--and many keep coming year after year, bouncing around the CFL, Arena League (now defunct), NFLE (now defunct), XFL (now defunct), UFL (supposedly starting up), and AAFL (supposedly starting up) . . . the vast majority of new hopefuls will spend years trying to break onto an NFL roster.

The question becomes, when will they let the incumbent go?

The Lions' biggest problem, to me, hasn't been the multiple high-profile misses at the top of the first; it's been the inability to identify and retain the talent it does develop.  Look at Group A up above: Cory Redding, Kalimba Edwards, Jeff Backus, and Dominic Raiola.  All were high Lions draft picks.  All of their performances showed both downside and great upside through the duration of their rookie contracts--and for all, the Lions chose to retain them by paying them what they'd be worth at the peak of their upside.  Redding, Edwards, Backus, and Raiola all signed massive extensions, as if they were amongst the best in the league at their position.  And, the truth must be told, all of them had at least flashed that level of on-the-field play at that point.  Even the biggest disappointment of those four, "Kalimbust", had an overlooked-by-most sensational rookie year, highlighted by a game against Atlanta where none other than Mike Vick was unable to escape his relentless pursuit.  These are the players people think about when they assert that the Lions consistently "overpay to keep mediocre talent around".

Let's look at Group B: Roy Williams, Shaun Rogers, and Jeff Hartings.  Each of these three were obvious "hits" from the day they took the field as Lions.  Each reached the highest level of performance right away.  Each had some struggles with either injury, discipline, or inconsistency, and each was either traded or allowed to walk away.  Each has gone on to (or "will go on to"--I'm sorry, but Roy will be sweet in Dallas) great success elsewhere.  These are the players people think about when they assert that the Lions consistently "won't pay to keep good players".

Finally, Group C: Kevin Jones, Johnnie Morton, Luther Eliss.  All Lions first-round picks.  All acheived great success with the Lions, albeit for varying lengths of time.  At the time each was released (or allowed to walk away), Lions fans were stunned.  These were valuable contributors who had productive years in front of them!  Moroever, each individually had many rabid fans amongst the Lions faithful.  To send them packing--and get nothing in return--seemed ridiculous.  And yet . . . Eliss was nothing more than cheap depth in New England.  Johnnie Morton picked up his monstrous paychecks in KC with a mask and a gun.  KJ was a mostly-invisible backup to workhorse rookie Matt Forte in Chicago this year, and will be lucky to ever start again in the NFL.  These are the players nobody ever thinks about, because the Lions got it right.

Notice there's not a group D: players that the Lions took a chance on keeping, and got it right.  Obviously, Morton and Eliss each recieved multiple contracts with the Lions through their veteran careers, but each were clearly productive veterans who had a well-defined role on the team.  It didn't take much talent to decide to extend a perennial Pro Bowl DT in his prime.  Also, the Lions get no cookies for cutting obvious busts like Joey Harrington, Mike Williams, and Charles Rogers.  Instead, look at the way New England tap-dances around their roster:  Wes Welker gets extended, Deion Branch gets shipped off.  Mike Vrabel is kept, Roosevelt Colvin is released.  Production is rewarded, inconsistency punished.  Youth is not seen as a virtue of itself, yet veterans who are too old to produce are treated mercilessly (see: Brown, Troy).  Easy-peasy, right?

Well, no.  Belicheck and Pioli ran circles around the rest of the league in this area for years--and with the billions being thrown around to chase those two, they'd have been caught if it were easy.  Yet, just last year, the Patriots were a dude catching a ball with his helmet away from going 19-0.  

This is the first of the real "crossroads" decisions the Lions' new brass have had to make: Bodden is a young veteran in his prime, and came to the Lions with all the indicators of success--physical tools, confidence, some real time starting, and some real production in that time.  However, it's indisputable that Marinelli's desire for "53 gym rats" didn't mesh with the acquisition of Bodden, that Bodden's skills weren't ideal for the Tampa 2, and that Marinelli's stick-and-bigger-stick approach to motivation did nothing but DE-motivate him.  So a talented, young-but-experienced player at position of desperate need is sent packing, more because of the Lions' mishandling of him than because of his failure to produce.  Make no mistake, though, Bodden DID fail to produce.  If he is half as skilled as he thinks he is, he should have been able to perform better than he did in 2008.  Putting 8.5 million dollars in his pocket, and committing to him for three more years--when he was already publicly dissillusioned with the franchise--certainly seems like a gamble.

So Lewand and Mayhew are put to the test.  Will Bodden be the next Jeff Hartings, a perennial standout for an elite franchise?  Or will he be the next Johnnie Morton--a bitter disappointment to a team that thinks they're getting a standout starter just entering his prime?  At this point, only time will tell.

Read more...

in the bleak midwinter

. . . in black and white.

When I walked out the door into the early morning darkness, the wind was a stinging, bitter smack to the face. After a warm and lovely holiday weekend, where most of the near-foot of accumulated snow and ice melted off, last night Winter came roaring back. A silvery sheen of frost and ice glazed over everything, including my car. After cranking the engine, I began the routine: hacking, scraping, brushing, and scouring the exterior glass—while my car desperately tried to maintain a series of small fires inside a solid metal block chilled to a temperature well below freezing. With the grueling work done, I collapsed into the driver's seat. It was then that the voice on the local sports talk radio station smacked me in the face with an even colder reality: I'm a Lions fan.

On this morning, the morning, the morning where the Lions are now officially the worst team in the history of professional football, I have never been more ashamed, despressed, dejected, and disgusted to be a Lions fan. And yet—I am suprised and pleased to discover that I am still a Lions fan. Despite the snow and wind and bitter, bitter cold, a little blue flame still dances and flickers on the ashes of what was once a roaring fire. So . . . now what?

Since literally before I can remember, I have been a Lions fan. When I four, I went as Billy Sims for Halloween, despite the fact that his knees' connective tissues had long since frayed to nothing. I cherished my little Hutch-brand Lions #20 jersey. Of course, when the Lions eventually drafted Barry Sanders, it was like the best Christmas ever in the middle of April—suddenly instead of being the guy who can't afford a new jersey, I could rep the man who I knew would be the greatest Lion of all time. In 1991, I was ten years old, I nearly broke my thumbs pointing them up for Mike Utley. When the Lions pasted the Cowboys to advance to the NFC Championship, I was delirious for a week. Even getting slaughtered by the Redskins in that championship game 42-10 couldn't entierly erase my joy. The roar, my friends, was RESTORED—and the Lions were a team to be feared!

That was—oh, my God—seventeen years ago. Being a Lions fan has been an excruiciating, tortured, squealing-brakes slide towards this freezing black nadir ever since. The Lions went from being a three-ring-QB circus act surrounding a sublime headline performer, to an explosive offensive team that lost a lot of big games but never failed to entertain, to a painfully mediocre franchise run to be profitable and not to win, to a grand experiment where a "football man" with no management or administrative experience was given the reins to a billion-dollar organization, to Jay Leno's nightly national punchline, to this: the Run to None, 0-16, the worst of all possible seasons, the Lions branded forever as the sorriest excuse ever to pass as an NFL football team.

Head Coach Rod Marinelli: a man who I am convinced—more than any other coach since maybe Vince Lombardi—not only believes, but lives and breathes every single word he says about honesty, integrity, character, effort, and motivation—is fired. He will land somewhere as a defensive line coach, and do an outstanding job. His defensive coordinator and son-in-law Joe Barry, whom Marinelli would rather be fired with than fire, goes with him. The rest of the motley crew, including Joe Cullen, the man who drove through Wendy's drunk and naked and kept his job, Kippy Brown, the wide recievers coach-cum-"passing game coordinator", are gone—save only Jim Colletto, the offensive line coach in offensive coordinator's clothing, who's been . . . de-moted? Re-moted? to OL coach, RB coach Sam Gash, and WR coach Shawn Jefferson.

COO and interim President Tom Lewand—the man who built Ford Field—is now the permanent team President. Assistant and interim GM Martin Mayhew—a former player with a law degree—is now the permanent GM. If you discount everything they did for and with deposed CEO Matt Millen, these two have fairly compelling resumés. Mayhew had the second half of a regular season, the worst possible time of year for a GM to show his stuff, to show his stuff. In that time, he consummated a jaw-dropper of a trade that has netted the Lions the 1.17 and 3.17 for a WR who has mostly coasted on YouTube clips and a gift for gab for the last two seasons. He also signed Duante Culpepper to do one thing—keep Drew Stanton off the field—and at that he was entirely successful. He also comes with a ringing endorsement from the best in the business, Colts GM Bill Polian.

Those who were hoping that William Clay Ford, Sr. (the man I like to call Big Willie Style) would either launch a month-long campaign to hire a brilliant young personnel man from some other organization, or park a Brinks truck full of gazillions of dollars in the driveway of Scott Pioli, haven't been paying attention to how Big Willie Style rolls. Like Marinelli, the only quality WCF possesses more of than stubbornness is loyalty. Ford was never going to "clean house"; he did that when he brought in Millen and it got him this. WCF looks backwards, not forwards—and what he sees in Lewand and Mayhew are two men who have performed very well for him, and together they are going to start a search for a new coach.

So . . . now what? Literally any direction from this point forward is up. Yet it seems like after three years of "stirring the concrete", while the foundation has not been laid, the hole for it has been dug. The deadwood has been cut (or traded) from the roster, many valuable role players have been found and polished, and the team looks like exactly the team Rod Marinelli wanted to build: Fifty-three men who all work hard, love the game, fight for sixty minutes, and Pound the Rock. The problem is, they suck. For everyone who's ever said, "I'll take 53 Wes Welkers on MY team", well, behold the results! Without superlative talent at key positions, without rare combinations of size, strength, and speed up front, without at least mediocre scheming, gameplanning, and adjustments, in the NFL you are bringing a knife to a gunfight. It is an absolute testament to Marinelli's coaching ability that this team fought tooth and tail to the bitter, bitter end. So what do you need to do? Add talent. This roster is full of guys you'd LOVE to have, just one notch down on the depth chart. Leigh Bodden would make an outstanding #2 corner. Paris Lenon can back up SSLB and MLB with equal aplomb. Mike Furrey is an absolute mismatch against any nickel corner. Dewayne White would be a monster SSDE, Jeff Backus is a Pro Bowl guard, etc. etc. etc. It seems like this team simply needs to add a few frontline starters in a few key positions, and they'd be competitive. And look at this draft! The Lions will have their pick of the litter at 1.1, and still have two more picks in the following 32. Three more in the two rounds after that—that's five picks in the first three rounds! As the staggering contracts of Joey Harrington, Charles Rogers, Mike Williams, and Roy Williams roll off the books, there will in fact be plenty of cap room to try and plug some holes. And yet, and yet . . . 0-16.

In a league where parity has been the watchword since the late, great Pete Rozelle took the reins and made the NFL into the all-consuming national obsession it is today, the Detroit Lions have failed to win a single game. There is absolutely no excusing or dismissing that fact. At 0-1, it was surprising. At 0-3, it was shocking. At 0-6, it was infuriating . . . somewhere in between there and here, the mind numbed. The senses failed. The apathy set in. A fanbase that had doggedly supported their team for exactly 75 years, with the last 50 of them a nearly unbroken string of futility and mediocrity, finally began to abandon ship. The Lions have played their home games this year entombed in a hollow jewel of a stadium. The atmosphere has been that of a memorial service; fans were showing up not to cheer, but to mourn the passing of something dear to them. Some have 'written off' the Lions, some 'are done' with the Lions, many more have sworn off spending any more of their hard-earned dollars supporting Ford's folly, and a few have even decided to find "new favorite teams". I don't blame them.

But me? I'm a fan. I was born a fan, and I will die a fan. The hooting and derision of the American sports culture has set my resolve. I'm sick of getting snickers on the football-y corners of the Internet. I'm sick of getting reaction takes when I wear Lions gear around town. I've thought about starting this blog for years, but this morning I knew that today was the day. I've pulled my hood tight, I've loaded up the sled with wood, and I've got fuel and spark to spare. I'm going to reclaim my Lions pride. I'm going to fan that little blue flame into the great big bonfire it ought to be, and nobody's going to be prouder than me when thousands are once again carrying torches to rally behind this team.

Read more...