Watchtower Review: Lions vs. Packers

 

It’s nearly a week after the fact.

It doesn't feel any better.

I couldn't complete the ritual healing of the Fireside Chat on Sunday night, despite my best efforts. My struggles with my DSL connection provided an apt metaphor for the Lions’ struggles against the refs, injuries, and their own failures. The talent was there, the effort was there, but they shot themselves in the foot and circumstances conspired to prevent them from recovering.

Though I did file my weekly “The Absolutely Worst of the NFL” column for B/R, I didn’t post here yesterday. I’m up to my eyeballs in film, studying what went wrong and how the Lions can fix it. I’m also studying Ndamukong Suh’s claims that he was mugged, and also the bizarre inconsistency in officiating. In the meantime, let’s have a look at that Watchtower.

When Scott Linehan offenses meet Dom Capers defenses, something very interesting happens. It’s one of the strongest statistical trends that has ever cropped up in The Watchtower. First, the Linehan offenses tend to rush much better than expected. Second, they tend to outperform scoring expectations as a result. Third, and most interestingly, quarterback runs are wildly more successful than usual.

Might the Lions draw up some surprise quarterback draws for Stafford? Or, might he scramble for some yardage? It’s something to keep an eye on.

Well, at least that part held up. Stafford scrambled for a career-high 31 yards, including a career long of 21, on a tied-for-career-high four rushing attempts. That and six dollars will get me a latté these days.

It’s hard to project Kevin Smith to repeat his NFL Offensive Player of the Week performance, or anywhere close, on Thursday. But his dramatic welcome-back party plays right into the Lions’ hands. With a back that can take advantage of the Lions’ systemic advantage, the Lions should exceed nominal expectations.

Therefore, I project the Lions to score 33-35 points, passing for 7.0-7.50 YpA and rushing for 4.75-5.0 YpC. I have very high confidence in this projection.

Or, you know, Kevin Smith could go out in the first quarter with a high ankle sprain . . .

Actually, that didn't have much effect on the game. Between Smith, Maurice Morris, Keiland Williams and Nate Burleson, the Lions racked up 136 rushing yards on just 21 attempts, a per-carry average of 6.48 yards. This wasn’t a Javhid-Best-against-the-Bears YpC average inflated by one length-of-the-field scamper, either. The Lions were legitimately running it down the Packers’ throats.

Once again, we see the schematic advantage. When Scott Linehan offenses face Dom Capers defenses, they run wild. It happens every single time.

Passing, not so much. The Lions gained 276 yards on 45 pass attempts, a 6.13 YpA average. Maurice Morris led all Lions with nine receptions. Burleson was second, with five. Calvin Johnson, Brandon Pettigrew, and Keiland Williams all had four. Kevin Smith caught three, Tony Scheffler two, and Titus Young one. Seeing a pattern here?

The Lions played it very, very very close to the vest. Against the Panthers, Stafford followed the mantra of “settle down and execute the offense” I’d been chanting for the previous month—and it served him very well. Against the Packers, his fear of turnovers (or the coaches’ fear of turnovers) turned “settling down” into “going into a shell.”

Against the Packers, the Lions more-or-less abandoned the downfield pass, settling for slants and curls and ankle-biting. If this had actually resulted in a turnover-free performance, the Lions would have won this game. Instead, a batted ball, a picked pocket, and a combination underthrow/mad linebacker hops hurt the Lions like they took bomb-it-downfield risk, with no bomb-it-downfield reward.

The defense gets sacks, gets turnovers, stiffens up on third down, and gets stops. This is doubly true when the offense isn’t going three and out, or turning it over right back, and the coverage units aren’t allowing scores. On Thanksgiving, the Lions’ defense will need the Lions offense to help them get it done.

Without any systemic advantage, I would expect the Packers to slightly outperfom their season average against the 19th-ranked defense. Taking the strong systemic advantage into account, I project the Packers offense to score 27-30 points, passing for 7.00-7.50 YpA and rushing for 4.25-4.50 YpC. I have medium-high confidence in this projection.

This is eerily similar to the very first Packers Watchtower, where my expectations of the Packers’ offensive output was right on the nose, while Daunte Culpepper and Drew Stanton combined for three interceptions and zero points. In both cases, if the offense hadn’t thrown three picks, the defense would have dramatically outperformed expectations.

The Lions defense did a magnificent job against the Packers, holding them to just 86 yards in the first half. Gradually, all four active Lions cornerbacks, plus safety Louis Delmas, went out with injuries. At one point, At one point, #5 safety (and special teams ace) John Wendling was in at cornerback, and WR Rashied Davis was playing safety. With all Lions secondary hands on deck, Aaron Rodgers started moved the ball well with quick passes to the outside—and his targets started to make hay after the catch.

With the secondary in tatters, Rodgers and the Packers passed for 9.30 YpA. Though they rushed for only 2.94 YpC, the Packers scored 27 offensive points, right on the button with my projections. Still, the defense has to be commended for this shorthanded effort in a game where their offense (and one of their own) hung them out to dry.

Read more...

Three Cups Deep: Winning Like the Packers

Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers. Congratulations to Aaron Rodgers, MVP. Congratulations to Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson, a great coach and a fantastic franchise architect. Congratulations to all the awesome Packer bloggers, through whom I’ve been living vicariously throughout the playoffs. Most of all, congratulations to the Packers’ owners: their fans.

Last season, I wrote a post called “Winning Like the Saints.” In it, I talked about how the NFL is a copycat league—but they often copy wrong. When the Dolphins deployed the Wildcat, they were wildly successful; most teams in the NFL spent the next summer experimenting with some sort of Wildcat or Pistol formation. The Dolphins’ use of the Wildcat, though, was an intelligent response to a desperate situation: they weren’t winning games, and needed a way to maximize their only talent advantage: two strong tailbacks. The reason they went to the Wildcat is because most teams don’t have two strong tailbacks.

The way to copycat the Dolphins was not to “run the Wildcat” with whoever was on the roster, but to have smart coaches who’ll schematically maximize the talent they have. The Saints were a perfect example:

Think about it. What did Drew Brees do so well at Purdue? Pick defenses apart with short-range passes out of multi-WR sets. As a conventional quarterback in San Diego, he was at best inconsistent and at worst a failure. In New Orleans, Sean Payton asks him to do only what he’s excellent at; people think Brees is now “better” than Peyton Manning, which flatly isn’t true.

Sean Payton figured out that Reggie Bush is Kevin Faulk, not Marshall Faulk, and employs him in only in that role—to great success. Payton figured out that Robert Meacham is a short-yardage monster, and employs him in that role—to great success. Payton knew that with his fast-scoring, high-powered offense, he needed an aggressive, blitzing defense that could protect a lead. He hired hyperaggressive DC Gregg Williams to install such a defense, even though he had to give up $250,000 of his own money to do so!

Ironically the Dolphins, having found a way to maximize their talent, latched onto it as their offensive identity. They began reaching for marginal players that fit the scheme, rather than continuing to adapt and respond. This season, their powerful offense fizzled out, as the no-longer-novel Wildcat failed to surprise—and the relative lack of talent prevented the Dolphins from running a conventional offense well. Head coach Tony Sparano was nearly replaced by Jim Harbaugh as a result. Sparano’s eventual extension came hand-in-hand with the departure of Dan Henning—the offensive coordinator who implemented the Wildcat to begin with.

Don’t this next bit wrong: I don’t mean to demean the Packers’ coaching staff. Mike McCarthy is respected schemer, instrumental in getting the most out of both Favre and Rodgers—and, we’re now finding out, he’s a gifted motivator as well. Further, DC Dom Capers’s long track record of innovation and success is well-known, and his defense was magnificent this year. However, this Super Bowl belongs to Ted Thompson.

Thompson, the Packers’ GM, has long been a target of criticism—not least of which from Packers fans—because he approaches team-building in an unconventional way. His first major moves as GM were to let perennial All-Pros Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, and Darren Sharper walk. His first draft pick was Aaron Rodgers, after the top quarterback prospect fell all the way to the 24th pick. Thompson continued to draft for value, build slowly, refuse to re-sign aging veterans for a penny more than he valued them at, and—with a notable exception in Charles Woodson—eschew free agency almost entirely. It was a long, slow process, that was successful in maddening fits and starts: 4-12, 8-8, 13-3, 6-10, 11-5.

It must be (and has) been said: Thompson had the temerity to sent Brett Favre packing when it was time. Thompson had the confidence in McCarthy and Rodgers to make the correct move for the franchise. When the first season of the Rodgers Era ended with a 6-10 record, and he was asked about coaching staff changes, Thompson replied, “That’s not my bailiwick.” When the Packers’ offensive line again struggled badly to protect Rodgers at the start of 2009, the tide of public sentiment fully turned. Aaron Nagler of Cheesehead TV, up until then one of his most faithful supporters, vehemently outlined Thompson and McCarthy’s failures.

Of course, the very next game, Daunte Culpepper "led" the Lions into Lambeau, and the slaughter that ensued kicked off a 9-3 run to the playoffs. However, a notable undercurrent of anti-Thompson sentiment still ran through the Packers’ fanbase. I repeatedly encountered Pack fans on blogs and Twitter and elsewhere who were convinced McCarthy was the right guy—but successful in spite of Thompson’s lackadaisical talent management. “firetedthompsonnow.com” was registered in March of 2010 . . .

. . . now, all that’s hosted there is a picture of Thompson, overlaid by the words “I’m not afraid to admit it. I was wrong. Congrats Ted.” Thompson’s vindication comes not only in the winning of a championship with Aaron Rodgers, while Favre sits at home, disgraced, but in the Packers doing it with the bottom half of their roster. The Pack’s stunning injury losses, and subsequent triumph, proved the top-to-bottom quality of the house Thompson’s built.

So, how do you win “like the Packers”? It’s not by having a #1-overall-pick-caliber quarterback fall into your lap at the bottom of the first, making him wait three years to play, or pushing his veteran superior out the door. It’s not by having a raft of intelligent, talented, hardworking receiving targets. It’s not by deploying a multiple-look 3-4 defense,  or having two great complementary cornerbacks. You win “like the Packers” by building the roster through the draft. You win “like the Packers” by refusing to compromise your long-term vision with stopgap solutions. You win “like the Packers” by refusing to pay a player more than he’s worth, for any reason. You win “like the Packers” by meticulously building a championship-caliber roster, that rolls 53 men deep.

Martin Mayhew is not Ted Thompson. He lacks Thompson’s public idiosyncrasies. He’s been slightly more cognizant of immediate need—see Foote, Larry—and is okay with stopgaps for the right price. Thompson has been judicious in signing players, while Mayhew has churned the roster with incredible vigor: literally hundreds of players have been a Lion for at least a day since Mayhew took over. Then again, Thompson didn’t start with a truly talentless, 0-16 team—who knows what Ted’s approach would have been in Martin’s place?

On the whole, though, Mayhew’s strategy has been much like Thompson’s: the Lions have built their current roster almost entirely through the draft. When they’ve reached into free agency, they’ve been swift and decisive; as in the brilliant all-in move for Kyle Vanden Bosch. The Lions have also refused to pay more than they feel a player is worth. Foote’s arrival was delayed because the Lions refused to part with any more than a seventh-rounder for him. When the Steelers insisted on more, the Lions called their bluff—and got Foote for nothing when the Steelers released him.

Over this offseason, look for both men to stay the course: drafting the best player that fits a need, making judicious moves when the value is there, and being willing to part with unneeded parts. Between the Packers’ injured players coming back, and the Lions’ third full offseason of reconstruction, both teams will be in position to win several more games than they did this year—and both teams will be built to last.

Strap yourselves in, folks--this is going to be a hell of a ride.

Technorati Tags: nfl,super bowl xlv,green bay packers,ted thompson,mike mccarthy,aaron rodgers,detroit lions,martin mayhew,miami dolphins,tony sparano

Read more...

The Super Bowl, the Hall of Fame, and Greatness

                     

Yesterday, the 2011 induction class of the Pro Football Hall of Fame was announced. Today, the Packers and Steelers will play in Super Bowl XLV. At stake is the Lombardi trophy, a championship ring, and a slice of greatness. With a spectacular performance—or even a single spectacular play—any of the 90 men active for this game has the chance to write his name in the history books. Whether it’s an also-ran like David Tyree, or a young veteran like Santonio Holmes, or a superstar like Peyton Manning, the Super Bowl provides a direct path to football immortality.

The Hall of Fame, though, is football immortality, literally. Once a player’s bust is enshrined, it’s not ever coming out—and future generations, whether they know that player as a legend or don’t know him at all, will be see that bust and know that he was great. Not just good, not just very good, but great . . . right?

When players are on the cusp of induction, we often hear the phrase “It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good.” Usually, we hear it immediately before someone says a consistently good, but never dominant, player shouldn’t be in the Hall. There’s something that bugs me about that phrase, though: the semantic difference between a “very good player” and a “Hall of Famer” isn’t greatness . . . it’s fame. It may not be the Hall of Very Good, but it’s not the Hall of Great, either.

On Saturday evening, my tweep @derylgarland linked me to a brand-spanking-new football blog, “Outside the Hashes.” The author, Monte McNair, wrote an awesome piece called “The Championship Myth” where he discusses the tenuous link between playoff game boxscores and a player’s relative worth:

People tend to react to an outcome retroactively as if it were a certainty, when we live in a world of probabilities. Brady started his postseason career a perfect 10-0, but is just 4-5 in his last 9 games. Did he instantly turn from a clutch performer into a middling playoff QB? No, it is much more likely that Brady was simply the recipient of some good luck early on (think the Tuck Rule game) and the victim of bad luck more recently (two words: Helmet Catch).

Those of you who’ve been reading for a while know that this is a big thing with me. All season long, the Lions were playing much better than their record would indicate, they just weren’t catching the breaks, just weren’t closing the deal. They weren’t playing dramatically better at the end of the season, but the breaks started going their way. Was there some element of “learning how to win?” Possibly, but given the massive injuries the Lions suffered to critical areas, I doubt that “learning how to win” turned them from 4th-quarter stooges to ice-blooded assassins in the span of a single season.

Likewise, Peyton Manning has demonstrated that he is an elite quarterback over the past 13 seasons. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, he is one of the best in the game—and by the time he’s finished, he’ll be considered one of the best ever. Yet, over the past two seasons—despite having won a Super Bowl with this Colts team not long ago—we’re hearing mutters about Peyton’s inability to get it done when it counts. As McNair wrote:

I have already touched on how randomness alone can affect an outcome. Now we see how tangible factors such as teammates, coaches, and opponents are also responsible for the final result of a game. Just two weeks ago, Peyton Manning led the Colts down the field for a field goal to take the lead. Had that lead held, he would have received a disproportionate amount of credit for “willing” his team to victory, despite the fact that his line blocked, his receivers caught passes, and Adam Vinatieri made a field goal from over 50 yards out. Of course, Antonio Cromartie returned the ensuing kickoff near midfield and the Jets ended up pulling out the victory. Manning didn’t even step on the field, yet went from hero to goat in under a minute. The answer, of course, lies somewhere in the middle.

The narrative of Super Bowl XLV has already been framed: a battle of two great young quarterbacks. Ben Roethlisberger is playing for redemption, playing to win his first Super Bowl MVP award in three tries. Aaron Rodgers, playing Luke Skywalker to Brett Favre’s Anakin, is trying to become a Jedi master in his own right. Whoever hoists the Lombardi Trophy will climb further up the historical quarterback ranks. In reality, this game is more about two of the NFL’s best defenses, which team’s pass rush can more often hit home, and which team’s secondary can more effectively neutralize the opponents’ receiving threats.

This is not to take away from the quarterbacks—they really are two of the best in the game, and these games will indeed play a significant role in how we, the fans remember their careers. Depending on how things play out, this game could be the first bullet point on their Hall of Fame resume, or a major blow to their Canton hopes.

But no matter what happens, let’s not discount what either Rodgers or Roethlisberger has done this season. They’ve both had outstanding statistical years, despite both being asked to carry their offense almost singlehandedly. They’re already two of the best quarterbacks in the business, and—knock on wood—they each have much more football left to play. For them, today could be the day when they secure their their place amongst the most famous quarterbacks of all time . . . but we can already see that they’re great.

Technorati Tags: nfl,super bowl,super bowl xlv,aaron rodgers,ben roethlisberger,hall of fame,pro football hall of fame

Read more...

Three Cups Deep: The Pack Continues to Go; Go

Two weeks ago, I wrote that I’d decided to root for the Packers during these playoffs. That got an interesting mix of comments, with several proclaiming they’d never root for the Packers, or any division rival. This morning, the talk radio airwaves were burning up with people saying they’d never root for the Packers (and/or totally would have gutted out Jay Cutler’s MCL sprain, because they’d have won States if Coach had put them in in the fourth).

I’ve often ranted in this space about how I prefer pro football to college.  Here, though, is where college football wins out. First, rivals are rivals, regardless of record. I detest the Vikings  for a variety of reasons, but I’ve always had a begrudging respect for the Packers—fan owned, outdoor stadium, Titletown, Lombardi, Starr, Favre, etc. I love that in a league of teams in big cities, a tiny Wisconsin town can still build a perennial winner out of pure will. The Bears were flatly the coolest team in the world when I was a little kid, and just as steeped in history as Green Bay. I don’t particularly like the Bears now, especially with Martz and Marinelli calling the plays--but I have a hard time mustering real venom.

Rivalries, in professional sports, are either handed down through the generations (like Cubs/Cardinals), spring up when multiple coaches and players leave from one team to the other (Patriots/Jets), or blossom out of repeated contests with something big on the line (Red Wings/Avalanche).  Unfortunately, unless it’s the first type, the rivalry fades away.  Players move on, teams’ fortunes wax and wane, and meaningless games become hard for even the fans to get up for.  The Lions haven’t played the Packers with anything on the line since the early Nineties, and the games have been mostly uncontested since then . . . until this year.

One of the reasons I'm rooting Pack this season, is that the rivalry is about to rekindle.  The Lions took them to the final minutes in Lambeau this year, and beat them at home this year.  The Lions’ time is beginning, and this rivalry is going to mean something again, soon. As I’ve said, I want the cool players (like Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings and Donald Driver and Charles Woodson and . . .) and cool fans to get to the mountaintop before the Lions knock them down.  Think of it this way: if the Packers are the reigning Super Bowl champions next season, taking the division crown from them will mean that much more.

Technorati Tags: nfl,green bay packers,detroit lions

Read more...

The Watchtower: Lions at Packers

The Lions find themselves in a desperate position.  Having lost three difficult, but winnable games to open the season, they travel to Green Bay to face their most toughest test yet.  Oh, and stop me if you’ve heard this one before, but the Lions haven’t won at Lambeau since 1991.  Vince Workman scored all of Green Bay’s touchdowns in that game.  Mel Gray took a punt to the house.  The Lions finished the season 12-4, and the Packers limped to a 3-12 record.  Shortly thereafter, the first President Bush authorized the first attack of the first Gulf War.

The Packers have dominated the Lions to an almost mythic degree; I’d love to know if there’s a similar streak at any level of any team sport.  Eighteen seasons without a road win, against a divisional rival?  Unthinkable—and yet, here we are, and there they are.  Let’s do this.

Mike McCarthy vs. Gunther Cunningham

McC	Gun	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	YpA	INT	YpC	Fum	Sack
NOS	TEN	14	21.2	6.43	4.46	29th	27.2	8.05	4.62	12	8.04	0	1.53	3-2	3-20
NOS	KCC	14	21.8	6.62	3.96	16th	20.3	6.58	4.10	27	9.59	1	5.83	2-0	4-19
GBP	DET	3rd	28.8	7.56	4.30	32nd	30.9	5.42	4.42	26	9.68	1	3.57	3-1	5-30
GBP	DET	3rd	28.8	7.56	4.30	32nd	30.9	5.42	4.42	34	8.92	0	2.96	2-2	1-6

The first Watchtowering of the Packers led me to the following conclusion:

Given equal or greater talent, Gunther Cunningham’s aggressive 4-3 disproportionately disrupts Mike McCarthy’s downfield flavor of the Bill Walsh offense. Given lesser talent, Gunther’s 4-3 will cap offensive production with sacks and turnovers, even while allowing better-than-average offensive effectiveness between the 20s.

What happened in that first game?  As I crowed in the Watchtower for the November Lions-Packers matchup:

• The Packers scored 26 points, which exactly matched their average on the season to that point.
• Aaron Rodgers completed 29 of 37, for a whopping 358 yards (and 9.68 yards per attempt!).
• Rodgers, however, was sacked five times, and intercepted once. The Lions also forced three fumbles, recovering one.
• Rodgers passed for only two touchdowns, and those were on the first two drives (one of which started on the Lions' 17).
• The Packers as a whole did not score a touchdown after cashing in on the opening-drive Culpepper turnover.

This is exactly what the trend predicted: with lesser talent, Gunther Cunningham’s defense held the Packers to their norms for the season with sacks and turnovers—despite being victimized for great chunks of yardage between the 20s.  However, over the course of the season, the Packers’ offense had picked up steam—and the Lions had suffered their usual rash of secondary losses.  My conclusion:

One would expect the Packers to significantly outperform their season averages—that is, score well over 26 points, and gain passing and rushing yards at a pace well over their typical per-play average. However, if we apply the systemic advantage it appears Gunther Cunningham’s aggressive defenses have against Mike McCarthy’s offense, scoring should be somewhere above the Lions’ allowed average—the Packers are a well-above-average offense—but below, like, a zillion points. Meanwhile, the Pack should be able to move between the 20s more or less at will.

Therefore, the Packers should score 34-38 points, pass for 9.00-10.00 YpA, and run for 4.50-4.75 YpC. I have very high confidence in this prediction.

At first blush, this was once again spot-on: the Packers scored 34 points.  However, one of those touchdowns came on a Charles Woodson interception return; the Packers’ offense was only responsible for 27 of those 34 points.  YpA was 8.92, just under the lower bound of my projection, but running?  That was held to a meager 2.96 YpC.  Given that the Lions also held the Packers to 3.57 YpC in the first meeting (their season average was 4.30), this is an interesting trend.

It’s tempting to suggest that the Packers were not running well because the pass offense was working—but the Packers rushed 30 and 27 times in the two games.   It’s further tempting to suggest that the Packers were merely “putting it in the cooler,” but the score of the second game was 13-7 at halftime; it didn’t become a blowout until the middle of the third.  Don’t forget, the Lions were allowing 4.42 YpC on the ground last year; this was not a stout run defense.  Clearly, there’s something systematic depressing Packer rushing yardage, even when the defense should be coming in terrified of the aerial assault.

The Packers are coming off a brutal Monday Night Football loss, where reserve tailbacks John Kuhn and Brandon Jackson combined for 43 yards on 13 carries; the 3.31 YpC a clear indicator that they miss starter Ryan Grant.  Moreover, the willingness to completely abandon the run shows the Packers are well aware of what they do well, and what they do not.

One thing they do very, very well is get the ball to Jermichael Finley, who’s got 17 receptions for an incredible 265 yards.  I expect the Packers to try to exploit this advantage, especially given the Lions’ weakness at outside linebacker (even with the return of Zack Follett) and safety (C.C. Brown, anyone?).

In terms of the data, things are ever-so-slightly less bleak for the Lions this year.  The Packers boast the 4th-ranked scoring offense, racking up points at at 26.0 PpG clip; the Lions are allowing points at the exact same rate, 26.0 PpG.  The expectation would be that the Packers will score well above their average.  But with the Lions possessing a systemic advantage against the Packers’ already injury-weakened running game, and in depressing the Packers’ scoring, I project the Pack will fall just short of their season average, scoring 24-27 points.  I have very high confidence in this projection.

Given the depth and specificity of the data we’ve got, and the special circumstances surrounding the matchup, I’ll take the opportunity to get a little more specific: I cite my Whack-A-Mole principle, and project that the Lions will concede the run to the Packers, allowing 3.75-4.0 YpC, in order to focus primarily on the pass, which should yield 7.5-8.25 YpA.  Further, I predict the Lions will sack the Packers four to six times.

Mitigating/Augmenting Factors:

I’ve mostly covered the whys and wherefores above.  If the Lions’ pass rush can’t hit home, they will have a devil of a time depressing scoring; the Packers will likely throw it fifty times against an extremely susceptible back seven.  Rodgers, however, is not known for getting rid of it quickly, and an extra step for KVB, Avril, Suh, and Williams to get there may make all the different in the world.  The possibility exists that the Lions’s pass rush actually drives a better-than-expected performance here; with no effective running game and nothing to lose, I expect Cunningham to be extremely aggressive.

On the other had, we are talking about Rodgers, Jennings, Finley, Driver, et al., in Lambeau.  The scoring could also get completely out of hand.  I’m pretty confident in these numbers, though.

Scott Linehan vs. Dom Capers

Lin	Capers	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	YpA	INT	YpC	Fum	Sack
MIN	HOU	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	21st	19.3	6.89	3.92	34	7.92	0	4.69	0-0	3-8
STL	MIA	30th	14.5	5.67	3.95	21st	21.6	6.61	2.35	12	4.26	3	4.30	0-0	0-0
DET	GBP	24th	18.1	5.60	3.91	12th	20.3	6.17	4.46	0	4.20	3	4.33	2-0	5-34
DET	GBP	32nd	30.9	7.80	4.42	7th	18.6	5.96	3.59	12	4.95	4	3.17	1-1	2-14

In the first Packers Watchtower, I made some pretty big statements, based on the performance of the Lions against 3-4 defenses of Capers-like lineage:

Let's look briefly at the scorched-earth napalming that Linehan's 6th-ranked Vikings offense put on Dom Capers' 21st-ranked Texans defense. 34 points, 7.92 YpA, 4.69 YpC. Culpepper was 36-of-50 for 396 yards, 5 TDs, and 0 INTs. Vikings backs ran 26 times for 122 yards. It probably would have been worse if the Vikes hadn't been flagged 10 times for 75 yards. Given the only data point on LeBeau, and fitting it into the broader picture painted by the Capers and Williams info, I think I'm safe to say that Scott Linehan's balanced offense significantly outperforms expectations against aggressive, blitzing 3-4 defenses like LeBeau's.

. . . As we've seen with Gregg Williams and Dick LeBeau, Scott Linehan's balanced, conventional offense is disproportionately successful against an aggressive, blitzing 3-4. This will be the third such defense that the Lions face, and they've outperformed averages against the two prior units. If Kevin Smith is his usual, steady self, and Matt Stafford is able to play, I expect the Lions to score between 24-28 points.

Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  Bupkus.  Donut.  Shutout.  Matthew Stafford did not play, Daunte Culpepper was Culpepperific in the extreme, and the Lions didn’t score a single point.  They passed (4.20 YpA) no more effectively as they ran (4.20 YpC), and they answered the Packers’ opening drive TD with an interception that was converted into a second touchdown.  They were down by 14 within minutes of the opening gun, and never got anything going after that.

The second time around, I learned my lesson:

I have to project this based on the assumptions that Daunte Culpepper and Bryant Johnson will be starting in the stead of the newly-christened avatar of the Lions franchise and, arguably, the most dangerous downfield threat in football. Given the way the Packers defense has been playing (12-ranked scoring defense!), this is an insurmountable challenge.

Even accounting for the systemic advantage I still believe a fully realized Linehan offense has against a Capers-style 3-4, the Lions should meet, or slightly underperform, their season averages: 14-17 points, 5.25-5.50 YpA, and 3.85-4.15 YpC.

Underperform they did, netting 10 offensive points (2 more came from a safety), gaining 4.95 YpA, and rushing for 3.17 YpC.  Clearly, I was still either overestimating the effect size of the Linehan/Capers thing, or overestimating expectations of the 27th-best scoring offense when facing the 7th-best scoring defense.  I think I’ll assume the former for now, and adjust my predictions downward—especially since Stafford will still be out, Burleson will be out, and Best will be far from full-speed.

The Lions’ offense is a sight better from last season, even with Shaun Hill at the helm.  Ranked 18th, and averaging 18.7 PpG (not counting Megatron’s wiped-out TD), the Lions go up against a similarly-stingy Packer defense this time around.  Green Bay’s still ranked 7th, allowing a mere 15.7 PpG, and holding opposing quarterbacks to only 5.47 YpA.  However, the Packers are getting gashed for 5.00 YpC . . . it’s not helping opposing teams much, but Green Bay is not stopping anyone on the ground right now.

Given the season averages so far, and taking into account (but not overemphasizing) the systemic advantage Scott Linehan has against Dom Capers, I project the Lions to mildly outperform expectations, meeting or falling just short of their season averages: 15-20 points, 5.50-to-6.00 YpA, and 4.00 YpC.  I have medium to high confidence in this projection.

Mitigating/Augmenting Factors:

If Jahvid Best were healthy, I could see him really catching fire against the Packers’ substandard run defense.  If that happened, the secondary could be drawn closer to the line, opening up opportunities downfield.  But even if so, could the Lions capitalize without Stafford and/or Burleson?  Further, Best isn’t healthy; even if he plays it will be with a high degree of pain.  Unfortunately, that's the only chink in this doomy armor I can find.

Conclusion

I'd love to say that this Packer team, struggling so mightily to run and stop the run, is primed for an upset.  But the talent gap between these teams is still too large, especially when considering the almost-two-decade-long streak of Lambeau futility the Lions are riding.  I project another tantalizingly close game, with an outstanding day by the defensive line—marred by the back seven yielding to one of the best passing attacks in the game.  This will be an extremely painful 17-24 defeat.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,green bay packers,the watchtower,jim schwartz,gunther cunningham,scott linehan,mike mccarthy,dom capers,matthew stafford,jahvid best,shaun hill,aaron rodgers

Read more...