With Great Potential, Great Expectations

My car, nominally a Pontiac Vibe but functionally a garbage scow, needed to be cleaned out.  I drove to a car wash and began the process, in traditional “open up all the doors and crank the radio” fashion.  Only, instead of 80s metal or 00s hip hop, I cranked Ryan Ermanni on WDFN.  The host was setting the bar for the Lions—but did it in an interesting way.  He not only set a minimum number of wins, seven, he specified when they must win their games: at the beginning of the year.

I flashed back to my last post about expectations for the Lions' 2010 season:

The Detroit Lions are facing a similar crossroads. After the incredible burden of 0-16, the glorious celebration when that burden was cast off, and two straight offseasons of talent addition, the Lions cannot go into this season hoping to win a single game, or even win a game or two more than last. No, the Lions have assembled a talented roster, with legitimate talent on both sides of the ball. The veterans will be expected to play as they have, and the youngsters will be expected to produce up to their potential. A 3-13 season will be a disappointment, not a thrilling sign of what's to come.

In sports, expectations are a huge part of fandom.  There’s no clearer example of this than the most recent Super Bowl: New Orleans set up a massive Super Bowl parade—regardless of whether the Saints won or lost.  Meanwhile, when the Colts returned to Indianapolis, they were met by a crowd of . . . eleven fans.  Even if the Saints hadn’t brought home the Lombardi, they were far and away the best team NOLA had ever seen.  Meanwhile, Peyton and the Colts have set the bar quite high for themselves over the past decade or so—and last season, anything but a championship felt like a disappointment.

There are generational expectations, bars set by great epochs of success, spanning many players, coaches, and executives: the Yankees, the Lakers, the Steelers.  These fan bases simply assume they’ll be contending for titles year after year, and are livid when they don’t.  It’s these kind of expectations that lead Michigan fans to snarl that Michigan State football will never supercede Michigan football, “no matter how many times” in a row MSU beats U of M on the field (and yes, Wolverine fans, I have heard some of you say this).

Next, there are institutional expectations, inspired by dynasties beget by one player, coach, or executive.  A decade or more of perennial title contention caused the bar to be set there, temporarily.  The current Colts are a perfect example of this: they were mostly irrelevant before Peyton Manning, once blessed with Peyton became perennial title contenders, and may slip back into mediocrity when he’s gone.  For what it’s worth, I’d say the Red Wings are between this stage and the one above—though if they won a post-Lidstrom Cup, they’d get a promotion.  Coming down off of this high can be painful.  See: Cowboys fans who think the road to the Super Bowl always runs through Dallas—despite only 3 double-digit-win seasons since the onset of the Dave Campo Era a decade ago.

More fleetingly, there are annual expectations, which is as atomized as this discussion usually gets.  What happened last year, what happened in the offseason, how many “wins are on the schedule,” etc.  Talk right now is about what “you’d be happy with” in terms of number of wins: would five wins be acceptable?  Would you be pleased with six?  Is seven wins a run-naked-through-the-streets number, or would you keep your clothes on until the Lions won more games than they lost?

Ermanni touched on something I always think about when discussing expectations: the week-to-week grind of finding out what this year’s edition is really all about.  Every week, fans’ idea of exactly what their team is varies wildly from week to week.  We might, at the beginning of the year, say that we’d be “happy” with five wins, but when your team is 2-8 out of the gate, can you really be happy—even if they rally to a 3-3 finish?  Ermanni said he just wants the Lions to be in the mix, to be relevant, deep into the season.  That they have to “win ballgames”.

Really, what we're talking about here is a belief that there’s a point.  That it’s worthwhile.  That there’s a reason to tune in.  At the tail end of 2010, there simply wasn’t.  Once Matthew Stafford was shelved for the rest of the year, Lions fans knew that there was zero chance of victory, zero chance that the games would be worth while, and zero reason to watch.  So, Ermanni argued, the Lions have to come out winning.  Even if the end result is 6-10 or 7-9, if they’re at least not mathematically eliminated from the playoffs when Thanksgiving rolls around, Lions fans will be happy.

It’s a solid point; he’s probably more right than wrong.  However, one of the most interesting examples of shifting expectations was the Lions’ 2007 season.  Despite horrific road losses to the Eagles and Redskins, two of the most appalling on-field forfeits I’ve ever seen, the Lions got off to a 6-2 start.  Quoth Mike Furrey after a post-bye-week win over the Buccaneers:

The Lions are 4-2, media! You can kiss my ass!

The Lions kept winning, picking up two more Ws in spectacular fashion, including the last time the Lions kicked anyone’s ass, a legendary 44-7 whupping of the Broncos.  I would be remiss if I did not include this clip, so I will:

. . . brings a tear to my eye every time.

Lions fans were exultant.  The Lions were 6-2!  The playoffs were nearly certainty.  The division crown was well within reach.  Fans even started speculating about playoff byes and home field advantage.  Certainly, these mighty Lions could not be satisfied with a one-and-done run through the postseason!  No, they [embarrassingly premature smugness redacted].

The crash back to Earth was excruciating.  The Lions finished 7-9, and played some of the most God-awful football anyone has ever seen along the way.  The nine-turnover, nineteen-penalty 21-31 turd at Arizona bobs up to the top of the Honolulu Blue Port-O-John liquid that marinates the worst games ever.  Look at the weather: “72 degrees, no wind.”  The two teams combined to lose six fumbles.  How does that even happen?  As Greg Eno put it over at Out of Bounds:

OK, Mike. Ready? The Lions are 7-8! You can plant one between my back pockets, too.

So, did Lions fans walk away happy?  Were we pleased or content with seven wins?  Absolutely not—even though, had we been offered a guaranteed 7-win season at the outset, we’d probably have taken it.  I think the same applies this season: yes, we’d take seven wins; Hell, we’d be giddy!  And yes, there’s no doubt, winning a few of the first several, or several of the first eight, games would go a long way towards rejuvenating the fan base.  Hitting the halfway point of the season at 4-4 would do wonders for attendance, for spirit, for—yes—the blue flame.  But, who among us is ready for a 1-7 finish?  Who here wants to be eager to come home from church and mow the lawn because the Lions will be on?  Not I.

Yes, I’d like to avoid a three- or four-game losing streak to start the season.  Yes, I’d love for everyone to get amped for Lions football right out of the gate.  But, saying that you want the Lions to blow all their wins up front, because winning them in the back half “doesn’t matter?”  I can’t agree.  The only thing crueler than another double-digit-loss season would be to get a sniff of victory, only to get our faces pushed back into the garbage.

At the car wash.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,denver broncos,philadelphia eagles,washington redskins,shaun rogers,mike furrey

Read more...

Three Cups Deep: Waking Up Late

In the Watchtower for this game, I followed up fifteen hundred words, or thereabouts, of doom and gloom, with the following:

Every single piece of data I have, both objective and subjective, points to a Cardinals blowout.  However, there has not been a more “off” and “on” team over the past two seasons than the Cardinals.  The one thing they haven’t done in this Warner/Fitz/Boldin/Whisenhunt era is meet expectations—they beat teams they shouldn’t beat and look amazing doing it, and they lose to teams they have no business losing to, and look horrible doing it.
Further, I can’t imagine that a Jim Schwartz team comes back for a home game after a bad performance and rolls over from the opening gun--if so, it should raise some serious red flags.  My instincts tell me this will be more like a 35-21 loss—but if Culpepper plays, and Fitz and Boldin don’t take the game off, I don’t see how the Lions keep it that close.

Amazingly, though Culpepper and Fitzgerald both started yesterday, my “instincts” proved accurate.  As tough as it was to watch the offense founder and struggle to move the ball, let alone score points, we did get to see exactly what I was watching for: heart, effort, moxie, stick-to-it-itiveness, whatever you want to call it.  The Lions did not roll over and die at the coin toss, nor did they roll over and die when they went into halftime down 17-0.
I’m not going to beat the Culpepper/Stanton thing to death.  I’ve made my position on the issue clear: Stanton may, or may not, be any better than Culpepper right now, but Culpepper has no future here, or anywhere else.  Stanton's future, at least, is still undetermined—and if this season ends without giving him one week as a starter, it’ll be a crime.
While Stanton certainly didn’t play the position of quarterback any better than Culpepper, it’s undeniable that the team performed better while Stanton was at the helm.  Coincidence?  Perhaps.  But when Culpepper’s been outscored like 91-3 in his last three starts, you take any coincidence you get.
What blew me away yesterday was the play of the defensive line.  It looked as though The Real Cliff Avril finally got his uniform back yesterday—and Grady Jackson played like the he-beast he is.  On multiple occasions, the Lions’ defensive line won multiple one-on-one battles at the same time; on other teams, this isn’t cause for celebration—but for the Lions?  Pop the bubbly.
The kick coverage units did a reasonable job as well; Zack Follett gave the Cardinals a big ol’ dose of the Pain Train yesterday (Mrs. Ty nearly filed divorce papers after I stood up and “WOO WOO"’d in the middle of the bar).  Of course, they also gave up a huge return at the end of the 4th, that handed the game to the Cards—but at least they waited that long!
The offensive line played with some grit . . . but committed a plethora of false starts, including a drive-killing consecutive pair in the 2nd quarter.  Gosder Cherilus is showing a positively Culpepperian knack for making just a few mistakes—but really, really stupid ones at the worst possible times.
Overall, we’re left with a familiar feeling: the “moral victory”.  The “good loss”.  The “at least it was, or wasn’t . . .”  Is there anything left to say?  Is there anything left to do?  Yes.  It’s time to make the coffee . . .

Read more...

the Watchtower: Lions vs. Cardinals

Last week’s Watchtower, in the words of excellent commenter A Lion in ViQueen Territory, kind of sucked:

I’m sticking with the data here, folks, shaky though it might be: 21-24 points for the Ravens, and 9-13 points for the Lions.

A 48-3 blowout doesn’t look anything like the low-scoring 10ish-point game I predicted.  However, if we dig a little deeper, you’ll see that my prediction came with some pretty strong caveats:

Given a complete lack of data to work with, I can only project the Lions’ offensive production to meet expectations, given the current performance of the two units this year . . . I have very low confidence in this prediction . . . The Lions’ offense IS trending toward respectability, but the leader and triggerman is gone, and they’re playing their second straight road game against a top 5 scoring defense.

For the Lions’ D vs. the Ravens’ O, I projected numbers based on an observed effect: that Gunther’s defenses are supereffective against Cam Cameron offenses when the passing game is contained.  Up until the freaky Mason touchdown, that was exactly what had happened.  Believe it or not, that game was 0-3 at the end of the first quarter—and a Hanson miss away from being tied.

Unfortunately, the offense hung the defense out to dry over and over again—it was only a matter of time before they folded.  If Culpepper and the offense had any ability to control the ball, or keep the game close, I don’t think the defense would have rolled over in the second half (as they did), and let Ravens score 4 more touchdowns.

Unfortunately, the high-flying Cardinals are coming to town, and their scoring may be limited only by the game clock . . .

Gunther Cunningham vs. Ken Whisenhunt

Whi

Gun

Ornk

PgG

YpA

YpC

Drnk

PpG

DYpA

DYpC

PTS

YpA

INT

YpC

Sack

2009

ARI

DET

11th

23.5

6.88

4.16

32nd

31.2

8.00

4.50

For the second week in a row, the Lions face a coordinator with absolutely no track record against their opposing Lions counterpart.  Whisenhunt’s only called signals since 2004 (with the Cards as HC, and the Steelers as OC), and Gunther hasn’t faced Whisenhunt since then.  As Whisenhunt doesn’t come from a clearly delineated coaching heritage, we can’t use any “school of/disciple of” workarounds, either.

All we have to go on here are the season averages: Arizona’s the 11th-best scoring offense in the league, averaging 23.5 points per game.  Averaging a healthy 6.88 YpA, and surprisingly robust 4.16 YpC, the Cardinals are more balanced than you might suspect—though doubtlessly, defenses are laying back in fear of the Cards’ receivers, not loading the box to stop Beanie Wells.  These averages are practically identical to the Ravens’ stats coming into last week: 10th-ranked scoring offense, 23.4 PpG, 6.95 YpA, and 4.25 YpC.

Meanwhile, Sunday's debacle against the Ravens dropped the Lions' stats across the board; they're now allowing an average of 31.2 PpG, 8.00 YpA, and 4.50 YpC.  Since all we have to go on are the averages—and the Cards’ averages very closely match the Ravens’—it’s straight connect-the-dots: expectations would be that the Cardinals significantly exceed their season averages in PpG, YpA, and YpC: 40-45 points, 9.00-10.00 YpA, and 5.00-5.50 YpC.  I guess that serves as my prediction?  If so, I have very low confidence in it.

Mitigating/Augmenting Influences:

Here's a disturbing trend: in two of the Lions’ last four games (Browns, Ravens) they’ve faced opponents coming off of a deflating Monday Night Football loss, where the offense drastically underperformed its season averages.  Guess which team just got blown out on MNF last night, while drastically underperforming its season averages?  Oh yes—the Cardinals.

I deeply suspect that Warner, Fitz, Boldin, Beanie and the rest of the Cardinals offense will be itching to take out their frustrations on the Lions, and get back on track—just like the Ravens did.  Moreover, the hit-or-miss nature of the Cards’ offense (even with the same QB!) underscores the idea that they’ll bounce back from Monday’s performance.

On the other hand, this game will be in Ford Field, where the Lions are unquestionably more competitive.  Matthew Stafford is at least not yet ruled out, and if the Lions’ offense can actually move the chains and possess the ball a little bit, the defense should be able to not be quite so horrible.  I think. 

Scott Linehan vs. Billy Davis

Lin	Dav	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	YpA	INT	YpC	Sack
MIN	NYG*	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	17th	21.7	6.49	4.33	13	5.63	2	4.65	0-0
STL	SFO	10th	22.9	6.69	4.26	32nd	25.8	6.89	4.96	13	5.44	0	4.21	6-38
STL	SFO	10th	22.9	6.69	4.26	32nd	25.8	6.89	4.96	20	6.16	1	4.83	2-19
DET		27th	16.1	5.39	3.81	13th	19.8	6.45	4.16

Fortunately, we do have a little bit of data to work with here.  Bill Davis (often “Billy”, thanks to being a Jr.) has a surprisingly long resume for someone I’d never heard of.  He was an assistant under Dom Capers in Pittsburgh, and then a linebackers coach under Capers in Carolina.  After Capers was broomed, he bounced around for a couple of years, then became linebackers coach in Atlanta, under DC Wade Phillips.  That's an impressive 3-4 pedigree! 

Finally, in 2004, he became a linebackers coach with some authority.  According to Giants DC Tim Lewis, he allowed Davis to compile the blitz packages.  I’m tentatively including this data, just to flesh things out a bit.  After that, he was hired by new 49ers head coach Mike Nolan to head up

In 2004, the Minnesota Vikings were very good.  Ranked #6 in the NFL, they averaged 25.3 points per game, 7.16 YpA, and 4.71 YpC.  Meanwhile, the Giants were a decent unit: 17th-ranked, at 21.7 PpG, 6.49 YpA, and 4.33 YpC.  The expectation here would be that the Vikes meet or exceed their typical numbers—but they don’t.  Only 13 points scored, and a measly 5.63 YpA.  4.65 YpC is still good, but not enough to overcome the massive pass suppression.

In 2006, Linehan’s Rams faced Davis’ 49ers.  The Rams were still a typical Linehan offense: 10th in scoring, with a balanced 6.69 YpA and 4.26 YpC.  Meanwhile, the Niners . . . well, they were rebuilding.  They were the worst scoring defense in football, allowing 25.8 PpG.  While they weren’t great against the pass, allowing 6.89 YpA, they were terrible against the run.  Allowing an average of 4.96 YpC is going to make any offense impossible to stop.

Except, apparently, Linehan’s Rams that year.  In the first game, the Niners held the Rams to just 13 points.  They sacked the Rams six times, depressing per-play pass effectiveness to 5.44 YpA, more than a yard less than their season average.  The run game was also depressed; the 4.21 YpC the Niners allowed in the first game fell essentially met the Rams’s season average—despite playing against the statistically worst defense in the NFL.

In the second game, the Rams picked it up a little bit--20 points scored, 6.16 YpA, and 4.83 YpC.  Still, though, the points and passing were depressed below the Rams' averages--not expectations vs. the worst defense in football, the season averages—and the 4.83 YpC was still below the Niners’ average-allowed mark.

The conclusion is absolutely inescapable—with lesser, or much lesser, talent and execution, Billy Davis defenses have an overwhelming systemic advantage against Scott Linehan offenses.  In 2006, the 10th-best offense in football played the dead-last defense in football, twice, and both times produced well below their season averages, across the board.  The only explanation is that Billy Davis has Scott Linehan’s number.

Given that the shoe is on the other foot—the Cards’ defense is the 13th-best in the NFL, and the Lions’ O is the 27th-best—I have no choice but to project the Lions's offense to . . . good Lord . . . significantly underperform expectations: 6-9 points scored, 4.50-5.00 YpA, and 3.5-3.75 YpC.

Mitigating/Augmenting Influences:

Schwartz is back to the maybe-maybe not game with the Lions’ quarterback situation.  Let us make no bones about it: when Daunte Culpepper starts, the Lions are doomed.  In his last two starts, the Lions have been outscored 74-3.  If Matthew Stafford does not play, the Lions will be very lucky to score the projected 6-9 points. 

Starting tailback Kevin Smith is lost for the season with a torn ACL (plus maybe some other stuff).  Maurice Morris, Aaron Brown, and just-signed practice squadder Cedric Peerman will fill in.  Morris is a well-rounded veteran, who’s run hard in limited relief.  Brown has flashed game-breaking ability in both senses: he can break the game wide open on a screen pass, and he can get his quarterback broken with his clueless pass blocking.

Conclusion:

Every single piece of data I have, both objective and subjective, points to a Cardinals blowout.  However, there has not been a more “off” and “on” team over the past two seasons than the Cardinals.  The one thing they haven’t done in this Warner/Fitz/Boldin/Whisenhunt era is meet expectations—they beat teams they shouldn’t beat and look amazing doing it, and they lose to teams they have no business losing to, and look horrible doing it.

Further, I can’t imagine that a Jim Schwartz team comes back for a home game after a bad performance and rolls over from the opening gun--if so, it should raise some serious red flags.  My instincts tell me this will be more like a 35-21 loss—but if Culpepper plays, and Fitz and Boldin don’t take the game off, I don’t see how the Lions keep it that close.

The only hope for the Lions is the Cunningham/Whisenhunt matchup—they’ve never faced each other before, and Gunther’s certainly much more experienced.  Maybe, just maybe, a little dose of Guntherball flummoxes Warner early, and the sacks and turnovers come—as they did on Monday Night.

However, this is a statistical analysis, not a "Let's pretend the Lions won't get blown out, despite all rational thought" column. 40-45 points for the Cardinals, and 6-9 points for the Lions.

Read more...