The Watchtower: Lions vs. Bears

Tonight, the Detroit Lions will host the Chicago Bears on Monday Night Football. It will be the most important regular season game the Lions have played since the loss that prompted the Fords to hire Matt Millen.

It’s almost impossible to enumerate all the different ways this game is crucial to the Lions’ success. In the most practical sense, a win makes the Lions 5-0, 2-0 at home, and 2-0 in division. A win would put the Bears three full games behind the Lions in the division race. It means the Lions would have to go a seemingly-impossible 4-7 afterwards to not win ten games. If the Lions win this game, the playoffs become a virtual certainty.

For many of the Lions, this will be the most important game of their career to date. They’ll never have played on Monday Night Football, in prime time, or in a game so meaningful to the division race. This will be their first professional “big game,” and we simply don’t know how they will respond.

If the Lions can bring their “A” game, their first 60-minute three-phase performance, they’ll get an enormous confidence boost that should last them the rest of the year. If they choke it away, it could burst the magic bubble the Lions have been riding to the top of the NFL standings; a free fall back to the bottom of the table could result.

This will also be a test of the strength of the blue fire. The stadium will be packed full, but how loud will it be? Can we push the Lions to play at their utmost? How long can we sustain the energy? Will we fall silent if things don’t go the Lions’ way early? Will we start heading for the exits if victory starts slipping away?

From a Detroit perspective, this game is both more and less important than the national observers would like it to be. Yes, Monday Night Football will be an outstanding showcase for Ford Field, the Detroit Lions, and their fans. Yes, it will be an incredibly important football game, both teams’ key to the playoffs. No, it will not be some kind of economic spirit totem that doubles the population overnight and supplies jobs and houses for everyone.

That having been said, a win would be really really cool.

As part of my constant tinkering with The Watchtower, I’ve decided that for division games, I’ll only use the data from the last three years. There are enough contests over the past few years that I’ll have good data—and with the same coaches on the same teams, it will be much more relevant to this week’s game than stuff that happened back in the 90s.

Mike Martz vs. Gunther Cunningham

Martz	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Gun	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	PTSΔ	YpA	YpAΔ	YpC	YpCΔ
CHI	21st	20.9	6.47	3.90	DET	19th	23.1	6.75	4.51	19	-9%	10.63	64%	3.26	-16%
CHI	21st	20.9	6.47	3.90	DET	19th	23.1	6.75	4.51	24	15%	6.50	0%	4.07	4%
CHI	13th	23.5	6.46	4.70	DET	8th	19.0	5.82	4.76

In last seasons’s second Bears Watchtower, I concluded:

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.

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

The statistical effect I thought I’d identified—that the Martz offense will pass more effectively than expected but score a typical amount of points due to sacks and turnovers—didn’t quite play out. I projected Cutler to pass for 7.50-8.00 YpA, and instead he passed for almost exactly his season average (6.50 YpA, 6.47 avg.). I projected the Bears to run for 4.0-4.25 YpC, and that’s exactly what they did (4.07 YpC).

Throughout last season, the Bears modified their approach from Martz’s classic Sid Gillman-style offense to a more traditional attack. Throughout the season, the Bears’ sacks allowed went down as their scoring effectiveness went up.

The Bears seem more capable of executing it the classic Martz offense this year, as they’re back to more 4-wide looks, long dropbacks, and allowed sacks—but they’re averaging 23.5 points per game, ranked 13th in the NFL. They’re passing for 6.46 YpA, just as they passed for 6.47 last year—but they’re running for 4.60 YpC, nearly a full yard better than last season. Matt Forte is having a fantastic season so far, and it shows in the stats.

After four games, Lions are the 8th-ranked scoring defense in the NFL. They’re allowing 19.0 points per game, a stingy 5.82 YpA, and a much more generous 4.76 YpC. To an extent, this plays into the Bears’ hands. Matt Forte will likely have another great game, taking pressure off Cutler and the offensive line. However, Jaws always tells us that points come out of the passing game . . .

During that last Watchtower, I said the following:

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.

I’m going to stick with that trend. I project the Bears to score 20-23 points, passing for 5.75–6.25 YpA, and rushing for 4.85--5.15 YpC. I have high confidence in this projection.

Mitigating/Aggravating Factors

If there’s anything we learned from the dirty cheating Vikings, it’s that crowd noise can give a huge advantage to a pass rush. The Bears have struggled to protect Cutler this year, allowing 15 sacks—more than any other team except the Rams.  As I wrote for Bleacher Report, the Lions have played much, much better at home than on the road in 2011, and if that trend continues the Bears won’t score anywhere near this many. Unless Forte rolls for 200 yards again, I don’t see a situation where the Bears score significantly more than 23 points on the Lions.

Scott Linehan vs. Lovie Smith

Lin	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Lovie	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	PTS?	YpA	YpA?	YpC	YpC?
DET	27th	16.4	5.42	3.95	CHI	21st	23.4	6.36	4.33	24	46%	7.45	37%	2.46	-38%
DET	27th	16.4	5.42	3.95	CHI	21st	23.4	6.36	4.33	23	40%	7.70	42%	4.00	1%
DET	15th	22.6	6.02	3.99	CHI	4th	17.9	6.17	3.73	14	-38%	5.03	-16%	0.95	-76%
DET	15th	22.6	6.02	3.99	CHI	4th	17.9	6.17	3.73	20	-12%	7.42	23%	4.96	24%
DET	2nd	33.8	7.44	2.95	CHI	20th	24.5	7.18	5.07

Over the first two years, I developed what I thought was a pretty solid description of the interaction between Linehan’s offense and Smith’s defense:

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.

It was confounded by the result of last season’s opening contest—which, of course, was a little unusual thanks to the Chicago Screwjob and the in-game loss of Matthew Stafford. What I didn’t—couldn’t have—predicted is that last year’s Bears defense would actually be the fourth-best in football last year. In light of the 17.9 points per game the Bears surrendered, the above description is still exactly what happens when Linehan’s Lion offenses meet Smith’s Bear defenses. It showed in the second contest, when the Drew Stanton-led Lions passed for 7.42 YpA and ran for 4.96 YpC, but only scored 20 points.

This season, the Lions have the second-most potent scoring offense in the NFL. They’re averaging 33.8 points per game. The Lions are averaging an impressive 7.44 yard gain with every pass attempt, though mustering just 2.98 yards per carry. On the defensive side, the Bears are the 20th-ranked defense in the NFL, allowing 24.5 points per game. They’re letting up 7.18 YpA and 5.07 YpC.

If we leave schematic interplay out of it, we’d expect the Lions to score quite a bit more than their season average on the year, throw a little better than usual, and have a nice game running the ball. However, if we apply what might be the most tried-and-true schematic effect I’ve ever identified, the scoring should be less high because of turnovers, but the passing and running games should have banner days.

Therefore, I project the Lions to score 33-36 points, while passing for 8.50—9.00 YpA, and rushing for 3.50—4.00 YpC. I have high confidence in this projection.

Mitigating/Aggravating Factors

The worst-case scenario here is Matthew Stafford’s first-quarter jitters leading to another turnover, and the Bears getting an early lead. I don’t think anything short of a 40-point blowout will actually take the crowd out of this game, but if the Bears can get an early turnover and capitalize on it, that might take the edge off enough for them to get rolling.

Aw, who am I kidding? The worst-case scenario is that Julius Peppers kills Stafford dead while we all look on in horror. Barring that, the Lions have proven themselves more than able to score points in bunches when called upon, and the Bears have surrendered them in bunches to anyone with the talent to do so. The Lions’ proverbial “best game” that they haven’t played yet could see an even higher point total, but I think this is a solid projection.

Conclusion

There’s a long paper trail backing the effects of the systemic interplay up. The two teams are playing on two different skill and execution levels right now. Given the stakes, given how badly I want to be right, I don’t want to go overboard on the hubris. However, there’s no other conclusion I can reasonably reach, given the data. The most likely outcome of the game is a 35-23 Lions win.

Today is the day where all of the effort of keeping the flame alive pays off. Today is our day, tonight is our night, and this year is our year. Lions fans, whether you’re there with me in person, out at a bar with friends, or sitting on the edge of your couch by yourself, I want to hear you roar from coin toss to gun. The whole world is about to find out just what kind of football team the Detroit Lions are, and what kind of fans Detroit Lions fans are.

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 vs. BEARS

The Bears were the first team I Watchtowered this season. They were also the first team to be Watchtowered in both the 2009 and 2010 seasons.  Now, they’re the first team to be Watchtowered twice this season.  The situation this time around is much different than in Week 1.  The Lions, at the time, seemed poised  for a breakthrough season; they had a clear vision and direction, and were primed with the talent to achieve it.  The Bears, meanwhile, were all over the place: loads of flashy talent, lots of money spent—but two new coordinators, and a sense that Death was lurking over the shoulder of Lovie Smith’s coaching tenure.

Of course, we know what happened: the referees insanely ruled that Calvin Johnson’s touchdown was not a touchdown, the Lions lost, and the Bears have been winning games ever since.  At times they’ve looked wobbly—even farcically inept—but eight times out of eleven, the Bears have beaten their opponent.

   . . . well, at least seven times out of eleven.

Scott Linehan vs. Lovie Smith

Lin		Ornk		PgG		YpA		YpC		Lovie		Drnk		PpG		DYpA		DYpC		PTS		PTSΔ		YpA		YpAΔ		YpC		YpCΔ
MIN		6th		26.0		7.60		4.75		STL		22nd		21.6		5.87		4.15		17		-35%		6.88		-9%		7.27		53%
MIN		6th		25.3		7.16		4.71		CHI		13th		20.7		6.49		4.13		27		7%		11.61		62%		4.04		-14%
MIN		6th		19.9		5.94		3.69		CHI		13th		20.7		6.49		4.13		14		-30%		8.45		42%		6.64		80%
STL		10th		22.9		6.69		4.26		CHI		3rd		15.9		5.36		3.96		27		18%		6.47		-3%		4.59		8%
STL		30th		14.5		5.67		3.95		CHI		16th		21.9		6.2		3.42		3		-79%		6.56		16%		0.74		-81%
DET		27th		16.4		7.80		4.42		CHI		21st		23.4		6.36		4.33		24		46%		7.45		-4%		2.46		-44%
DET		27th		25.2		5.95		3.63		CHI		21st		23.4		6.36		4.33		23		-9%		7.70		29%		4.00		10%
DET		12th		23.5		5.86		3.59		CHI		2nd		15.6		5.77		3.58		14		-40%		5.03		-14%		0.95		-74%
DET		12th		23.5		5.86		3.59		CHI		2nd		15.6		5.77		3.58

Last year, I thought I’d identified a strong trend when Linehan offenses meet Lovie Smith defenses, and then the Bears spent last year proving me wrong.  In the first Watchtower of this year, I modified my theory slightly:

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.

. . . I’ll say that based on extremely weak data, the most likely outcome of the game is a close Lions loss, with lots of sacks and turnovers for both sides, and a final score of 24-30.

The Lions only scored 14 points in the official reckoning—but of course, we know they actually scored at least 20, and would likely have gone for 2.  Even assuming they don’t convert the two, scoring 20 points slides the average/actual delta from -40% to -15%.  The Lions scoring 15% below their mean is not unexpected for the 12th-ranked offense going up against the 2nd-ranked defense.  The “sacks and turnovers” certainly were present, though: the Lions were sacked twice for –32 yards, fumbled three times (and lost two), and threw an interception, to boot.  Still, though, the Lions produced points when they absolutely needed to.  Here was my reaction in the Watchtower Review:

If the Lions were the beneficiary of a systemic advantage that allowed them to move the ball better than usual, either the Lions have an epically bad offense this season, or the Bears are much, much better than commonly thought.

It’s the latter.  The addition of Julius Peppers, and the return of Brian Urlacher to form, has this Bears defense playing like Bears defenses of old.  Allowing only 15.6 points per game on the average, and equally stiff against the run and pass, the Bears’ defense has been keeping the erratic offense in games.  In fact, only the Seahawks and Eagles have topped the Lions’ “20-point” performance against these 2010 Bears.  But, can the Lions repeat the feat?

Of course, the big difference between these two games is that Matthew Stafford and Jahvid Best started the first game, and Drew Stanton and Maurice Morris will be starting this one.  However, Stafford famously didn’t finish that game—and Best mustered only 20 yards on 14 carries.  So, then, the Lions shouldn’t be too far off their typical pace, unless Stanton completely implodes.  Also, note that the Lions’ mean YpA- and YpC-gained figured nearly match the Bears’ means allowed (5.86/5.77 YpA, 3.59/3.58 YpC).  Therefore, 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.

Mitigating/Aggravating Factors:

Besides injuries (the Lions are missing their top two quarterbacks, and functionally missing their top two running backs), the main factor is the swing from a season-opening road game to a somewhat-meaningless home game.  This is a classic trap game, and it’s already a sellout.  If Drew Stanton (and the offensive line) can play like he did (and they did) against the Giants, the Lions could do at least this well, and possibly better.  If Drew implodes with turnovers, as he did in his only previous start . . . disaster.

Mike Martz vs. Gunther Cunningham:

MM	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Gun	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	PTS?	YpA	YpA?	YpC	YpC?
STL	1st	33.8	8.91	4.81	KCC	19th	22.1	6.32	3.83	34	1%	8.48	-5%	3.30	-31%
CHI	22nd	20.2	8.32	3.84	DET	23rd	22.4	7.13	4.79	19	-6%	10.63	28%	3.26	-15%
CHI	22nd	20.2	8.32	3.84	DET	23rd	22.4	7.13	4.79

Here’s what I said in the previous Watchtower:

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.

. . . and in the review:

On defense, Cutler and the Bears moved the ball with incredible ease; 10.62 YpA show that yards were coming in chunks through the air. Despite averaging only 3.25 YpC, the Bears continued to feed the ground game, too: 31 carries at that rate is good for 101 yards. Fortunately, the Lions managed to snare an interception, recover three fumbles, and sack Jay Cutler four times—and the timeliness of said turnovers kept points off the board. Even better was the tremendous four-down goal line stand. It was a signature performance by the defensive line, and it kept the game in the Lions’ control—for a little while, at least.

Going forward, the defense will probably be less spectacularly vulnerable; the Martz offense specifically attacks the Lions' defense's greatest weaknesses. Then again, the defense may well be less spectacular; the Martz offense’s greatest weaknesses played to the Lions’ defense’s strength. Even given the way the back seven was—for the most part—traumatized by the Bears, the Lions’ D played with enough heart, and enough pass rush, to make me think there’s hope for this team despite the painful loss.

That’s proved to be prescient: the Lions have played with a lot of heart, and a lot of pass rush, to this point—but there’s also been an awful lot of trauma in the back seven.  Hope?  Well, sure, there’s been that, but more for the 2011 harvest than the 2010 vintage.  The only important cogs missing for either unit will be Bears’ OLB Pina Tinoisamoa, and Lions’ DE Kyle Vanden Bosch—who put up one of the most amazing individual performances I’ve seen in the first game.  With luck, a finally-healthy-ish Cliff Avril, Lawrence Jackson, and Turk McBride will keep up the intensity.  Oh, and the Lions will play with DeAndre Levy, who wasn’t available for the first matchup.

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.

Mitigating/Aggravating Factors:

Not many.  The Bears have been slowly evolving from a high variance, pitch-it-around scheme to a more safe and predictable spread-then-run approach.  Cutler’s cut down on some of the wildness, and the offensive line’s been bailed out with shorter routes and drops.  What they’ve done is take some of the teeth out of the offense, in exchange for committing fewer mistakes—the end result, though, is mostly unchanged: the defense is winning games for the Bears.  The major difference is, they’ve realized it and are playing to that strength.  Unless Martz releases the hounds, and the Bears go full-out track meet against the Lions’ secondary, I see a similar, if less wild, final result.

Conclusion

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.

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

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...

the watchtower: Lions vs. Bears

In the previous Watchtower, I really struggled.  There was no data for the Ken Whisenhunt-Gunther Cunningham matchup; they’d never coached against each other.  The limited data for the Cardinals’ DC, Billy Davis, indicated a very strong systemic advantage when facing Scott Linehan offenses—which is bizzare; 3-4 defenses typically struggle against Linehan’s schemes.

However . . .

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.

My instincts turned out to be as right as the numbers were wrong: the Lions lost, 31-24.  What does this tell us?  Only that it’s extraordinarily rare for a team to take a 40-plus-point beatdown two weeks in a row.

After a week off of doing the Watchtower—sorry, again!—we find ourselves at the end of the line.  This home contest against the Bears is the last game of the Lions’ season—and, therefore, the last Watchtower of the season.  As I’ve hinted at before, and as Neil commented response to the last post, it’s getting harder and harder to do this.

With Matthew Stafford on the shelf, and neither Drew Stanton nor Daunte Culpepper playing well enough to allow the Lions to win, this all seems pointless.  However, it’s not pointless to the Lions who are fighting for jobs in 2010—so let’s at least take a cursory look.

Gunther Cunningham vs. Ron Turner

Tur	Gun	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	YpC	PTS	YpA	INT	YpC	Sack
CHI	KCC	26th	17.7	5.78	3.64	11th	18.8	6.60	4.12	10	6.44	1	1.84	2-11
CHI	DET	22nd	19.3	6.08	3.89	31st	30.5	7.83	4.36

In the previous Watchtowering of the Bears, I used both data from the actual Bears’ OC, Ron Turner, and his brother Norv.  This was a conscious attempt to expand the data set, knowing I might be including spurious data.  It wasn’t too ridiculous—besides being brothers, the Turners were assistants to several different coaches from the same tree.

However, this didn’t give me anything useful, and I concluded:

So, IF we consider Ron and Norv Turner interchangable--and we don't--then given greater, equal, or lesser talent, Gunther Cunningham's hyperagressive 4-3 appears to match expectations versus a Turner Bros. Coryell-style downfield passing offense (albeit while generating very high sack and turnover numbers). That is to say there is no systemic advantage or disadvantage for either team.

Thanks in part to a horrendous performance by the Lions’ special teamers, the Bears turned an average starting field position in Lions’ territory into a whopping 48 points.  This was not a systemic thing.  Up until Monday’s 36-point game against the Vikes, the Bears had only topped 20 points three times: against the Lions, Browns, and Seahawks.  Moreover, Cutler’s arm and Chicago’s group of speedy—if not skilled—wideouts posed all sorts of matchup problems for the Lions’ secondary.

So, what happens this time?  The Bears’ scoring offense has been, as I said, underwhelming.  In fact, it’s been barely any better than the Lions’ offense!  With an anemic 6.08 YpA, and unimpressive 3.89 YpC, they may well outstrip their averages again—but without another record-setting performance by their special teams, they shouldn’t outstrip the Lions’ average-allowed figures.

Therefore, despite a matchup advantage that has a lot more to do with talent and personnel than system, the Bears should outperform their season averages—but not exceed the Lions’ season average-allowed numbers.  I project 28-32 points, 7.50-8.00 YpA, and 3.00-3.50 YpC.  I have low confidence in this prediction.

Augmenting/Mitigating Influences

First, the biggest influence is going to be the meaning of the game. The first contest was the 1-2 Lions visiting the 2-1 Bears, in a critical early divisional contest.  This will be the 6-9 Bears visiting the 2-13 Lions—and those Bears just finished a dramatic, deep-into-overtime win over the Vikings.  That Monday Night Football went so long it extended into Tuesday!

So the Bears have a short week after a season-reclaiming signature win, and the Lions will host a sellout crowd.  All of the elements are in place for the Lions to close this season out on a high note.  If the defense can play as they have the past few weeks—limiting offenses like the Bengals’ and Cardinals’—instead of the way they did in Week 4, this will be a close, winnable game . . . if the offense can actually find the end zone.

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			17	6.88	1	7.27	8-54
MIN	CHI	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	13th	20.7			27	11.61	0	4.04	4-10
MIN	CHI	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	13th	20.7			14	8.45	3	6.64	5-34
STL	CHI	10th	22.9	6.69	4.26	3rd	15.9			27	6.47	1	4.59	3-24
DET	CHI	27th	15.9	5.30	3.95	21st	23.5	6.31	4.35

The first time around, 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).  This is much less well defined, but my guess is that the Bears will match or slightly outperform their scoring expecations (also currently 19, equally shakily), with one dimension of the offense working much better than the other.

And this all was pretty much spot on:

• 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, and scored 24 points--for reference, they scored 20 points off of 231 offensive yards in Week 1.
• The Bears scored 41 offensive points. As a team, they ran 20 times for 151 yards (7.55 YpC) and 3 TDs. They passed 28 times for 141 yards (5.04 YpA) and 2 TDs.

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.

Augmenting/Mitigating Influences

Of course, the ongoing problem with projecting the Lions’ offense has been the game of musical chairs at quarterback.  The Lions’ offense is simply a different beast with healthy Matthew Stafford . . . and it’s bestial without him.  Whether it’s Stanton or Culpepper is at the helm, the Lions’ offense is incapable of generating touchdowns.

On the other hand, this game really does set up well.  All of the momentum, intangibles, hunches, home-field advantage, etc. swings in the Lions’ favor—and they’re also much better at home than on the road.  If whoever is playing quarterback can avoid turnovers, this game will be much closer than the data would indicate.

Unfortunately, neither Stanton nor Culpepper has shown an ability to avoid turnovers. A couple of early INTs, and the rout could be on . . .

Conclusion

I’ve said throughout this piece that I don’t think this game necessarily follows the data. The Lions are unquestionably better at home than on the road, and the defense is also unquestionably better now than it was in Week 4.  The Week 4 contest was also totally skewed by they absolutely horrific performance of the Lions’ special teams units, an area which has been addressed in personnel.

That having been said, the Lions’ offense has been so completely moribund, that I have a hard time believing they’ll meet even my meager projections.  Therefore, I’ll go with the data: 28-32 points for the Bears, 14-16 points for the Lions.  My instincts tell me this is a very winnable game, but the data just doesn’t support it.

Read more...

The Watchtower: Lions at Bears

In last week's installment of The Watchtower, I thumbed my nose at some who said this type of breakdown had nigh-insurmountable statistical limitations. While I acknowledging that the limitations are real, I argued that careful extension of the sample size, and intelligent subjective interpretation, could coax worthwhile predictive information from the limited data.

There are a couple of key words there: "careful", and "intelligent".  Faced with a dearth of information on Redskins' DC Greg Blache's playcalling and schemes, I used data from his days as Dick Jauron’s DC in Chicago, as well as a 2008 game between the Rams and Redskins (that occurred after Linehan had been fired). I also made an error in calculating a couple of the averages on Linehan's data--so not only was I working from a shaky set of data, I fumbled the calculator work.  Here's what I predicted on the Lions offense versus the Redskins defense:

Regardless of talent or execution, Greg Blache's philosophy of a strong front four and committment to run-stopping disproportionately slows Scott Linehan's balanced offense.

Oops. What actually happened was that the Lions ran all over the Redskins, carrying 36 for 154 yards; a stout 4.28 per-carry average. In the two-and-a-half quarters that Kevin Smith played, he gouged the Redskins for 101 yards on only 16 tries; that's an astounding 6.31 yards per carry.  This was the exact opposite of the result that I predicted.

However, the conclusion I came to for the overall game wasn't too far off:

The most likely scenario is an absolutely brutal game, a physical brawl where both teams try but fail to control the ball with the running game, sacks and turnovers abound, penalty flags fall from the sky like rain . . . and the team whose quarterback performs the best wins.

It certainly was an ugly game, and quite physical. Sacks and turnovers not so much (2 sacks for each team, 1 turnover for Washington and none for Detroit (!)), but the penalties were obnoxious: 17 penalties were called, for 155 yards. I'm going to call last week's Watchtower a general success, but a cautionary tale against making unsupported conclusions--and screwing up the numbers!

Unfortunately, this week poses another problem: Bears OC Ron Turner spent 1997-2004 as the head coach of the Fighting Illini--meaning there's a big gap in his NFL track record. Fortunately, his 1996 Bears (yes, Turner's been the Bears OC twice) did face off against Gunther Cunningham's Chiefs, so we have one good data point. As for more?

Ron Turner's coaching "tree" isn't as clearly deliniated as most. He appeared on the NFL scene as Bears OC, after only one year as San Jose State's head coach.  Then, he coached Illinois for many years, only to come back as Bears OC--both times, he served under defensive-minded head coaches; there was never any NFL mentor/mentee relationship.

A little Googling reveals that he was an assistant to Ted Tollner at USC, and got the SJS gig after serving as OC to Denny Green at Stanford. This places him in a conservative branch of the Air Coryell tree, away from the Martz/Gillman/Saunders group; a twig of the Zampese/Turner branch. Wait, Turner?  Yes: NORV Turner.  Ron and Norv Turner are brothers.

Obviously, the two men aren't interchangable.  So, I'm going to avoid drawing any firm conclusions from the one true data point we have. However, as we see above, Norm studied under different coaches from the Air Coryell tree, and both men prefer to combine power running with downfield throwing.  Norv has coached in-division against Gunther twice, in 2000 with the Chargers, and in 2004 with the Raiders. Therefore, we have four data points for Norv, and I will look at them--KNOWING that it's just an exercise in curiosity.

Turn	Gun	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Drnk	PpG	PTS	YpA	INT	YpC	FumL	Sack
CHI	KCC	26th	17.7	5.78	3.64	11th	18.8	10	6.44	1	1.84	2-1	2-11
SDC	KCC	26th	16.8	5.60	3.03	19th	22.1	10	4.83	1	3.5	1-1	6-31
SDC	KCC	26th	16.8	5.60	3.03	19th	22.1	17	5.9	2	2.36	3-3	6-28
OAK	KCC	18th	20.0	6.63	3.96	29th	27.2	27	8.37	0	3.44	0-0	3-10
OAK	KCC	18th	20.0	6.63	3.96	29th	27.2	30	5.86	1	4.55	0-0	2-17

In 1996, Ron Turner's Bears faced Gunther Cunningham's Chiefs, and it was an ugly sight. Turner's offense was the 26th-ranked scoring O in the league, mustering only 17.7 points per game. The passing offense was anemic, only 5.78 yards per attempt, and the rushing offense wasn't any great shakes either, with only 3.64 yards per carry. Meanwhile, the Chiefs were the 11th-best scoring defense, allowing an average of 18.8 ppg. I'd expect the Bears to underperform their average pretty significantly--and they did, scoring only 10 points. They passed a little bit above expectations, 6.4 YpA, but the rushing was completely denied: a microscopic 1.8 YpC (19 carries for 35 yards!). That's certainly a good start, but the discrepancy in talent is huge.

In 2000, Norv Turner's Chargers played the Chiefs twice--and interestingly, those Chargers were also ranked 26th in the league in scoring offense, averaging 16.8 points scored. Passing for only 5.6 yards per attempt, and rushing for only 3.03 yards per carry, the '00 Chargers weren't much to write home about.  Gunther's Chiefs weren't quite as fearsome as the 1996 unit, though, ranked 19th and allowing 22.1 ppg.

Interestingly, the end result was exactly the same: the Chargers scored 10 points. The run/pass effect was reversed from the '96 Bears matchup, though.  Passing was depressed, with a really brutal 4.83 YpA, but rushing got a slight bump, up to 3.5 YpC.  Note the sack total: 6 sacks for -31 yards! In the second '00 match between Norv and Gunther, the result was largely similar, but with the run/pass effectiveness flipped again: 17 points scored, 5.9 YpA, 2 picks, 2.36 YpC.  Again with the disruption: 3 fumbles, all lost, 2 picks, and another half-dozen sacks for 28 yards lost!

Now, in 2004, the execution shoe was on the other foot: Norv's Raiders were the 18th-ranked scoring offense, 20.0 ppg, but the Chiefs were a wretched scoring defense, ranked 29th, allowing 27.2 per game.  Predictably, the Raiders outperformed their season average, scoring 27 points.  The Raiders passed all over the Chiefs, with 8.37 YpA, but running was depressed by half a yard per carry (3.44 YpC vs. 3.96 avg.).  Oddly, no turnovers were generated, but the Raiders were sacked 3 times for -10 yards.

Finally, on Christmas Day 2004, the Raiders travelled to Kansas City, MO., for an exceedingly similar (yet, again, run-pass flip-flopped) result: 30 points, 5.86 YpA, 4.55 YpC. So, IF we consider Ron and Norv Turner interchangable--and we don't--then given greater, equal, or lesser talent, Gunther Cunningham's hyperagressive 4-3 appears to match expectations versus a Turner Bros. Coryell-style downfield passing offense (albeit while generating very high sack and turnover numbers).  That is to say there is no systemic advantage or disadvantage for either team.

Lin	Smith	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Drnk	PpG	PTS	YpA	INT	YpC	FumL	Sack
MIN	STL	6th	26.0	7.60	4.75	17th	20.5	17	6.88	1	7.27	3-2	8-54
MIN	CHI	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	13th	20.7	27	11.61	0	4.04	4-2	4-10
MIN	CHI	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	13th	20.7	14	8.45	3	6.64	1-1	5-34
STL	CHI	10th	22.9	6.69	4.26	3rd	15.9	27	6.47	1	4.59	1-0	3-24

The study of Scott Linehan versus Lovie Smith is an interesting one; half of the matchups involved the St. Louis Rams--but one was with Lovie as defensive coordinator, and the other was with Linehan as head coach!  Lovie is another Tampa Two disciple, though he seems to run a slightly more aggressive variant than Dungy did in Tampa--and especially more than Dungy has in Indy.

Smith has been by far the most successful of the many T2 disciples --arguably, the only one to be successful--in recreating the suffocating Tampa Bay defense. The talent he's consistently accumulated on the DL, and the born-to-play-T2-MLB Brian Urlacher, has allowed the Bears to be consistently placed among the better defenses in the NFL.

The first matchup, in 2003, Pitted Linehan's Vikings against Smith's Rams. As we all know, the '03 Vikings were potent: the 6th-ranked scoring offense (26.0 ppg).  Passing was strong at 7.6 YpA, and they were absolutely totin' it with 4.75 YpC.  St. Louis' defense was ranked 17th, allowing 20.5 PpG. Astonishingly, they held the Vikes to just 17 points, depressing yards-per-attempt by three quarters of a yard, and sacking Culpepper a breathtaking 8 times for -54 yards. Uh-oh.

There was one bright spot: The Vikings ran it 26 times for 189 yards; that's a walloping 7.27 yards per carry.  Presumably, the 2 lost fumbles and thrown pick derailed (or made irrelevant) that ground game success.

In '04, it was nearly the exact same Vikings squad: 6th-best scoring offense, 25.3 ppg, 8.18 YpA, and 4.71 YpC. However, Lovie's Bears were better than his Rams: 13th best in points allowed, with 20.7 per game. This time, thought, we see a lot more consistent result: the the Vikings slightly outperformed their average, scoring 27 points, passing for a mind-numbing 11.61 YpA, and still carrying for a solid 4.04 YpC. Even though the passing game was working so well--averaging a first down every attempt--Linehan kept the playcalling very balanced, 23 runs to 31 passes. Sacks were cut in half (to a still-significant 4-for-10); the Vikes lost two of four fumbles.

The second 2004 game, the Vikes mildly outperformed their season per-play averages in passing (8.45 YpA, 8.18 avg.), and wildly outperformed in rushing (6.64 YpC, 4.71 avg.). However, all of this success only led to 14 points.  How?  The three interceptions, 1 lost fumble, and 5 sacks for -34 probably had something to do with it.  I’m sure the difference between September in the Metrodome and December at Soldier Field also came into play.

Finally, the most interesting data point. Linehan's Rams faced off against Lovie's Bears in 2006, when the Rams were the 10th-best scoring offense (22.9 ppg), averaging 6.69 YpA, and running at a 4.26 YpC clip. The Super-Bowl bound Bears defense was ranked 3rd in the NFL, allowing a meager 15.9 points per game. What happened? The Rams scored 27 points, of course! Before we get excited, 14 of those came in the fourth quarter of a 42-27 blowout . . . clearly, this scoring performance is an outlier.

What is relevant, though, is the YpA (6.47) and YpC (4.59) being right in line with the season averages, despite a significant talent deficit. Again, we see 3 sacks for -24 yards, one fumble forced, and one interception.

All of this leads me to a definitive conclusion: 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.

I'd love to say that the positive momentum of the win over the Redskins will lift the Lions to a second consecutive victory . . . and hey, the last time the Lions got two wins in a row was October 2007, at Solider Field! But I'm afraid that 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).  This is much less well defined, but my guess is that the Bears will match or slightly outperform their scoring expecations (also currently 19, equally shakily), with one dimension of the offense working much better than the other.

All is not lost!  There is still hope, especially given the all the unknowns surrounding the Bears' O vs. the Lions' D.  But I'm calling for another low-scoring, ugly, sack-and-turnover filled game, and a probable (but probably narrow) Bears victory.

Read more...