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...

Watchtower Review: Lions at Bears

Last season, I did the review of each Watchtower as the opening portion of the next one.  This made some sense, as I was still fine-tuning the process, and I was reviewing how I was writing them as much as what the results were.  However, looking back through the archives, putting half the analysis of one game into the article for the next make finding stuff really, really hard.  To that end, I’m breaking out the Watchtower review into its own little piece.

In the Watchtower for Sunday’s Lions road game against the Bears, I recited my findings from previous seasons:

“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 went on to analyze the 2009 data, and found that that all held true—except for the “scoring” bit.  In their two games last season, the Bears allowed the Lions to score 24 and 23 points, compared to the Bears’ 2009 average of . . . 23.5 points.  That’s right, the bottom-feeding Lions offense performed about as well as everyone else did against the Bears last season.  This was well above the Lions’ average scoring rate of 15.9 ppg.  The only difference in the Bears’ defense last season was an unprecedented lack of talent and execution for a Lovie Smith defense—so I added an “unless they’re bad” clause:

"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 above, and the lack of 2010 scoring averages for the Lions (for) and the Bears (against), and the presumable-but-unknown improvement by both the Lions’s offense and Bears’ defense, I projected the following:

The Lions should score between 20 and 24 points.  I have low confidence in this prediction.

I note, ruefully, that Calvin Johnson's game-winning touchdown being wiped off the board reduced a confidence-boosting 20 (or 22) to a depressing 14.  On defense, there was only one data point, and it precisely bore out expectations—leading me to conclude:

"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."

Taking a wild stab in the dark, "I projected":

"Let’s just call it thirty points. This is a guess and not a prediction, and I have extremely low confidence in it."

It was appropriate that I had extremely low confidence in it, because it was totally wrong.  In the conclusion, I summarized:

"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."

Of course, the official final score of the game was 14-19, depressed as predicted by many sacks and turnovers for both sides.  The Lions had a harder time moving the ball than the Bears—Chicago racked up a whopping 463 yards of total offense, compared to the Lions’ meager 168.

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.  One factor skewing these numbers: the swapout of Matthew Stafford for Shaun Hill.  In last seasons’ games, we saw that the Lions had no chance at victory without Stafford behind center—and it showed in the statistics.

Probably the most alarming thing we saw yesterday—besides the miscarriage of justice that stole the win, and the injuries to the franchise quarterback and best young pass rusher—was the total lack of effectiveness from the rushing game.  Jahvid Best ran for only 1.4 yards per carry on Sunday, which dramatically limited the effectiveness of the passing game—and in turn, the offense.  It’s possible that this Bears defense, with a healthy Brian Urlacher, has returned to its prior-to-2009 fearsomeness—and it’s also possible that the running game we saw in the preseason was only a mirage.

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.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,chicago bears

Read more...