Bo Knows Low-Variance Football. So Does Jim.

Jim Schwartz, on why the Lions have scored more points in the fourth quarter than the first three in all of their games so far:

"We've had to in the fourth. We've been behind and that's put the pressure on us to have to do it. We're trying just as hard in the first quarter. Certainly no design or scheme or anything like that. We have to be efficient all four quarters and it can make a difference for us if we can get a lead and we can hold a lead. But we've got to battle for 60 minutes. You're judged just like a 16 game season, you're judged on all 16 games, you're judged on all 60 minutes. So no matter where you're scoring them they all count."

“We’ve had to in the fourth.”

Schwartz says it’s “no design or scheme or anything like that,” but the Lions’ close games are the result of obvious changes in approach on offense.

The biggest change from last season to this season is the way defenses are playing the Lions—and all of last season’s 5,000-yard passing offenses. The Saints, Patriots and Lions went 36-10 last season; through Week 6 of this season they’re 6-10. NFL defensive coordinators are paid way too much to let teams beat them with the same thing over and over—so they’re taking away the bombs-away offense and forcing these teams to adjust.

The Lions have adjusted by re-emphasizing the run game, drastically cutting back on hopeful shots downfield, and trying to emphasize intermediate routes. Linehan has also been doing a lot of “setting up” defenses with repetitive/predictable playcalls early in games, to subvert them later—or in the case of this play broken down by TuffLynx at Pride of Detroit, use repetitive/predictable playcalls in early games, to subvert them in later games.

By taking fewer risks and being less aggressive on offense, the Lions are pursuing a low-variance strategy.

This concept has been discussed all over the Internet, but it was synthesized best for me by Brian Cook at MGoBlog, in a piece called “Keep it Close and Lose in the Fourth Quarter," and its follow-up, "Mathy Mailbag." Read them both, plus all the links in both if you really want to grok this.

To summarize: low-variance strategies result in fewer possible outcomes. Two equally-matched teams both running more often than they pass and always punting on fourth down regardless of field position and never blitzing on defense won’t produce a 48-0 blowout in either direction.

This is, as discussed by Cook, Chris Brown, and Malcom Gladwell a “Goliath strategy.” When you’ve got a massive talent and skill advantage—as Goliath did over David—you want to eliminate the chance of anything crazy happening. Since the expected outcome is “you win,” you want to maximize the probability of getting the expected outcome.

As Cook notes, this is the strategy used by Bo Schembechler at Michigan: grind it out, play suffocating defense, take few risks, minimize mistakes, and use your massive size and talent advantage to consistently beat opponents with execution. Cook cited a passage from a book called Bo’s Lasting Lessons, wherein Bo, at a coaching clinic, veered dangerously close to schematic enlightenment before reaffirming his fevered belief in fundamentals and “playing Michigan football.” Cook:

This may have been brilliant in 1985, and brilliant against the poor, huddled masses that comprised Michigan's opponents at the time, but it's fundamentally a variance-hating strategy that presumes better talent. In it are the seeds of Michigan's time-honored failure against Rose Bowl foes, and its recent struggles to put away inferior competition.

It’s that old chestnut, attributed to darn near every midwestern football coach of historical note: “Only three things can happen when you pass the ball and two of them are bad.” Passing is a high-risk, high-variance strategy.

No NFL team passed more, or more often, than the Lions did in 2011.

This is why the Lions aren’t  doing it again in 2012: the Lions can assume a talent advantage over most NFL teams. They just beat the Eagles, one of the most talented teams in football, and Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote you could “see” the Lions were “physically dominant.” This is why the Lions passing twice as often as they run would be dumb, and playing things close to the vest is smart.

But.

One of the side effects of playing for low variance by running the ball a lot, making ultra-conservative fourth-down calls and, I don’t know, refusing to try an onside kick when you’re kicking from the opponent’s forty-yard line is that you shorten the game. With more time running off the clock, there are fewer plays and possessions—fewer chances to press your advantage.

If you flip a coin that’s weighted to land on “heads” 60% of the time 10,000 times, it will land on heads 60% of those 10,000 flips. If you flip that same coin ten times, it’s much more likely to land on heads for some other percentage.

If you reduce the number of ‘trials’, you increase the chance for an unexpected outcome. That is to say, if the Lions have an advantage over their opponent, attempting to control the clock gives them fewer chances to leverage that advantage. Re-stated again: by playing to reduce risk, the Lions can’t blow people out like they used to. They’re also not going to get blown out, but that’s cold comfort when you’re starting 2-3 instead of 5-0.

As a consequence, the Lions are running into the same problem Lloyd Carr did: if you’re going to keep it close for four quarters, you actually have to execute significantly better than the other team. Bo's reliance superior talent and execution left him unarmed against opponents with equal talent. Carr's similar approach with less-superior talent against less-hapless Big Ten opponents guaranteed him at least one embarrassing upset a season.

The Lions let the Rams hang around when Stafford throwing three first-half interceptions, and it almost cost them. The Lions were on track to beat the Titans 27-20 and the Vikings 13-6 except, you know, two punt return touchdowns, two kickoff return touchdowns, and a fumble return touchdown. By playing it close to the vest, the Lions couldn't build up the kind of lead that can withstand these freak occurrences/horrible mistakes. They have to get touchdowns from their early scoring opportunities and not settle for field goals.

Still, throughout these games, the Lions’ advantage has become apparent in the final stanza: Mikel Leshoure and Joique Bell punishing bruised defenses, Matthew Stafford and Shaun Hill carving up beleaguered secondaries downfield, shellshocked quarterbacks running for their lives and throwing picks.

Over the course of the season, the weird bounces and fluky breaks will even out. Stafford quickly eliminated the terrible picks of the Rams game, and the coverage teams managed to go a whole game without allowing a single return touchdown. The Lions are taking the correct approach—but they’re going to have to improve their offensive execution, or continue dropping games to inferior opponents.

Read more...

The Watchtower: Lions vs. Rams

Finally.

The Lions host the St. Louis Rams on Sunday, and all the months of half-informed, befuddled claptrap about the Lions “regressing” or “taking a step back” or having “discipline problems” or whatever will but up against the hard reality of the Detroit Lions taking the field and playing honest-to-God competitive football.

The baseless “regression” hogwash that floated throughout the diaspora has been logically debunked, most spectacularly by Nate Washuta of Holy Schwartz! and Jeremy Reisman at Detroit OnLion. Now, the Lions have a chance to physically debunk it, by playing four quarters of great football against a team that’s served as a benchmark for Jim Schwartz’s Lions twice before.

It was against the Rams that the Lions suffered the most obnoxious defeat of the 2009 campaign: the Rams’ 17-10 win at Ford Field was their only win of the season, the only “W” standing in between them and repeating the Lions’ 2008 feat.

It was against the Rams that the Lions enjoyed their most emphatic win of the 2010 season: a 44-6 romp that not only answered the question of which team’s turnaround was further along, but served as a desperately-needed release for apoplectic Lions fans; it was a laugher in every sense of the word.

Now, somehow, the stakes are exactly the same: a loss to the lowly Rams would be again be a gut-punch, a convincing win all the proof we need that everything is going to be alright.

Scott Linehan vs. Jeff Fisher

Lin	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	JF	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	PTSΔ	YpA	YpAΔ	YpC	YpCΔ
MIN	6th	25.3	7.16	4.71	TEN	30th	27.4	7.27	4.55	20	-21%	6.10	-15%	5.63	20%
MIA	16th	19.9	5.94	3.69	TEN	29th	26.3	6.84	4.22	24	21%	5.03	-15%	5.05	37%

Scott Linehan has faced off against Jeff Fisher twice before: in 2005, as the offensive coordinator of the Dolphins under Nick Saban, and the season before, as architect of the Vikings offense. The ‘04 Vikings were a powerful unit, ranked 6th in the NFL in scoring. They averaged 7.16 yards per pass attempt, and 4.71 yards per carry on the ground—both figures second-best in the NFL.

The Titans were not, as they say, in their glory in these days. In 2004, the Titans were ranked 30th (3rd-worst) in the NFL in scoring defense. They allowed an average of 27.4  points per game, 7.27 yards per pass attempt and 4.55 yards per carry.

Surprisingly, Linehan’s Vikings only scored 20 points against the Titans that day, 21% below their season average. They also held the Vikings to 6.1 YpA, 15% below their season average. The Vikings, however, ran at will: 5.63 YpC, a 20% boost above their already-stout 4.71 season average. Further, it didn’t really matter: the Titans’ offense could only muster a lousy three points; the Vikings didn’t have to put up pinball numbers to win comfortably.

In 2005, the Titans at least managed an offensive touchdown: Billy Volek hit Drew Bennett for a 55-yard score in the fourth quarter. But 10 points couldn’t match the Dolphins’ 24. Linehan’s Dolphins scored 21% more points than their season average against Fisher’s Titans, and again ran wild: 5.05 YpC, a 37% boost over their 2005 norm.

Interestingly, the YpA depression was exactly the same as in 2004: 15%. So we have two contests between these two coaches, with two different teams running the same offensive system against the same defensive system. In both cases, there was a major talent gap: the 2004 and 2005 Titans defenses were terrible overall, the 2005 Dolphins were average, and the 2004 Vikings were excellent.

We have only two games to work with, and the scoring differentials weren’t consistent. But the passing depression was exactly 15% both times, and the running boost was significant both times. I'm willing to declare: when facing Jeff Fisher/Jim Schwartz defenses of poor quality, Scott Linehan offenses tend to pass less effectively, and run much more effectively, than their season averages.

Brian Schottenheimer vs. Gunther Cunningham

Shot

Ornk

PgG

YpA

YpC

Gun

Drnk

PpG

DYpA

DYpC

PTS

PTSΔ

YpA

YpAΔ

YpC

YpCΔ

NYJ

12th

23

6

4.8

DET

19th

23.1

6.75

4.51

24

6%

8.62

45%

3.67

-24%

The last time the Lions faced Brian Schottenheimer, I went on one of my most ridiculous flights of if-then fancy. Not only did I play telephone with Schottenheimer’s mentors and influences, going all the way back to Sid Gillman, I went to ridiculous lengths to construct a narrative from the data I cobbled together. The result? Durr Sharks.

From that original Watchtower, I pointed out:

If there were no systemic advantage or disavantage, the expectation for the Jets’ offense against the Lions’ defense would be 24-27 points.

The Jets needed an overtime field goal to get there, but 24 points is exactly what they scored. That field goal pushed the points delta from –7% to +6%,  to go with a whopping 45% increase in YpA. The Lions, surprisingly, held up very well against the Jets’ bruising running attack, holding them to just 3.67 YpA (-27%) . . . fat lot of good it did them.

That the Jets had the 12th-best offense, and the Lions the 19th-best defense, and they did such a fantastic job of holding down such a powerful running attack (very much unlike the rest of the season). The Jets met scoring expectations, but only because they dragged it out into overtime. Their YpA was extraordinarily high; I’d be surprised if Mark Sanchez equalled that mark in any other game. Of course, he was helped tremendously by two 74- and 52-yard bombs;  subtract those two throws and Schottenheimer’s Jets only netted 5.68 yards per attempt.

The bottom line here is that it seems as though there may be a mild systemic advantage for Jim Schwartz defenses against Brian Schottenheimer offenses, especially against the run. However, I got burned really badly when speculating on Schottenheimer before, and now we’re dealing with a completely different team.

Conclusion

I’m not doing mitigating/augmenting influences this time; we have no strong statistical trends and no data from this season to work with, either. This might also be the most incestuous game I’ve ever Watchtowered, too: Schwartz, of course, coached under Fisher in Tennessee for years, and Gunther Cunningham worked with Brian Schottenheimer (and his father) in Kansas City.

All of these coaches know each other (and each other’s schemes) very well; there’s going to be a lot of chess-matchery going down. But in this battle of student and master—or, should I say, mentor and Grandmaster—the student is playing with quite a few more pieces.

The Rams have two strong running backs and a great pass-rushing defensive line. They also have a young quarterback who’s still more potential than reality, and a bevy of talented new faces in the secondary. They don’t have any real receivers, or an offensive line worth mentioning.

The injuries to the Lions’ secondary make me wonder if this will be a shootout, but I can’t believe the Rams’ offense will be consistent enough to string several scoring drives together. Based on last year’s Lions offensive output and pass rush, plus the Rams’ profound awfulness and in-progress recovery therefrom, I see the most likely outcome as a 32-17 Lions win. As a corrolary, watch to see if the Lions’ systemic advantage in running the ball, and disadvantage passing the ball comes into play.

I can't pretend this is a mathematically derived anything, and so have very low confidence in this projection. AFTER this game, we’ll have a pretty clear idea on whether or not Gunther really does have the drop on his homeboy’s kid, and whether the student truly has become the Grandmaster. Going into it, I’m going with my gut.

Read more...

Lions at Ravens Preview: a Finally, a Real Fake Game

My apologies to the Cleveland Browns, but even by Great Lakes Classic standards last week was a snoozer: little anticipation, little of the stars doing their thing, little to get excited about. What little of Stafford & Co. we got to see was uninspiring. The promising rushing improvements came mostly with backups, mostly against backups, and the two units most in question (offensive line, back seven) failed to answer any questions.

This second game presents the first real test: the vaunted Baltimore Ravens defense, a hostile crowd, an offense actually capable of scoring points, more reps for the starters and less Kellen Moore/Seneca Wallace.

Also, as John Kreger of CBSSports.com Tweeted, the Lions are gameplanning more for the Ravens; Baltimore is Schwartz's home and he'll want to put up a "good show."

A “good show” will consist of:

• Matthew Stafford looking sharp, and being on the same page with his receivers.
• More consistent pass protection from Jeff Backus; continued solid run blocking from the interior line.
• Titus Young making an impact.
• Kevin Smith, Keiland Williams and Joique Bell running with a high success rate; don't need home runs as much as solid gains on 1st-and-long and 3rd-and-short.
• At least one touchdown by the starting offense against the starting Ravens defense.
• The interior pass rush making an impact.
• Continued success by the exterior pass rush.
• A MUCH improved showing by the linebackers in coverage.
• Bill Bentley and Jacob Lacey keeping Anquan Boldin out of the end zone and Torrey Smith from hauling in a 30-plus-yard reception.
• A MUCH improved showing by the safties, in coverage and in tackling.

Okay, maybe asking for all that is too much. So I'll just ask for this:

Please, Lions, take this one seriously. Play like you want to play. Play like you want to play well. Play like you want to win.

Jim Schwartz told Dave Birkett of the Freep the same thing:

"Hopefully we play a lot better," he said Wednesday. "We need to play a lot better. We need to play with a little more sense of urgency."

It's not that I want the Lions to pull out the schematic stops, or run the starters all the way to halftime. To the contrary: I want to keep the best stuff under wraps and the starters injury-free. But I want the guys that are fighting for starting—or roster—spots to fight. I want the guys who think they’ve got a role locked up to show us why. I want the Lions to make the most of every rep they get.

That's what the Patriots' “Next Man Up” philosophy has always been about: no matter what letters are arranged on the back of any Patriot’s jersey, that player is supposed to do his job just like the man before him did. Let us not forget who our own Baltimorian, the Grandmaster himself, studied under: Patriot head coach Bill Belichick.

Last week, the Lions mostly looked to be sleepwalking, waiting for their proven awesomeness to win out over an opponent who wanted desperately to prove that they can play. The reality is, these 2012 Lions haven’t proven anything. If they want to wear getting whooped in last year’s Wild Card game like a badge of honor, they’re in deep trouble.

Tonight, I want to see two playoff teams smack each other in the mouth for four quarters, regardless of whether it's the first-stringers or the fourth-stringers on the field.

Read more...

Steve Spagnuolo, Jim Schwartz, & the Road Not Taken

Spags is my #1 choice for the next Lions head coach--and he ought to be yours, too.

That was the closing line of my fifth post ever, the "To Whom it May Concern" for Steve Spagnuolo. I tagged him “Candidate 1A,” thanks to his impressive track record of coaching up defensive backs and harnessing pass-rushing talent. He also had experience in player personnel, making him an ideal fit for a franchise turning the keys over to a first-time GM.

Monday, Spagnuolo was fired.

It’s a visceral reminder of how thin the line between success and failure is in the NFL. It’s a reminder of how “the right” choices and “the right” processes can still lead to bad outcomes. You can make a great coaching hire like Spags, draft great prospects like Sam Bradford and Robert Quinn, sign great free agents like Pro Football Focus darling Quentin Mikell, and still have the wheels fall off. It’s not enough to make good individual decisions, they all have to synthesize into a greater plan—and sometimes, even that isn’t enough.

Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch eloquently detailed how and why Steve Spagnuolo’s “trying hard” was too hard to swallow:

You don't get four-year or five-year building phases in this league anymore. You don't win seven games in your second season and then revert to being an expansion-team level mess in your third season. There should be zero tolerance for the horror of watching quarterback Sam Bradford regress so alarmingly in his second NFL season . . .

. . . My fear is that a bizarre alternate universe has set in over at Rams Park. It's a place where you can go 10-38 and merrily dish the kind of tributes usually reserved for a team that's gone 38-10.

We've lived in that alternate universe, haven't we, Lions fans?

Spagnuolo got off to a start mirroring Jim Schwartz’s. They both drafted franchise quarterbacks, they both took big jumps from one or two wins to six or seven wins, and coming into this season both had legitimate designs on making the playoffs.

In the end, though, Spagnuolo’s tenure more closely resembled Rod Marinelli’s. Both changed offensive coordinators in year three, both had major regressions on both sides of the ball, and both held a season’s worth of awkward press conferences full of blithering platitudes about building a foundation when the walls were clearly tumbling down.

And now: poetry.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that, the passing there
Had worn them really about the same, 10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back. 15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

-Robert Frost, "The Road Not Taken"

Normally we just hear the last three lines of this poem, because this is America and “just being yourself” is our greatest collective virtue. Doing your own thing just to be different is universally lauded. Being interesting is just as valid, if not more so, than being good—just ask Lady Gaga.

But there are seventeen other lines to this poem, and Frost takes great pains to point out that neither of the two paths is any more or less virtuous. The path the speaker takes was “just as fair” as the other; it had “perhaps a better claim” because it was grassy and not worn down—but he admits both paths had been worn “really about the same.” Both were covered in undisturbed leaves anyway, so he might as well have flipped a coin.

This poem is about the lies we tell ourselves to spin our lives into dramatic narratives, with concrete causes and effects and triumphs and tragedies. The speaker tells himself he “kept the first [path] for another day,” even though in the back of his mind he knows it’s unlikely he’ll ever make this choice again.

The speaker is self-aware enough to know someday, years and years down the line, he’ll wistfully recall this apparently-fateful day in the woods—and tell someone with a sigh he took the road less traveled by, and in the end it made all the difference. He’s foretelling his own revisionist history! The choice, we know, was basically a whim—and whatever events followed it coincidental.

It's tempting to say Martin Mayhew and Tom Lewand—or, if he is to be believed, William Clay Ford—were blessed with incredible foresight to let the Rams have the consensus “Candidate 1A” and tab Jim Schwartz to lead the Lions from the absolute bottom of the blackest abyss to the top of the mountain. It’s tempting to believe the Lions, by marching to the beat of their own drummer, got the “right” guy while the Rams foolishly followed the herd and got the “wrong” guy. Who knows? Perhaps it’s true.

But on the face of it, Spagnuolo and Schwartz were both great (and similar) candidates. So many factors go into the success of an NFL franchise that a head coach can be consistently excellent at his job and still fail (see: Andy Reid, who may have to hire Spags to save his own skin). Who’s to say that had the situations been reversed, Spagnuolo wouldn’t be leading the Lions to the playoffs while Schwartz tries to team back up with Jeff Fisher?

Whether it was a stroke of brilliant insight by the Lions executives, or a stroke of sheer luck, the Detroit Lions have a great coach doing great work with the considerable resources at his command. I can’t pretend I wouldn’t have loved the hiring of Steve Spagnuolo, nor can I pretend that if Spags were successful as Schwartz has been I wouldn’t be just as thrilled to have him prowling the Ford Field sidelines.

But the Lions took the head-banging, chess-playing, ref-eviscerating candidate less wanted, and I’m happy to tell myself The Grandmaster has made all the difference.

Read more...

Jim Schwartz, Good Parenting, and Discipline

People are social animals. We’re hardwired to help acclimate and acculture each other into serving the greater good. We compliment those who embody our collective virtues, and we damn those who embody our cultural vices. As children, we tease and gossip and bully each other until we (mostly) conform, rounding off each other’s sharper corners so as to better get along. As adults, we do all the same things, usually via “helpful advice” or passive-aggressive notes.
     Charlie Capen of How to Be a Dad, having suffered through a doozy of a parenting critique, vented on the Good Men Project:

This past week someone close to us told us that my son evidently has a “discipline problem.” This information was delivered first to my wife (who almost lost it), after which I called Captain Commentary to see if I could clear up the misunderstanding. The critic launched into a solid hour of armchair quarterbacking. I paraphrase:

“Your son, maliciously and premeditatedly, hurled a sippy cup at your wife’s head. On purpose. Following that, he went over to a younger cousin and hit him. Twice. On purpose. He is undisciplined and the sole cause of stress in your life.”

This, after only 40 minutes of observation. He was barely 18 months old at the time. My son, not the critic.

Parenting is the most sensitive topic I know of. Politics, religion, and even the BCS don’t raise more hackles than parenting choices. As a parent, you get all kinds of unsolicited advice on how to raise your child—and once you get past a certain point you start to feel very strongly that others could benefit from your own wisdom. Of course, every child is different and every parent is different; there’s never a “one size fits all” solution.

The Detroit Lions have a discipline problem, and everybody is all eager to tell Jim Schwartz what he needs to do. He needs to fine his players. He needs to pull them out of games. He needs to not pull them out of games. He needs to bench them. He needs to publicly denounce their acts. He needs to keep it all in house. He needs to stop playing favorites, and punish all offenders the same . . .

It just doesn’t work that way. Everyone is motivated differently. Everyone has different goals. Everyone has different fears. Reinforcement can be positive or negative, and the “carrot” and the “stick” are different for everyone. My middle child absolutely cannot stand being told to go to his room. Being alone with nothing to do is abhorrent to him; it’s a powerful punishment. Sending my eldest to her room results in her shrugging her shoulders and planting her nose in a book; it’s hardly a punishment at all.

Of course, the Detroit Lions aren’t children; they’re grown men. But some are long-married parents of multiple kids, and some are just a year or two removed from frat parties. Some are already set for life, and some are going to be selling insurance in a few years. Some are brilliant, multi-faceted people who could have felt fulfilled in any number of careers. Some were born to play football. You can’t apply the same standards of discipline to them all and expect the same results.

Moreover, just like the all the unsolicited parenting advisors, we know practically nothing about these men and their situations. We know nothing about their relationship with the coaches. We know nothing about about what’s said or done in private. We know nothing about what’s been demanded, what’s been promised, what the internal rules are or when they’ve been broken or how many times or by whom.

Publicly, we’ve seen a loss of self-control on the field, and it’s killing the team’s ability to win games. That has to stop and that is on Jim Schwartz. But we shouldn’t be armchair-coaching each and every individual incident. That’s not going to do anybody any good. Schwartz and the players have acknowledged there’s a problem, and they’re going to address it. Let’s give them a chance to teach and learn and correct the problems before we start lecturing a guy who might be the best Lions coach of the last fifty years on how to do his job.

Read more...

Jim Schwartz: Grandmaster, or Cable Guy?

Yesterday, the Lions released guard Greg Niland, and brought in former Spartan center Chris Morris. Morris, drafted by Oakland in 2006’s 7th round, had worked his way into the starting lineup by 2009, running with the ones for the first eight games. However, he lost his starting gig to Robert Gallery at the bye week, and made only two more spot starts after that. With Gallery having made him expendable, Morris was cut. He spent last season with the Panthers, but only dressed for four games.

Rotoworld on Morris:

Lions signed C Chris Morris, formerly of the Patriots.

Morris lasted just ten days in Patriots camp earlier this month. The journeyman 28-year-old made ten starts for a terrible Raiders offensive line in 2009.

Well gee, when you say it like that . . . Morris doesn’t sound like a sensible pickup. With Dylan Gandy and Rudy Niswanger already on the roster, why bring in another backup G/C? The operative word in that Rotoworld quote is “Patriots.” Morris had been camping with the Patriots, until a left leg injury forced them to release him.

As the Lions are—right now, today—gameplanning for their third preseason game, this suddenly makes sense. With a national television crew coming to witness the suddenly-buzzworthy Lions host the perennially title-contending Patriots, the stakes are high. Jim Schwartz signing a recent Pats cut to pick his brain is proof The Grandmaster is taking this matchup seriously. Very seriously. Maybe . . . too seriously?

Commenter @LineBusy made this analogy on Twitter, and it flat-out slayed me. Sure, this preseason game is a very real, very important measuring stick for the team and franchise. But there’s also doubt that Schwartz wants to prove himself to Belichick, his first NFL mentor. Don’t forget, Schwartz’s first job was an unpaid internship in the Browns' front office, under Belichick. Schwartz worked long hours, sleeping in a team-provided apartment and eating only Browns cafeteria food. Belichick even walked in on Schwartz sneaking the last of Belichick’s lunchmeat.

Last Thanksgiving, the Lions—thanks in large part to a brilliant coaching job by Schwartz & Co.—managed to hold the Patriots to a draw until the fourth quarter, when the dam finally burst. Obviously, Schwartz and the  Lions can’t “really” avenge that regular-season embarrassment with a preseason win. But taking the field and going toe-to-toe, starter-to-starter, with the league’s best? Even gaining the upper hand in the first half would be a huge momentum builder for this team.

The Lions need to convert the hype into reality; they need to back up all the talk. They need to wake up the people who are sleeping on them. They need to convert the faith of believers like me into truth. They need to prove it to themselves, and everyone else, that they’re ready to punch their ticket to the postseason. That’s why this preseason game—which doesn’t even really count—is vitally, crucially important. The Lions must seek out every conceivable advantage, no matter how small the edge or how great the cost.

Thanks for the boost, Chris.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,new england patriots,jim schwartz,bill belichick

Read more...

History Lessons: Aaron Curry & 3rd Preseason Games

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

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

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

To draft Aaron Curry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more...

Old Mother Hubbard: Stocked and Loaded

“We’re free! We’re free!” shouted Rashied Davis, as twenty-six new and returning Lions veterans rushed onto the field, donning their helmets as thousands of Lions fans cheered them on. Released from the locker room by the ratified CBA, the new NFL League Year began with a roar. The Grandmaster suggested a horn:

“I’ve never been in the army or anything else, but when the cavalry comes, you feel good,” Schwartz said. “If we could have had a horn blowing, that would have been good, put somebody on horseback and bring them out. We needed it. It added so many to our lines, just stretching.”

For the first time yesterday, all of the 2011 Lions fit to play were out on the field in full pads, practicing without limitations, restrictions, or artifice. As I write this, Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith are signing the new 10-year collective bargaining agreement with pomp and circumstance normally reserved for Israel-Palestine peace treaties. Season tickets went out, including to a friend of mine (who supplied the above glamour shot). All is finally officially right with the Detroit Lions’ world.

Good.

Now, to work.

Martin Mayhew held a rare press conference at this morning’s practice. Clearly, the kid gloves have come off:

"I think we're at a point now where we expect to challenge for our division, and that's what most good teams expect to do," he said before Friday's practice. "We're at that point."

"We're here to win football games. We're here to be productive. There's no need to talk about it. It's time to stop talking about winning, and it's time to start winning."

Sorry, Martin, I’m going to keep talking about it. Let’s assess the shopping Mr. Mayhew did, starting from our original Old Mother Hubbard needs list:

• An impact two-way defensive end to rotate soon, and develop for 2012.
       [Lawrence Jackson]
• An athletic, pass-rushing OLB to rotate soon, and develop for 2012.
       [Bobby Carpenter/Doug Hogue]
• A field-stretching #2 WR.
       [Titus Young]
• A power back to complement Jahvid Best.
       [Mikel Leshoure]
• A credible backup middle linebacker.
       [Levy, Durant, Tulloch]
• An athletic, pass-rushing OLB ready to start right away.
       [Justin Durant]
• An athletic cover corner, ready to take over one side in 2012.
       [Eric Wright]
• If Chris Houston leaves, a complete two-way corner, ready to start right away.
       [Chris Houston]
• A left tackle who can be groomed to replace Jeff Backus.
• A center who will be ready to rotate at guard soon, and compete at center for 2012.

I had to fudge the linebackers around a bit; DeAndre Levy, Stephen Tulloch, and Justin Durant will likely be your starting linebackers, all three have the ability to play inside or outside as needed. Bobby Carpenter can rotate right away, and Doug Hogue can develop for 2012 (while likely seeing some mopup duty this year, too). Assuming Titus Young will be “a field stretching #2 WR” is looking like a shaky assumption, considering he still hasn’t even practiced yet, and rookie wideouts rarely produce right away. The only other stretch here is classifying Eric Wright as “an athletic cover corner,” but he has the tools and immediately upgrades the position. Between Wright, Alphonso Smith, Nathan Vasher, and Aaron Berry, the #2-#5 corners should be much better this year than last, across the board.

I remind everyone that half of all top draft picks bust out, and a similar number of free agents fail to live up to their billing. Several of these line items are sure to uncross themselves as the year goes on. But for right now, the larder is well stocked; the Lions are ready for autumn—when the growing season ends, and football season begins.

Read more...

Haunted By Hope: The Ghosts of Lions Past

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more...

The Grandmaster Tells Fairley Not To Hit The Books

Over the weekend, word broke that the Lions didn’t give Nick Fairley a playbook in the short not-quite-two-days they were allowed to contact him. They flew Fairley to Detroit, let him meet the fans, had him tour the facilities . . . but never gave him a playbook? They passed up a chance to get their new thoroughbred up to speed? What’s up with that? Per the Freep, Schwartz didn’t think it was a thing:

"Our blood pressure's pretty low on stuff like that," Schwartz said. "We don't want to rush things. You give somebody a set of instructions without being able to communicate with them, it really might not do a whole lot of good so we haven't done a whole lot."

Schwartz explained the raw playbook isn’t going to be of much use to a rookie who hasn’t had the instruction to back it up. That’s doubly true for Fairley, a defensive tackle in a system where DTs play a conventional role. It’s not as though he has three positions to learn, like a wideout or a linebacker. Unlike Ndamukong Suh, there’s no chance Fairley will be asked to play every snap he physically can; Fairley will play situationally. The most important thing for him is being ready to answer the bell—which is exactly what Schwartz said:

Schwartz said Fairley won't have as much to learn as some rookies when football resumes -- "We're not real complicated up front," he said. "It's more of a physical game than it is a mental game for him."

Josh Katzowitz of CBSSports.com still takes issue with Schwartz’s approach, though:

Yes, but what if the lockout extends deep into the summer and then the lockout is lifted with only a short training camp possible before the regular season begins? Won’t Fairley be hampered because the Lions didn’t give him the opportunity to familiarize himself with the material when they had the chance?

Schwartz’s decision makes sense to me on a few fundamental levels. First, I’ve dug up some pro and college playbooks for study purposes—and even with an explicatory “Here is what we are trying to do” foreword, it takes an awful lot of digestion for a layperson. Without the experience of a coach explaining it, without physical demonstration or film study backing it up, it’s almost impossible for a layperson to understand why the squiggles and arrows and dashed lines are any more significant for going this way than any other.

Of course, Nick Fairley isn’t a layperson—he was the cornerstone of a BCS National Championship-winning defense, drawn up by one of the best defensive minds in college football, Gene Chizik. Fairley’s been reading playbooks for years; he knows what all the lines and squiggles mean and can pick it up, no problem—so why not let him memorize everything now?

Because that’s not the important part. Nick Fairley will indeed pick up the “who am I supposed to kill, on what play” part quickly; as Schwartz said the Lions aren’t complicated up front. What Fairley needs is the coaching: the physical demonstrations of how they want their linemen to hit the hole, the film study of last years’ team executing the defense, the coaches’ explanation of the philosophy behind each arrow and dash in that playbook.

I remember when Jim Schwartz took over, he talked about defensive line technique. Marinelli coached his players to “get skinny in the hole,” ($) to attack gaps with a shoulder and penetrate blocks. Schwartz, meanwhile, prefers his D-line to engage their blockers, to attack and control with their arms, to get pressure without losing containment.  It meant Schwartz had to coach all the linemen to do, essentially, the opposite of what they’d been doing. Nick Fairley can memorize “On this play I go here,” right now—but if he’ll have to re-learn how to “go there” from scratch, what’s the point? Schwartz would rather Nick Fairley be lifting and running sprints than poring over a playbook—so when it’s really time to learn the defense, he’ll be as ready as he can possibly be.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,jim schwartz,nick fairley,playbook,defensive scheme

Read more...

Lions Preseason Schedule: Bring On The PatRIOTS

Yesterday, the Lions announced their preseason schedule:

• vs. Cincinnati Bengals
• at Cleveland Browns (Great Lakes Classic!)
• vs. New England Patriots (Saturday, 8:00 pm, CBS
• at Buffalo Bills

The spotlight, as always, is on the third preseason game. As Dennis Green so colorfully told us, every coaching staff takes that game seriously:

The Lions have never been afraid to court a serious opponent for that game, and Bill Belichick is as serious it gets. Jim Schwartz Tweeted:

“Like NE as third preseason game. Nice having a 3-4 team as talented as the Patriots in that slot.”

The Lions scheduled 3-4 (and 3-4/4-3 hybrid) teams last season, too: Pittsburgh, Denver, Cleveland, and Buffalo. I wonder what the idea is here? The Packers, of course, run a 3-4, but Minnesota and Chicago run 4-3s, with varying degrees of Cover 2. I think it goes back to the principles I look at in The Watchtower: scheme-on-scheme interaction. With the personnel rotation in the preseason, it becomes base defense vs. base offense—and 3-4s naturally generate more outside pressure.

Then again, the third preseason game is the only one where real gameplanning occurs, so perhaps The Grandmaster is just excited about getting a preseason chess match. He can deploy rookies and try position switches and take risks, almost without consequence. Better yet, it’s a chess match against his old mentor—a rematch of last year, when 45 minutes of stalemate yielded to a blowout loss in the endgame. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, that was the last time the Lions played before a national audience.

What? Yes, that’s right, it’ll be on national TV, Saturday night, at 8:00. Much has been said (and written) about the Lions’ primetime TV drought; I won’t rehash it all here. But, given the Patriots’ involvement, the buzz building around the Lions, and the primo time slot, the Lions will be playing in the most-anticipated game of the most (only) important week of preseason football. There will be PREGAME analysis. There may even be hype! That’s right, national TV analysts attempting to convince us that the Lions will play competitive, interesting football against a perennial winner. I will shamelessly enjoy it.

Technorati Tags: detroit lions,jim schwartz,new england patriots,bill belichick,2011 nfl preseason,nfl

Read more...

JIm Schwartz Gets It: A Fan’s Appreciation

One day, during his first training camp, Jim Schwartz addressed the media. That’s typical for training camp, but on this occasional he had something special to say:

"It's hard to be angry at me, so I generally don't get that that. I don't know the best way to put it ... they're guardedly optimistic. I think when you put yourself out there, the way you do when you're a fan, when you expose your soul to rooting for your team and you get hurt time and time again, sometimes you have a tendency to hold back and not put yourself out as much. and not become as, you know, I don’t know a good way to put it, but not become as . . . fanatical a fan. Is that redundant? “Fanatical a fan”? But the one thing is, they keep stepping up. They’re true football fans in this city; they’re excited about it. Everywhere I go, I get positive, positive feelings from the fans here.”

I think when you put yourself out there, the way you do when you're a fan, when you expose your soul to rooting for your team and you get hurt time and time again, sometimes you have a tendency to hold back and not put yourself out as much.

I swooned.

. . . and yet, here, in the sweltering June heat, is Jim Schwartz, head coach of the Lions. With the bone-chilling cold of this past winter an impossibly distant memory, he's talking earnestly about how hard it is for fans to “expose their soul” to a team, only to get hurt again and again. Could there be a better fit? Is there a team that needs a man like him more? Is there a group of fans more desperate for someone to understand the depth of their devotion, and the depth of their suffering? Is there a coach more perfectly suited to stoke the blue flames, and melt the ice around Lions' fans hearts? Has there ever been a coach brilliant and bold enough to rock the Frank Zappa moustache/soul patch combination?

Well, the Zappa look didn’t last long—but the sentiment remains.  Schwartz has shown a comprehensive understanding of the relationship Lions fans have with their team—that is a rare quality.  It’s especially useful with this team, of all teams; we’ve suffered through decades of mediocrity and worse. We’ve been put down, ignored, stomped on, and put through the wringer.  We’ve endured season after season after season of uncompetitive, uninteresting, hopeless, hapless football—often, with no end in sight.  Our team has been a national punchline for years—and publicly branding yourself a Lions fan was a one-way ticket to Loserville.

But Schwartz, he gets it . . . and unlike just about any other coach, Schwartz gives the fans credit for understanding the game:

“My experience with fans is that this excitement wasn’t developed the last four weeks of the season,” said Schwartz.

“We had really excited fans in training camp this year and I think one of the frustrations with the way that we started was that they recognized how close we were and how good we could be.”

Exactly—that was what was so frustrating about the first half of this season; we could see the talent, we could see the progress, we could practically taste victory!  It was right there at our fingertips, filling our nostrils and our ears--yet, time after time, we came away hungry.  The four-game win streak wasn’t a surprise invitation to a dinner party, it was unbinding our hands from our chair so we could finally eat.

. . . maybe it was only at the kids' table. But next season?  I think we’re sitting with the grownups.

Also, I shouldn’t write when I’m this hungry.

Read more...

Kyle Vanden Bosch: Music With What We Have Left

I named this post after a beautiful--but apocryphal--story about violin virtuoso Itzhak Perlman finishing a concert after breaking a string.  Perlman, so the story goes, snapped a string very early in the performance—and forged ahead, using alternate fingerings, different voicings, even detuning strings (!) on the fly to complete the piece without missing a beat.  Perlman, who was stricken with polio as a youth and so walks with crutches, then quieted the enthralled audience and (allegedly) said, “You know, sometimes it’s the artist’s task to find out how much music you can still make with with what you have left.”

Again, as I said, it didn’t actually happen, as far as anyone can tell—the story appeared in the Houston Chronicle six years after the concert supposedly took place, doesn’t jibe with Perlman’s known performance schedule from the time, and nobody who saw him perform around then reported anything like the above . . . but it is a good story.

Today, Kyle Vanden Bosch was placed on the Reserve-Injured list, ending his first season as a Detroit Lion.  A captain, and the unquestioned heart and soul of the defense, KVB finished with 33 tackles, 11 assists, 4 sacks, 2 forced fumbles, and a pass defensed.  This included a monster 10-tackle tour de force in the season opener; one of the greatest individual performances by a Lion in recent memory.  We’re told not to worry, the bulging disk will be easily corrected, and KVB will return to play “at a high level.”  I’d be inclined to question The Grandmaster on this one, except he was right about how much KVB had left in the tank to begin with . . .

So what’s left?  A freshly-broken-out Cliff Avril, Turk McBride, Lawrence Jackson, and (the Great) Willie Young.  If Avril can keep up his dominant play, this group won’t be too shabby—especially if the tackles continue to play as they have.  However, that’s a pretty big “if;” KVB’s leadership inarguably inspired Avril and the rest of the line to play as they have—will they keep it up in his absence?  In a way, KVB’s absence will allow us to judge his off-field impact on the team, just as much as his presence allowed us to judge his impact between the lines.

Moreover, it’ll be a stern test of just how far the defense has come under Schwartz and Cunningham: can they keep this group motivated and productive without the man they desperately courted in the offseason?  Knowing KVB would be the catalyst for great improvement on the defensive line, will the reaction keep going now that the catalyst is spent?  Can Guntherball keep playing the offense like a fiddle, calling just the right blitz at just the right time, now that a string has snapped?  We’ll get to see just how much music he can still make with what he has left.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,jim schwartz,gunther cunningham,kyle vanden bosch,cliff avril

Read more...

The Watchtower: Lions vs. Patriots

The Lions’ Thanksgiving day game is the definition of routine: a tradition since 1934, it happens every single year, like clockwork.  However, it royally messes with the weekly NFL routine; I woke up on Monday and started panicking about the Watchtower.  Further, it’s yet another Very Special Watchtower: the one where the team has no offensive or defensive coordinator.

That's right, it's right there on the Patriots' coaches page: Bill Belichick is the head coach, runs the offense and the defense, and has a cadre of trusted position-coach assistants.  That’s it.  Examining his track record on both sides of the ball, without crediting him too much or too little, is going to be insanely tricky.  So, let’s get right to it.

Bill Belichick vs. Gunther Cunningham

BB	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Gun	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	PTSΔ	YpA	YpAΔ	YpC	YpCΔ
NEP	25th	17.2	5.63	3.29	KCC	19th	22.1	6.32	3.83	30	74.4%	5.88	4.4%	3.39	3.0%
NEP	10th	23.8	5.91	3.82	TEN	11th	20.2	6.30	3.83	7	-70.6%	4.42	-25.2%	4.31	12.8%
NEP	12th	21.8	6.39	3.40	TEN	13th	20.2	6.60	3.79	31	42.2%	7.06	10.5%	5.96	75.3%
NEP	4th	27.3	7.40	4.07	KCC	29th	27.2	8.05	4.62	27	-1.1%	12.12	63.8%	3.06	-24.8%
NEP	6th	25.2	7.51	4.58	KCC	16th	20.3	6.58	4.10	16	-36.5%	6.20	-17.4%	4.11	-10.3%
NEP	1st	28.9	6.85	4.09	DET	22d	23.7	7.13	4.79

As you all most certainly are aware, Belichick started out in New England with a noteworthy offensive coordinator: Charlie Weis, currently the OC in KC.  However, Belichick has a long track record of understanding offense, and calling his team’s offensive plays.  I don’t want to lend too much weight to the first four rows (the Weis) years—but it’s clear that Belichick has had his fingers in the offense the entire time, and further it’s clear that Weis did not take the Patriots’ offensive mojo with him to Notre Dame.

In 2002, New England’s offense and Tennesee’s defense were both pretty good (10th & 11th, respectively), yet the Titans held the Pats to just 7 points, 70.6% below their average.  in 2004, the Pats’ offense was a juggernaut—4th in the NFL—and the Chiefs’ defense was wretched.  Yet, the Patriots’ offensive output precisely matched their season average scored—and the Chiefs’ season average allowed: 27 points.  Sounding great so far . . .

. . . but in 2000, the Patriots offense was well below average (25th, 17.2 ppg), and put up thirty points on the 19th-ranked Chiefs.  In 2003, the Pats and Chiefs were again quite evenly matched in terms of execution (12th and 13th), but the Pats went nuts, scoring 42% above their season average.  So what can we conclude?  Nothing.  This might be the most schizophrenic data I’ve ever seen. 

The only non-Weis data point we have came in 2005, when Belichick’s 6th-ranked Patriots (and their 25.2 PpG average) faced off against Gunther’s 16th-ranked Chiefs, averaging 20.3 points allowed.  Impressively, the Chiefs bottled up the Pats, holding them to just 16 offensive points—a delta of 36%!

Looking at the table above, the only commonality I see between the two best results for the Cunningham defense is how the pass was limited.  In both 2002 and 2005, the Pats were held to well below their season averages in per-play effectiveness through the air—and consequently their scoring output was WELL below normal.  So, if the Lions can manage to hold the Patriots to 85% or less of their 2010 YpA . . .

. . . unfortunately, the Patriots have the #1 offense in the NFL.  They’re scoring 28.9 points per game, and have been surprisingly balanced while doing so.  Averaging 6.85 YpA, and 4.09 YpC, they’ll present an extremely tough out for the Lions defense.  That defense, by the way, is ranked 23rd, allowing 22.4 points per game.  As a point of reference, the Lions were dead last in 2009, 2008, and 2007—and 30th in 2006.  The last time the Lions defense was this good was in 2005, when they were ranked 21st and allowed 21.6 ppg.

Still, I don't see an out-of-nowhere performance that holds the Pats to 13 points happening, here.  Bill Belichick respects Schwartz, a former assistant, too much to show up for this game unprepared—and when was the last time BB let that happen anyway?  With no systemic advantage or disadvantage, save a possible what-if-they-don’t-pass-for-beans-corollary that I don’t see coming to fruition, I project the Patriots to meet expectations against the Lions, scoring 30-35 points, netting 7.0-7.50YpA, and garnering 4.25-4.50 YpC.  I have medium confidence in this projection.

Mitigating/Aggravating Factors:

Well, the sold-out crowd should help the Lions, if it’s not over in the fourth quarter.  Belichick knows Schwartz well, but Schwartz also knows Belichick well.  My guess is we’ll see some creative wrinkles from Gun, and likely some go-for-broke blitzes as well.  However, I don’t see that adding up to a mysteriously stout passing defense shutting down Tom Brady.  I’m pretty sure the 30-35 projection will be accurate.

Scott Linehan vs. Bill Belichick

Lin	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Wade	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	PTS?	YpA	YpA?	YpC	YpC?
MIN	8th	24.4	6.60	5.3	NEP	17th	21.6	5.91	3.82	17	-30.3%	5.55	-15.9%	6.12	15.5%
MIA	16th	19.9	5.94	3.69	NEP	17th	21.1	7.30	3.44	16	-19.6%	7.66	29.0%	3.08	-16.5%
MIA	16th	19.9	5.94	3.69	NEP	17th	21.1	7.30	3.44	26	30.7%	6.83	15.0%	3.70	0.3%
STL	30th	14.5	5.67	3.95	NEP	8th	19.3	6.68	4.40	16	10.3%	8.85	56.1%	3.46	-12.4%
DET	15th	23.4	5.84	3.45	NEP	23rd	24.2	6.85	4.24

Ah, here we go: a good old-fashion OC vs. DC comparison, even if the DC in question wasn’t the DC for the first matchup.  In fact, in the interests of time, let’s skip the fourth matchup too: it came with the Rams, after Linehan was fired, and that data has been notoriously unreliable as I’ve worked through these Watchtowers.

Fortunately, that leaves us with the best data possible: two points in the same season with the same teams.  Better yet, in the year that it occurred—2005—these two units were remarkably similar to this 2010 matchup.  The Dolphins were ranked 16th on offense, averaging 5.94 YpA and 3.69 YpC.  The Lions are ranked 15th on offense, averaging 5.84 YpA and 3.45 YpC (these numbers were spooky-close before the Cowboys game dragged them down: 5.95 and 3.63!).  In ‘05, the Pats were ranked 17th on defense, allowing 21.1 PpG, 7.30 YpA, and 3.44 YpC.  This season, the Pats are much more balanced in run/pass effectiveness (6.85/4.24), but notably worse in scoring prevention: ranked 23rd, they’re allowing 24.2 points per game. 

So, given this perfect little test kitchen for what happens when a Scott Linehan offense meets a Bill Belichick 3-4 hybrid defense . . . what happened?  In the first contest, the Fins managed only 16 points, 19.6% below their season averages.  Oddly, they passed for well above their season average: 7.66 YpA, 29.0% above their norm.  However, they ran for only 3.08 YpC, down 16.5% (and terrible in an absolute sense).  In the second contest, the Fins scored 26, 30.7 above their average.  They passed for 6.83 YpA, splitting the difference between their norms and the first game—but ran for 3.70 YpC, exactly meeting their season average.  In fact, the only difference I can find is weather:

Stadium: Dolphin Stadium, Start Time: 1:00, Surface: grass, Weather: 77 degrees, relative humidity 63%, wind 15 mph [Dolphins scored 16 points]

Stadium: Gillette Stadium, Start Time: 1:00, Surface: grass, Weather: 28 degrees, relative humidity 83%, wind 11 mph, wind chill 18 [Dolphins scored 26 points]

That's right, the Dolphins did much better on the road, in nasty weather . . . of course, this game will be at home, in a dome.

The bottom line here is that I’m finding wildly variant results.  With no systemic advantage, or disadvantage, I expect Scott Linehan’s balanced offense to meet expectations against Bill Belichick’s 3-4 hybrid defense: 23-27 points, 5.5-6.5 YpA, and 3.5-3.75 YpA.  I have medium confidence in this projection.

Mitigating/Aggravating Factors:

We saw a big jump from Shaun Hill in his third game as a Lions starter, nearly outdueling Aaron Rodgers at Lambeau.  He was clearly much better against the Cowboys than Bills—and if he takes another step forward towards the form he showed in Green Bay, and against the Rams, the Lions could definitely keep pace in a shootout.  However, the Lions just can’t run the ball right now, and I have to think the 8-2 Pats are ready to pin their ears back and win a turkey leg, or that iron, or that horrible robot turkey, or whatever it is they give out these days.

One little thing to keep an eye on: trickeration.  Schwartz knows Belichick, and Belichick knows Schwartz.  This game is the Lions’ signature game, and last season they started Matthew Stafford, the franchise quarterback, despite a separated shoulder and no practice.  Hmm.  I’m not suggesting that Stafford starts this game, necessarily, but that we see The Grandmaster dig into that “HB Option Pass” section of the playbook—perhaps even the offensive package for Ndamukong Suh?  A side projection: we will see at least one offensive play or package from the Lions that we haven’t ever seen before.  Keep that in your back pocket.

Conclusion:

I’ve been burned three weeks in a row—three straight times I’ve projected Lions victory and had my heart ripped out (along with all of you).  This time, the data leads me down no primrose path: the most likely result of this game is a 32-24 Lions loss.  I hope it’s close in the fourth quarter, I hope there are some signature moments, and I hope the nation comes away feeling like the Lions are interesting again.  I also hope the Lions win, but I have no objective reason to think they will.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,thanksgiving,new england patriots,bill belichick,jim schwartz,gunther cunningham,scott linehan

Read more...

Three Cups Deep, Lions at Bills: Blaming Jim Schwartz

"It was real frustrating, especially coming in here feeling that we were the better team. That’s definitely the way we felt"

--Calvin Johnson, as quoted on Twitter by the Freep's Dave Birkett

The headline on Tom Kowalski’s Lions grades is “Continuing discipline problems reflects on coaching staff.”  Is it true?  Well, the Lions took their more-talented team into Ralph Wilson Stadium, and they got kicked in the nuts.  Their offense made the worst defense in the NFL look like the ‘85 Bears, and their defense made Fred Jackson look like Steven Jackson.  So what killed the Lions yesterday, so the common wisdom goes, is coaching.

Penalties.  Personnel.  Alignments.  Clock management.  Communication breakdowns.  Special teams lapses.  Coaching.

There’s no question, in terms of talent and production, that the Lions have been much better than the Bills over the course of the season.  As I discussed in the Watchtower, the Lions have been one of the most potent offenses in the NFL, while the Bills’ defense has been of a similar caliber to the 2008 Lions—dead last, and completely helpless against the run.  So, when one team has more talented players than their opponent, but loses . . . it must be coaching, right?

Right.  The Lions didn’t put their best team on the field today.  They came out thinking they could put it in the cooler.  They started Shaun Hill at quarterback, knowing he could barely play, refusing to let him throw downfield, and assuming Jahvid Best would slice through the Bills like butter.  When it didn’t work, they didn’t have a healthy, prepared arm to turn to—and Stefan Logan couldn’t quite bail them out with a return TD, try as he might.  The coaching staff elected to coast rather than attack, to not-lose rather than to win, and the result was Bills owning a lead and the momentum.  Blame Jim Schwartz for that.

Normally I gainsay this with, “No, the players play the game.”  At first blush, that argument can certainly be deployed.  The receivers dropped many passes, the tackling was atrocious, and the intensity was completely absent from the opening gun.  The players were not up for this game.  The players thought they had it in the bag.  Incredibly, after last week’s humiliating loss, they were overconfident.  They thought they had it.  They thought they couldn’t lose.  They were wrong.

"I thought we were going to run all over them . . . It's just frustrating.  It's frustrating to work on it all week. We think it's there, we see it's there, and it's just unfortunate because we get behind and we have to go to the pass. We can't stick with the run, and that kills us."

--Rob Sims, via Dave Birkett's Freep.com article

Here, then, is confirmation: the players thought they had it in the bag because the coaches told them they had it in the bag.  The game plan from the beginning was to play a low-variance game: run, run, run, rely on the disparity in talent, rely on the gap in execution.  Don’t start Drew because you don’t want a gambler.  Do start Shaun because you know he won’t kill you with the big mistake.  Don’t push it downfield in the cold and the rain, don’t try to blow them out.  Just grind it out, run it over them, collect the W and move on.

The only problem with this approach is that the Bills “blew their wad” in this game, as someone told me the Lions did last week.  They knew this was their chance to make a statement, and they made it—as the Lions very nearly did last week.  But the Lions that battered and bloodied one of the toughest teams in the NFL last week didn’t make the trip.  The Lions we saw in Buffalo were hung over, lackadasical, incomprehensibly overconfident.  It seems as though they were told all they had to do was show up—and that’s all they did.

The execution, then, is on the coaches too.  Here’s the kicker though: so what.  Jim Schwartz is learning, too.  He has a roster full of talent, but most of it is very young, very inexperienced talent.  He can’t just tell Gosder Cherilus, “HEY KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE STUPID PENALTIES,” and expect Gosder to reply “Oh okay, thanks Coach,” then stop committing stupid penalties.  It’s not like Schwartz can bench him, either—Jason Fox was a healthy scratch—and if he did, the dropoff in play would hurt much more than a dumb hold at a bad time. 

Here is the reality of the situation: every coach makes mistakes.  Every coach makes good-at-the-time decisions that, in hindsight, backfire.  Every coach has wins slip from their grasp.  The coach that doesn’t make questionable decisions flatly doesn’t exist—even Bill Belicheck, the reigning Smartest Coach In Football, routinely makes mistakes, and sometimes they even seem to cost his team games.  But the Patriots are nothing without Belicheck calling the shots, and I personally don’t believe there are any other coaches who’d have gotten this team as far, as fast, as sustainably, as the man I call The Grandmaster has.

He just hasn't yet gotten them to the point where they can take games off on the road and win.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,buffalo bills,jim schwartz

Read more...