Meet the Cubs: Kellen Moore

Kellen Moore is a walking contradiction. Worshipped by some, reviled by others. Hailed as one of the best quarterbacks as the country; left on every NFL team’s 2012 draft board come Saturday night. A player the Lions did not draft getting the Meet the Cubs treatment.

Moore is the latest flashpoint in the ongoing culture war between college football fans, pro football fans, and draftniks. Kellen Moore was—is—a great college quarterback. This is indisputable: He completed 1,157 of 1,658 passes (69.8%) for 14,667 yards (8.85 YpA), 142 TDs and 28 INTs. Moore does not have the physical tools to succeed at the NFL level—and this is as indisputable as such things get. The coexistence of these two indisputable facts generates a whole lot of dispute.

Kellen Moore is a coach’s son; you couldn’t possibly watch a Boise State game or absorb any pre-draft analysis without hearing that. Tom Moore, four-state-title-winning head football coach of Prosser (WA)’s high school for 22 years, stepped down in 2009 to support his sons Kellen and Kirby as they journeyed through Boise State’s college football program.

In Kellen Moore’s edition of Jon Gruden’s QB Camp, they talk about how his father instructed him on proper fundamentals from the beginning. At first blush, this sounds uncomfortably like the Todd Marinovich saga, but Tom Moore sounds like a much less militaristic, much more doting father.

Unfortunately, Moore isn't the prospect Marinovich was, either.

Moore was a two-sport star at Prosser, lettering three times in both football and basketball. He was rated a three-star recruit (No. 31 QB) by Rivals, and a four-star recruit (No. 26 QB) by Scout. He shattered Washington state passing records and was named to every conceivable “____ of the Year” list for Washington prep sports. Moore received three offers: Eastern Washington (a.k.a Jon Kitna’s alma mater), Idaho (offered during Dennis Erickson’s brief second stint there), and Boise State.

Moore redshirted his freshman year.

As a redshirt freshman, it began. He started from Day One and led the Broncos to a 12-1 record. He set the NCAA single-season record for completion percentage by a freshman, was second-team All-WAC, and on just about everybody’s All-Freshman team. He completed 281 of 405 passes (69.4%) for 3,486 yards (8.61 YpA) with 25 touchdowns and 10 interceptions.

His sophomore season was more of the same. Moore led the 2009 Broncos to a perfect 14-0 season, finished seventh in Heisman voting, and was first-team All-America according to ESPN.com, SI.com and CBSSports.com. He completed 277 of 431 passes (64.3 percent) for 3,536 yards(8.2 YpA), and a school-record 39 touchdowns. Moore set the NCAA single-season record for lowest interception percentage, with just three of his 431 attempts picked off.

His junior season was more of the same. Moore led the Broncos to a 13-1 record, finished fourth in Heisman voting, and was the first BSU Bronco to be invited to New York for the ceremony. He was also a finalist for the Davey O'Brien and Maxwell awards. He completed 273 of 383 passes (71.3%) for 3,845 yards (10.04 YpA), 35 touchdowns and 6 interceptions.

His senior season was more of the same. Moore led the Broncos to a 12-1 record, became the first college quarterback to notch 50 career wins, and was a finalist for the Maxwell award. He left BSU with an NCAA record for career winning percentage (50-3, .943) 2nd all-time in touchdowns (142) and 5th all-time in passing yards (14,667).

So you get it: he is a winner. He wins. He makes great decisions and he throws touchdown passes and he rarely throws incompletions and he doesn't throw interceptions.

Andy Benoit of the New York Times' Fifth Down Blog did a beautiful job of explaining why Moore's incredible college career doesn't traslate to a hill of beans in the NFL:

Arm strength, mobility, size, etc. – they’re all prerequisites. Many people in Boise don’t understand why Moore’s lack of size is such a problem to pro teams. There are many reasons it’s a problem – durability, pocket passing prowess and the sheer difficulty of designing an offense when the passer can’t see over his linemen, to name a few. It’s not a mere “fun fact” that the only two N.F.L. starting quarterbacks who are not over 6 feet are Michael Vick and Drew Brees. Vick compensates with otherworldly athleticism; Brees compensates with a strong arm and uncanny accuracy. Kellen Moore was accurate in college, but that accuracy won’t translate to the pros because the throwing windows close so quickly. The only quarterbacks who even have a chance at getting a ball through a quick-closing window are those with strong arms.

Kellen Moore's quarterbacking reminds me, intensely, of Kurt Warner's Blue Period. Warner—never blessed with overwhelming tools, an undrafted free agent himself—had much of his passes’ velocity and catchability robbed by a thumb injury. He compensated as best he could with his incredible field vision and understanding of the game.

He’d make lighting-fast reads and heave up wobbling knuckleballs to the middle of nowhere; they’d just so happen to fall right into the arms of wideouts flying to get underneath them. Sometimes it worked, but often it didn’t; Warner was 8-23 as a starter from 2002-2006.

Unfortunately, that seems like Moore’s upside. Perhaps the ceiling is higher than that; perhaps he will travel a road similar to Warner’s. Perhaps he’ll hold the clipboard here for a few years, as Warner did in Green Bay. Perhaps he’ll bounce around, get an opportunity and seize it. Moore has a huge advantage over Warner, or even Tom Brady in this regard: he was an unquestioned four-year starting quarterback at a power program and made the absolute most of his opportunity there. His college resumé will get him a camp invite somewhere until he proves he can't compete at the pro level.

As Jim Schwartz told WZAM’s Dan Miller, signing Kellen Moore is an “absolute no-risk opportunity.” The Lions have an opening for a quarterback to hold a clipboard and learn; Moore will have every opportunity to be that quarterback. Bring him in for an invite, let him try to prove he has potential, and let him grow.

The one thing I’ve heard over and over about Moore is that he’s almost certainly going to have a long post-playing career as a coach. Michael Schottey, on Twitter and elsewhere, has said this repeatedly (and he’s far from the only one). Perhaps the Lions have drafted their future QB coach?

Okay, speculation time is over. Let's hear from the experts about what Kellen Moore's current reality looks like:

ESPN.com's Scouts, Inc. grades Moore a 42 of 100:

"Height-weight-speed: Vastly undersized in terms of overall measurables for the position. However, possesses prototypical hand size (9 1/2). Top-end speed is average."

"Intangibles: A football junkie. Intelligent individual and a well-spoken representative of the program. Possesses a high football IQ Has developed into the unquestioned leader of the team . . . Thrives under pressure and wants the ball in his hand late in the fourth quarter with the game on the line."

"Throws a catchable ball. Displays excellent anticipation and touch with his throws. Very accurate with short-throws and rarely forces targets to adjust to the ball. However, too often falls away with throws which can lead to him missing the mark especially high. Accuracy can also dip when having to drive the ball in tight window down field."

"Arm strength is average at best. Will have issues driving the ball down field and ball can hang in the air with deeper out routes allowing defenders extra time to recover. Bottom line will have to rely on above-average anticipation and timing to be successful at the next level."

CBS Sports.com graded Moore as the 12th-best QB, a 6th/7th-round pick:

Positives: Highly intelligent and has been extremely productive, making very few mental mistakes. Very smart and plays like an offensive coordinator on the field. Extremely accurate with above average ball placement. Puts the ball where he wants and understands where it needs to be. Plays with infectious confidence, allowing his teammates to feed off of his poise and fearlessness. Always keeps his eyes downfield and works through his progressions very quickly, making snap decisions . . . Good short-to-intermediate arm strength with beautiful touch . . . Works hard to prepare and lives in the film room; student of the game and works hard at what he does.

Negatives: Lack of height, measureables and overall size are huge red flags. Looks diminutive in the huddle. Lacks the arm strength to drive the ball downfield to keep defenses honest; throws too many rainbows/soft-tosses and lacks the cannon to zip the ball all over the field and threaten secondaries deep. Only an average athlete and has limited mobility; doesn't have the legs to consistently evade pressure. Funky mechanics, making too many passes off his back foot with his momentum going backwards . . . Gets lazy with his footwork and balance. Gets himself in trouble at times when he rushes his throws and tries to force things; appears to pre-determine a lot of his throws, staring down his targets. Accuracy on passes over 20 yards is very streaky; finesses passer with too much air in his deep throws . . . NFL Comparison: Chase Daniel, New Orleans Saints

SI.com grades Moore at 2.36, at the bottom edge of "FENCE PLAYER"; just 0.02 above "PRACTICE SQUAD":

Positives: Productive high-percentage thrower on the college level who lacks the physical skills for the NFL. Patient in the pocket, buys as much time as necessary for receivers and waits until the last moment before releasing the ball. Displays a terrific feel for the game, effectively leads the offense and knows where his receivers are on the field. Senses pressure, steps up to avoid it and always finds the open wideout on the field. Possesses a sense of timing on throws, accurate with passes and always gives receivers a chance to make the reception. Throws a catchable ball putting short and intermediate passes where only his receivers can make the reception.

Negatives: Has a short throwing motion and looks like he's pushing the ball. Passes have minimal speed. Lacks a quick release and the ability to immediately get the ball out of his hands. Takes chances on occasion trying to get the ball through tight spots, yet lacks the arm strength to do as much.

Analysis: Moore was a winner on the college level and a tremendous leader on the field who did the little things well. He lacks the size, arm strength and physical skills to start in the NFL yet could effectively be a backup in a West Coast offense.

Projection: 6th

New Era Scouting, via their media guide, ranks Moore as the 15th-best QB prospect and No. 301 overall:

Strengths: Moore has been incredibly productive in a system in college. He throws an accurate ball and has pretty solid touch on it as well. He throws the ball well to open spaces and can lead his receivers well.

Weaknesses: Looking at Moore you would wonder how he throws a football at all. He has to use his entire body to coil up and release a throw to have anything on the throw. He has poor arm strength and when trying to avoid contact it makes his arm strength appear worse than it really is.

Overall: Moore is a developmental quarterback that has to go play in the right system for him and even then it would be hard to see him being anything other than a backup. Currently he is carrying a free agent grade.

Right, so, Kellen Moore is a fantastic quarterback who does everything that points to unfettered success at the NFL level, except OMG LOL HA HA HA WTF HE SUCKS.

There’s only one way to sort this out. Only one authority to whom we can listen. Only one source we can trust to know whether Kellen Moore is a quarterbacking Promethus unbound or, you know, Chase Daniel: YOUTUBE HIGHLIGHT REELS.

This one’s pretty straightforward: just Moore doing his thing against top-level competition. Stands (somewhat) tall against the Oregon pass rush and finds this open man. This is Moore in his element.

Here's a little treat for Lions fans: Moore letting Titus Young do his thing. Moore may not be able to put the hot sauce on a 30-yard out, but he lofted this one a solid fifty yards downfield. No wonder the Lions jumped on Titus last season.

Now, when I talk about YouTube Highlight Reels, this right here is what I am talking about:

This just has it all: killer intro, outstanding graphics, solid music selection, some Xs and Os, PLENTY of hyperbole, and a smorgasbord of clips showing every conceivable strength without getting repetitive. Also, hilarious.

Overall, I agree with Schwartz’s assessment: this is a no-brainer great pick. I wanted the Lions to go for a boom-or-bust guy with protypical physical tools and big question marks, such as Ryan Lindley. But signing a UDFA with flawless mental tools and big physical question marks is a coup.

Kellen Moore may indeed join Chase Daniel, Ken Dorsey, Jason White, and Danny Wuerffel in the parade of college "winners" with major flaws that couldn't get it done in the NFL. Indeed, Moore may not make it out of traning camp.

Had the Lions been the team who bit and spent a mid-round pick, I'd be wailing and gnashing my teeth. But given the Lions were going to bring in a UDFA quarterback as a purely developmental flier, I'm glad they brought in Moore.

Read more...

Matthew Stafford Must Learn to Balance Risk

Matthew Stafford has never been accused of being conservative. From high school to college through the combine to the NFL, he's always put his cannon arm to good use. However, for the first time as a pro, Stafford appears gun-shy.

Against Minnesota's beleaguered secondary, Stafford seemed content to take what the defense gave him throughout the second half—even as his Lions watched their lead dwindle. Is Stafford becoming a risk-averse dink-and-dunker? I looked at stats from Pro-Football-Reference.com to find out:

The top (blue) line is Stafford's game-by-game average yards per completion. The bottom (black) line is average yards per attempt. The chart at the bottom has the values for each data point.

This chart tells the story of the Stafford's aggressiveness and effectiveness throughout the year. Look at the difference between the Cowboys game and the first Bears game, Week 4 and Week 5. Stafford's average yards per completion is practically identical: 11.43 versus 11.53. However, his yards per attempt were wildly different: 5.58 versus 8.42.

The difference between those figures is incompletions. Every incomplete pass is a zero-yard attempt, which drags down the YpA. In the games against Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago and Atlanta, the yards per completion was nearly flat at around 12; he was going deep in all four games. But his YpA was below six—extremely low—against Dallas, San Francisco and Atlanta.

Stafford was throwing deep whether or not it was working. At the time, I wrote that he needed to step up, to be confident in the pocket and execute the offense. To find his second and third options instead of bombing it downfield to Calvin Johnson every time he's under pressure.

Since then, Stafford's risk/reward balance has been wildly inconsistent. Against the Broncos, Panthers and Saints, Stafford was both aggressive and effective. His completions averaged 12.63 yards across those three games, and his attempts averaged an outstanding 9.18.

At Soldier Field, and on Thanksgiving, Stafford was extremely conservative and much less effective. His average completion gained just 9.31 yards, and his average attempt netted just 5.6. Calvin Johnson was used heavily in the slot and on short crossing routes; the Lions used him like a Keyshawn Johnson-style possession receiver.

I expected to see Stafford and the Lions take advantage of the depleted Vikings secondary—but their game plan seemed very risk-averse, especially once they established an early lead. In the third quarter, I saw Stafford pass up a wide-open touchdown. The television broadcast cut the dramatic proof off, but this is the play:

Let's examine this a little more closely.

Pre-snap, Calvin Johnson is at the top of the screen, to Matthew Stafford's right. At the bottom (Stafford's left) is Nate Burleson. The Lions have two tight ends to the strong (right) side, and Maurice Morris in at tailback.

At the beginning of the clip, just before the snap, Stafford's eyes are right on Vikings strong safety Jamarca Sanford, showing blitz. Cornerback Asher Allen is lined up perpendicular to the line of scrimmage, trying to deny Calvin Johnson the outside. The read should be single coverage; Stafford should be looking for Johnson deep.

At the snap, there is play action to the weak side, then Stafford bootlegs back to the strong side. Both tight ends go out: Tony Scheffler down the seam and Brandon Pettigrew on a short out route.

Sanford, the blitzing strong safety, flies towards the run action but wisely picks up on the play fake. He hits the brakes, and turns to chase Pettigrew to the sideline.

Here's where you're going to have to trust me. Calvin Johnson, just off-frame, breaks inside, then quickly towards the sideline. Allen bites on the first move and Johnson gets WIDE DIRTY OPEN on the second. Watch the clip again: you can see Stafford look downfield and pat the ball once, twice, looking at Johnson the whole way. Stafford then gives up and fires it to Pettigrew for an easy four-yard gain.

Maybe Stafford was spooked by the approaching presence of Jared Allen. Maybe Johnson waited too long to make his move. Maybe Stafford just wanted the sure thing. But on 1st-and-10 from the 40-yardline? Up 31-14? That's the perfect time to take a shot deep.

Johnson was left all alone, two steps behind his only defender—in an offense where single coverage is supposed to equate an automatic ball his way.

The Lions didn't know it then, but after scoring 31 points in the first quarter, they would only muster one field goal in the whole second half. Stafford passed up a golden opportunity to put the Vikings away here, and that lack of killer instinct nearly cost them the game.

If the Lions are going to beat the Oakland Raiders in the Black Hole in December, Stafford must do a better job of balancing risk and reward.

Read more...

The Hidden Detroit Lions Offense: 1st and 2nd Down

The Lions lost to the Falcons on Sunday, due to an astonishingly poor performance by the offense, and particularly Matthew Stafford. Many noticed the Lions seemed to be “in a lot of third-and-longs,” and blamed the lack of a power running game that could keep the Lions offense on schedule.

It’s been my contention the Lions use their backs in nontraditional—but effective—ways. If they can run for three or so yards on first down, that gives Stafford and the 7+ yard-per-attempt passing attack two attempts to get seven yards. If they can mix in the screens and draws on which Best and Morris are varyingly effective, they can move the ball very well and score points in bunches.

This has been empirically obvious: through five weeks the Lions had the #2 offense in the NFL, racking up an impressive 31.8 points per game. Subsequently, I have been directing all parties inquiring RE: fat guards and white running backs to talk to that statistical hand.

However, something is not adding up. Maurice Morris and Keiland Williams combined for over five YpC against the Falcons, yet indeed the Lions were constantly facing second- and third-and-long.

Chart?

Chart.

1ST DOWN	RUN	MM	KW	NB	PASS	CJ	NB	BP	TS	WH
22/8/6.59	12/2/3.8	7/0/2.0	5/2/6.4	0/0/0.0	10/6/9.9	5/3/16.2	1/0/0.0	1/1/9.0	1/1/6.0	1/1/8.0
2ND DOWN	RUN	MM	KW	NB	PASS	CJ	NB	BP	TS	WH
20/7/5.3	7/2/6.6	3/1/12.3	2/0/-1.0	2/1/5.0	13/5/4.62	4/1/6.25	1/0/1.0	3/2/5.0	2/2/13.0	0/0/0.0
TOTAL	RUN	MM	KW	NB	PASS	CJ	NB	BP	TS	WH
42/15/5.98	19/4/4.8	10/1/5.1	7/2/4.43	2/1/5.0	23/11/6.91	9/4/11.8	2/0/1.0	4/3/6.0	3/3/10.7	1/1/8.0

The Hidden Game of Football is a seminal book which tops every serious football analyst’s reading list (but which I still haven’t read). In it, so I am told, the authors outline a new way of defining a successful football play. On first down, a successful play gains four yards. On second down, a successful play gains half the remaining distance to converting the first down. On third down, a successful play converts first down. This theory informs the analysis at awesome websites like Football Outsiders and Advanced NFL Stats.

The chart above is a breakdown of the Lions first- and second-down plays against the Falcons. The first number in each box is the number of plays in that category. The number after the first slash is the number of “successful” plays, and the number after the second slash is the average yards-per-play rate of categorical plays. So.

The Lions faced 22 first-and-10 situations Sunday (including plays wiped out by penalties). They gained at least four yards 8/22 times, and averaged 6.59 yards per play. That sounds kinda okay-ish until you look at the run/pass breakdown: the Lions ran on first down 12 of 22 times, were successful twice, and averaged 3.83 YpC. This meshes with my “3-to-4 yards on first down is okay” theory until we go a little deeper.

Maurice Morris ran seven times on first down, never successfully, and averaged 2.0 yards per carry.

Keiland Williams fared a little better. He gained 4+ yards twice on five carries, including a long one that swelled the average up 6.4 YpC. However, neither could compare to the first-down passing game, which was successful six of ten attempts and averaged 9.9 YpA.

Megatron was targeted five times on first down, successfully three times, for a 16.2 average (yes, the 54-yard touchdown was on first down). Non-Megatron receivers were successful on 3 of 4 targets, for 5.75 YpA.

On second down, things were not much better. The running game chewed up half of the yards needed for conversion just twice on seven carries, though the YpC was an impressive 6.57. Part of that is due to a long run by MoMo, but part of it is the “on schedule” effect: the Lions average distance-to-conversion on second down was eight yards. This includes sacks, penalties, etc., but those count in the game, too. The Lions simply aren’t getting enough yards on first down, and it’s making second down much harder to convert.

The Lions running game was successful on first- and second-down just 4 of 19 carries, despite an apparently-excellent 4.84 YpC. The passing game was a better-but-still-not-great 11 of 23 plays for 6.91 YpA. Here’s the interesting bit, though: non-Megatron receivers were successful on 7 of 11 first- and second-down targets, for 6.09 YpA.

This points towards something else I’ve been saying: Stafford is pressing. He’s trying to force it to Calvin (see CJ’s second-down success rate above).  Despite the totally ineffective running game, when Stafford spreads the ball around the offense works. I’m wrong about Maurice Morris being a solid first- and second-down tailback, but I’m right that if Stafford does his job that doesn’t matter.

Read more...

The Fallen Watchtower Review: Lions vs. falcons

I did get something sort-of resembling a Watchtower up before the Falcons game on Sunday, if only just. Without any of the historical breakdown or schematic analysis, I just looked at season ranks and averages. It was done entirely on my iPhone in stolen moments. It looks like it:

The Falcons have the NFL's 17th-ranked offense, averaging 22.5 points per game. The passing attack has garnered a respectable-but-not-great 6.22 YpC, while the rushing game is netting a very solid 4.37 YpC.

The Lions defense is allowing a stingy 19.0 points per game, 7th-fewest in the NFL. Opponents are passing for a miniscule 5.55 YpA, while they're running all over the Lions at a 5.21 YpC clip.

The Falcons power running game directly attacks the Lions defensive Achilles heel. Then again, so did the 49ers, and their offensive output exactly matched my projections. Therefore, I project the Falcons to score 17-20 points, throw for 5.5-6.0 YpA, and run for 5.0-5.25 YpC. I have medium confidence in this projection.

The Falcons scored 23 offensive points, just above what I'd projected. Their passing game slightly outperformed expectations as well, gaining 6.23 YpA--matching their season average to 1/100th of a yard. The running game actually performed BELOW their season average, well below my projections: 4.16 YpC.

This is an example of what I call the "Whack-a-Mole" effect. When a defense has a glaring weakness in one area and they’re going up against an offense with a corresponding strength, often the D will “sell out” the strength of their D to shore up the weakness. The net result is usually the same in terms of team scoring and overall per-play effectiveness.

This is best known to fantasy football fiends who are drooling over starting their stud running back against the worst run defense in the league. Somehow that never quite results in 200 yards and 3 TDs, does it? According to Mike Mady at Scout.com, the Lions were emphasizing the back seven stopping the run against the Falcons; could it be that pass coverage suffered as a result? I’ll go back and look at this.

The end result of the defense's effort would have looked much better if the Lions’ offense hadn’t repeatedly hung the defense out to dry:

The Lions offense is still the 4th-best in the NFL, racking up 29.7 points per game. The passing attack is slightly slowed after last week's performance, but still high-flying at 6.99 YpA. The ground game is chugging along at 3.92 YpC.

The Falcons are allowing a ridiculous 7.97 YpA, surely a big part of why they're allowing a 22nd-best 24.5 points per game. The run defense is much better, allowing 3.84 YpC.

The Falcons defense is particularly ill-equipped to stop the Lions pass attack. I project the Lions to score 34-37 points, passing for 9.50-10.0 YpA and rushing for 3.50-3.75 YpC. I have medium confidence in this projection.

The brutal reality: 16 points, 5.72 YpA, and—surprisingly—5.2 YpC.

This is the worst underperformance of expectations I’ve seen since Daunte Culpepper got the Lions completely shut out by the Packers (I’d projected 24-28 points). Let’s be clear, here: the Falcons allowed 8 YpA through six games and faced a team gaining 7 YpA and held them to less than 6 YpA. This does not compute.

This isn't Whack-a-Mole effect, either; if it were the Lions would have rolled up 200 yards on the ground and still scored 34-37 points. This has nothing to do with the Falcons defense and everything to do with the Lions offense playing like a shadow of itself.

Next up: numbers and film.

Read more...

Matthew Stafford is the Detroit Lions

The Lions lost their first game of the season because they were gashed by the 49ers’ Frank Gore on wham plays and trap blocks. Jahvid Best, already struggling to run between the tackles, may be unavailable Sunday due to yet another concussion. Clearly, the Lions need to adjust their defense to account for this vulnerability, and maybe pick up a between-the-tackles back who can replace Best in the lineup, right?

Wrong.

The Lions offense is Matthew Stafford and the bristling arsenal of skill position weapons they’ve supplied him with. The Lions defense is the defensive line—which gets after the quarterback first and asks questions later.

The Lions are built from the ground up to score points through the air, then prevent the other team from doing the same. Teams have been able to run the ball successfully against the Lions; they’ve even been able to dominate time of possession. But until Matthew Stafford and the offense failed to muster at 20 points, no team actually beat the Lions.

Fans and media assessing the Lions in the wake of their first loss are frequently citing an inability to grind out yards, and prevent others from doing the same, as the reason they didn’t win. They want the Lions trade for a power back, or feature Redskins retread Keiland Williams more. They want the Lions’ defensive line to quit pinning their ears back and maintain gap responsibility.

It's not going to happen.

There’s no available running back that will turn the Lions into the 2000 Ravens or the 2009 Jets [Ed.- as I wrote this, the Lions completed a trade for Ronnie Brown. My analysis stands]. The Lions interior line can’t run block like that, and the Lions’ massive array of downfield artillery would go unfired. Why assemble all that firepower and then pull a slingshot out of your back pocket?

The Lions can’t neuter the hyperaggressive defensive line; it’s what allows them to drop seven men back into coverage and take away the pass. As I (presciently) wrote last Friday, the Lions defensive line is allowing running backs to run through them. On purpose. They’re counting on the linebackers to clean up, which until Sunday they were doing brilliantly. Even with those two long runs, the Lions' defense allowed the 27.8 points-per-game 49ers offense to score just 23 points.

Much like the 2009 Saints, the Lions defense is built to stop teams from keeping pace with their offense. As of today, they’re allowing 19.0 points per game; the 7th-stingiest  scoring defense in football. But if the offense only ekes out 19 points, as they did on Sunday, there’s not much the defense can do.

I said during the Fireside Chat Detroit Lions podcast something was wrong with Matthew Stafford, the receivers, the coaching, or all three. Stafford was under pressure, yes, but just like in the Cowboys game he had enough time to throw. He didn’t have enough time to stare down Calvin Johnson and wait for him to get 40 yards downfield, but he had enough time to throw. Jim Schwartz gave us a hint of what was happening when talking about the decision to use Maurice Morris instead of Jahvid Best in the fourth quarter:

"He's been effective in the pass game," he explained, "but Mo's also been effective in the pass game. We're working a lot of different combinations and things like that. It really had nothing to do with anything other than that.

"We're sitting there, looking, saying, hey look, we can get Matt some more time - going a lot to Calvin down the field ... trying to push some of those balls down the field. They were playing a little bit different coverage -- rather than 2-Man, they were playing 3-Cloud -- all game decisions."

The Lions were trying to hit the home run. Just like the Chicago game broke open when they hit Megatron with the long ball, the Lions were trying to grab the lead and the momentum. They had Morris in to help pass protect, to give Johnson enough time to get open against a three-deep zone. But they couldn’t pass block long enough, or Megatron couldn’t get open enough, or Stafford couldn’t make a decision quick enough to make it happen. In trying to force the game-changing big play, they passed up a whole lot of little plays that could have helped them win.

In the end, that’s the error I prefer the Lions make. This league is full of almost-good-enough quarterbacks playing almost-good-enough dink-and-dunk ball and mostly hovering within a game or two of .500. That’s not how you win titles in today’s NFL—not without a legendary defense and a Hall of Fame-caliber running back. The Lions don’t have either of those—but what they do have is one hell of a quarterback, one hell of a wide receiver, and an excellent supporting cast.

So the 49ers stopped the unstoppable Stafford-to-Johnson connection, and the Lions by extension. Fine by me! If that’s the only way the Lions lose, they won’t lose more than five games this season. The Lions should not, will not and cannot make wholesale changes to the way they play the game. They have bet their franchise on Matthew Stafford, and they should ride him as far as he’ll carry them.

Read more...

Watchtower Review: Lions at Buccaneers

From the season’s first Watchtower:

While highlighting the extreme paucity of data, I’m going to swallow hard, wipe the sweat from my forehead, tug at my collar and project the most likely outcome to be another narrow Lions victory: 24-21, albeit in regulation this time.

Now, the final score was 27-20, but the Watchtower only accounts for offense-defense interaction. For the purposes of Watchtower evaluation the “real” score was 27-13. Before you folks cry foul, a quick reminder: the goal of The Watchtower is to spot systemic advantages that the Lions’ offense and defense have over their opponents’ schemes. Counting special teams and return scores throw off our evaluation of those effects.

Detroit Lions defense vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers offense:

I can’t identify a systemic advantage from one data point. Disproportionately disrupting scoring by stopping drives with sacks is the design goal of the defense. I’m kind of stunned it worked with Blount being so devastating; I expect the Bucs to give Blount more than 15 carries this Sunday. We have no current performance data to go on, so I’ll have to recycle last year’s. I project the Bucs’ offense will meet expectations, scoring 20-23 points. I have extremely low confidence in this projection.

Right off the bat, we see the enormous difference: instead of LeGarrette Blount destroying the Lions at a 7.33 YpC clip, he was held to just 15 yards on 5 carries; a 3.0 YpC. As a team, the Bucs didn’t fare much better: 16 carries for 56 yards, 3.50 YpC.

The Lions’ pass rush didn’t hit home quite as often as last year’s contest, or for as many negative yards (two for -7 vs. three for -25). But, there was just enough pressure to rattle Freeman a bit.

Freeman’s completion percentage was nearly identical, 65.1% to last year’s 65.6%, but his yards-per-attempt was down dramatically. Freeman netted only 5.78 YpA this year—well off last year’s average of 6.80, and well well off the 7.64 he managed against the Lions last season. Between the there-enough-to-be-felt pressure and the excellent downfield coverage, the Bucs’ passing offense had to settle for underneath stuff—again, depressing scoring.

The Lions also intercepted Freeman once, and forced four fumbles, recovering one. Last season, the Bucs didn’t give away the ball at all, so two turnovers this time doubtlessly depressed scoring. We don’t have season averages to work with, but I ascribe this better-than-expectations performance to the Lions’ defense skill level being vastly improved. Over the course of 2011, I expect the Buccaneers to ouutperform their 2010 scoring average—meaning this Lions defense performed like an above-average unit on Sunday.

Detroit Lions offense vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers defense:

The story is basically the same in reverse: the Lions more-or-less met expectations last time. Without any established trends for this year, I can only project the Lions’ offense to meet expectations, scoring 21-24 points. I have extremely low confidence in this projection.

Of course, the Lions offense did outperform my “wildazzed guess,” as one MLive wag (downbeat) called it. As with the Bucs’, the Lions rushing attack wasn’t nearly as effective this time around. 35 carries for 126 yards netted only 3.6 YpC—nearly identical potency. But twice as many carries is a strong indicator that the Lions were A) moving the chains and B) winning.

There’s an old saying amongst young statisticians: “You’re not winning because you’re running, you’re running because you’re winning.” The Lions weren’t pounding the rock any better than the Bucs were. They were just effective enough to control the ball and deny the Bucs possession. Tampa Bay couldn’t do the same thing because they were playing catch-up. Once they abandoned the run, the Lions could focus on pass rush and coverage—which, I’ll say it again, was excellent.

Through the air, Matthew Stafford’s execution was visibly worse than it was in the preseason—which, since that was quite nearly perfect, was to be expected. He completed 24-of-33 passes—that’s an astounding 72.7%. He wasn’t just dinking and dunking either: he netted 9.24 YpA; equally astounding. He threw three touchdown passes, not including a perfectly-placed TD pass Brandon Pettigrew dropped, and a wide-open Calvin Johnson He threw one interception, counting one tipped catch that came down in Aqib Talib’s hands, and not counting another one Jahvid Best basically shovel-passed to a stone-handed defender.

Even though the story of the game was correctly told as, “Stafford had the butterflies early and then settled down,” Stafford’s “jittery” performance was still outstanding by any measure. The ongoing performance of the Buccaneers’ defense will tell us a lot about how good the offense was this day. If the Bucs’ D turns out to be as good as many expect, this was an excellent statistical showing by an offense likely to average 30+ points per game the rest of the way out. If the Bucs’ defense is more hype than substance, then this was a pretty okay showing—but not near what we think the offense will be capable of.

Conclusion

I projected a close Lions win in regulation, 24-21. I can’t call it “right” or “wrong” because there was neither a long track record of coordinator matchups, nor any in-season data with which to establish expectations. This 27-13 performance showed us a lot of good things, though: the defense stopped the run and covered downfield better than we expected, and the running game was just good enough to control the game after Stafford built a lead.

There were a lot of mistakes, a lot of missed opportunities, and a lot of room to improve. But overall, this Lions team won on the road against a notional playoff contender—and looked better doing it than we could have hoped for.

Read more...

Matthew Stafford’s Point of View

This morning, Tom Kowalski wrote a piece on Mlive.com about Matthew Stafford watching the game from the coaches’ box, something I didn’t catch during the game itself.  It struck me as a flatly brilliant idea: let your field general sit in the war room.

Remember, it’s only this season that Stafford’s been given the freedom to check out of the play sent in from the sidelines.  All last season, the play came in through the headset, and Stafford had to run it.  Even this season, it seems as though his audibles are limited to a Maddenesque handful: mostly “run it,” and variations on “throw it up to Calvin.”  For the most part, Linehan and Stafford work hand-in-glove.

Of course, Stafford—and all the other quarterbacks—spend hours and hours and hours with Linehan during film sessions and position meetings and on the field; he knows what the offense is trying to accomplish.  It’s not a surprise to Stafford what the gameplan is, so when the play comes in through the headset he knows exactly why Linehan is calling what he’s calling . . . or, so he thinks.

I’ve said before that sitting in the end zone seats gives you a whole different perspective on what the quarterbacks are doing:

We as fans are so used to the “TV angle”, the down-the-line-of-scrimmage-cam, that we lose appreciation for how wide the field is. It’s 160 feet---that’s fifty three and one-third yards. That’s right, folks--no matter what Tecmo Bowl taught us, the field of play is over half as wide as it is long. A “30-yard-out” is really a 40-plus-yard throw, assuming the QB’s standing in the middle of the field. When people say that arm strength “doesn’t matter”, to an extent, they’re right—the 50-yard sideline bomb is only deployed once or twice a game. But where arm strength DOES matter is getting the rock to the receiver while he’s still open.

The angles, the spaces, the distances all change when you switch seats from the sideline to the end zone.  I can only imagine how wildly different things must seem from up in the box, after a lifetime of seeing things from the field of play.  For the first time, Matthew Stafford got to physically see the Xs and Os come to life—and I have to believe that gives him a better understanding of not just the offense, but the why of the offense, of the things the coaches see that lead them to design the offense as they design it.  Just as seeing game film breakdowns change a fan’s understanding of the game, I have to believe time in the coaches’ box changes a player’s understanding of the game.  On Sunday, Stafford may have taken the red pill.

The other reason this was a brilliant move is because of who Matthew Stafford is: hope.  He’s hope, personified.  He’s the franchise quarterback, the icon, the avatar of everything that is good and right and getting better about the Lions.  If he’s wandering around the sidelines in a ballcap and T-shirt, how can his teammates feel like they have a chance?  Putting Stafford up in the box puts him out of sight and out of mind.  The team on the field is the the whole team, and the quarterback on the field is the quarterback.  No constant reminders that their best player isn’t playing, no reducing the team leader to being the team cheerleader—psychologically, removing Stafford from the situation entirely was a great move.

Above all that, though, the best thing about this move is knowing that the Lions are being coached by a staff that thinks about things like this.  Rod Marinelli never would have put Stafford in the box; the thought would never have occurred to him.  This staff thinks about football in an intelligent way, and they coach football in an intelligent way, and their players have a better understanding of the game because of it.  That can only bode well for the future of the franchise.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,matthew stafford,jim schwartz,scott linehan

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...

Three Cups Deep: Preseason Week 1

Last year at this time, I started a regular Monday post I called “Three Cups Deep,” and the rationale went a little something like this:

On Mondays, it takes little bit more of the good stuff to get me going. The first desperately-needed cup is often not until nine o'clock or so, often because I’m such a complete zombie that I forget to go get coffee. I’m lucky to make it back to my desk with that first cup before I’m trekking back to the office Bunn—desperately hoping I won’t be the sucker who kills the joe, and therefore beholden to make some mo’.

The second cup I down steadily, solidly, workmanlike. By the end of that second helping, I’m starting to get the tingle; my eyes aren’t drooping quite so much. I realize I’m slouching so badly in my chair that the backrest is supporting my head instead, and move to an upright position. But the third cup . . . ahh, the third cup. The initial sip of the third cup is like Zeus’s lighting; a bolt from the heavens igniting my nervous system! I lean forward in my chair, attacking the problems of the day with emphatic keyboard strikes, pummeling my dreary to-do list into submission. It is now, at the beginning of that third cup, that I write this.

For the first time this season, there was Lions football over the weekend—so Three Cups Deep makes its triumphant return.  I spoke at length about my impressions on last night’s Fireside Chat podcast, but a good night’s sleep—or in my case, a bad night’s sleep and three cups of coffee—always provides valuable perspective.

In my guest Gameday post over at The Steelers N'At, the first sentence I wrote was, “On offense, I want to see a lot of completed passes.”  I got what I wanted on an impressive scale: Lions quarterbacks combined to complete 23 of 32 passes.  Stafford was 8-of-11; two of those were attempted TD strikes to Calvin, and one was the ill-fated swing pass to Jahvid Best.  Other than that, Stafford was nearly perfect.  The Lions spread it around a lot, too: those 23 passes went to 15 different Lions, with no receiver catching more than two balls each.

It was bizarre to watch the offense simply work.  Dropback, pass, complete.  Dropback, pass, complete.  Handoff, run forward, gain yards.  Dropback, pass, complete.  It was practically boring.  I thought to myself, “This is . . . easy.  Just, you know, complete the passes.  Why didn’t they just do this before?”  After all the wailing and lamentations, after decades of quarterback purgatory, duh, just throw and catch!  It didn’t hurt that this was the preseason, where the reaction from the Steelers crowd was a combination of silent puzzlement and total indifference.  The whole thing felt surreal.

What was even more surreal was every single end-zone replay showing a perfect pocket for Stafford to throw from.  I don’t know if the Steelers were just laying off, or what—but there was no heat on Stafford whatsoever, and he was getting rid of it quickly anyway.  Kudos to the line for keeping him clean, regardless of the pressure.

Save for the unfortunate swing pass (assigning blame is irrelevant), Jahvid Best was very impressive, and absolutely looked like an NFL every-down back.  Speed, moves, vision, yes—but strong between the tackles, and fast to the hole.  I’ve said for quite some time that the questions about his size and toughness were unfounded, but anyone who watched Best run this weekend came away knowing he’ll be just fine.

Defensively, Cliff Avril made his presence known immediately, and the starting defensive line looked every bit as impressive as advertised.  The linebackers weren’t quite as impressive; Zack Follett looked like he was a step slow to react on a lot of things, but at least looked credible out there.  Of course, the loss of Jordon Dizon is unfortunate—but at this point in his career, I can’t tell you how much better he is than Vinny Ciurciu, which says a lot about both him and Ciurciu.

In the secondary, I was impressed by the ball skills of Chris Houston and Eric King, and undrafted free agent safety Randy Phillips.  We’ll see how long that lasts once things get a little more “for real”, but the starting secondary held their own out there, which is a fantastic first sign.  I still anticipate some real struggles in the back seven over the course of the season, but I’ll take any reason for optimism I can get.

And now, for the fourth cup . . .

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,pittsburgh steelers,preseason,matthew stafford,jahvid best,cliff avril

Read more...

Meet The Cubs: Tim Toone

7.48, 255: Timothy Toone, Weber State WR
About seven seconds into my research on Toone, I knew what we were in for.  That catchy, alliterative name, plus a phonically germane nickname: “Tarzan.” Those incredible, flowing, straw-colored dreadlocks.  His tiny FCS Utah school.  His blazing speed, his special-teams prowess, and his legendary work ethic.  Of course, his coveted “Mister Irrelevant” status as the final pick in the 2010 draft.  All the elements are there, all the pieces are in place.  Tim Toone is a mortal lock to be this year’s marquee inductee into the Lions Fan Hall of Fame.  Immediately, my words from last year about Zack Follett came rushing back to me:

Zach Follett is going to be the next inductee into the Lions Fan Hall of Fame. Players like David Kircus, Scotty Anderson, Casey Fitzsimmons, David "Blue" Adams, Greg Blue, and Buster Davis have been drafted late (or signed as a UFA) by the Lions, made a big play or two in training camp or preseason, and become cult heroes--often, with fans insisting that these practice squadders and/or bench riders would be immediate upgrades over the current starters, if only they were given the opportunity. Zack Follett perfectly fits this profile; I have no doubt we'll be seeing Follett jerseys in the stands sooner rather than later.

The only way he could be any more perfectly qualified would be to have played at GVSU, or come up through the Detroit Public Schools system.  Unfortunately, Toone hails from from Peoria, Arizona—where, despite being first-team All-State as a senior, he was unknown to Scout.com, and an unranked one-star recruit at Rivals.com.  His senior year, he caught 37 balls for 1,125 yards, setting an all-time state record for YpC with 30.4.  Thirty.  Point.  Four.  Yards.  Per.  Catch.  I love me some high school statistics.

Timonthy “Tarzan” Toone redshirted (and paid his own way) his first year at Weber State, then served his two-year Mormon mission in Ghana and the Ivory Coast.  NFL Draft Blitz asked Toone about that mission, in one of the most desperate and war-torn regions on Earth:

It was difficult, but it helped me grow up. It made me more responsible. I had life goals after I came back from the mission. I knew how to work hard towards those goals.

Work hard he did, immediately making an impact as a deep threat.  He had seven catches for 275 yards (39.3 YpC).  Nine games in, he took over as punt returner, and in his first game he took a punt back 61 yards to the house. 

As a redshirt sophomore, he was the team’s second-leading receiver, with 32 catches for 698 yards (21.81 YpC) and 10 TDs, tying the school’s single-season receiving TD record.  Toone was named Honorable Mention All-Big Sky conference that year, but it was only a hint of what was to come.  Over the next two seasons, Toole became the Wildcats' primary offensive threat: over the next two seasons, he averaged 83.5 catches, 1,314.5 yards, and 8.5 TDs--and was first-team All-Big Sky Conference in both seasons.

How does all that small-school success translate to the big time?  Sports Illustrated grades Toone as a 2.05, a practice-squadder.  Most of the information I can find agrees: at Weber State, Toone’s calling card was his blazing speed, but that speed is merely adequate at the next level.  However, his technique, his willingness to go across the middle, his hands in traffic, routes, body control, they all grade very well.  His lack of typical deep-threat size (5’-11”, 170 pounds) means that though he put up outlandish, ridiculous YpC numbers in college, he projects to the NFL as a sneaky, second-level possession receiver—one who’s very dangerous after the catch.

As for character . . . well, Toone grades highest of all in that category.  Here’s a great ESPN TV interview of Toone, where they closed it out by asking how he’d apply the lessons learned in west Africa to his life in the NFL:

It's for Detroit, the team is for Detroit. To try to help them out, and do everything I can to make that city proud, and happy to be a Detroit Lions fan.

It’s not just his off-the-field exploits that show great character and work ethic.  Here’s a little piece from the Deseret News, telling how Toone punished himself for loafing after an eight-catch, 135 yard, 2 TD performance that won his team the game:

I just was not playing like I usually do, so I had to go in there [the up-down circle].  I felt like I didn't block and do all that I needed to do, all the little things that count. Maybe if I would have blocked a little more, some big plays would have sprung and we wouldn't have been in that situation [to need a last-minute touchdown].

Wow.

Well, enough of that nonsense; let’s get to what really matters; the only true oracle of NFL success: YouTube highlight reels!

Subjectively, it’s hard not to love the hell out of this kid.  Like I said, all the indicators, all the effort, all the character in the world.  Looking at these clips, he’s obviously in a class by himself on this field, but his speed is far from breathtaking.  However, his hands, routes, football sense, and open-field ability will certainly give him the inside track on impressing the coaches over, say Derrick Williams.

In fact, that's how I’d say Toone projects: as Derrick Williams’ replacement, if Williams doesn’t get his head screwed on straight.  Sap away a little bit of Williams’ speed, and add all the common sense, sticky hands, and work ethic that he lacks, and it’s hard to see how the resultant player wouldn’t be Toone.

I'm not guaranteeing a roster spot for Toone, but I’ve said several times that neither Bryant Johnson, nor Dennis Northcutt, nor Derrick Williams appears to have any great future here as a Lion; any of them could be cut tomorrow and I wouldn’t be that surprised.  A kid who’s put service, hard work, and team success above all else—including his own career?  You absolutely want to see him succeed, and I think he’s got an excellent chance here.

Technorati Tags: nfl,nfl draft,detroit lions,tim toone,mr. irrelevant

Read more...

Casey FitzSimmons Forced to Retire

Yesterday, seven-year veteran tight end Casey FitzSimmons was forced to retire.  A little Googling will bring up his semi-well-known tale: having played 8-man football in high school, FitzSimmons starred for the . . . wow, Fighting Saints of Carroll College.  Yet, the Lions signed him as a free agent—according to Tom Lewand, strictly as a camp body—and he went on to capture the hearts of Lions fans everywhere with an eleven-start, 23-catch, 160-yard, 2-TD rookie season. 
He started eleven  games that year, and it looked like he was on his way to being a very viable receiving threat for the Lions.  Somehow, thought, he was never quite able to build on that rookie magic—in fact, 2009 was as close as he came to even duplicating that initial effort.

You'll find a lot of people who'll tell you about how the Lions will miss his effort, his heart, his competitiveness, and his play on special teams.  What you’re not going to hear a lot of is how much the Lions will miss him as an option in the base offense.  Here’s an article I did breaking down Scott Linehan’s offense through the first few games.  Note the bit on FitzSimmons:

Okay, this is a single-back, 2-TE set. Both TEs are lined up tight against the right side of the line. The Flanker, Megatron, is lined up tight to the outside of the TEs. This gives the look of a trips bunch, but the "trips" are 2/3rds tight ends. The furthest outside of the TEs, Fitzsimmons, motions out wide to that side. Now Fitzsimmons is the Z, Johnson is the X, and Megatron is the Y.

The defense now has a massive dilemma on their hands. They're going to blitz both outside linebackers, and leave the MLB to play shallow centerfield. The CB takes the bait, manning up on Casey Fitzsimmons. The middle linebacker is now the only one responsible for covering both Heller and Megatron. After the snap, you can almost hear him going "Uhm, uh, uhm, uh" as he tries to figure out what on Earth to do. He wisely gives chase to Megatron--and after Stafford hits Megatron in stride, he even gets close enough to tackling Megatron to be easily shrugged off by the great wideout.

I believe this was the exact same play that was called back by the "Phantom Chop Block" in the Vikings game. It worked just as well then, too.

Linehan loves to start with vanilla run formations, and add clever wrinkles and motions and layers until they’re fiendishly clever pass plays.  Fitz, while he didn’t catch a lot of balls or score a lot of points, was nonetheless a very useful toy for Linehan to play with in those situations.  Fitz could motion outside, forcing a cornerback to cover him instead of a receiver.  Fitz could also beat many outside linebackers one-on-one, creating a mismatch that the defense would have to adjust for.  Fitz wasn’t a load as a blocker, but he’d give it everything he had when asked.

Brandon Pettigrew, I’m convinced, is developing into a two-way force at tight end.  Will Heller proved that he has softer hands than commonly thought.  Dan Gronkowski’s a high-effort guy.  But Casey FitzSimmons had a unique role in this offense, and his build, his athleticism, his length—and yes, his heart and grit and motor and effort and blue-collar Montana underdog white guy mojo—were a unique package, and it’s a shame that concussions forced him out.

On the other hand, good for Casey for making the right choice.  Good for the doctors for having the temerity to give it to him straight.  Good for the NFL for making this a point of emphasis.  As difficult as it is to cope with a failing, broken body, I can’t imagine how difficult it would be for me, and my family, if I suffered from severe mental illness in the prime of my life.

I'm sad, as a fan, that we didn't get to see Casey's underdog story reach its deserved conclusion.  But I’m much sadder as a man.  To see a strong, hardworking man my age lose his livelihood because of circumstances beyond his control?  It’s heart-rending.  You can just read it in his quotes, the frustration he feels at having his life derailed.  I can only imagine what it would be like, and frankly I don’t want to.

So, here’s to you, Casey; best of luck in whatever you do from here.  I know you’ll land on your feet.

Technorati Tags: nfl,detroit lions,casey fitzsimmons

Read more...

Lions’ 2010 Offseason: Offense or Defense?

A hot topic of debate these days is whether the Lions should “go offense” or “go defense” in the draft.  Many say the Lions have had the worst defense in the NFL for the past two seasons, and they won’t be competitive until it’s addressed.  Others have argued that the Lions should “complete” the offense—if one unit is very good, the Lions may be more competitive than if both units were merely less bad.

I say it’s all missing the point.

This is the way the typical fan would approach an offseason, were they given the reigns to their team.  Keep the starters who played well last year, and any first- and second-year players.  Declare the remaining, unfilled starting positions “holes”, and add those positions to the “shopping list”. Then, rank the positions on the shopping list in your perceived order of need.

In free agency, go after the names you best recognize who play positions at the top of your shopping list.  As free agents are acquired, scratch their positions off the list.  Then, in each round, note your highest-ranked remaining need, and take the best player available at that position.  If, at the end of the draft, all of the “holes” have been “filled”, your team had a "good offseason".

Unfortunately, that’s not how you build a team.

Last year, the Lions churned the roster like crazy, trying to cycle in any amount of talent they could.  They used and abused their #1 waiver priority, bringing recent cuts from all over the league in for tryouts.  They also added some quality “name” veterans, guys like Larry Foote, Grady Jackson, Philip Buchanon . . . at the time, we called these guys “stopgaps”, players who could play at a decent level for a year or two while the Lions rebuilt the talent base of the team.

The funny thing is, it's now a year later; many of these one- or two-year players now only have one (or no) years left here in Detroit.  We as fans have to get over the idea that when Larry Foote was signed last year to a one-year deal, that the Lions were “set” at middle linebacker.  They were never any such thing; they aren’t now, either.

Unfortunately, it’s going to take at least this draft, and the next one, before Lions fans can look at the “starters” the way normal NFL teams do: as solid pieces that will be in place for several years.  Outside of Calvin Johnson, and most of the players from the 2009 draft class, every single position on the roster is a “hole”.

The Lions simply can’t afford to shackle themselves to perceived need, be it immediate or medium-term.  Practically every position on the field is still in play for practically every round in the draft; about the only thing that the Lions couldn’t use is a quarterback or tight end in the top few rounds.  The Lions can—and should—take the best player on the board, regardless of what position, or side of the field, they play on. 

Read more...

Donte Stallworth to the Lions?

Those of you who have paid attention to my Twitter feed over the past year are well acquainted with my views on Michael Vick: he spent years as the architect, orchestrator, and Don of an empire of animal cruelty, animal murder, and illicit gambling.  After a six-year career filled with inconsistency, poor attitude, and bad decisions, in my mind he’d lost his privilege to play professional football.

Imagine my surprise when, upon Vick’s release, I heard the phrase “Vick deserves a second chance” about four hundred and seventy-two million times in the span of a few weeks.  On what planet?

Besides being a serial perpetrator of disgusting, torturous, brutal, soulless federal felonies, and patron of the attendant gambling rings, Vick flatly denied responsibility for his crimes, telling bald-faced lies to police and federal agents.  In fact, he only admitted guilt when multiple co-conspirators flipped on him.  As if his contempt for our justice system was in doubt, he made it plain by testing positive for marijuana while out on bond between his plea and sentencing.

Until he actually did time in Leavenworth, he never “got it”.  Even then, his first attempt to satisfy his creditors through bankruptcy court was essentially “I get to keep everything, and once I get back in the NFL I’ll pay you all back”. 

Meanwhile, Donte Stallworth, a wide receiver drafted in the first round by the Saints, recently of the Browns and currently a free agent, killed a man while driving drunk.  While Vick served 19 months in federal prison, Stallworth served only 24 days in jail.  The outcry over this disparity became the most tired ‘take’ since . . . well, since “Mike Vick deserves a second chance”. 

It's true, Stallworth was driving after having had one or two too many.  It’s also true that he hit someone with his Bentley, and that person died.  However, surveillance video that captured the accident apparently showed the victim jaywalking directly into Stallworth’s path, and Stallworth’s car simply unable to avoid him.

Florida law states that in order to convict a person of DUI manslaughter, the prosecution has to prove that the alcohol was a factor—i.e., that the accident wouldn’t have happened if the accused was stone cold sober.  However, the existence of the video tape prevented such a conviction; apparently the video makes it plain that there was little Stallworth could have done.

Moreover, everyone on-scene agrees that Stallworth stopped immediately after the accident, called 911, cooperated fully, accepted full responsibility, apologized to the family, and has since shown nothing but regret, remorse, and sorrow for what he did.  He made a mistake; he is not a monster.  THAT is a man who “deserves” a second chance.

Though I usually have a N.I.M.B.Y attitude towards players with attitude problems, and Stallworth’s career has so far not justified his first-round draft status, I feel a perverse sense of pride that it’ll be the Lions to give Stallworth his first crack at a second chance.

In pure football terms, the signing makes excellent sense.  The Lions desperately need a field-stretcher to pair with Megatron; a second fiddle with deep speed.  Of course, Stallworth has never possessed reliable hands, nor exceptional route-running ability—but they don’t need him to possess either of those traits.

All the Lions really need is a WR who presents a physical mismatch for a #2 corner, and Stallworth can fit that bill.  He should come cheaply—and even if he can’t beat out Bryant Johnson for the #2 role, he’s an unquestionable talent upgrade over Dennis Northcutt, Derrick Williams, or any of 2009’s slot receivers.

As I write this, it's all still up in the air.  The Lions could work Stallworth out tomorrow, he could cut a Chuck-Rogersesque 4.8, and this would all be moot.  Or, he could blow them away, get signed on the spot, go on to humiliate the all the #2 corners playing man-to-man ten yards off of him, and become the Alvin Harper to Calvin Johnson’s Michael Irvin.

Either of those scenarios, or anything in between, are entirely feasible.  All that’s left is to see today what Stallworth can make of his second chance.  For a variety of reasons, I hope he makes the most of it.

Read more...

The Watchtower: Lions at Bengals

For a Lions fan, it seems like there’s no longer wait than the one between the Thanksgiving Day game and second Sunday after that.  For me, it’s been a little over a week since I posted the Watchtower for that game, but it seems like a month-long blur of stuffing, friends, sausage stuffing, family, chestnut stuffing, and stuffing myself.

In said Watchtower, I projected:

If we apply the systemic advantage it appears Gunther Cunningham’s aggressive defenses have against Mike McCarthy’s offenses, scoring should be somewhere above the Lions’ allowed average—the Packers are a well-above-average offense—but below, like, a zillion points. Meanwhile, the Pack should be able to move between the 20s more or less at will. Therefore, the Packers should score 34-38 points, pass for 9.00-10.00 YpA, and run for 4.50-4.75 YpC. I have very high confidence in this prediction.

Let the record show: 27 offensive points, 8.92 YpA, and 2.96 YpC.  Clearly, the defense did even better than expected, despite a decimated secondary attempting to cover one of the more prolific passing offenses in the NFL.  The effect I’d isolated in prior McCarthy/Cunningham matchups, of the Packers moving the ball well but not scoring, was clearly seen in Week 6, and it was clearly seen on Thanksgiving as well.  Despite being thoroughly outclassed, the defense’s ability to generate timely disruption kept the Lions in the game.

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

Again, for the record: 10 offensive points, 4.95 YpA, and 3.17 YpC.  My projections here were a little bit optimistic; I place the blame entirely Schwartz’s decision to kick a field goal from the 4-yard-line while down by 18 in the fourth quarter.

I'm kidding.

Stafford, unbelievably, started and played the whole game--though the cortisone/adrenalin was clearly wearing off in the second half.  Megatron suited up, too, but he didn’t appear to be anything like his usual self.  Besides failing to be unstoppable, he had to be helped up on several occasions, and took himself out of the game at least twice.  Kevin Smith ran hard, but didn’t have much room.  There were a couple of runs where he was literally one step away from taking it to the house—but as we’ve repeatedly seen, that’s the one step he just doesn’t have.

At this point, the Lions are what we know they are: a team with good coaches, a few young, foundational players, and nearly nothing else.  Because they can’t run the ball, they are asking a rookie quarterback to beat teams by throwing it 40-50 times a game.  Because they can’t rush the passer, they are asking an injury-decimated secondary to hold the line while they blitz.  There’s no getting around it: the Lions do not have enough talent on the roster to beat good teams.

Who's next on the schedule?  Oh, yes, the 8-3 Bengals.  Sigh.

Bob Bratkowski vs. Gunther Cunningham

Brat	Gun	Ornk	PgG	YpA	YpC	Drnk	PpG	DYpA	DYpC	PTS	YpA	INT	YpC	Sack
SEA	KCC	10th	22.7	6.05	4.57	1st	15.1	5.41	4.38	10	6.28	1	4.33	3-22
SEA	KCC	10th	22.7	6.05	4.57	1st	15.1	5.41	4.38	3	2.79	0	1.53	4-29
SEA	KCC	16th	19.8	6.13	4.52	11th	18.8	6.60	3.78	17	5.13	1	3.03	7-18
SEA	KCC	16th	19.8	6.13	4.52	11th	18.8	6.60	3.78	16	7.00	1	5.50	3-25
SEA	KCC	9th	22.8	6.50	4.46	1st	14.5	6.43	3.92	17	9.69	1	6.00	3-32
SEA	KCC	9th	22.8	6.50	4.46	1st	14.5	6.43	3.92	19	6.70	1	2.96	5-25
SEA	KCC	10th	23.2	6.25	3.82	22nd	22.7	6.23	3.81	6	2.85	2	2.81	0-0
SEA	KCC	10th	23.2	6.25	3.82	22nd	22.7	6.23	3.81	17*	5.40	2	3.38	2-14
CIN	TEN	31st	14	5.13	3.88	25th	24.2	7.31	3.53	7	5.71	2	1.90	1-10
CIN	TEN	31st	14	5.13	3.88	25th	24.2	7.31	3.53	23	7.48	2	3.70	1-4
CIN	KCC	4th	26.3	7.10	4.16	16th	20.3	6.58	4.10	3	4.06	2	1.68	1-6
CIN	DET	16th	21.0	6.47	4.11	32nd	30.5	7.94	4.33

When I saw Bob Bratkowski’s name, my blood ran cold.  I knew he’d been an OC in the NFL for a very long time, and when I saw that he’d spent four years coaching in-division against Guntherball . . . well, I was smothered in an avalanche of data.  For those of you who spent Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday where this piece was, well, here it is.

Bratkowski is a disciple of Dennis Erickson, having been Erickson’s OC both at Washington State and with the Seahawks.  Yet, unlike the aerial offenses that Erickson employed at Wazzou and elsewhere, with the Seahawks Bratkowski employed a balanced offense with a strong running game.

This may be partially due to personnel—the Seahawks quarterbacks of the mid-90s were a Rogue’s Gallery of has-beens and never-weres.  However, the consistency of the yards per attempt and carry from year to year (despite constantly fluctuating personnel) indicate an intentional approach to run/pass balance—and this is borne out in his approach at Cincinnati as well.

The ‘95-‘98 Seahawks teams were consistently strong offensively.  In ‘95, the were the 10th-best scoring offense, averaging 22.7 points per game.  The passing offense was unimpressive, averaging just 6.05 yards per attempt—but Chris Warren led the rushing attack to 4.57 YpC.  The Chiefs, however, were the #1 defense in the NFL—led by Hall of Famer Derrick Thomas, whose #58 jersey will be retired this weekend.  The result was predictable: 15 points for the ‘Hawks in the first game, and only 3 in the second.  Tellingly, the ‘Hawks moved the ball a bit in the first game, 6.28 YpA and 4.33 YpC, but did no such thing in the second—a pathetic 4.06 YpA and 1.68 YpC. 

What was the difference between an on-par-with expectations first performance and the #10 scoring offense eeking out just a field goal?  Weather and quarterback play.  The first game was Week 1, and Rick Mirer threw it around a little bit, if not efficiently.  The second game was in Arrowhead on Christmas Eve, back when Arrowhead was Arrowhead, and most of the snaps went to John Friesz--who was horrific.  There may be a little something here in terms of schematic advantage, but I’m chalking that performance up to talent, execution, and one of the most notorious home field advantages in modern NFL history.  On an incredible side note, monster returner Tamarick Vanover took a kickoff to the house in both games!

In 1996, Seattle’s offense fell off slightly, to 19.8 PpG, making them the median offense in the NFL (16th-best).  The Chiefs were slightly less stingy as well, allowing an average of 18.8 PpG (11th-best).  The results were right in line with what you’d expect: 17 and 16 points scored by the Seahawks, just a little bit less than their ‘97 season averages.  Interestingly, rushing and passing per-carry averages were depressed in the first game, at home: 5.13 YpA, and 3.03 YpC—and yet, they were elevated well above averages on the road: 7.00 YpA, and 5.50 YpC.  Either way, though, the Chiefs defense held scoring to just below the Seahawks’ season averages.

In ‘97, both teams rebounded: Seattle was the 9th-best scoring offense with 22.8 PpG, and the Chiefs reclaimed the top spot by allowing a miserly 14.5.  Once again, they met in the middle, 17 and 19 points scored in the two times they met.  Before we move on to ‘98, check out the sack numbers!  In six games, 25 sacks for –151 yards.  This was not extraordinary for those Chiefs--who were to the 90s what the Ravens have been in the aughts--but it’s remarkable to note.

Finally, we get to 1998. During this season, the Chiefs' defense got markedly worse with similar personnel: they were they 22nd-best scoring defense, allowing 22.7 points per game. However, for a clue as to why Gunther Cunningham was promoted to the head coach position after the season anyway, when it was his unit that faltered, look at the season-average YpA and YpC numbers; they held steady even though the scoring defense melted.  For another clue, look at the sack numbers: the Chiefs had 54 sacks as a team in 1997, but only 38 in 1998.

Surprisingly, the Seahawks, despite having the best offensive output of the Erickson/Bratkowski era at 23.2 PpG, didn’t fare any better against Gunther’s Chiefs, scoring 6 and 17 offensive points in their annual pair of games.  Neither turnovers nor sacks played any more role than they usually did in these meetings—in fact, the defense had far fewer sacks against the ‘Hawks than in ‘95-‘97.

When Erickson was broomed after the '98 season, Bratkowski didn't coach again until Dick LeBeau tabbed him to coordinate the Bengals’ offense in 2001.  The Bengals, using Jon Kitna, Scott Mitchell, and Akili Smith at quarterback, somehow finished 31st of 31 teams in scoring offense that season (14.1 PpG).  I’ll give you all a moment to recover from the shock . . .

Gunther, for his part, had been axed as Kansas City’s coordinator, and was working with Jim Schwartz in Tennessee.  The Titans weren’t much better on defense--ranked 25th and allowing 24.2 PpG, Tennessee would be expected to allow the Bengals some of their better games.  Not so much the first time around; Cincy’s only score was a Kitna-to-Ron-Dugans touchdown.  YpA and YpC were . . . awful.  In the final contest of the season, though, the Bengals got two scores from Corey Dillon, and three field goals from the inimitable Neil Rackers.  Kitna, throwing 47 times for 340 yards, may have been taking advantage of Titans D that was 7-8, tied for 3rd of 5th place in the AFC Central, and had nothing left to play for.

Finally, in 2005, Bratkowski brought his career’s best offense to bear against Cunningham: the 4th-best scoring offense that year, the Palmer-Johnson-Johnson-Houshmandzadeh quartet averaged 26.3 PpG, 7.10 YpA, and 4.16 YpC.  Meanwhile, the Chiefs were the median defense, allowing 20.3 PpG, 6.58 YpA, and 4.10 YpC.  My projection would be that the Bengals would replicate their season averages against the median defense, but no—they mustered only a field goal.  I checked for injuries; both Palmer and Kitna played, but they both played well.  It was the complete denial of a run game, only 1.68 YpA, that engendered this offensive collapse.

This allows me to conclude: regardless of talent or execution, if a Gunther Cunningham defense can stop the running game of a Bob Bratkowski balanced offense, Cunningham's aggressive playcalling completely disrupts the passing offense, as well.  Otherwise, there is mild systemic advantage for a Cunningham defense against a Bratkowski offense, suppressing point production without affecting per-play effectiveness.

The 2009 Bengals' offense is a shadow of what it was in ‘05: right at the median, averaging 21.0 points per game, 6.47 YpA, and 4.11 YpC.  In terms of run/pass effectivness, this looks exactly like Bratkowski's Seahawks teams of the late 90s: stout, solid, and flashless--but effective.  Has Palmer's effectiveness ironically regressed to Jon Kitna levels?  Was T.J. Houshmandzadeh that important?  For this analysis, though, what's relevant is not that we figure out why this system hasn’t been as effective against other defenses, just that we figure out how effective this system will be against the Lions’ defense.

The Lions’ defense is, as we know, the worst in football.  Allowing 30.5 points per game, a whopping 7.94 YpA, and 4.33 YpC, they’ve been a shot in the arm for every offense they’ve faced.  While the Bengals’ offense hasn’t been spectacular, and Bengals fans have been calling for Bratkowski’s head for some time, they’re running the ball effectively, only throwing when they have to—and they’re winning games.  Lots of games.

I don't believe that the Lions have the personnel up front to stop the Bengals' increasingly effective running game, ergo no triggering of the magical "Stop Bratkowski's offense cold regardless of personnel" effect we see above. Therefore, the Bengals will meet or slightly exceed their average point production, while greatly exceeding per-play averages through the air. I project 20-24 points, 8.0-8.5 YpA, and 4.25-4.5 YpC.  I have extremely high confidence in this projection.

Mitigating/Augmenting Influences:

Chad Ochocinco has publicly called for the Bengals to throw it 50 times on Sunday—but lately, Bratkowski hasn’t thrown it at all unless he’s had to.  While the Lions have been much stouter against the run than the pass, they’ve been only not-very-good against the run, as opposed to disastrous against the pass.  I fear that even if the Bengals throw it only 10 times, it’ll be for 150 yards and two scores.  The Lions might try double-covering The Ocho with Will James and Louis Delmas, and isolating Philip Buchanon on Laverneous Coles—but if the defensive line doesn’t get pressure, it’s only a matter of time.

The Lions will be helped by the lack of a dangerous pass-catching runningback or tight end; death by Andre Caldwell in the slot is a slow death indeed.  Still, I see the defensive line being overwhelmed by the Bengals' enormous offensive line, and their deep rotation of power running backs. It's imperative that the Lions' offense finally be able to stick with the run, keep the defense fresh late, and keep the score close. If the Bengals unleash the deep ball, it will be over quickly.

Scott Linehan vs. Marvin Lewis

Lin

Marv

Ornk

PgG

YpA

YpC

Drnk

PpG

DYpA

DYpC

PTS

YpA

INT

YpC

Sack

STL

CIN

28th

16.4

5.63

3.78

24th

24.1

6.83

4.25

3*

5.46

1

3.67

0-0

It's almost laughable.  After the Bratkowski/Guntherball matchup generated a mountain of data, more than twice as many games as I’d ever broken down before, Linehan’s only faced off against Lewis once.  Unfortunately, one data point really can’t allow me to draw any kind of conclusion.  However, this was at least a recent-vintage Bengals defense.  Marvin has overseen many different defensive systems as both a coordinator and head coach—isolating just one would be practically impossible, even if there’d been a baker’s dozen meetings between the two coaches.

In 2007, Scott Linehan’s Rams were a mess; they had Steven Jackson and little else, and they didn’t have Steven Jackson much, either.  Ranked as the 28th-best scoring offense in the NFL, the Rams average 16.4 points per game, 5.63 YpA, and 3.78 YpC.  The Bengals’ defense of 2007 wasn’t a powerhouse either; the 24th-ranked unit allowed an average of 24.1 PpG, 6.83 YpA, and 4.25 YpC.  The meeting between the two teams resulted in an almost-perfect replication of the Rams’ season averages: 5.46 YpA, and 3.67 YpC.  However, the Rams scored only 3 offensive points, far short of their per-game average of 16.4.

It’s worth noting that those Rams lost almost their entire starting offensive line to in-season injuries; by December 7th (the date of this game) they were even losing the street free agents they'd signed to replace all the injured starters and backups. It's plausible to blame their below-expectations perfomance on that, but without even a second data point we can't determine if it's a fluke or a trend.

Looking at the 2009 data, it's absolutely painful. The Lions are nearly a statistical reproduction of that 2007 Rams offense.  Take the phrase above: "Scott Linehan’s Rams were a mess; they had Steven Jackson and little else, and they didn’t have Steven Jackson much, either".  Then, replace "Rams" with "Lions", and "Steven Jackson" with "Calvin Johnson" , and there you have it.

Meanwhile, the Bengals aren't the 24th-best scoring defense, they're the best in the NFL.  Let me say that again: the Cincinnati Bengals have the best scoring defense in the NFL.  Allowing only 15.8 points a game, 5.98 yards per attempt, and 3.80 yards per carry, the Bengals aren’t giving up anything to anybody . . . certainly not the Lions. 

Therefore, the expectation would be that the Lions significantly underperform their season averages--and we have no evidence of a systematic advantage that would modify those expectations.  Therefore, the Lions should significantly underperform their season averages: 7-9 points, 4.5-4.75 YpA, and 3.75-4.00 YpC.  I have low confidence in this projection.

Mitigating/Augmenting Influences:

There are two ways I see the Lions exceeding the (extremely low) expectations set for them; one is in the interplay between defense and offense. If the Bengals play conservative, ball-control offense and don't score very much early, the Lions may finally be able to get Kevin Smith in a rhythm. If the Bengals never open up a three-score lead on the Lions, it'll only be one Matthew Stafford-to-Calvin Johnson play away from being anybody's game. Of course, the Bengals will be capable of opening it up the other way, too . . .

The only other source of optimism is the relative health of Stafford and Johnson. Both were visibly hurt on Thanksgiving, especially Megatron. IF the long break has allowed them both to return to 100%, then there is at least the potential that the Lions' downfield passing game will force the Bengals to abadon their ball-control game. However, see above; forcing Carson Palmer and Chad Ochocinco will beat us might well result in them beating us.

There are any number of scenarios that may play out. If the Bengals choose to slow it down, and the Lions can't make the downfield pass happen, the two teams might not score 20 points combined. On the other hand, if the Lions or Bengals are aggressive early, it could turn into a track meet--much like the Browns game did. On the third hand, if Leon Hall baits Stafford into three or four picks, which could happen, it could just be a good old-fashioned blowout.

Oh, one other factor: it's in Cincy. The Lions haven't won a road game since before Halloween 2007, and I don't think they break the streak against the best defense in football.

Given all of these contradictory and/or depressing factors, I'm going to stick with the data: 20-24 points for the Bengals, and 7-9 points for the Lions.

Read more...