tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331641522024-03-13T07:20:31.289-04:00zlionsfan's blogVideo games, rants, Lions, Tigers, Red Wings, Pistons, more video games, sports, rambling, sarcastic humor, more rambling ... and rants.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.comBlogger628125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-17983669827973333692012-06-22T19:02:00.000-04:002012-06-22T19:04:02.081-04:00Are the Heat a dynasty?I'm not in the habit of answering every stupid question that ESPN asks, because that would take all day, and frankly entire sites have been devoted to such things, but they are easier to run if you are, say, professional screenwriters and can afford to spend hours making fun of <strike>Joe Morgan</strike>stupid sports people.<br />
<br />
But this one caught my eye, mostly because it was simultaneously beyond the normal level of stupid and yet entirely representative of modern sports "reporting", which consists mostly of high-visibility sites breathlessly exclaiming that what you have just seen is the BEST EVAR and well-written, lower-traffic sites devouring that conclusion and spitting it out in well-fisked paragraphs. (OK, technically the paragraphs would be fisking, and the original article would be fisked.)<br />
<br />
Besides, one of your dumber friends is either going to ask you if it's true, or he's going to tell you that it's true. (Given that women have been rudely excluded from many parts of sports, including fandom, over the last century or two, let's assume that as they catch up, they skip over the more obviously idiotic ideas.) So let's consider the question.<br />
<br />
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />
<br />
OK, really, let's think about it. They're obviously not, but why not? Well, let's define what a dynasty is, and when I say "us" I mean "me". Write about it on your own blog if you disagree, or include it in your podcast or whatever.<br />
<ul>
<li>Championships. It's cool that you make the playoffs 21 seasons in a row (always say "seasons" when referring to the NHL or that damn lockout will trip you up) or make the conference championship 6 straight years (and after what's happened to the Pistons, I can hardly believe this actually happened recently) or make the championship game 4 straight years (which we may never see again), but really, that's trivial stuff, the kind of thing you need to know in bars and nowhere else. We're talking last-team-standing stuff here. </li>
<li>Consecutive titles. Not that it has to be an uninterrupted streak, but you do need to demonstrate that you can put the targets on your back on Opening Day, wear them the entire season, and still hoist the trophy at the end of the season. </li>
<li>Lack of droughts. Sure, lots of great teams caught bad breaks, but we're not talking about just great teams here ... if you use that as motivation to come back and win the next season, that's fine. If you fall on your face again, you make your fans sound like Cowboys fans insisting that their team is just one player away from a Super Bowl run. Yeah, yeah, of course they are. (Hint: you need more than one player, and no, none of them are QBs.)</li>
<li>A period of dominance. Two in a row? You earned one and lucked into one. Three in a row? Yeah, that's harder to argue against. Four straight? Unless you're in a six-team league, that should end the discussion right there.</li>
</ul>
So, here are the rules:<br />
<ol>
<li>A dynasty <b>starts and ends with championships</b>. Extending it for losing in the finals doesn't make sense, does it? Because I know you weren't trying to argue that your favorite team's run includes that season where they lost in the conference quarters because blah blah blah and if only and you should have seen them.</li>
<li>A dynasty includes <b>at least two consecutive titles</b>. See above: if you can't defend your title, what kind of dynasty are you? Look, in the old days, dynasties were defined by rulers who fought off all challengers ... literally. The least you can do is be defending champs and actually defend once.</li>
<li>A dynasty does not include <b>two consecutive seasons without a title</b>. You can slip up once, OK, but if that isn't motivation to come back and win the whole darn thing next season, then you're just like everyone else who blew a big chance and then gave up ever asking out any woman quite like ... wait, where was I? </li>
<li>A dynasty includes <b>at least three titles</b>. Consecutive or not, doesn't matter (as long as you obey the rules above), but you've got to win enough that people actually dislike talking about your chances to win again. You need to create an anti-bandwagon, teams that root against you just to see you lose. </li>
</ol>
That's it. Too many rules and then it becomes some kind of drinking game, except it's kind of hard to play a drinking game when it takes a full season to resolve a turn. (But if you're simming seasons at home ...)<br />
<br />
Got it? OK, let's look at some examples.<br />
<h1>
Dynasties</h1>
<ul>
<li>Men's basketball: UCLA, 1964-75. Ten titles, twelve seasons, seven in a row, only missed out twice. (Clem Haskins and Texas Western, 1966 – you know that one – and Norm Sloan's 1974 NC State squad.) Quality of the dynasty is for another article entirely; here, I'm just listing ones that qualify.</li>
<li>Women's soccer: North Carolina, 1982-2000. Sixteen titles, nineteen seasons, nine in a row, and they actually missed the championship game twice. (Note that Wooden's Bruins also missed the title game both seasons above.) Again, not rating them, just pointing out that this is the kind of thing we're talking about. If you played UNC in women's soccer back then, you knew what you were getting. They still have a strong program today, but, like, sometimes, they don't even win their conference.</li>
<li>Baseball: New York Yankees, 1947-53. Six titles, seven seasons, five in a row. (You may have read about the 1948 Cleveland Indians, and you probably thought they were the 1954 Indians. The latter won 111 games; the former won the Series.)</li>
<li>Hockey: Edmonton Oilers, 1985-90. Five titles, seven seasons, only two in a row (twice). (Interestingly, the other two Finals involved Montreal and Calgary, with each team winning once.) Doesn't matter that Gretzky was gone in 1990 ... if anything, it enhances the Oilers' reputation. They got rid of the greatest player in hockey and still won a title.</li>
</ul>
<h1>
Not dynasties</h1>
<ul>
<li>NBA: Miami Heat, 2006-12. Two titles, seven seasons. So? The Pistons won two straight titles after losing a seven-game series to an actual dynasty, and we know Detroit wasn't a dynasty, right? Those two Heat teams are barely even related. Get back on the court, LeBron, take your talents to the Finals a couple more times, bring back the trophy again, and then we can talk. Until then, go sit over there with Isiah and Hakeem.</li>
<li>Baseball: New York Yankees, any period from 1954 to the current day except 1996-2000. This is why Yankees fans enjoy shouting the number of titles they've won at you: it galls them that they can't win a World Series every year, and frankly, most of them can't imagine reliving 1963-76 or 1979-95, during which they won NONE. HA HA.</li>
<li>Men's basketball: Duke, any time period. It's great that Coach K has won four titles. It took him 20 seasons. I know the game is different, but you know what? That's how the game works. Not a dynasty. Too bad.</li>
<li>NFL: Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, 1950-57. Yes, these two teams dominated the league, winning six of eight titles and taking 11 of 16 spots in the finals (the Rams made it three times, going 1-2 against Cleveland, and the Giants and Bears played in '56). Both teams won consecutive titles, but neither could wedge a third close enough to the other two to establish dominance. </li>
<li>NBA: Boston Celtics, Bird era. Yeah, they were always a contender, but they "only" won three titles, and never won back-to-back titles. (To this day, Bird probably obsesses over things like this in his spare time.)</li>
</ul>
Yeah, these rules draw some interesting lines, or exclude some teams you would include otherwise. Michael's Bulls? Two separate dynasties, 1991-93 and 1996-98. But in retrospect, that makes sense, right? He was gone in 1994 and only played part of 1995 ... the Bulls didn't scare anyone those years the way they did in the years around them. Bradshaw's Steelers? Back-to-back Super Bowls twice, but there were two seasons in between those, and they didn't even win the AFC either year. It's quite an accomplishment, but sorry, not a dynasty. 24 months with no title means 24 months of people worrying about other teams more than yours.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-74460771913916791292012-06-19T22:59:00.000-04:002012-06-19T23:03:05.913-04:00So yeah, about this blogging thing ...see, here's the deal. I tend to post about a) sports, b) video games, and c) other little things that come up. Not mentioned above is d) my personal life, just because, well, I'm not that kind of person. You may have noticed this about me. (It was worse in the past, if you can believe it. At least now I'm more likely to answer questions ... back in the day, I'd probably have dodged those too.)<br />
<br />
Once the NFL season was over and I finished my recap, a) pretty much took a break, except maybe for the NCAA tournament. The thing is that I can also just post on Facebook, which is easier, and so a lot of the little things just go there. (Plus I suspect more people read my posts on Facebook, even if not many read them closely. It's certainly not a format that encourages long, in-depth commentary, which I do like to bring.) That pretty much covers c). b) has been much of the same-old same-old, except for the bit of time when I was playing Diablo III a lot, and when I was trying to get as much as I could out of Dead Island before it made me too mad to play any more. (Multiplayer is interesting, at least.)<br />
<br />
So ... I really haven't posted at all for a few months. Not because anything was wrong: on the contrary, they've been three of the more impressive months of my life, not so much with respect to big changes, but as a fulcrum for big changes.<br />
<br />
Four years ago, an ongoing battle with my boss' boss left me without a job. In the long run, it was definitely a good thing - just like in Highlander, there can be only one, and you normally don't have to get too deep into office politics to figure out which of you it will be - but at the time, it was CHANGE. (I'd worked there 15 years.) They were good to me to the end and gave me a nice cushion, which helped get me to my second job.<br />
<br />
Three years ago, my second job ended abruptly. (Thank you, recession.) I suppose I'm partly to blame for not demonstrating to the right people what I brought to the table, but then again, a number of coworkers did realize it (and were not happy about the company eliminating my position), so maybe this was just another variation on Company 1. If the wrong people decide you're not necessary, you may never win that battle. Anyway, they were also good to me, but the economy had changed, and so I went into contracting in lieu of permanent work.<br />
<br />
Last year, work was kind of light ... but while I was in the middle of a one-month contract, my good recruiter called me up to let me know she had a possible full-time position for me. It was at a company not too far from where I live, maybe 20 minutes away, less than half the time it took to get to the contract company. We talked about the position and decided to come in at a figure that was the salaried equivalent of the hourly contracts I had with them. The person I was interviewing with was actually someone I'd worked with before. It was, in short, a great opportunity.<br />
<br />
During that process, the company with which I was contracting let me know that they had a contract opportunity themselves at another company (weird, I know – just think of two middlemen instead of one), a long-term deal, six months or so. I said yeah, I'd be interested, but here's the thing: I'm interviewing for a full-time position, and if they make an offer, I'm going to accept. (They were, in fact, comfortable with the number we gave them.) The contract company seemed a bit surprised – I don't think they'd had someone say that to them before. In my mind, it was only fair. As a contractor, I'd rather take less money and have a better business relationship, so this was no different. They asked if there was anything they could do to match, but the thing was, it was a contract position vs. a full-time position, and the contract position was roughly in the same place, about 45 minutes away. You can't really offer time to someone.<br />
<br />
So they said they wanted to put me up for it anyway, and we'd see what happened. I said OK. It turned out that the end client liked me, but for some reason, they wanted to know by the end of the week ... even though the contract was to start March 1, they needed to know the last full week in February. Of course the full-time company hadn't decided yet, so I had to turn down the contract position, and you know what happens next ... the full-time company hires the other person. (Apparently he had experience with a type of certification specific to that industry, something that I didn't have and couldn't have obtained, and thus nothing I had any control over.)<br />
<br />
That was pretty much the low point of my contracting career. I'd lost out on a couple of other nice opportunities, but missing both of these was a pretty big blow, and with nothing lined up when the one-month contract ended, I was beginning to envy the cats for making a $35 bag of food (I buy the large bags) last a couple of months.<br />
<br />
BUT. In March, the contract company gets in touch with the recruiter that placed me there and says hey, the end client couldn't find anyone, are you still interested? (This isn't really a surprise. There are few experienced programmers in this area with the skills I have, and few companies that use the tools I know, so it doesn't take long to get through the "list" for either group.) I say yes. So I start in early April as a contractor. The rate is lower than my normal contract rate, but hey, it's a long-term deal, and I wasn't really in a position to bargain. (My recruiter – not the good one, but pretty good themselves – did give me a significant raise above my rate for the one-month contract.)<br />
<br />
I settle in to a routine, a welcome change from the last two years. Instead of short weeks and constant sales pitches (hate hate hate), it was 40-hour weeks and low pressure. I would say "casual", but that gives the wrong impression. Basically, my boss cared that we met our deadlines and communicated well. He was not the type to do a head count at 8 AM and 5 PM (you know the type). So I'd come in, knock out some code, and go home.<br />
<br />
At the same time, I became aware that I needed a long-term financial plan, especially if short-term work would become the norm again. So I worked up an Excel worksheet with rows for expenses and columns for paychecks (kinda; I got paid weekly, but I divided the expenses into first-half and second-half of each month, probably from Company 2 where we were paid semi-monthly), and plotted out, as best I could, what was coming, what I was making (at least through September), and what I could afford to pay off. Apparently they call this thing a "budge-it". I made this budge-it fairly aggressive, cutting back a lot in some areas (bye-bye satellite) but being a little lenient in others (entertainment). Still, there were limits, because of the money I was making and the debt I had, so the initial plan was to basically tread water and take slow steps toward recovery.<br />
<br />
Basically, what prompted the budge-it was that a few months back, I didn't get an e-bill from one of my credit card companies, and then I didn't notice that I didn't get one. They sent me a notice that I had a late payment, so I went online and paid it through my bank (because when money is tight, you do <b>not</b> give a creditor your checking information), but they punished me anyway: slashed my credit line and jacked up my interest rate. (And, I believe, that change prompted another issuer to slash my credit line, to which I said, FUCK YOU.) Thus the budge-it not only matched spending to income, but also tracked expenses so I'd know if this happened again. <br />
<br />
It didn't take long to make a name for myself at Company 4. The project began to expand, and soon it went from 6 months to 6-9 months to 6-12 months. People began to reassure me that there would be work for me there even after this project ended, although it was just planning and not fact at that point (the fiscal year hadn't rolled over, so budgets weren't set yet). So now I could extend my plan a little bit, if only in pencil (kids, that's what we used in the old days to write when we weren't sure if we'd have to make changes ... uh, write, like on paper ... uh ... never mind), at least until July.<br />
<br />
So the fiscal year rolled over, and the budgets were set, and yes, they were planning to keep me around, well, indefinitely. You might say that keeping a contractor around indefinitely is penny-wise and pound-foolish, and I would say absolutely, but hey, don't let them know, OK? (It's usually a political thing. Hiring someone means an increase in specific costs on a department's budget. Hiring a contractor means an increase in cost on a project that doesn't belong to any one department.) And so I added categories to my budge-it as I remembered them, but stayed in water-treading mode. Eventually I'd put in enough hours that the recruiting company could offer me health insurance ... still no paid vacations, though.<br />
<br />
And then the company that placed me there said hey, want to be a full-time employee? Now the catch was that the tools they use are not the tools I know, so there'd have to be a transition plan, but we'd work that out once my placement ended. (Surprisingly, the recruiter did not discuss salary with them. What? Dudes, that's what your job is. I tell you my range, you work it out with them.) So I decide to do it. My initial salary is roughly the same, but at least now I have vacation time. (And an HSA, which means money set aside for expenses, very nice. And portable. And it doesn't expire.)<br />
<br />
But it was kind of weird. Not as weird as working through two companies for a third, but still weird, because I worked for Company 3, but I was always on site at Company 4. (There are benefits to this arrangement: I got to take advantage of birthday cake and such at both places.) And, of course, the longer I stayed at Company 4, the longer it would be before I would transition to Company 3 tools. I was reading up on my own, but that's not the same as practical uses for the tools.<br />
<br />
At this point, Company 4 had dropped some hints that they'd be interested in hiring me, but there was no chance that would happen. (See political footnote above.) Still, the contract was going to be extended every chance they got, which was nice, but also raised the question above: can I really keep up on two sets of skills when I only use one? And can I do it when neither company is actually paying me to learn? (Company 4 did pay for on-site training, and Company 3 was paying for training materials, but that's not the same as learning on the clock, you know?)<br />
<br />
So I'd changed employers once, but I was still a contractor. And then this February, my boss says hey, would you be interested in a full-time position if we can work it out with Company 3?<br />
<br />
It turns out that someone was leaving the team, so instead of hiring an additional person, it would be filling an existing position, and there were no problems with that. I said sure. We discussed it in detail. I already knew what the work would be like – exactly what I'd been doing already – but the benefits would be nicer, because it was a bigger company, and I'd be working for the company where I spent my time. (Actually, the benefits are much nicer.)<br />
<br />
Of course, you know how these contracts go ... there's a no-steal clause in them. However, if you have enough business experience, you learn that contracts are starting points, not ending points, and quickly, Company 3 said sure, you can talk numbers with him. (Imagine that I'm a defender at Portsmouth, but they don't need someone with my ability right now, so Wigan approaches them for a full-season loan. I play at Wigan that year. At the end of the season, Wigan would like to purchase my contract, so they discuss a transfer with Portsmouth. They work out the fee, and now I talk contract with Wigan.) Details will be hidden to protect the involved parties, but I was able to get a substantial raise ... significantly more than I was making at Company 3, and in fact, more even than I'd made at Companies 1 or 2. <br />
<br />
I accepted, we made it official, and I now had a third employer in 12 months, all from doing the same work in the same office with the same people. BUT. Now, instead of treading water, I could do some damage, and unlike the mes of previous years, this me was doing damage to his debt instead of his finances. I redid the budge-it (at this point, it was current year + 1, six months at a time) to account for the increase in income, giving myself a little more to spend but a lot more to pay off, and I went to work. (Also as a bonus, I may get to work from home more often. Each day at home is 50 miles not on the car, which is roughly 1 gallon of gas – that's right, suckers, read that and weep, unless you have a Prius, in which case whatever. It's also 90-110 minutes not in the car.)<br />
<br />
So yeah, sometimes it's hard. Soup for lunch is kind of boring. (Sure is cheap, though.) It would be nice to get the AC fixed. (You get accustomed to it. Don't worry, cats deal with hot weather much better than dogs. If I had a dog, I'd have had to get it fixed last year.) (No, really, it's OK. We didn't have AC at my mom's until high school, I think, and even then it wasn't central air, but a window unit. None of the dorms I lived in at Purdue had AC, and neither did my first apartment. It comes back to you in a hurry.)<br />
<br />
But hey ... I paid off my car loan one month early, mostly because in addition to all this paying-off stuff, I also built up enough of a reserve that if something weird happens to a check, I'm fine. (It's still kind of weird seeing how much I net each month.) I set a goal to pay off the shitty credit card this year, and that'll happen next month. (I still haven't decided when to close the account. I'll probably wait a bit just in case. I couldn't care less about my credit score – that's just a big scam anyway – but I do want an emergency credit line if I need one.) The other card that cut my credit line will be paid off in December or January. My goal was to pay off $7500 of my debt this year; I should have that done by October. And on top of that, I had enough left over to buy myself a Kinect and a tablet.<br />
<br />
The remaining credit cards are a bit bigger, so it'll take me longer to pay them off, but I have one planned to be done in 2014 and the other in 2015. At the same time, I'm putting more toward the principal on my mortgage, hoping to get it low enough to get the PMI removed so I can use that money toward other things. Obviously there'll be big expenses at some point - I've been blessed with good car health, so that'll run out eventually, and of course the AC - but once the main credit cards are dropping, I can handle those easily. If I end up getting raises or promotions, those will just get me to my goals faster. I didn't add those to the budget because this is more like bad-case planning (not worst-case). It's always easier to deal with more money than with less.<br />
<br />
So. For the first time in forever, I'm actually cleaning things up. Yeah, sometimes it's tough, keeping track of basically everything, and that's, I think, why my weight hasn't really changed in six months, even though I'm within sight of the most I've ever weighed, ever. There's a limit to the amount of self-control people have. Right now, my weight is less of a danger to me than my finances are. Besides, it's kind of like living in a sauna for three months. JOKE. It's fine, really. I've been a Lions fan for 40 years, a little heat isn't going to bother me much ... although it's interesting how hot my feet get. (This is related to two problems: poor circulation, which normally manifests itself as cold feet/hands in winter, and poor sweat mechanisms. Nice if you're riding a bike - I don't wear gloves because my hands don't sweat - but not so nice in a warm environment.) Anyway, I can't really describe what it's like to be making positive changes in an area where, frankly, I've sucked pretty much my whole life. I've got a long way to go, but compared to where I've been, I think some people might not recognize me. (You should have heard ems when I told her I had a budge-it.)<br />
<br />
See? It's much more interesting to wait than for me to post little bits at a time, plus it's not like I'm going to post all of this on Facebook. (That's the advantage of the wall-of-text blogging style. Most people won't get this far down.) And trust: if it was something really interesting, like dating, you'd already know about this. I mean, that's really what Facebook's for, right?zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-13287557577807244222012-02-23T15:19:00.000-05:002012-02-23T15:19:58.118-05:002011: the defense in review (with special teams)Part 3 of my season-in-review series. Yeah, things came up, so this should have been out a couple of weeks ago, but at least free agency hasn't started yet.<br />
<br />
<h1>
DE: B</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Surprisingly, the Lions' defensive line as a whole dropped off from 2010. Their ASR dropped from 7.7% to 6.5% even though they recorded only two fewer sacks: this was partly a result of not trailing nearly as often and thus seeing a lot more passes, and partly a result of ... I don't know. I would have thought the secondary had improved this year - see my comments below. Maybe the Lions just played teams with better offensive lines. Anyway, while the ends did a pretty good job, they need to get more sacks. If the goal is to contend for a Super Bowl, they have to be able to get to QBs like Rodgers and Brees, and that did not happen enough this year.<br />
<br />
Depth here is not an issue. Vanden Bosch, Avril, Young and Jackson are all good players, meaning that the Lions can rest their speed demons and still get comparable pressure. On the other hand, their speed is occasionally an issue much as it has been in Indianapolis with Mathis and Freeney: great if the QB has the ball, not so great if he doesn't. Vanden Bosch adjusts very well to the run – the Lions were best in the league at runs around left end, allowing just 2.22 ALY per play – but Avril was susceptible to counters and draws, as Detroit's ALY at right end (from the offense's perspective) rose to 4.80, third-worst in the league.<br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Obviously, re-signing unrestricted free agent Avril. My faith in his productivity was rewarded this year; even given his struggles against the run, he had a solid year, and his interception against San Diego demonstrated the athleticism that he brings to the position. One of the few players that Schwartz and Mayhew kept from the Dark Times, he's obviously the kind of player they want, so it's up to them to get him signed before the season starts. (Maybe he's figured out that if you do it just right, you can sit out the boring parts of the exhibition season.)<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>Everyone else is under contract, so it's really just a matter of signing Avril. If he somehow gets away, I'm not sure how the Lions could replace him without spending the type of money that he probably wants in the first place.<br />
<br />
<h1>
DT: B</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Again, generally good performance, just not enough pressure at times. The DTs' weakness was trap and wham plays, as we saw in the San Francisco game: those plays basically gave the 49ers the win. The Lions were strong against runs up the middle (3.69 ALY, 7th in the league) and on third-down plays in general, and Suh and Williams were big factors there. <br />
<br />
Hill was a solid backup all year; Fairley joined him once his foot was 100%. Fluellen is adequate, but works fine with the backup unit. (He'd be a liability if he had to start.)<br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Suh is obviously the top starter, but it may be his contract that is the most important issue here. If he's willing to restructure it, the Lions can re-sign Avril. If not, then the Lions may have to cut Williams and hope that Fairley or Hill is ready for full-time duty.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>Figuring out whether or not Hill can be part of the rotation. He's a RFA, so the Lions have more options with him, but it may turn out that they need to cut him loose to save cap space. <br />
<br />
<h1>
LB: C</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>This is actually a pretty significant improvement over the last couple of years. For a change, linebackers were actually closing on the ball and making plays; sometimes they even dropped into coverage correctly. They still don't work together as a unit all the time, but this could be because, well, they haven't played much together, not with Durant and Tulloch coming in as FAs from Jacksonville and Tennessee.<br />
<br />
At times, they seem to rely a little too much on the DL: I charted a number of plays where the LBs were passive, letting the play come up to them. Second-level yards weren't quite as much of a problem this year (1.23, 19th) as last year (1.25, 26th), but there's still improvement to be made. <br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Comparing Tulloch's value to his salary demands. As an UFA, he could ask for a contract that Detroit can't afford to offer, and there may be other situations that would be better for him ... but there can't be too many of them, and I believe Schwartz made a point of pursuing him last season. I'm not sure Tulloch will dismiss that easily.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>A backup or backups, depending on the status of Bobby Carpenter, another UFA. He's contributed both as a backup and on special teams, so he's the kind of guy that could be replaced, but not as easily as people might think. Ashlee Palmer is primarily a ST guy as well, but a RFA: the Lions might choose to replace him if they don't think he can play defense more often.<br />
<br />
<h1>
CB: C-</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>When they were good, they seemed very, very good. When they were bad, they were awful. Houston and Wright are the kind of guys who can take advantages of mistakes, but not so much the kind that can force them. Beyond that, the Lions had below-replacement-level performance, to the point that Cunningham rarely used a dime package, even if it meant putting a LB or S on a WR. <br />
<br />
On a number of early-season plays, the corners were beaten by taller, athletic WRs (Dez Bryant, for example). There is an argument to be made that even their better plays could be attributed more to QB mistakes (think Tony Romo), so this C- is really like the combination of an F and an A. <br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Getting a good, tall corner. Eric Wright is an UFA; his confidence issues and size may mean that the Lions look elsewhere to fill his spot. Depending on what's available when they're on the clock, this could even come in the draft. <br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>Quality backups. Brandon McDonald is an UFA and should probably be released; Berry and Smith are still young, so maybe they'll develop into better corners, but it would be nice to have a couple of CBs on the bench who won't hurt the team if they have to start.<br />
<br />
<h1>
S: C-</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Once you get beyond Delmas, the performance was questionable at best, and when he was injured late in the season, the secondary struggled. Spievey still doesn't play well enough from time to time to justify his starting role, but the lack of depth behind him was a huge issue, particularly when Delmas was out. Wendling was fine as usual on special teams, but a bit out of his element on the field, and guys like Coleman and Harris were basically just fill-ins.<br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Figuring out what to do at SS. Is Spievey really the guy? He's just a third-year player, so it's not likely they'll be able to replace him with a known star, and maybe a full offseason will help him work out some of the problems I saw last season. After all, he did make some pretty good plays as well. The problem is that the Lions will likely be having cap issues the next couple of seasons, so they might be better off finding a new, young SS now rather than trying to get Spievey under the cap with a RFA contract. <br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>Getting players who can play on special teams and also play safety. Detroit's ST were bad enough (see below) that it's hard to recommend keeping many of the existing guys, and the play in the absence of Delmas was not good. <br />
<br />
<h1>
K: C-</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>I know, worse than I thought it should be, but <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst">numbers don't lie</a>, right? Hanson was 5 of 7 from 50 or more this year, kind of: his longest made FG was 51 yards, so his age is starting to show. His one blocked kick was costly, and the efficiency of the offense meant that he had significantly fewer attempts, especially from 40-49, and going 2 of 4 from there was not good. Kicking off from the 35 helped his touchback percentage, but he just doesn't get enough height on those kicks, and the coverage team isn't good anyway, so teams returned kicks fairly well against the Lions.<br />
<br />
<b>Needs: </b>A kickoff specialist, at the very least. I haven't read that Hanson was going to retire, or that Schwartz wanted to replace him, so let's assume he returns. He'll turn 42 before the season starts, so his range is going to shrink a little. He's been a great kicker for a long, long time, and kicking indoors will keep him active for a while longer, but kicking indoors would help a young, strong kicker as well.<br />
<br />
<h1>
P: C+</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>As with kickoffs, unimpressive at times, but unlike with kickoffs, quite impressive other times. Ryan Donahue replaced the ineffective Nick Harris and was unremarkable for eight games before going out with a season-ending injury; the Lions signed Ben Graham, who turned out to be better than he'd been in Arizona, but some of that may have been the coverage units. (Doesn't make sense, because Arizona actually <b>improved</b> without him, but maybe their new punter is just that much better.)<br />
<br />
<b>Needs: </b>Figure out who the punter is going to be moving forward. You really can't carry four kickers, which means that the Lions will have to cut one if they're going to look for help for Hanson. Graham would be that one, given that he's an UFA and Donahue is on a rookie contract.<br />
<br />
<h1>
KR: C<br />
</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Unspectacular, but not horrible. Stefan Logan was never really a threat to break one, but then he didn't make any drive-preventing errors that I recall either. Given the boom-or-bust-but-mostly-bust nature of return games, this is probably about what you can expect.<br />
<br />
<b>Needs: </b>None, really. If there's a solid CB in the draft who also returns kicks, sure, give him a chance, but there's nothing wrong with a guy who'll put you near your 20 every time.<br />
<br />
<h1>
PR: D<br />
</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Not much help here. Logan led the NFL with 28 fair catches, but the real story was that he was 25th in average return – that's next to last among qualified returners, ahead of only Armanti Edwards of Carolina. (Hmm. Maybe they should quit trying to play QBs at positions other than QB. Keep in mind that the Panthers thought Jimmy Clausen was a QB.) Basically, Logan had two choices: not much yardage or no yards at all. <br />
<br />
<b>Needs: </b>Better blocking, and perhaps a returner more suited to punt returns. No, Patrick Peterson won't be available in the second round, but the Lions could sure use someone with better broken-field running skills than Logan.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-85149030331007363002012-02-03T09:32:00.000-05:002012-02-03T09:32:53.306-05:002011: the offense in reviewPart 2 of a series looking at the season that just completed and what might be expected from the season to come. Here, I focus on the talent at each position, and what I think should be done for 2012.<br />
<br />
<h1>QB: A-</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>I know ... A- for a 5000-yard season? Well, remember that Stafford threw the third-most passes in NFL history. Counting stats must always be read in context. Certainly, Stafford's first full season looked much more like a #1 overall pick than what we saw in his partial seasons, in no small part, I think, due to the strength training he did in the offseason. He took a lot of hits in 2011 as well, but got up after each one of them, and ended up missing very few snaps. (Hill threw 3 passes; I don't think Stanton ever played.)<br />
<br />
On the other hand, Stafford still got rattled after bad throws, particularly in the game at Chicago, and still tries to force the ball into coverage. With Calvin Johnson on the receiving end, sometimes that's OK, and at his best, Stafford has the ability to fit the ball into a ball-sized window. He's not always at his best, though. Sometimes it's better to take a sack (something he did better in 2011 than in 2010) or to throw it away.<br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>What he did last year. Maybe work more with the younger receivers (Pettigrew, Young) to develop the same kind of rapport he has with Johnson. Think of the Colts as an example. Manning had a #1 target (Harrison or Wayne or Clark), but also had other receivers he could trust to be a certain place at a certain time, and it made their offense nearly unstoppable. If Stafford can get the WRs and TEs on the same page, this could be a similar offense.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>It would help to re-sign one of the backups; both Hill and Stanton filled in well in 2010. It's probably not possible to re-sign both for reasonable money due to their experience. Hill will be 32, Stanton will be 28, so there's that, but I think Hill is more capable of running a full-throttle offense than Stanton.<br />
<br />
<h1>RB: C</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Despite the wide variance in playing time and usage, Smith, Best, and Morris all had comparable DYAR (48, 46, and 37 respectively). Smith's raw stats look pretty good until you realize that he played mostly against teams with bad run defenses (17.1% VOA, 7.2% DVOA). All three backs had higher DYAR on the receiving side (Best 65, Morris 64, Smith 64), and each back posted a receiving DVOA above 17% (Smith and Morris were above 25%).<br />
<br />
Obviously, the absence of Leshoure was felt from Week 1, and when Best went out (again) with concussion problems, the Lions had to scramble. If Smith hadn't been available via FA, the back situation would have been grim. Morris is a change-up back, not a starter, and Keiland Williams is an adequate big back for a team with a good OL. Detroit is not that team.<br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Opening training camp with two strong, healthy backs. Leshoure's status will be almost completely unknown until camp begins: there was <a href="http://blog.chron.com/texanschick/2011/08/a-medical-view-of-demeco-ryans-recovery-from-injury/">some research done</a> with respect to older players and Achilles injuries, but even those are nearly anecdotal, and of course it's impossible to separate an injury-recovery decline in performance from an age-related decline in performance. Leshoure is obviously younger than NFL peak age, so he could, potentially, return at good strength in 2012, although he may not be 100% until 2013.<br />
<br />
Best, on the other hand, has played two injury-filled seasons in the NFL following a concussion-filled college career. With the richly-deserved focus on concussions in today's game, it's entirely possible that Best will never be able to play at the level the Lions hoped he would when they drafted him in 2010. (To be clear, I'm glad if this happens, because it'll mean it's not safe for him to play and thus he won't be allowed to risk his health. In the past, they'd have thrown him out there, let him rack up concussions, and cut him when he couldn't think straight any more.)<br />
<br />
Smith is a free agent, but remember that RB is a fungible position, and he also has a history of injury. If he'll sign for a reasonable price, get him, but if not, don't be afraid to go back to the draft, or to look for a low-priced FA.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>None, really. Morris is replacement-level at best and probably not worth re-signing. Jerome Harrison obviously has more important things on his mind right now than football. The Lions can grab younger backs if they need to fill out their roster.<br />
<br />
<h1>WR: B+</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Calvin Johnson led the NFL with 586 DYAR, topping WRs with 16 TDs (tied for 14th all-time) and the NFL with 1681 receiving yards (7th all-time, but only second in Detroit history behind Herman Moore's 1681). The one thing that could probably be improved is his catch rate, 61%, but a) that's his career high (up from 57% last season), b) it's affected by the long passes thrown to him (33% last season were either Deep passes or Bombs), and c) it's also affected by the point in the season where defensive coordinators realized that single coverage was not the way to play Megatron. (You should know by now that any coach whose last name is Ryan is not given to intelligent comments. He wasn't that far off, though: Laurent Robinson was 3rd in DVOA, ahead of Megatron, and Dez Bryant was 13th ... but significantly behind Johnson. Suffice it to say that even at the time, Ryan's remark was obviously trolling. Give Titus Young a couple of seasons, and Megatron could post stats that even Ryan would appreciate.) So let's not dwell on that 61%. Megatron had a spectacular season. <br />
<br />
Once Young became a part of the offense, he quickly developed into a threat, catching four or more passes in each of the Lions' last four games and scoring a total of 4 TDs in those games. His catch rate is low (56%), but he's young and has a high ceiling, so he should take over the #2 role from Burleson next season. Burleson, like Young, had a slightly negative DVOA (-4.5% to Young's -1.6%), but is a good fit as a secondary receiver in this offense. Expect him to become even more of a possession receiver with Young's emergence.<br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Keep Johnson healthy and happy. Until another receiver emerges as an adequate complement, Johnson is what makes the receiving corps dangerous.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>Again, none, really. Johnson-Young-Burleson is a fine group to have, and all are under contract. The only free agents are ST-quality receivers, and that's another section.<br />
<br />
<h1>TE: B</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Brandon Pettigrew's counting stats were up slightly, but his performance dropped a bit; like Young and Burleson, he had a slightly negative DVOA (-2.2%). Tony Scheffler wasn't used nearly as often (43 passes to 126 toward Pettigrew), but was far more productive, with a 24.6% DVOA (8th among TEs) and 96 DYAR (vs. 30 for Pettigrew). Scheffler's ability to make spectacular catches makes you wonder why he wasn't on the field more often ... until you realize that Detroit doesn't use a lot of empty sets, and using 2 TEs means the third WR has to come off. His low catch rate (60%) was probably a factor as well.<br />
<br />
Pettigrew has a couple of areas for improvement: YAC and penalties. For all his size, Pettigrew doesn't seem to get through tackles often, averaging less than 4 YAC, but that wasn't as big of a deal as the penalties. He led the NFL in false starts among non-linemen (there is, of course, no source for this; I just recall hearing it during a broadcast), and of course had that personal foul late in the season.)<br />
<br />
Will Heller was mostly used as a FB and blocking TE; he fills in well enough in both roles.<br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Getting the most out of Pettigrew. If he can improve his performance, his size and skills will make him a very dangerous target.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>None, really. If Young emerges as a clear #2 WR, then Linehan can do more of the 12 package (1 RB/2 TEs) that the Lions used last season, with either or both TEs flexing out and with Scheffler occasionally lining up as a WR.<br />
<br />
<h1>OT: C-</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Ah, now we get to the criticism. When the tackles were good, they were decent; when they were bad, they were awful. Backus deserves a ton of credit for surviving the Dark Times and not missing a game (take that, QB-consecutive-games-played people), but he's obviously past his prime, and he's no longer capable of doing more than slowing down elite pass rushers. Unfortunately, Jared Allen and Clay Matthews are in the same division, which means at least one-fourth of the Lions' games are against teams with elite speed rushers. Gosder Cherilus is young, but old enough that he's probably reached his potential, which isn't much better than Backus' level of play. In fact, Detroit had much worse ALY at right end (2.44) than at left end (3.67). The Lions had a solid ASR of 5.9%, but of course some of that is from Stafford getting rid of the ball quickly; who knows how much higher it would have been if Detroit had good OTs? <br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Getting a good LT to protect Stafford. If there is an immediate starter at #23 (much later than Schwartz is accustomed to picking), they need to take him. It may even be worth trading up to get one. There are no FAs who are both healthy and good, so looking at, say, Jared Gaither or Demetrius Bell may not be worth the money they'd cost.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>Backus is a FA; he's only worth re-signing if he'll take backup money. He could be a good mentor for a rookie LT. A replacement for Cherilus would be nice, but it's unlikely the Lions can find two starting-caliber tackles in one offseason. Corey Hilliard is a competent backup (actually outplaying Cherilus for stretches in 2010), and as a RFA, he could be worth re-signing. <br />
<br />
<h1>G: B-</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Not bad, actually. Rob Sims was a serviceable LG, and Stephen Peterman turned out to be better than I thought he would be. Detroit's highest ALY, by far, was through right tackle, 4.22, and Peterman deserves some credit for that. Both guards seem to do an adequate job of pulling, although the line as a unit doesn't play well enough for that to work every time.<br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Figuring out if Carl Nicks can fit under the cap, lol. He's available, so it would be crazy not to ask. Barring that, the Lions should probably stick with what they have. There are more urgent needs elsewhere.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>Young backups. Leonard Davis is a free agent, but he's old and seldom used. Pick up a late-round player or an undrafted FA for depth.<br />
<br />
<h1>C: C-</h1>
<b>Performance: </b>Like Backus, Dominic Raiola cut his teeth during the Dark Times (although unlike Backus, he had the temerity to miss a game or two). Like Backus, he's at the point where he's no longer a starting-caliber player. If he's responsible for line calls, then he's doing that well, as there were not many plays I saw where the protection itself was an issue (it was more individual blocking), and that's not easily dismissed, but he occasionally got run over by bigger DL. <br />
<br />
<b>Top priority: </b>Figuring out if Scott Wells can fit under the cap. (Yes, I am suggesting poaching OL from the Lions' top NFC opponents. Hell yes.) There are a couple of other quality centers out there, but if Detroit can't land one, they at least need to draft a young guy who can replace Raiola in the near future.<br />
<br />
<b>Other needs: </b>Probably none. Whether or not they sign a FA, they need a backup. If they do sign a FA, Raiola will probably be the backup, unless they can afford the cap hit to release him. (Even then, they may not. It would not go over very well to just dump him by the wayside.) If they draft a center, obviously the rookie would be the backup.<br />
<br />
Coming next: the defense and what little I know about special teams.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-57282518028765913452012-01-16T15:11:00.002-05:002012-01-16T15:14:52.377-05:002011: the season in reviewNow that the season is over, it's time to take a look back and review it in detail, both from what things seemed like at the time and how they look now.<br />
<br />
Overall, of course, the season was a huge success.<br />
<ul>
<li>10 regular-season wins, beaten only by the '91 Lions (12-4) and the '31 Spartans and '62 Lions (both 11-3). </li>
<li>A team-record 474 points (yes, even in points per game; the highest-scoring team playing 14 games was the '70 Lions, they of the 5-0 loss to Dallas in the first-ever NFC wild-card game, scoring 347 points). </li>
<li>A point difference of 87, tenth-best. The best ever by a Lions team was +179 by the '34 Lions: scoring 238, giving up just 59 (in a 13-game season!). Unfortunately, they were in the wrong division. The Bears went 13-0, including back-to-back wins over the Lions to clinch the division (19-16 and 10-7), and then lost the NFL championship to New York. (The Lions would get revenge in '35, going 1-0-1 against Chicago and beating the Giants for their first NFL title.)</li>
<li>Records of almost every kind with respect to passing: Stafford's 421 completions, 663 attempts, 63.5% completions, 5038 yards, 41 TDs; Johnson's 16 TD receptions. (Johnson's 1681 receiving yards were second to Herman Moore's 1686 in 1995 ... and Moore had 27 more receptions.) Hanson's 54 extra points were also a record.</li>
</ul>
The comebacks were nice; another comeback in the wild-card game at New Orleans would have been nice, too, but it wasn't to be. Maybe next season ...<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 1: Detroit 27 at Tampa Bay 20</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time:</b> A big win on the road over a 2010 playoff contender. A 17-0 run gave the Lions a lead they'd hold through a Buccaneer comeback.<br />
<b>Now:</b> Unimpressive. Tampa Bay finished a lackluster 4-12 and gave up nearly 500 points, yet Detroit managed just 27 points and had to hold off a late comeback to preserve a 7-point win. Detroit fumbled four times, but was fortunate to recover all of them. <br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 2: Kansas City 3 at Detroit 48</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>A rout of a 2010 division winner: six Kansas City turnovers, only 116 yards net passing, a game under control from start to finish. The Lions are an impressive 2-0.<br />
<b>Now: </b>Less impressive, but still solid. A 45-point win is good no matter who the opponent is. The Chiefs finished just 7-9 (and, like Tampa Bay, fired their coach), but then again, they did manage to beat Green Bay, and the Lions couldn't do that. Matt Cassel and his backups never established a good passing game, so the 116 wasn't as good as it may have seemed.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 3: Detroit 26 at Minnesota 23, OT</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>A huge comeback on the road against a division rival. The Vikings and Lions both finished 2010 at 6-10, and both had hopes for 2011. Winning in the Metrodome meant that the Lions, for a change, were the team with an advantage.<br />
<b>Now: </b>Significantly less impressive. Donovan McNabb turned out to be a huge bust - or perhaps he was simply in a no-win situation. Minnesota slumped to 3-13, making this game look more like a problem for the Lions than the big win it seemed to be. Detroit's failure to move the ball in the first half, to establish a running game, and to keep Jared Allen out of the backfield would all be repeating themes.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 4: Detroit 34 at Dallas 30</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>Another huge comeback on the road; at 4-0, with three road wins, the Lions suddenly look like a playoff team. Sure, Dallas was 6-10 in 2010, but they looked pretty good at this point. Unlike the Minnesota game, this one relied on help from the Cowboys: two interception returns for TDs.<br />
<b>Now: </b>About the same. Dallas went 8-8 and just missed the playoffs, but again, lack of first-half offense without turnovers to blame meant that Detroit was starting to establish a pattern of struggling early.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 5: Chicago 13 at Detroit 24</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>In a long-awaited return to Monday night, the Lions slog through a penalty-filled game to hold off the defending division champs and NFC runners-up. At 5-0, they're a legitimate Super Bowl contender, or so we think.<br />
<b>Now: </b>Hard to say. Again, the offense struggled, and obviously there were discipline problems with respect to penalties that never went away, but until Cutler got hurt, the Bears were on track for the #5 seed. With that in mind, this was a significant win for the Lions even in retrospect.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 6: San Francisco 25 at Detroit 19</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>A disappointing loss. The Lions are plus-2 in turnovers and hold San Francisco to 125 yards passing, but blow a fourth-quarter lead and fail to defeat a team, like them, coming off a 6-10 season and looking for more. The loss was more painful because it was at home, and Atlanta, not San Francisco, was supposed to be the challenge following the Chicago game.<br />
<b>Now: </b>More understandable, but still disappointing. Flip this game around and Detroit becomes the #5, San Francisco becomes the #3, and who knows what's different? Still, the 49ers played a truly poor game and the Lions could not take advantage of it. Stafford could not move the ball well enough against a good defense.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 7: Atlanta 23 at Detroit 16</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time:</b> Understandable. The defending #1 seed shakes off a rough start to the season and keeps the Lions at bay the entire game. Again, Detroit struggles against a good defense.<br />
<b>Now: </b>Very costly and less understandable. This was the game that knocked Detroit into the spot opposite the Saints. Atlanta's defense is still pretty good, but the Falcons turned out to be Detroit's peers, and the Lions should have been able to win this one. Inability to beat contending teams made the difference between 10-6 and maybe 13-3 ... keeping in mind that they could also have been 7-9 without those comebacks.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 8: Detroit 45 at Denver 10</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>A much-needed win, moving the Lions back toward a playoff spot. Untested Tim Tebow is ravaged by the Lions' defense, giving Detroit 14 points off turnovers and failing to generate much offense himself. Denver does get 195 yards on the ground, which is a concern.<br />
<b>Now: </b>The 2-5 Broncos finish 8-8, win the division, and upset a shaky Pittsburgh team in the playoffs, making this win look pretty significant. Looking back, a 4-0 start on the road from a franchise that twice spent 3 years looking for a road win ... and notching two of those wins over playoff contenders (their fifth and final road win would come against Oakland, another contender), well ... even if all the contenders were .500 teams, that's still a lot of progress.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 9: Detroit 13 at Chicago 37</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>A humiliating blowout that put Green Bay out of reach and began to put the Lions' playoff possibilities in question. A series of poor decisions by Stafford and Detroit's special teams gave the Bears all they needed to secure a much-needed win.<br />
<b>Now: </b>Not so bad considering the Bears' trajectory at the time. Keeping in mind that 14 points came from interception returns and 7 from a punt return, it certainly wasn't the defense that was at fault. Still, we see the same problems that we saw earlier: inability to move the ball against a good defense, and bad decision-making leading to points for the other team.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 10: Carolina 35 at Detroit 49</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>One horrible quarter-plus followed by two-ish quarters of very impressive offensive football. The Panthers' defense was as bad as advertised, but the Lions gave up way too much and should not have had to mount such a comeback.<br />
<b>Now: </b>Somewhat understandable given the Panthers' 6-10 record, but turnovers and special teams (the only two returns for TDs the Lions gave up in the kicking game happened during these two games) put Detroit in a spot they shouldn't have been in.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 11: Green Bay 27 at Detroit 15</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>Missed opportunities. Turnovers and penalties. The Lions slowed the Packers enough to give themselves chances to win, but failed to take advantage when they could, and thus endeth the shot at a division title. Some of it could be blamed on injuries, but that was only on defense: the offense, other than at RB, was basically untouched.<br />
<b>Now: </b>Just the same. All six Detroit losses came against playoff contenders: most losses were like this one, where you could see this was an improved Lions team, but also that they were simply not good enough to win these games. The absence of Louis Delmas made the secondary a concern, and guys like Alphonso Smith and Chris Harris played roles they really weren't good enough to play. Maybe that put too much pressure on the offense, but then a winning team can pull out games like that. Detroit, in 2011, did not.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 12: Detroit 17 at New Orleans 31</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>Better than Indianapolis-New England? Maybe not. Three second-quarter touchdowns put the game out of reach: the Lions couldn't cover the Saints' receivers and couldn't pressure Brees.<br />
<b>Now: </b>No different. New Orleans showed they were clearly better, at least better than a Detroit team with a banged-up secondary. Even looking at this as a throwaway game for the Lions (odds of winning in New Orleans? low), at some point, you'd like your team to play well against an elite team, and it never really happened for Schwartz.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 13: Minnesota 28 at Detroit 34</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>Again, the Lions have to hold off a weak opponent in Ford Field. A missed face-mask call means Detroit forces a fumble on the final play to preserve a win; the Lions are plus-6 (!!) in turnover margin but struggle all game to move the ball. Is the offense going to be strong enough to get the Lions into the playoffs?<br />
<b>Now: </b>Worse than at the time. This should have been a rout, but the offense produces just 20 points, and the defense gives up 269 yards rushing to a team that was one of the worst in the NFC. Perhaps this game showed the need to upgrade at both tackle positions: neither Backus nor Cherilus can hold off speed rushers well enough to move the ball effectively, and that's on a team with a QB who threw for over 5000 yards.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 14: Detroit 28 at Oakland 27</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>A dramatic comeback, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat yet again, and on the road in a hostile environment against a playoff contender. Calvin Johnson's monster game keeps Detroit in the driver's seat for a wild-card spot.<br />
<b>Now: </b>A little less impressive given Oakland's face plant against San Diego, but still ... while the defense was wholly unimpressive, the offense did just enough to make up for it, and several teams rode that mix to a home playoff game (New England, Green Bay, New Orleans).<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 15: San Diego 10 at Detroit 38</h3>
<br />
<b>At the time: </b>The Lions seal a playoff spot by rolling the Chargers, knocking San Diego out of contention. Up 24-0 at halftime, Detroit can just cruise to a win.<br />
<b>Now: </b>A little more impressive given San Diego's win over Oakland in Week 17, and perhaps also because it was a win they needed to lock up a wild-card spot. Those wins aren't always easy for teams that aren't used to the playoffs.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Game 16: Detroit 41 at Green Bay 45</h3>
<br />
<b>Now: </b>Inexplicable. With several key players resting, Green Bay forced the usual array of turnovers and penalties that have been characteristic of Lions' losses. Instead of a game at New York or Dallas, the Lions get another trip to New Orleans, and that one ends about as well as you'd expect.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Wild-card: Detroit 28 at New Orleans 45</h3>
<br />
<b>Now: </b>Pretty impressive, given that in their first meeting, the Saints dunked the Lions right away and wouldn't stop until the lifeguard came over and yelled at them. Detroit actually led at halftime, 14-10 – 10 points for the Saints in one half! – and trailed only 24-21 at the end of three. New Orleans converted three fourth-down opportunities, and those made the difference: the Lions never forced a punt. In addition to OT, Detroit must upgrade at CB and SS. The NFL is a passing league, so you have to have a secondary that either makes big plays (GB) or simply doesn't allow you to make them (Hou, Bal). Another year of experience for Suh, Fairley, and Avril (who must be re-signed) should also help.<br />
<br />
Overall, 10-6 and a playoff spot is a big step up, and for the first time since maybe the '50s, the Lions also have a legitimate reason to look for improvement beyond this. They have young talent at QB, WR, TE, DE, DT, and FS, and with healthy RBs and an improved OL and secondary, they could challenge for the NFC crown next year.<br />
<br />
Schwartz and Mayhew deserve a lot of credit for what they've done, particularly with respect to Stafford. It's just one season at this point, but there is a huge difference between the way he was playing this year, even in the last two games, and how he played in previous seasons. With another year under his belt, and with a full training camp ahead of him, he should be posting some solid numbers in 2012 as well.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-68240106485014067312012-01-07T13:43:00.000-05:002012-01-07T13:43:12.652-05:00NFL week 17: Let the playoffs beginSo ... yeah. 45 points. But hey, Stafford broke the 5000-yard mark this season ... and was <b>third </b>in the NFL. Take that, Danny boy.<br />
<ul>
<li>Green Bay rested starters and still knocked the Lions into the #6 seed. As a result, Matt Flynn will get a Scott Mitchell-sized contract. Maybe he can do stupid State Farm commercials, too.</li>
<li>San Francisco did clinch the #2 seed, although St. Louis did make a game of it late. </li>
<li>The Giants did sweep the Cowboys to win the division. I didn't check, but I'm sure Romo got blamed for it somehow (although he did play – amazing things they can do these days to keep swelling down).</li>
<li>The Patriots did crush the Bills (after spotting them a 21-point lead, showoffs) to clinch the #1 seed. </li>
<li>Baltimore did not lose to Cincinnati, but they and Pittsburgh both get byes. (Because really, you think Tebow is going to move the ball against the Steelers' defense?)</li>
<li>Kyle Orton did "lead" the Chiefs to victory over the Broncos, but the Raiders lost to the Chargers and missed the playoffs. </li>
<li>Cincinnati did get the #6 seed, but only because everyone else (including the Jets) lost.</li>
</ul>
So I got three of the four wild-card matchups right. It's Pittsburgh at Denver instead of Baltimore at Oakland. Of course it didn't take much to hit some of those predictions ... although wouldn't it have been wild if St. Louis had knocked New Orleans into the #3 seed by beating them, then bumped them back to the #2 by beating San Francisco?<br />
<ul>
<li>The Colts did get the #1 pick, and apparently <a href="http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2012/story/_/id/7435726/indianapolis-colts-draft-andrew-luck-stanford-cardinal-no-1-pick-sources-say">they will draft Andrew Luck</a>. This is not a good sign, because Indianapolis doesn't have a GM yet. (The Polians were fired as soon as the season ended. Note: If you're an asshole, you can keep your job as long as you perform well. If you're an asshole, and you promote your asshole son to do your job, and he sucks at it, you'll both get fired. I never met the Polians, but from what I read, Bill did nothing to endear himself to anyone, and Chris was even less likable.) That means Jim Irsay is going to look for someone who'll do what he wants, and given that sometimes he doesn't even know what that is, we may well have found Al Davis' spiritual successor. </li>
<li>Raheem Morris did not fire himself; he didn't have to. The Bucs were down 42-0 in the first half, and if the Glazers actually paid attention to the team, he probably would have been fired then.</li>
<li>We ended up with 7 non-playoff teams at 8-8. This is why the draft order uses only strength of schedule and a coin flip as tiebreakers! </li>
<li>Minnesota couldn't even beat Bad Chicago. It wasn't enough to get Frazier fired, though he did have to cut an assistant or two. </li>
<li>Steve Spagnuolo did get fired, probably deservedly so (how about that Josh McDaniels hire? sure helped Bradford), even if he never had enough talent to work with. (The GM was let go as well.) </li>
<li>Andy Reid did not get fired, and I agree with that as well. It took a while to get all the free agents on the same page, and once they were playing together and Vick was healthy, the Eagles looked pretty good. No team in this division looks that good, so Philadelphia should contend for a playoff spot next year too. </li>
<li>The Chiefs may keep Romeo Crennel on as head coach, replacing the fired Todd Haley. Good luck with that.</li>
<li>The NFL <a href="http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7432331/nfl-staffs-use-video-monitors-treat-injuries">continues to take measures</a> to address player safety and how teams attend to injured players, but they continue to refuse to punish the Browns for the way they mishandled Colt McCoy's injury. I wonder how much of that is because of Mike Holmgren's presence ... one of the old guard, with his buddies looking out for him? (And why isn't the NFLPA filing complaints about it?)</li>
</ul>
OK, enough about last week. New Orleans, New York, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh will win this weekend.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-55158542015450832302012-01-07T13:17:00.000-05:002012-01-07T13:44:31.871-05:00Lions season outlook, wild-card roundSo McCarthy did rest a number of starters, and yet the Lions' defense, not the offense, was the guilty party in the resulting loss. With Rodgers, Starks, and Jennings on the bench, the Packers still rolled up 45 points on what was supposed to be one of the better defenses in the NFL in a game that meant so much more to the Lions than the Packers. Of course the Falcons crushed a Tampa Bay team that soon-to-be-ex-coach Raheem Morris had lost weeks ago, so now Detroit travels to New Orleans and the Falcons play the Giants.<br />
<br />
Massey gives the Lions <a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">a 22% chance</a> to beat New Orleans, so that makes them heavy underdogs, and that sounds about right. The overall path to the Super Bowl, if there is one, probably doesn't change much: assuming New Orleans would beat Atlanta, the Lions would have faced Green Bay in the divisional playoff round if they beat New York, and of course that's who they'll play if they manage to pull off this upset. I do think the Giants are an easier team for the Lions to beat, but that doesn't matter now. <br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report for the wild-card round:<br />
<br />
NFC championship appearance: 11.0%, 5th in NFC/8th overall<br />
NFC title: 4.4%, down 0.2 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 2.1%, unchanged<br />
<br />
Cincinnati gets a team hoping not to play its fourth-string quarterback. Detroit gets a team with a guy who just set a few NFL records. (Of course, he also plays for the only team to lose a playoff game to a team with a losing record, so there's that.) The Lions were missing three key defensive players in the earlier matchup on Sunday night, and they were never really in the game. That was partly because the offense couldn't find a rhythm in the noisy Superdome, and that aspect won't change today. Suh is, of course, back from suspension, and both Houston and Delmas should play; Mark Ingram is, to my knowledge, the only notable injury for New Orleans. (<b>UPDATE</b>: after I published this, Lance Moore was declared out for the Saints. So now they're down to eleventy-minus-one receivers.) The Lions will need all three to contribute if they are to pull off the upset. Detroit has to get pressure on Brees, they have to keep Stafford upright, and they can't afford to give away points on special teams.<br />
<br />
It would take magic for the Lions to win this game, and this year, I think the magic is in just being in the playoffs. <b>Saints, 34-17.</b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 20-17, actual 41-45<br />
<b> </b><br />
Current mood: just happy to be herezlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-11063659101834927162011-12-28T14:57:00.002-05:002012-01-07T13:17:37.405-05:00Lions season outlook, week 17 and beyondA rout of San Diego puts the Lions in the playoffs, and a New Orleans rout of Atlanta gives Detroit the #5 seed for now. The opening line for the Detroit-Green Bay game was Packers -1.5, but that's already shifted to Detroit -3.5 ... clearly Las Vegas or bettors (or both) see McCarthy resting his starters in a mostly-meaningless game for the Packers. Atlanta plays a late game, so they'll know at kickoff whether or not they have a shot at the #5 seed.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 17: at Green Bay, heavy underdog<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
We'll have to wait for next week to find out more ... Massey's new layout makes it really hard to draw any conclusions. Sagarin has the Lions as a slight favorite against either Dallas or the Giants and a 6- to 6.5-point underdog against New Orleans or San Francisco, so that #5 seed is a big deal.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report for Week 17:<br />
<br />
Mean wins: 10.2, up 0.3<br />
NFC title: 4.6%, up 1.3 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 2.1%, up 0.7 points<br />
<br />
Obviously a playoff spot is secured, and that probably is the cause for the increase in NFC and Super Bowl title chances. <br />
<br />
The Lions didn't struggle at all last week. It was 24-0 at halftime, and San Diego was never really close. I believe Detroit will have the same focus on the road, even if in front of a hostile crowd and likely in inclement weather. (Weather Underground <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=44.519159,-88.019826">says otherwise</a>, though.) I'll assume that the Packers don't play Rodgers much, if at all. Detroit will move the ball fairly well, and Flynn won't do nearly as well against a fired-up defense. It won't be easy, but the Lions will lock down the #5 seed. Twenty years ago, they had a similar situation, but it was for the division title and a first-round bye, and it was against the AFC's #1 seed, the Bills. With Kelly, Thomas, and Reed on the sidelines, Buffalo was still able to hold down Barry Sanders and company, but Detroit stole a win in overtime, 17-14, finishing 12-4 (still a franchise record for regular-season wins) and setting the stage for their only playoff win in modern history. There will be no playoff home game, barring some crazy upsets (right, Colts fans?), but still ... <b>Lions, 20-17.</b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 31-26, actual 38-10<br />
<br />
Current mood: ready for this "playoffs" thing I've heard so much aboutzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-71888643055299957132011-12-27T14:00:00.000-05:002011-12-27T14:00:05.871-05:00NFL week 16: what's left?Here's a quick rundown of the playoff standings and possibilities:<br />
<ul>
<li>Green Bay has locked up the #1 seed in the NFC. (It's not "homefield advantage throughout the playoffs", as announcers like to say, because the Super Bowl is at a neutral site.)</li>
<li>San Francisco leads New Orleans for the #2 seed by virtue of a better conference record. To hold on, they just need the same result at St. Louis that the Saints get against Carolina: a win clinches it, a tie will do it if New Orleans does not win, and the 49ers can get it even with a loss if the Panthers beat the Saints. These are both 1:00 games, so Sean Payton can't rest Brees (now that he has the record) and his starters as he could if the 49ers played first. <br /><b>Prediction:</b> The 49ers will beat the Rams and finish with the #2 seed. </li>
<li>The 8-7 Cowboys and 8-7 Giants meet on Sunday night for the NFC East title and #4 seed. A Dallas win puts the Cowboys in; a tie or a Giants win puts New York in the playoffs. <br /><b>Prediction: </b>New York sweeps the Cowboys and makes the playoffs. Tony Romo is blamed for not winning the game from the bench.</li>
<li>Detroit holds the #5 seed at 10-5, while Atlanta is #6 at 9-6. Both teams have clinched playoff spots with the next-best team at 8-7 (see above) but no better than 8-7-1. Detroit visits Green Bay and Atlanta hosts Tampa Bay. Atlanta holds the tiebreaker thanks to a head-to-head win over Detroit, but the Falcons have to beat Tampa Bay and hope the Packers play their starters against the Lions to take the #5 seed back. The NFC North game is early and the NFC South game is late, so Mike Smith could rest his starters for a third game against New Orleans if the Lions don't lose to Green Bay at 1:00.<br /><b>Prediction: </b>Mike McCarthy will rest his starters; the Lions will take advantage and win at Green Bay, finishing with the #5 seed. </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>New England has a one-game lead over Baltimore and Pittsburgh for the #1 seed in the AFC, but would lose a tiebreaker to either team. To hold on, the Patriots need either a tie or a win over Buffalo, or losses by both AFC North teams. Baltimore has a head-to-head sweep of Pittsburgh and thus has the divisional tiebreaker: if Buffalo wins, a Baltimore win gives the Ravens the #1 seed. A win by Buffalo plus a loss or tie by Baltimore means a Pittsburgh win over Cleveland puts the Steelers #1. The team that finishes second in the AFC North gets the #5 seed.<br /><b>Prediction: </b>New England crushes the Bills and gets the #1 seed. Baltimore loses to Cincinnati and Pittsburgh beats Cleveland, giving the Steelers the division and the #2 seed. Baltimore is #5.</li>
<li>The Texans are locked into the #3 seed; their loss to the Ravens plus the Baltimore advantage over Pittsburgh means that the only way the AFC North champ finishes with the same record as Houston is if it's Baltimore.</li>
<li>Like in the NFC, the weakest division is up for grabs: the winner gets the #4 seed. Unlike in the NFC, the second-place team in the AFC West could still get a wild-card spot. Denver holds the tiebreaker over both Oakland and San Diego based on record in common games, so only the Raiders and Broncos have playoff possibilities. If Denver matches Oakland, they win the division, and if Oakland has a better result, they win. <br /><b>Prediction: </b>TEBOW fails to deliver again as Kyle Orton knocks the Broncos out of the playoffs. (There's a lesson in there somewhere. Too bad Josh McDaniels isn't around to learn it.) </li>
<li>Denver can't get a wild-card spot: either they win the division or they're out. That leaves Oakland, Cincinnati, and the Jets with chances to finish as the #6 seed. Cincinnati is 9-6 and controls its destiny: anything but a loss puts them in. They also get in with a loss plus not-wins by Oakland and New York. The Raiders need a win plus a Cincinnati loss (a win over the Jets gives them the tiebreaker there); the Jets need a win plus losses by both the Bengals and Raiders.<br /><b>Prediction: </b>Cincinnati's win over Baltimore gives them the #6 seed. </li>
</ul>
That would mean that the wild-card round would be Detroit at New York, Atlanta at New Orleans, Baltimore at Oakland, and Cincinnati at Houston.<br />
<br />
In non-playoff news:<br />
<ul>
<li>Great job by the Colts to pull out two wins from a disappointing season. That makes a huge difference, especially for the fans. Yes, there are fools who believe that Andrew Luck will make the Colts Super Bowl contenders "just like Peyton did", and yes, having a marquee QB makes it a lot easier to succeed in the playoffs, but Luck is no sure thing, and I don't know that you could even get players to tank. Indianapolis still has a slight advantage in strength of schedule over the Rams, so they might get the #1 pick even if they win one more game.</li>
<li>Raheem Morris says he isn't going to fire himself. Funny, that's what Matt Millen said too, and he actually could have done it. Sure, maybe last year's Bucs weren't as good as 10-6, but that was their record, and that's a lot better than 4-12. Carolina has a terrible defense and is going to finish with 6 wins. What does that say about the future for Tampa Bay? </li>
<li>Non-playoff draft position will be fun to figure out. There are four NFC teams at 7-8 and four AFC teams at 8-7. Expect tiebreakers to have an impact outside the playoff chase as well as within it. (And note that a 4-12 team could pick sixth this year!)</li>
<li>Minnesota catches a huge break, playing bad Chicago next week. A win there would make them 4-12, which would be two games worse than last season, but understandable given the Lions' resurgence. Still, Leslie Frazier has to be feeling heat. With Adrian Peterson out indefinitely (maybe he'll be healthy for Week 1 in 2012, maybe not), suddenly the Vikings have to determine whether or not they'll have a competent passing attack next season. Joe Webb apparently wasn't the answer, but continues to look good as long as he's not the starter. Christian Ponder is young and shows promise, but he's going to have to play better to help Frazier keep his job. Minnesota is certainly doing nothing to encourage the construction of a new stadium (at taxpayers' expense, naturally), and it's hard to picture a city wanting this NFL team. </li>
<li>The two teams with the best strength of victory are Indianapolis (Houston and Tennessee) and St. Louis (New Orleans and Cleveland). </li>
</ul>zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-70789059935964896762011-12-20T15:19:00.003-05:002011-12-20T15:19:43.787-05:00Lions season outlook, week 16Yet again, another close call. Yet again, it came down to the final play, and yes, a 65-yard field goal is still a viable attempt if Sebastian Janikowski is your kicker. The Lions held on, though, and escaped Oakland with a huge win. Instead of being just a game ahead of the sub-wild-card pack, Detroit is now two games up, with their magic number being 1 ... a Lions win, or a loss by each of the teams that don't have a tiebreaker edge over Detroit (Seattle, Chicago, and Arizona), will give them a wild-card spot. Two wins plus at least one Atlanta loss will give them the #5 seed and an "easier" game at the NFC East champion. (Of course if it's Dallas, the Lions already have good memories from a road game there.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 16: San Diego, slight favorite <br />Week 17: at Green Bay, heavy underdog (moved up)<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
San Diego remains about the same thanks to the Chargers' renaissance. Green Bay drops a little, but of course that is assuming the starters play the entire way. They likely won't, as the Packers should crush the injured Bears and clinch the top seed next week. Without a perfect season at stake, the last game should be meaningless.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Massey's site has changed, and expected wins are no longer available.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report for Week 16:<br />
<br />Mean wins: 9.9, up 0.5<br />
Playoffs: 85.6%, up 11.5 points<br />
NFC title: 3.3%, up 0.9 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 1.4%, up 0.4 points<br />
<br />
<br />
Winning a 50/50 game gives you an extra half-win. Chicago's collapse is complete, the Giants throw away wild-card hopes, so it's up to Seattle to make a wild-card run. (They have most of the remaining playoff hopes at 10.9%.)<br />
<br />The Lions did struggle against the Raiders' defense, except when it came to Calvin Johnson, and that seems to be a Mrs. Lincoln situation. The Lions were lucky to hold on for the win. Fortunately, they'll be at home this week, but unfortunately, San Diego has figured out how to play again. Instead of an easy win, this should be a close game. I believe Detroit will clinch a playoff win at home, though. <b>Lions, 31-26.</b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 24-14, actual 28-27<br />
<br />
Current mood: excitedzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-41952523811875087162011-12-19T12:31:00.003-05:002011-12-20T08:58:11.830-05:00NFL week 15: failureNot on the part of the Lions, of course, but for many other teams, opportunities were lost this week. Several of those teams won't get another chance like the one they had Sunday.<br />
<br />
<h1>
NFC</h1>
<ul>
<li>Green Bay lost a game that was essentially meaningless: San Francisco was the only team that could catch them in the first place, and that would require the Packers losing out and the 49ers winning out. All that this did was take the pressure of deciding how hard to play in Week 17 off Mike McCarthy, to the delight of Lions fans. Green Bay has a guaranteed win next week at home against the toothless Bears, and after that, McCarthy can send out the starters for a token series against Detroit and let them rest. (Side note: it's a good thing Green Bay ran away with the division, because look at the schedule. How on earth did the Packers get both Chicago and Detroit at home in the cold to close the season, while the Bears visit Green Bay and Minnesota? If you're going to set up more divisional games in December and January, then split them up better.)</li>
<li>San Francisco's loss to Arizona was a big deal, and not just because
it gave the Cardinals hope for a wild-card spot (at least for one
week). That plus a loss on Monday night would have all but knocked the 49ers
out of a first-round bye, and if the 49ers somehow lost their last two
games (losing at Seattle is a possibility; at St. Louis, well ...), they
could have fallen to fourth if Dallas wins their last two games,
thanks to that Week 2 overtime loss. The win over Pittsburgh locked the NFC East champ into the #4 seed and kept the 49ers ahead of New Orleans thanks to their conference record. </li>
<li>For a quarter, it looked like New Orleans might be giving Atlanta and San Francisco a big chance to grab the #2 and #3 seeds ... and then the Saints remembered that Minnesota is terrible, blowing out the Vikings to record their 11th win of the season, the third straight season they've accomplished that. No other NFL team has a streak that long. With Atlanta and Carolina at home (again, how does this happen?), New Orleans should keep the pressure on the 49ers for that #2 seed.</li>
<li>Dallas got their loss out of the way on Saturday night, then sat back and watched as the Giants lost a golden opportunity to move back into the division lead. However, there are four teams at 7-7 who'd love to pass Dallas in the wild-card race, such as it is, should they continue to stumble, and even Philadelphia has a chance at Dallas' NFC East spot. The Cowboys will have no one but themselves to blame if they do blow it, though: they can knock the Eagles out at home on Saturday and then hold off the Giants in New York. If they do win this week, the Jets may well put the Cowboys in, although neither New York team looks particularly playoff-worthy at this point.</li>
<li>Atlanta, on the other hand, had an excellent week: they won easily on Saturday, and Chicago and the Giants lost on Sunday. The Falcons still control the race for #5 in the NFC, but they can't afford to think they have it locked up. Detroit's schedule just got easier with Green Bay's loss, and the Falcons visit New Orleans on Monday night. A loss there could well send them to New Orleans again in the wild-card round (if the 49ers finish with the #2 seed), rather than what seems like a much easier game in Dallas or New York. </li>
<li>Detroit was about 5 minutes away from falling into a pack of 7-7 wolves when they realized that this year, they have an offense capable of coming back in just about any situation. They roared back to knock off the Raiders and hang on to the #6 seed. (I think Calvin Johnson is still open as I type this.) 391 yards passing, 4 touchdowns, zero interceptions ... Stafford did have the one sack/fumble/touchdown, but other than that, he played well when he needed to. The Lions were 8 of 17 on third downs, Johnson had 9 catches for 214 yards and 2 touchdowns, and while the Detroit defense did give up a number of big plays, they forced a number of punts as well (Oakland was just 1 of 9 on third down), and that was enough to set the stage for yet another double-digit comeback. The Lions can't keep digging those holes, though, and they can't keep committing penalties. Even if the two horse-collar calls were crap (there's only one penalty called less consistently and accurately than that one, roughing the passer; the one on Avril was particularly bad), it's hard to argue with the rest. Discipline is still a problem. It's no surprise that Schwartz didn't stick to his guns about benching players who commit post-possession fouls (although I'm not sure there were any Sunday); the Lions just don't have the depth to do it now. </li>
<li>Seattle does not have an easy road to a playoff spot. They have to win out and have Detroit lose out, which sounds great until you realize that Seattle's last two games are home vs. San Francisco and at Arizona, who might also be playing for that final wild-card spot. Actually, Seattle could also sneak in if Atlanta loses out, but because the Falcons beat the Seahawks, Atlanta holds that tiebreaker, so it can't be for the #6 spot. A three-way tie with Atlanta, Detroit, and Seattle would work, because Seattle would have a better conference record (after Atlanta's sweep of Detroit and Seattle gives them the #5 seed) ... and if you put the Giants in at 9-7 for a four-way tie, Seattle actually gets the #5 seed themselves thanks to that conference record. All that said, Seattle needs a lot of help. Even if they don't get it, Pete Carroll's team has done a good job getting this far with Tarvaris Jackson at quarterback. (And here I thought San Francisco was going to win the division by six games. It turns out the NFC East might be the division with no teams over .500.)</li>
<li>The Bears are done. You knew that already. It's interesting to see how important Cutler and Forte are to Chicago ... last year, with Stafford out and Best banged up, the Lions still won their last four games, two of which were against teams in playoff contention (although the Packers did lose Aaron Rodgers to injury in their game). This year, with much better defense and special teams than Detroit had last year, and with arguably a better offensive line, the Bears have nothing. I think Chicago just doesn't have enough talent on offense to get through injury problems, and Martz still doesn't impress me as an offensive coordinator. (There's also the decision to pass on an experienced backup. Imagine if Carson Palmer were in Chicago ...)</li>
<li>The Giants seem determined to miss the playoffs. A win over Washington would have put them back in first place with two games to go, but the inexplicable loss at home to Washington means that they could actually be out of the playoffs by the time the Cowboys visit in Week 17. A loss to the Jets (or wins by Detroit and Atlanta) means that the Giants can't get a wild-card spot, and if Dallas wins as well, the Cowboys get the division. This is a game that New York had to win; losing a game like this makes you wonder if they'd have a chance even if they did make the playoffs. Most of the Giants' losses are understandable, especially with Seattle at 7-7 now, but being swept by Washington is what will have New York players watching TV in January.</li>
<li>Arizona nearly blew their slim chances at a playoff spot, then rallied for an overtime win (how can you not cover Larry Fitzgerald?). Next up is a road game at Cincinnati, who's also fighting for a playoff spot. If they survive that game, they still need Detroit to lose to San Diego, and then in Week 17, an Arizona win and a Detroit loss would give the Cardinals the edge based on conference record. </li>
<li>Philadelphia is still in the hunt as well. A win over Dallas next week pulls the Eagles to within a game of first place; if the Giants lose to the Jets and beat Dallas, and Philadelphia beats Washington, the Eagles get the division thanks to their 5-1 division record. I know, it sounds crazy, but then someone should have put the East away by now, and that hasn't happened yet. The Eagles can't get a wild-card spot, but they can win the division as long as the Giants cooperate.</li>
<li>Carolina is definitely an improved team on offense. If they can add a couple of solid players on defense, this could be a pretty good team next year. The South is a tough division, so they've got a ways to go before they can contend for it, but the Panthers are quite a bit better than they were last season. There haven't been many games where they looked like a 1-15 team: they've only lost three games by double digits, and all of those were to playoff contenders (Atlanta, Detroit, and Tennessee).</li>
<li>Washington's had a bad season, in part because they have bad quarterbacks, but they swept the Giants, and that means a lot in D.C. They should beat the hapless Vikings next week, and then they could potential derail the Eagles' long-shot bid for a division title in Week 17. </li>
<li>Tampa Bay, on the other hand, has road games left against Carolina and Atlanta (scheduling fail), so they'll probably end up 4-12. Not good for a team that was 10-6 last season and just a few plays from making the playoffs. The Bucs need a lot of help on both offense and defense; I don't know that you can put a lot of this on Raheem Morris, but it's easier to change coaches than to change players, so it wouldn't be a surprise to see Tampa Bay look for a new coach next season. (Of course the Glazers may be sending more money overseas to pay for their loss-leader EPL team, so perhaps Morris will get to coach through the end of his contract.)</li>
<li>Minnesota has two winnable games left, so they might not look as bad as they are when the season is over. (Washington is unpredictable, so that might not be an easy win, but look at the Bears and tell me that they can beat the Vikings.) Christian Ponder is getting valuable playing time, but that's about all Leslie Frazier can take from this season. The offense is bad, the defense is bad, special teams are bad ... if anything happens to Jared Allen, what's left of the Vikings' pass rush will disappear. It's easy to see why QB Redacted retired. Would you want to have finished your career with this team?</li>
<li>St. Louis' remaining schedule: at Pittsburgh, home vs. San Francisco. The Rams have gotten noticeably worse this season (they weren't anywhere near as good as their 7-9 record would suggest), and that has to be a problem for Steve Spagnuolo. As Detroit fans will tell you, you can't just plug a highly-drafted QB into a bad offense and expect him to win games for you, even if the offense already has one of the better backs in the league. (Will somebody rescue Steven Jackson already? He deserves better than this.) The Rams have problems on both sides of the ball, and I don't know that one more draft is going to fix all of them. It doesn't help matters that the rest of the division seems to have left them in the dust. </li>
</ul>
<h1>
AFC</h1>
<ul>
<li>The Patriots' defense still doesn't look very good, and yet New England now has a one-game lead on the entire conference with two weeks left. Home games against Miami and Buffalo virtually guarantee the Patriots a 13-win season, which means a first-round bye at worst and the top seed at best. (Favorable scheduling.) I know that not too many playoff games end up as 40-38 shootouts, but it wasn't that long ago that Indianapolis figured out how to get its sieve-like defense to resemble a playoff-caliber defense come playoff time, and it worked very well. (Facing a team with Rex Grossman at QB in the Super Bowl didn't hurt either.) </li>
<li>The Ravens are in, and they will be no worse than #5 with a win or a
Cincinnati loss Saturday, but they had a chance to win out and take the
division, and instead they had to wait (and wait and wait) for San Francisco to stop Pittsburgh, keeping Baltimore in first place in the North. The
Bengals will probably be in the wild-card race in any event, so the
season finale at Cincinnati will be an important game for both teams.
Baltimore does not want to face a high-powered offense, not as long as
Joe Flacco continues to struggle. The Chargers sat back and made Flacco
check down again and again, and the Ravens simply couldn't put together
enough short passes to sustain drives. Other AFC defenses have taken
note.</li>
<li>We knew the Texans couldn't keep winning with a third-string QB. They're safely in the playoffs, but it would be nice to get a bye as well. Houston should beat Indianapolis on the road on Thursday, and then a win in the season finale against Tennessee will have them rooting for a Pittsburgh loss. The worst Houston will likely be is third; the TEBOWs would win a tiebreaker based on conference record, but that would require two Houston losses and two TEBOW wins, and I don't think God cares enough to make that happen.</li>
<li>TEBOWTEBOWTEBOW failed once again to defeat an actual team with an actual offense. Thankfully, Belichick knows enough not to play a prevent defense the entire fourth quarter against a guy who can't read coverage and can't throw well. John Fox is well aware that a run-heavy team simply can't compete in the current NFL, but he has no choice: TEBOW isn't going to become an NFL quarterback, and the fan base wasn't going to sit quietly and let a real quarterback work through some problems when TEBOW was on the bench, waiting for his chance to show what a star he could be. It would be ironic if Orton led Kansas City to a win in Denver in Week 17 to knock the TEBOWs out of the playoffs. (It might also serve Elway right. He knows better than to let this kind of situation develop. You need to support your coach and GM when they make good but unpopular decisions. Without that support, they have to do things like run an option offense in one of the most passing-heavy eras of all time. That's like putting your money in a savings account when stocks are providing 10% dividends.)</li>
<li>Baltimore neatly wrapped a present and put it under Mike Tomlin's
Christmas tree: a first-round bye. Unfortunately, the Steelers returned it unopened, and they remain the #5 seed. If Roethlisberger's health continues to be an issue, even a win over St. Louis isn't a guarantee (ask New Orleans), and of course the Steelers must still get some help to get that first-round bye. The #1 seed is pretty much out of reach thanks to that loss on Monday night, and as long as Houston has the same record as Pittsburgh, the Steelers can't count on getting a bye even if Baltimore does stumble down the stretch.</li>
<li>The Jets got blown out by a team barely in the playoff race. Their margin for error isn't gone yet, but Cincinnati is now tied with the Jets, and three teams are just a game back. There is plenty of time for New York to play themselves out of the playoffs: they could even lose their tiebreaker edge over Cincinnati if both teams split, but New York's loss to is Miami. (The Jets currently have an edge in common games, so an extra conference loss would swing the tiebreaker back to the Bengals.) First, though, they need to focus on the Giants. Eli giveth and Eli taketh away; for the Jets to feel good about postseason play, they need to hope for the former. </li>
<li>Cincinnati gets a little scheduling help, but not much, for their late-season playoff drive: their last two games are at home against Arizona and Baltimore, both playoff contenders. Ah, that early-season loss to the non-TEBOW Broncos ... flip that result and Cincinnati is 9-5 and still hoping for a share of the division title. Instead, they may need to win out and hope for some help. With one of the wild-card spots already taken by the second-place team in the North, that leaves just one spot, so the Bengals need to end Arizona's playoff hopes and then look for some help. </li>
<li>Oh, Tennessee. Of all the times to stumble ... a win would have put the Titans in the #6 spot thanks to the Jets' loss, but instead Tennessee is a game back and has to rely on the "win out and get help" scenario that so many teams hope to avoid this time of year. Jacksonville will be no sure win, not with the Jaguars' defense playing as well as they have, and of course Houston will have something to play for during the final week, so that game isn't a guarantee either. Mike Munchak has to be thinking about his decision to start an injured Hasselbeck against the speed-rushing Colts defense. Indianapolis didn't get to him much, but they did harass him a lot and force quite a few short passes. Hasselbeck averaged just 5.6 YPA (better than Orlovsky's awful 4.8, though), and his two interceptions were both significant (one for a touchdown, the other one for a touchback). Combine that with another plodding game from Chris Johnson (one carry for 35 yards, 14 other carries for a total of 20 yards), and Tennessee doesn't really look like a playoff team after all. Winless team? Not any more.</li>
<li>Similarly, Oakland was playing pretty good defense against Detroit, except for covering Calvin Johnson. Time and time again, Stafford found Johnson open deep against the Raiders' secondary (oh Al, if you'd only seen these throws), and in the fourth quarter, Oakland was unable to stop the Lions from erasing a 13-point deficit, pushing the Lions to the edge of the playoffs and the Raiders to the edge of elimination. With Kyle Orton looking good in Kansas City and the defense coming to life in San Diego, Oakland's last two games don't look so easy any more. Hue Jackson's done a good job of keeping the momentum that Tom Cable built, but the Raiders may end up regretting the two games that got away. (Especially the loss to Buffalo. How bad does that look now that the Bills are well out of playoff contention? At least Detroit will finish with no fewer than 9 wins.)</li>
<li>San Diego isn't out of the picture any more, but they don't have any more home games, and their two remaining games are at Detroit and at Oakland, so to make the playoffs, they'll have to beat the Raiders for sure (or lose out on a tiebreaker) and then hope Denver struggles again. Defense is still an issue for San Diego (Baltimore's offense isn't that good, so stopping the Ravens in San Diego isn't as impressive as you might think), and Detroit is currently fourth in the league in scoring, so expect the Chargers' run to end in Ford Field. (The Lions have put up 48, 45, and 28 points against AFC West teams. I wonder what the NFL record is for most points in interconference games in one season?)</li>
<li>Like Philadelphia, Kansas City still has a shot at the division and no shot at a wild card. (Seven conference losses, including one to the Jets, will prevent them from winning any tiebreakers.) The Chiefs' last two games are home vs. Oakland and at Denver. If they win both, they'll be 8-8. A Denver loss at Buffalo plus a San Diego loss at Detroit means that both the Raiders and Chargers will be 7-8 going into their Week 17 showdown; the Chargers could even beat Detroit as long as they lose to Oakland. If no team is better than 8-8, Kansas City would win thanks to a 4-2 division record. </li>
<li>Miami is out of the playoffs, but they look a lot better at 5-9 than they did at 0-7. With games against the Patriots and Jets, the Dolphins will play a role in the playoff race even though they have no stake in it themselves.</li>
<li>Buffalo's tailspin continues, and with Denver and New England left, the Bills will likely finish 5-11. Some of that is from playing a tough schedule, but some is because the defense is bad. The Bills have a long way to go to be a contending team, and they'll have to do it in a division with a perennial contender in New England and another halfway-decent team in New York.</li>
<li>Like Miami, Cleveland can play spoiler, facing Baltimore and Pittsburgh in their last two games. Nothing much seems to have changed for the Browns: they're still a bad team that occasionally plays good games. I'd like to suggest patience for Cleveland fans, because teams can't be turned around quickly, but it would be understandable if they chose not to listen. The Browns haven't had consecutive winning seasons or playoff appearances since 1988-89. (The Lions did the former in 1999-2000 and the latter in 1994-95.) They've also lost 10 or more games in eight of the last nine seasons, with the exception being their 10-6 non-playoff season in 2007. (You know, the year that Derek Anderson looked like an NFL quarterback.) The Marty Schottenheimer era is a distant memory, and it'll be a couple of years before we know if Pat Shurmur has the Browns on the right track.</li>
<li>The Jaguars are just playing out the string. They can avoid tying the franchise record for losses by beating either Tennessee or Indianapolis, which would seem realistic given Sunday's results. (If they beat both, it'll be the 14th time in 17 seasons that they'll have won at least 6 games. Not bad for an expansion franchise in a tough division.)</li>
<li>Speaking of franchise records, the Colts avoided setting one by picking up a win against Tennessee. (They were also 1-15 in 1991.) Indianapolis hadn't had a losing season in 10 years, so younger Colts fans are probably shocked that this is happening. They've never known anything but winning. Older fans could tell them about unimpressive teams and losing seasons and "<a href="http://youtu.be/Qwq7BYOnDrM">Playoffs?</a>" (That was, I believe, the press conference after a <a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200111250clt.htm">40-21 loss</a> to San Francisco in 2001. The Colts fell to 4-6, but were still in the playoff race, I think, which is what prompted the question that led to the reaction I'm sure you've seen.) In a couple of years, maybe the Colts can win again. It won't happen next year. There are too many holes to fill, and an aging Peyton Manning can't hide them all. </li>
</ul>
Games to watch:<br />
<ul>
<li>Monday night, Atlanta at New Orleans. Anything but a Falcons win gives New Orleans the division. An Atlanta win or tie puts the Falcons in the playoffs, and a win keeps their division hopes alive.</li>
<li>Saturday, Oakland at Kansas City. The winner stays on Denver's heels, the loser is nearly finished (Oakland) or done (Kansas City).</li>
<li>Saturday, Arizona at Cincinnati. The Bengals are closer to a playoff spot; the Cardinals need two wins plus help.</li>
<li>Saturday, NY Giants at NY Jets. The Jets are in a better spot than the Giants, but neither team can afford a loss at this point.</li>
<li>Saturday, San Diego at Detroit. A Chargers win gives them a shot at the playoffs, a Lions win puts them in for the first time in 12 years.</li>
<li>Saturday, Philadelphia at Dallas. The Cowboys clinch the division with a win and a Giants loss or tie; the Eagles need a win plus help.</li>
<li>Saturday, San Francisco at Seattle. The 49ers chase the #2 seed while Seattle hopes for two wins plus help.</li>
</ul>zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-76299649990533194232011-12-14T10:44:00.000-05:002011-12-14T10:44:17.458-05:00Lions season outlook, week 15That was close. For a few minutes, it looked like the Lions would throw away an opportunity to move toward their first playoff spot in 12 seasons (an opportunity, as it turned out, to make up ground on every NFC wild-card contender except Atlanta). Fortunately, the refs helped Detroit on the final play, and instead of getting an embarrassing loss to a weak team with a third-string QB, the Lions hang on to pick up their 8th win, something that hasn't happened since 2000. It's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down">turtles all the way down</a> from here, though: one important game followed by another important game ...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 15: at Oakland, slight favorite <br />
Week 16: San Diego, slight favorite (moved down) <br />
Week 17: at Green Bay, overwhelming underdog (moved down)<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
San Diego drops again as the Chargers seem less likely to have thrown the season away and Detroit nearly loses a game they should have won easily. Green Bay does slide, as I thought it would. Expected wins are up a tick to
9.28, which is unusual given that two of their three remaining games dropped in probability.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report is below, and this time, it's just the injury-adjusted version:<br />
<br />Mean wins: 9.4, up 0.2<br />
Playoffs: 74.1%, up 8.1 points<br />
NFC title: 2.4%, down 0.1 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 1.0%, unchanged<br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing unusual here: Chicago and Dallas rocket downward, with Atlanta and Detroit the beneficiaries. NFC and Super Bowl chances are unlikely to change much, if at all.<br />
<br />
Stafford did not carve up the Minnesota secondary. Jared Allen did cry about the officiating, but in this case, his complaints were justified: that was absolutely a face mask penalty that went uncalled, and bad calls in game X don't justify bad calls in game Y. Still, the defense swarmed Ponder and Webb (6 turnovers, 4 sacks, 2 touchdowns – I really should have started them) and built a big enough lead to give Detroit the chance to hold on when the second half, for a change, did not go their way. That should happen this week as well. Carson Palmer has played just one good defense, and he actually had a decent day against Chicago ... but he's thrown 3 or more picks in three of his seven games, all of which came against teams with average to below-average pass defenses. Detroit's pass defense is <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef">second in the league</a>. If Houston or Delmas is healthy, this could be ugly for Oakland; if the Lions aren't careful, though, they could struggle against the Raiders' defense. (Oakland does give up a lot on the ground, but with Kevin Smith injured, the Lions would have no one to take advantage of that.) I think they will be careful, and I think Detroit's defense will give them their ninth win of the season. <b>Lions, 24-14.</b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 37-21, actual 34-28<br />
<br />
Current mood: cautiously optimisticzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-2481776000563641862011-12-13T16:11:00.000-05:002011-12-14T10:24:55.169-05:00NFL week 14: separation for realMaybe it was a good thing I skipped a week. Well, I didn't do it on purpose – I meant to finish last week's post and never did – but it worked out that way. Now it's easier to see what's going on, playoff-wise, and so we'll proceed in seed order rather than by game. I'll break down what needs to happen and what could be a problem in the last three weeks.<br />
<br />
<h1>
NFC</h1>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Green Bay just has to keep Aaron Rodgers healthy. They've basically clinched home field throughout, with a three-game lead over New Orleans and San Francisco, so it's just a matter of playing out the string. Of course they ought to try to win every game (or give the fans refunds; tickets cost the same amount for games that teams throw away as they do for games where teams try), maybe. You have to balance rust against injury: the Colts haven't always managed that well, so maybe it'd be better to let the offense run the remaining teams off the field?</li>
<li>San Francisco clinched their division, but they're suddenly in a battle for the #2 seed with New Orleans, thanks to Arizona's upset win. They may get a break, though, if cheap-shot artist James Harrison is suspended for this week's game in San Francisco. Pittsburgh is the 49ers' lone remaining threat on the schedule, and anything that makes that game more likely to be a San Francisco win is a good thing. I don't think Harbaugh wants to see Alex Smith trying to run the offense in the Superdome: as it turns out, while Smith may be better now than he has been before, he's still no more than a mediocre QB, and that won't be enough to erase a deficit if the 49ers face one in the playoffs.</li>
<li>By the same token, New Orleans wants to win out and hope for a 49ers loss so that they can get a first-round bye and home field in that matchup with San Francisco, should it present itself. (How big is that loss to St. Louis now?) The Saints have a similar schedule: one tough game, home against Atlanta, surrounded by winnable games. The Saints' defense is still bad, and there's always the issue of a dome team playing outdoors in bad weather. I know, you're saying that San Francisco isn't in the Snow Belt, and my response to you is that I've been to San Francisco for Thanksgiving and Christmas, and it is not like weather in Los Angeles. It may not be Green Bay, but it may be cool and wet, and Brees doesn't have years of experience playing in that weather. (Yes, he did at Purdue, occasionally, but even then, the Boilers went to warm-weather bowl games in Texas and California.)</li>
<li>Now we get to the fun parts. The Giants were in danger of being steamrolled by the entire NFC playoff field, or at least most of it, until they snuck past Dallas and into the East lead. (I still think that these late time outs are crap. What is this, baseball?) New York's conference record is bad enough that they'll lose a tiebreaker at that level, and both the Lions and Falcons have advantages in common games, so barring a collapse by one or both, the Giants must win the division to make the playoffs. That makes the season finale against Dallas a must-win game. New York probably has to beat Washington and the Jets, too, but Dallas is so unpredictable that maybe that won't be necessary.</li>
<li>For a while, it looked like Atlanta was handing Detroit a nice Christmas present, but then they remembered that they don't want to play New Orleans or San Francisco in the first round, and they held off Carolina. The Falcons are in a good position at 8-5, and they can probably lose to New Orleans and still get in, but Jacksonville and possibly Tampa Bay will have interim coaches in place, and those games are always harder to predict. Remember, this is the team that scored just 13 points in Tampa during their first meeting. Atlanta can't afford to drop the return game as well.</li>
<li>Speaking of presents, Detroit watched two of the three teams directly above them in the playoff hunt lose on Sunday. The loss to Atlanta will break any ties with the Falcons, so the Lions are still sixth, and they'll lose a tiebreaker with Chicago, but they have the head-to-head edge on Dallas and should hold off the Giants as well, so as long as the Bears keep falling, Detroit will keep planning for another January game. Stafford has to stop making poor decisions, though. It should also be cause for concern that the offense generated just 20 points at home against an unimpressive defense. Ironically, only San Francisco has a noticeably better defense among NFC playoff contenders, so it isn't like the Lions' OL should be getting run over in the playoffs, but then Detroit has already lost to Green Bay, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Atlanta this season, so it's not like they've shown they can beat a playoff-caliber team. (Yes, they beat Chicago, the team with no QB and with an injured star RB, and yes, they beat Dallas, the team with significant end-of-game execution issues.)</li>
<li>Chicago is done. Yes, they have tiebreaker advantages over Atlanta, Detroit, and Dallas, but they have to win one more than the former two to get back in the picture, which means beating a hot Seattle team when Matt Forte won't be in the lineup, beating the Packers (which is no sure thing even if McCarthy rests his starters), or winning at Minnesota, and even that wouldn't necessarily help them enough. Given their struggles against AFC West teams, I wouldn't be surprised if Chicago ends up 7-9. All Bears fans who thought the NFC championship was evidence that Caleb Hanie should be the starter, you can go to Denver and root for TEBOWTEBOWTEBOW.</li>
<li>As long as Dallas stays within a game of the Giants, they can steal the division in Week 17, but that may mean beating Philadelphia, the team that crushed them 34-7 in October. I'm not sure that Jason Garrett and Tony Romo can keep their composure for a full game any more. A wild-card spot is unlikely, with both Chicago and Detroit having tiebreaker advantages and Atlanta basically being even. DeMarco Murray's injury is big, more because of the depth he provides than because of his skill itself. (After all, Felix Jones had a great game against the Giants. Sadly, I started Brandon Saine instead because I thought Murray would get all the touches.) Look at the Lions as an example of a team that's struggled because of their lack of depth at RB.</li>
<li>Seattle isn't entirely out of the playoff picture, but they do need a lot of help. They would have to pass Atlanta because of their loss to the Falcons, and they'd have to pass Detroit unless they can beat San Francisco to improve their record in common games (and even that might not be enough), but either of those teams could conceivably lose out, I suppose. It's more likely that the Seahawks will simply look back at their wins over the Giants and Ravens as good signs for the future. Next year, they'll be saying that all Carroll needs is one more year before Seattle is ready to make a run ... and eventually they'll figure out that he's never going to build the Seahawks into a winning team, just like he never built the Jets or Patriots into winning teams. He's the kind of coach who succeeds only when he has a built-in advantage over you. (Did I say "cheating"? I did. Carroll at USC = cheating. Also, recruiting advantage.) There is no advantage like that in the NFL.</li>
<li>Arizona's upset of San Francisco gives them the faintest bit of hope of grabbing a wild-card spot, but like Seattle, they'd need a lot of help. Their schedule isn't the best, either: after a win over Cleveland, they visit Cincinnati and then host Seattle to end the season. Arizona might also have a common-games advantage over Detroit, so like Seattle, they will be rooting against the Lions the next three weeks. It's unlikely they'd do any damage once they get to the playoffs, though. Arizona is a bad team in a bad division, and they're riding a couple of fortunate bounces into an outside shot at the #6 seed. New Orleans or San Francisco would make short work of them in the wild-card round.</li>
<li>The Eagles, like the Giants and Cowboys, have to win the division to get in. It's not impossible, either: Philadelphia has a game left against the Cowboys and is already 3-1 in the division. Beat Dallas, Washington, and the Jets, and they finish 8-8 with a sweep of Dallas. If the Cowboys lost at least one of their other two, and if the Giants lose at least two, Philadelphia would win a tiebreaker (divisional record or head-to-head, respectively) and steal a home playoff spot in a season that arguably could have gotten Andy Reid fired. Of course, it's just as likely that they'll fall to the Cowboys and Giants, finish 6-10, and get Reid fired anyway. (And for what? Someone else who won't be able to get DeSean Jackson to be responsible?) Amazingly, Philadelphia has lost to four other teams ahead of them in the playoff race (Atlanta, Chicago, Arizona, and Seattle), so barring some crazy finish where they edge Detroit on strength of schedule, it's the East or nothing, starting Sunday against the Jets.</li>
<li>Hey, did you hear about that rookie quarterback that's engineered a massive turnaround in offense for his team? The one who can run option plays and throw the ball downfield too? No, idiot. The guy who can actually play the position reasonably well: Cam Newton. He's <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb">14th in DYAR</a>, above a number of notable QBs, and 16th in DVOA. (DYAR is a counting stat, so it gives Newton an edge over guys like TEBOW who didn't play a full season; DVOA is a rate stat. The combination gives you a better idea of where a particular QB's passing offense ranks among his peers.) Remember, this is an offense that was dead last in 2010. The defense is still miserable (thus the loss in Detroit, a game where the Panthers scored 35 points and lost by two scores), which is why you hear all that nonsense about the guy in Denver and nothing at all about a guy who has, at least for one season, demonstrated that he was worthy of being the #1 pick. He does run a bit more than your average QB, so it's possible that as defenses adjust to option plays, Newton's passing effectiveness will drop (see: Denard Robinson and Big Ten play), but at least there's hope for this guy as a long-term QB.</li>
<li>When Rex Grossman is making you look bad, your defense is bad. Remember when Washington was 3-1? Neither do I. (And boy, do the Giants and Cardinals wish they had those games back.) Donovan McNabb wouldn't have worked out this season, not after the Shanahans set fire to that bridge, burned it, sank it into the swamp, burned the swamp, and buried the ashes of the swamp, but with a longer offseason, they might have tried to find a veteran QB who had some ability. There's no evidence that either Grossman or Beck is a long-term solution. The good news is that Ryan Kerrigan is turning out to be a force up front. With a real QB and more help up front on both sides of the ball, this team might be all right in 2012, but with Snyder still pulling strings, it's just as likely that they'll sign Terrell Owens and Kerry Collins next year.</li>
<li>Tampa Bay will probably finish 4-12. Here are the teams that will have beaten them: Detroit (8-5), San Francisco (10-3), good Chicago (7-6), New Orleans (10-3), Houston (10-3), Green Bay (13-0), Tennessee (7-6), Carolina (4-9) twice, Jacksonville (4-9), and Atlanta (8-5). They also beat Atlanta and New Orleans. That's what's going to get Raheem Morris fired? This is the hardest schedule in the league, and failing to get a winning record out of it will mean that while all these young players are starting to improve, a whole new coaching staff will come in, probably implementing new offensive and defensive schemes. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Me either. </li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;">Minnesota,
on the other hand ... the McNabb idea was a fiasco, Ponder has a ways to
go before he becomes a competent NFL QB, and the defense is a shadow of
what it's been in the past. (Insert comment about PEDs and the
Williamses.) The Vikings have a long way to go to become respectable
again, and they're facing the prospect that they may have to do it during
a time when their three division rivals are also good. (Detroit isn't
quite there yet, and Chicago may not stay there, but this year, there's a
clear gap between those three and Minnesota, if also a gap between Green
Bay and the next two.) It's also unlikely that Leslie Frazier will survive
the rebuilding process. The Vikings are just another one of those teams
that was held together just a bit too long: one too many reloading years.
As a Lions fan, I have this to say: "HA HA!" (Yeah, that's for
the comments when both teams were 6-10 last season. Who's laughing now?
This guy, and all the other NFC North fans who dislike Minnesota.)</li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; tab-stops: list .5in;">As
for the Rams, well, I have nothing but sympathy. 1-15 in 2009, beating
only the 2-14 Lions ... and two years later, at 2-11, beating only New
Orleans (??) and Cleveland. Left on the schedule? Cincinnati, Pittsburgh,
and San Francisco, all with something to play for. ugh. I haven't seen
enough of the Rams to know for sure what the problem is, but I suspect
some of it is that Bradford just wasn't that good last year, and now that
he isn't throwing half again as many passes as the rest of the league
(prior to his injury, that is), his counting stats aren't that high. St.
Louis needs to rebuild their offensive line to get Bradford more
protection and to get Jackson some running room. They need more depth at
WR and RB. They probably need more help on the defensive line as well. I
know, it sounds like I'm saying that the Rams need help everywhere. Well,
they do.</li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
</div>
<h1>
AFC</h1>
<br />
<ul>
<li>Lions fans can appreciate this: Houston keeps winning, even with a third-string QB. With Carolina, Indianapolis, and Tennessee at the end of their schedule, it's possible that this will continue. The Panthers' defense is still miserable, so Yates should be able to put up some points against them; obviously the Colts are still a mess, so the Texans should win that Thursday night game; and the Titans have QB health issues of their own, with Jake Locker being forced into action last week. It's interesting that an AFC South team is still making a run at the #1 seed (although whether or not the Texans get it may be out of their hands: with no head-to-head sweep and all having two conferences losses, it'll likely come down to strength of victory), but it's sure not the team people would have predicted at the end of last season.</li>
<li>The Ravens have three weeks to get their offensive problems worked out. Fortunately, they play three teams with mediocre to bad defenses (San Diego, Cleveland, Cincinnati). Baltimore should keep the pressure on Houston and New England, and should hold off Pittsburgh for the North crown, but they'll still make the playoffs even if they slip up. The only way they can miss is to lose out and have Tennessee win out: in that case, the Titans' victory would give Tennessee the final wild-card spot. </li>
<li>On the other side of the ball, the Patriots have three weeks to practice not being terrible on defense, and like Baltimore, they have opponents who should help with that: Denver, Miami, and bad Buffalo. (Remember when the good Bills were leading the East?) Unlike Baltimore's issues, this isn't a problem that will resolve itself by playoff time. New England will have to score enough points to overcome their inability to stop other offenses. It'll be interesting to see how the playoff situation works out, too. I think any of these three teams would rather play the TEBOWs than each other in the divisional playoffs. (That's assuming the TEBOWs can get past the AFC North runner-up, of course.)</li>
<li>Speaking of TEBOWTEBOWTEBOW, the Broncos are practically assured of a division title now. A loss to New England wouldn't hurt them much, because they can still win the division by winning their last two games (Oakland has 5 conference losses and Denver would have just 4). The season finale at Kansas City, though, could be a must-win game: should Denver be up by just one game, a loss there and an Oakland win would give the Raiders the division based on division record (2 losses to 3). It doesn't really matter, though. Either Baltimore or Pittsburgh will roll whoever the AFC West champion is, and honestly, that needs to happen. I am amazed at the number of people who think that being a bad quarterback on a winning team makes you a good quarterback. (ESPN actually asked who was more "clutch", TEBOW or Tom Brady. If I didn't know better, I'd guess the Denver-New England game was on ESPN, and that this was just the usual self-promotional crap that ESPN does.) I'm also amazed at the number of defensive coordinators who figure that because TEBOW can't hit a receiver in tight coverage, he can't hit one in soft coverage either. P.S. He's a running QB, just so you know. On a two-point conversion, he might just keep the ball. Call it a hunch.</li>
<li>Does it even matter if Pittsburgh wins the North? A number of these guys were on the team that won a road-trip Super Bowl (did you know Jerome Bettis was from Detroit?), so it's not like it's just something that happened in the past, and it might be easier to face Denver in the first round and then Houston in the next, should the Texans finish with the #1 seed, rather than taking on New England, even if it's a home game. The Steelers do have a close win at home over the Patriots, plus a loss to the Schaub Texans and the sweep at the hands of Baltimore, but I think it's better to consider current performance rather than regular-season results. Pittsburgh seems less likely to be affected by an extra game or road games than Baltimore would be.</li>
<li>The Jets have to be happy with Oakland's schedule: New York can't afford to be tied with an AFC West team (they lost to both the Raiders and Broncos), so it's better for them to have the second-place team trailing them, record-wise. The Jets do not have an easy closing schedule (Eagles, Giants, Dolphins), and with the #5 seed out of reach, they have no margin for error ... well, little margin for error. The head-to-head loss to Oakland doesn't come into play in the case of a three- or four-way tie, but the Jets already have five conference losses compared to four for Tennessee, and if the loss that knocks New York into a tie is to Miami, that would cost them against Cincinnati as well. Of course, holding off those teams could simply put the Jets in Foxborough for another loss to the Patriots ...</li>
<li>The Titans, on the other hand, welcome Oakland as part of a tie, because that keeps their loss to Cincinnati out of the tiebreaker picture. They have a relatively easy schedule (Colts, Jaguars, Texans), so their best shot is to win the two games they ought to and then hope to take advantage of Houston's injury problems in the finale. Of course, they already need help to make the playoffs, but with just four conference losses, Tennessee is in better shape than the other middle-of-the-pack teams, so they don't need to worry too much about who's in a tiebreaker. (The odds of it being just the Bengals and Titans are pretty small.)</li>
<li>Cincinnati has three losses by less than a touchdown, plus two 7-point losses, and all of those are to teams in the playoff hunt (although one, San Francisco, is not a direct competitor). Flip any of those games and the Bengals are in the thick of things; as it is, Cincinnati needs wins plus help, and likely a lot of it. St. Louis and Arizona are must-win games, as is the season finale against Baltimore, but even that may not be enough. They would need two losses by the Jets (or just one, if it's their Miami game) plus at least one Oakland loss (the Raiders have a significant edge in strength of victory and would get even a bigger boost from a win over Detroit).</li>
<li>Oakland's win over Chicago may be the last bright spot in their season. The unexpected loss to Miami cut away the last of the Raiders' lead in the West, and the loss to Green Bay dropped them into the tail end of the wild-card race. Oakland can't afford a loss to Detroit, but it'll be no small task to beat the Lions, especially given the struggles that Carson Palmer has shown from time to time this season. Like Cincinnati, Oakland will need help even if they do win out, but for now, their focus has to be on winning their next game. </li>
<li>San Diego has climbed back to the edge of the playoffs, at least at first glance, by beating the struggling Jaguars and Bills. They'll need to win out and get a ton of help, though, and that seems highly unlikely: they play Baltimore next and then close the season at Detroit and at Oakland. It's more likely the Chargers will finish 6-10 and think about which recycled coach would do better than Norv. (With respect to decision-making in games, the answer might be "most of them.")</li>
<li>In retrospect, it was really a combination of a weaker schedule plus good play that made the Bills look like a playoff team. At 5-2, they had just one win over a team that was obviously a playoff contender (New England), and four of their next six losses came against similar teams. Throw in whippings at the hands of Miami and San Diego, and it becomes clear that the Bills weren't really contenders in the first place. Buffalo will finish with double-digit losses for the third straight season, and while the Lions may snap their 11-year postseason drought, the Bills will not. </li>
<li>The firing of Todd Haley was overdue: it's been obvious for quite some time that the Chiefs are a really bad football team. They squeaked out close wins over hapless Minnesota and Indianapolis as well as injury-ravaged Oakland and Chicago, and they stole a win from bumbling San Diego, but the rest of the season has been a better indicator of the depth of talent on this team: a 34-point loss to Buffalo, a 45-point loss to Detroit, a 28-point loss to Miami, a 31-point loss to New England, a 27-point loss to the Jets. Yes, the Chiefs are missing a solid RB in Jamaal Charles, but then Haley rarely used him for more than half a game anyway. Yes, they're missing a good safety in Eric Berry, but strength on defense starts with the line, not the secondary. Kansas City made the playoffs last season with smoke and mirrors; the talent on the team is more like the three seasons before, when the Chiefs were a combined 10-38. Yes, Scott Pioli is to blame for the lack of depth, and I'm going to predict that yet another Belichick disciple will be given the axe for failing to show competence in another city. (Perhaps it was the system as a whole, rather than any of its components? And with that in mind, perhaps Crennel is not the best man for the permanent job in KC.)</li>
<li>On the other hand, the firing of Tony Sparano seemed either too early or too late. Why not fire him after the 0-7 start? Why fire him after the team goes 4-2 in its next six games? Miami also has injury and depth issues (never mind the idea that Reggie Bush is a running back), and of course there is the problem of having two playoff contenders in your division, so a season that might have them near the division title in the West instead has them far back in the East. I wonder sometimes if ownership in Miami really knows what it's doing. Give Sparano credit for doing what he could with the talent he had in front of him, even if he never managed to get the Dolphins to play well enough in the right games to get the results he apparently needed to stick around longer.</li>
<li>Speaking of ownership issues, since being awarded an expansion franchise to replace the departed Browns, Cleveland has posted numbers remarkably similar to Detroit's: two winning seasons (although Detroit is on the verge of a third), one playoff appearance (a loss), nine seasons with 10 or more losses (although Cleveland is on the verge of a tenth). William Clay Ford and his son Bill were excoriated for the Millen debacle, and like them, Al Lerner and his son Randy have taken a lot of heat, deservedly so, for failing to accomplish much of anything. While that may be changing in Detroit, nothing seems to be changing in Cleveland. Another season, another coach, another scheme, another disappointment. Even their wins have been uninspiring: 8 points over Indianapolis, 1 point over Miami, 3 points over Seattle, 4 points over Jacksonville. The defense isn't as good as it looks, and the offense is a train wreck. The passing game is basically Josh Cribbs and sub-replacement-level receivers who can't catch; the running game is <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol">three yards and a cloud of dust</a>. (First in the NFL in avoiding stuffs, last in second-level yards, 29th in open-field yards. This is a running game that will tell you that if you need three yards, it'll get you three yards. If you need seven yards, it'll get you three yards.) Cincinnati has a good young quarterback in Andy Dalton, the Ravens and Steelers are again near the top of the AFC, and Cleveland will again have a good position in the draft. It doesn't seem right.</li>
<li>Most of what got Jack Del Rio fired was finding himself in a situation where his quarterbacks were an injured, ineffective veteran, a rookie, and an ineffective journeyman. With no passing game and a weak running game, Jacksonville has no offense and thus no way to catch up when they fall behind. The defense has done a stellar job: despite finding themselves in difficult positions time and time again (the Jaguars gave opponents the fourth-best starting field position in the league), they give up few points (9th in points per drive) and force a ton of punts (2nd). More than half of opponents' drives end up in punts (only Pittsburgh has done better), but that's true of Jacksonville's offense as well (only St. Louis has done worse). The Jaguars need a ton of talent on the offensive side of the ball: they have Maurice Jones-Drew and ... um ... anyway, they need a ton of talent. With the right players, they might have a shot at .500, but they have to start by replacing players on offense. You cannot expect your defense to hold opponents under 10 points a game to get a win.</li>
<li>The Colts have actually been pretty decent at running the ball this year, which is odd because that's usually something they do quite poorly. Everything else has been a disaster. Drafting Andrew Luck would be a waste: it would be better to flip the pick for a number of lower picks so that they can start plugging some of the holes (and so Peyton doesn't get killed if he is able to return in 2012), so that when they do get someone to replace Manning, he actually has a chance to survive. The graveyard of NFL QBs is full of young players with promise who went to bad teams and were buried in a grave of mediocrity. (The difference between the NFL and college football is like the difference between online and offline Madden play. Offline, pretty much anyone with skills can have a good season, even with a bad team, but it's something completely different when you're in a league with people who are, for the most part, at least as talented as you are. Even if you have a good team, you might end up with a losing record, and if your team sucks, you'll be lucky to win four games.)</li>
</ul>
The game to watch this week is Detroit at Oakland. A Lions win keeps them securely in the hunt and pushes Oakland to the edge of elimination; a Raiders win gives Dallas hope of making up ground in the NFC, and if coupled with a New England win over Denver would make the AFC West race interesting again.<br />
<br />
<ul>
</ul>zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-1712489867332570272011-12-06T16:04:00.001-05:002011-12-28T15:11:32.173-05:00Lions season outlook, week 14So that was the last of the bonus games, the ones the Lions probably weren't going to win. The rest are games they probably need to win, possibly including the season finale (the one where Green Bay will have clinched everything and should be resting their starters). With Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, and the Giants losing, Detroit could have been in a really nice position with a win, but whatever.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 14: Minnesota, heavy favorite<br />
Week 15: at Oakland, slight favorite<br />
Week 16: San Diego, favorite (moved down)<br />
Week 17: at Green Bay, heavy underdog<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
The San Diego game flips and the Green Bay game is about to move to overwhelming. Still, Detroit is favored in three of its four remaining games. Expected wins are down to 9.24, once again dropping after a loss. (Those "partial" wins – the games in which the Lions are not favored – have a more noticeable impact later in the season.)<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report is below:<br />
Mean wins: 9.2, down 0.5<br />
Playoffs: 58.2%, up 5.8 points<br />
NFC title: 2.3%, up 0.3 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 1.0%, up 0.3 points<br />
<br />
Again, the mean wins drop due to Detroit not winning a game they had a reasonable chance of winning. The division title is effectively out of reach, but the playoff chances spike because of Chicago's unexpected loss to Kansas City.<br />
<br />
Next, playoff odds reflecting the loss of key QBs:<br />
<br />
Mean wins: 9.2, same<br />
Playoffs: 66.0%, 7.8 points higher<br />
NFC title: 2.5%, 0.2 points higher<br />
Super Bowl win: 1.0%, same<br />
<br />
The playoff odds jump is a reflection of Hanie's struggles. Kansas City was crushed by Detroit; the Bears should have done the same. <br />
<br />
The Lions did dig themselves a big first-half hole and did not climb out of it; I got basically everything right about that game. Unfortunately for Detroit, injuries on defense continue to pile up. Suh will be suspended for this game as well, and if neither Delmas nor Houston can play, the Lions will have backups in too many positions to be able to pressure Ponder as they'd like to, especially if Fairley misses any time. (He probably wasn't 100% in the first place.) Still, with Peterson either out or just returning after a high ankle sprain, an injury that really affects RBs, Minnesota won't be quite the same team they were early in the season. Ponder's much better than McNabb was, but he's still inexperienced, and the Lions will be looking to take advantage of his mistakes. The beleaguered Vikings defense won't have a home crowd to support them: look for Jared Allen to cry about officiating as Stafford carves up their secondary. <b>Lions, 37-21.</b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 20-31, actual 17-31<br />
<br />
Current mood: expecting something decentzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-15325054295712766942011-12-01T08:27:00.001-05:002012-06-28T09:07:01.772-04:00Pain in the butt phoneSo even though my HTC Incredible doesn't have the <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/secret-software-logging-video/">HTC-branded keylogger</a> that was deliberately planted on so many Android phones, it didn't have Gingerbread: I had the same issues a lot of other people did, mostly because of HTC's buggy update installation process (which is related to the whole "low on disk space" error when you're not low on disk space). I had the update downloaded, but the phone wouldn't reboot to install it, and it wouldn't say why.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, I found <a href="http://forums.androidcentral.com/verizon-droid-incredible/134246-second-gb-update-patch-wont-reboot-issue-solved.html">instructions</a> that helped me install the update on my own. It was mildly alarming, though, to see that my phone rejected a date change even when I turned off automatic date and time updates (I had to set it ahead one month because one year wouldn't "take") ... seems like more of that can't-opt-out behavior that's the whole problem with the Carrier IQ keylogger. (FWIW, I think that company should be fined a certain amount for every phone from which it collects this data; do the same thing to the company installing the software and this won't happen again.)<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Same issue as back in December. Phone says I need an update, downloads it, says there's no room to install it, doesn't tell me again after I clear disk space. Follow the same steps, update installs. So between HTC and Google, no one could fix this issue from the last time it happened ... maybe Microsoft isn't so foolish trying to work their way into the cell market. After all, when they entered the console market, Sony and Nintendo had established themselves as dominant players, just forcing Sega out ... and now, Microsoft's a major player, with Nintendo on the periphery and even Sony struggling to keep up. Microsoft has a ton of money and has been doing this for a long time. If Google isn't careful, these OS issues will send people elsewhere.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-28855632992613529612011-11-29T10:38:00.001-05:002011-11-29T21:40:36.950-05:00Lions season outlook, week 13The one Sunday each year where I'm guaranteed not to have to worry about the Lions playing. Of course, it turns out to be a Sunday where the only game I picked wrong was my 1-point game. (I also picked Detroit to beat Green Bay because why not? I still won this week. Back off.) Detroit had its chances, but once again, they made too many mistakes against a better team. A win would have been huge, but instead, they're faced with the prospect of falling a game behind Chicago and Atlanta with both teams having tiebreaker advantages against them.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 13: at New Orleans, underdog (moved down)<br />
Week 14: Minnesota, heavy favorite (moved down)<br />
Week 15: at Oakland, slight favorite (moved down)<br />
Week 16: San Diego, heavy favorite<br />
Week 17: at Green Bay, heavy underdog<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
Trending down because of the loss and other teams' performances. Minnesota and Green Bay are both in the 85-86 range (in opposite directions, of course). San Diego is on the verge of being an overwhelming underdog. Expected wins are down to 9.64, and that will probably fall again if the Saints win Sunday night, as is expected given their dominant performance Monday night against the Giants.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report is below:<br />
Mean wins: 9.7, down 0.6<br />
Playoffs: 52.4%, down 14.6 points<br />
Division title: 0.1%, down 5.0 points<br />
NFC title: 2.0%, down 1.7 pointsSuper Bowl win: 0.7%, down 0.9 points<br />
<br />
The mean wins drop due to Detroit not winning a game they had a roughly 50-50 chance of winning; the division and top-seed odds plummet because the loss locks Detroit out of first, barring some forfeits; the rest simply reflects a Detroit loss. They can't afford many more of those.<br />
<br />
Again, playoff odds reflecting the loss of key QBs:<br />
<br />
Mean wins: 9.6, 0.1 lower<br />
Playoffs: 55.1%, 2.7 points higher<br />
Division title: 0.1%, same<br />
NFC title: 1.9%, 0.1 points lower<br />
Super Bowl win: 0.9%, 0.2 points higher<br />
<br />
Similar to last week, with the playoff odds higher because of Cutler and the Super Bowl odds higher because of Schaub and now Leinart. Not sure why the mean wins are lower. <br />
<br />
I thought it would be a shootout, but the defenses stood tall, especially Green Bay's. If that isn't the case Sunday night, this could get ugly. The one blowout loss this year came in a game when 21 points were scored without the defense on the field; the Lions have yet to be rolled by an offense. Of course, they haven't faced a strong offense on the road since the Dallas game, and in that game, they were terrible in the first half. I don't think New Orleans will help them out in the second. <b>Saints, 31-20.</b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 24-39, actual 15-27<br />
<br />
Current mood: expecting the worstzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-46638532261661864782011-11-28T08:23:00.001-05:002011-11-29T10:37:13.116-05:00NFL week 12: separation?Green Bay becomes all but uncatchable in the NFC, but the only changes in the AFC seem to come near the bottom.<br />
<ul>
<li>The Lions needed to play mistake-free football to beat Green Bay. Stafford threw three interceptions, leading directly to 17 points, and the Lions committed 11 penalties. The defense did all it was asked to do, but once again, the offense put them in a hole they couldn't escape. Detroit has played four home games against teams currently in the playoffs, and they've lost three of them, each time because the offense couldn't run effectively. I think that's an indication that Detroit isn't really a playoff contender. They might get lucky and slip into the playoffs if Chicago continues to struggle or if Atlanta falters, but they won't get far. The other problem they have, well, you already know about that. At some point, you either stop committing personal fouls, or you simply are a dirty player. Apologies at this point are meaningless: Suh just needs to stop doing dumb things on the field. The Lions are deep at defensive tackle, but not so deep that they can afford to have an All-Pro-caliber DT missing games because he lost his temper. </li>
<li>Give the Packers' defense credit: they made the plays they needed to. Detroit was 5 of 10 on third down, but the three interceptions were enough to give Rodgers the advantage he needed to counter Detroit's defense (the Packers were just 2 of 10 on third down). Detroit scored touchdowns on both of their red zone drives, but the second drive was a last-minute drive that really had no impact on the game. They aren't very good, but on Thursday, they were good enough, and that may be all the Packers need until playoff time. Then again, it isn't like there are any balanced teams in the NFC, so maybe Green Bay won't have to get a solid game from the defense until the Super Bowl, should they get there. (It's much easier to find flaws in the other contenders.)</li>
<li>Miami suddenly looks much less like an Indianapolis-caliber team and much more like a team that just had bad breaks to start the season, but they still have some issues. The decision to pick up Bush in the offseason doesn't look too bad until you look at his productivity at RB, and it's just as disappointing as it was in New Orleans. The difference is that the Saints had a passing game that didn't need nearly as much support; Moore is definitely playing better now than he did at first (which is what you'd expect from a backup), but aside from Marshall, the only other threat in the passing game is Bush, and he isn't nearly as effective if he's coming out of the backfield. Bush is like a weaker, less elusive version of Barry Sanders. He has a similar boom-or-bust mentality, but has much less ability to avoid contact, and thus there are many more carries for little or no yards.</li>
<li>Once again, Dallas' defense came to the rescue, holding the Dolphins to field goal attempts on four drives inside the 10. (Graham's longest kick of the four was 28 yards.) It almost wasn't enough: the running game was OK (even though DeMarco Murray got all of the RB carries), and the passing game struggled. Miami's defense is good, but like the Lions, the Cowboys have difficulty against teams with good defenses. That may not be a problem in the surprisingly weak East, but pretty much all the wild-card contenders in the NFC have good defenses, and Detroit has already shown what they can do in Dallas; it isn't a stretch to see Chicago or Atlanta playing even better than that. Romo is not playing his best every week, but the absence of Miles Austin is definitely a factor, and not having Felix Jones at 100% is a problem as well. </li>
<li>San Francisco's lack of offense was finally exposed against Baltimore: unable to run the ball and unable to force turnovers to create short fields, the 49ers had to try the passing game, and of course it didn't go very well. Despite what commentators like to think, I believe Roman has designed an offense to hide Alex Smith's shortcomings, not to work on his weaknesses (it's probably too late for that), so there will be a risk of this happening against any solid defense. The game was close mostly because Baltimore is a similar team (strong on defense, vulnerable on offense), and that's probably a good sign for San Francisco because the teams they're likely to meet before the NFC championship game are similar, so they'll be on equal footing.</li>
<li>Big non-conference win for Baltimore, especially with Pittsburgh still having to visit the 49ers. The Ravens have no real challenges left until Week 17 against Cincinnati, so even if Pittsburgh beats San Francisco, the Ravens should have a relatively easy path to the division title. All three 8-3 division leaders have just two conference losses, so it'll be important for the Ravens to win out and wait to see what happens in Houston. With the Texans down to their third-string QB (where is that Orton guy when you need him?), it may be just a matter of time before Baltimore moves up into a first-round-bye position.</li>
<li>Is there anyone still doubting that Christian Ponder should be the starting QB in Minnesota? The Vikings didn't have much of a chance with Adrian Peterson out, but Ponder still turned in a decent performance against a good team on the road: 68% completions, no turnovers, 7.4 Y/A ... he probably took too many sacks, but then Minnesota's offensive line isn't the best either. The Vikings need to be thinking about the future, starting now, and that includes the guy who missed Sunday's game. Chris Johnson should be a lesson to teams: don't invest a ton of money in a guy who simply can't make enough of a difference for your team. There are too many RBs out there. Peterson has done a great job in Minnesota, but he wasn't the main reason they made it to the NFC Championship two years ago, and he's obviously not keeping them out of the basement now. Minnesota is 5 games behind the Bears and Lions, with games remaining against each team as well as New Orleans and Denver. It's not out of the question for this team to finish 2-14. </li>
<li>Matt Ryan had an impressive game against Minnesota, moving the Falcons into 6th in the conference ahead of Detroit. However, this should be an expectation against a weak team; Atlanta got a needed win, but they shouldn't have been struggling at home against a team missing their star RB and starting a rookie QB (even though he's playing better than the veteran). This was a 17-14 game relatively late in the fourth quarter. The Falcons caught a break with Houston's injury problems at QB, so they may escape with a big road win next week, and that would be huge. Detroit and the Giants have challenging schedules, so a win over the Texans combined with wins over the weaker teams on their schedule might give the Falcons a wild-card spot; a win at New Orleans might even give them the division.</li>
<li>Cleveland's offense struggled again against Cincinnati; McCoy was unimpressive (4.1 NY/A), the running game was kept in check, and while they did convert some third downs, they didn't get enough points to survive Cincinnati's comeback. The Browns deserve credit for staying with Cincinnati on the road, but credit only goes so far, and at some point Cleveland will be expected to do more than just compete. (Browns fans are pointing out that that point arrived about six years ago.)</li>
<li>With Buffalo's loss, the Bengals have a little more breathing room, but Denver opponents' insistence on ignoring deep receivers have basically put them in the Bills' place in the hunt, meaning that this was a game Cincinnati couldn't afford to lose. The offense put up decent numbers, but they're not as good as they seem: Benson had 106 yards rushing, but 33 of those were on one play. 20 carries for 73 yards isn't nearly as impressive. Dalton was 21 of 31 for 270 yards, but 51 of those were on a pass to A.J. Green; again, 30 passes for 219 yards isn't quite as good. The AFC does have some good offense/weak defense teams like the NFC does, but Cincinnati's two division opponents have strong defenses, and the Bengals will have to get more productivity against teams like Cleveland if they're going to beat Pittsburgh or Baltimore, which may be necessary for them to make the playoffs.</li>
<li>The Bucs have had, by far, the most difficult schedule in the league. Their opponents' winning percentage is nearly .600 (.597); all seven of their losses have come to teams with winning records, and five of those seven are currently in the playoffs (Detroit and Tennessee are the others). It's notable that the two closer losses are to the two latter teams; they had a close loss to Chicago, but the other losses were not close. Tampa Bay simply isn't a playoff-caliber team, much like Detroit isn't quite at that level. The Tennessee game highlighted their offensive struggles: five fumbles (four lost), one interception, 2 of 10 on third downs, only one red zone drive, only one touchdown. This season is making 2010 look like an outlier for Josh Freeman, and if he struggles like this next year, Raheem Morris will have to start looking for another QB. </li>
<li>Chris Johnson finally had a day worthy of his contract, and it came against a team that's known for having good defenses. Unfortunately, the Bucs' defense this season isn't anywhere near as good as it has been, so it's hard to see this game as anything more than the Titans taking advantage of a young, weak team. What's a bit more troubling is that Hasselbeck had a bad day against a bad defense: 4.7 Y/A (gross, not net), just a bit over 50% completions, 1 TD and two picks. The Titans also fumbled three times (recovering one), giving Tampa Bay far more opportunities than they should have. Tennessee can't afford to have games like this, even against the softer parts of their remaining schedule. Jacksonville has a much better defense than Tampa Bay, and even Indianapolis has played a couple of solid games this year. New Orleans will roll over the Titans if they play like they did Sunday, and Houston might do the same on New Year's; if the division isn't out of reach by then, it probably will be, and the Titans can ill afford to be in a position where that becomes a must-win game for them. They're not just showing the ability to play well enough on both sides of the ball to beat a good team.</li>
<li>Carolina was able to move the ball steadily against the Colts' horrid defense, which isn't much of a surprise. The fact that they got only 27 points is a surprise. Carolina's offense has actually been good this season, something that's been lost due to their defense being, well, <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef">worse than Indy's</a>. (Their run defense is terrifyingly bad: there's a gap of 3.4 points between Cleveland at 30 and St. Louis at 31. There's a gap of 8.4 points between the Rams and Panthers.) It's been consistently bad, too, not just occasionally bad, so week in and week out, the Panthers struggle to keep up with their opponents, usually failing in the process. (Carolina's 9th in the NFC in scoring but dead last in points allowed.) So give them credit for winning on the road, even if it was against a hapless team. Last year, you see, that hapless team was Carolina. They have, as they say, been there and done that. </li>
<li>On the other side of the ball, the Colts faced a terrible defense and ... ugh. Painter: 15 of 29, 2 picks, 1 fumble (not lost). Third downs: 1 of 9. They ran the ball OK, which is not good against the sieve that is the Panthers' run defense. There are no more winnable games on the Colts' schedule. Unless a team completely blows a game, this will be the second 0-16 team in NFL history, and like the Lions, it will be a team in desperate need of an overhaul. The Lions hired Martin Mayhew permanently (he was the interim GM), who then hired Jim Schwartz, and Detroit is now sitting at 7-4 and on the edge of the playoffs. The vast majority of that roster was replaced. It is not a stretch to suggest that the same thing needs to happen in Indianapolis. There are 6 players on Detroit's roster who were drafted during the Dark Times. (Jason Hanson predates them ... by a lot. In 2001, he was entering his 10th season in Detroit.) Interestingly, the Colts have 2 players from the Dark Times, Ernie Sims and Dan Orlovsky. (Picking up Lions retreads is usually a bad sign.) Are there 6 players on the Colts' roster that are unarguably part of the rebuilding process? Reggie Wayne is in his 11th season, as is Ryan Diem. Jeff Saturday is in his 13th season. Freeney and Mathis, 10th and 9th, respectively. Sure, you want to keep a few of the veterans, even if only because you can't replace 53 players in one season, but how many of these guys are going to be worthwhile players in three years? (And that's leaving aside the biggest question of all: what happens with #18? Who is, by the way, in his 14th season.)</li>
<li>Didn't I just mention St. Louis' defensive issues? Why, yes I did. Beanie Wells is not the next Walter Payton. He is, more than likely, the next Jerome Harrison: a guy who took advantage of a situation to put up monster numbers that he'll never again approach. Keep in mind that he had runs of 71 and 53 yards; those accounted for more than half his total. 25 carries for 104 yards doesn't sound nearly as impressive, does it? (Almost like <a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199710120tam.htm">a Barry Sanders day</a>: the day where he ripped off two 80-plus-yard TD runs, he had just 215 yards total.) And after all that, Arizona still needed a late field goal to hold off the Rams (and spoil my pick 'em week: I missed only this game and the Lions game). Consider this: Patrick Peterson has four punt return TDs this year. In those games, the Cardinals won by 7, lost by 3, won by 6, and won by 3. You can't simply say "if he hadn't scored, they would have lost" because you're assuming nothing else would change significantly, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that a win in each of those three games would have been less likely without his TD, and the loss (to Baltimore) would have been bigger. So it wasn't all Beanie this time. After all, on seven occasions, a player has rushed for 200 or more yards in a losing effort. (O.J. did it twice, and both times, they were double-figure losses.)</li>
<li>The Rams are last in the NFC again, thanks to their win over Baltimore. (Minnesota has a better conference record and thus is 15th.) Last year's 7-9 record is a distant memory, and the notion that Sam Bradford is definitely an up-and-coming QB is also a distant memory. Without counting stats in his favor, his conventional numbers are less gaudy, and so people are more likely to listen when you bring up things like <a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2011/passing.htm">4.6 ANY/A</a> and <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb">-19.0% DVOA</a>. To be fair, those stats really reflect "the St. Louis passing game when Sam Bradford is QB", and so they are not all his fault, but then I don't know anyone who looks at more than counting stats and says that Bradford is a good QB at this point in his career. More than likely, he's just another OK kid (no pun intended) who was thrust into a difficult situation and couldn't make it work. The Rams would be a bad team this year no matter who was at QB; it just doesn't help that the guy they have isn't doing much of anything well. The one thing he is doing well, something that should actually be a concern for Rams fans, is avoiding interceptions. He's third among NFL QBs in interception percentage, behind only Aaron Rodgers and that one guy in Minnesota who's now a backup. (No, really. McNabb struggled at everything else, but he wasn't throwing picks.) You can make the argument that last season's 2.5% is proof that Bradford just doesn't throw picks, but I think it's more that he's had good luck his first two seasons. I'll have to check FO's dropped interceptions charts to see if that's played a factor, but for some perspective, the <a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_int_perc_career.htm">NFL career leader in INT%</a> is Rodgers, at 1.8%. McNabb is actually tied with Bradford (and some guy named Brady) at 2.2%, third behind Neil O'Donnell. Is he really that good at avoiding interceptions? I guess he could be, but give me another season or two like that before you convince me. Rodgers has done it for 4 seasons, and the other guys have more than that under their belts.</li>
<li>Buffalo's run is over, and with Fred Jackson out and AFC playoff contenders disappearing in the distance, that red-hot start won't culminate in a playoff appearance. (<a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2011/week-4-dvoa-ratings">FO mentioned</a> that "there's a pretty good chance that teams like Buffalo, Tennessee, and Detroit are going to be good all year" after Week 4. Of course, the model didn't know that Detroit and Tennessee had faced relatively weak schedules and that Buffalo would collapse mid-season.) Fitzpatrick had a pretty good game against a strong Jets defense, but the Bills couldn't manage anything on the ground (C.J. Spiller is not the same kind of back Jackson is), and it's much harder to kill the clock when you can't run the ball. A win would have made the Bills the 6-5 team hoping for other teams to slip in December; the loss means Buffalo can start thinking about 2012. </li>
<li>Mark Sanchez is just not a good QB. The "ability" to throw touchdown passes late in games is nice if you seem to have it, but it doesn't make up for the inability to throw good passes during the first three quarters so you don't have to come from behind all the time. Hopefully Rex Ryan has dropped that silly Super Bowl talk; this team isn't nearly good enough to win one. There will be no AFC Championship appearance this season. The Jets will be lucky to make the playoffs, but they won't get far. There are too many solid defenses that will simply shut down New York's anemic offense, and the one team that has a defense the Jets might break, New England, will simply outscore them.</li>
<li>Matt Leinart actually looked like a decent NFL quarterback for a half. He used short passes to inch the Texans down the field and build a small lead (that would have been bigger if Arian Foster hadn't lost a fumble that became a Jaguars TD). Then he got hurt, and whatever semblance of a passing game Houston had ... actually didn't seem to change that much. Yates' completion percentage was lower than Leinart's, but his Y/A was about the same. The difference was field position: with Leinart in the game, the Texans started two drives in Jacksonville territory and another at the 45, and those gave Houston 13 points. In the second half, they had exactly one drive start in Jacksonville territory, and it was a three-and-out. Houston might be another team to consider some kind of option play; of course it takes much more than a week to learn the read option or triple option or inverted veer or whatever, but if the alternative is what we saw Sunday, well, I'd go with the option.</li>
<li>So ... Blaine Gabbert != NFL QB. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps more specifically, not a QB in Jacksonville. I never associated them with a spread offense in the first place, so coming from that at Missouri means he's got to learn an entire new scheme, take snaps under center instead of in the gun, all that ... just a bad combination. In retrospect, releasing David Garrard wasn't such a big deal (because he's injured and couldn't have played anyway), but it does say something that the Jaguars ended up with zero competent QBs. How strange is it that three of the four AFC South teams ended up going to their third-string QBs? (The Colts haven't made a permanent change to Orlovsky, but he did see some playing time.) As I was writing this, Jack Del Rio was fired. I think it's the right move, but of course it's far too early to guess what will happen next in Jacksonville. I don't know that it makes sense to talk about who the best fit would be, because we don't know how much control they'll have over personnel decisions and thus how compatible the existing talent will be with the new schemes.</li>
<li>The Bears' defense held Oakland to a field goal or less on all but one drive, but that one drive was enough to put the game out of reach. All those people who were hoping that Hanie would replace Cutler? Yeah, they're kind of quiet now, aren't they? Cutler is not the problem. The scheme was most of the problem; the offensive line and lack of quality receivers makes up the rest of it. When Martz finally realized that the Bears didn't have the personnel to run his run-and-shoot-style offense, he relented and switched to quicker passes and better protection, using Tyler Clutts much more often, and the Bears suddenly had a productive offense. With Cutler out, they're obviously going to suffer until Hanie gets used to NFL-caliber defenses. Fortunately for him, Seattle is the only top-16 pass defense the Bears will face until the playoffs. Again, the goal should be for Hanie to be a caretaker, not to be the focal point of the offense: Chicago's defense should be good enough to make up the difference. They were on Sunday, but Hanie's mistakes cost them.</li>
<li>The Raiders were lucky. If Cutler had been healthy, Oakland's inability to score touchdowns would have dropped them into a tie with the Broncos. Instead, they get another big win and remain just a game out of the top spot in the AFC. Carson Palmer seems to be comfortable in the Raiders' offense, with 8.1 Y/A against a solid defense. Oakland's defense forced enough turnovers to help out; with Green Bay and Detroit still on the schedule, they may have to step up two more times. Miami could actually be more of a challenge now that Moore is playing like a decent QB, but Kansas City and San Diego should be wins, and if Tebow continues to struggle against decent defenses, the Raiders probably won't have to beat either NFC North team to win their division.</li>
<li>No, I don't know how Rex Grossman managed to help Washington pull out a win at Seattle. OK, it had something to do with the opposing QB (could Grossman and Tarvaris Jackson be the least impressive QB matchup in recent times?), but still, that doesn't win games for you unless the other guy is throwing interceptions for touchdowns. 314 yards, 2 TDs, three fourth-quarter scoring drives ... obviously the defense had something to do with it (last four Seattle drives: three-and-out, three-and-out, four-and-out, interception), but Seattle only gave Washington the ball in Seahawks territory on one of the three drives (the interception ended the game), so it wasn't like Washington could settle for field goals. They still need a competent QB if they're going to have a shot at competing for the division next year, but for now, if Grossman can have games like this, it'll be enough to make them competitive, and that's enough to keep them even with Philadelphia for now. (Random thought: imagine getting odds from someone that going into December, Rex Grossman and Washington would have the same record as Philadelphia.)</li>
<li>The rah-rah stuff is wearing off in Seattle, and we're beginning to see the same stuff that Pete Carroll did in New England: not much of anything. I think he's a poor judge of talent; he doesn't have to be good at USC because a lot of top athletes want to go there, so all you need is to sign enough recruits who become good that you can beat UCLA and Stanford and sometimes Oregon. In the NFL, it's much more difficult to build a roster, so you can't afford to make as many mistakes. Jackson isn't good enough to be a starter. Zach Miller is basically a non-factor. Marshawn Lynch is better than Reggie Bush and maybe a few other guys, but that's it. Steven Hauschka is doing a good job kicking, but if that's the high point of your offense, you're doing it wrong. (Surprisingly, the passing game isn't worse with Jackson than it was with Hasselbeck last season. It isn't so much that the decision to let Hasselbeck go was bad as it is that he's been a great fit in Tennessee, which is even harder to explain given that Chris Johnson is having a terrible season.)</li>
<li>Remember when New England looked like they might struggle to make the playoffs? Me either. With the Texans down to a third-string QB and the Ravens' offense looking at times like it has a third-string QB at the helm, it's hard to imagine anything preventing the Patriots from securing the #1 seed in the playoffs, and from there, the only question is whether or not they'll face a defense capable of disrupting their offense. Baltimore, New York and Houston all have defenses capable of the job, but none have offenses who could take advantage of New England's weak secondary. You don't have to be the best team in the conference to get to the Super Bowl, you just have to beat the teams in your way, and the Patriots look more than capable of doing that. Philadelphia's pass defense isn't that bad, despite what people believe (the run defense, however, is another story), but Brady had these numbers: 10.4 NY/A, 3 TDs, 0 interceptions, 1 sack. </li>
<li>Is it Andy Reid's fault? For thinking that an offensive line coach can run a defense, yes. For not using the running game more, yes. For not building an offense that can score in short-yardage situations, yes. Is there a coach out there who could do more than he is? Well, take a look at some of the new coaches in the league. (Compared to Reid, that would be all of them, of course. That sounds crazy, but did you know that after him and Belichick, the next two coaches in terms of tenure are Marvin Lewis and Jack Del Rio, at least prior to this week? I know.) Can you be sure you'd get, say, a John Harbaugh and not a Todd Haley? No. Has Reid lost the players? Well, he's lost DeSean Jackson, but then sometimes you're going to get players who don't care about the team in the first place. It's better to get rid of the players than to get rid of the coach. Besides, the next coach is going to inherit a really young roster, because you can only keep expensive free agents together for a certain amount of time. Wait ... that's an argument to get rid of Reid. (Better to let the new coach get the kinds of players he wants than to try to build a team from what the last one left.)</li>
<li>By now, it should be obvious what Denver's going to do. They're going to run the ball, and run it some more, and some more, and then run the ball, and occasionally Tebow will chuck the ball 50 yards downfield. That's all they have. Detroit took that feeble offense, fed it into a wood chipper, and tossed the pieces into an incinerator. Everyone else has looked at it as if they'd never watched college football in the '70s. San Diego's defense, like others Tebow has faced, is bad, so it's kind of understandable that they weren't able to stop him. That doesn't mean Tebow had a good game, although he does deserve credit for one thing: turnovers, or rather the lack thereof. He just doesn't turn the ball over. He has a single interception, against Detroit. (Unfortunately, it was an end-zone interception that was returned for a touchdown.) He's fumbled just five times in six games. (One of those was returned for a touchdown by Detroit as well.) He's going to make you stop Denver on third down, and if you can't do that, they're going to take time off the clock and put up 3s and occasionally 7s on the board. Against weaker teams and the Jets, it's worked. It will not work against Chicago and New England.</li>
<li>San Diego is 13th in the AFC. Behind them are Jacksonville, who lost their starting QB and are relying on a rookie and a journeyman; Miami, who lost their starting QB and are relying on a journeyman; and Indianapolis, who lost their starting QB and are relying on an untested backup. Unlike the Florida teams, San Diego has their starting QB, and also unlike them, the Chargers' defense is terrible. Philip Rivers isn't having a bad year, just an OK year, but even Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers would be hard pressed to undo the damage San Diego has done defensively. 15.4% DVOA, 29th in the league. <a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2011/opp.htm">7.2 NY/A</a>, tied for 27th with New England. 30th according to <a href="http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/11/team-rankings-week-thirteen.html">Brian Burke</a>. 26th in points allowed. When Norv Turner is shown the door, that defense will be one of the reasons why. Turner never really made the most of the talent he had in San Diego, but that was all right as long as they were at least making the playoffs. That will not happen this season.</li>
<li>Man, Pittsburgh's offense sucks this season. Wait, it doesn't? What? That's the funny thing: it doesn't. It just looked terrible against Kansas City, which is really hard to understand given that teams like Buffalo and Detroit set the Chiefs' defense on fire. In fact, just like the Steelers struggled the entire game against Indianapolis, they struggled against Kansas City. If they continue to have difficulty against bad teams, then December will be a tough month for them: of course the 49ers game will be an exception, but they play Cleveland twice (well, once on January 1, but that's basically football December) and St. Louis once, and a loss in any of those games would probably put the division out of reach. Pittsburgh is two games clear of seventh-place Denver, so they've got quite a cushion right now, but there are only so many times you can win three straight road playoff games, and I don't think this team is good enough to do that. </li>
<li>Hey, New Orleans! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRhfEo0ufzg&feature=colike">Styx welcomes you to the Paradise Theater</a>! Ah, one of the few albums both my dad and I liked ... and not so different than the performances that Drew Brees is putting up this year. Saints fans might feel like they're at a concert, looking at the fireworks in the Superdome. 363 yards, 9.6 Y/A, 4 TDs, no picks. The Saints posted 577 yards in total offense against the Giants, the most they'd allowed since 1948 (in a 63-35 loss to the Chicago Cardinals; Chicago QBs were 15 of 20 for 280 yards and 5 TDs in that game, which probably equates to something off the charts these days). New Orleans is now just a game behind San Francisco for second place in the NFC, and with Pittsburgh on the 49ers' schedule, it's not impossible that New Orleans, who looked at one point like they might stumble in the South, could end up resting in January while the 49ers try to pick apart Detroit or Chicago or Atlanta. Sunday's game against the Lions will be big for both teams. </li>
<li>The Giants aren't out of the playoffs by any means. They're just a game behind Dallas with two games to play against the Cowboys, and just a game behind Chicago, Atlanta, and Detroit for a wild-card spot, with no head-to-head losses against any of those teams. On the other hand, during the most challenging stretch on their schedule, they've won just a single game, against New England, and sandwiched between losses to the #2 and #3 teams in the NFC is a loss to a struggling Philadelphia team that likely won't even break .500. The Cowboys are playing better, which gives New York four tough games of the five they have remaining. A loss to Green Bay would be entirely understandable, but losing the following week to Dallas would all but eliminate them in the East, and at 6-7, they'd probably only have a shot at the second wild-card spot, and even then only if two of the three teams above them falter. The Giants are learning something that the 2007 Lions could have told them: strength of schedule can make you look a lot better or a lot worse than you really are. That Lions team looked like playoff contenders the first half of the season; in the second half, they looked more like the 0-16 team they'd be in 2008. The Giants aren't nearly that bad, but they could finish 1-7 like Detroit did that year. </li>
</ul>
Believe it or not, the contenders are pulling away in both conferences. There are probably 8 teams in the mix in the NFC and 9 in the AFC, and in a couple of weeks, those numbers will probably shrink. Green Bay can start preparing for the divisional playoffs now, but no one else is close to locking up anything ... San Francisco has the division in hand, but could finish as the #2 or #3, depending on what the Saints do, and obviously it's in the best interest to avoid that #3 spot. The top seed in the AFC is starting T.J. Yates at QB. (At least for now.) Anyone who can tell you how the AFC is going to shake out is just silly. It seems likely that New England will be in their usual position, but who knows? Houston keeps winning even though three of their best players have missed or will miss significant time this season. <br />
<ul>
</ul>zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-5496293088787034592011-11-23T08:56:00.001-05:002011-11-23T09:13:09.514-05:00Lions season outlook, week 12Back to the early-season script: first-half mistakes, second-half domination. What's troubling is that this was one of the worst defenses in football, and Detroit gave them opportunities over and over again. (I didn't see the game, so I don't know how much was Carolina playing well defensively and how much was Detroit making silly mistakes.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 12: Green Bay, underdog<br />
Week 13: at New Orleans, slight underdog (moved up)<br />
Week 14: Minnesota, overwhelming favorite (moved up)<br />
Week 15: at Oakland, favorite<br />
Week 16: San Diego, heavy favorite<br />
Week 17: at Green Bay, heavy underdog<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
No significant changes, and that will probably be the case the rest of the way. Weeks 12 and 13 move to the other side of the line (41% and 87%, both a tick or two away from reverting.) Estimated wins are 10.3, down just a touch. Again, Weeks 14-16 will be the keys; a win over New Orleans would be huge, and of course an upset of Green Bay on Thanksgiving, well ...<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report is below:<br />
Mean wins: 10.3, up 0.5<br />
Playoffs: 67.0%, up 4.7 points<br />
Division title: 5.1%, up 1.4 points<br />
Top seed: 0.8%, up 0.2 points<br />
NFC title: 3.7%, up 0.9 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 1.6%, up 0.6 points<br />
<br />
The Lions benefit somewhat from the Giants' loss to Philadelphia. New York's remaining schedule will likely drop them out of playoff contention, which is better than having Dallas stick around in the wild-card race (even though Detroit has the head-to-head win, that only applies if they finish with the same record.<br />
<br />
The injury to Cutler may be significant, though. Let's take a look at the Playoff Odds with an estimate of the loss of Cutler (as well as Schaub and Cassel in the AFC):<br />
<br />
Mean wins: 10.3, same<br />
Playoffs: 69.8%, 2.8 points higher<br />
Division title: 4.9%, 0.2 points lower<br />
Top seed: 0.8%, same<br />
NFC title: 3.6%, 0.1 points lower<br />
Super Bowl win: 1.7%, 0.1 points higher<br />
<br />
The higher playoff chances are from Chicago's chances dropping a bit; the smaller shot at the division is because Chicago still has a game left against Green Bay, and that hypothetical scenario requires the Packers to lose at least one more game (assuming Detroit sweeps them; obviously at least a split would be required). The Super Bowl chances are probably due to the prospect of facing Houston without Schaub.<br />
<br />
So I got the offensive part right, but didn't count on the defense being put in untenable positions time and again against a solid offense. This time, it'll be much the same, except the defense will be better and the offense will be much better. It's a strange situation. On the one hand, no one expects the Lions to win. On the other hand, to be the best, eventually you have to beat the best. Detroit obviously isn't the best team in the league this season and probably isn't close, but a win Thursday would certainly be a big step back toward respectability. I just don't see it happening if Rodgers stays healthy. <b>Packers, 34-29.</b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 37-17, actual 49-35<br />
<br />
Current mood: expecting the worstzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-62287334482187995732011-11-21T20:35:00.001-05:002011-11-21T20:42:14.129-05:00boo wiper bladesI spent about 45 minutes changing my wiper blades today: 40 minutes determining exactly how much Honda's setup sucks and 5 minutes doing the job right once I found good instructions.<br />
<br />
I have a 2007 Civic Hybrid, which is awesome because a) it gets great mileage (so not sarcastic) and b) it falls right in between the '06 and '08, which means you can't just go to any old store and be sure to get the right blades, because that chassis isn't in the book (thus sarcasm).<br />
<br />
I finally gave up and went to AutoZone, and the guy there set me up with what I figured I'd need: two Rain-X blades, a 26" for the driver's side and a 22" for the passenger's side. (Expensive? Probably, but I change my blades about once every five years, and we get a lot of rain and snow here.)<br />
<br />
After wasting time on the Honda owner's manual (pull at the tabs? ha ha), I found <a href="http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2669531&highlight=wiper">this link</a> to a forum post that had pictures. It's for an Si sedan, but it works the same on the Civic Hybrid: use a screwdriver to pop the cap off and then remove the blades like you normally would. The caps don't go back on with third-party blades, but who cares? They seem to work fine, and with 2 inches of rain set for tomorrow, I just need a clean windshield.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-25083499104663957832011-11-21T08:09:00.001-05:002011-11-21T23:08:33.897-05:00NFL week 11: Now we know ... what, exactly?Posted with lightning speed to make up for last week. If the Patriots blow it, then yes, I have awesome reverse jinx powers, and yes, I am available for hire. <br />
<br />
So after all that, we know ... um ... well, Green Bay has a really good offense, San Francisco has a really weak schedule, and that's about it. (Actually, Green Bay's schedule has been <a href="http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings?type=playoffs&sort=conferenceRank&order=false">significantly weaker</a> than the 49ers'. Of course, with Detroit twice and the Giants, Bears, and Raiders once each, that'll change a bit.) Playoff contenders who can win a couple of games over the next 2-3 weeks may find themselves resting in Week 17 while the pack of teams below them scrabbles frantically for a postseason spot.<br />
<ul>
<li>The Jets aren't really that far out of the playoffs. They're ninth right now, trailing Denver and Tennessee on conference record, and just a game behind sixth-place Cincinnati. So that doesn't look bad. But the sweep by the Patriots means that the division is all but out of reach, and the loss to Denver not only throws them back into the pack, but gives them a direct competitor with a head-to-head win. With Buffalo, Washington, and Kansas City up next, Rex Ryan's team could certainly be 8-5 in three weeks, but then Buffalo was probably counting wins the same way until recently, Washington nearly beat Dallas, and Kansas City ... OK, that one's a New York win.</li>
<li>Mel Kiper had <a href="http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7250960/nfl-denver-broncos-making-mistake-tim-tebow">an interesting take</a> (subscription required) on the Tebowne. (Of course that's what it'll be called. Don't be silly.) Basically, his point is that it's all very well to run an offense that ignores the forward pass as much as possible, but like pretty much every other gimmick, the read-option offense John Fox is running will be picked apart by a league that tapes every single play to be examined in detail. Once that happens, what are they going to do? Tebow's accuracy, as mentioned here every week, is far below that of an average NFL quarterback, and that's in the Tebowne. What would it be in a conventional offense? Also, what happens if he gets hurt? Do you think Brady Quinn can run this offense? Ha ha. Ironically, Orton would be better suited to it, given his experience with the spread offense at Purdue and the pseudo-option they ran from time to time. It's only worked against the Raiders, who have a bad defense ... and within a week, the Chiefs, who also have a bad defense, shut it down pretty well. Denver's schedule isn't particularly strong, but Chicago and Minnesota will probably eat up the read option, and Buffalo and New England will test Denver's defense. If Tebow can't learn to throw accurate passes soon, Fox may regret moving away from the NFL-caliber QB currently on his bench in favor of the decision that says all you need to know about Josh McDaniels.</li>
<li>Cam Newton, on the other hand, deserves a good bit of credit. He is running an NFL offense, and he's doing a darn good job of it. Granted, in Steve Smith, Newton has what Tebow does not – an excellent receiver who will go and get it if he can reach it – but on the other hand, Tebow is not a rookie, he's a second-year player who's taken over a mediocre offense and helped to make it putrid. Newton is a rookie who's taken over a putrid offense and helped to make it pretty good. Think about it this way: if you could make a team from Carolina's offense and Jacksonville's defense, two of the more overlooked units in the league, it'd probably be a top-five team. The Panthers are <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff">8th in DVOA</a> on offense; the Jaguars are 3rd on defense. Instead, the worst defense in the NFC does things like give up 49 points and nearly 500 yards to what's nearly a bottom-quartile offense in Detroit. (Yeah, Newton's 4 interceptions contributed to those points, but not so much to the yards.) Ron Rivera did a good job rebuilding the offense; next year, the defense has to come first.</li>
<li>Third verse, same as the first: the Lions make silly mistakes and fall behind big, then come roaring back to win. The Dallas comeback looks better as the Cowboys improve, but the Minnesota game still looks bad, and this game even worse. Stafford made some bad decisions once again; fortunately, Carolina's defense is so bad that it was only a matter of time before things turned around. Don't read too much into his 335-yard, 5-TD performance. It may have built his confidence heading into Thursday's showdown with the Packers, but the problems that plagued Detroit against San Francisco and Atlanta are still there, and it's hard to imagine that a team this unsound can beat a team like Green Bay, even with the struggles the Packers have had on defense. Sure, Detroit has scored 42 or more three times already, something they haven't done since 1952, and they've come back from double-digit halftime deficits three times, something they've never done before ... but confidence and momentum don't make plays for you. The Lions can't fall behind Green Bay by 17 and expect to win. </li>
<li>Blaine Gabbert was surprisingly effective with the short passing game against Cleveland, converting 7 of 15 third-down opportunities, but the Jaguars crossed midfield exactly once in the first three quarters, and their last-minute drive stalled at the 1. Their defense again did all that could be expected of it, and again their offense did just enough to lose. Jacksonville has lost road games by 29, 6, 4, 10, and 4 this season. The blowout at the Jets would have been a loss no matter what (and that was the McCown Experience anyway), but this team could arguably be 6-4 and in the thick of the playoff race with even a mediocre offense. Whoever is Jacksonville's coach next year (the odds of Del Rio being retained are still slim, I think, particularly after he claimed not to know about the decision-making and playcalling on the final series from the 1) must look for a number of players on offense: help for the OL, depth at WR (if not a top WR), and a QB who can run an NFL offense. It's a shame that the defense is playing so well and the team is struggling so much.</li>
<li>ESPN's stat pages are so poorly written ... when you sort within a particular group, sometimes the data you get is not the same as the data you just saw. For example, when you look at kickers, they're sorted by field goals made to date, but if you sort by attempts, you get last week's data. Typical ESPN. Of course the NFL's site actually returns a Page Not Found error, which is even worse. The page was found, idiots. I was just on it. I had to go to Yahoo to get sortable stats. Anyway, the point is that Phil Dawson is just 4 of 6 from 20 to 29 yards, the only kicker in the NFL to miss two in that range. He's missed one from 40 to 49, and he's dead-on from 50-59 (6 of 6, leading the NFL in makes and tied in attempts with Janikowski, who's made 5, and Cundiff, who's made 1 – anyone want to ask John Harbaugh about those decisions?), and now he's only 2 of 3 from 30 to 39. Fortunately, it didn't cost the Browns, but if they hadn't stoned the Jaguars at the 1, that missed kick would have been more noticeable. Of course the blame would have been misplaced: when you put up just 14 points, the kicker is not your biggest problem. The Browns have kept most of their games close, so the problems aren't as apparent as they are on other teams (like Indianapolis), but Cleveland has yet to win a game by more than one score, and they've scored more than 17 points just once, against that Colts team in a 27-19 victory. Jacksonville and St. Louis have matched that; every other team, including the Colts, have scored more than 17 at least three times. (New Orleans and Green Bay have done so every game this year.)</li>
<li>The latest entrant in "Can you outscore Green Bay?", the Bucs, lost by only 9. They were the sixth opponent to score 20 or more points on the porous defense. (That's not a lot for an average NFL team, but it is a lot for an unbeaten team. Anyway, back to the Bucs.) Josh Freeman had a pretty good game, but did throw a pair of interceptions, and Tampa Bay would have loved to have those drives back. It's hard to blame the defense for getting shelled by the Packers, but then this is not your average Tampa Bay defense, either. I mean, St. Louis held the Packers to 24. Aqib Talib can't cover everyone at once. Gerald McCoy can't be your only threat on the defensive line. (Well, Adrian Clayborn is doing a nice job in his rookie season, but where's the rest of the pressure from the line?) Last year, people were praising Raheem Morris' young, talented team for getting into the playoff race and staying there until a late loss to Detroit pushed them out. This season, it almost seems like the Lions ended their hopes early: the Bucs are 11th and have losses to fellow wild-card contenders Detroit and Chicago. That effectively puts Tampa Bay four games back of both teams with six to play, and that's just not going to happen. The Bucs might run the table (unlikely, with games at Atlanta and Tennessee and home against Dallas), but even so, I doubt they'd pass four other teams and also get the Lions or Bears to lose at least four of six.</li>
<li>Detroit's defense may drop a bit as a result of their Carolina performance, but let's say that they're still a top-5 defense. Chicago is the only other team Green Bay has played who has anywhere near the Lions' quality at defense (and in fact, the two teams are comparable on defense, <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef">4th and 5th</a> prior to Week 11 games). The Packers' performance was its worst of the year, and it was still pretty good: 392 yards, 5 of 13 on third downs, 3 three-and-outs prior to garbage time, only one turnover. They forced only two turnovers and had a three-and-out after each one. All that, and they never trailed, led most of the game by at least two scores, and won by 10. The Bucs made too many mistakes to pose a challenge for Green Bay; the Lions have more potential, but then they just gave up 35 to Carolina. It's hard to see this team dropping a game until (unless) they rest their starters, but then last year's Chicago team had a better defense than this year's Packers do, and when Cutler went down, they ground to a halt. (And remember the Packers were shut out by Drew Stanton and the Lions when Rodgers suffered a concussion and missed most of the game.)</li>
<li>The Bills have gone from 5-2 and in good position in the East to 5-5 and lucky to be in the race for a wild-card spot, and even that's in doubt with the Jets and Tennessee up next, two teams tied with them at 5-5. The other losses were understandable, but this loss, I don't know. This looked like the old Bills, not the new Bills. I don't know that history plays much of a role in most games, but if you've just endured a difficult season, when you begin to struggle, it's got to be hard to avoid thinking "yep, just like last year." Buffalo is definitely a better team this year, but it's not hard to see them finishing 5-11. </li>
<li>I saw someone trying to praise Reggie Bush for scoring touchdowns. (It was on Yahoo somewhere. They do a good job of investigating stories, but have virtually no analytical content. Every story boils down to "Ooh, shiny!") Touchdowns are obviously important in terms of scoring, but they aren't so important that everything else you do should be ignored, especially as a running back, or in Bush's case, "running back". Sunday's stats: 15 carries, 32 yards, 1 touchdown. Four receptions on five targets, 34 yards. Which was better? Hint: not the running. Here are his runs: 3 on 1st and 10 (fail), 3 on 1st and 10 (fail), -2 on 1st and 10 (fail), 2 on 1st and 10 (fail), 2 on 1st and 10 (fail), 6 on 1st and 10 (success), 5 on 2nd and 4 for TD (success), 4 on 2nd and 17 (fail, not really his fault), 11 on 1st and 10 (success), 0 on 1st and 10 (fail), -4 and 2nd and 10 (fail), 0 on 1st and 10 (fail), 1 on 1st and 10 (fail), 0 on 2nd and 9 (fail), 1 on 2nd and 8 (fail). If we leave out the good-luck-on-that play, it's 3 of 14, which is not really good. Buffalo's defense is not that good, and still Bush struggled to get anything on most carries. (Those weren't just average failures. Needing 4 on first down, Bush got 2 yards or less 6 times in 10 carries.) Daniel Thomas is a running back. Reggie Bush is a wide receiver. (Side note: USC players are overrated. Draw your own conclusions about the Pac-12.)</li>
<li>The Raiders are not only leading the West, but are just a game out of first overall in the AFC ... and they have a tiebreaker edge over Houston thanks to a head-to-head win. Could Oakland actually get a first-round bye? With Chicago, Green Bay, and Detroit on the schedule, they'll have to earn it, but with Houston likely to struggle in Schaub's absence, and considering the obvious flaws in Baltimore (offense) and New England (defense), it's entirely possible. The Raiders put this one away early (24-7 at halftime, 27-7 after three) and then sat on the ball to win, although they probably should have thrown the ball more in the second half: Michael Bush had an uninspiring 3.6 YPC day (30/109). Then again, Palmer had just 164 yards on 17 of 23, so maybe they were only going to get short gains even if they did throw more often. Up next: the Bears without Jay Cutler. Time for Oakland's weak defense to teach Chicago fans that Caleb Hanie isn't the answer to anything.</li>
<li>Christian Ponder threw three interceptions, fumbled once, and was sacked five times, so it's not like he had a great game, and Oakland's defense isn't that good. (I think I just said that.) This is not going to be one of those games that people use as an example of the wisdom of the switch at QB. This game showed why Vikings fans might be watching the worst team in the NFC. St. Louis might be worse on both sides of the ball, I guess, so maybe second-worst, but there's no question that Carolina has something Minnesota doesn't: a functional offense. People are rightly bashing Denver for the Tebowne, but the Vikings deserve just as much criticism for building a run-heavy offense in a league where passing is the way to win. They're just now realizing that it won't be enough to find someone to throw short passes and hand off 30 times, especially not with a defense that has trouble stopping just about anyone. </li>
<li>Not Tony Romo's Fault. No turnovers, 23 of 37 for 292 and 3 TDs ... if the Cowboys had lost this game, it would not have been Romo's fault. Blame special teams for their struggle: a holding penalty after a 63-yard punt that backed the Cowboys into a hole they couldn't escape, a 23-yard punt out of that hole, a 32-yard punt return after the next drive that set up another Washington touchdown, another 55-yard punt return that resulted in no points ... even if Dallas manages to hang on to the East lead, they'd better be hoping that Detroit is the top wild-card team, because the next-best team is Chicago, and their special teams are great. Washington's, believe it or not, are bad. Devin Hester might get 300 return yards against these coverage units.</li>
<li>Rex Grossman was ... uh ... not bad. Dallas' defense is pretty good. The return of Good Rex, if that's what this is, is too late to get Washington back in the race in the East, but it might mean that Washington can look to fill spots other than QB in next year's draft. Prior to this game, that was looking almost like an obvious move for the Shanahans. Of course Voldemort could demand that they pick up the best available QB anyway, or trade a few picks to get one (Washington actually has an extra 3rd and an extra pick somewhere else, with a 6th or so going to New Orleans), but if someone keeps him out of the room, Washington might be able to build more strength on the lines. Their picks will be valuable, too: Washington's just 3-7 against the sixth-easiest schedule in the NFL so far, and they have the fourth-hardest schedule remaining, with games left against both New York teams and New England.</li>
<li>Cincinnati had a nice comeback against Baltimore, particularly given that A.J. Green was out, but they have to be kicking themselves for the turnovers that set up the need for a comeback. Dalton's last two picks, both in Cincinnati territory, set up short fields that gave the mediocre Baltimore offense easy opportunities to score. Baltimore's scoring drives were 4, 5, 8, 1, and 1 plays ... yeah, I know, "1 plays" doesn't look right, you know what I mean. The one real sustained drive ended in a field goal. If they'd made the Ravens work harder on offense, they might have had a chance to steal a road win, and then Pittsburgh would be leading the division and Cincinnati would be the top wild-card team. (Interesting that North teams currently hold both #1 seeds and all four wild-card spots.) Next week's game at home against Cleveland should be an easy win, and then they can prepare for the big game at Pittsburgh the following week.</li>
<li>Can you really win a championship with just defense? Baltimore's offense is bad and their special teams are worse, but somehow they manage to do just enough to win over and over again. Granted, there is enough time left in the season for pretty much any contender (other than Green Bay and San Francisco) to go down in flames, but when you consider that Baltimore's only loss to a fellow contender is to Tennessee, a team well down in the AFC standings, the Ravens are actually in a really good position. This Thursday's game against San Francisco is easily their hardest remaining game; if they win that, it's not a stretch to see them at 12-3 going into the season finale at Cincinnati, and that will definitely be #1-seed territory. (Only three other teams have just 3 losses, and one is Pittsburgh, the team Baltimore swept.) Certainly Flacco will have to be more careful with his passes if the Ravens are to make a playoff run, but they could well be making that run in Baltimore ... and possibly Indianapolis too.</li>
<li>Seattle did well to pick up a win on the road, but they're still not a good team. I have no idea how this team beat Baltimore and the Giants but lost to Cleveland. With Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco still on the schedule, they can have a reasonable impact on the NFC playoff race, but unlike last season, they'll be nowhere near it. </li>
<li>The Rams' "how'd they do that?" win was the New Orleans game, of course, the one that buried any chance of the Saints getting a break during the first round of the playoffs. Any thoughts of a happy second half that started after the Cleveland win ended after a 7-point outing against the Seahawks. If St. Louis doesn't beat Arizona at home Sunday, they'll be 2-14 and wishing that the Colts had signed a QB in the offseason. (At worst, the Rams would pick fourth, and that's still not a bad position to be in.)</li>
<li>Yeah, Skelton had a bad game, but San Francisco's defense is strong (it's their offense that's weak). Putting in Bartel to figure out what he can do was probably a good idea, but let's not be throwing Skelton away just because he had the worst game of his short career against a team much better than the Cardinals. It's hard to believe that this team is just three years removed from that fourth-quarter rally that nearly became only their second league title in 87 years. (Yeah, the franchise goes back that far: they were actually around in the APFA days as well.) Just as Detroit has risen from 0-16 to 7-3 and a possible playoff run, Arizona has fallen from that 9-7 team that, like the Colts two years before, improbably hosted the conference championship game and won to make it to the Super Bowl (but unlike the Colts, couldn't take home the trophy). This team looks like it's years away from contending again.</li>
<li>San Francisco's remaining regular-season tests will come from the AFC, starting with the Ravens, in Baltimore, on a short week. They have that game and a Monday night game against Pittsburgh to help them figure out what needs to be tweaked for the playoffs (hint: passing), and then four practice games against divisional opponents before they get a first-round bye, and trust me, nothing is going to stop them from getting that bye. The rest of the division is so bad that they could rest Alex Smith and Frank Gore and still finish as the #2 seed. (Remember that New Orleans has three conference losses. Even if the 49ers fall to both Baltimore and Pittsburgh, they'd still be 11-1 in conference play.)</li>
<li>Jake Locker, welcome to the NFL. Remember that if Chris Johnson is in the game, you have no running game. (12 carries, 13 yards. Locker nearly beat that on a single carry.) Three of Tennessee's five losses have been by seven points or fewer; a running game wouldn't necessarily have helped in any of those games, but it sure couldn't have hurt. Just like Tebow is the poster child for QB W-L record as the dumbest statistic in football, Johnson is the poster child for not giving a RB a blockbuster contract. There is too much available talent (Exhibit A: Kevin Smith, who was, granted, an RFA) to justify putting so much of your cap into that position.</li>
<li>Matt Ryan did have a pretty good game against the Titans, although the last three drives prior to putting the game away were 12 plays, field goal; 6 plays, punt; and 9 plays, fumble. Atlanta converted only 4 of 12 on third down, putting Tennessee in position to make a late run. Fortunately, the Falcons ran out the clock on their last drive, but you get the feeling that they just don't have the skill on offense necessary to win playoff games. With Julio Jones out, this looks just like the team that needed to draft him in the first place, the team that is supposed to have decent talent (White, Gonzalez, Ryan, Turner) but doesn't seem to get enough out of it. Sure, they beat the Lions, but Chicago and Green Bay dispatched them easily, and you already know about the New Orleans game. I don't think Ryan has lived up to his ridiculous nickname ... he looks pretty much like any other young QB, not quite sure of what he's doing, just talented enough that he can make you look good, not quite talented enough to avoid critical mistakes in big situations. </li>
<li>Oh, Philip Rivers ... here's a gift-wrapped chance to get back into the game, and you throw an end-zone interception. San Diego's special teams gave Chicago possession three times in four drives in Charger territory, and all four of those drives resulted in touchdowns, but San Diego was still within reach prior to that mistake. Rivers' final interception on the next drive (on his next pass!) sealed the game. Rivers' 4.4% interception percentage is third-worst in the league, better only than Kyle Orton and The Rex Grossman Experience. His <a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2011/passing.htm">5.9 ANY/A</a> is solidly middle-of-the-pack. He's been sacked 25 times, fourth-worst in the league, but that's a function of passing attempts: the three guys who are worse, Roethlisberger, Bradford and Tarvaris Jackson, all have significantly fewer attempts. The running game isn't the problem in San Diego, but the passing game has been, and a lot of that is on Rivers' shoulders, I think.</li>
<li>The injury to Jay Cutler isn't going to be as big of a deal as you think during the season, but it's probably going to prevent the Bears from making a Super Bowl run this season, just as it did last season. The Bears just use their offense as an occasional way to finish off drives: the heart of the team is the defense and special teams, and Sunday, that was true yet again. The defense didn't sack Rivers and only hit him once, but did get two big interceptions to stop fourth-quarter drives, and you probably read about the big returns. The one thing about this streak, though, is that it's come mostly against weaker teams. Detroit's the best team of the group, and their qualifications are sketchy. Tampa Bay, Minnesota, and San Diego aren't that good, and the Bears stomped only one of those three teams. They have only two games left against decent opponents, so that should be enough for Chicago to make the playoffs as long as the return teams continue to work magic. If Hanie or his backup have to move the offense 70-80 yards, though, the Bears could have problems.</li>
<li>DeSean Jackson just doesn't get it. Yeah, the rule about 15-yard penalties canceling out is silly (especially when there are opposing personal fouls and nothing happens), but it is what it is. You make a big play and your first reaction is not just to flip the ball at Giants on the sideline (and it's hard to imagine he didn't know exactly who the target was), but to continue to mock them after you make your way back onto the field ... dumb. Just dumb. Distractions? The Eagles haz them already. They should give Jackson the boot: sit him for the rest of the year. He just got back from a one-game suspension for basically putting himself above the team (go all in: either sit everything out or participate in everything, otherwise it looks like you're being lazy to get out of meetings, which he probably was), and this is his reaction? Let the NFLPA protest. They like lost causes. Deactivate him and leave him at home. Keep him away from the guys who are working hard to get Philadelphia back in the playoff race.</li>
<li>The Giants need to be really careful. A win would have put them virtually even with New Orleans, with Monday night's game giving the winner a one-game-plus lead for the #3 seed in the NFC. The home loss dropped them to 8th in the conference; there's a cliff between them and the 4-6 teams, but those include Seattle and Philadelphia, two teams who've beaten the Giants, and a loss to New Orleans would put New York too close to the edge. (At least the Giants split with the Eagles. They'd lose a tiebreaker to Seattle because of the head-to-head loss.) With Green Bay after the Saints game, it's not unreasonable to see the Giants at 6-6 and falling quickly out of the playoff picture ... and their next game after that is a Sunday night game at Dallas, who has Miami and Arizona next and might well be 8-4. </li>
<li>Nobody really thought the Chiefs had a chance at New England, did they? OK, let's move on.</li>
<li>New England is now in a virtual tie with Houston for first in the conference, with Baltimore just behind them due to playing one fewer conference game. The Patriots play neither team, which means, well ... if the Eagles don't stop the one-dimensional Patriots this week, expect to see boring old Bill Belichick at 13-3 and sitting at home during the wild-card round, waiting patiently for the next victim in Foxborough. I'll read their schedule to you, and you stop me if you hear a game they might lose. Indianapolis (hahahahaha), at Washington, at Denver, Miami, Buffalo. Right. Me either. This team shouldn't be that good, not with the defensive problems they've had, but remember the 2006 Colts? Their offense was great, their defense was not ... and then in the playoffs, the defense turned in three great games, and the offense made up the difference the one time the defense couldn't get it done. You don't have to dominate the regular season (as the defending champion Packers will tell you), you just have to win in the playoffs. </li>
</ul>
Playoff teams are starting to separate in the NFC: good news for the Lions and Bears, because a Giants collapse might mean that Atlanta is the only remaining team that might pose a threat. (Good for the Bears, who have a win over Atlanta; bad for Detroit, who lost to them.) In the AFC, it's still a big mess from top to middle. The only thing we know is that Indianapolis is still the worst team in the league. Hey, the second-worst team in the conference is on a three-game winning streak, and the third-worst team has one of the best defenses in football. In the NFC? Well ... how about that Newton kid? <br />
<ul>
</ul>zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-80422304648367648952011-11-20T14:03:00.001-05:002011-11-20T14:58:53.531-05:00NFL week 10: better late than neverSo Thursday games began last week, so it's a good thing I'm watching stuff closely, because last week was busy, and as a result it's Sunday and I haven't written anything yet. Here goes a quick look around the league:<br />
<ul>
<li>If Oakland wins the AFC West, the trade for Palmer may turn out to have been a decent one. Certainly Indianapolis could have used him, but then that's what they thought about Collins, and you can see where that went. San Diego's defense seems to be a really big problem, so I don't know that Palmer deserves a ton of credit, but he was accurate and put up a lot of yards, and Rivers was not quite so accurate. (Palmer: 299 on 20 attempts, 14 completions. Rivers: 274 on 47 attempts, 23 completions.) Big win for Oakland, big loss for San Diego.</li>
<li>Detroit and Chicago are tied at 6-3, which is appropriate, because in many ways, they're similar: offenses that are potent when things go well but puzzlingly weak when they don't, defenses that can shut down just about any team in the league. The main difference is on special teams, where the Lions are very bad and the Bears are very good, and that showed up Sunday. The two interception TDs reflect Stafford's decision-making process, I think. The knock on him coming out of college was his accuracy, and he's struggled with that, but I think it's also a lack of quality OL. He's learned to get rid of the ball rather than take big hits, but he still thinks he can fire a ball into any coverage, and he can't. Chicago took advantage of that and pulled even with Detroit in the division, which also means in the wild-card race. With division tiebreakers coming first, Chicago couldn't afford to drop two back plus a sweep at Detroit's hands; now each team has to take care of business.</li>
<li>New Orleans looks pretty safe in the South with their win over Atlanta. I think Mike Smith probably made the right call, but he should be consistent: there was another fourth-and-one in Atlanta territory where he didn't go for it. Also, in the games I've seen, Atlanta has run the ball up the middle even when they weren't having success doing so (44% of their carries, which is actually less than the NFL average of 50%, so maybe I'm not reading this correctly), and I think this makes their chances of converting worse than those of the average team. Calls like that keep Atlanta a mediocre team instead of the playoff contender they seem to think they are. </li>
<li>Pittsburgh had a big win at Cincinnati. That's the kind of game you have to win if you're really a contender, and just as Detroit learned against San Francisco and Atlanta, Cincinnati's learning that you can't just put a few wins together and call yourselves a good team. They're <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff">16th in DVOA</a>, which is generally on the outside of the playoffs, but with the AFC carefully beating each other up, they might yet sneak in if they can surprise Baltimore this weekend.</li>
<li>St. Louis pulls out another big win – don't laugh. When you're struggling, every road win is a big win. No one's talking about Sam Bradford being the next great-QB-name-goes-here, though: his <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff">4.7 ANY/A </a>is on a par with guys like Curtis Painter and Kyle Orton. (Before you make a Purdue joke, Drew Brees is at 7.2.) To be fair, it's not all Bradford. St. Louis is just a bad team, through and through. I suppose Spagnuolo has to take some of the blame for not building a better team at this point. Cleveland isn't much better; although McCoy was pretty accurate, he didn't move the ball very well, and the Browns struggled in the red zone again. You have to wonder if Holmgren is going to build anything meaningful in Cleveland: Browns fans have suffered through change after change and really have nothing to show for it. Why should the next guy bring anything different?</li>
<li>The Bills aren't out of the playoff race, and the Cowboys aren't securely in it, but you could forgive their fans for thinking that way. Remember back when we were talking about Detroit, Tennessee, and Buffalo as playoff teams? They don't either. A road loss is understandable, but falling behind 28-7 at halftime isn't. The Bills looked completely out of it last week, and the AFC race is crowded enough that they can't afford to lose many more of these. It's one thing to be a couple of games out with 3-4 weeks to go, but it's another to have to pass 5 teams in those 3-4 weeks. Buffalo's not in that position yet, but time's running out, and Dallas isn't much better off.</li>
<li>The Colts lost their easiest remaining game, and Painter looked terrible in the process. The move to put Collins on IR looks worse and worse as the season goes on, unless his post-concussion symptoms are still present. (I never saw anything to that effect, but I could have missed it.) Neither of these coaches might be around next year, but that isn't going to fix the personnel issues they both have. It says something about the Colts' defense that Blaine Gabbert was 14 for 21 against them. </li>
<li>The Broncos are finally using Tebow for what he is: a running back who had experience at QB at a lower level. If they only had a guy on the roster who'd played QB and could hit receivers and such ... if only ... I think it's funny that the same organization that essentially dropped Orton for throwing interceptions will keep Tebow even though he can barely even complete a pass. They'll learn, I guess. Kansas City, on the other hand ... ugly loss at home. If this keeps up, Haley won't make it until the end of the season. Without Cassel, the Chiefs' offense will be even worse than it is now, and you can't really blame all that on the absence of Jamaal Charles. </li>
<li>Miami's sudden resurgence is interesting, but then you look at the teams they beat (Kansas City and Washington) and it's not that surprising. Schedule strength means a lot, you know. Maybe Moore really is becoming an adequate replacement QB, something Washington would love to have. Grossman is terrible, as everyone except for the Shanahans seems to have known coming into the season. If Beck isn't any better, who else can they play? </li>
<li>The Cardinals pretty much ended Philadelphia's playoff hopes. With or without Vick, this team isn't playing well enough to earn a postseason spot. Maybe they should send DRC back to Arizona? He might actually have a better shot with the Cardinals than with the Eagles. Arizona's defense did a good job shutting down Vick and Philadelphia, and yet another disappointing loss means that the (ha ha) Dream Team is now 12th in the NFC, three games behind the two playoff teams (Detroit and Chicago) without considering tiebreakers. They're really in the same boat as Arizona: using the rest of the season to figure who stays and who needs to go.</li>
<li>Big win for Houston, blowing out a decent Bucs team at Tampa Bay. Without Schaub, it'll be interesting to see if the Texans can hold onto a first-round bye, but they may have built a big enough cushion to maintain that spot, and they do have a light enough schedule that they should get at least 10 wins in any event. Tampa Bay isn't that far out of a playoff run, but they really haven't shown that they have that level of talent this season. Josh Freeman is showing his lack of experience ... maybe next year will be the year Tampa Bay contends in the South.</li>
<li>Tennessee picks up a needed win in Carolina. Keeping Cam Newton in a check is a good sign for the defense; the offense looked good, but then the Panthers' defense is terrible, so that's more of an expectation than an accomplishment. Chris Johnson looked less like an anchor this game than he has most of the year, and Matt Hasselbeck still looks like a reasonable QB. (Perhaps a little too soon for Seattle to have given up on him?) Carolina's two wins make the season a slight improvement. It sounds callous to say it, but the losses really aren't that important. This season is more about finding young talent and building toward next season. Like most terrible teams, Carolina can't fix it all in one year.</li>
<li>Baltimore is going to regret this loss. Seattle is a tough place to play, but that's no excuse: their offense is bad, and their defense isn't good enough to make the Ravens struggle like they did. You have to question the playcalling, of course: only 12 carries when Ray Rice is getting 5+ yards a carry? Pete Carroll will pull out the occasional win like this, but it doesn't change my opinion of him: he's in over his head, and his tenure will last until Seahawks fans get tired of 4- to 7-win seasons with occasional upsets.</li>
<li>The 49ers win another big game against a playoff contender, and this one basically wraps up the #2 seed in the NFC for them. There are still seven games to go, but with a two-game lead on the Giants plus the head-to-head tiebreaker, San Francisco should finish right behind the Packers and wait to host New Orleans in the divisional playoffs. (Of course the Saints might not win their wild-card game, but then the #6 team is probably not going to be a strong one this year. Can you see Chicago or Detroit winning in New Orleans?)</li>
<li>Someday we'll look back and laugh at all the people who thought Mark Sanchez was a quality NFL quarterback. Of course we expect head coaches to be optimistic about their teams (do you want your coach to say that he doesn't think you'll make the playoffs?), but Rex Ryan has to figure out eventually that the Jets are simply not that good. They've got a solid defense, which is a requirement for pretty much any Super Bowl contender, but they're wasting time letting a mediocre QB run their offense. The Patriots have a bad defense this year, yet Sanchez made them look pretty good. </li>
<li>Green Bay crushed Minnesota at home. Well, duh.</li>
</ul>
The Packers and 49ers pull away from the pack in the NFC, while Chicago pulls even with Detroit and Dallas and Atlanta lurk behind them. Pittsburgh is suddenly looking for the #1 seed again as everyone waits for the Texans to collapse, and the playoff pack goes all the way down to the group of four teams at 5-4, all waiting for someone above them to slip up.zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-91829446347154170282011-11-20T12:29:00.001-05:002011-11-23T08:56:57.730-05:00Lions season outlook, week 11While the score may have been surprising, keep in mind that 21 points came from the defense and special teams. The Bears' offense played about as well as you'd expect; credit goes to the Chicago defense, but those touchdowns aren't predictors of future performance. Massey's estimate of "slight underdog" was probably applicable here.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 11: Carolina, overwhelming favorite<br />
Week 12: Green Bay, underdog (moved down)<br />
Week 13: at New Orleans, underdog (moved down)<br />
Week 14: Minnesota, heavy favorite (moved down)<br />
Week 15: at Oakland, favorite (moved down)<br />
Week 16: San Diego, heavy favorite<br />
Week 17: at Green Bay, heavy underdog<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
Essentially the opposite of last week, with the Green Bay game moving as well. Estimated wins are 10.4, so a little less than a full game down from last week. Still a decent shot at playoffs, but the Lions have used up their free games: they'll have to win the games in which they're favored to have a decent shot.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report is below:<br />
Mean wins: 9.8, down 0.7<br />
Playoffs: 62.3%, down 17.2 points<br />
Division title: 3.7%, down 9.2 points<br />
Top seed: 0.6%, down 2.9 points<br />
NFC title: 2.8%, down 4.0 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 1.0%, down 2.4 points<br />
<br />
The loss to Chicago essentially removes any remaining chance of winning the division and getting the top seed; the NFC and Super Bowl odds drop as Detroit shows an inability to beat contenders on the road. Playoffs are still in the picture, but as with Massey's projections, the Lions need to hold serve at home and also win at Oakland.<br />
<br />
As mentioned last week, this wasn't a killer, but it sure didn't help. Chicago needed the game more than Detroit did (falling back two games behind the Lions with Detroit holding a sweep would have put Chicago against the NFC East and South teams for the remaining wild-card spot). Carolina is a different story: they still have a long way to go to be decent, and the defense shows it. Detroit tends to play well against bad defenses, and I think that will be the case today. <b>Lions, 37-17.</b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 13-23, actual 13-37<br />
<br />
Current mood: fingers crossedzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-29552262997591018632011-11-09T14:13:00.003-05:002011-11-09T14:13:51.507-05:00Lions season outlook, week 10Obviously no changes on the Lions' side ... it was disappointing to see Chicago beat Philadelphia because it puts the Bears even with Detroit if they win this week, but it does keep another team farther from playoff contention, and the Lions don't have to pass every team.<br />
<br />
Changes below come from opponents' results: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 10: at Chicago, slight underdog<br />
Week 11: Carolina, overwhelming favorite<br />
Week 12: Green Bay, slight underdog<br />
Week 13: at New Orleans, slight underdog<br />
Week 14: Minnesota, overwhelming favorite (moved up)<br />
Week 15: at Oakland, heavy favorite (moved up)<br />
Week 16: San Diego, heavy favorite<br />
Week 17: at Green Bay, heavy underdog<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
Not much to note. The Green Bay home game is about to flip to underdog status, and the Minnesota game is just barely overwhelming. The Lions are still heavy favorites or better in four of their remaining eight games, which suggests at least a 10-6 record, and in fact estimated wins are up again to 10.94. (Remember that the Lions have three games as underdogs where the likelihood of them winning is 40% or better.)<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report is below:<br />
Mean wins: 10.5, unchanged <br />
Playoffs: 79.6%, down 4.1 points<br />
Division title: 12.9%, down 7.1 points<br />
Top seed: 3.5%, down 1.4 points<br />
NFC title: 6.8%, down 1.7 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 3.4%, down 1.0 points<br />
<br />
The Chicago win establishes the Bears as a serious contender for a playoff spot (up 22.6 points to 62.2%, third among wild-card teams behind Detroit and Atlanta). Green Bay continues to recede in the distance: while their defense still looks flawed, their offense still looks good enough to overcome those mistakes. <br />
<br />
The meat of the schedule begins Sunday. A win in Chicago would be a huge boost to Detroit's playoff hopes; a loss isn't a killer, but it does create problems, given that the loss to Atlanta gives the Falcons a head-to-head edge. The Bears are vulnerable, just as the 49ers and Falcons were. Playoff teams win at least some of these games. Make it happen.<br />
<br />
Do I think it will? No. The Lions had several chances to win the San Francisco game at home and did not, and Dallas doesn't yet look like a contender. Until Detroit can beat a contender on the road, I'm not sure they can get it done. <b>Bears, 23-13</b>.<br />
<br />
Last week: no game<br />
<br />
Current mood: pessimisticzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-28497957422229980232011-11-09T14:13:00.002-05:002011-11-09T14:13:41.154-05:00NFL week 9: road teams ruleThe top of the AFC draws more closely together as the bottom begins to separate. Green Bay shows yet again how vulnerable they are, but hold on to win, as 9 of 14 games go to road teams, the most since some week I don't know about. (I'd check on p-f-r but I can't get through right now.)<br />
<ul>
<li>Big win for the Jets, and some credit is due to Mr. Sanchez. He had two turnovers, but completed nearly 75% of his passes and converted 6 of 11 on third downs. As usual, the defense had a lot to do with the victory, but they didn't carry Sanchez the entire way this week. (Bad news: a red zone interception on their first drive. Good news: TD drives of 79 and 84 yards to put the game away.)</li>
<li>This was Buffalo's chance to put some distance between themselves and the Jets and Patriots, but instead of being a game up on New England and two on New York, they're in a three-way tie, and with a game coming up in New York, they could find themselves fighting for a wild-card spot if they can't return the favor after Thanksgiving. On the other hand, even though the Bills have struggled against good defenses, six of their eight remaining games are against weaker defenses (Miami twice, New England, Denver, Tennessee, and San Diego), so they may slip into the playoffs without having to work out those issues. Success, on the other hand ... well, even the wild-card round might work out if they can get the top spot, because it will almost certainly be the AFC West champ, but the divisional playoff would be against an AFC North or AFC East team, most likely with solid defense.</li>
<li>So yeah, Seattle's not returning to the playoffs. Tarvaris Jackson: 17 of 30, 0 TDs, 3 interceptions. Marshawn Lynch had a pretty good game, but you can't win on running alone unless you have an exceptional defense, and Seattle's defense is far from exceptional. (Their run defense is actually pretty good, but this isn't the right year for that to matter.) Jackson, surprisingly, is playing much better than Charlie Whitehurst did, but QB is still a position of need for Seattle. All those of you desperately hoping that Seattle chooses Matt Barkley so that he and Carroll can go down in flames together, raise your hands ... </li>
<li>Tony Romo didn't exactly tear up the Seahawks' secondary, but he did throw for 279 yards and two scores with no interceptions and no fumbles. The Cowboys converted nearly 50% of their third-down tries (6 of 14), so even though they struggled once again to get to the end zone, they did keep Seattle's offense off the field to a reasonable extent: time of possession was split. This doesn't sound too bad, but keep in mind that Seattle's defense is not that good. Dallas should have destroyed Seattle, especially at home. This is simply not a playoff-caliber team. </li>
<li>Speaking of playoffs, the Falcons climbed back into the NFC race with their shredding of the Colts. Matt Ryan is still having issues (14 of 24, including an interception at the 6 that was returned for the Colts' only score), but as long as Atlanta can beat bottom-feeders, they can hang in the wild-card race. This week's game against New Orleans will give them a shot at the division: lose, and they're probably out of it. Win, and suddenly they're even with the Saints. </li>
<li>No surprises Sunday in Indy: although the Colts did do a pretty good job most of the time, the two plays on which Julio Jones got loose turned the game from a long shot into an impossibility. Atlanta's defense is strong, so it was unlikely that Painter would get too much done, and indeed he didn't. Time to look ahead to Jacksonville and Carolina: if there is a chance to avoid joining the 2008 Lions, those games would be it. </li>
<li>I can't explain Miami's win at Kansas City. Moore was 17 of 23 with 3 touchdowns and no interceptions, but the Dolphins converted just 3 of 10 on third down. Miami only ran 47 plays ... they did gain a lot on those plays, but they didn't force turnovers, and they didn't have long punt returns, so I guess they just made the most of the chances they had. They did stop the Chiefs four times on downs, including twice on the Miami 3, and did hold them to three three-and-outs deep in Kansas City territory, so maybe that was a contributing factor. At any rate, it was a huge win for Miami: they avoid 0-for-2011 and maybe give Sparano a few more weeks as head coach. (On the other hand, it may have also made Reggie Bush look more like an actual RB, and that could be a burden for the next coach to bear.)</li>
<li>Any questions about Kansas City being a viable playoff contender? No? All right, let's move on. Exactly <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/6kAUQ">two teams since 1940</a> have split their first 8 games while being outscored by 70 points or more (no team won more than 4 games in that scenario): the 1989 Steelers and the 1965 Giants. The Steelers, the team that got blown out 51-0 by Cleveland in Week 1 and 27-0 by Houston (the Oilers) in Week 7, actually made the playoffs, slipped past Houston in overtime, and fell to Denver in the divisional playoffs. The Giants finished four games back of Cleveland in the NFL East and and were nowhere near the playoffs. I think this Chiefs team is closer to the Giants than the Steelers. </li>
<li>Tampa Bay finished their split with New Orleans, to no one's surprise. They now have four losses, all against possible playoff teams, including losses to two possible wild-card competitors (Detroit and Chicago). Sitting tied for 8th at the halfway point, the Bucs can't afford to lose many more games: not only do they have to win games just to get in position, but they also have to pass at least 3 teams (depending on the tiebreaker with Dallas) to get where they need to be.</li>
<li>The Saints' defense did a good job sealing the win for New Orleans, keeping them in the drivers' seat in the South. That's kind of important, because with San Francisco and Green Bay at 7-1 and 8-0 respectively, New Orleans is looking at a #3 seed at best: should they drop out of the lead, they could well find themselves behind Detroit and Chicago or Philadelphia or Atlanta, depending on who seizes control of the other wild-card spot. As with most NFC teams, the weakness here is the defense, not the offense, so it's important for them to stand up against possible playoff teams.</li>
<li>Another game, another adequate offensive performance, another easy win for San Francisco, giving up just a 59-yard field goal at the end of the first half and a last-minute touchdown in the second half. There's no real need for Harbaugh to change anything, not with a five-game lead in the West, and with five games left against that division, even if they lose the other games (Giants, Ravens, Steelers), that's still 12-4, which should be no worse than a #3 seed and will more likely be a #2 seed; a win over the Giants would practically lock that away. They're still the NFC version of the Jets – Smith isn't going to win them many games and would likely lose a playoff game for them – but they don't have much choice right now. I wouldn't be surprised to see Harbaugh pick up a QB in the 2012 draft, though.</li>
<li>Turn out the lights, the party in Washington is over. Washington's now 3-5, three games back of the Giants and falling, and with no offense in sight, it's hard to imagine this team anywhere near the playoffs. They'll finish below .500, Shanahan will be fired, Voldemort will trick someone else into coaching the team, and the process will repeat itself. The franchise has won two playoff games in 12 seasons with Voldemort as owner (sadly, one of the two wins was over Detroit in Snyder's first year, 1999) ... actually, let me continue that parenthetical thought. In 1999, they beat Detroit but lost to Tampa Bay. In 2005, they beat Tampa Bay but lost to Seattle. (You may remember that Seattle team from the Super Bowl with questionable officiating.) In 2007, Seattle messed up the pattern and beat them again. It would be nice to say that Snyder ruined the franchise, but actually they'd missed the playoffs six straight years prior to his purchase. (Yes, the Lions were playoff regulars and Washington was not. Yes, this is the same universe.) He has, however, prevented them from getting any kind of continuity. It's interesting to think that someone close to my age knows so much less about football despite having so much more of a chance to affect a team. It's also interesting to see how many businessmen are more than willing to hire people to run their other businesses, especially in industries where they don't have knowledge, and yet they insist on being hands-on owners in an industry where they have almost no knowledge. Keep it up, Voldemort!</li>
<li>More of the same from Cleveland. The defense does what they can, but they get no help from the offense. Next year, the transition to the new offensive scheme should be complete, but there's no telling who'll still be around. Randy Lerner is another 40ish owner who's done nothing to distinguish himself among his peers: one playoff season (2002, his first as owner), one 10-win season that did not result in playoffs, and nothing else. (Well, he did do something: he reinforced the idea that the Belichick coaching tree is virtually worthless.) Cleveland fans wanted an expansion franchise to replace the Browns; more and more, it looks like they got an expansion franchise. They won't finish at the bottom of the AFC thanks to the Colts, but they won't be any closer to contending than they were last year, or the year before ...</li>
<li>The Texans are pulling away from the rest of the South, much as they've seen Indianapolis do season after season. With the Titans' surprising loss, suddenly a division title looks almost like a guarantee, especially with Andre Johnson due to return soon (if not against Tampa Bay, then perhaps after their Week 11 bye). Wade Phillips has once again picked a good horse to hitch himself to: Houston's <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef">fifth-ranked pass defense</a> has played a significant role in the Texans' franchise-best start, but as at his other stops, there's little to connect to Phillips other than timing. Gary Kubiak doesn't likely care much, as long as they can continue to play at that level. Houston is one of the few teams that seems to have talent on both offense and defense, even with Mario Williams out for the year. That might give them an advantage over unbalanced teams like New England and the Jets.</li>
<li>Meh offense, solid defense ... the Bengals keep winning. I still think Mike Brown's locked in a closet somewhere and has no idea that his team is tied for the best record in the AFC. Just think, if they hadn't lost to Denver ... anyway, even though Cam Newton is getting all that attention in Carolina, Andy Dalton's done, well, hmm. He's barely above replacement level and significantly worse than Carson Palmer was last season, so what is it, exactly? Ah, it's the schedule. Cincinnati had the second-hardest schedule in the league last season, but has played the 25th-hardest schedule to date. It won't get much harder after this, so expect the Bengals to be in the North hunt (and the wild-card race) until the end.</li>
<li>The Titans are in very much the same situation as Tampa Bay in the NFC: 1.5 games out of first, tied for 8th in the conference, far enough back that they can't afford too many losses. When the two teams play after Thanksgiving, it'll likely be the end for one team's hopes, if indeed either team is still in the hunt. Finishing their home stand 1-2 likely means it's the Bucs who'll be the playoff contender: with games remaining at Atlanta, Buffalo, and Houston, Tennessee would almost need to win the rest just to have a shot at the playoffs, and that means beating both Tampa Bay and New Orleans in Nashville. 9-7 probably wouldn't be good enough anyway, but you've got to start somewhere, and in this case, "somewhere" is Charlotte. Lose to the Panthers, and the Titans can start planning for 2012.</li>
<li>TEBOWTEBOWTEBOW report: 10 for 21, 124 yards, 2 touchdowns. No turnovers, though, so he got that part right. His career-high single-game completion percentage is 55.6%, last season against Houston's awful pass defense. This year, he's <b>up</b> to 46.4% after the Oakland game. When he gets enough attempts to be eligible, he'll be next-to-last in the NFL, ahead of only Blaine Gabbert. Curtis Painter, on a significantly worse team, has completed 53.3% of his passes. Kyle Orton, the guy "responsible" for all of Denver's losses to date, completed 58.7% of his passes. The Broncos are winning despite TEBOW; don't let the media tell you otherwise. (When Orton leaves next season and Denver has no QBs at all, McDaniels' destruction of the franchise will have been complete.)</li>
<li>Oakland's special teams did them no favors Sunday. An 85-yard punt return for a touchdown, a 41-yard kickoff return to set up another short field (actually, that drive ended with a missed field goal) ... that plus three interceptions by Carson Palmer cost the Raiders a chance to take the lead in the West and bury Denver for good. Palmer will have the chance to post another 300-yard passing game at San Diego this week, and he'll need it: even in a weak division, you get only so many chances, and I think this may turn out to be one the Raiders couldn't afford to blow. I will say that Oakland seems to have chosen well with respect to replacement QBs ... makes you wonder what would have happened if the Colts had traded a couple of picks to pry Palmer out of Cincinnati instead of picking up Collins. (It's fair to say that Palmer wouldn't have left for a situation where he might not be the dominant QB, but then Campbell isn't out for the season and was playing well in Oakland, so there's no telling what'll happen in late December, not to mention next year.) </li>
<li>The Giants could have gone into Foxborough and lost, and no one would have been that surprised. They'd still be in first place in the East, they'd still have a good shot at the division, and we wouldn't have thought twice about it. Instead, they come away with a win, and not just a win, but a win on a last-minute drive. True, New England's defense is nothing like what it once was, but that doesn't mean that a drive on the road in those situations is easy, and Manning deserves credit for making it happen. The OL kept him clean (the Patriots recorded no sacks), and although Eli completed just over half of his passes, he was 4 of 5 on the first touchdown drive (plus a defensive PI call) and 3 of 6 on the second drive (plus another defensive PI). Just enough to get the job done. This was a huge start to New York's grueling second-half stretch (technically this was the last game of the first half for them, but you know what I mean). Another difficult game is up Sunday: a loss to San Francisco would make it hard for the Giants to get a first-round bye, but a win could push them closer to a shot at the #1 overall seed in the conference.</li>
<li>Four turnovers, two touchdown drives yielded in the last half of the fourth quarter ... this looks almost like an ordinary team, not a Patriots team. Lack of pass pressure is definitely an issue, and it's noteworthy that despite that problem (or perhaps because of it), Albert Haynesworth is no longer on the team. New England's remaining schedule is pretty soft, so they could still make the playoffs, but don't be surprised if they end up visiting the Jets or Bills and getting whacked in January. I just don't know if you can fix personnel issues this late in the season.</li>
<li>The one thing the Rams are doing well is avoiding interceptions. They have the third-fewest interceptions per drive, behind only the 49ers and Lions. They're dead last in points per drive and 26th in starting field position, though, and you could see that in the Cardinals game. They did not start a single possession in Cardinals territory, and they settled for field goal attempts on four of seven drives that reached Arizona's half of the field (the other three ended in punts). You'd think it was because they were having Bradford dump the ball off underneath instead of pushing it into coverage, but he's completing just over half of his passes ... if he is dumping it short, he's not even doing that well. Something has to change to take some of the pressure off the defense: there aren't too many games in NFL history where a team recorded two safeties and lost. (Denver did against Seattle during a loss in <a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198301020sea.htm">1983</a> and Buffalo did the same against Houston in <a href="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200311160buf.htm">2003</a>; two other teams recorded two safeties on 10/5/2003, but they both won.)</li>
<li>Kevin Kolb should sit out this week as well. He's not going to gain anything by going up against his former team. Arizona is still a lousy team, even after their win over St. Louis, and they're going to lose to the Eagles no matter who is at quarterback. Better that he gets healthy for the return engagement in St. Louis than that he rushes back and gets pounded by the Eagles' and 49ers' defenses. Larry Fitzgerald managed to get a TD in the win, but it's small consolation: not only is he stuck on yet another bad team, but he's running about 20-30% under his normal receptions pace. (Strangely, his YPC is a career-high 17.0, well above his 14.9 in 2008. Maybe opponents just can't believe that Kolb or Skelton actually found him?)</li>
<li>Aaron Rodgers was very efficient yet again in San Diego, but yet again the defense nearly gave the game away at the end. Mike McCarthy has to be concerned about a team that forced only two punts and nearly gave up a 21-point fourth-quarter lead ... it's one thing for Dallas or Minnesota to give up a lead like that, but they're not contenders, and those were first-half or third-quarter leads anyway. It would have been hard to fault the offense if the Packers had lost that game. It's easy to say that that won't happen again, but the Chargers had a second-tier offense that instead looked like Green Bay's for much of the second half; the defense cannot perform like that against the Giants and possibly the Lions if Green Bay is to run the regular-season table, and if anything happens to cause problems on offense, this team could come to a crashing halt.</li>
<li>The two first-quarter mistakes Philip Rivers made may have cost the Chargers the game, but Rivers deserves credit for getting the team back into a position to make a run at a win. Antonio Gates looks to be either recovered from his latest injury or strong enough to fight through whatever pain remains. Mike Tolbert's doing a good job replacing Darren Sproles. The defense is really the area of concern, although it's hard to assign them much blame for failing to slow down the Green Bay juggernaut. They do have to play better against Oakland and Denver, though, and the Chicago game in between may be a good test as well. Jay Cutler will make mistakes if you let him.</li>
<li>The Ravens pulled off a dramatic sweep of the Steelers, giving them the inside shot at the AFC North title and a likely first-round bye (or possibly even the #1 seed, given that neither the South nor the West seems capable of producing a 12-win team, and the East may well beat each other up). The offense still doesn't look that good, but they did turn the ball over only once; John Harbaugh may be lowering his expectation to where Flacco is expected only to be a caretaker, rather than a problem-solver, and that might be more in line with the QB's recent level of performance. Flacco's still around his <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/player/15834/joe-flacco">2008 numbers</a> rather than what he posted in 2009 and 2010, and that may not be enough to lead the Ravens to a Super Bowl win, or even to an appearance in Indy if they should face a team like the Jets in the playoffs. The Ravens need to know that the offense can get a touchdown or two when it's needed, and while that did happen Sunday night, it's not happened often enough to make this truly a championship-caliber team, even at 6-2.</li>
<li>Pittsburgh's defense allowed Baltimore to convert an amazing 14 of 21 third-down opportunities ... six drives of 10 plays or more ... although they gave up just one drive of more than 50 yards, that happened to be the game-winning drive, and it came after a drive that started at the Steelers' 46 and gained just 19 yards in 6 plays. Pittsburgh has come up short in both games against Baltimore, and with Cincinnati winning games against weaker opposition, there's a real possibility that those games might leave the defending AFC champs at home during playoff time. This Sunday's game at Cincinnati isn't necessarily a must-win game, but losing it would give Pittsburgh three division losses, all to teams ahead of them in the standings. It's one thing to look at the games against St. Louis and Cleveland as must-win games, but another to actually win them; don't overlook the boost the Browns might get if they knew they could knock the Steelers out of the playoffs with a January win at Cleveland.</li>
<li>Chicago did two important things Monday night: they beat a potential playoff competitor, and they kept Cutler from being sacked. They have the opportunity to do exactly the same thing Sunday, and repetition of the later event will have a direct impact on their ability to repeat the former. Giving up third-down conversions seemed to be an issue for the Bears, and they did have weaknesses in both aspects of their offense (two fumbles by Forte, just over 50% completions from Cutler), but a road win is a road win, and there's a huge difference between being 5-3 with a chance to tie for second in your division vs. being 4-4 with the possibility of falling three games back plus knowing you've lost the head-to-head tiebreaker. Chicago probably won't catch the Packers for first in the North or the NFC, but then they got first-hand experience last year that tells them home-field advantage isn't always necessary. Their next step is to beat Detroit; the rest can wait.</li>
<li>The NFC isn't strong enough to count most teams out of the hunt yet (except for the NFC West; San Francisco is in and the others are out), but the laughably-named Dream Team doesn't have much time to get things fixed. The Eagles are three games out of first, with a loss in hand against the first-place Giants, and they're two games out of the second wild-card spot, with losses in hand against both the Bears and Falcons. A loss November 20 at the Giants will likely end all playoff hopes; Dallas and Tampa Bay are both a game ahead of the Eagles, and there's no way Philadelphia could overcome even a three-game deficit in the division, much less a four-game deficit with the Giants holding a sweep. Win that, and they still might have to win out to take the division, which means beating the Patriots and Jets in Philadelphia.</li>
</ul>
Not much has changed; I guess the AFC West really is that bad, and no team in the AFC really seems to be that good, but then each week Green Bay seems determined to show how badly their defense can play, so I wouldn't suggest that Packers fans start checking with their Indianapolis-area friends about crashing in early February. (Hint: don't ask me. Hell no. Stay outside in the cold, freaks.) The NFC will probably see some separation in the next couple of weeks, but the AFC might have a number of teams in play all the way through Week 17. We'll see.<br />
<ul>
</ul>zlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33164152.post-32447044122327335602011-11-01T19:02:00.001-04:002011-11-01T19:02:33.630-04:00Lions season outlook, week 9 (bye week)Doing this just to track changes, even though there isn't anything to predict this week.<br />
<br />
For the second time this year, the Lions absolutely dominated an AFC West opponent. All that proves, I think, is that the AFC West is terrible. (It's true that good teams stomp bad opponents, but the Lions did not stomp Minnesota.) The defense, in particular, made sure that this game wouldn't be like the last two. I bet Cliff Avril is looking forward to seeing more lefthanded quarterbacks in the league.<br />
<br />
Combine this game with some interesting results across the league, and there should be some changes below.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=15284&s=107812">Massey projections</a>:<br />
Week 9: bye<br />
Week 10: at Chicago, slight underdog (moved up)<br />
Week 11: Carolina, overwhelming favorite (moved up)<br />
Week 12: Green Bay, slight underdog (moved up)<br />
Week 13: at New Orleans, slight underdog (moved up)<br />
Week 14: Minnesota, heavy favorite<br />
Week 15: at Oakland, favorite<br />
Week 16: San Diego, heavy favorite<br />
Week 17: at Green Bay, heavy underdog<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Tossups are 50%; slight favorites
are up to 3-2 (60%), then favorites up
to 3-1 (75%), then heavy favorites up to 5-1 (86%), then overwhelming
favorites. Slight underdogs are down to 2-3 (40%), then underdogs down
to 1-3 (25%), then heavy underdogs down to 1-5 (14%), then overwhelming
underdogs.</i></span><br />
<br />
Again, all movement that makes sense given the Week 8 results (although keep in mind that it's a cumulative effect: these changes will get smaller and smaller as the season goes on). Estimated wins are up to 10.82, which reflects the difficulty of their remaining schedule. (Massey has the Lions 3rd overall, but with the toughest schedule in the last nine weeks.) <br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds">Playoff Odds</a> report is below:<br />
Mean wins: 10.5, up 0.8<br />
Playoffs: 83.7%, up 16.1 points<br />
Division title: 17.0%, up 7.1 points<br />
Top seed: 4.9%, up 2.2 points<br />
NFC title: 8.5%, up 4.0 points<br />
Super Bowl win: 4.4%, up 2.5 points<br />
<br />
Green Bay still looks good, but they lose a tiny bit of ground from not playing. More important was the Saints losing; that, coupled with the Cowboys and Washington losing, took down a few of the teams likely to compete for a wild-card spot, which means that the Lions benefit.<br />
<br />
Now Detroit gets to sit back and wait for a week. The way Chicago handles the pressure from Philadelphia may show how much Martz learned from the Monday Night loss to the Lions: the Eagles and Lions do some similar things and have similar pressure from outside (although the Eagles' secondary is much better, at least now that it's playing well). My guess is that they won't have been able to do too much, other than reminding Cutler not to hold onto the ball forever.<br /><b></b><br />
<br />
Last week: predicted 19-8, actual 45-10<br />
<br />
Current mood: relievedzlionsfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02966540737106797756noreply@blogger.com0