SB Nation User Blog: n4ry4

POLL: Our future O-Line should look like...

n4ry4 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:30:10 -0000

Captain Obvious says: For the sake of our offense, it is very important for us to build a solid offensive line. We know we have talent at a lot of skill positions, but to get the most out of Stafford, Johnson, and Pettigrew, we have to be able to pass-protect better. To get the most out of Kevin Smith and Aaron Brown, we need to open holes for them.

So, what does everyone want to see our front five on offense look like heading into the future?

A few things I'm wondering about...

Gosder is really struggling this year, is it something coachable like technique or mental errors, or does he just not have what it takes to consistently beat opposing pass rushers from the Right Tackle spot? Is he still our future Right Tackle? He's still a big dude, with a huge frame and the youth factor on his side...could he be a fit at Guard if not at Tackle? Do we embrace his upside, assume his problems are fixable, and move on to other positions?

Backus, according to many, is playing better this year than in previous years. I'm not a member of the "replace Sackus now" club, but I do recognize that he is not an elite LT in this league when you think of guys you want to protect your $70 million QB in a perfect world, and, more importantly, he is going into his 10th season next year and we will need to replace him sooner or later. Should we keep him at the critical LT spot for a few years while we focus on other needs? Should we go after a highly-valued, big-money, big risk/reward LT like Russell Okung at the top of the draft to replace him sooner than later? Should we go after a project LT with a lot of upside later in the draft to eventually replace him?

What about our longstanding hole/revolving door at Left Guard? Do we go after a highly-rated LG in the second round of the draft like a Mike Iupati or Mike Johnson? Or hope for a good one in the third round? Or, do we draft a Tackle for the future, and put him at LG for now? This leaves us with a long-term question mark at LG, but at least we have a young stop-gap to fill the spot, and we only need to spend one pick on OL in 2010 while we fix our defensive line, secondary, and other big needs in 2010.

Raiola and Peterman were just signed to multi-year contract extensions by the new front office, so, for now, I am assuming that we can consider the starting Center and Right Guard positions filled for next year (heal up, Peterman!).

And for the sake of keeping this poll as simple as possible, I am assuming we won't be able to get high-quality, long-term starters for our O-Line through free agency, just depth guys. Teams tend to try to hang on to good starting O-Linemen.

Poll

What should our O-Line look like next year heading into the future (from Left to Right)?

Backus, Loper/Ramirez, Raiola, Peterman, Cherilus (Leave the unit as-is, focus on DEFENSE this draft)
[DRAFT PICK], Backus, Raiola, Peterman, Cherilus (Replace Backus at LT sooner rather than later, slide him to LG to fill that hole. Goz will be fine at RT)
[DRAFT PICK], Backus/Cherilus, Raiola, Peterman, Cherilus/Backus (Replace Backus at LT sooner rather than later, Goz & Backus compete for the RT/LG spots and depth)
[DRAFT PICK], [DRAFT PICK], Raiola, Peterman, Cherilus/Backus (Replace Backus at LT sooner rather than later, draft a LG for the future, let Backus compete with Goz for the starting RT spot and depth)
Backus, [DRAFT PICK - OT], Raiola, Peterman, Cherilus (Draft a long-term Tackle to play LG now, and eventually replace Backus)
Backus, [DRAFT PICK - OG], Raiola, Peterman, Cherilus (Draft our long-term Left Guard right now, leave the rest of the unit as-is)
Backus, Cherilus, Raiola, Peterman, [DRAFT PICK] (Move Goz to LG, draft a pure RT, leave Backus at LT)
Backus/[DRAFT PICK], Cherilus, Raiola, Peterman, [DRAFT PICK]/Backus (Move Goz to LG, draft OT to compete with Backus for the LT spot)

71 votes | Results

Stafford's performance in his first six games nearly MIRRORS Peyton Manning's

n4ry4 — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:53:06 -0000

(Note from Sean: Bumped to the front page for the interesting comparison and good research.)

Matthew Stafford had a really bad game yesterday. Still, if you want a pick-me-up from some historical perspective, his overall performance through six games is very, very similar to that of another #1-overall rookie eleven years ago who turned out to be pretty good:

Peyton Manning, rookie year, first 6 games:

Game 1: 1 TD, 3 INT, 8.16 ypa, 56.8% comp
Game 2: 1 TD, 3 INT, 5.70 ypa, 63.6% comp
Game 3: 0 TD, 2 INT, 4.39 ypa, 45.5% comp
Game 4: 1 TD, 3 INT, 9.66 ypa, 59.4% comp
Game 5: 1 TD, 1 INT, 5.96 ypa, 52.2% comp
Game 6: 2 TD, 2 INT, 5.73 ypa, 48.8% comp

Total:
    6 TD, 14 INT = .428 TD/INT ratio
    113 comp / 210 att = 53.8% comp
    1364 yards / 210 att = 6.50 ypa
--
Matthew Stafford, rookie year, first 6 games:

Game 1: 0 TD, 3 INT, 5.54 ypa, 43.2% comp
Game 2: 1 TD, 2 INT, 5.07 ypa, 60.0% comp
Game 3: 1 TD, 0 INT, 6.69 ypa, 58.3% comp
Game 4: 1 TD, 1 INT, 8.22 ypa, 66.7% comp
Game 5: 0 TD, 1 INT, 5.09 ypa, 42.4% comp
Game 6: 2 TD, 5 INT, 5.23 ypa, 52.4% comp

Total:
    5 TD, 12 INT = .417 TD/INT ratio
    115 comp / 214 att = 53.7% comp
    1265 yards / 214 att = 5.91 ypa

Side-by-Side Comparison:

    6 TD, 14 INT = .428 TD/INT ratio (Manning)
    5 TD, 12 INT = .417 TD/INT ratio (Stafford)

    113 comp / 210 att = 53.8% comp (Manning)
    115 comp / 214 att = 53.7% comp (Stafford)

    1364 yards / 210 att = 6.50 ypa (Manning)
    1265 yards / 214 att = 5.91 ypa (Stafford)

TD-INT ratio:
Manning threw one more TD and two more INT's than Stafford.
Manning's TD-INT ratio beats Stafford's by eleven hundredths of one percent (that's not very much).

Completion %
Manning completed 113 of 210 passes.
Stafford completed 115 of 214 passes.
Manning's completion % beats Stafford's by one tenth of one percent.

Yards per Attempt:
Manning's 6.5 ypa beats Stafford's 5.91 by 1 foot, 9-1/2 inches.

Side note:
Stafford has had to play one game of his first six without Calvin Johnson. Marvin Harrison did not miss any of Peyton Manning's first six games.

Lions vs Rams, on paper

n4ry4 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:44:32 -0000

Lions fan here...I just posted this on Pride of Detroit, in case anyone there is interested. I picked what I thought were the most relevant stats and tried to stay unbiased, but it's not perfect. Good luck on Sunday, but not too much...

...

Looking at this Sunday's game, I decided to cherry-pick thirty-six or so different overall stats from this season year-to-date to compare how the Lions and Rams stack up against each other.

For each stat, I decided to measure each team's "Advantage" by subtracting the other team's overall NFL rank from their own. For example, St. Louis' Passing Offense ranks 27th in the NFL in Yards-per-Game, while Detroit's Pass Defense ranks 30th...therefore: Advantage: St. Louis + 3

Stats after the jump...

via img297.imageshack.us

*one correction: DET rush offense vs STL rush defense should be STL+2, not DET+2

Summary...

As their records and recent history would indicate, both teams are below average in most statistical categories, and near rock-bottom in a few.

St. Louis' biggest advantage might be on Special Teams (no surprise to Lions fans here). The Rams are punting the ball more than five yards farther per attempt than the Lions, and St. Louis' punt return YPA, kick return YPA, punt return defense, and kick return defense, each wins in a match-up against Detroit's punt return defense, kick return defense, punt return YPA, and kick return YPA, respectively.

Expect the Rams to consistently start with better field position and do a better job pinning the Lions back. The Lions do have the advantage in the field goal game though, with all-time leading Lions scorer Jason Hanson having made 90% (and we're all surprised it's not 100%, after he was 8-8 from 50+ yards last year), compared to only 66% this season for Rams kicker Josh Brown.

Measured in both Yards-per-Attempt and Yards-per-Game, St. Louis' overall offense is slightly better than Detroit's overall defense in every phase, and the same can be said for Detroit's offense against the Rams Defense.

The biggest advantage here would be held by the Rams and their rushing offense, being 10th in the league at 4.4 yards a carry, against a 28th-ranked Detroit rush D, allowing 4.6 YPC. Detroit is not, however, the pushovers that they were last year, especially with upgrades to the linebacking corps over the offseason, and having the bye week to heal up many of their injured defensive starters. Steven Jackson could have a very good game against Detroit's D, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lions step up and match up well against the Rams offense.

Detroit's rushing offense (23rd YPA, 21st YPG) is about even with St Louis' rushing defense (21st YPA, 27th YPG)

In the passing game, both teams' offenses holds a slight--very slight--advantage over the other team's defense. I expect an above average passing game from both teams.

I think there are some key overall game stats other than yardage that favor the Lions:

While neither team has impressed overall, especially after their most recent games (Detroit being shut out 26-0 against Green Bay, and St Louis getting blown out 42-6 by Indy), Detroit comes out just a little bit ahead in the all-important measure of points. Detroit is scoring 17.2 points per game (23rd), while St Louis is allowing 30.1 (30th). The Rams are scoring only 8.6 PPG (NFL worst) while the Lions are allowing 31.3 (31st). It's a battle of ugly and uglier so far this season, so anything could happen here.

One other area where Detroit holds a significant advantage is third-down conversion. The Lions are converting 40% on third down (16th in the NFL), while the Rams are dead last, giving up 51.6%. The Lions will need to push this advantage and stay on the field longer, especially since special teams performances indicate that they'll be starting with a longer field. Of course, everything the Lions can achieve on offense depends heavily on the health of Matthew Stafford and Calvin Johnson and whether those two can get on the field and produce.

The biggest advantages for Detroit are, most obviously, the much-needed bye week to heal up from injuries and home-field advantage, but I think this will be a close game that either team can win. Winnable games for both teams in these rebuilding seasons are rare, and they'll obviously both look to capitalize on a game against a beatable opponent.

Lions vs Rams, on paper

n4ry4 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:35:59 -0000

Looking at this Sunday's game, I decided to cherry-pick thirty-six or so different overall stats from this season year-to-date to compare how the Lions and Rams stack up against each other.

Stats after the jump...

via img297.imageshack.us

Summary...

As their records and recent history would indicate, both teams are below average in most statistical categories, and near rock-bottom in a few.

Detroit's rushing offense (23rd YPA, 21st YPG) is about even with St Louis' rushing defense (21st YPA, 27th YPG)

In the passing game, both teams' offenses holds a slight--very slight--advantage over the other team's defense. I expect an above average passing game from both teams.

I think there are some key overall game stats other than yardage that favor the Lions:

Draft some damn cornerbacks in 2010

n4ry4 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:38:28 -0000

Since we just had a "look forward to the draft" kind of game...

From seeing how horrible we've been doing on pass coverage, I wouldn't be disappointed if we drafted a corner in <em>both </em>of the first two rounds, or at least in rounds 1 and 3. Get two young guys at the same position to motivate each other.

We will have, probably, somewhere between the 4th and 8th overall pick. That's a position it's pretty easy to trade down from (unlike the #1 overall was). For example, in 2009, Cleveland traded down from #5 to #17 and got an extra mid-second-rounder plus a handful of players. In 2008, New England traded down just three spots from 7th to 10th and got a high third-rounder.

Now that we finally have a front office and coaching staff where 2nd- and 3rd-rounders aren't a foregone waste of a pick, I would LOVE to pick up an additional future starting-material guy. Lord knows we need it, we have so little depth at too many positions.

The average selection position of the top cornerback in the past ten drafts (2000-2009) was 12.3. Obviously the value of Joe Haden or whoever the top CB ends up being could be valued anywhere, but if we assume historical averages, and we need to trade down to about the #12 spot, using the traditional draft value chart, and assuming the team with the 12th overall pick has the 12th pick in each round (a "mid-high" pick in each round):

If we end up at #4...Trading down from the #4 (1800) overall to the #12 (1200) overall would net us something like an extra mid-high 2nd-round pick (#44) and a 4th, 5th, and 6th. Or, we'd trade down from #4 to #12, and we'd get the 2nd-rounder (#44) plus their 3rd (#76) for our 5th and 6th.

This might be too optimistic. The team at #12 would have to REALLY want somebody specific at #4 to give up all of that. Heck, I'd trade from #4 to #12 and just take the extra 2nd rounder, but the more we could get, the better.

If we end up at #8...Trading down from the #8 (1400) overall to the #12 (1200) overall would net us something like an extra mid-high 3rd-round pick (#76), but we may have to bundle a 7th or 6th-rounder to make it happen.

I know, too much depends on who-wants-who and who's-available-where, but this is a scenario I'd really like to see, and it's not too far-fetched. We move down a few spots in the first round, pick up an extra 2nd- or 3rd-round pick, take the top corner in the draft, use the extra 2nd- or 3rd-round pick on another starting-quality corner, and use our other 2nd- and 3rd-rounders on BPA D-Line, unless there's a big OL available in rounds 2-3 with a lot of upside who could play Guard until he eventually/hopefully replaces Backus.

Of course, I won't complain if we end up with a big lineman, like Okung or Suh, with our first pick. But I really want some secondary players who can cover. It shouldn't be too much to ask. Plus, 4 picks in the first 3 rounds would be nice too. Thoughts?

Will somebody from 2009 join the 2008 Lions at 0-16?

n4ry4 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:48:42 -0000

Will somebody from 2009 join the 2008 Lions at 0-16?

article from si.com

I hope they all get a win.

POLL: after 5 games our biggest WEAKNESS is:

n4ry4 — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:52:29 -0000

GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions GO LIONS go lions

Poll

After five games, the Lions' biggest weakness appears to be:

Offense: Run blocking

9 votes

Offense: Pass protection

34 votes

Running Back skill/performance

2 votes

Receiver skill/performance

0 votes

Tight End skill/performance

1 votes

Quarterback skill/performance

2 votes

D-Line: Run stopping

6 votes

D-Line: Pass rush

30 votes

Blitzing Pass rush

3 votes

Linebackers: Run defense

0 votes

Linebackers: Pass coverage

3 votes

Secondary: Run defense

4 votes

Secondary: Pass coverage

65 votes

Kicking

0 votes

Punting

0 votes

Special Teams: Coverage/tackling

8 votes

Special Teams: Returning/blocking

2 votes

Coaching decisions/Game management

1 votes

170 votes | Poll has closed

POLL: after 5 games, our biggest STRENGTH is:

n4ry4 — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:46:39 -0000

Poll

After five games, the Lions' biggest strength appears to be:

Offense: Run blocking

3 votes

Offense: Pass protection

1 votes

Running Back skill/performance

5 votes

Receiver skill/performance

24 votes

Tight End skill/performance

4 votes

Quarterback skill/performance

11 votes

D-Line: Run stopping

5 votes

D-Line: Pass rush

0 votes

Blitzing Pass rush

1 votes

Linebackers: Run defense

25 votes

Linebackers: Pass coverage

2 votes

Secondary: Run defense

1 votes

Secondary: Pass coverage

3 votes

Kicking

24 votes

Punting

4 votes

Special Teams: Coverage/tackling

0 votes

Special Teams: Returning/blocking

0 votes

Coaching decisions/Game management

26 votes

139 votes | Poll has closed

No Excuses. Sunday is time to win.

n4ry4 — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:50:59 -0000

After the Saints game, it seemed some of the most common attitudes expressed among fans centered around how it wasn't a shocker or a major disappointment that the Lions didn't win the game. Points like:

"He's a rookie QB in his first game"

"They didn't draft much defense, so of course we couldn't stop them"

"It was a tough road game against a good team"

"At least we got 27 points"

"At least there were some bright spots, look at our return game"

"It's a rebuilding year"

"You can't fix 0-16 in a [season, offseason, game...insert time period here]"

etc. etc.

It's like the Lions were playing the game with a ready-to-go excuse for losing, at least in the minds of many fans. As long as they showed some upside (like losing 45-27 instead of 42-7), many of us felt alright about the team going forward, just like we do every offseason. The idea is that if they "shouldn't" beat a given team on paper, then it's acceptable to lose on the field, as long as they show "progress". They're victims of a horrible past, and if they don't rise above, and win the game at hand, well, maybe next week...

Not me.

While I can understand a point of view centered around "reasonable expectations" is valid, it's not my point of view that it was okay to lose (again) last week, and I certainly don't feel that way about this coming Sunday.

I may be in the minority on this one, but I think it's their job to win. If there's a game the Lions play, it's their job to win the game.

New Orleans is in the past, so looking at this weekend against Minnesota...

If we lose, and Adrian Peterson rushes for 120 yards, I will not be happy about it. at all. Personally, I'm not going to accept for myself the attitude that "well, we kept AP to 120 yards after giving up 143 to Mike Bell, so we're actually improving our run defense...look at us, we're trying!"

It's our job to stop the run, and if we give up 120 yards or 100 yards (I don't care if he's the best RB in the league), then our run defense is not doing what they're supposed to do. I feel the same way about giving up 6 td's to one of the best QB's in the league last week.

Hell, if we hold the Vikings to 35 yards rushing and we don't win the game, I don't see the outcome as acceptable. It means the team as a whole didn't do their job. They didn't win.

It doesn't matter how good Favre has played against the Lions in the past. It's their job to beat the Vikings this Sunday.

If Delmas returns two turnovers for touchdowns and CJ scores 3 td receptions and we don't win, then the team didn't do their job. I expect the win, no matter how long it's been since they actually got one. They're a professional team.

This Sunday matters even more because of the looming blackouts. The Lions are teeter-tottering on the brink of not selling enough tickets for every Lions fan within a 17,671 square mile circle of the stadium from being able to catch the game on TV. We just barely made it for the Vikings game. The Redskins game in week 3, however, is a lot less compelling. It's not a team we've played close in the past (like we did against Minny last year)--they've blown us out the last few meetings. It's not a division game. It doesn't feature big name players like Peterson and Favre.

If the Lions don't put together a winning product this Sunday, I don't blame fans who maybe would buy tickets to the Washington game for deciding to save their money.

If they can get their first win, however...if they can beat last year's division champ, then they certainly have a good shot at Washington, and that win makes a better case to come watch them week 3.

There is no excuse for losing this game. For the sake of all the fans in the region who genuinely want to see the Lions this season, but can't afford or make it to a home game, the Lions need to win this one.

It's time to expect more than just "bright spots" and signs that the team "could" win a game in the future. It's time to win some f***ing football games. Starting right now. Not week 8 against St. Louis, not at home against Cleveland, not in 2010. This Sunday.

I'm done with this podium if anyone wants it :-)

via lastprice.files.wordpress.com

Starting More Games as a Rookie Will Not Make Stafford Better (Or Worse) in the Future

n4ry4 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:44:33 -0000

Our favorite subject, I know.

One of the biggest reasons many Lions fans support starting Stafford right away, even if it's still not clear that he is a better NFL Quarterback than Daunte Culpepper right now (yet) during the preseason, is that more starting experience will help Stafford become a better QB later on.

That is, let him start more games, make some rookie mistakes this year, and he'll be a better quarterback in 2010 and 2011, his second and third years.

Based on my research, I don't believe this is true.

History is relevant here, and while it's easy to get into an extremely anecdotal example/counterexample argument over stuff like this ("Peyton Manning started all 16 games." "Oh yeah, well so did David Carr, and Carson Palmer sat his entire rookie year" etc. etc.), it is a lot more useful to look at the entire trend for a large number of talented quarterbacks who were expected to start for the team. (By "talented" and "expected", I used first-rounder draft picks as the qualifier).

To do this, I went back to the most recent ten years' worth of first-round-drafted quarterbacks who have had at least three years in the league (that is, 1995 - 2006, as the 2007 and 2008 QB's haven't had much time to prove themselves yet). Note that I excluded 1996, as there were no first-round quarterbacks, and 1997, as the only first-round QB, Jim Druckenmiller, did not attempt a pass in his second or third year.

Here are all 28 recent first-round-drafted quarterbacks, with the number of Rookie STARTS on the X axis, and the AVERAGE of their second-year passer rating and third-year passer rating on the Y axis. Every gray point represents one quarterback. I'm too lazy to label all of them, but I'll include the list below.

Second- and Third-year passer rating, I believe, is the best measure to use. Presumably, by the time a quarterback gets into his fourth, fifth, and sixth years in the league, he's had so much experience that it really doesn't matter what happened way back when he was a rookie, so I'm only using years 2-3, the years Matthew Stafford is expected to really blossom into a good quarterback (please God, let it be so).

The red line is the linear average of the two variables (rookie starts and year 2-3 average passer rating). It represents the trend, given all these quarterbacks.

As you can see the red trend line is almost horizontal. This means there is a very slight negative correlation between rookie starts and year 2-3 passer rating (i.e. more starts as a rookie actually correlates to a worse performance later on). This correlation is very weak. Removing one quarterback would probably affect it significantly.

To summarize...

Starting more games in 2009 will not likely make Matthew Stafford a better quarterback in 2010 and 2011.

Starting Daunte Culpepper, if he turns out to be the best QB at the start of the season, will not likely hurt Stafford's development and his success next year and the year after.

Start the best QB on Sunday, even if it's the veteran. Stafford will be successful in the future. Go Lions.

(edit: the Y axis is mislabeled. It says "Year 1" and "Year 2", and it should read "Year 2" and "Year 3")

via img43.imageshack.us

via img188.imageshack.us