Lions Recap and Look Ahead

The Lions game was an interesting experience this past weekend. The family was just arriving home from the Wheatland Music Festival as the game started, so the game was playing in the background as we unloaded the car. Then I needed to get ready for a 10 mile run (prepping for a half marathon this weekend), so I watched most of the remaining 1st half and went on my run. Finished my run (1:39:55 later), stretched a bit, and turned the tv on JUST as the Colts scored the tying TD, with the XP putting them up by one with 37 sec left in the game.

To sum up, the Lions get the ball on the 25 with all of their timeouts (more on this in a second), run 3 plays that get them in FG range, run an additional time-wasting play, drill the 43-yd game-winner, and then watch Indy fiddle the ensuing kickoff away into a safety. At no point did the Lions clock the ball (spike it to stop the clock), and they only ran one play toward the sideline (not counting the wasted play), during which the receiver inexplicably neglected to get out of bounds. It was intense yet somehow methodical & easy, and after the fact I wondered why I was so stressed (answer: it's the Lions, and anything can and will go wrong).

Anyway, to the timeout thing. NFL common sense says when your opponent is running out the clock with the lead or on their way to getting the lead, you use your timeouts to extend the game. The rationale is to use your timeouts when your opponent has the ball because they control the clock. You control the clock when you have the ball, so you can run sideline plays or spike the ball to stop the clock. Caldwell didn't do this, either because he didn't think Indy was going to score, or he had other plans for those timeouts.

First, how much time would really have been saved? The average NFL play takes 5-7 seconds of clock. The Colts got the ball at the 4:04 mark. If the Lions had used their 3 timeouts immediately, they would've saved about 1:30. With all the extra time, the Colts don't use their 2nd timeout, they could run off an additional 40 sec up to the 2min warning. All told, the Lions probably get an extra minute out of using their timeouts when the Colts had the ball. However, they lose the ability to use the middle of the field and probably over half the plays in their 2-min offense playbook. Or you play with fire, run up and spike the ball after any play that doesn't stop the clock. Since that takes at least 15 seconds to pull off, you might say the Lions would've had a net gain of 15 seconds had they followed conventional NFL wisdom.

I'm not going to kill Caldwell over costing the Lions 15 seconds. In my opinion, adding several pages of the playbook outweighs the advantage of 15 extra seconds. Plus, you've got the added benefit of not having to rush your linemen to the line to clock the ball all the time, you can get plays in more easily and with less confusion, etc. There are a lot of benefits to keeping your timeouts.

However (there's always a however), the last 2 plays were a bit of a cluster. First, Marvin Jones catches the ball at the sideline AND DOESN'T GET OUT, forcing the Lions to use their last timeout with 12 sec left. For some reason, Caldwell opts to run another play before kicking the FG. WHY? If he wanted to run clock, a better way would be to have waited to call the TO after the Marvin Jones play. The idea that anything positive was going to come out of this play is ludicrous. The only possible place to go is toward the sideline, which the Colts would've been covering like crazy. They tried a 5-yd out to Tate and Stafford threw it away. The best positive outcome was Tate catching it and instantly going out of bounds, giving Prater a 38-yd FG instead of a 43-yarder. Great. The next best outcome was what happened, incomplete pass. The other possible outcomes were all negative:

1. Tate catches the ball but gets tackled in-bounds. Result: Game over, Colts win.
2. Stafford gets sacked. Result: Game over, Colts win.
3. The offense commits a penalty, leading to a 10 sec runoff.  Result: Game over, Colts win.
4. Tate fumbles, doesn't matter who recovers.  Result: Game over, Colts win.
5. Stafford fumbles, doesn't matter who recovers.  Result: Game over, Colts win.
6. Stafford throws a pick.  Result: Game over, Colts win.

Out of 8 possible outcomes, 1 marginally increases the Lions' odds, 1 is neutral, and 6 essentially ensure their defeat. Running that play was STUPID. No excuse.

The Game

I missed about half of it, so I'll have to base my half-baked analysis off of what I did see, along with stuff like box scores and what other people are saying. Not super in-depth, sorry.

First, the rushing attack... Ok, we're not the '72 Dolphins, but the NFL doesn't run like that anymore either. 116 rushing yards was good enough for 11th in the league, and 4.8 yards per attempt was good enough for 9th. We only averaged 83 rushing yards per game last year, so 116 would be a big improvement, if we can keep it up. The Colts were pretty banged up, and aren't a good defensive team in general.

Second, pass protect... 1 sack, 6 QB hits is decent, not great. And of course, this was the Colts. Tennessee has a stouter D line, so this next game will be more of a challenge. Still, when Stafford puts out a performance like he did, some credit has to go to the line.

Third, speaking of Stafford... #4 in Total QBR, #2 in Passer Rating, and as for FootballOutsiders... Well, they really liked him:

He didn't go down field much, which resulted in a ridiculously high completion %. As they mentioned, he used his RBs REALLY well in the passing game. Riddick and Abdullah are pretty good multi-purpose backs, totalling 10 catches on 10 targets for 120 yards and 2 TDs between the two. He spread it around pretty well too, targeting Marvin Jones 10 times, Tate 7, Ebron 5 and Boldin 3. I'd like to see him look for Boldin more. Jones had the worst catch rate, and that's probably in part due to the fact that Stafford often was trying to force something there when Boldin was open on a shorter route.

All told, I think this could be a pretty good offense. Stafford looks like he's still figuring out who to throw to, but that should start to smooth out as the season moves on. He'll have to face tougher defenses down the road, but it's really hard to take away 4 credible receiving threats AND stop a less-than-anemic running game. The defense gave up a bunch of yards and points, which isn't ideal. I didn't see a lot of pressure being put on Luck, which is a huge red flag. When Preseason Stud Kerry Hyder wasn't in the game (2 sacks, 2 QB hits), the Lions managed only 3 QB hits and 0 sacks. That needs to get better if they're going to compete for a playoff spot.

Next Game

The Lions face the Titans. QB Marcus Mariota had a mediocre game vs. the Vikings in week 1. He's a running QB who can throw, although he still makes some rookie-level mistakes with the ball (1 fumble, 1 BAD interception). The Lions will need to both pressure him AND contain him in the pocket, no easy charge. DeMarco Murray is Tennessee's only other "name" on offense, but he didn't get much on the ground in week 1. They really don't have a lot of weapons.

Their defense is a bit stouter than the offense. They managed to shut down Minnesota's running game (to the chagrin of my fantasy team), but they still lost. Now the Vikes are no great shakes either, with Bridgewater's injury basically leaving them one-dimensional on offense, and they really only managed the win thanks to the 2 defensive TDs.

Initially I had the Lions penciled in for a Loss in week 1, and they nearly complied. However, they might be a bit better than I expected, and the Colts might be a bit worse. The Titans are definitely a bad team, although I don't expect them to be a walkover.

Prediction: Lions, by less than a TD.