Okay, so you're gonna want to check down here, and . . .Slightly lost in the storm of bullshit following the reprise of The Passion of the Stafford was the fact that even before he was hurt the offense basically looked like shit. This led me to drag up the dreaded ghost of Joey Harrington and while I wailed and gnawed on his old bones, my comparing him to Stafford was not so much about Stafford as it was about the Lions offense in general.
I'm still confident in Stafford. I still think he's a monster armed Swagger King who shows off for his dates by crashing F-14's into mountains and playing homoerotic volleyball with Tom Cruise and Val Kilmer. We all saw the Cleveland game last year. We all saw what he can do when he just lets that fucker rip. That's what we all thought we were going to get this season. Like, all the time.
Okay, so that may not have been that realistic, but we never thought that he would be reduced to taking his checkdowns on every fucking throw like he was, well, like he was Joey. But was that a product of his own fear? Was he afraid of making the big mistake like he did so many times last season? If it was then we might be in trouble. The only way for Stafford to succeed is to be that cocky gunslinger who isn't afraid to throw an interception. That's who he is. It's in his makeup. The only way to get the good out of him is to risk the bad.
Or was he told to take the checkdown? Was he told to play it conservative and to avoid mistakes? Either way, it's bad. Either he doesn't have confidence in himself (worst case scenario for his development) or Jim Schwartz and Scott Linehan don't have that confidence in him (still a pretty bad scenario for his development and our enjoyment of the game.)
Of course, it's not an either/or scenario. It's entirely possible that Stafford is confident in his own abilities and that Schwartz and Linehan are willing to let him turn it loose too. In fact, from everything we have heard, I would say that this is likely. I think the coaches do believe in Stafford. It's just that they can't help getting in their own way.
I think Schwartz is conservative by nature. He's a defensive guy and if he had his way, his teams would win every game by shutting down the other team, running the shit out of the ball, controlling the clock and not making any mistakes. And I think Scott Linehan is willing to go with that line of thinking. To them, Matthew Stafford is not their primary weapon. He's not what they look at and think "That's what's going to win the game for us." No. Instead, they see Stafford as something of a backup plan. They trust him and know that he can get the job done, but they would rather not turn him loose unless they have to. If they can run the ball and small ball their way to a lead, then hell, that's what they'll do. To them, Stafford is a backup plan - a luxurious backup plan - but a backup plan nonetheless. They can't help it. It's just in their nature. They have a certain philosophy and if they can win with that philosophy then that's what they'll do. And that philosophy does not necessarily involve Stafford throwing the ball down the field like he's Daryle Lamonica. (Al Davis just got a boner at the mention of that name. Well, that's assuming Al Davis can still get a boner. But with modern science and . . . you know what? Let's not do this.)
That's fine if you can win like that. I don't necessarily like it. I'm of the mindset that you tailor your game plan around your best weapons and let them go out and win the game for you. But Schwartz is The Chessmaster and he and Linehan are of the mindset that you win via the proper application of philosophy. In their minds, if they execute their game plan correctly, then they will succeed.
The problem is that you have to actually succeed. I can kinda understand what they were trying to do against the Bears. They thought the Bears line was vulnerable and they wanted to establish Jahvid Best and the running game. They wanted to set the tempo and the tempo they are most comfortable with is a slow, ball control tempo. That way, they could keep their defense off the field and grind the Bears down. Again, they don't want to go into every game chucking the ball all over the field and heaving bombs and getting big plays and one play drives and 70 yard touchdowns and "Hold onto your butts because we've got a shoot out folks!" That just isn't them. But again, the problem is that you have to actually succeed.
You have to have the talent to make something like that happen. The Lions don't. Not really, anyway. Their strengths are Stafford's cannon arm and St. Calvin's otherworldly ability. Jahvid Best is the changeup, the home run hitter that makes defenses have to play honest. Schwartz and Linehan would like this to be the other way around. It isn't. Jahvid Best isn't Emmitt Smith or Eddie George or anyone who's going to carry the ball 400 times and get you 4 yards every one of those times. He's more like a certain other running back we know and love who is going to hit you with the big play.
I'm probably wrong here. I mean, it was only one game, but this is something that bothered me at times last year too. Calvin Johnson has been worryingly absent for much of Jim Schwartz's tenure with the Lions. You would think that Scott Linehan would understand how to use Calvin after spending time in Minnesota with Randy Moss. But so far, in just about every game St. Calvin has played in since Schwartz and Linehan showed up, the announcers have spent half the game wondering where he was, and that's kinda troubling, right?
The Lions talent requires a certain aggressiveness that I'm not sure Schwartz and Linehan really have. I believe they are both smart, and I believe that they are both good at what they do. But I also believe that they are married to an idea, and that idea doesn't necessarily work for the Lions right now.
CJ commented after my last post that the game reminded her of all those Lions games growing up, when the team would do nothing but rely on Barry Sanders. (By the way, go back and read her entire comment. It's a fine blog post all by itself.) She said that's how this game made her feel, like the offense was so geared around Jahvid Best that it caused the entire offense to stagnate. And I think she's right to a degree - at least in this one game. But I don't think it was so much about Best as it was about that philosophy I was talking about. I think they desperately want a perfectly balanced approach that minimizes mistakes. Basically, they want to be able to run the ball and allow Stafford to make plays in the passing game, but they want the run to set up the pass. They want to be able to pick their spots instead of forcing Stafford to win games for them, and as an ideal that's great. But I think that they want to establish that even at the cost of the offense being productive, which is completely illogical and, well, dumb. And CJ is right - I do think that their game plan against the Bears was built around Best running the ball, with Stafford and Calvin serving as a complement, the reserves in case the first wave didn't work.
Unfortunately, the first wave hit the beach and was brutally mowed down. Right then, Linehan should have switched things up a bit and gone to his backup plan, but coaches are stubborn animals, and to do that would be to admit that the game plan was flawed in the first place. So the Lions kept running and kept trying to control the ball. Stafford kept checking down and the offense didn't look anywhere near as explosive as we hoped.
Best was so bottled up that Linehan did move away from the run, but when he did, it didn't seem like he had a backup plan. Instead, the Lions tried to basically run the ball by throwing it - that's where the checkdowns come in. Control the ball, don't make mistakes, play it safe. And this is where CJ's point is made in a big way. The Lions seemingly had one game plan, and when that didn't work they were screwed, much like the Lions of yore were when Barry would have an off day.
The Lions managed to build a lead doing this in the first half, but this was largely because the Bears kept turning the ball over. The Lions had a chance to rip the game open but they didn't. They made the fatal mistake of playing like the whole game would play out that way, that the Bears would keep shooting themselves in the foot and that then they could do just enough to stay ahead of the Bears without having to risk anything offensively themselves. The Lions are not good enough to win that way.
The crazy thing is that it still almost worked. But it almost worked because the defensive front played out of its mind and a succession of damn near miracles played out. (Four straight plays for the Bears inside the one without being able to score? Come on.) Those sorts of things are anomalous and unsustainable, as we eventually saw when the Bears finally broke through towards the end of the game.
Counting on the other team to turn the ball over and for weird shit like goal line stands inside the one to happen is a recipe for disaster. It is an unsustainable strategy. Just because it almost worked against the Bears doesn't mean that it would work regularly - or hell, even ever again. After all, the Lions were outgained 4-1 on the game. You can say that yards don't matter at all and that the only thing that matters is points. You can say that all you want. That's fine, but go ahead and look at the yardage differential of winning teams vs. the yardage differential of losing teams and tell me that same thing. Of course yards matter. Anyone arguing that they don't is either deluding themselves or just doesn't understand football. Yes, it is all about points, but there is a strong correlation between points and yardage. Trying to score points without gaining yardage - or conversely trying to stop the other team from scoring points while allowing huge chunks of yardage - is unsustainable and relies on things like turnovers and goal line stands inside the one. If you are basing your strategy on anomalous good breaks going your way, then, well, it's nice to meet you Mr. Marinelli.
Meanwhile, the Lions were left up shit creek without Stafford because they didn't do enough in the first half to distance themselves. So, okay, I can understand playing it safe with a backup quarterback, but even so, offensively the Lions just played . . . I don't know, I guess afraid would be the right word. That was with both Stafford and Hill in the game. They played not to lose. They didn't play to win. They played not to lose. And there is a meaningful difference between those two philosophies.
The Lions have the tools now. They have the weapons. They can play to win games. They have to if they are going to have any success. And yet, they are still playing like they have to avoid making any mistakes at all cost, like they have to just try and hang in there on offense.
With Stafford in the game, the Lions should have taken advantage of his talents and the Chicago turnovers and tried to step on the throats of the Bears as early as possible. Instead, they played not to lose. They played like they were still afraid.
When Stafford went out, Linehan should have pointed at Calvin Johnson and said "We're tailoring our game plan for the rest of the game around this dude." And yet, the Lions didn't really target him that much unless they had to. And that's the key phrase that sums this whole thing up. Calvin Johnson and Matthew Stafford weren't leaned on unless they had to be. The only problem is that doing that means that you vastly decrease the chances that those players will be successful. The more opportunities you give them, the more opportunities you have to hit one of those opportunities big. You can't sit back and wait and then make one last try and hope that it hits. The other team is ready for it then and it takes away the advantage of having that player in the first place.
Great players win because they're allowed to win. They're allowed to go out and win on every play. They're allowed to keep playing and keep playing and beat the other guy because sooner or later, the other guy won't be able to stop them. When you save them for when you need them, you're just reducing them to a hope and a prayer.
I have kinda just talked out of my ass in this post, and I'm not sure if I even agree 100% with what I'm writing. I mean, after all, it was only one game, but in that one game, I saw enough to wrinkle up my nose in worry. I thought Scott Linehan called a wretched game on Sunday. That's the one solid thing I will say here. That doesn't mean that I think he should be run out of town or whipped with acid laced chains or anything, though. It just means that I have some concerns and I hope the coaches saw some of the same things and will adjust accordingly. I'm worried, though - and I've been worried about this going back to the preseason last year. If you search through the site archives, I think you can find reservations from me about the conservatism of the game plan even then. But I've dismissed it for the most part. What the game against the Bears did was solidify a sort of hazy idea - an ambiguous fear - into something tangible and very real. It's solid now and it's going to stick in my mind for a while, probably for as long as Linehan is here. Maybe that's unfair - hell, it probably is - but that's how troubling the Lions offense and the game plan against the Bears was to me. I have learned to trust my instincts as a fan. Lousy predictions or not, they are usually pretty right on. Underneath all the bullshit and the weird imagery, I'm actually pretty astute when it comes to this shit - shhh, don't tell anyone - and, unfortunately, my instincts are telling me that something is not quite right.
That doesn't mean we should all riot and descend on Ford Field with pitchforks and hearts full of hate. After all, the season is still young and there is chance - and I'm the first to admit this is a distinct possibility - that I am a damn buffoon. But I'm worried. Not a lot. But just enough that it gives me something to think about.
One last note: I originally intended to discuss several things here - Jeff Backus, the defensive front, etc. - but I have already written too many words and so I'm gonna have to let that stuff go for now. Most weeks, on Wednesdays I'll discuss several things and most of the time, I won't go into them as depth as I did here. This post is an anomaly and therefore, as I have pointed out over and over and over, is unsustainable. Anyway, tomorrow is Willie Young Day! Join me for more tales of that remarkable man's journey through time.
No comments:
Post a Comment