Let's Talk Game Plans

Whenever a team – any team – loses a game, its fanbase loses its goddamn mind.  Even when it knows better, even when beforehand it warns each other that things probably aren’t going to go well, and even when it stands before the old gods and the new and proclaims that it won’t behave like a coked out ape on Spring Break if things don’t go well, it still goes berserk.   It doesn’t matter.  As soon as that game is over and as soon as that fanbase sees that its team is the one trailing on the scoreboard with the clock reading nothing but zeroes, the pitchforks come out, the lynch mobs are formed and pretty soon the streets run red with the blood of those too slow or too foolish to get out of the way.  Happens every time.

One of the most popular targets of the lynch mob – and hell, I’ve lynched a few in my day – are the coaches and their game plans.  I think you can see where I’m going with this.

Almost by its definition, a game plan is a failure if your team doesn’t win the game.  I mean, that’s why it’s called a game plan.  It’s the plan the coaches have to win the game.  So, if you lose, well, then shit, guess what, the plan didn’t work. That sounds almost hilariously stupid and simpleminded but it’s true.  That’s why it’s so easy to pick it apart after the game and call the coaches morons and shitheads and demand their blood.  Most of the time, the game plan could be exactly the same but if the team had won then everyone would be blowing their genius coaches and building monuments to their glory that would last a thousand years.  It’s overly harsh, but the truth is this: the success or failure of a game plan – at least in the eyes of most fans – is determined by one thing and one thing only: whether the team won or lost.  That’s it.  That’s the big secret.

It’s all too easy to attack the coaches for what didn’t work after a loss because, well, obviously something didn’t work.  Point to one lost game – just one – in which the fanbase felt perfectly satisfied afterward.  You can’t do it.  That’s because the idea is ludicrous. 

The predictability of all this can lead one to become a bitter crank (Hello!) and it can make for a hellish week in which everyone bitches and moans and tears their shirts, beats at their breasts and beseeches the gods for a lightning bolt to come down and smite their idiot coaches and players.  During this week, the fanbase turns on one another like vicious curs, and by Friday little Vietnamese children are photographed staggering out of their villages, sobbing with Agent Orange melted skin dripping away into a terrible wasteland of the soul.  Terrible, terrible . . .

And then the next game happens and everyone forgets what happened the week before.

It happens every week, every season, every year, and we all are slightly poorer and dumber for the experience.  With all that said, I feel compelled to rise from my perch and say some things about the game against the 49ers, if only because this shit isn’t going away fast enough and people seem to care what I think about such things.

I’ll preface this with the following: I am not a football coach.  I have never been a football coach, beyond weird games involving midgets, beer and mud anyway, and I don’t watch any film or obsessively pore over each and every play looking for answers from the almighty.  I’m just a dude who watches the games once, sees what he sees and then talks about it sometimes.  That’s it.  There will be no picture pages or anything like that, just me telling you what I saw – or what I thought I saw.  I might be wrong.  I might be right.  Feel free to call me a worthless cocksucker in the comments if you don’t agree with me.  That’s cool.

Okay, with all that said, here’s what I saw.

Everyone is shitting all over Scott Linehan and calling him a worthless cocksucker and throwing flaming bags of poop at his door because he made the terrible, unconscionable mistake of trying to run the ball even though the Lions run game consists largely of sorrow and unicorn wishes.  This seemed especially dumb considering the Lions were playing the 49ers, a team capable of shutting even good running teams down cold.  It seemed heinously, grotesquely stupid, the kind of stupid that makes people wonder if Linehan needs a special shunt in his head to drain away all the fluid that is surely collecting on his encephalitic brain, considering that the Lions have a dude in Matthew “Snake” Stafford who threw for over 5,000 yards last season and a wide receiver capable of jumping to Jupiter with Golden Retrievers for hands.

That’s all well and good and goddammit you have a point but the thing is, well, the thing is that Scott Linehan didn’t really have much of a choice.  GRUMBLE GRUMBLE HARRUMPH HARRUMPH HARRUMPH

Settle down, I hear you.  Just listen to me for a minute, okay.  Great defensive teams – and there really aren’t that many – force you to stray from your game plan.  I know, I know, good offensive teams should be able to force their game plan down that defense’s throat.  But honestly?  That’s some rah rah He-Man bullshit, caveman gibberish that is utterly meaningless other than as a worthless platitude, dumb chest thumping that only makes you look insecure, afraid to acknowledge reality in favor of worshipping a Fear based idiot’s dream.  Real life is a little more complicated than that.  Sure, the Lions and Linehan would like to impose their will on a defense – any defense – but the problem with that when it came to the game against the 49ers is this: the 49ers have one of those truly great defenses and in order to beat it, you’re gonna have to prove that you can do more than the one thing that you’re really, really good at. 

I’ll admit, part of this feels wrong to me, even as I write it.  Trust me, I want to say fuck it, start thumping my chest and say that all that bullshit that I just wrote is the lament of a coward and that if you go into a game playing by the other team’s rules, then hell, you’ve already lost.  And I think there probably is something to that.  But here’s the thing: that’s what makes a team like the 49ers great.  They don’t give you a choice.  Let me that say that again: THEY DON’T GIVE YOU A CHOICE.

It sucks but that’s the stark and terrible reality of it.  If you want to be upset about something, be pissed about that.  Rage against simple Truth.  It won’t get you anywhere but, hey, feel free.  It’s a hard thing to accept.  I know it is because I’m struggling with it the same as you are.  I don’t want that to be reality but, well, here we are.  The Lions and Linehan didn’t come out throwing the ball all over the field because of one simple reason: the 49ers didn’t give them a choice.

The whole game the 49ers kept two deep safeties back.  I don’t care who you are, who you have at quarterback, or how explosive your offense is, if a team with really, really good safeties and corners, which the 49ers have, decide to drop all of those guys into coverage you’re not going to be able to throw the ball with any sort of consistency.  You just aren’t.  Sure, you might make a few plays but you’re going to get burned a few times too.  To make matters worse, the Lions couldn’t really pick apart the middle of the field with their tight ends because the 49ers have two of the best cover linebackers in the league in Patrick Willis and Navarro Bowman.  The 49ers game plan was rock solid, fundamentally designed to take away the passing game that the Lions love so much.  Hell, if you don’t believe me, just look at their game against the Packers.  They did the exact same thing to them, and Aaron Rodgers – MVP Aaron Rodgers remember – looked just as shitty against them as the Lions and Stafford did.

So, unfortunately, the only way to attack that defense, to soften it up so that you can pass, is through the running game.  Normally, that type of defense is fundamentally flawed.  Because the safeties stay deep and because cover linebackers are usually more finesse players who struggle against a power running game, teams can run the ball at will, eventually forcing the safeties to come up and for the cover linebackers to be replaced with stouter stuff the run type players.  Once this happens, then an offense can rain down hell and fire from above.  That’s great.  The only problem is this: the 49ers defense is a freak defense.  Its awesome cover linebackers are ever better against the run than they are in coverage.  Meanwhile, the ferocious defensive line, led by the Smiths – Aldon and Justin, not Morrissey - combined with those awesome linebackers are able to stop just about any running game cold without the safeties having to come up to provide much in the way of help.  It sucks but, honestly, against that type of defense, what in the hell are you supposed to do?

It’s a defense that takes everything but the run game away and then dares you to run.  The problem is that, well, it can stop the run too.  Once that happens, what’s left?  You tell me.

So I don’t really blame Linehan for taking what the 49ers defense gave him.  That’s what you’re supposed to do.  If he didn’t, chances are Stafford – especially given the fact that he was possessed with a depressed Dan Orlovsky with mono – would have thrown seven interceptions and everyone would be killing Linehan this week for being stubborn and/or not recognizing that throwing into the 49ers defense was a fool’s game.  Instead of beating Linehan up what we should really be concerned with is the fact that when it’s basically given to them the Lions can’t run the ball well enough to soften a defense like that up.  The good thing is that I think there are very few defenses in the league that can replicate what the 49ers do so it shouldn’t really be an issue going forward.  This is not something that is likely to replicate itself week after week.  The problem, of course, is that it means that we’re in trouble whenever we do play the 49ers and, well, right now it looks like the road to the Super Bowl goes through San Francisco.  If we’re going to get where we ultimately want to go, we’re probably going to have to beat these assholes at some point.

Really, the reason why people are upset - even if they don’t really understand that this is the reason -  has nothing really to do with Linehan and more to do with the fact that their team – our team – is fundamentally flawed.  Sorry.  I hate to have to tell you that but it’s true.  It’s what I mean when I say – as I’ve been saying since before the game – that the 49ers are just better than the Lions right now.

Still, there comes a point when I think you just have to say fuck it and throw it up to a triple covered Calvin Johnson.  Let’s not pretend like that isn’t an option.  We’ve seen that dude do ridiculous things on a football field and so when nothing else works – and it wasn’t working against the 49ers – just tear up the game plan and start heaving that son of a bitch up and hope St. Calvin sanctifies that shit.  Where I disagree with some people is in saying that should have been the game plan all along.  I think that’s kinda suicidal and ultimately, unsustainable.  Sure, he’s great and amazing and all that shit but I just have a hard time with reducing our game plan to Chuck It Up To Calvin And Pray.  That just feels fake somehow, like we’d be getting by on the transcendent greatness of one player and not on the overall strength of the team, and dudes and lady dudes, let me tell you, we’ve done that before.  It was called the Barry Sanders era and for as fun as that time was, it was never really a time of team greatness, was it?  I want more than that this time.  I want more than just relying on one player to carry you because everyone else is inept.  So I’m not going to kill Scott Linehan for at least trying to find an offense that works without the need for miracles and saints and all that shit.  Still, at some point you need to just THROW CALVIN THE GODDAMN BALL, even if he is triple covered.  When nothing else works, well, miracles it is.

There has also been some grumbling about the defense, about Gun and the boys, and honestly?  I think people have a point there.  It’s great that the Lions have a philosophy that they’re committed to but haven’t we seen enough to realize that, well, it’s kinda flawed?  Yes, yes, rush the quarterback at all costs.  Kill him and force turnovers.  That’s great when it works.  When it doesn’t, you’re fucked.  It just seems too one dimensional and while I am board with it as a primary game plan, if it’s not working it’s not working and banging your head against the wall until it’s just a bloody pile of mush and brains isn’t going to help much, you know? 

Let me say it again: as a primary game plan, the idea is a good one.  Disrupt the passing game, take the ball away and live with the occasional big play on the ground due to over-aggressiveness.  I like it and it plays well in today’s bombs away, pass happy NFL.  The problem, as we have seen the last couple of years is that when it’s not working, well, you’re in trouble.  It doesn’t help that the Lions defensive backfield at this point consists of a ball of twine, a crippled goat and Kid Rock smoking a blunt.  If the defensive line isn’t getting to the quarterback with almost superhuman speed then things might get ugly.  Right now, for all the talent along the defensive line, the Lions defense is just too one-dimensional.  By reducing all of that talent to sack artists, like Bruce Irvin or one of those dudes they bring in on third down just to rush the passer, only on every single down, you negate the talent advantage those dudes give you.  Look, no one should be able to run on the middle of a defense consisting of Ndamukong Suh, Sammie Hill and Corey Williams with a known run stuffer like Stephen Tulloch roaming behind them.  It just shouldn’t happen.  Part of that needs to be put on the players themselves, especially Suh, who seems to get taken out of the game way too easily with misdirection plays and wham blocks and all that shit.  He needs to play smarter, savvier, understand that is going to happen and then adjust for it.

But part of that needs to be put on the coaching and on the game plan too, right?  I mean, a big part of the reason Suh and the boys look like out of control idiots, falling for the same bullshit time after time after time, is because that’s what they’re being told to do.  They’re being told “Hey, don’t worry about that shit, just go find the quarterback, break his back and make him humble.”  (I so want that to be an exact quote.  I can picture Gun barking that.)  And like I said, hey, that’s great for a primary game plan but things change, teams adjust and it’s up to you to follow suit.  What I’ve been most disturbed by the last couple of seasons is that when teams do adjust, the Lions don’t.  They just stubbornly slam ahead with their system, like slavish acolytes, more in love with proving the supremacy of their precious philosophy than with doing whatever it takes to win the damn game.

That said, it’s not as simple as all that.  I understand that.  You simply can’t coach – and teach – dudes to do one thing and then turn around and tell them to do something totally different.  I think people need to understand that.  You can’t just throw out the playbook because it isn’t working and start calling plays that the guys have no experience running.  Still, I think the Lions would be better served if they started implementing some different packages and approaches in packages and then slowly working them into the game plan so that when you do have to adjust, you’ll be ready.

I will say one thing – and I talked about this with my boy, the noble Mountain Hebrew, in the comment section of my last piece – the Lions run defense has been noticeably better this season.  In the first game against the Rams, Steven Jackson was basically completely stuffed, which is even more impressive when you remember him running wild against this same defense in the past.  And then in the game against the 49ers, while the run defense certainly wasn’t great – hell, it wasn’t even good if you want to be honest about it – giving up over 5 yards per carry, 29 of that came on a reverse to Mario Manningham.  You take that out and the 49ers ran for 119 yards on 26 carries.  That’s still more than you’d like to see, and the yards per carry still isn’t that great – just a hair under 5 yards – but Frank Gore didn’t get to 100 yards and the 49ers never broke the big runs like they did in last year’s miserable game.  And when you consider that the 49ers offense is built around that run game, well, then it’s not that bad.  Again, it’s not good, but it was good enough, I think, to give the Lions a legitimate shot to win the game had the offense showed up with Matthew Stafford at quarterback and not Dan Orlovsky. 

So . . . I don’t know, maybe the defense has made all the necessary adjustments already and I just wasted a billion words ranting and raving unnecessarily.  It wouldn’t be the first time.  Frankly, I hope that’s the case.  I think my fears regarding the defense are based more on last year – which, let’s be honest, from a defensive standpoint was pretty disappointing, even leaving aside those last couple of apocalyptic games when they were treated like cheap whores in Patrick Bateman’s apartment – than on anything that has happened this year.  If anything, I might even say I’m slightly encouraged by what I’ve seen out of the defense so far, but I still see enough maddening shit to make me worried that things can go to butt town in a hurry.  Maybe that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, or hell, maybe it does.  I don’t know.  I’m just gibbering like an idiot at this point.  I didn’t quite mean for this to be so long but sometimes when I get going I get just a tad carried away.  After all, as my doctor said when he had his hand shoved my ass, it’s important to be thorough.  And on that ridiculous note, let’s just get the hell out of here.

No Mistakes Means No Hope

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.