Detroit Lions 2012: Is Regression Coming?

The 2011 Detroit Lions season was something special. The Lions made the playoffs for the first time 1999, and only four years removed from that year. Matthew Stafford and Calvin Johnson broke all sorts of franchise records. The Lions won for the first time in Minnesota since 1997. They were featured on a Monday Night Football game after a ten year absence and made their debut on NBC's Sunday Night Football.

And the games. Man the games. Comebacks, blowouts, upsets, comebacks, more comebacks. And the plays. Man the plays. Bombs, pick-sixes, game-winning drives, blocked field goals, Calvin Johnson, Calvin Johnson and more Calvin Johnson. When creating the top 50 plays of the 2011 season, the trouble was not finding 50 moments, but rather cutting down to 50.

But now its 2012, and though the 2011 season will never be forgotten, we find ourselves in much different times now. The postseason is not the golden, shiny reward at the end of the journey, but the expectation. The Lions aren't the surprise contenders, but a decent team that is expected to play well on a weekly basis or they are a failure.

However, the common motif surrounding 2012 previews is that Lions were a good story last year and great for the city, but, ultimately, they had their time to shine and what lies ahead is the dire reality of mediocrity similar to the Lions of the 90s. The Lions don't rank in the top ten of most preseason power rankings, and are as low as 18 in some. Perhaps the most damning piece on the fate of the 2012 Lions is a study done by National Football Post, which found an interesting, but disturbing trend in the NFL.

Since 2002, there’s an 89.6% chance that a team who bounces back from a losing season to post ten or more wins the following fall is headed for a step in the wrong direction come year three.

The sample size of 29 teams is obviously a bit small, but the statistics are strikingly strong. Even more alarming is the 26 teams that "regressed" in the study lost an average of nearly four more games the following season. However, this study included teams that won more than ten games; teams that had more room to fall than the Lions.

I wanted to narrow this study a bit, so that it was more applicable to the Lions' situation. I looked at the past ten years and found every 10-6 team. Of the 33 teams that went 10-6, nine of them (27.3%) improved the next year, 22 regressed (66.7%), and two went 10-6 again the following season. On average, these 33 teams won 7.9 games the following season.

But this doesn't really capture the essence of the Lions. The Lions are a team that has been improving for the last few years, and these 10-6 teams in the study come from all varieties. So from those 33 ten-win teams, I picked out the teams that had done worse in the previous season and improved to 10 wins. I'll call these teams "improving teams."

Over the past ten year, there have been 24 improving 10-6 teams. Those improving teams continued to improve after their 10-6 season only 20.1% of the time (five of 24), averaging a total of just 7.4 wins the following season.

The numbers aren't quite as pessimistic as the ones in the linked study, but they don't exactly give Lions fans a reason to get excited. Still, it's clear that it is possible for teams to continue success. So instead of accepting our doom, let's examine the what factors contribute to sustained success versus ones that cause teams to fall back to irrelevancy.

The 2010 Tampa Bay Buccaneers is one of the most striking examples (and the most recent) of a team that saw extreme improvement, only to see it all dissipate the following season. The Bucs jumped from 3-13 all the way to 10-6 in 2010, just missing out on the playoffs. With a young team and an emerging quarterback, the Bucs were expected to again compete for the NFC South. But in reality, the team struggled drastically and finished a meager 4-12.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the 2008 Minnesota Vikings jumped from 8-8 to 10-6, but didn't stop there. After adding Bret Favre, the Vikings finished the 2009 season with a record of 12-4 and made it to the conference championship (only to lose in an awesomely hilarious fashion).

On the surface, it appears the Lions most resemble the 2010 Bucs team: a young team looking for their players to improve the next season, rather than the Vikings, who seemingly improved by adding a much-needed veteran quarterback. However, looking at four key aspects of these teams, it becomes clear what makes an improving team better and what causes a team to stunt their growth.

Roster Changes
Stability is key to success in the NFL. A stable roster develops thorough knowledge of the playbook, creates chemistry between players, and makes a coach's job easier. After the Bucs' 10-6 season, Tampa Bay returned only 13 of 22 starters. [For clarification purposes, a "starter" is defined as the player who started the most games at that position throughout the season. So if a projected starter was injured and did not play the majority of games at his position that year, he is not considered a "starter" in this study] The Vikings, on the other hand, returned 16 of 22 starters.

The Lions are projected to start 21 of 22 starters from last year, with the only exception being cornerback Aaron Berry (although, it is very possible Mikel Leshoure replacing Kevin Smith will be another). If these 21 players can stay healthy for the majority of the season, the Lions' stability will only help maintain their success.

Roster Age
Age is a fickle thing in the NFL. Teams strive to keep their youth, but gather a team full of inexperienced youngsters, and you are doomed to inconsistency and mistakes. The 2010 Bucs starters were considerably young, averaging a birthday of 6/11/1984, or around 26 years old. In 2011, their average age was only two months older.

The 2009 Vikings, on the other hand, were around 29 years old on average, and were exactly four days older in 2010. So where do the Lions land? Last year, the Lions average birthday was 4/30/1984 (feel young yet?), or a bit older than 27. This year, with nearly the exact same lineup, they are unsurprisingly almost an exact year older. So the Lions are getting older, gaining experience and hoping to rid themselves of the inconsistencies and mistakes that plagued last year. Of course, it's worth noting that some of the Lions' best players are still young and therefore still prone to mistakes.

Quality of Wins (and losses)
In the NFL, the bottom line is always wins vs. losses. But rarely does that tell the entire story about a team. Did they blow out every team they beat and just barely lose against good teams? Was every game a nail-biter? Were there any warning signs that this team wasn't as good as their record implied? It is reasonable to conclude that if a team struggled mightily to get to ten wins, they may not be able to sustain their success next year.

With the Tampa Bay Bucs, you see exactly that. Though they won by an average of 9.3 points per victory, they only outscored their opponent by 23 total points at the end of the season. Also, the Bucs had a couple of weeks where there were clear warning signs. They were blown out by two different teams, losing both games by 25 points each. And five of their wins were by three points or less. Small margins of victory plus large margins of defeat (11.7 on average) equals danger.

The Vikings were in almost every game they played in 2008. Their biggest loss was by 13, and every other defeat was by seven or less. At the end of the season they had outscored their opponent by exactly double of what the Bucs did (46 for the math-impaired). Still, six of their wins were by seven points or less.

The Lions, as we all know, had some very close calls as well. They had five wins by seven points or less, but had the highest margin of victory of the three teams (Lions - 15.4, Bucs - 9.3, Vikings 8.7). They also outscored their opponent by 87, more than the Bucs and Vikings combined. However the Lions, too, had some warning signs. They lost by 24 to the Bears, 14 to the Saints and 12 to the Packers. They also fell behind big in games quite frequently and though they came back in most of those, that sort of thing is not sustainable for multiple seasons.

Overall, it's pretty clear the Lions were above the lower-level teams in the NFL, but their play against above average and elite teams was inconsistent at best. They competed with the NFL's best, but failed to record a win against a playoff team outside of the 8-8 Broncos.

Turnover Margin
Sometimes an oddity in record can be explained by plain luck. Turnover margin is often key to victories, but countless studies have proved its randomness. It is possible then, that a 10-6 record may be the result of mostly good fortune and that a regression is more likely if the team experienced a high turnover margin during their ten win season.

For the 2008 Vikings, this was not the case. They actually lost the turnover margin for the season, averaging 0.4 more giveaways than takeaways per game. They won games without the benefit of winning the turnover battle, a great sign for future success.

Looking at the 2010 Bucs, it's not too surprising to see that they ranked sixth in turnover margin, forcing 0.6 more takeaways than giveaways. Lo and behold, in 2011, when they ranked dead last in turnover margin (-16 for the season), they regressed considerably.

The 2011 Lions ranked fourth in turnover margin, also forcing 0.6 more turnovers than takeaways per game. This doesn't mean that the Lions are doomed next year. In fact, assuming that the Lions will lose the turnover battle in 2012 is the exact wrong way to interpret this data. That is akin to believing that a coin is more likely to land heads after landing tails five times in a row (the odds are still 50/50). The Lions are just as likely to win the turnover battle as they are to lose it in 2012. What this data does tell us is that the Lions were aided significantly by the luck of turnovers last year, and if they don't receive the same fortunes in 2012, they may not see the same success.

Conclusion
While history is stacked against the Lions, the 2011 team had many positive traits that may contribute to the teams' continued progression. Their roster is nearly the same as it was last year, giving the team stability and chemistry. Their players are also a good mix of young and old; players in their physical prime and veterans with valuable experience. Last year, they dominated a few teams and were in nearly every game they played.

But there are some warning signs as well. They Lions were clearly aided by turnovers last season, and without that benefit, they may not have reached the postseason. Also, they failed to beat a very good team last year, and were clearly over-matched against Green Bay and New Orleans.

In the end, I don't expect a huge regression. The 2010 Bucs season seemed completely random. Their jump from 3-13 to 10-6 was a wild jump in the standings largely aided by turnovers and winning games by the skin of their teeth. The Lions, however, have slowly and steadily been improving their team. The past three years have been an improvement from the season before, and because it has been a gradual improvement it is likely more sustainable than the wild seven-game improvement that the Bucs experienced. If the Lions are to regress this year, it will be no worse than an 8-8 season.

--
Special thanks to http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/ and http://www.teamrankings.com for their extensive historical data.

Previewing the Green Bay Packers with Packers Blogger Andy Tisdel

Over the course of last season, Andy Tisdel of Oak Creek Patch had done a Q&A with me on a couple of occasions. This year, we have agreed to do it again. Last week, Andy posted my answers to his questions about the Detroit Lions. This week, I post his answers regarding the Green Bay Packers, the NFC North, and expectations for 2012. This is our story:

1) What in your opinion went wrong last year? Obviously, it's hard to complain about a 15-1 season, but no one in Green Bay was looking for a regular season championship. Was this a case of the Packers not playing their best football when they needed to, or was there something truly wrong with the team?

Andy Tisdel: Yeah, give me the Stanley Cup over the President's Cup any day. One thing that I think went wrong--and this was the case back in 2007 as well when the Packers went to the NFC Championship--was that the quality of play slipped a lot over the second half of the season, especially when the division title and so forth were in the bag. There was the loss to Kansas City. There was what was really a sloppy game against Oakland, even though it was a blowout win. There was that Week 16 game where we let the Bears' third- and fourth-string RBs roll up something like 200 yards rushing on us. In hindsight, there were a lot of ways that the Packers were kind of slowing down during the second half of the season, and they all came out against the Giants. There's been an ongoing debate over whether the Packers gave the game away or just got beat by a better team, played out among NY and GB fans and in the media; in my opinion, the Giants played a great game, but no sane person who watched the game thinks they beat the Packers on their best day. But at the same time, the playoffs are about showing up when you've gotta show up, and the Packers did not.

As far as something wrong with the team... I think there was a problem with handling the Super Bowl victory, and I think it was mostly on the defensive side of the ball. (This is mostly just my theory, so treat it as such.) The Packers are one of those teams with a head coach that mostly involves himself with one side of the ball. Mike McCarthy leads and speaks to and motivates the whole team, but he's heavily involved with offensive game-planning and scheming in a way that he isn't on defense, i.e. he interacts with the offensive players a lot more. McCarthy mostly leaves the defense to Dom Capers, our DC. And while Capers has a reputation for being a really good defensive schemer, I don't think leadership and inspiration and motivation are really his strong suits. This is all just speculation by me, since I'm not inside the building, but last year the offense was phenomenal and the defense was a plane crash. A lot of defensive players--B.J. Raji, Sam Shields, Morgan Burnett, A.J. Hawk, etc. had down years or didn't play to their 2010 form, while the offense as a whole was even better in '11 than '10. Injuries were a factor in the defensive collapse, but it's my guess--one more emphasis on guess--that that organizational problem was a factor as well.


2) There has been a lot of talk about the NFC North and whether the Bears or Lions have closed the gap between themselves and the Packers. How do you see the North playing out this year, and who do you see as the Packers biggest threat?

That is a tough question. I would say the Lions--swear I'm not pandering--because they have had that extra year to build off of their successes, to build chemistry as an offensive unit. As far as I know, all of the offensive players that were essential to last year's success are returning. The Bears have some more uncertainty. Even with the offense tailored to Cutler and Marshall, Marshall is still a newcomer and adjusting is going to take time. Same with Hester and trying to make him into a WR again. Same with their perennial shuffles on the offensive line. It just looks from here like the Lions have had that much more continuity and opportunities to grow without new things to get used to. I don't see the Packers, Bears and Lions being separated in the final standings this year by more than two games total. I still think the Packers should be the favorites for a second straight division title, but they aren't going to run away with it like last year.


3) How worried should Packers fans be about their backup quarterback situation? With Matt Flynn gone and Graham Harrell struggling, do you see the Packers going after a new backup, like the recently released Vince Young? Are the Packers completely done if Aaron Rodgers goes down?

I would say fairly worried. I'm personally hoping we manage to trade for or claim Matt Moore off of waivers, but I think the issue has been kind of overblown. With basically any top-10 quarterback--Brady, either Manning, Brees, Romo, Vick, whoever--if they go down for the year, you're done. Season over. It's such a QB-driven league that even if you can make a playoff push, like the Patriots did in '08 after Brady went down, the odds are you're not going to go very far. (See: the 2011 Texans.) In that respect, whether it's Graham Harrell or Moore or almost any backup QB... maybe not completely done, but our Super Bowl hopes would go from 'well within the realm of possibility' to 'maybe an outside chance'. I don't see the Packers going after Young for any number of reasons--ours is an extremely complicated offense and he hasn't had success with those, he's got a reputation as a loudmouth, etc., but I would not be surprised to see us claim a decent veteran. (Also, not to pick on Young, but if you're released by Buffalo... I'm just saying, that's an indication he doesn't have much left.)

4) The Packers spent almost all of their draft picks trying to improve the defense. Do you expect to see a big improvement in the defense this year? Many believe the defense took a big step back last year, do you see it that way? Any rookie looking like they'll have a big impact this year?

To "did the defense take a step back", there's no question whatsoever. Like I was saying up above, a lot of players had bad years from an individual standpoint, but the combination of that + injuries to/release of key players/ + possible lack of attention from head coach was just a toxic one. It was one of the worst collapses from year to year that I've ever seen.

Having said all that, I do believe the defense will jump back to at least adequate this year for two big reasons. One is that Tramon Williams' shoulder is healthy, and that just opens up the defense so much for Capers. Williams is one of the best cover corners in football when he can play press coverage, which he couldn't do last year because of nerve damage suffered in Week 1. I think Capers can be a lot more creative with his coverages and blitzes, knowing that.

The other is that we finally, finally, finally have a legitimate pass-rush threat opposite Clay Matthews. This is something that the D has been missing since 2009. Last year, the Packers couldn't generate pressure from multiple angles; they just had Matthews moving around but no other credible threats. This year they should have at least two or three players who can rush the QB consistently. This goes back to your question about the rookies. Perry has a lot to learn about being an OLB (he was a collegiate DE), but he's shown a ton of athletic ability and raw power. Jerel Worthy is excitable and hasn't shown a lot of gap discipline as yet, but he also has potential. For both of them and for the other rookies, they have the potential to have a big impact, but the best thing they can do is create opportunities for the Packers' existing stars. Put another way, Perry will likely create more sacks for Matthews then he will create on his own... and he will benefit as well from Matthews' presence. For me at least, that's the biggest reason for optimism.


5) What is the biggest obstacle the Packers face on their journey to a second championship in three years? Lastly, what's your prediction for the year?

The Packers' biggest obstacle is going to be injuries. We've already lost one Pro Bowl-level player for the year in Desmond Bishop. Luckily, we're deep at inside linebacker, but there's an uncomfortably large number of positions where we aren't--offensive tackle, safety, quarterback and running back spring to mind. The 2010 Packers could absorb ridiculous numbers of injuries because they had good players ready to go and good coaches using them correctly. The 2012 Packers will need to stay healthy at those positions to capture another title.

They're also going to need to get it together when it counts. I think I can safely predict that the Packers will make the playoffs somehow if Rodgers stays healthy; they're just too good and too talented not to, despite all the Lions and Bears can throw at them (and it's going to be close). It's what happens once they're there that concerns me. Green Bay responded amazingly to adversity in 2010; as a privileged No. 1 seed in 2011, they collapsed. It's up to the coaching staff to coax the best out of the team when the time comes, and up to the players to give it. If they can do that--and I think they can--then Aaron Rodgers will get his second ring come February.

--

Andy Tisdel is the Packers blogger for Oak Creek Patch, and also runs his own site at  http://tisdelstirades.blogspot.com/ Check them out!

Two Days Late Preseason "Live" Blog: Lions at Raiders

Today I "live" blog the Lions' third preseason game against the Oakland Raiders. I will only be blogging the first half, as I saw and commented on the second half on twitter. For my thoughts on the second half, head to my twitter timeline (hint: there was CAPSLOCK PANIC aplenty).

First Quarter

14:50 - Tully with the coverage, Suh with the sack. This is how things are supposed to go.

14:30 - That is not how things are supposed to go. This is a very well-blocked run by Raiders, but Corey Williams makes the mistake they needed. Williams tries to sidestep his blocker. Problem is: this blocker has no interest in Williams and heads to the second level. This hesitation by Williams gets him behind in the play and as a result, he also gets in Suh's way. Willie Young ALMOST gets a hand on him in the backfield but he was the only chance before this run was headed for the first down chains.

14:00 - Neato formation alert!

The Lions bring a safety into the box (John Wendling in this case) and put him on the end. The rest of the line shifts to the right. The Lions did this a lot on Saturday, and it's likely something we'll see against run-heavy teams.

12:30 - Defensive ends continue to get sucked in by misdirection plays, and safeties continue to bail them out with great positioning and tackling.

11:00 - Lions bring two linebackers to blitz on third and short and neither get there. It puzzles me how poor this team is at blitzing. Same story last year.

8:40 - Kind of shocking to type these words, but the secondary bailed out the rest of the defense on the first drive. Very solid tackling from the back four.

8:20 - Kevin Smith starts the game. I KNEW Leshoure didn't really exist.

8:00 - OH MY GOD, IT'S HIM. DID YOU SEE THE MOVE HE PUT ON THE GUY IN THE BACKFIELD. HE'S REAL AND HE'S MOVES SO MAJESTICALLY!

7:05 - Great bubble screen set up for Burleson. Unfortunately, both Pettigrew and Peterman decide not to block anybody.

5:45 - OH MAN, DID YOU SEE LESHOURE CATCH THAT PASS THAT WAS BEHIND HIM AND TURN IT INTO SIX YARDS? GLORIOUS. #LESHOUREGASM

4:30 - So the story of the offensive line for the 20th year in a row is going to be: above average in pass protection, completely absent in run blocking. Great.

3:00 - OKAY THAT WAS SERIOUSLY THE BEST RUN FIVE YARD RUN I'VE EVER SEEN. SHOOK TWO PEOPLE SO HARD OUT OF THEIR SHOES THEY HAD TO GO TO THE SIDELINES FOR NEW EQUIPMENT. #LESHOUREGASM

1:50 - Our kicker is better than yours.

End of first quarter: So our defense holds tight, and gets a three-and-out. Our offense drives pretty far down the field and gets some points. This game is going pretty well. We'll probably just cruise through the rest of the game. Yup. Nothing bad is going to happen the rest of the game.

14:36 - LOOK WHERE BACKUS IS.

Not only does Backus fail to seal the edge, but he's driven literally FIVE YARDS into the backfield. Another bad day for him (at least in terms of run blocking).

13:13 - Scheffler doesn't sell the run well enough on 3rd and short, and is completely covered. Stafford tries to fit the ball in a small window to Titus, but it's low. Nothing more frustrating than 3rd and short failures.

Oh, apparently something else important happened on this play. Leshoure hilariously whiffs on a block and things get considerably less hilarious when we find out the guy he missed broke a blood vessel in Stafford's left hand. BAD LESHOURE. SIT IN A CORNER AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE DONE (It's so hard to yell at the little guy. You can see in his eyes he didn't mean to do it. But you gotta give him tough love or he'll think he's the alpha male.)

13:00 - Levy missed tackle. Drink.

11:30 - This is a great example of how the replacement refs' incompetency could cause serious injury. The Lions clearly jump offsides and encroach. The play should be blown dead, since Tulloch is in the backfield and has a free shot at anyone. Luckily, Tulloch assumes the play is going to be blown dead and gives up on the play. If Tully had played assuming there was no whistle, he could have seriously hurt someone not expecting to get hit before the play even started.

10:33 - Unreal catch by Heyward-Bay. I want to get mad at Justin Miller, but he got a hand in there and almost made a good play on a clear mismatch.

8:39 - Laughably bad pass interference call on Erik Coleman.

6:29 - I know they ended up ceding a touchdown, but it's good to know the Lions defense still excels in short-yardage situations. By the way, touchdown was the correct call on the McFadden run.

6:12 - Raiders announcers freaking out that Janikowski is injured, but HAVE FAILED TO MENTION THAT STAFFORD IS INJURED.

3:00 - Just a terrible outing by the offense after the Willie Young pick. First play, Backus fails to completely pull and block the streaking linebacker. Loss of one. Second play, Raiola gets pushed five yards back into Shaun Hill's grill, forcing a quick incompletion. Third play, low throw by Hill forces Megatron to fall and get no yards after the catch. Fourth down: another bad thrown by Hill on a gimme touchdown to Calvin.

Pretty disappointing to see Hill given two opportunities with great field position and turn them into three measly points. While the first drive wasn't really on him (badly missed illegal contact penalty), the second was. Field goals aren't going to cut it with this defense.

1:30 - Missed tackle by Justin Miller could have gotten the Lions off the field on third down. Can't have plays like that when the roster cuts ax is so near.

Overall Thoughts:
That wasn't nearly as bad as I thought. The defense held up fairly well, caused two turnovers, and didn't get burned for a big play outside of the ridiculous catch by Heyward-Bay. The biggest disappointments were the offensive line's run blocking and Shaun Hill's inaccuracies.

However, the secondary continues to make me NOT panic and is tackling well in run coverage. Stafford still moved the ball efficiently, and special teams looked much better. If Stafford would've been in the game, I have full confidence that the Lions would've led at halftime and there wouldn't have been any panic.

In the end, this game didn't teach me much I already didn't know. The run game will still struggle, the defense will bend but will be hard to break, the offense is reliant on Matthew Stafford. The only thing I really DID learn is that Mikel Leshoure exists...and that he gives me a #Leshouregasm

Three Days Late Preseason "Live" Blog!

I was out of town Friday when the Lions faced the Ravens and was only able to watch the first half from afar on an off-brand 32" flat screen in a small New Mexican burger joint. The following is my thoughts upon rewatching the game in the comfort of my own home via DVR technology this morning.

First Quarter:
15:00 - Man, that NFL on FOX theme song is delicious. The following commentary on off-season issues...not so much. I guess we better get used to both.

10 minutes into my DVR and still no football played. Better get used to this, too, I guess.

14:56 - Spievey gets pancaked on opening kickoff after the whistle and doesn't go into rage mode. Progress.

14:56 - *offsides penalty* Nevermind.

12:43 - Avril. Flashes of the San Diego game. Great early recognition of the quick pass.

12:37 - Jacob Lacey does a good job disrupting the route, but a better receiver makes the catch on that third down play.

12:22 - Love how FOX focuses on Ray Lewis, followed by the Lions running right at him and gaining eight. Good seal by Raiola.

11:47 - I thought the panic over the replacement refs was overblown. I was wrong. Ugly stuff with the ball positioning. Was clearly a full yard short.

10:24 - Peterman with a BIG whiff, causing a 4 yard loss. The running game worries: they linger.

9:57 - Awful job the the offensive line on this third and long. Ravens blitz up the A-gap and neither Peterman nor Raiola recognize it. Meanwhile, Peterman whiffs again on the guy he is blocking. Not a good series for him.

8:44 - Flashes of Fairley dominance on this 2nd and short. He athletically swims past his guy and meets Ray Rice four yards into the backfield. Levy does a good job evading his block and cleaning up the mess.

8:02 - Crap call on Fairley. Once again, Lions' strength makes hit look more violent than they are. Hit was barely late.

6:40 - Corey Williams destroyed. Doesn't recognize the counter run, finds himself flat-footed, then thoroughly pancaked. Don't expect to see him around next year.

5:52 - Chris Houston with his second endzone breakup this drive.

5:32 - Helluva breakup by Wendling. If only that cleared my anxieties about secondary depth. If only.

3:05 - Combination of bad read by Stafford and Pettigrew getting out-physicalled on the near pick. Stafford had Burleson early for an easy first down, while Pettigrew couldn't break free of the linebacker.

2:07 - Detroit's defense gets fooled by misdirection plays twice in a row, completely erasing Phil Donahue's beautiful punt.

1:22 - Wow. Just brilliant job by Thom Brennaman to subtly suggest that Fairley's offseason antics caused him to line up offsides. "Looks like Nick Fairley lined up in the neutral zone. I'll tell ya what...Nick Fairley...arrested twice during the offseason...he's facing a pair of trials in his home state of Alabama." *REF CALLS OFFSIDES PENALTY ON DEANDRE LEVY* "Uh..that could've gone against Fairley or the guy it was called on DeAndre Levy." Good cover-up. (to be fair, the penalty should've been on Fairley, but still. Brennaman's a dick.)

1:00 - Levy. Another missed tackle. Has to be his third of the quarter.

Second Quarter

14:48 - Erik Coleman, great run-stopping angle and tackle. Very Delmas-esque. Wendling follows it up with a 3rd down sack. Safeties: stop trying to make me comfortable with you.

13:32 - Titus getting manhandled on a designed play to him. Schwartz getting hot.

12:50 - Logan. Drop. I just don't see his worth on offense. And given how little he ever gets to return kickoffs with new kickoff rule, I really don't see his worth on the team going forward.

12:20 - Just a meager 96-yard drive gained almost completely by Calvin. He's the only receiver I know that can embarrass a DB so bad that it draws an offensive pass interference penalty.

12:13 - Raven's offensive twos are in, while Lions stay with their ones. However, Bentley takes over the two-corner spot for Lacey.

12:08 - Refs are ALL-OVER illegal man down field rulings.

8:31 - Say what you will about the Lions running backs, but I love all of their vision. Always finding the hole...assuming one exists.

7:51 - Great play all around on the Titus TD. It looks as if Backus makes a mistake by leaving an unblocked player on the edge, but, in reality, he did the right thing. Baltimore sends more guys than they can block, so Backus takes the inside blitzer, giving Stafford just the extra second he needs. Matt does a great job getting rid of the ball quickly and in the face of a defender and Titus does the rest.

6:42 - Lions depth beyond the front four on defense looking awful. Ashlee Palmer with a couple mistakes, Tahir Whitehead with a missed tackle,

5:00 - Hey there, Ryan Broyles. Nice to meet you.

3:29 - Andre Fluellen with a great play. First, he squeezes through the line causing the quarterback out of the pocket. Then gets rewarded with a free, blind-side shot at him and takes full advantage.

2:51 - Reiff getting work on the right side (Fox on left). Struggling a bit. First, gives the end the outside free, where Shaun Hill happens to be scrambling, then lets an end come through unblocked on the next play (unsure whether that was his fault).

0:34 - Ashlee Palmer missed tackle. Drink!

Third Quarter

I don't care if I'm not in it, this is my new Christmas card.

13:56 - Not sure what's going on but Gerberry and Reiff not on the same page. Continually letting one man through unblocked.

8:54 - How many "Fire Stan Kwan" tweets did I miss?

6:25 - Just made an audible gasp when someone rolled up on Reiff's ankle. Wasn't aware he was made of pure rubber. By the way, he settled in nicely. Good drive here.

4:27 - Not going to waste a lot of time on Kellen Moore. Just know this: if he's playing, the Lions' season is over.

Fourth Quarter:

15:00 - Willie Young vs. third team special teamers. Not. Fair.

13:57 -

Jim Schwartz smiles. There is now photogenic evidence of this happening. He looks like he's straining his entire body to do so. I'm sure his face is still sore for stretching those muscles that clearly haven't been used in years.

13:18 - Lions fail to do the one thing I want to see them do: pick up a third and short on the ground. Of course, the scab refs blow it and give them the first down anyway.

12:50 - Joique Bell: how to look simultaneous awesome and terrible on a play.

12:00 - Not sure what Young is still doing in, but the Lions should be protecting their future golden goose. He disrupted nearly every play in this drive.

7:56 - DVR mercifully gives out in the middle of the most awkward-looking Kellen Moore drive.

Overall thoughts:

• Lions offense still hasn't really found its rhythm outside of throwing the ball to Calvin. But I'm not exactly worried.
• Defensive backfield held up pretty well. Good to see Houston make some plays.
• Defensive depth behind first stringers...a bit worrisome. Lot of missed tackles by linebackers.
• Reiff looked decent but hesitant. Still very much a rookie. 

Decision 2012: Lions or Bears?

Asking around, you'll be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't view the Green Bay Packers as the NFC North's clear favorite going into the 2012 season. But ask someone who will be creeping in the Packers' shadow in second place, and you'll find yourself in an all-out warpath of bickering, condemning and hatred.

Mlive's latest version of "Ask Anwar" begins with two Lions fans complaining about the Bears getting too much hype in the offseason. ESPN's NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert's weekly chats have been dominated by smack talk between Detroit and Chicago. Lions fans are offended by the media's infatuation with the 2012 Bears. Bears fans are sickened by the pompous Lions fans who are way too excited over their one playoff berth.

At the crux of this debate are two key issues: which team was better in 2011, and which team improved most in the offseason? So let's answer those questions.

Which team was better in 2011?
To most Lions fans, the answer seems obvious. The Lions finished with two more wins, a postseason berth and scored over 100 points more than the Bears. Advantage Lions. But the answer is far more complicated. 

One way we can analyze which team was better is by looking at the head-to-head games between the two. In the first game, the two met in Detroit for the Lions' first home Monday Night Football game since 2001. The game was tight for the entire duration, with the Lions coming out on top after two big offensive plays. Both teams played incredibly well (especially Jay Cutler, who was running for his life the entire game). However, the Lions were aided by a wildly enthusiastic crowd who helped force NINE false start penalties. The Lions still looked like the better team that day, but hardly in a decisive manner.

The other head-to-head matchup came in week 10. The Lions were thoroughly mauled by the Bears, 37-13. In what was a seemingly essential game, it was surprising to see the Lions drop a game so decisively. Of course, the main defense by Lions fans was that Matthew Stafford had recently suffered a broken finger, and his play clearly showed he had not fully recovered. This point, however, was clearly refuted by Stafford himself. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Stafford's four interceptions cannot all be blamed on his finger, but at the same time, he wasn't playing like the kid who had only previously thrown four total interception all season. The Bears were clearly the better team that day, if for no other reason than the fact that they made fewer mistakes. 

Head-to-head matchups don't really seem to give us a clear conclusion. When both teams are playing their best, the Lions came out on top. But they also had a clear home-field advantage. We also saw that the Lions were probably much more prone to making mistakes, but an injured Stafford exacerbated that issue. Since the Lions finished with a better record, we can use that as a tie-breaker, right? Well, not exactly.

After the second matchup between the two, both teams stood at 6-3 and with nearly identical records in the tie-breakers. So here's a closer look at the two teams as they stood after week 10.

Lions: Points For: 252; Points Allowed: 184
Bears: Points For: 237; Points Allowed: 187

At the time, Football Outsiders had the Bears at 9th in DVOA while the Lions ranked 14th.

Any way you slice it, the teams were just about dead even. Then the rest of the season happened. The two teams clearly diverged.

The Lions went 4-3 down the stretch, while the Bears stumbled, finishing 2-5. It's impossible to ignore the fact that Jay Cutler was lost for the season in week 11 with a broken wrist. From there, the Bears lost to the Raiders by five, the Chiefs by seven, and the Broncos by three (in OT). With Cutler healthy, it is hard to imagine the Bears dropping all three of those games.

In fact, looking closer, we can see the exact impact losing Cutler (and Matt Forte later in the season) had on the team. Before Cutler went down, the Bears averaged 26.8 points a game. After he went down, the Bears averaged 14.2(!!). In none of those six remaining games did they ever reach the average amount of points a Cutler-led offense scored. Still not convinced? Well, the Bears were averaging 332.9 yards per game with Cutler under center. With him on the sidelines? 283. 

Meanwhile, the Lions squeaked out miracle games against the Vikings and Raiders. 

What I'm getting at is the Lions were much closer to a 9-7 team than they were an 11-5 team. Of their six losses, only two felt truly winnable: at home against the 49ers, where the Lions were a few inches short of stopping the Niners on a game-deciding fourth down conversion and the season finale against a second-string Packers team. However, the Lions could have easily lost games against the Cowboys, Vikings (twice), Raiders, and Panthers. 

And the Bears were a much better team than their 8-8 record suggests. Had Cutler not gone down, there's no way Chicago drops five of their final six games. Injuries are obviously a part of the game, but if Lions fans are going to use the broken finger excuse for the second Bears game, they have to admit that losing Cutler probably cost the Bears at least 1-2 game, likely more. And if Bears fans are going to complain about losing Cutler, they, too, have to admit that Stafford's injury hurt the Lions' chances that day in Soldier Field.

Now I'm not going to make any definitive statements about which team was better last year, because it's impossible to prove. But it's clear that both sides of the debate have valid points, and it's too close to say unequivocally.

Which team improved most in the offseason?

Again, the answer seems obvious when looking at things from the outside. The Bears made headlines in the offseason for their acquisition of star wide receiver Brandon Marshall and solid depth running back Michael Bush. The Lions made headlines in the offseason for all the wrong reasons. Countless arrests resulted in public embarrassment and the loss of a starting cornerback. 

Of course, the answer isn't as simple as that.

Both teams have glaring issues that were not addressed this offseason. The Bears had a lot of pass protection issues last year. Last season, they were sacked 49 times last year (fifth most). The positive spin the Bears have put on this issue is that they have improved their pass protection through addition by subtraction. Dropping offensive coordinator Mike Martz and transitioning to a more balanced offense will mask this deficiency, so the claims go.

The Lions secondary is the black eye they are trying to cover up. Already an issue going into the offseason, matters weren't made any better when projected starter Aaron Berry found himself in trouble with the law and eventually without a job. There's no doubt that this is the one part of the Lions' roster that actually took a step back from last year, but like the Bears, Lions fans are hard at working trying to calm the storm. Enter: Bill Bentley. Word out of camp is that Bentley is reeking havoc all over the field. That's relieving news for Lions fans, but it shouldn't calm all fears. Though they'll never admit it, Lions coaches are likely losing sleep over the fact that they may be starting a third-round rookie at cornerback week one of the 2012 season. And the depth at the corner and safety positions is terrifyingly slim.

While it appears the Bears have made a few more additions to improve this years' roster, that is not the only factor in deciding whether a team will improve or regress the following season. One of the most overlooked issues is progression of returning players.

Some of the Bears' key players are reaching the tail-end of their careers, including Brian Ulracher (age 34) and Julius Peppers (32). In fact, the average age of their projected starters* on defense is 28.5. Meanwhile, the Lions' key players on defense (Ndamukong Suh, Cliff Avril, etc.) are hitting the peaks of their careers. The average age of Lions defensive starters is 26.7. On offense, the Lions are actually a year older on average (28.5 to 27.5), but at key positions (WR, QB and RB) the Lions are younger and improving more.

So, again, the conclusion is inconclusive. The Bears have added more weapons this offseason, while the Lions spent the offseason fine-tuning the weapons they already had. Both teams are poised to make a playoff run this season, and there's no clear leader for second place in the NFC North. Lions fans feel victimized by the media because of the offseason antics, but the truth is the Lions were benefactors of an injured Cutler last year and still have some major concerns. Bears fans complain that they are being overlooked because of Cutler injuries last year, but the truth is the Lions took it to them with a healthy Cutler and the Bears still have questions on offense. Both teams are great candidates for wild card spots in the 2012 season but neither team has a clear better shot than the other.

*To determine projected starters, I used ESPN's current depth chart for both the Lions and Bears