Assuming this is right...we open in Chi against Det

[madlithuanian]

Lions schedule leaked, too

Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2010 5:06 PM ET

One of the most awaited teams schedules -- the Steelers -- has been leaked. And so the appropriate bookend would be one of the least awaited.

 

We give you the Lions 2010 schedule, from the Detroit News.

 

Sept. 12, at Chicago; Sept. 19, Philadelphia; Sept. 26, at Minnesota; Oct. 3, at Green Bay; Oct. 10; St. Louis, Oct. 17, at N.Y. Giants; Oct. 31, Washington; Nov. 7, N.Y. Jets; Nov. 14, at Buffalo; Nov. 21, at Dallas; Nov. 25, New England; Dec. 5, Chicago; Dec. 12, Green Bay; Dec. 19, at Tampa Bay; Dec. 26, at Miami; Jan. 2, Minnesota.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Lions schedule leaked, too

Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2010 5:06 PM ET

One of the most awaited teams schedules -- the Steelers -- has been leaked. And so the appropriate bookend would be one of the least awaited.

 

We give you the Lions 2010 schedule, from the Detroit News.

 

Sept. 12, at Chicago; Sept. 19, Philadelphia; Sept. 26, at Minnesota; Oct. 3, at Green Bay; Oct. 10; St. Louis, Oct. 17, at N.Y. Giants; Oct. 31, Washington; Nov. 7, N.Y. Jets; Nov. 14, at Buffalo; Nov. 21, at Dallas; Nov. 25, New England; Dec. 5, Chicago; Dec. 12, Green Bay; Dec. 19, at Tampa Bay; Dec. 26, at Miami; Jan. 2, Minnesota.

 

I dunno, if Jim Schwartz can get all the pieces working together they have brought in this and last year, they could be a pretty decent team.

[defiantgiant]

I dunno, if Jim Schwartz can get all the pieces working together they have brought in this and last year, they could be a pretty decent team.

The one thing I'm worried about is our secondary. Covering Calvin Johnson was nearly impossible even when our guys didn't have anybody else to worry about. I mean, he was averaging 7 catches for 109 yards against our guys last year, and now we're going to have to pull some coverage off of him to handle Burleson and Scheffler.

 

I doubt their pass defense will be adequate (barring a fantastic draft) and I don't see anybody in their run game who scares me, but that passing game could be legit.

[nfoligno]

Calvin is a stud, no question, but I think some are giving a tad too much credit to Burlson and Sheffler.

 

Do they have some weapons on offense? Sure. But frankly, they have had receiving weapons for some time, and that has not translated to wins. Their OL was awful, and while they have added Sims, I am not sure their OL is fixed. At the same time, we have upgraded our DL with Peppers, and will have Urlacher and Pisa back too. Their rushing attack is still iffy, and their pass protection is not that well upgraded while our pass rush should be.

 

Then there is the other side of the ball. Their defense was garbage, and I am not sure how much they have upgraded that area, while we very well could have an upgraded offense.

 

Detriot has made some respectable moves, but I don't see these moves translating to a significant difference.

 

The one thing I'm worried about is our secondary. Covering Calvin Johnson was nearly impossible even when our guys didn't have anybody else to worry about. I mean, he was averaging 7 catches for 109 yards against our guys last year, and now we're going to have to pull some coverage off of him to handle Burleson and Scheffler.

 

I doubt their pass defense will be adequate (barring a fantastic draft) and I don't see anybody in their run game who scares me, but that passing game could be legit.

 

[defiantgiant]

Oh yeah, I'm not saying they'll win a lot of games or that Burleson or Scheffler will put up big numbers. But we'll have to cover Burleson and Scheffler normally, unlike Bryant Johnson/Dennis Northcutt/whatever scrubs they were fielding last season. That makes me really worried about what Johnson could do. He's a legit #1 receiver even when he's triple-covered...what's he going to do against a more balanced defense?

 

Also, it's a little misleading to say that they've had "receiving weapons for some time." I mean, Detroit has, but Matt Stafford and Scott Linehan haven't. Last season, when Linehan and Stafford came in, is the only real point of reference for the offense this season. And last season they were working with exactly one receiving weapon, plus a bunch of guys who would have been #4 or #5 options for any other team in the league. This year they've got three legit passing targets, even if two of them are only league-average players. Again, I'm not saying it'll get them to 8-8 or anything, but I think Calvin Johnson's going to shred some defenses this year.

[nfoligno]

At the end of the day, I think you simply have a higher opinion of Burleson than I do. In 7 seasons, he once hit 1,000 yards (barely) and that was back in 2004 with Minny. Since then he has been little more than a disappointment.

 

Even take a look at last year. Sure, he put up a respectable 63 for over 800 yards, but it took over 100 passes to get him to that mark. As you have argued in the past, if you force feed the ball to a player, they will end up with inflated stats.

 

So when you throw out there other WRs like Bryant and Northcutt and call them scrubs, I would simply argue Burleson is barely above this group.

 

As for Sheffler, I would argue they already had solid contributions from their TEs. Their rookie had 30 for 346, and he missed basically the final 6 games. 30 catches in the first 10 games of his rookie season is pretty dang good. Heller and Fitzsimmons add in another 37 catches for about 440 yards. So while Sheffler is a good TE (though I still think over rated) they already had very solid production for the TEs they had. Sheffler "might" be an upgrade, but that much of one.

 

At the end of the day, it comes back to the OL IMHO, and they simply have not done a whole lot there. Stafford was only sacked 24 times, but had to run for his life often, throw it away or throw under pressure (part of the reason for the 20 picks).

 

I have argued for years that you can have great weapons, but if your OL sucks, those weapons do you little service. Especially a speedster like burlson who will not have time to run a downfield route before Stafford is under pressure. Further, what have they done to help their dreadful run game? Nadda.

 

This offense was near the bottom of the league in passing, rushing and scoring. Sorry, but the additions of Burleson and Sheffler simply don't do it for me.

 

Oh yeah, I'm not saying they'll win a lot of games or that Burleson or Scheffler will put up big numbers. But we'll have to cover Burleson and Scheffler normally, unlike Bryant Johnson/Dennis Northcutt/whatever scrubs they were fielding last season. That makes me really worried about what Johnson could do. He's a legit #1 receiver even when he's triple-covered...what's he going to do against a more balanced defense?

 

Also, it's a little misleading to say that they've had "receiving weapons for some time." I mean, Detroit has, but Matt Stafford and Scott Linehan haven't. Last season, when Linehan and Stafford came in, is the only real point of reference for the offense this season. And last season they were working with exactly one receiving weapon, plus a bunch of guys who would have been #4 or #5 options for any other team in the league. This year they've got three legit passing targets, even if two of them are only league-average players. Again, I'm not saying it'll get them to 8-8 or anything, but I think Calvin Johnson's going to shred some defenses this year.

 

[madlithuanian]

I basically agree. It's all the other areas of improvement that have me moderately worried.

 

They may have beaten us at home if we didn't KO Stafford. A moderate improvement on the line, could spell disaster for us, for maybe one of the 2 games with them. Hungry and disrespected teams with talent can oftentimes be a spoiler. I'm hoping they aren't there yet, but certain things are pointing more in that direction.

 

At the end of the day, I think you simply have a higher opinion of Burleson than I do. In 7 seasons, he once hit 1,000 yards (barely) and that was back in 2004 with Minny. Since then he has been little more than a disappointment.

 

Even take a look at last year. Sure, he put up a respectable 63 for over 800 yards, but it took over 100 passes to get him to that mark. As you have argued in the past, if you force feed the ball to a player, they will end up with inflated stats.

 

So when you throw out there other WRs like Bryant and Northcutt and call them scrubs, I would simply argue Burleson is barely above this group.

 

As for Sheffler, I would argue they already had solid contributions from their TEs. Their rookie had 30 for 346, and he missed basically the final 6 games. 30 catches in the first 10 games of his rookie season is pretty dang good. Heller and Fitzsimmons add in another 37 catches for about 440 yards. So while Sheffler is a good TE (though I still think over rated) they already had very solid production for the TEs they had. Sheffler "might" be an upgrade, but that much of one.

 

At the end of the day, it comes back to the OL IMHO, and they simply have not done a whole lot there. Stafford was only sacked 24 times, but had to run for his life often, throw it away or throw under pressure (part of the reason for the 20 picks).

 

I have argued for years that you can have great weapons, but if your OL sucks, those weapons do you little service. Especially a speedster like burlson who will not have time to run a downfield route before Stafford is under pressure. Further, what have they done to help their dreadful run game? Nadda.

 

This offense was near the bottom of the league in passing, rushing and scoring. Sorry, but the additions of Burleson and Sheffler simply don't do it for me.

 

[defiantgiant]

Dude, nfo, Burleson might not be a big impact player, but it's ridiculous to say that he's "barely above" Bryant Johnson and Dennis Northcutt. I might be overvaluing him and Scheffler a little, but I think you're underestimating just how awful the Lions' other receivers are. Bryant Johnson got 88 targets compared to Burleson's 103, but Burleson nearly doubled Bryant Johnson's catches/yards last season (63-812 compared to 36-426.) Their targets don't account for the difference, it's their talent.

 

If you adjust for targets, and use catch percentage, yards per catch, and yards per target instead, you'll see what I mean. Burleson had a 61.1% catch rate, 12.9 yards per catch, and the average throw to him (yards-per-target) gained 7.88 yards. Bryant Johnson? He's WAY less reliable than Burleson and does less after the catch, too: he had a 40.9% catch rate and 11.8 yards per catch, meaning that a throw to him averaged all of 4.84 yards.

 

*I should point out that a three-yard difference in YPT is MASSIVE. YPT is pretty tightly grouped if the players are even roughly comparable (compare Burleson's 7.88 to Anquan Boldin's 8.03, when Boldin is clearly a significantly better player.) It takes a major disparity between the players to add up to a multiple-yard difference in YPT.

 

It's even worse with Scheffler and Northcutt: Scheffler actually outproduced Northcutt while getting significantly fewer targets. Scheffler: 50 targets, 31 receptions (62%) for 416 yards (13.4 YPC). Northcutt: 62 targets, 34 catches (54.8%) for 346 yards (10.2 YPC). The average throw to Scheffler gained 8.32 yards, compared to 5.58 for Northcutt. Just like Johnson/Burleson, Northcutt's worse than Scheffler, by a significant margin, in every category you can use to measure a receiver.

[defiantgiant]

I think the easiest way to measure the upgrade for the Lions is to project the new guys' numbers over the same number of targets as the guys they're replacing. Since it sounds like the Lions will be going with a lot of 2-TE sets and using Scheffler mainly to replace a slot receiver, I put Burleson against Bryant and Scheffler against Northcutt. I'm thinking 100 targets is a reasonable figure for a #2 WR, and 70 targets for a #3 receiving option. So it's Burleson/Bryant over 100 targets and Scheffler/Northcutt over 70. Check it out:

 

Nate Burleson - 100 targets, 61 catches for 786 yards

Bryant Johnson - 100 targets, 41 catches for 485 yards

 

Tony Scheffler - 70 targets, 43 catches for 577 yards

Dennis Northcutt - 70 targets, 38 catches for 387 yards

 

...so if you're the Lions and you're wondering if these two upgrade your passing game, it's a no-brainer. Stafford can throw the same number of passes to the non-Calvin-Johnson receivers, and you get 25 extra completions for almost 500 extra yards if he's throwing to Burleson/Scheffler instead of Johnson/Northcutt. Stafford's completion percentage on those throws jumps from 46.5% to 61.1%, and his YPA goes from 5.13 to 8.01. Is it as big a difference as if they'd gotten Boldin or Santonio Holmes or somebody? Of course not, but if the same 170 plays can get you 104 completions for 1363 yards instead of 79 for 872, there's no way to say that's not a big upgrade.

[nfoligno]

First, why are you comparing Scheffler, at TE to Northcutt, a WR? Even if you want to say he was the 3rd option, I would argue that was still Petigrew, who may have had 5 fewer catches, but also missed the last 6 games.

 

When talking about Sheffler, I think you have to look at the other TEs on the Lions roster, who actually played pretty well last year. Det had a trio of TEs that actually played pretty well. Maybe Sheffler is an upgrade to any of them, though I am not even certain about that, but I am not sure he is that great of an upgrade.

 

As for the WRs, I am not trying to say Johnson or Northcutt were any good, and yes, Burleson is an upgrade, but if what you have is total crap, just because you upgrade doesn't mean it is a player I fear. Look at the bears last year. I think any would agree Bennett was a significant upgrade over Booker, yet would Bennett be a player you fear or worry about? Burleson is an upgrade, but still not a player I worry about. If Bowman can't handle him, then the problem is not the weapons Det has but who we have to start because Bowman is going to face MUCH better talent than that.

 

Back to Sheffler for a moment. I would also point out that while they get Sheffler, we also get back Urlacher and Pisa. I'll take that matchup.

 

At the end of the day, did Det upgrade their arsenal? Yes. But is it an upgrade that worries me? Nope. Especially when I look at (a) their OL which still sucks and ( their run game which still sucks. Calvin will always be a player to respect as he is awesome, but I just don't believe their additions really change that much. Their #2 WR is better, but still not one I fear. Their TE may be better, but again, still not one I really fear.

 

I would point to the other side of the ball as an example. They added Vanden Brosch, who is a good DT and w/o question an upgrade to what they had, but he is no longer a player that really worries other teams. He is an upgrade, but just not a good enough player to worry that much about.

 

If they had added Holmes to play opposite Calvin, now that would be another story, but while Burleson is an upgrade, I still just do not see him as the upgrade necessary to worry about. If we can't cover him, then we have bigger issues.

 

Dude, nfo, Burleson might not be a big impact player, but it's ridiculous to say that he's "barely above" Bryant Johnson and Dennis Northcutt. I might be overvaluing him and Scheffler a little, but I think you're underestimating just how awful the Lions' other receivers are. Bryant Johnson got 88 targets compared to Burleson's 103, but Burleson nearly doubled Bryant Johnson's catches/yards last season (63-812 compared to 36-426.) Their targets don't account for the difference, it's their talent.

 

If you adjust for targets, and use catch percentage, yards per catch, and yards per target instead, you'll see what I mean. Burleson had a 61.1% catch rate, 12.9 yards per catch, and the average throw to him (yards-per-target) gained 7.88 yards. Bryant Johnson? He's WAY less reliable than Burleson and does less after the catch, too: he had a 40.9% catch rate and 11.8 yards per catch, meaning that a throw to him averaged all of 4.84 yards.

 

*I should point out that a three-yard difference in YPT is MASSIVE. YPT is pretty tightly grouped if the players are even roughly comparable (compare Burleson's 7.88 to Anquan Boldin's 8.03, when Boldin is clearly a significantly better player.) It takes a major disparity between the players to add up to a multiple-yard difference in YPT.

 

It's even worse with Scheffler and Northcutt: Scheffler actually outproduced Northcutt while getting significantly fewer targets. Scheffler: 50 targets, 31 receptions (62%) for 416 yards (13.4 YPC). Northcutt: 62 targets, 34 catches (54.8%) for 346 yards (10.2 YPC). The average throw to Scheffler gained 8.32 yards, compared to 5.58 for Northcutt. Just like Johnson/Burleson, Northcutt's worse than Scheffler, by a significant margin, in every category you can use to measure a receiver.

 

[nfoligno]

Sorry, but this assumes all those passes go to these players, which I doubt seriously happens.

 

You leave out Kevin Smith who had 40 catches. And while they added Sheffler, I doubt Pettigrew leaves the picture.

 

Also not factored are (a) their OL has not been improved that much and ( we added Peppers.

 

Theoretically, we should be able to apply more pressure, which in turn should negate their ability to pass the rock. Further, we also get back urlacher and Pisa.

 

So lets see. They added Burleson and Sheffler, and we add Peppers, Urlacher and Pisa. I think we come out better here.

 

I think the easiest way to measure the upgrade for the Lions is to project the new guys' numbers over the same number of targets as the guys they're replacing. Since it sounds like the Lions will be going with a lot of 2-TE sets and using Scheffler mainly to replace a slot receiver, I put Burleson against Bryant and Scheffler against Northcutt. I'm thinking 100 targets is a reasonable figure for a #2 WR, and 70 targets for a #3 receiving option. So it's Burleson/Bryant over 100 targets and Scheffler/Northcutt over 70. Check it out:

 

Nate Burleson - 100 targets, 61 catches for 786 yards

Bryant Johnson - 100 targets, 41 catches for 485 yards

 

Tony Scheffler - 70 targets, 43 catches for 577 yards

Dennis Northcutt - 70 targets, 38 catches for 387 yards

 

...so if you're the Lions and you're wondering if these two upgrade your passing game, it's a no-brainer. Stafford can throw the same number of passes to the non-Calvin-Johnson receivers, and you get 25 extra completions for almost 500 extra yards if he's throwing to Burleson/Scheffler instead of Johnson/Northcutt. Stafford's completion percentage on those throws jumps from 46.5% to 61.1%, and his YPA goes from 5.13 to 8.01. Is it as big a difference as if they'd gotten Boldin or Santonio Holmes or somebody? Of course not, but if the same 170 plays can get you 104 completions for 1363 yards instead of 79 for 872, there's no way to say that's not a big upgrade.

 

[defiantgiant]

First, why are you comparing Scheffler, at TE to Northcutt, a WR? Even if you want to say he was the 3rd option, I would argue that was still Petigrew, who may have had 5 fewer catches, but also missed the last 6 games.

I said why in my second post: because from the way the Lions' coaches talked about Scheffler's role, it sounds like the guy he's going to push to the bench isn't Pettigrew, but whoever their #3 receiver is. From the sound of it, they're going to replace their 3WR-1TE-1RB set with a 2WR-2TE-1RB set. It makes sense to do that: Scheffler's a move TE even more than Olsen is - his whole skillset is basically the same as a big wide receiver, and that's how he played in Denver. You send him in motion, have him flex out or line up in the slot, and you treat him like an extra receiver. That's why McDaniels dumped him, because he wants to use the TE as an extra blocker, not an extra wideout. Scheffler's going to be stealing snaps from a slot receiver, not from an every-down TE like Pettigrew.

 

Sorry, but this assumes all those passes go to these players, which I doubt seriously happens.

 

You leave out Kevin Smith who had 40 catches. And while they added Sheffler, I doubt Pettigrew leaves the picture.

That's the idea - it's just a way of comparing the players based on the same number of targets, so we can see how good they are relative to each other. I picked figures that I thought weren't crazy, but the point wasn't to predict their role in the offense relative to Calvin Johnson/Pettigrew/Kevin Smith. The number of targets isn't important, the assumption I'm making is that whatever Bryant Johnson would have gotten goes to Burleson instead, and likewise for Northcutt and Scheffler. It could just as easily have been 50 targets or 20 or 10 - the upgrade is still the same, proportionally.

 

That said, Detroit could easily throw 100 times to Burleson and 70 to Scheffler. The Lions threw the ball 585 times last season. Even if they throw it to Calvin Johnson 130 times, that's only 300 throws to Johnson/Burleson/Scheffler combined. Assuming they throw about the same amount as last season, that leaves 285 passes for Pettigrew/Kevin Smith/whoever else. In 2009, they threw to Kevin Smith 56 times in 13 games and Pettigrew 55 times in 11 games. Assuming they're both healthy for 16 games next season, that's only 149 targets between them. So Smith and Pettigrew's roles in the offense could stay exactly the same, Burleson and Scheffler could get exactly the number of targets I was using for comparison, and there'd still be 136 pass plays left over.

 

I would point to the other side of the ball as an example. They added Vanden Brosch, who is a good DT and w/o question an upgrade to what they had, but he is no longer a player that really worries other teams. He is an upgrade, but just not a good enough player to worry that much about.

Vanden Bosch is a DE, not a DT. I like the parallel, though: I think he's actually a really good comparison for Burleson. Neither one is a player who's going to make a huge difference on his own, but either one should be good enough to make you pay for devoting too much attention to the impact player lining up next to him (I'm thinking about Haynesworth when KVB was in Tennessee.) That's the kind of upgrade I'm talking about here: not guys that you have to game-plan for specifically, but guys who are good enough to capitalize on a 1-on-1 matchup when you're trying to stop somebody else.

 

At the end of the day, this is what I'm saying: last season they didn't have any guys who could capitalize when teams sold out to stop Calvin Johnson. This season they do. They're not players who strike fear into defenses, but they're good enough that you have to defend them normally. The guys they're replacing were so bad that you really didn't have to defend them at all. I agree that the Bears should still sweep the Lions this year. The Lions just have too many holes in the roster: at o-line, at running back, in the secondary. All I'm saying is that the addition of Scheffler and Burleson makes their receiving corps respectable. I can think of a lot of teams in the league with a worse group of passing targets than Calvin Johnson, Nate Burleson, and Tony Scheffler.

 

And given how badly the Bears struggled to cover Calvin Johnson last year, having a respectable group around him is worrisome. You pointed out the impact Peppers could have, and I hope you're right, but remember that the Bears sacked Stafford 5 times in a single game last season. That didn't stop him and Johnson from lighting up our secondary. Having Pisa and Urlacher back will help the coverage out, but I think that Peanut and company could have their hands full trying to stop Calvin Johnson this year.