Detroit Lions Weblog

Stafford Has Struggled Through Injuries, Inexperience, and Inconsistency, Lions Offensive Line Needs Scrutiny, Too

The Lions have been party to a great number of strange ideas, which they have pursued during their interminable rebuilding program, but the criminal negligence of paying a rookie, and burgeoning franchise Qb $70M to stand in the pocket and get brutalized 13+ times in Sunday’s game, is among their stupidest. Here is Mike O’Hara’s take on the situation:

For most of the three-plus hours it took the Lions to put the beginning and finishing touches — and everything in between — on Sunday’s 27-10 loss to the Minnesota Vikings, Fox promoted a fan contest to give the Vikings’ defensive line a nickname. Last time I checked, I think “Maul of America” was leading.

Granted, it was more clever than my suggestion: “All those guys in purple on top of Matthew Stafford.” and later …But on a day when the Lions were cast as extras for a marketing program, Stafford should have been protected by the coach.

O’Hara is right. The decision to allow the Vikings front four to maul Stafford all day, on a day that Jim Schwartz said that the performance of the Lions offensive line forced Stafford to operate under duress, nearly the entire game, and be brutalized even in situations where they were attempting meekly to protect Stafford, by having him deliver the ball quickly from out of the pocket, was asinine.

““When we’re getting hit on three-step drops, that’s a problem,” Schwartz said.

If the Lions realized that they were jeopardizing Stafford, and with first round draft pick TE Brandon Pettigrew dropping passes all day anyway, why didn’t they use more max-protection in an attempt to protect Stafford? What sense does it make to commend Stafford for his grit and fortitude after a game that he nearly got his head ripped from off of his shoulders, is there any internal logic in that?

O’Hara compared Stafford’s season to the worst Qb season’s in NFL history among high draft picks, after last week’s comparison to the inauspicious beginning of Peyton Manning’s career.

Stafford has shown everything it takes to be a franchise quarterback — big arm, competiveness, field vision and toughness.
Stafford is the Lions’ quarterback of the present and future. No doubt — barring an injury.

O’Hara is not reading tea leaves, or any other form of divination, there is a unifying theme in his article. Failed Qb’s play for poor teams, with poor offensive lines, and often, the burgeoning young Qb career stumbles significantly, after suffering from an injury.

The Lions offensive line is embattled, and I believe that they do the best they can with what they have to work with. The Lions front office has (Unfortunately) been criminally negligent during recent drafts in their continued neglect of upgrades to that position. The names Joe Thomas, Ryan Clady, and Michael Oher make me shudder in agony, and those are just the names of players who the Lions have passed over, or missed out on selecting, in just the last three years.

The Lions haven’t seriously addressed the foibles of their offensive line, short of blundering into their wasted mass of a right tackle Gosder Cherilus, in nearly 10 years now. Dom Raiola and Jeff Backus have been durable, largely dependable fixtures, but since the failed selections of Aaron Gibson and Stockar McDougle, the Lions have, for the most part, behaved as if they had an acceptable situation there.

The Lions have allowed Matthew Stafford to be sacked 17 times in six and a half games, allowing 29 total in nine games. They are pace for allowing 50 sacks for at least the fourth straight season, which according FanNation.com’s “TheMason“, is closely tied with the team’s lack of success.

In 2008 the Detroit Lions went 0-16 and gave up 52 sacks, or approximately on sack every 10 pass attempts, and keep in mind this does not include hits on the quarterback. This year they are drafting first and are thinking about selecting Stafford or Sanchez according to McShay and Kiper. How sorely mistaken they would be to do so, and here is why:

The average NFL QB is sacked on about 5% of their pass attempts historically speaking, give or take a few tenths of a point, and if the numbers get above that season’s average, most QB’s flounder. Dan Marino led the NFL in least sacks taken AS A PERCENTAGE OF PASS PLAYS in 10 seasons, and was in the top-10 for the lowest sack % every season of his career, and his statistics speak for themselves. The argument though is not about whether he won a Super Bowl, but if he was a successful QB, and the resounding answer is yes, and his career sack % was 3.13% according to Pro Football Reference.

Brett Favre managed a sack % of 4.8% for his career, but in New York his sack % hit 5.4%, and again he was routinely in the top-10 QB’s for fewest sacks absorbed during his career. Troy Aikman for his part never fell below 10th in sacks taken as a percentage of pass plays, though it was not until 1992 that the Cowboys had a winning record - again the statistic in question - sack % (4.6%) compared to 6.1%, 8.9% and 8.1% in his first three.

This is where I get angry. The Lions did desperately need to select a potential franchise QB, there is no questioning that. I am impressed by Louis Delmas and even the potential of inconsistent Brandon Pettigrew. That being said, it is clear to me, by selecting Stafford, the Lions immediate priority should have been insulating him from opposing defenses. I believe with a quality offensive line, average QB and moderately-talented skill players, a NFL team can win eight games. The Lions continue to make it clear, even with every bold, attention-grabbing, big splash of a draft selection, that until they address the foundation of their offense, which should have been an immediate and undeniable priority upon Stafford’s slection, they will continue to get their asses kicked, despite Stafford’s own failings, and sheer toughness in an untenable situation. End of story.