Monday, October 22, 2007

Mixture Of Gaudy Numbers, Loss Someone Else's Castor Oil This Morning

They are numbers normally reserved for the winning quarterback.

Eighteen straight completions; 36-for-43 success rate; 315 yards. Two touchdowns, no interceptions. Also a fantasy lover's dream.

But here's what's not so dreamy: two fumbles, including one near the one-yard-line.

And it was those two fumbles, converted into two touchdowns, that undercut Tampa Bay QB Jeff Garcia in his bid to beat his former team yesterday at Ford Field.

The Lions won, 23-16, and for a change it was their quarterback who won despite having less-than-gaudy numbers.

We've seen the fantasy lover's dream here before. You know, where Jon Kitna throws 40+ passes, completes a bunch of them, piles up a slew of yards, maybe even throws a few touchdowns. And yet the Lions lose -- probably because a high percentage of those numbers came after they were down three touchdowns in the first half.

Garcia led some long drives, but mostly came up empty. There were the two picks. There was a missed field goal. And the Lions used a blocked punt to get another three points.

It was opportunistic football -- short on style but long on substance.

I'm not a big fan of the boobs on sports talk radio, nor their callers. But one of the cell-phone wielders on his way home from the game made a good point to the hosting boob yesterday afternoon after the game. His comment came after some sour pusses were complaining about the "ugliness" of the Lions' win, and that the final score was closer than it should have been.

"I don't know why everyone is complaining," the caller said. "The Bears have made a living winning like that. They went to the Super Bowl winning that way!"

Good point.

Now, it's not saying here that the Lions are going to the Super Bowl "winning that way". But it sure is nice to see them win that way; they've done it already a few times this season.

But let's stop something right now. You've already heard, and will continue to hear, about how the Lions started 4-2 in 2004 and yet lost five straight games on the way to a final mark of 6-10.

Since when does what happened in any NFL season of the past have anything to do with what's going on currently? Especially when so many of the key characters have changed, their roles played by more able people. And that's not to mention other variables like schedule, opponents changing, etc.

The Lions of '04 were coached by Steve Mariucci and QB'd by Joey Harrington, who was never comfy in Mooch's dink-and-dunk West Toast Offense. Roy Williams and Kevin Jones were rookies. Other receiver slots were given to frauds like Tai Streets. Also, things were different defensively. Everything was just ... different.

So no more using the 2004 team as a cautionary tale. It's completely irrelevant to what's going on now. And that edict has as much chance of being heeded as Nancy Reagan's plea to kids to "Just Say NO" back in the day. Still, it's worth scolding you all about.

********************************************
Random Observations: Did Calvin Johnson look like a freak (in a good way) or what during that 32-yard reverse for a touchdown? Goodness gracious. It was like watching a giraffe galloping with gazelle-like moves ... Classy words from coach Rod Marinelli all week and again yesterday about how much the game meant to him, since it was against his former employer. He refused to cast the spotlight on himself, even once, and not even in an abstract way. It's all about team with him, from coaches to the 53rd man on the roster ... Good to see T.J. Duckett back into the mix. He had some good runs on a drive that led to a field goal, but I agree with Fox analyst Tony Boselli, who should know. The former OT wondered why the Lions would abandon the run on that drive, when it had been so successful. They got into scoring territory then suddenly called all passes. The insinuation, and it was a correct one, was that the Lions let the Bucs' defense off the hook on that drive.

1 comment:

todd brakke said...

"The former OT wondered why the Lions would abandon the run on that drive, when it had been so successful."

I caught that comment as well, but didn't really agree with it. Maybe I don't remember this right, but they got close and ran for a decent chunk of yards on first down (4-5, I think), then got hit with a false start penalty. At that point you've got second and third and long from inside the 15. (Were they goal to go? I forget.) Seems like a passing situation to me. (no snark intended)