Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Garrett Interviewed...Then Pulled Out...

Interesting that several sources have confirmed that Jason Garrett had already interviewed with the Detroit Lions before announcing he was going to withdraw his name from consideration -- according to Schefter, on Monday. What a piss-ant to make it seem like he was turning down an opportunity to interview (which is the impression his withdrawal gave) with the "lowly lions" when he had already done so. I didn't want him in the first place, and want him less so now.

This does mean the current regime has once again to manage not telegraphing what they are doing to the rest of the league so well that no one knows until after the fact. Brilliant! They did it with the Roy Trade no one -- and I mean NO ONE - thought would get done, and now with their coaching interviews. They are keeping it low key and direct. I like that.

Seriously, they got him interviewed early, and then went on to interview other candidates without anyone else so much as knowing for three days -- a near eternity in this 24 hours news cycle.

I also find it interesting that the Denver Broncos are also interviewing Todd Bowles and Leslie Frazier. It appears that this time, the Lions are ahead of the coaching interview curve.

If I had to place money on it (which I don't) -- I think that Schwartz from Tenessee is the leading candidate right now, followed by Spagnuolo. Also, after yesterday's piece notice that the Browns hired Eric Mangini to be coach -- before having a GM. They are going to find someone who can work well with the coach they picked. So once again, the coach is not going to be the personnel guy. [update: this came out when I went to skim headlines after blogging indicating I'm not the only one thinking Schwartz is the leading candidate.]

I also noted from Killer (and a news release) that Scott Loeffler jumped ship to a college program after taking advantage of a loophole that makes it easy for NFL assistants to hop down to the college level. Not sure, from watching Stanton, that his one year in Detroit did a whole lot. I think that kind of thing would take more time --- can't blame him for not wanting to stick around and see if the new head coach wanted him or not.

Finally, in the one deserving nod (after getting shafted for the pro-bowl) to Jason Hanson's NFL record setting season, the jersey, shoes and ball used to kick his 8/8th 50+ FG for the record breaker against Indy is in Canton. I think it is hard for a kicker to get in, but his body of work despite being on some pretty awful teams will work in his favor. If anything, that he has accomplished so much with the Lions should make him MORE of a candidate, when the time comes.


CHIEFGER139 said...

right now everyone is interviewing-but I think once someone actually picks a coach-then all involved will start panackiing that they'll get left out of the top coaches and you will see coaches named left and right-with the top 2-coaches being on the giants and the titans-everone may have to wait till the superbowl is over to see who we get-if it goes that long before we get a coach and then we name one whos not involved with the 2 superbowl teams you will know we blew it-and basically got stuck with a coach no one else wanted-but if they are involved with one of those teams-we won the bidding war-and got who we wanted
signed the wize chief!!

Isphet said...

I do think the Lions wait until one of their defensive guys is out of the Playoffs; either Rex Ryan or Schwartz. Every HC that's hired before those two guys are done in the playoffs is a win for the Lions in my mind.

Garrett's a tool. I don't think he would fit with the Lions' new philosophy anyways, and I was yet another person that wasn't high on getting him. The Lions are going to flip this thing around by focusing on defense; both with coaching and the draft.

Anonymous said...

Its been a while since I've posted and with the National collegiate championship game coming up featuring two QB's, now seems like the time to post. Along with Stafford, many, many Lions fans think we should draft a quarterback with that first pick.

I'm here to tell you, supported by statistics that in no way should we draft a QB with that pick, and we should draft defense, defense, and more defense this year.

Using Yahoo Play-by-Play online statistics of the Lions season I've crunched the numbers and arrived at whats posted below. They are skewed because of special teams points or Orlovsky running out the back of the endzone, etc., but otherwise they are reasonably accurate to the point of discussion.

This may get long and detailed, so if you are already bored, you might as well move on.

The defense was on the field for a total of 168 opponents drives this year, 81 at Ford Field, 87 during away games.

For the year, the Lions gave up 517 points, they scored 261.

The Lions gave up 28 TD passes for the year, 14 at home and 14 away. 16.7% of the time the Lions defense took the field they gave up a TD pass.

The Lions conceded 31 TD runs this year, 16 at home, 15 away. For the year, every time the Lions defense took the field they gave up a running TD 18.5% of the time.

The Lions had 23 FGs against them this year, 14 at home, 9 away. Thats 13.7% of the time the Lions defense took the field they gave up a FG.

Of the 168 times the Lions defense took the field they gave up a passing or running TD or held, giving up a FG. {caps for emphasis only} FOLKS 48.8% OF THE TIME THE LIONS DEFENSE TOOK THE FIELD THEY GAVE UP POINTS.

Conversely, and realizing that the numbers are skewed just a tad, the Lions stopped opponents that same 48.8%.

The stops breakdown this way. 54 punts, 1 missed FG, 9 times the opponents had the ball last and took a knee to end the game, 9 fumble recoveries, 4 interceptions, 2 fourth down conversion attempts stopped, 1 safety, and 2 blocked field goals.

So in a nutshell, one out of every two times an opponent had possession of the brick, they put points on the board. And to me DEFENSE, defense, and more defense is the way we ought to go this year. I don't care what positional order the guys are drafted just so long as their defensive guys. We have a serviceable offense that can be addressed next year and if we can reduce that 1 out of 2 times an opponent scores to 1 out of 3 or 1 out of 4, then we are going to begin winning games.

Go Lions

ClusterFox said...

I'm also happy Garrett "withdrew" his name, and I agree on the HC predictions. I also agree with 5Bakerstreet, but for a different reason.
One assumption. all mentioned "grade out" where they are currently projected, and they apply to the draft.
1- We know 1st RD QBs are somewhat of a crap shoot.
2-Very good odds of this being one of the last drafts without some sort of a Rookie salary structure.
3-Bradford, Stafford, Tebow, Sanchez what's the odds on 4 Qbs taken in the top 20.
IMO that's enough of an argument against taking a QB 1st.

I'll take it a step further, and run with Killer's thought on Mays. I'd love a LT, but I think with Smith, Oher, Monroe,Britton and Black(who maybe a better LT than Smith) you should wait till atleast 20th for LT or LB.(Which has Curry, Spikes, Maualuga, Cushing, and Larinaitis)
The true value of a 1st pick is taking the guy who is head and shoulders above his peers in a specific draft class.
So i'm a fan of taking Mays, Orakpo, or Jenkins 1st. All D, all positions we need filled, and all 3 unlikely to be available at 20. And with a defensive guy coming in as our new HC the likely hood of this increases. I hope.