Answering the Detroit Lions' week 1 "Burning questions"

I've been answering Detroit News columnist Lynn Henning's burning questions regarding the Detroit Tigers for the past few months, and have received good response. Thus, I'm going to do the same with the Detroit News' Detroit Lions beat writer Mike O'Hara's "Burning questions" as well.

It's a win/win/win, as I enjoying writing these opinion pieces, it guarantees some new material for you faithful readers (New being relative, as long as O'Hara doesn't continually rehash the same subject, as Henning is wont to do. Henning has yet to find a dead horse that he can't beat, and beat endlessly) and saves me the work of coming up with the questions myself, allowing your friendly blogger to save what few functioning brain cells I have left. As I said, It's a win/win/win!

And speaking of winning, the Lions won in surprising fashion Sunday. O'Hara fires off some fiery inquiries regarding what he believes their stunning victory means to their overall chances this season. And awaaaay we go...

Burning questions from the Lions' 36-21 victory over the Oakland Raiders on Sunday:

Q: What did the Lions show in the game?

O'Hara: Two sides. Sometimes they were still the old Lions, like in the second half when the Raiders rallied to wipe out a 17-0 deficit and take a 21-20 lead. And they were the new Lions -- when they got the early lead, and when they came back to win.

There was more of the new Lions than the old Lions. That's why they won.

Big Al: The Lions showed that they could beat one of, if not the, worst team in the NFL. It's a start, but not all that impressive. I'd have been more impressed if we had seen less of what O'Hara calls the "Old Lions."

There were still a handful of silly penalties, some of which really hurt their red zone offense. The revamped O-line committed several procedure penalties //cough//George Foster//cough//, which is an old Lions bugaboo, and one of my biggest pet peeves, being a one time O-lineman myself. (30 years ago! Yes, I'm old!)

There was also the fact that the Lions defense allowed the Radiers offense to pass and run their way down the field at will in the 2nd half. As I said in my blogging of Sunday's game, if the Lions can't stop Lamont Jordan and Justin Fargas, a pair of backs who are average at best, can you seriously expect them to stop the Vikings' Adrian Peterson?

Peterson had a breakout game in his first NFL appearance, with 100+ yards rushing, and a 60 yard TD reception. Considering the Vikings QB issues, I'd expect Peterson, and Chester Taylor (If healthy) to get plenty of carries, and do quite a bit of damage, this coming Sunday.

Other long standing issues were Kitna's knack for committing the badly timed turnover, specifically the 1st quarter pick in the end zone, having to settle for field goals once entering the red zone, Roy Williams dropping a pass, giving the Raiders an easy pick, the lack of a pass rush in the 1st half, giving up over 300 yards passing to Josh McCown, who wasn't good enough to be the Lions' backup QB (That decision can also be argued, but that's another post), and the Lions' running game was dormant for long periods. Looking back, there was plenty of the "Old Lions" to go around...

As for the "New Lions?" I was thrilled to see the D create some turnovers, something we saw very little of over the past few seasons. The pass rush was great in the 2nd half, Tatum Bell ran fairly well, as 85 yards and a TD will attest. Yes, the offense came up big in coming from behind.

But the fact that the Lions had to come from behind to begin with, in blowing a 17-0 lead, is a big concern.

As good as the Lions looked at times, you have to temper your enthusiasm by remembering that the lowly Raiders were their opposition.

Q: The Raiders had the NFL's worst record last year. What does beating a team that bad really mean?

O'Hara: It means that the Lions took care of business. Most games are decided by who comes through in the clutch, and the Lions did that. They were slight underdogs to the Raiders, but only because they were playing on the road. The Lions have not been a good road team for the last six years.

The Lions didn't let anything distract them Sunday. They just kept playing. And when they got the lead back, 26-21, defensive end Dewayne White made two big plays to seal the victory. One was an interception. The other was a sack that caused a fumble.

Big Al: The Lions were supposed to beat the Raiders, and as we have seen all to often from this franchise, the Lions lose those games. So to see them beat a team that has less talent at most positions was refreshing, and not exactly expected if you go from past history.

The Lions have been awful on the road during the Millen era. Well, they've been awful, period.
But winning on the road is an accomplishment against any NFL team, even a bad one. A road victory is a good sign that the team may have bought into Sgt. Marinelli's program, and that the talent level may finally be on the upswing.

To be honest though, I'm going to need to see more, much more, before I buy into the idea that this Lions team is any different from the disappointing Lions teams of the past. Historically, we've seen the Lions play well for 1 game, then go into a death spiral for the next several weeks, effectively ending their season, and bringing back the "Fire Monte-Wayne-Bobby-Moronwheg-Mooch-Millen" chants.

So pardon me for thinking that the performance we witnessed against the Raiders may be the exception, rather than the rule. 1 week of decent football is not going to have me saying the 2007 Lions are a playoff contender, or even a .500 team. (Actually, in the NFC, a .500 record and being a contender goes hand in hand)

In my mind, the Lions will remain pretenders until they consistently prove otherwise. A win over the Vikings would be a nice place to start.

Q: The Lions go home to play the Vikings, who beat Atlanta at home Sunday. Shouldn't this be an easy victory for the Lions to get to 2-0?

O'Hara: Nothing should be considered easy for the Lions. There have been too many instances in the past where they've blown chances to do something good.

They were 2-0 in 2004 and played Philadelphia at Ford Field. They lost that game, 30-13. Two weeks later they were 3-1 and playing the Packers at Ford Field. They lost that one 38-10.

Both times, it was a case of the Lions looking ahead, thinking they had accomplished something before they really had. This team seems to have a different mind set, but it has to prove it can do things over a full season.

Big Al: An easy victory? There is no such thing for the Detroit Lions!

I'm glad to see a beat writer agree, as the MSM have all too often drank the Kool-Aid, and ate the cornbread, that was spoon fed to them by the Lions. The MSM were guilty of doing so even during the awful 2006 season, lavishing praise on the Lions after the 1st game of the season, a narrow, last second loss to the Seahawks.

The next week, the Bears destroyed the Lions in embarrassing fashion, 34-7. After that embarrassment, I declared the Lions' season was over, as nothing had changed. It was the same old Lions.

I would not at all be surprised if the Lions laid a huge egg this Sunday against the Vikings. The Lions have always been a team that buys into their own hype, gobbling up their own cornbread and Kool-Aid, thinking they are a much better team than their normally awful record (We're the best 6-10 team in the league!), and tends to look past teams they are supposed to beat.

If Sgt. Marinelli can get rid of that mentality, then they may be on to something. But that remains to be seen. It's a long season, and the Lions will stumble and lose, possibly in ugly fashion. It's how long that fall from grace lasts that will tell us if the Sarge has truly changed the Lions culture of losing.

Q: The Lions only had six penalties in the game, but three were against offensive tackle George Foster in the fourth quarter for false starts. What's that about?

O'Hara: There really aren't any excuses. Players have to be able to concentrate when they're tired and when they're under pressure. However, the Lions don't go on a rhythmic cadence from the quarterback, Jon Kitna. Foster has to get used to it. It's different in the regular season, when there's more noise than in exhibition games. It shouldn't be a long-term problem.

Big Al: Not a long-term problem? Silly penalties as Foster's have been a signature of Lions play for decades. There are no excuses for procedure penalties. You should know the damn snap count!

It's that sort of thing that has pissed off we Lions fans to no end. Bad penalties. Stupid penalties. Silly penalties. We've seen the Lions commit every penalty known to the NFL. The NFL has had to add penalties to the rule book, as the Lions have committed infractions that we've never knew could be called!

OK, that might be a slight exaggeration, but you know where I'm coming from. Over the years, the Lions have always shot themselves in the foot, and if Foster continues to commit silly penalties (Or other players do the same), why should we fans believe that Marinelli has changed the losing culture of the Lions?

We've come to expect stupidity from the Lions, and dumb penalties just reinforces our expectations.

Q: Nose tackle Shaun Rogers played after missing the exhibition season. How effective was he?

O'Hara: At times he helped stuff the run. He blocked a field goal. It was the 10th block of his career. But he also got tired. Conditioning always is a factor for Rogers because of his weight.

Rogers took a breather in the third quarter. On the next play, LaMont Jordan ran 12 yards up the middle for a touchdown. Coach Rod Marinelli is trying to build up Rogers' endurance. If Rogers is in the game for more plays, it will help the defense.

Big Al: Ah, the Big Baby conundrum. He was a difference maker against the Raiders. He should be one every week. But as we have seen throughout Rogers' career, he's consistent in his inconsistency.

Remember that Seahawks game I brought up earlier? Shawn Rogers played like the best lineman in the NFL that day. Unfortunately, that version of Big Baby was nowhere to be found the next week against the Bears. This is what I wrote after that debacle...

Shaun Rogers has lived up to, or should I say down to, his reputation. But he's gone from just taking plays off, to taking entire games off. Week one, Big Baby was a monster presence against the Seahawks. He looked like the best tackle in football. Week two? From looking at Rogers' stat line of 3 tackles and then nothing but zeros, he was anything but. Next week? Hell if I know, and I doubt the coaching staff does either.

Rogers has the talent to dominate, we've all seen it. Seen it every other play, every other week, but never every play, or every week. The first 2 games of the 2006 season was Rogers' career in a nutshell.

We can only hope that Sgt. Marinelli, who has a track record of elevating talented D-linemen to the next level, can do the same with Rogers, as he did with the likes of Warren Sapp. The caveat being he can go to the next level if Rogers, and only Rogers, wants it to happen. If he does, and it's a big time IF, Rogers will dominate. That will also make the rest of the D-line that much better.

In comparative terms, Big Baby is the sun, and the rest of the line revolves around him.

Q: Kalimba Edwards had two sacks from right defensive end. How important was that?

O'Hara: This is his sixth year, and the Lions have been waiting that long for him to play up to his potential. If Edwards and White get a strong rush from the outside, it will take pressure off the secondary. It needs help.

Big Al: Christ, Kalima Edwards is in his 6th year? Any other team would have given up on this bust long ago. As we all know, the Lions aren't any other team. Who else would have made Edwards a very rich man, signing him to a long-term extension, despite no significant production?

Sure, someone would have signed Edwards, but not for the 4 years and $20 million the Lions gave him. The Lions are the only team that would sign someone long-term, in anticipation that their new head coach could actually make a player out of him. Edwards was paid much in thanks to hope and desperation, not common sense.

The Lions have a shitload of cap space allocated to their D-line, probably as much as they do to the wide receiver position, which is really saying something... Edwards and Rogers were given big money deals in the past, and DeWayne White and Cory Redding were given huge money in this last off season.

The Lions NEED the line to dominate, thanks to all the money invested, and the glaring lack of talent in the D-backfield. In the 2nd half of the Raiders game, they did just that. Edwards got 2 sacks, Rogers was a disruptive force, and White did enough (7 tackles, a pick, fumble recovery, and sack, along with 2 forced fumbles) to win NFC defensive player of the week honors.

So Edwards playing well was nice to see, but I'd say much of what he accomplished was due to the attention that the rest of the D-line attracts. Edwards has to continue to take advantage of that fact. If he can't, I'd hope the Lions will finally wash their hands of a player, who up to the start of this season, has been a massive bust.

1 good game will not not make the "Bust" tag go away.

Q: Shouldn't the Lions beat the Vikings at home next week?

O'Hara: Yes. If they do, that will put them where they should be -- with a 2-0 record.

Big Al: I'm sure the Lions will be a small favorite, being a home game, and the Vikings having an inexperienced QB. Last time I checked, the Lions are 3 point favorites, basically what the home team will get in what is considered a toss up game.

Should the Lions win? I'd never go that far! I've been burned way too often, financially and emotionally, by the Lions. To say they should be 2-0 is giving the Lions the benefit of the doubt, and they lost that, in my mind, years ago.

Can the Lions win? Yes. Will they win? I wouldn't bet on it.