D.J. Reed’s explanation for the Detroit Lions’ defensive struggles raises a practical question: Would doing less help this group execute more consistently?
Following Detroit’s 41–31 loss to the Buffalo Bills, Reed described the challenge of coordinating different personnel, defensive packages and players with experience in different systems.
“There’s so many different guys playing. We have different packages, different guys so you got to know everybody plays different, everybody thinks differently,” Reed said, via the Detroit Free Press. So, it’s more of a challenge but we can do it, compared to Kerby’s been in the system for years, BB’s been in the system for years. You know how they play. When you have different safeties, everyone thinks different, everyone’s been in different systems, so it’s just a little different. But we’re going to get it fixed.”
Still, the issues he identified deserve attention. A defense can have experienced players and remain vulnerable if those players interpret an adjustment differently.
For Kelvin Sheppard and Dan Campbell, the question is whether temporarily narrowing the defensive menu would help turn individual understanding into reliable execution across all 11 positions.
Reed identifies communication and individual execution
Reed’s assessment also included a straightforward priority: Detroit must stop allowing explosive plays.
“The explosives. That’s the major one,” Reed said.
In that same postgame account, Reed identified coverage knowledge, communication and winning individual matchups as areas requiring improvement. Those are related problems, but they require different corrections.
A cornerback losing a contested matchup is one issue. Two defenders working from different understandings of a coverage is another. Reducing the number of calls might help the second problem without resolving the first.
Detroit’s personnel situation adds context. The Lions opened the season without safeties Brian Branch and Kerby Joseph, forcing other combinations into prominent roles.
Experience helps, but familiarity with each other matters, too. Players must understand how their responsibilities connect before the offense forces them to react.
A smaller defensive menu could preserve aggression
There is a reasonable case for Detroit to emphasize a smaller collection of calls while those combinations develop.
That could mean concentrating practice repetitions on its most dependable coverages, reducing checks that repeatedly produce confusion and pairing pressure calls with assignments the available secondary understands best.
Those are possible coaching responses to Reed’s description, not changes he announced or specifically requested.
Simplification also does not require abandoning pressure. Detroit could still attack with selected calls while reducing the number of variations players must process.
Campbell’s postgame comments underscored why that distinction matters.
“So we knew we were going to be a little more aggressive today. That can string you out, but it’s not so much that as it is, okay, if we are going to do that, let’s just make sure we’re all on the same page. That’s all.”
The objective would be to make Detroit’s chosen approach more dependable.
Simplifying the calls would not fix every breakdown
There is a cost to reducing a defense’s options. An offense that recognizes the same looks repeatedly can anticipate where opportunities will develop.
Detroit also cannot solve missed tackles, lost individual matchups or poor quarterback containment simply by changing its call sheet.
Buffalo rushed for 203 yards, including 135 from James Cook. That production exposed problems beyond coverage communication. As Jack Campbell acknowledged while taking responsibility for his performance, Detroit’s run defense also needed better execution.
The useful review is therefore specific: Which calls failed because players disagreed about their assignments? Which failed despite everyone understanding the responsibility? Which can the current personnel execute consistently?
Those answers should determine what stays in the weekly plan. A wholesale retreat into a predictable defense would carry its own risks.
Reed’s confidence leaves room for improvement. Detroit’s next step is to identify how much its players can execute together reliably, then build from that foundation.
About the Author
