This is not my argument. No, this is what Michael David Smith is saying in the Wall Street Journal (and since I am a Lions fan, I tend to agree). Here is what Smith had to say:
Competitive week in and week out, the Lions keep losing close games. On Sunday in Buffalo, Detroit failed on a two-point conversion with 14 seconds remaining and lost, 14-12. That was the Lions’ second two-point loss, and they’ve also dropped two games by three points, one by five and one by eight. The most lopsided of their seven losses was by 14 points, and they’ve won by 12 and 38. Add it all up, and the 2-7 Lions have actually outscored their opponents this season, 215 to 202.
Never in NFL history has a team that outscored its opponents had such a bad record.
But there’s good news: Even if the Lions’ record doesn’t look like improvement, the team is better than it was the past two years, when it went a combined 2-30 and was outscored by more than 15 points a game. Better yet, their point differential may be a sign of good things to come, as teams that lose despite outscoring the opposition tend to improve the next year. Across a full season, the 4-10 Cincinnati Bengals of 1971 had the worst record among teams with a positive point differential; in 1972 Cincinnati improved to 8-6. Likewise, the 2008 Green Bay Packers went 6-10 despite outscoring their opponents by 39; in 2009, the Packers finished 11-5.
The Lions’ improvement this year has snuck up on the oddsmakers, who keep installing Detroit as a big underdog. The team is 7-2 against the spread, tied for the best in the NFL.
By the way… the Lions SRS rating (offered at Pro Football Reference.com) is currently 3.0. I do not think a team has ever posted an SRS score this high and had a record that was this bad. And so I still think – even after the Lions lost to the Bills – that the Lions are “good” (and yes, that is probably because this is my team!!).
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
some dude
November 15, 2010
The Lions’ stats are relying on one blowout win against the Rams.
If you remove the blowout vs the Rams, the Lions have been outscored by 29 and gone 2-6 in those games. Their record doesn’t seem to “unlucky” now.
the Eagles were also up 35-17 with 6 min left in the game before allowing 2 garbage TDs.
Packers led 28-14 in the 2nd half. Lions were playing catch up.
Giants were up 28-17 with under 4 minutes left to play before giving up a garbage TD.
they were down 14-3 to Buffalo with under 5 minutes left in the game. You know, a winless team. And a tie doesn’t guarantee victory, here.
This is a problem of looking at just final stats rather than the score at different points in the game.
Sure, they could/should have beaten the Jets/Bears, but also could have lost to Redskins. good teams tend to pull out those wins, and they didn’t in 2 of 3.
Given win likelihood based on percentages, at best one could argue they should have won 1 more game. They are far from unlucky being one game worse.
But yes, they are better this year than last. Oh, and Calvin seems to be doing darn well despite your earlier post. My fantasy team appreciates it.
Russell
November 25, 2010
Do you still think the Lions are the 3rd best team in the NFC? I think they’ve gone 0-3 since you posted that. Two of those losses have been against “bad” teams. I could be wrong, but I don’t think GMs and coaches put together teams and playbooks in hopes of beating the spread. When you posted that, had you looked at the scoring summaries by quarters and noticed that the Lions usually outscore opponents they are being beat soundly by and are outscored by opponents that are competitive with during 4th quarters? If you had not, does that at all change your opinion that the Lions are the 3rd best team in the NFC? If so, does that in anyway change your approach to sports analysis in a broader sense?