That was a gut punch the Lions got last week when Frank Ragnow unexpectedly retired at 29. He’s one of the very best centers in the game. You don’t take guys like that out of a lineup without feeling some impact.
Detroit was looking ripe for a decline anyway, with Ben Johnson leaving for Chicago and the team having put up unreal numbers last year, with a league-high 68 touchdowns. The offense scored 52 and 57 touchdowns in its previous two seasons, making a drop to the low 50s look reasonable.
And that was before losing Ragnow.
At the same time, I pushed around some numbers, trying to gauge how much of a decline we might expect, and the results weren’t as substantial as I expected. Believe it or not, Detroit actually scored more points in seven of its last 10 games without him. That’s comparing the point totals in those games to the average from the same season when he was in the lineup.
If we’re looking just as passing (and assuming standard scoring), Detroit since December of 2021 has averaged better production in seven of 10 games without Ragnow. (On the downside, they averaged less production in all 10 of their no-Ragnow games from 2019 thru November 2021.)
In the chart below, I’ve got the games where production was up in bold.
| PASSING WITHOUT RAGNOW | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Opp | Result | Yards | TD | Int | Pts | Pct |
| 2019 | at Was. | L 16-19 | 207 | 1 | 3 | 14.4 | -43% |
| 2020 | at Ten. | L 25-46 | 307 | 1 | 1 | 19.4 | -11% |
| 2020 | T.B. | L 7-47 | 152 | 0 | 1 | 7.6 | -183% |
| 2021 | at Min. | L 17-19 | 203 | 0 | 1 | 10.2 | -104% |
| 2021 | Cin. | L 11-34 | 202 | 0 | 1 | 10.1 | -105% |
| 2021 | at LAR | L 19-28 | 285 | 1 | 2 | 18.3 | -14% |
| 2021 | Phil. | L 6-44 | 222 | 0 | 0 | 11.1 | -87% |
| 2021 | at Pitt. | T 16-16 | 114 | 0 | 0 | 5.7 | -264% |
| 2021 | at Cle. | L 10-13 | 77 | 0 | 2 | 3.9 | -439% |
| 2021 | Chi. | L 14-16 | 171 | 2 | 0 | 16.6 | -25% |
| 2021 | Min. | W 29-27 | 296 | 3 | 1 | 26.8 | 23% |
| 2021 | at Den. | L 10-38 | 215 | 1 | 1 | 14.8 | -41% |
| 2021 | Ariz. | W 30-12 | 216 | 3 | 0 | 22.8 | 9% |
| 2021 | at Atl. | L 16-20 | 208 | 1 | 1 | 14.4 | -44% |
| 2021 | at Sea. | L 29-51 | 262 | 2 | 3 | 21.1 | 2% |
| 2022 | Was. | W 36-27 | 256 | 4 | 0 | 28.8 | 33% |
| 2022 | G.B. | W 37-30 | 313 | 3 | 0 | 27.7 | 30% |
| 2023 | at LAC | W 41-38 | 333 | 2 | 0 | 24.7 | 15% |
| 2023 | at Chi. | L 13-28 | 161 | 1 | 2 | 12.1 | -73% |
| 2024 | Sea. | W 42-29 | 299 | 3 | 0 | 27.0 | 15% |
I also ran the numbers for rushing. I see increased production for eight of the 20 games without their star center. In the last two years, they’ve played three games without Ragnow, and they scored 7 rushing touchdowns in those three games.
| RUSHING WITHOUT RAGNOW | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Opp | Result | Att | Yds | TD | Pts | Diff |
| 2019 | at Was. | L 16-19 | 32 | 175 | 0 | 17.5 | 39% |
| 2020 | at Ten. | L 25-46 | 27 | 123 | 2 | 24.3 | 54% |
| 2020 | T.B. | L 7-47 | 15 | 73 | 0 | 7.3 | -54% |
| 2021 | at Min. | L 17-19 | 24 | 108 | 1 | 16.8 | 14% |
| 2021 | Cin. | L 11-34 | 18 | 36 | 1 | 9.6 | -35% |
| 2021 | at LAR | L 19-28 | 28 | 137 | 0 | 13.7 | -7% |
| 2021 | Phil. | L 6-44 | 18 | 57 | 1 | 11.7 | -20% |
| 2021 | at Pitt. | T 16-16 | 39 | 229 | 2 | 34.9 | 138% |
| 2021 | at Cle. | L 10-13 | 23 | 168 | 1 | 22.8 | 55% |
| 2021 | Chi. | L 14-16 | 19 | 76 | 0 | 7.6 | -48% |
| 2021 | Min. | W 29-27 | 27 | 100 | 0 | 10.0 | -32% |
| 2021 | at Den. | L 10-38 | 21 | 118 | 0 | 11.8 | -20% |
| 2021 | Ariz. | W 30-12 | 34 | 126 | 0 | 12.6 | -14% |
| 2021 | at Atl. | L 16-20 | 33 | 130 | 0 | 13.0 | -11% |
| 2022 | at Sea. | L 29-51 | 22 | 95 | 2 | 21.5 | 2% |
| 2022 | G.B. | W 37-30 | 26 | 99 | 1 | 15.9 | -24% |
| 2022 | Was. | W 36-27 | 24 | 191 | 0 | 19.1 | -9% |
| 2023 | at LAC | W 41-38 | 31 | 200 | 3 | 38.0 | 70% |
| 2023 | at Chi. | L 13-28 | 24 | 140 | 1 | 20.0 | -10% |
| 2024 | Sea. | W 42-29 | 28 | 116 | 3 | 29.6 | 20% |
I’m not suggesting the Lions won’t miss Ragnow. I’m thinking they might average about a touchdown less per game this year. But probably most of that was a decline that was going to occur anyway.
—Ian Allan