Next Stop, San Francisco

Your Humble Correspondent with Family & Friend

When it was announced that the Vikings had made starting quarterback Christian Ponder inactive for the
Saturday night playoff game against the Packers, the logical reaction was to think of this as a plus for the Packers.  The Packers had a huge problem stopping Adrian Peterson in the regular season, and the Vikings beat the Packers last week in the regular season finale largely because Ponder played the game of his career so far, putting the Packers in the position of having to defend not only Adrian Peterson, but also a newly-productive Christian Ponder.  With Ponder out in favor of Joe Webb, the argument would be, the Packers could now focus almost exclusively on stopping Peterson.

That was not my reaction.  I had just arrived at my seat in Lambeau Field when my brother-in-law Bruce Casper sent me a text message that Ponder was inactive.  I didn't really believe him (he has been known to BS me, from time to time), but I quickly confirmed that it was true.  But I have been writing for over 10 years about what I call the Brad Hoover Syndrome, where a backup player gets an unexpected start against the Packers, and turns out to be the key player in the Packers' loss.  Ever since Brad Hoover got a start for the Panthers in a 2000 Monday Night game against the Packers, in place of Tim Biakabatuka, I have treated these situations as potential poison.

Thankfully, in this case things worked out exactly as they should have.  I had not seen Joe Webb play since he replaced Brett Favre (then with the Vikings) a couple of years ago.  In the first series, I realized that I had forgotten how mobile the guy is.  He and Peterson combined to run the ball down the field, leading to the Vikings getting their only lead of the day, at 3-0.  But I soon also remembered what a poor quarterback he is.  He is inaccurate, and makes poor decisions under pressure.  Twice he threw "pop-ups" as he was under extreme pressure, and only his lucky stars prevented these passes from being intercepted or returned for touchdowns.  I could not help but be troubled by the second half, after the Packers took a 24-3 lead.  They seemed to go to sleep, coasting for the rest of the way, with one 3-and-out after another.   Not a great plan, and one to be avoided at all costs in a game against a team with more firepower.

So now the Packers will be coming out here to Northern California to play the 49ers.  This game has so many echoes for me.  The very first playoff game I ever attended was Packers at 49ers, in January 1996.  It was the coming out game for the Packers.  Sure, they had been in the playoffs the two prior years, but had not made much noise.  And here they had to play the defending world champion 49ers, at Candlestick, in the second round of the playoffs.  I almost didn't go, thinking that they would probably lose, but since I had attended every Packer game since 1980 in Northern California against the 49ers or Raiders, I decided I had to go.  (That streak is still alive, and I will be there Saturday night.)  That January 1996 game was the first time you really had to look at the team and say "these Holmgren/Favre/White Packers might actually win the Super Bowl."  They didn't, that year, but did so the following season.

That game was the first of four years in a row where there were playoff games between the Packers and 49ers, with three of those games in San Francisco.  There was the euphoria of the emergence of the Packers in January, 1996, the dismantling of the 49ers at Lambeau in the freezing rain the next year (the year of Super Bowl XXXI), the drowning of the 49ers at Candlestick in the heavy rain the following year (the year of Super Bowl XXXII) and then finally, the Terrell Owens game at Candlestick the following year, where both teams were well past their prime (the Terrell Owens game was also Mike Holmgren's last game as Packers' head coach and, for that matter, the last radio game for Max McGee and Jim Irwin).

Local media here in the days leading up to the game have been surprisingly guarded in their outlook for the game.  "Rodgers has edge vs. 49ers," said one article, while "QB duel would not favor S.F.," said another.  There was coverage of the fact that former 49er owner Eddie DeBartolo still has nightmares about the Packers and Cowboys.  And of course there has been coverage everywhere of the ironic fact that California-native Rodgers grew up as a 49er fan, while Wisconsin-native Colin Kaepernick grew up as a Packers fan.  So this is a huge personal game for both starting quarterbacks, and of course the chip on Rodgers' shoulder is legendary by this point.  The Packers have played inconsistently at times during this season, but whereas they lost 3 of their first 5 games, they have won 10 of their last 12, and they are probably healthier now than they have been in months.  Sure, the Packers could lose this game, and they could lose it badly if the 49ers get in a rhythm and the Packers get in a rut.  But I like the Packers' chances against a young QB playing his first playoff game, and against a fearsome defense, but one that is a bit banged up at the moment.

Exorcise the Demon

Going into the final week of the regular season, the Packers had the chance to secure a week off and get some rest before starting the playoffs.  Of course, they blew that chance and let the Vikings’ Adrian Peterson run wild all over the Metrodome, leading to a 37-34 loss to the Vikings.  At times, one could be forgiven for wondering if the Packers had just decided to let Adrian Peterson get the all-time single season rushing record, as some kind of twisted and belated Christmas present.  Sort of like Brett Favre falling to the turf to give up a sack to his pal Michael Strahan.

I ran out of time this week to go back and re-watch the game, so I haven’t counted up the number of times Peterson bounced a run to the outside, whereupon the Packers defender realized that he had an impossible angle to get to Peterson, and had to adjust the angle so as to give up another 10 or 20 yards, but at least have a chance to catch up to Peterson.  Suffice it to say that it seemed like it happened a lot. 

Heading into the playoffs, there were a lot of potential revenge games that could have materialized for the Packers’ first game.  Would it be a chance to pay back Seattle, for (as it turns out) costing the Packers a bye week, and coming darn close to ruining the Packers’ season?  Would it be the Giants, with the Packers getting one more chance to show that the Giants’ defense does not really have the Packers’ number?  How about a flashback to all those Packers-49ers playoff games from the 1990’s and a chance to avenge the disastrous Terrell Owens game?

Nope.  Instead, the Packers get a do-over.  Another chance to show that the Packers don’t always give up 200 yards rushing to Adrian Peterson.  Another chance to stop the otherwise unimpressive Christian Ponder from carving them up.  And (forgive me for this) a chance to “wipe away” the Randy Moss playoff game from January 2005. 

To get it done, the first thing they have to do is do a better job of tackling.  The Packers showed in week 13 that you can give up a lot of yards to Adrian Peterson and still win the game, so long as you don’t also let Christian Ponder have time for a shoe shine and a shave while sitting back comfortably in the pocket.  Ponder had what was probably his best day in the NFL against the Packers last Sunday.  

The most interesting article I have read this week is by Kevin Seifert of ESPN.  He brings the stats to show that, in the first game between the two teams, the Packers blitzed 75% of the time on third down, and on those downs, Ponder was horrible.  For reasons known only to Dom Capers, on third down in the second game, the Packers only blitzed 25% of the time.  We all saw the results.  I am sure that Ponder has improved over the course of the year, and in particular he has looked much better in the last month, but he is not as good as he looked in that game.  So the second necessary change is to get in Ponder's face some more, and the turnovers will come.  One interception is all it would have taken to turn around the game last week.  Move the game outside in the cold, give the Packers a home crowd, rush more than three on third down, and the Packers should win this game.  It might not even be close, but given the way that the Packers rarely put away a lesser opponent, it probably will be.  Something like 31-24.

My wish list for the game includes a lot of rushing yards for Grant and Harris (I would love to see the first 100 yard rushing game for the Packers in a long time), a few catches for Donald Driver in what will most likely be his last home game, more sacks for Clay Matthews, a smashing return for Randall Cobb, and a sack or an interception (or both!) for Charles Woodson.  The most important item on my list is probably the rushing game for the Packers.  With Evan Dietrich-Smith and Don Barclay now starting on the offensive line, it is to be expected that these young players are more advanced in run blocking than they are in pass protection.  So rather than have Rodgers drop back 50 times and take 5 or 6 sacks, it would be great if the Packers could get the running game going, with the one-two punch of Grant and Harris, and take some pressure off of Rodgers.  If the Packers win Saturday night, they take a trip to my backyard to play the 49ers the following Saturday night.  That matchup will be a tough one for the Packers, if it happens.  But first things first.  Time to exorcise the Adrian Peterson-monster.

Gut-Check Time

Photo by Jeffrey Phelps, AP

In my last post, I was wondering when the last time was that the Packers got off to a fast start.  One word from me apparently was all it took.  Against the Titans, the Packers led 14-0 at the end of the first quarter, 20-0 at the half, and 34-0 at the end of the third quarter.  They went on to win 55-7, losing the shutout in the final two minutes of the game.

Not only that, but the Seahawks (yes, the same blasted Seahawks who almost screwed up the Packers' season with the Fail Mary game) went out and put a major hurt on the 49ers.  Who knew the Seahawks were for real?  But apparently they are, having scored 58, 50 and 42 in their last three games.  This really shook things up.  It put the Packers in the no. 2 seed for now, with the bye week that entails, it left the Vikings clinging to the no. 6 seed, but probably needing to beat the Packers next week to hold onto it, it moved the Packers-Vikings to the 3:25 pm (LFT) time slot next week, and it leaves the final NFC playoff spot to be determined in the Sunday night Cowboys-Redskins game.

Now comes the test for the Packers.  After starting the season 2-3, I remember having discussions with family and friends about whether the Packers could even recover sufficiently to make the playoffs.  Ten games and nine wins later, they have made the playoffs, won the division, will have a home game, and all they need is one last win against the Vikings to secure a first round bye.

I can think of seasons where the Packers had to depend on the outcome in another game in the final week to see if they made the playoffs.  Sometimes it worked out (as in the miraculous Cardinals-Vikings game to close the 2003 season, when the final play of the game, on 4th and 24, knocked the Vikings out of the playoff and the Packers into the playoffs).  More often it did not.  I can recall some game in the late 1980's or early 1990's when the Monday Night crew, in the final game of the regular season, kept going for reaction shots to Don Majkowski's den, where he and several teammates were watching the Packers' playoff chances going up in smoke.

Without looking it up to find an example, I know there have been other years when the burden was on the Packers, to win in order to advance to the playoffs, or to win to better their position in the playoffs.  In some of those cases, they came up short and failed.  Well, they get another chance on Sunday, before a national audience, to go into the playoffs on a high note.  The Vikings are playing better than I expected this year.  True, they are last in the league in passing offense, as might be expected with Christian Ponder at quarterback, but they are third in the league in rushing offense, thanks to the marvelous year Adrian Peterson is having.  Peterson needs 208 yards rushing to break the all-time single season rushing record, so he obviously has lots of motivation to play well, and the Vikings will probably need to win to get the wild card spot.  So there is a lot on the line for the Vikings.

Packer fans might be a little gun-shy about getting a bye week, after last year's debacle against the Giants, but let's not kid ourselves.  A week off to get healthy, at this time of year?  Plus the opportunity to get to the Super Bowl after winning only two playoff games, instead of three?  It is a no-brainer to try to get that bye week.

So, to spur the Packers along a little, let me offer this: I wonder when the last time was that the Packers came out and just shut down a top-notch running back, basically taking him out of the game as an impact player?

Remember the Titans?

Trivia question: when was the last time the Packers got off to a fast start in a game?  Because they certainly didn't do it against the Bears last Sunday.  The Packers misfired on their first offensive series, with Rodgers throwing the ball behind receivers several times, and took a couple of sacks on the first two series, before ending a scoreless first quarter.  To make matters worse, they came close to giving up an interception on one tipped ball, and they almost had their first punt blocked.  The Bears got on the board first, in the second quarter, with a TD pass to new public enemy no. 1, Brandon Marshall, before the Packers finally seemed to get started in the game.

At the end of the day, the Packers were able to win the game in what would have been a comfortable fashion, but for one of the worst coaching calls in recent memory - the 4th quarter Randall Cobb "throwback" trick play punt return - Cobb caught the punt, then threw the ball across the field.  It looked like it could have been a good play with lots of potential in the right situation.  The receiver could have done a better job of going to get the ball, but instead the ball was fumbled and recovered by the Bears.  Close to your own goal line?  Leading by 11 points and with 8 minutes left, when the Bears have had almost no offense all day long?  I just don't see the risk-reward balance on this play as making it even close to being a sensible decision.

Mason Crosby missed another pair of field goals, from 43 and 42 yards.  This has got to be a mental issue at this point - Crosby has talent, but is not executing the kicks.  I question whether there is a better kicker out there bagging groceries and waiting for a call, so I am reluctantly in McCarthy's camp on this - Crosby is our kicker, period, so get over it and hope he gets through this soon.  Meanwhile, for an amusing look at a kicker who apparently is available to replace Crosby on a moment's notice, take a look at this video, located by the Acme Packing Company website.

Trap Game Ahead?  And now the Tennessee Titans come to Lambeau, for the last regular season home game of the year.  The Titans are 5-9, and have given up 396 points this season.  Only the Raiders and the Bills have given up more (402).  But they also have Chris Johnson who, as the Jets found out Monday night, is capable of taking over a game.  And the Packers have been known, from time to time, to give up big games to running backs.  So this game could be one of those games that could jump up and bite the Packers.  But I doubt it.  As bad as the Jets are now, the Titans only beat them by 4 points, despite a 94 yard touchdown run by Chris Johnson.  The Packers are just a better team, and the Titans are a little out of their element playing in Wisconsin in January.  Still, there is no margin for error if the Packers hope to rise to the no. 2 seed, so it would be advisable for them to "remember the Titans."

Bye Week Possibilities.  I really figured the 49ers would lose to the Patriots on Sunday night.  And of course, if they had, the Packers would be sitting at the No. 2 NFC seed right now.  I sort of gave up hope when the 49ers were ahead 31-3.  But I kept watching, mostly for Fantasy Football reasons.  Lo and behold, the Patriots tied it up at 31, before losing the game 41-34.  So the question now becomes, assuming the Packers beat the Titans, can the Seahawks give the Packers a little help by beating the 49ers?  It would be a welcome "payback" by the Seahawks to the Packers, after the "Fail Mary" game.  It almost seems like completely different 49er and Seahawks teams will be playing Sunday night, as compared to their last meeting 10 weeks ago, when the 49ers won, 13-6.  Both teams are scoring a lot more points now.  The Seahawks scored 50 or more points the last two weeks, admittedly against bad teams.  But the way they are playing now, the Seahawks certainly have a shot, and it would not even be a huge upset if they won.

Bear Down Against the Chicago Bears

Mike Daniels makes the Lambeau Leap

Let's see - a magically beautiful snow game, the Packers falling into an 0-14 hole due in part to turnover(s), Ryan Grant on the field, the Packers come back to win the game.  Why does this all seem so familiar?  Ah, yes.  The famous Snow Globe Game.  The final score against the Lions last Sunday was not as convincing, just 27-20, but given that the Bears and 49ers both lost on Sunday, the significance of the victory over the Lions can't be underestimated.  Sunday's game against the Bears, of course, will be even more significant.

After getting back Sam Shields last week, it looks like the Packers will finally get Clay Matthews back on Sunday.  Unfortunately, Jordy Nelson, James Starks, C.J. Wilson, and Charles Woodson are still out.  My thought has been that the only upside to this year's raft of injuries was that the Packers would start to get back some of those players not on Injured Reserve at just the right time to close out the year strong and go into the playoffs.  There is still room for that to happen, but it is not happening as fast as I would have liked.  The return of Greg Jennings was offset almost immediately by the loss of Jordy Nelson, so the Packers continue to be slightly short-handed at receiver.  That said, the return of Matthews should be an enormous benefit to the Packers this week.  Maybe the brightest spot for the Bears' offense this season is the Jay Cutler - Brandon Marshall connection (32 catches in his last three games).  While the burden for defending against Marshall will fall primarily on the defensive backs, more pressure on Cutler will definitely contribute to holding Marshall in check.

Meanwhile, the Bears have given up 170 or more rushing yards in each of the last two games (against the Vikings and Seahawks).  If only the Packers had a rushing game.  Oh, wait!  The Packers, all of a sudden, have one, having gained 140 or more against the Lions and Vikings.  Ryan Grant, who I assume will get more than one carry on Sunday, has a history, both of performing well against the Bears, and of performing well when the weather turns sloppy.  So I look forward to seeing what he can do against the Bears.  Plus I like the three-headed monster of a running back group of Ryan Grant, DuJuan Harris, and Alex Green.  They each have different styles, they each have shown that they can be effective (assuming, in Ryan Grant's case, that there is gas left in the tank) and they all are healthy and should have fresh legs at this time of the season.  If the Packers can keep a semblance of a running game going, they will be hard to stop.

The Bears always seem to play a tough game against the Packers, but I don't see the Bears actually winning the game on Sunday, especially missing Brian Urlacher, Tim Jennings, and a couple of other defensive players.  Full disclosure: I always think the Packers will beat the Bears, so I am not necessarily a good judge of this game.  But there are lots of stats that tend to back me up on this one.  I see big days for the Packers' running backs, and big days for at least a couple of the receivers, most likely Jermichael Finley (believe it or not) and Greg Jennings.  The Packers have started off the last two games very slowly, and dug themselves considerable holes before turning things around.  If they can avoid that fate this time, the game may not be close.

Which Packer Team Will Show Up?

Green Bay Press-Gazette Photo

The game against the Giants two weeks ago left me in a very foul mood.  You figure that a team will lose some games in a season.  Every team since the 1972 Dolphins has done so.  But the Packers in 2012 have found some creative and different ways to lose games this year.  The opening day loss to the 49ers was just a case of getting beat by what was, on that day anyway, a better team.  The Seattle "Fail Mary" loss was one for the ages - but in a bad way.  We will be talking about that game 20 years from now, the way the Bears fans still talk about the Majkowski-Sharpe "Instant Replay" game from 1989 (except the call in this case really was a travesty, unlike the call in the "Instant Replay" game).  The Indianapolis "Epic Collapse" game was shocking and disgusting at the time, but now that the Colts are 8-4, we can see that they are a much better team than we assumed.

But the Giants game was just an old-fashioned ass-kicking.  The Giants beat the Packers in every facet of the game, and it wasn't even close.  How bad was it?  Kevin Seifert of ESPN gives the ugly details.

The Giants may or may not "have the Packers' number" (whatever that means), but they have shown repeatedly over the last 6 seasons that they know how to exploit the weaknesses in the Packers' team.  The thing that made me more angry than sad is to read that the Packers' players said that they played the game without emotion.  This has been repeated in many venues, including Packers.com.   I can excuse the players for making physical mistakes (like taking a bad angle on a tackle), or for not being good enough (like Tramon Williams trying to cover Hakeem Nicks) a lot easier than I can excuse them for not playing with emotion.  The division lead is on the line, after a long, hard slog to get back in first place in the NFC North.  The Packers had two playoff losses to the same Giants in the last 5 seasons, interrupting what looked like Super Bowl runs.  The Packers (arguably) play better on the road than at home.  And then they come out and get man-handled, and their excuse is that they "played without emotion?"

Anyway, this left the Packers trailing the Bears by a game for the division lead, with 5 games to go.  The toughest remaining game for both teams is the week 14 matchup between the two, which in many scenarios will decide the division.  But given the beat-down administered by the Giants, could anyone be faulted for fearing that the Packers would drop another game somewhere along the way, making the game with the Bears irrelevant?  That, I have to admit, is what I was worried about going into the Vikings game.

And there were moments during that game when it looked like that was exactly what would happen.  After getting off to a 10-0 start ("hey, this is going to be easy after all") thanks to an unbelievable catch in the end zone by James Jones, the game started slipping away.  When the Packers started practicing their "Olé!" tackling technique on Adrian Peterson, another 10 point lead was blown, and the Packers trailed 14-10 at halftime.  It was about to get worse, when Morgan Burnett (MVP of the game, according to my daughter) pulled in the first of his two interceptions to cut off a Minnesota scoring drive. 

Of course, the Packers went on to win the game, so everything was good.  On top of that, the Bears lost in overtime to Seattle, and the 49ers lost to the Rams in overtime.  Which put the Packers back in first place in the division, and got me to thinking about the possibility of passing up the 49ers for the second seed and the bye.  Until my daughter brought me back to earth by pointing out that it is crazy to think about that, with the Packers looking as inconsistent as they have this year. 

So which Packer team is the real one?  The team that looks great in beating the Texans?  Or the team that gets crushed by the Giants and blows a huge lead to the Colts?  If the "good" Packers are the real team, this is the time of year for them to step up.  We will start to find out, tonight, against the Lions.  The Lions obviously have some talent, and the Packers obviously have lots of injuries.  But if this is a team that is going to contend for a championship, there is no excuse, this time of year, at home, for not going out and taking care of business.

Bye Week Blues? No, Bye Week Bonus!

As much as the Packers may have needed a bye week to have a chance to get healthy, their fans usually don't look forward to the bye week.  Sure, you can watch other NFL games, or clean out your garage, or catch up on some paperwork or whatever.  But usually it is a letdown, a lost Sunday right in the middle of the football season.

Going into the weekend, the Packers were on a four game winning streak, with a 6-3 record, sitting in second place in the division.  "If the playoffs started today," as they say, the Packers would be a wild card, and the 5th seed, looking up at the four division leaders.  So what happened to those four division leaders?  The number one seed Falcons, previously 8-0, went out and lost to the New Orleans Saints, despite having a couple of opportunities in the closing minutes to take the lead.  The Saints had an impressive goal line stand in the final two minutes of the game to preserve the win.

The 7-1 Chicago Bears were the number 2 seed, and led the Packers by a game and a half.  But a sloppy weather game in Chicago, and a concussion for Jay Cutler, was all it took for them to lose their second game, to the Texans.  Truth be told, they didn't look that good even before Cutler got knocked out, having scored only 3 points in the first half with Cutler at the helm.

The 6-3 New York Giants not only lost their game to the Bengals, but they looked pretty bad in the process.  They gave up big plays on defense, turned over the ball 4 times on offense, and didn't look very good on special teams, either.

The 49ers started the day at 6-2, and because they opened the season by beating the Packers, they would win any head-to-head tiebreaker with the Packers.  They battled the Rams to a 24-24 tie.  This was heartbreaking for the Rams, since they gave up several opportunities to win the game in overtime alone, on devastating penalties.  The good news about the 49ers ending up in a tie is that it makes it highly unlikely that the Packers and 49ers will end up in a head-to-head tie at the end of the year.

So the Packers picked up ground on every NFC team that was ahead of them in the playoff race.  Not a bad days' work for a bunch of guys sitting on the couch watching TV.  As a result, the Packers now control almost all aspects of their 2012 destiny.  If they just keep winning, they will win the NFC North, and start the playoffs with a home playoff game.  For a team that, a month ago, was at 2-3 and heading off to face the unbeaten Texans, that is pretty good.

Packers' Best Game of the Year

Green Bay Press-Gazette Photo by Evan Siegle

Loss-Win-Loss-Win-Loss-Win.  Could a team be any more inconsistent than that?  Which team is the real Packer team?  The team of the collapse of epic proportions from the Colts game?  Or the team that went out and knocked off the unbeaten Texans, on the road, in convincing fashion?  I wish I knew.

Until the Texans game, you could say that the Packers had not performed particularly well in any game.  They lost to the 49ers, Seahawks and Colts.  The Packers were outplayed and out-coached by the 49ers.  There may be an asterisk next to the Seahawks loss, but you wouldn't want to have to defend the proposition that the Packers played well in that game.  And as for the Colts game, the Packers played a good first half, and then fell apart at the seams to lose the game.

What about the two previous wins?  The Packers beat the Bears solidly, but then again I am not really a believer in Cutler or the Bears, despite their division-leading 4-1 record, so color me somewhat unimpressed.  The win against the Saints was important and satisfying at one level, but (a) they barely beat the Saints and could easily have lost; and (b) the Saints are not the Saints of a couple of years ago.  So the Packers not only needed a win against the Texans, they needed a convincing one, for the sake of their own confidence and the confidence of their fans.  This game ought to do the trick.  The Texans were not only undefeated, they were looking like a Super Bowl contender.  They had one of the highest-powered offenses in the league, featuring Arian Foster and Andre Johnson.

Despite all that, the Packers outplayed the Texans from the first possession on, and won the game 42-24.  They looked good on offense, and on defense, and on special teams (other than the blocked punt that was recovered for a TD).  Alex Green did a solid if unspectacular job of replacing Cedric Benson, and the passing game looked the best it has looked all season, even if it is still not quite at the level of last year.  On defense, the Packers put pressure on Schaub all night long, sacked him three times, and intercepted him three times.  Both Foster and Johnson were kept in check, and Schaub finished with 232 yards, no TDs and 2 interceptions.

The frequently frustrating James Jones seems to be taking a step forward this year.  He has caught two TD passes in 3 consecutive games, including the sensational catch pictured above.  No Packers player has done that since DON HUTSON did it a long time ago.  That seems impossible to believe.  Jennings, Driver, Freeman, Brooks, Sharpe, Lofton, Dale, McGee, Dowler, and Howton never did it, but Hutson and Jones did?  That is pretty remarkable company.  Speaking of Packer records, how about Aaron Rodgers?  He tied the all time Packer record for TDs in a single game (6), set by . . . Matt Flynn last year.

The Packers lost another starter for the year (D.J. Smith) and several other players were knocked out of the game with injuries that looked less serious.  The backups played well, especially rookie defensive back Casey Hayward, who made two interceptions and looked great.  Now the Packers will finish their three game road trip at St. Louis, where the Rams are also 3-3.  The Packers are favored in this game, so you would certainly think that they have a good chance of winning 2 of 3 on the road trip, and getting above .500 for the first time this year.  Maybe the Packers have the rest of the league exactly where they want them, with a 3-3 record, just like they had in 2010.

Quarter Season Review

Photo from Packersnews.com Facebook Timeline

With a quarter of the regular season behind them, where do the Packers stand?  They scratched their way back to even with a 2-2 record, by beating the desperate New Orleans Saints, 28-27, last Sunday.  But they came uncomfortably close to losing a second game in a row attributable in part to bad calls, this time by the returning regular referees. 

Late in the second quarter, the Packers led, 21-7, so it is unfortunate that they even put themselves in a position to possibly lose the game.  The big play allowing them to build the 21-7 lead was another trick play on special teams.  In the second quarter, on 4th and 1 from the Packers' own 17 yard line, McCarthy called a fake punt, a direct snap to John Kuhn who gained 5 yards and the first down.  I admire the gutsy nature of the call, and I am glad that Coach McCarthy has enough confidence in his players to make crazy calls like this.  But the key word is "crazy."  I just think this kind of a call, at that point in the game, is reckless.  The play worked, so McCarthy comes out as the hero.  I still think it is the wrong call.

At the quarter season mark, here are the things I like best about the way the Packers are playing.  I like the renewed emphasis on the running game.  It is an interesting question how Cedric Benson matches up with Ryan Grant, or with other Packer running backs in recent history.  (A satirical look at this question is here.)  But whatever the answer, the Packers seem to be working themselves into a state of mind where they are putting more reliance on the run.  This is a very good thing, given the sack totals against Rodgers this year when they forget about the run.  I like the gutsy calls on special teams, even though I happen to think the one discussed above was a reckless one.  It keeps the other teams guessing, and until the Packers start to get burned on these calls, there is no downside.  I also like the way the Packers are finding innovative ways to use Randall Cobb.  He is a really talented young player on a team that is overloaded with receivers.  So every time they find a different way to use him, it is a plus.  I am also beginning to get a good feeling about some of the new defensive players, Nick Perry and Casey Hayward in particular.

My biggest overall concerns about the team so far are these.  First, the offense, although effective enough to win most of the time, just has not seemed right.  Maybe it is not realistic to compare this year's offense to last year's, which was nearly unstoppable most of the time.  But between dropped passes, passes off the mark, and 16 sacks given up, the offense is under-performing.  Second is the defensive play-calling, and here I am thinking primarily of the Saints game.  I can understand Dom Capers being concerned about leaving his rookie defensive players too exposed, but when you give up 446 passing yards to Drew Brees and almost lose the game, something is not going too well.  Capers sometimes has a tendency to rush 3 or 4 against an elite quarterback, and drop everybody else in coverage.  In theory this could work, but in practice doesn't it seem as if the elite quarterback always carves up the Packers' defense?  You could say that the Packers gave up an 80 yard TD pass to Morgan in the Saints game on a play where they did rush more players, undercutting my argument.  But the truth is that the TD resulted from a coverage breakdown by the defensive backs, not as a result of applying more pressure.  Finally, there are clock management / challenge issues.  In the Saints game in particular, McCarthy made a poor decision on a challenge in the first half, and another challenge later, which left him with no challenges left when Darren Sproles fumbled the kickoff after the Packers went ahead, 28-27.  It was a flat-out blown call, but McCarthy had no opportunity to get the call reversed, due to the lack of challenges.

So now the Packers head off on a three game road trip, to Indianapolis (1-2), Houston (4-0) and St. Louis (3-2).  It is really important that they come away with at least two wins on the trip, and of course the most obvious game that they "should" win is at the Colts tomorrow.  They need to start to re-claim that killer instinct, where they go in and put a game away early on.  Let's hope they get it done.

Sleepless About the Seattle Game

Broadcast Screen Capture by Scott Crevier, Frame 3 © Scott Crevier

Hmmm - what to discuss today about the Packers @ Seahawks game?  Here's an idea, how about the officiating on the final play of this week's game?  The Packers lost to the Seahawks, 14-12, on a disputed touchdown pass on the final play of the game.

Scott Crevier, proprietor of the South End Zone web site, and the guy who encouraged me to start the predecessor to this blog, put up some screen captures showing the final play.   Not to go all Zapruder film on this, but to me, the most conclusive frame is the third one (shown above and at the link to Flickr).  The first frame shows that Packer defensive back M.D. Jennings had possession of the ball prior to Seahawks receiver Golden Tate, so under the plain reading of the rule (see below), this is not simultaneous possession.  The second frame arguably shows both players with hands on the ball, but the third frame shows Tate's hand come off the ball before sticking his hand back in there in the 4th frame.  So if there is any doubt about the simultaneity of the possession, I think the third frame shows that this is Jennings' ball, because he had it throughout, while Tate's possession was (a) later; and (b) (at best for Tate) lost before being re-established.

The rule (Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 5) says:

Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control.

It is hard to see the status of Tate's left hand throughout the play, but let's assume for the sake of argument that he had his left hand on the ball throughout.  It is possible to catch a ball with one hand, obviously, as some recent high profile plays have shown - none more prominent than David Tyree's catch in the closing minutes of Super Bowl XLII.  But in the context of the play last night, I think Golden Tate still loses out because part of possession is control.  Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 requires control of the ball as a part of the concept of catching the ball.  Sure, if both players had both hands on the ball throughout the play, the fact that Jennings is holding the ball against his chest might not negate the simultaneous possession of the ball.  But where Jennings (in my view, clearly) appears to gain possession first, followed by Tate getting his right hand on the ball, then taking it off, then putting his right hand back on the ball while Jennings cradles the ball with both hands against his chest, you simply cannot say that Jennings did not have control of the ball first.

You know the call must be bad when a player for a divisional rival speaks up to say that the Packers were robbed.  I don't think I have ever heard a case where the commentators are as unanimous as they are on this one being wrong.  Take the "Instant Replay" game from 1989, for example.  The Majkowski to Sharpe touchdown pass was either the game winner, or Majkowski was over the line of scrimmage when he threw the ball, so that it was an illegal forward pass.  It was a very close call, dependent in part on exactly how you determine whether a player is over the line of scrimmage.  The Bears, I am told, put an asterisk on this game in their media guide to this very day.  A call had to be made, it was called an illegal forward pass, and then the call on the field was reversed, making it the game-winning touchdown.  There is general consensus that it was the right call (indeed, even the Bears fan in the stands with us admitted, on seeing the replay, that it was a TD).  But people still argue about the call 23 years later.

But in this week's game, the commentary is, so far as I can tell, unanimous that the call was wrong.  There were lots of other questionable calls in the game (including the phantom pass interference call on Shields, and the roughing the passer call on Erik Walden, negating an interception, both in the closing minutes), and not all of them were in favor of the home team.  But everyone seems to agree that this call was wrong.  So the call was blown.  So what?  I generally take the view that you can't complain about bad calls - it is poor form, nobody is perfect, and what is the point?

But this is different because the replacement referees brought about this travesty.  I am not close to the details of the labor dispute, but my instinct is to support the League over the referees.  But what is happening now is just not acceptable.  The referees are not up to the task, and the League needs to solve this problem.  There were problems in other games in the first three weeks, and there was a certain sense that we were heading to a disaster if this did not get resolved.  Now the disaster has happened, and a bad call by refs directly changed the outcome of the game.

As a fan, as a season ticket holder, and as an owner of the team, I am outraged by what happened last night.  There are only 16 games in the regular season.  A game like this can cost the Packers the playoffs, or at a minimum can affect playoff seeding.  Nobody else seems primed to run away with the NFC North, so I remain hopeful that this will not screw up the entire season for the Packers.  But it certainly could.

I will be contacting the league office this morning (if I can ever get anything other than a busy signal) to complain about what is happening, and to urge the league to get this thing resolved before another disaster happens.  There are more than 350,000 owners of the Green Bay Packers.  It would be great if we could all get involved in protesting this.

The League has just released a statement on the play, in which the League acknowledges that Tate should have been flagged for offensive pass interference (which is not reviewable), but otherwise supports the decision not to overturn the call on the field.  Who has possession of the ball is reviewable on a play in the end zone (but not outside of the end zone), but the League's position is that there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the call on who had possession.  So the matter is final, as far as the League is concerned.  But it need not be final with the fans, season ticket holders, and owners of the Packers and other teams.  Please contact the League and let them know (politely) how you feel about the situation.

Here is the contact information for the League, as best I can determine it since I can't get through to the League on the phone, and since they don't list their contact information on their website.  The contact info I am most confident about is the League's main phone number, but as mentioned it is consistently busy this morning.
National Football League
345 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10017
(212) 450-2000 (phone)
(212) 681-7599 (FAX)
officeofcommissioner@nfl.com
(212) 450-2027 (Roger Goodell, supposedly)
roger.goodell@nfl.com (supposedly)

A couple of final thoughts.  As Aaron Rodgers put it, they shouldn't have let it come down to the final play.  There is a book about elections titled "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat."  But it should apply to football, too.  The Packers needed to get their act together in this game, and they didn't until the second half.  McCarthy and the coaching staff made some great adjustments on offense at halftime.  Why not do it earlier?  And as for M.D. Jennings, whatever happened to the idea that you just knock down a Hail Mary pass, not try to intercept it?  Plus, if he had rolled more aggressively away from Tate on the ground, he would have had sole possession by the time the late-arriving refs got there.

We fans may not readily be able to put this game behind us.  But the team must do so.  The talented but desperate 0-3 New Orleans Saints are coming to town on Sunday.