West Coast Offensive

Packers-Giants Post-Mortem

2012-01-17T23:44:00.000-08:00

(Photo my Mark Hoffman, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

On Sunday, the Packers' season, which looked like it could turn out to be one of the great seasons in Packers history, came to a crashing and disappointing halt. The visiting New York Giants ended the Packers' season, just as they did four years ago, this time by the score of 37-20.

I went in for a dental appointment on Monday afternoon. I'm sure you can see this line coming from a mile away - I feel like I spent two afternoons in a row at the dentist. In the waiting room I read, wistfully, Peter King's Postseason Predictions in Sports Illustrated from a couple of weeks ago: "I see New Orleans and Green Bay facing each other again [in the NFC Championship Game], with the survivor going on to win the Super Bowl." Yeah, me too.

All year long, the Packers have set various records, week to week. Well here is another one. The Packers became the first ever 15-1 team to be "one and done" in the playoffs. While it is painful to see the Packers squander their no. 1 seed position this way, it should be noted that 4 of the last 5 number 1 seeds in the NFC have been knocked out of the playoffs without reaching the Super Bowl (New Orleans in 2009 was the exception). Not that this helps very much - I am still walking around in a daze two days later - but at least the Packers are not alone in wasting a great season. (It was sad having to cancel my travel reservations for the NFC Championship game, so that didn't help matters, either.)

Before getting into what went wrong, it is appropriate to give some credit to the New York Giants. They outplayed the Packers on offense, on defense, and on special teams, and in my opinion the Packers were outcoached, as well. Or as Greg Jennings said on his Facebook page Sunday night: "Hats off to the NYG on their win today. They played a very sound game and we didn't do enough on our end to get this one. Thank u Packer fans for your commitment to excellence all season in bringing us closer together as a team as we fed off u all season. We'll bounce back."

So what went wrong? Aaron Nagler of Cheesehead TV said that the Packers picked a terrible day to play their worst game of the season, and that is certainly true. Mike Vandermause of the Green Bay Press-Gazette says that this game will go down as the most disheartening playoff loss in team history. I'm not at all sure I agree with him, but why quibble? This was plenty bad enough.

I have not even re-watched the whole game yet, but to me it was a large collection of little things, all of which worked against the Packers. (And since the Packers benefited from a couple of bad calls by referees in their favor, it is horrifying to note that things could have been even worse.) Aaron Rodgers was off the mark on some of his passes, including what should have been a touchdown to Jennings in the first quarter. Was rust from an unnecessary week off a factor? I don't know. I was not in favor of resting healthy starters for competitive reasons, but there is no question that Rodgers did not look sharp. Rodgers also had Jennings open for an easy touchdown in the third quarter, but Umenyiora stripped him on the play for a fumble. In Rodgers' somber post-game press conference, he was asked about the play.

Q: "On the play where you fumbled, did you see how open Greg was?"
A: "Yes."

This terse answer, together with the look on his face, says a lot about the missed opportunities in this game.

If Rodgers was off on offense, the receivers and running backs were even worse. There were either 6 or 8 dropped passes in the game, depending on how you count them. Since the Packers averaged about 2 dropped passes per game during the regular season, this hurt, killing promising drives in the process. Both Ryan Grant and John Kuhn are dependable ball carriers; but they both fumbled away the ball in this game (in Kuhn's case, it was his first career fumble).

On defense, it is probably not fair to single out one player, but nobody had a worse game than Charlie Peprah. Peprah was the one who hit Hakeem Nicks, but did not wrap him up, on what turned out to be Nicks' long touchdown catch. At the end of the first half, he took a bad angle and failed to get Ahmad Bradshaw on the ground when the Giants ran the ball with 15 seconds left, allowing him to get out of bounds and set up the Hail Mary pass. Peprah and Woodson were the players with the best shot to break up the Hail Mary pass, but didn't. This game, more than any other game this year, shows how much it hurt to lose Nick Collins early in the season. Peprah is a decent player, but he was a big downgrade from Collins. The latest word on Collins is that he will be reexamined in March, and will decide based on medical advice (and before the draft) whether he can come back and play again.

But most fundamentally, the problem on defense is what it has been all year: the inability to get pressure on the quarterback without blitzing. So, if the Packers rush 3 or 4 on a given play, there is no pressure, and the quarterback has plenty of time for someone to get open. If the Packers blitz, they get pressure, but if the quarterback gets the ball out quickly enough, somebody is going to have an opening to make a big play. It is no fluke that the Packers gave up as many yards as they did on defense this year, but two factors allowed them to mask the problem and go 15-1: (1) the MVP quality of play by Aaron Rodgers; and (2) the turnovers generated by the defense. On a day when Rodgers did not play like an MVP, and when the Packers lost the turnover battle, we now see what can happen.

This problem will have to be addressed in the draft and/or free agency, with the top priority being the defensive line. I will have more comments on the Packers' needs later, after we see which coaches (if any) are hired away or simply replaced by the Packers.

Putting the pieces together, how do we explain (1) a sub-par performance by our MVP quarterback; (2) an extra dose of dropped passes; (3) fumbles by our normally reliable running backs; (4) sloppy tackling on defense; (5) worse than usual pass rush; and (6) poor play in the secondary? I had predicted that the team would use Coach Philbin's son's death as a rallying point. But Andy Hayes (of Packergeeks) was at the game and points to some things not visible on TV that really do suggest that there was something lacking, emotionally, from the team's effort. So I have come to the conclusion that this was a far bigger, and more negative, factor than I would have anticipated.

It has been a good run for the Packers in the first few years with Aaron Rodgers as the starting quarterback. Despite the disappointing end to this season, the core of this team is young and good enough that there should be more opportunities in the coming years. The caveat is that I thought the same thing when the Packers lost Super Bowl XXXII. I was convinced that the Favre era Packers would rack up a couple more Super Bowl wins, but we found out that nothing comes easily, and nothing is guaranteed.

* * * *

I had occasion over the weekend to reflect on the way that technology has changed the lives of sports fans. When my wife and I spent a week in England in October 1983, we literally had to wait until Monday and buy the International Herald Tribune to find out who won the football games on Sunday. (We were happy to learn that the Packers beat the Buccaneers, 55-14, October 2, 1983). But on Sunday, we watched the game at home with friends, while our son watched the game while flying on Jet Blue, and our daughter watched it with Wisconsin expats in Amsterdam. The expats were Erik and Mary Jo Tunison, who own Eat at Jo's restaurant in the Melkweg entertainment complex, near the Leidseplein. They showed themselves to be classic Wisconsin people, by being nice enough to invite a total stranger to watch the game with them, just because she is a Packers fan! As Erik said afterwards, "We had a good time, except for that one little thing..." Eat at Jo's is on my list of places to go, if I ever get back to Amsterdam.

Divisional Games Predictions

2012-01-13T23:22:00.000-08:00

(Official Packers.com Twitter picture of shovelers lined up outside Lambeau Field)

Some snow over the last few days led to another one of those charming Packer rituals today - citizens lining up for the chance to help shovel out the stands in Lambeau Field. There were so many volunteers that more would-be shovelers were turned away than were able to actually get in to shovel. Weather should not be a problem for the game, as the forecast is for a high of about 30 degrees, with nothing more than snow flurries.

The weekend of the divisional playoff games has finally arrived, and none too soon for those of us who have been waiting anxiously for the past two weeks. The one must-read article of this week is an ESPN piece on Brandon Jacobs and Tramon Williams, high school teammates in tiny Napoleonville, LA. The overall point of the piece is the astronomical odds of these two kids from the bayou country both earning Super Bowl rings.

The part about Williams is fascinating. He was smart and talented, but a little too small and a little too slow to be the ideal cornerback, and so he didn't attract any attention from college scouts, who only paid attention to his teammate Brandon Jacobs. So he gave up on football and went to college, where he watched the Louisiana Tech team from the stands until he decided he could cover better than the players on the field, and walked on. After college, he wasn't drafted, but spent his rookie training camp with the Texans until he was cut. The Packers' scouting staff, who notoriously take a different approach to scouting, invited him up for a tryout. When Charles Woodson saw him make a play in practice, he said "Holy crap, who is that guy?" And so, Tramon Williams ended up as another one of the free agent miracles found by Ted Thompson and his staff.

The article ends with a detailed look at how Williams made the game-turning interception for a touchdown on the final play of the first half in the playoff game against the Falcons last year. It gave me a greater appreciation for Williams, who may not have had the impact this year that he did last year, but has a chance to do so again in the playoffs. Even if I was not already pumped up for the Giants game, reading this article would have gotten me ready.

It is not unusual for there to be an upset in each of the first two weeks of the playoffs, like last week's upset of the Steelers by the Broncos. But this week, as I look through the list of games, I think all of the favorites will win. The Saints are the only road team that is favored over the home team, the 49ers, and in my view, with good reason. The Saints' offense will be too much for the 49ers, even though the 49ers' defense is vastly improved now that Jim Harbaugh is coach. Or to put it another way, even if the 49ers' defense slows the Saints down a little, I can't see the 49ers scoring enough points. Harbaugh has quarterback Alex Smith on a very short leash, which will not be conducive to keeping up with the Saints.

Tebow time, I expect, will end on Saturday against the Patriots. This game is similar in some ways to the Saints-49ers game. The Broncos have a pretty good defense, although not close to being as good as the 49ers' defense. But their offense is another story. They, too, have a quarterback with a limited set of skills, as compared to most of the other playoff quarterbacks. They will not be able to keep up with the Patriots, who will probably get off to a big lead and never relinquish it.

In the other Sunday game, I don't have much feel for the Ravens and Texans. They both have quality defenses, and offenses that have done better than I would have expected. So, in the absence of better information, I am going with the home team Ravens.

In the Packers-Giants game, there has been an awful lot of coverage focusing on how the Giants beat the Packers 4 years ago in the NFC Championship game, how fearsome their defense is, how powerful their running game is, and how talented the receivers are. All well and good, and obviously there is truth in all of these points. But the Giants are still wildly inconsistent, and for all the talk about how bad the Packers' defense is, the Giants have given up more points than the Packers have, and the Packers have generated far more turnovers on defense than have the Giants. The Packers are as healthy and rested as they have been all year, and as Greg Jennings said earlier this week, they have not forgotten who kept them out of the Super Bowl 4 years ago. We all know that Aaron Rodgers is not as likely to make the game-killing mistake, as his predecessor did in that game.

Finally, there is the wild card effect of the Packer family tragedy this week involving the death of Coach Philbin's son. Analyzing what effect it might have on the play on the field may be cold, but there is a large emotional component to the game of football. The death of Michael Philbin could turn out to be a huge distraction for the team, or the source of enormous motivation. I think back to the Monday Night game in Oakland in 2003, the day after Irvin Favre died. We were lucky enough to be there, and I don't think we will ever forget it. Favre had a stellar game that night, but he certainly did not do it by himself. The offensive line gave him protection like they had not done since 1996. And the receivers went out and caught any ball that was anywhere near them, something they had not regularly done that year. In other words, the other players went out and played beyond their normal level, in an effort to win that game for Brett Favre. My thought is that the 2011 team will play their hearts out, for Coach Philbin.

If everything breaks right for the Giants, they obviously have the talent to beat the Packers. But when you add up all of the factors mentioned above, I think it is much more likely that the Packers will win, and it may not be that close of a game.

A Look Back at the 2007 NFC Championship Game

2012-01-09T18:46:00.000-08:00

Well, the Packers got (in my opinion) the least favorable matchup for their first playoff game next Sunday. I thought that either the southern dome team (the Falcons) or the northern dome team (the Lions) would have been easier for the Packers to handle than the Giants, who both play outdoors in cold weather, and have the confidence booster of having beaten the Packers in the NFC Championship game four years ago (Giants 23, Packers 20, in overtime - Favre's last game as a Packer).

There were at least 15 Packers who played in that ice cold overtime game four years ago who will be expected to play on Sunday. The Green Bay Press-Gazette informs us that there was exactly one current player who suited up for that game but did not play: Aaron Rodgers. Will he be the difference-maker? I hope so.

Kevin Seifert of ESPN describes that game as one of the most disappointing Packer games ever, and it is hard to argue with that (although there are certainly other candidates: Super Bowl XXXII, the 4th and 26 Eagles game, and the Michael Vick playoff game come to mind). I remember well the elation we all had when the no. 2 seed Packers, unexpectedly, got to host the NFC Championship game after the Giants knocked off the no. 1 seed Cowboys. But the Packers did not play well that night, and of course everyone remembers Favre's final pass as a Packer, which was intercepted in overtime and led to the game-winning field goal. To be sure, Favre was not the only one who played poorly. My son and I went to this game, and I can remember saying to him, at the beginning of the overtime session, that the Packers might end up winning this game, but they certainly don't deserve to win it.

This is one of those games that I don't think I have ever gone back to watch again, even though I recorded it at the time (Super Bowl XXXII was another one). But thanks to the NFL Network (I love these guys!) I am watching it again tonight, as they are replaying it right now. There were some great individual plays (like the Driver 90 yard touchdown that took place while I was in the Lambeau Field bathroom), but overall, the Packers suffered from the total lack of a running game, an inefficient passing game, an inconsistent defense, and of course the interceptions.

* * * *

In the midst of getting ready for this week's game against the Giants, the Packers' family has been struck by a terrible tragedy, as Offensive Coordinator Joe Philbin's 21 year old son, Michael, was first reported missing, and then was found dead after having fallen through the ice of the Fox River. As the father of two young adults in their early 20's, I cannot imagine the anguish of the Philbin family. My prayers are with them.

Ready for the Playoffs?

2012-01-06T16:30:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Dan Powers, Appleton Post-Crescent)

Until I got around to re-watching the Lions' game on Thursday, I had forgotten what a mess it was in the first few minutes. First, Pat Lee (in place of the inactive Randall Cobb) mishandled the opening kickoff, with the ball rolling through the end zone for a touchback. Matt Flynn had the ball stripped away on the first possession, resulting in a turnover and a touchdown. Then, Pat Lee (evidently through inexcusable ignorance of the rules), mishandled the second kickoff, resulting in a safety and a 9-0 hole. Tim Masthay free-kicked the ball, despite not having been given a signal by the officials for live action. And of course there were some dropped passes, too. Those first few minutes were ugly.

All of this seemed slightly beside the point in the wake of the 45-41 victory over the Lions, with Flynn setting all-time Packer records for TD passes in a single game, with 6, and for passing yards in a game, with 480. He also managed to position himself very nicely in the free agent market, having another sensational game in only his second career start.

There was a lot to like on offense, despite a makeshift offensive line, with the Packers scoring 45 points against a playoff team that was actually trying to win the game, in a vain effort to avoid a trip to New Orleans to play the Saints this weekend. I was not a big fan of sitting relatively healthy playmakers like Rodgers, Matthews and Woodson, on top of players who were actually injured and inactive like Jennings, Bulaga, Starks and Cobb. But the Packers sat them all anyway, and yet they still managed to win the game, extend their team record for regular season wins in a single season to 15, and extend their home winning streak against the Lions to 21 years. The Packers scored the most points of any team in the league this season, with 560, and of course they had the best record in the league as well. It was also a nice touch for the Packers to let Rodgers call the offensive plays in the first half, which can only help him in calling audibles when he is on the field.

On defense, it was pretty much the same story as it has been for most of the year, but worse. The Packers gave up 520 passing yards, 41 points, 575 total net yards, and 5 passing TDs to Matthew Stafford. Stafford, and some of his receivers, are quality offensive weapons, but for a dome team to have that kind of an offensive game in blustery conditions outdoors, against the number one seed in the NFC, is sort of disgraceful. Despite the Packers' 15-1 record this year, they gave up 359 points in the regular season, over 22 points per game. For a point of reference, the no. 2 NFC seed 49ers gave up 229, and in the AFC, the Ravens, Steelers and Texans all gave up fewer than 300 points. The Packers finished the regular season by edging out the AFC's no. 1 seed, the Patriots, for last place in the league in yards allowed per game. So there is very little question in my mind that the Packers' problems on defense are, at a minimum, going to make it tougher for them to repeat as Super Bowl Champions.

On the slightly brighter side, in watching the game a second time, it confirmed for me that the Packers played a very plain version of their defense against the Lions. I assume they did this, in part, because they might be playing the Lions again in the playoffs, and, in part, because of the absence of their two biggest playmakers on defense, Matthews and Woodson. The Packers blitzed infrequently during the game, and I did not notice a lot of defensive stunts, either. Yet despite the plain and simple version of the Packers' defense, they still managed to come up with turnovers, two interceptions (by Shields and Bush) and two fumble recoveries (by Burnett and Crosby). Add some complexity, blitzes and stunts to the mix and the likelihood of turnovers in the playoffs will increase.

There has been a lot of discussion this week about who would be the most favorable opponent for the Packers in their first game. Personally, I think it would be the Falcons - a southern dome team playing outdoors in Green Bay in January. But I think it is much more likely that it will be the Giants, which will happen if the Lions lose to the Saints (which I think is highly likely) and if the Giants beat the Falcons. The Giants-Falcons game is tougher to predict, but the Giants seem to be peaking at exactly the right time, and even though the Giants have been wildly inconsistent this season, I expect them to win.

Going for 15-1?

2011-12-30T09:47:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Evan Siegle, Green Bay Press-Gazette)

What great fun it was to watch the Packers and Bears play on Christmas night. We had my brother and family (visiting from Wisconsin) over to watch the game, along with good friend Myles and family. Son Ben was home from school for a couple of weeks, and daughter Sarah was at the game, along with her Panther fan Andrew, who is such a big football fan in general that he decided to become a Packer shareholder. From the very first drive, mostly in the no-huddle offense, with the screen pass being the key play in the drive, it became clear that the Packers had figured out a way to adapt to their makeshift offensive line, resulting from a series of injuries.

If there is one stat that stands out for me in the Packers-Bears game last week, it is this. In the official NFL Gamebook of the game last week, the name of Julius Peppers appears exactly once. In the list of starting defensive players. He had no tackles, no assists, no sacks, no nothing. Aaron Rodgers was never sacked, and in general was hit only when he ended up running with the ball, which happened a couple of times on busted plays, and a couple of other times on scrambles. On defense, it was another story. The Packers again gave up over 400 yards, including 199 rushing yards, mostly to a running back nobody ever heard of before. The Packers got no sacks on defense. More than any other single factor, the continued absence of Ryan Pickett contributed to the defensive problems. I am anxiously awaiting his return. The Packers simply cannot continue to play defense like this in the playoffs, if they expect to win some games.

It will be interesting to see what approach Mike McCarthy takes in this week's Lions game. As a season ticket holder, I hate exhibition games, and I hate being required to pay full price for them. I have fulminated in the past over the business of teams with playoff seeding locked up "tanking" their Week 17 game, making no real effort to win, and in the process knocking some other team out of the playoffs. Just last year, I gave high praise to Lovie Smith and the Bears for giving it their all in Week 17, playing as if their game against the Packers mattered (which it did, in playoff life-or-death fashion, to the Packers and Giants). This week's game against the Lions does matter, for playoff seeding purposes, to the Lions and Falcons. And it matters for Packer team record purposes. The 2011 Packer team is the only Packer team to win 14 games in a single regular season. Obviously, no Packer team has ever won 15 in a regular season. There is another team record at stake: the Lions have not beaten the Packers in Wisconsin since 1991, coincidentally just before Favre and then Rodgers arrived on the scene.

Now obviously, if the Packers get out to a comfortable lead, McCarthy will start taking starters out of the game. And I fully assume that he will pull the trigger earlier than he might in any other week. But I hope and expect that the Packers will go out and try to win the game, and go into the playoffs on a high note.

The Press-Gazette notes that it was 50 years ago this weekend that Green Bay first become Titletown, USA. On December 31, 1961, the Packers hosted the NFL Championship Game and destroyed the Giants, 37-0. I could not readily put my hands on it to scan it for this blog post, but somewhere around the house is the New York Post sports page from the day after the game. It was given to us by Judy's old boss (a Giants fan) in the mid-1980's, meaning we have had it about as long as he did before giving it to us. I am pretty sure that Vince Lombardi would have gone out and tried to win the game this week. So should Mike McCarthy.

Next Goal: Home Field Advantage

2011-12-24T23:55:00.000-08:00

It just figures that, as soon as I jump on the "undefeated Packers" bandwagon, they go out and lay an egg on the field. All season long, I have been saying that I figured that the Packers would lose a game somewhere along the way. Then, last week, I finally said that I thought the Packers would win their final 3 games to end the regular season undefeated. You could say that I jinxed the team, but I think the odds just finally caught up with them. (That, and the fact that the Packers were out-played on both sides of the ball, and out-coached as well.)

All year long, we have seen Aaron Rodgers carry the Packers on his back. Receivers would drop balls, the defense would give up too many points, the running game would struggle, but the MVP-caliber play by Aaron Rodgers would bail out the team. And in some games, we have seen the defense give up enough points to put the win in jeopardy, but then they would come up with the big turnover or stop to save the game. The week 1 win against the Saints is a perfect example of both of these phenomena in action. Rodgers was unstoppable in the passing game, and the defense came up with the big stop from the 1 yard line with no time left on the clock.

The question always was: what happens in a game that is close where the defense doesn't come up with the turnovers? Or what happens in a game that is close where Aaron Rodgers doesn't have a sensational game? Well, now we know, since the Chiefs game involved: (1) no turnovers generated by the Packers' defense; (2) a very sub-par performance by Aaron Rodgers, who completed less than 50% of his passes; (3) lots of drops by the receivers; and (4) a rushing game that was productive, but not given enough chances to move the ball. The result was a loss to the Chiefs, by the score of 19-14.

I have been out of town since the game, and have not had the chance to go through the painful exercise of watching the game again. This may well be one of those games I never get around to watching again. We watched the Chiefs game in a Packers bar in Las Vegas. Let's just say that this place was no Kettle of Fish. The Kettle of Fish is a great Packers bar in Manhattan, where we watched the Monday Night Packers-Broncos game during the 2007 season. Everything was great about that bar, and we would return any time we are in New York during football season. Whereas this bar in Las Vegas was full of smoke (hey, it's Las Vegas), not particularly friendly, and someplace we would avoid if in Las Vegas again during the season.

I am finishing this blog post after the Saturday (Christmas Eve) day games. The 49ers beat the Seahawks, and as a result, the Packers still need one more Packer win or a 49er loss in order to clinch home field advantage in the NFC playoffs. So Sunday night's game matters to the Packers, in every possible way. The Packers ought to go out and win this game and get HFA out of the way, without leaving anything to be decided in the final game. The Bears will be without starting quarterback Jay Cutler and starting running back Matt Forte. The Bears have decided that Caleb Hanie is not the answer, and so they will start Josh McCown at quarterback against the Packers. The Packers have plenty of injury problems of their own, and will be playing without Greg Jennings, Bryan Bulaga, Chad Clifton and Ryan Pickett. The Bears usually play very well against the Packers, but the psychology of this game is all in the Packers' favor. The Packers have HFA to play for, they ought to be mad as hell and a little embarrassed about last week's game, and should want to get that taste out of their mouths. The Bears, while still alive for the playoffs, have lost four games in a row, and it would take a minor miracle for them to end up with a wild card spot. That is a recipe for a Packers victory, and I suspect they will beat the Bears easily.

Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah to all.

Raiders Blown Out by the Packers

2011-12-14T20:16:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Corey Wilson, Green Bay Press-Gazette)

During the first few offensive plays for the Raiders, I wondered if we Packer fans would be in for "another one of those days." The Packers gave up a couple of passes for first downs, and it looked like the Raiders would just march down the field. But just like that, Clay Matthews got after Carson Palmer, causing Palmer to hurry his throw, which resulted in an interception by D.J. Smith. After a Raiders penalty on the Packers' first snap (the first of many Raiders penalties to follow), Ryan Grant broke off a 47 yard touchdown run, and after that, the only question was how bad it was going to get for the Raiders.

At some point during a commercial in the middle of the second quarter, Judy (my wife) said, "what is the score now, 31-0?" And indeed it was. The Packers eventually gave up some points, and the final score was Packers 46, Raiders 16. It is a bit of a cliche to say that the game was not as close as the score, but it really wasn't. The Raiders, their fans, and the local media here in the Oakland area are well aware that the Raiders were blown out for the second week in a row. The online version of the game story in the Oakland Tribune has a different headline, but my local print paper's article on the game is titled: "Another 34-0 Deficit, Another Debacle."

The Packers' defense looked much more like its normal 2011 self this week, meaning they give up way too many yards, they don't get enough sacks, but they really do "bend" mostly without "breaking," and they continue to be among the best ball-hawking defenses in the league. (Against the Raiders, they intercepted Palmer four times, and recovered a fumble.) Truth be told, the Raiders dropped a lot of catchable balls in the game, and the Raiders committed lots of penalties, and both factors made things easier on the Packers' defense, but still, the point is that the defense looked like the kind of defense the Packers can continue to win with.

Against the Raiders, it was the offense that had an off day, if you can consider it an off day when you score 39 points on offense, and give your backup quarterback lots of playing time in the third and fourth quarters. There were balls that should have been caught, balls that were just a little off target, and one ball that was wrestled away from our sometimes unstoppable tight end, Jermichael Finley, for an interception. However, in the absence of James Starks, Ryan Grant looked like the Ryan Grant of a couple of years ago, breathing some new life into the running game just when it is needed, as the weather gets cold.

Rodgers, in the course of having his "off" day, managed to tie the Packers' team record for TD passes in a season, at 39. The record was held by Brett Favre, for 39 TD passes in 1996, which was of course the year that the Packers won Super Bowl XXXI. The Packers also set the team record for points scored in a season, by reaching 466 points. Rodgers and the Packers have three more games in the regular season to add to those record totals.

The injury to Greg Jennings is obviously a major concern. I consider him to be one of the top 4 playmakers on the team, along with Rodgers, Matthews and Woodson. As of this writing, it looks like he will miss the last 3 weeks of the regular season, but that he should be back in time for the playoffs. Normally, one would expect a problem when a player of Jennings' caliber misses three games, but the 2011 Packers have what can only be described as an embarrassment of riches at WR, most prominently Jordy Nelson, Jermichael Finley, James Jones, Donald Driver, and Randall Cobb. I think they will be just fine.

I heard an interesting fact on the local (San Francisco) CBS post-game show: the Raiders have not beaten the Packers since Ronald Reagan was in office. That would have been September 13, 1987, when the Raiders came to Lambeau Field and beat the Packers, 20-0. That was so long ago that I have no recollection of the game, but the starting quarterback for the Packers was Randy Wright, and this was during the period that Randy Wright and his successor, Don Majkowski, were sharing the starting quarterback duties. (Special Randy Wright memories: the gnarly older woman with the gravelly, smoker's voice who sat behind us in our old seats at Lambeau Field, and/or her partner, could be counted on at least once each game to yell out the following lines: "Randy Wrong, Randy Wrong." . . . "Come ON, youse guys, DO something!" . . . "Yah, I seen him piss away the Rose Bowl.")

Dredging up these Randy Wright memories brings to mind another thought. While the Wright / Majkowski sharing of the starting quarterback job was a weird experiment, it is probably closer to the typical team's quarterback situation than what the Packers have had over the last 20 years. Most teams struggle to find the right long-term quarterback, and may go through a couple of starting quarterbacks a year for a number of years before settling on their guy. Think of the Chicago Bears, for instance. But since the third week of the 1992 season, the Packers have had exactly two starting quarterbacks (not counting the concussion-induced start by Matt Flynn last year), both of whom are probably headed for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The only other back-to-back quarterback combination I can think of that is even comparable is Joe Montana - Steve Young in San Francisco. We are lucky enough to be living through another golden age of Packers football, and we should, from time to time, take a moment to reflect on that.

And, of course, we are also living through what might end up being the most magical single season for a team in history. Earlier in the season, I always thought that the Packers would lose a game here or there, and they still might, given the fact that the defense is not playing at the same level as it did last year. But there are only three games left in the regular season. The 5-8 Kansas City Chiefs, who fired their head coach this week, don't seem like they will be the ones to knock off the Packers. The 7-6 Bears, probably without Jay Cutler and possibly without Matt Forte? It could happen, as they do usually play the Packers very well, but I doubt it. The self-destructing 8-5 Lions, playing in the cold? Very little chance. We will talk about the playoffs later, but at this point, having gotten by the Lions, Giants and Raiders, I think the Packers will end up 16-0.

NFC North Champion Packers!

2011-12-07T14:29:00.000-08:00

(Photo Courtesy of Packers.com)

In the course of one day, the Packers: (1) won their 18th straight game, a streak that began with their win against the Giants last year; (2) successfully completed the third quarter of the regular season without a loss; (3) achieved a 12-0 record for the first time in team history; (4) clinched a playoff spot when they beat the Giants on the last play of the game; (5) executed a classic one-minute drill to lead to the final play victory; and (6) clinched the NFC North Title later Sunday evening when the Lions lost. Not bad for a day's work. As for goals for next week, the Green Bay Press-Gazette Facebook page, NFL Historian Jon Zimmer reports that a win next week will match the best start ever by a defending Super Bowl Champion (matching the 1998 Denver Broncos).

Still . . . it is impossible to ignore the problems on the Green Bay defensive side. From total points given up (35) to total yards allowed (447) to gain per rush (5.0) to gain per pass (8.5), this was not an elite defensive performance against the Giants. And the Giants, while talented, are not really an elite team, having been crushed by the Saints on Monday Night Football six days before the Packers played them. The Packers started the game with starters Desmond Bishop and A.J. Hawk inactive, and ended the game with Charles Woodson out with a concussion. But the Packers and their fans have come to expect that the "next man up" will get the job done. Looks like Woodson will be back this week, Hawk may be back, but Bishop probably will not be ready this week.

And now another wildly inconsistent team, the Oakland Raiders, comes to town on Sunday. It was only four years ago that I reminisced about some of the great moments in Packers-Raiders history, from Super Bowl II, to the first Lambeau Leap, to the Irvin Favre game. So rather than repeat that history now, just go take a look at the 2007 article.

The Raiders, at 7-5, are tied for first place in the AFC West, but as of now would lose the tie-breaker to the Broncos, and would finish out of the playoffs. They have beaten some good teams, but have also lost, in embarrassing fashion, to the Chiefs and to the Dolphins in the last six weeks. Suffice it to say, a team with a positive record, at 7-5, but with a negative points differential (giving up more points than it scores), is unlikely to be able to keep up with the 2011 Green Bay Packers. I expect a fairly easy win (but bear in mind, I expected the same last week, too).

* * * *

Meanwhile, the Packers' latest sale of stock is underway, as I mentioned last week. Sure, being an "owner" of the Green Bay Packers is not, in any meaningful way, an investment. But the fact that we, the fans, actually own our team is, and always has been, one of the greatest things about the Green Bay Packers. Apparently I am not the only one who feels that way, from comments sent in by shareholders to ESPN's NFC North reporter, Kevin Seifert.

Packers' Streak Still Alive

2011-12-02T23:00:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Andrew Weber, US Presswire)

Many people, including me, thought that the Thanksgiving Day game at Detroit was one of those games that the Packers could end up losing. Even though the Lions had lost a few of these holiday games in a row, traditionally they played well on Thanksgiving; they beat the Packers at Detroit last year; and until a few weeks ago, it looked like both teams might go into this game undefeated. I was particularly concerned about the Lions' fierce pass rush, led by the Lions' defensive star Ndamukong Suh.

The game started slowly, and at halftime the score was only 7-0 Packers. Certainly, it was anybody's game at that point. Not only were the Packers not running away with the game, you could make a case that they were lucky to be ahead. The Lions had twice as much time of possession in the first half, twice as many total yards, almost twice as many passing yards. A Stafford interception by Clay Matthews led to the only Packer points of the half, but other than that short scoring drive, the Lions' defense was doing an excellent job of slowing down the Packers.

How fitting it was, then, that the turning point in the Thanksgiving Day game against the Lions turned out to be a penalty by Suh. I just have not been watching much of the Lions so far this year. So I knew that Suh had been getting a reputation for dirty play, and I knew that the Bears in particular had complained about it a lot, but I didn't have a personal opinion about it. In fact, I saw a story on ESPN about Suh and Jahvid Best buying new equipment for a high school team that had all its football equipment stolen, and I thought, "maybe he is not such a bad guy," and maybe it was just the Bears whining.

But then I saw the play where he pushed Evan Dietrich-Smith's head into the ground several times and then stomped on his arm, resulting in Suh's ejection from the game. That was bad enough, but to hear his post-game explanation, that he had lost his balance and put his foot down to regain his balance just served to enrage me. Boomer Esiason, Shannon Sharpe, and Bill Cowher all just hammered him during the halftime show of the second game, and has so have all the commentators since. And well they should. It would be one thing if, as Charles Woodson did after throwing a punch earlier in the year, Suh just said that he had lost his cool, that he doesn't want to be that kind of player, and tried to move on. But to stand up there, in pure denial mode, and say he was trying to regain his balance? It is just ridiculous. A former college teammate of Suh's even called him delusional. While the Lions had stopped the Packers on the play in question, so that they would have kicked a field goal to make it 10-0, the penalty and ejection of Suh led directly to the Packers scoring a touchdown instead, to take a 14-0 lead, and to go on to win the game 27-15.

Since I first put down these thoughts in a draft post almost a week ago, Suh has apologized to just about everybody but Evan Dietrich-Smith, but thanks to his post-game comments, everybody saw right through his belated apology. The Commissioner imposed a two-game suspension, Suh appealed, and his appeal was rejected almost immediately.

So, after a mini-bye week when the players got a few days off to relax and heal, the Packers move on to play the Giants this week in New Jersey. While the Packers, at 11-0, have won 17 in a row dating back to last year, the Giants have lost 3 in a row, and find themselves in second place in their division, and, as of now, would finish out of the playoffs if the season ended today. Plus, we all recall, the Packers took the Giants apart last year, beating them 45-17 in week 16 last year. So between the desperation factor and the revenge factor, could the Giants be the ones to end the Packers' win streak? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Last year, as I noted at the time, the Giants went into that week 16 game with almost as much at stake as the Packers, who never would have even made the playoffs if they lost to the Giants in week 16, or to the Bears in week 17. Plus, the Giants had just suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the Eagles, much as they suffered a big loss to the Saints this past Monday night. Last year, they collapsed in the face of the Eagles' 4th quarter rally, capped by the DeSean Jackson punt return touchdown in the last minute that, with the benefit of hindsight, made it possible for the Packers to make the playoffs. This year, they were just beaten, from start to finish, by the Saints, who led 21-3 at halftime and never looked back.

I just don't think the Giants are playing well enough now to beat the Packers. Not only have they lost 3 in a row, but they have been outscored by their opponents this year. Going into a game against the Packers, having given up more points than you are scoring all year, is not a situation calculated to lead to a good result. I think the Packers will keep their streak alive for at least another week.

Packers Stock Sale Next Week!

2011-12-02T09:27:00.000-08:00

Just in time for Christmas and Hanukah, the Packers are offering another stock sale, starting next Tuesday. When the Packers last did this (in 1997), my wife, my kids and I all bought stock, and have never regretted showing our support for the Packers this way. It is not, in any normal sense, an investment. Proceeds will be used to fund additional Lambeau Field expansion, including the new end zone seats which will be built. A summary of some of the information available about the stock sale is available here. Full disclosure information will be available later.

Anyway, thanks to Packer blogger Jersey Al and to my friend Peter Chen for reminding me of the stock sale. Go out and become an NFL owner!

10-0, But Far From Perfect

2011-11-21T22:03:00.000-08:00

(Image by Duff Damos)

Well, it appears that the Packers have not quite gotten past their problems on defense yet. Not only did they give up 455 yards of total offense to the Buccaneers, but they let Josh Freeman throw for over 300 yards and 2 touchdowns, they let LeGarrette Blount run for almost 6 yards per carry, and they made Kellen Winslow look the tight end we thought Jermichael Finley would be this year. On offense, Aaron Rodgers again had a passer rating over 110, but the offense seemed slightly out of kilter, with more missed passes than we are used to seeing this year, and the special teams had wacky plays from Tim Masthay's punt with two fumbles on the same play, to the Packers almost giving the ball back to Tampa Bay through sheer stupidity on the first of two Tampa onside kicks.

This last one is a particular pet peeve of mine. If you are playing on special teams, you should know the rules relevant to special teams play. The play by D.J. Smith on the first onside kick by Tampa Bay was both atrocious and utterly inexcusable. It was obvious that the ball was not going to travel 10 yards, and yet Smith went over the top of the kicker's body to touch the ball, which was then recovered by the Buccaneers. In this case, Smith was bailed out by the fact that the kicker actually touched the ball first, for an illegal touching penalty, but that was just a lucky break. His intent was to get to the ball first, despite the fact that it had not gone 10 yards. This is the equivalent of a quarterback not knowing that you can't throw two forward passes on the same play, or a kickoff returner not knowing that a kickoff is a live ball (I'm talking about you, Barry Foster). Yes, I suppose it is hard to make those decisions in a split second, but I still think it is evidence of either bad coaching, a player who has not learned the rules, or a player who didn't exactly blow the doors off of the Wunderlic test.

Oh, yes, and notwithstanding all that, the Packers beat the Buccaneers 35-26, going to 10-0, and extending their winning streak in games that count to 16. Which is a textbook example of this team finding a way to win a game, even though they played sub-par football in all three phases of the game. There is no question in my mind that the Packers, in most other years, would have found a way to lose this game, and so, as dissatisfied as fans may be with the Buccaneers game, we should at least be thankful that the Packers have turned it around to the point where they win most (or all) games that are close enough that they could easily lose them.

Everybody knows that the Lions and the Cowboys host a Thanksgiving Day game every Thanksgiving. That has been true since 1967. Only football fans of a certain age will recall that, from 1951-1963, the Packers played the Lions every Thanksgiving. Vince Lombardi evidently hated playing every Thanksgiving Day, and he had the practice discontinued after 1963. Probably the 1962 game had a lot to do with it. The Packers came into the game undefeated at 10-0, and the Lions were 8-2 (this year they are 7-3). The Lions won the game, 26-14, but the Packers did not lose another game, finished the regular season 13-1, and won the NFL Championship.

Speaking of the history of Thanksgiving games, they started in 1920, with 6 games being played that Thanksgiving. Of the 12 teams playing that day, only one survives today, the Decatur Staleys (now the Chicago Bears). The Packers played their first Thanksgiving game in 1923, beating the Hammond Pros by the score of 19-0. Yes, the league was a very different place back then. My favorite Thanksgiving game memory is from 1986, when Walter Stanley completed the Packers' comeback with a last minute punt return for a touchdown, allowing the Packers to beat the Lions, 44-40. Somebody (I have forgotten who) put a crushing block on the last Lion with a chance to stop him on his way to the end zone.

This Lions game, to be perfectly honest, makes me nervous. The Lions have a very good pass rush, a nearly unstoppable wide receiver (Calvin Johnson), and they traditionally play very well on Thanksgiving at home, even when the team is not very good. So this is certainly one of the games where the Packers could lose. And with the 49ers (9-1) nipping at the Packers' heels, every game counts a lot, when it comes to setting up home field advantage in the playoffs.

Buccaneers Up Next

2011-11-19T23:05:00.000-08:00

When last I discussed the Packers, I was fretting about the struggling Packers' defense. So, they go out and have their best defensive performance of the year, and beat the Vikings on Monday night by the score of 45-7. Even in their other two blowout games against the Broncos (49-23) and the Rams (24-3), the Packers gave up ridiculous yardage totals (384 yards to the Broncos, and 424 yards to the Rams). Sure, this game was against the (now 2-7) Vikings, but it was about time that the defense looked like last year's defense down the stretch.

Meanwhile, the offense continued to look unstoppable, and Rodgers has now beaten Favre's record of 25 straight home games with a touchdown pass, as Rodgers reached 26 games on Monday night. And the team record winning streak in games that count now stands at 15 (2 games in the regular season last year, all 4 playoff games, and 9 games this year).

The defensive resurgence does not look like a fluke. Woodson asked for the defense to apply more pressure this week, and to open up some opportunities for Matthews. Wish granted. Dom Capers called a much more aggressive defensive game plan, blitzing on almost 75% of the snaps, and it worked like a charm. Clay Matthews had 2 sacks, and Desmond Bishop added a 3rd sack. Charles Woodson was very close to 2 interceptions, one of which would certainly have been returned for a touchdown. From start to finish, the defense controlled the game.

The Packers are now in the midst of a 10 day stretch within which they will play 3 games. From a physical standpoint, you would think that this would be the toughest stretch of the season. But they came out of the Vikings game healthy, and now they play the Buccaneers. Aaron Rodgers has never beaten the Buccaneers, and of course in 2009 the Packers lost to the Buccaneers, who were winless going into the game. At the beginning of the season, this looked like it would be a very tough game, because the Buccaneers played very well last year, and Josh Freeman was supposed to be the next big thing. As it turns out, they go into this game with a record of 4-5, and with Josh Freeman having more interceptions than touchdowns. My biggest concern about this game is that the Packers look past this game to the even-shorter week they have to prepare for the Lions. I don't think that will happen, given that the Packers are still stinging from the 2009 loss to the Bucs.

The Packers' "Struggling" Defense

2011-11-09T23:28:00.000-08:00

(Green Bay Press-Gazette photo by Corey Wilson)

What is wrong with the Packers' defense? While the Packers beat the Chargers on Sunday, 45-38, the fact that they gave up 38 points to the previously-struggling Chargers, and that they again needed a last-minute interception (by Charlie Peprah) to seal the win, is causing a lot of teeth-gnashing among Packer fans.

The two best quotes I have heard about the state of the Packers' defense come from Charles Woodson and from the Packergeeks blog. Woodson, after the game, said, "We like to think that we have a lot of playmakers on our defense, especially in the back end. We feel like if the ball is in the air, we'll come up with our fair share certainly. But how many times are you going to have two interceptions for a touchdown? … Yeah, today it played out big for us. But we have to be more sound as a defense throughout the whole game." And the Packergeeks, who provide high quality commentary on the state of the Packers, said, "If our defense didn’t cause turnovers, we would be absolutely awful."

As an aside, I laughed when I heard, in the days leading up to the game, that the Chargers were piping in crowd noise to their practices, anticipating a large volume of Packer fans at the game. But sure enough, the Packer fan crowd noise was a big enough problem that the Chargers used a silent count on offense toward the end of the game. Yes, there are Packer fans all over, and a side trip to San Diego during the month of November probably sounded good to a lot of Packer fans.

But getting back to the Packer defense, what is the problem? There was some discussion this week about "communications problems" in the secondary. But I think the root of the problem is the lack of pass rush of the front 3. The Packers let Cullen Jenkins get away in free agency, signing with the 3-5 "dream team" Philadelphia Eagles. The push by the defensive line has not been the same since he left. Last year, the defensive line consistently got enough push against the offensive line to back them up. Sometimes, the defensive linemen themselves would reach and sack the quarterback. Other times, when a rusher came around the corner (most frequently Clay Matthews), the quarterback could not step up in the pocket, and was frequently sacked by the rusher from the edge. Last year in the regular season, the Packers as a team had 47 sacks, with the starting defensive linemen having 14.5 sacks, and with Clay Matthews getting 13.5.

This year, without Cullen Jenkins, the defensive line is not getting the same push. As a result, sacks by the defensive line have fallen off, and so have sacks by rushers coming from the edge. When that rusher comes around the corner, most of the time the quarterback just steps up into the pocket, and Matthews, or Woodson, or whoever the rusher is goes sailing by behind him. After half the regular season is over, the Packers as a team have only 19 sacks, the starting defensive linemen have 5 sacks, and Clay Matthews has 3 sacks.

This drop-off in productivity of the pass rush seems to have led Dom Capers to make some different choices in making the defensive calls. He knows: (1) that the offense is going to score a lot of points; and (2) that the front 3 are not getting the job done like they did last year. As a result, if he wants a pass rush, he has to add extra rushers, which in turn creates more chances of giving up big plays. It is no coincidence that all three Packer interceptions of Rivers last week occurred on plays where the Packers rushed 5 or more players. Charlie Peprah described the Packers as a pressure defense, and he is right. The problem is, they can't seem to create that pressure this year without blitzing. And one of these weeks, that is going to result in a long touchdown pass, instead of an interception, at precisely the wrong moment.

Monday night, the Vikings come to town for their re-match with the Packers. What with Favre retired again, and with the Vikings at 2-6, the game may not have the same luster as it did last year. But the Vikings almost always play well against the Packers, and Christian Ponder looks like he has some talent. I think the Vikings may keep it close for awhile, but the Packers should pull away toward the end of the game.

Second Half of the Season Starts Now

2011-11-04T12:56:00.000-07:00

(Photo by Hannah Foslien/Getty Images)

"Christian Ponder has already had a better rookie season than I had." Troy Aikman, after the first 20 minutes of the Packers' pre-bye game, with the score 14-7 Vikings.

The Packers set all kinds of individual, team and league records in the game, and overcame early deficits to beat the Vikings, 33-27, sending themselves into the bye week as the only undefeated team left in the league. However, nagging issues continue to cause concern to the fans and, I would hope, to the players and the coaching staff.

First, a few of the records:

Mike McCarthy reached 25 road victories as a head coach faster (after 44 games) than any other Packer coach in history, other than Vince Lombardi (36 road games).
The Packers' 13 game winning streak in games that count is the best in Packers' history.
The Packers won their 700th game. The Bears are the only other team with 700 or more wins.
Aaron Rodgers became the first quarterback in NFL history with a passer rating of 110 or higher in each of the first seven games of a season.

And now, the concerns. It is tough to get too worked up about problems on a 7-0 team, but there are some. Not really on offense, and not to any significant extent on special teams. On offense, the Packers continue to play lights-out football. I don't think you can play any better than Aaron Rodgers is playing, the receivers are doing a good job this year of catching the ball, and the running game is much more productive than it was for most of last year. The Packers ground out the last minutes of the Vikings game with a couple of rushing first downs, for heavens' sake. That didn't happen for the Packers very much in recent years. Despite some injuries on the offensive line, the line is providing pretty good protection for Rodgers.

On special teams, I no longer have to hold my breath every time there is a kicking play. The kick coverage team has given up a couple of long returns, but they don't seem to me to have the raging inconsistency of the last couple of years. Randall Cobb has run back one kick for a touchdown, and every time he touches the ball on a kicking play, he has the potential to do something big. He may not be at the level of a Devin Hester or Desmond Howard, but he is a vast improvement over the returners we have had in recent years.

Which brings us to the defense. The Packers are giving up too many points, way too many yards, and are allowing teams to stay close enough to make things scary at the end of games. The game against Minnesota was a perfect example. At times in the third quarter, I thought the Packers would end up winning the game by 20 or more points. But instead of destroying the Vikings when they were down, the Packers let the Vikings creep back into the game. Watch games of the Patriots from a few years ago, or even watch the Saints against the Colts in week 7, and you will see teams that have the killer instinct. The Packers don't seem to have that going for them right now, and they didn't really have it last year, either, even though the defense seemed better last year. Just take the playoff games. Of the four games, only the Falcons game had a relaxing finish. In the Eagles, Bears and Steelers' games, the opposition had a shot to win the game in the final minutes.

So what is the problem? Is it the loss of Cullen Jenkins to the Eagles? The loss of Nick Collins to injury? Another year of wear and tear on Charles Woodson? The defensive players are admiring their Super Bowl rings when they should be getting ready for the next week's game? I think all of these things (except for the last one) contribute to the problem, but I suspect that the biggest problem is that the defense has just not gelled this year, what with the changes that have taken place. A week off may have provided a little respite from the daily grind for the players, and given a little extra time for Dom Capers to work on some new wrinkles. I do think more aggressiveness on defense, and a little less "bend but don't break" philosophy would pay dividends. It is also worth noting that we had a bit of the same problem last year. The Packers had 5 wins in the regular season last year by 18 points or more. One of those games was in the first half of the season, and the other four were in the second half. So maybe we will see the Packers' defense play better in the second half this year, too.

Since the bye week fell almost in the middle of the Packers' schedule, the second half of the season effectively starts on Sunday, at San Diego. Living here in California, we considered driving down to San Diego for the game, but ultimately decided against it. I have bad memories from the last Packer game I went to at San Diego (yes, that game), but scheduling had more to do with it than bad memories. The Chargers are expecting the biggest crowd of the season on Sunday, and Scott Crevier, of the South End Zone web site, reported on his way to the game that there were lots of Packer fans in the Orange County airport, three days before the game. So it seems safe to assume that the Packers will find San Diego almost to be a home away from home.

Eight of the last nine games of the season are against teams with winning records at this point (Minnesota is the sole exception). So the last half of the season is not going to be easy, and I am pretty sure that the Packers will lose a game or two along the way. I doubt that this week will be one of those losses. The Chargers are just not playing up to my expectations of them. Last Monday night, they lost a close game to the Chiefs in overtime, but they looked terrible in the process, and Philip Rivers, in particular, just looked out of sync. They will have to play a much better game on Sunday if they expect to beat the rested Packers.

Ponder-ing the Vikings Game

2011-10-21T13:14:00.000-07:00

(Green Bay Press-Gazette photo of Charles Woodson and Al Harris embracing after the game)

"Boring." That is the description that a family member, and the Packergeeks, both used to describe the Packers' 24-3 win over the Rams last week, bringing the Packers' record to 6-0, and leaving them as the last undefeated team in the league. I didn't really agree with that, until I tried to watch the game again, and found myself day-dreaming about other things. But hey, boring isn't a bad thing when your team is 6-0.

One of the more "interesting" plays in the game was turned in by Sam Shields. He made a great play on the ball to intercept Sam Bradford's pass in the end zone. But he ended up getting a concussion after running around in the end zone trying to decide whether to try to return the ball. I have to say that was one stupid play on his part. Watching it on TV, it is always difficult to know what the player sees, or thinks he sees, from his angle. Here he makes a great play to intercept the ball in the end zone, but instead of either running the ball out, or kneeling to end the play, he ran all the way from one edge of the end zone toward the other, evidently trying to find a seam to run the ball out. Instead he was hammered on the play and did not return. That is one painful way to get a touchback.

The Packers continue to look pretty much unstoppable on offense, although I suppose it sounds strange to say that when the team did not score in the second half. But when you are ahead 24-3 at halftime, and when the opponent does not score in the second half either, it might be a little obsessive to worry much about that. On defense, the Packers continue to give up way too many yards, and have not seemed, all year, to be as dominant as they were at times last year. But, for whatever reason, they seem to be able to make plays and stiffen in the red zone. The challenge for the defense would be to learn to play that way on the rest of the field, so you don't have to come up with the big play in the red zone.

"We're 7 days from being 7-0, and that's our message." When I first saw this quote from Mike McCarthy, I almost cringed. Bulletin Board Material! And I suppose it is bulletin board material. But on second thought, this is just the new Mike McCarthy, the one we have seen since late last season. The one who said "we are nobody's underdog" in connection with the game against the Patriots. The one who had the team measured for Super Bowl rings the night before the Super Bowl. The one who has an empty frame in the team meeting room, waiting for the portrait of the next Packer Super Bowl Champions. He seems to have a strategy here, that expressing high expectations for the team, and challenging them to meet those expectations, serves as motivation. Motivation is a funny thing, but this technique seems to be working. You would think that at this level, players can motivate themselves, and that nobody needs emotional halftime speeches to get ready to play the second half. You would think that a player like Aaron Rodgers doesn't need to use long-ago perceived slights as motivation to play better, but he does, and it also seems to be working. As long as the Packers continue to win most (or all!) of the games against good teams, and avoid letdowns against the bad teams, they are going to continue to win a lot of games.

Since joining the NFL in 1921, the Packers have been 6-0 only 5 other times, and in all 5 of those seasons, they won the league’s championship:1929, ’30, ’31, ’62 and ’65. And here is another obscure stat for you: 5 of the last 6 teams to start 6-0 have made it to the Super Bowl.

The Vikings have announced that they are benching Donovan McNabb, and that Christian Ponder will be the starting QB for the rest of the year. It will be interesting to see how he plays. It is a daunting task to make your first start against the undefeated defending World Champions. On the other hand, you' have nothing to lose in that circumstance. You are expected to lose the game, and everyone will understand if you do. It is all upside, just like when Cam Newton lost to the Packers and all anyone could talk about was how good he looked. I expect the Packers to be 7-0 going into the bye week, so the stats junkies should get ready to pour through the record books looking for 7-0 teams and how they do.

Packers 5-0 on the Way to 7-0?

2011-10-15T10:22:00.000-07:00

(Photo from the Green Bay Press-Gazette.)
Since I am late in writing about last week's Packers-Falcons game, which the Packers won 25-14, I will offer a few comments about the game before turning my attention to the next couple of games.

When the Falcons got the opening kickoff, and started at the 20, one thing I did not expect to happen was for them to go on an 80 yard, 13 play drive to score a touchdown, then recover a Ryan Grant fumble to end a promising drive, then go on another long drive to go up 14-0.

On the one hand, I did believe, going into the game, that the Packers exposed the weakness of the Falcons' defense in the playoff game last year. And when the Falcons lost 30-12 to the Bears in week 1 of this year, my view of the Falcons' weaknesses were reinforced. But on the other hand, they were the no. 1 seed in the NFC playoffs last year, they still have Michael Turner, Roddy White, Tony Gonzalez and Matt Ryan on offense, and now they have added Julio Jones. So starting with a 14 point lead, they were going to be tough to beat, especially since the Packers were never behind any team all of last year by more than 7 points.

But then just like that, the game changed. We maybe did not realize it at first, because the Packers' first three scoring drives resulted in field goals, not touchdowns. But the bottom line is that the Packers shut out the Falcons during the last 43 minutes of the game, while going on 6 scoring drives of their own, putting up 25 unanswered points. There were big passing touchdowns to Jones and Jennings, and there were a total of 4 field goals. The Falcons could not stop the Packers, all they could do is just contain the damage.

How did the Packers change things around so thoroughly? To counteract the loss of OT Chad Clifton early in the game, the Packers started rolling Rodgers out more, and keeping an extra blocker in the backfield on many occasion, just to make sure he did not get killed back there. Rodgers spread out the ball to 12 different receivers during the game, keeping the Falcons off balance. And most importantly, after the Grant fumble on the first drive, the Packers never gave the ball away again.

On the defensive side, the Packers seemed to keep the Falcons guessing at all times. Sometimes they would rush only 3 or 4, dropping everybody else in coverage, and at other times (increasingly as the game went on), they would bring extra pressure on Ryan. He was very active in changing plays at the line of scrimmage, but he could not out-think Dom Capers, and was picked off twice, and pressured into bad throws many times.

All in all, it was a great example of the Packers' coaching staff adjusting their game plans on the fly, adapting to the changing circumstances on the field. It was, in some ways, the Packers' best game of the year. My biggest concern at this point is that everybody is getting a little too confident about the Packers. My buddy Dick Karth said that this was one of the most impressive games he has seen. Noted Packer blogger Jersey Al, on the Cheesehead Radio broadcast this week, said he is as "giddy as a schoolgirl" about the Packers. That is fine, I feel pretty good about the Packers myself. I just hope that the players are not reading all of their own press clippings, especially going into potential "trap games" like they have both this week against the 0-4 Rams, and next week against the 1-4 Vikings.

As one would expect, the danger is not lost on the coaching staff, which has gone out of its way to remind the Packers of their loss to the 0-7 Buccaneers two years ago. I don't expect the players or the coaches to let that happen again. The Packers are too good to lose to the Rams at home, and I would be nothing short of shocked if they do. The Vikings game next week is a little different, because it is a rivalry game, and it is on the road. Still, I really expect the Packers to be 7-0 next Sunday night, heading into a well-deserved bye week.

Some interesting notes on the Rams game: Rams Head Coach Steve Spagnuolo was the Defensive Coordinator for the Giants at the time of that painful NFC Championship game after the 2007 season (also known as Favre's last game for the Packers). So he is a pretty good coach, but I don't think that he has the horses at the moment. Former Packers Al Harris, Brady Poppinga, and Josh Gordy all play for the Rams. It appears Al Harris may start against the Packers, and I would expect a very warm welcome from the crowd. He was a great player for the Packers during his prime, and he left only because of a combination of injury and advancing age. I don't think I will ever forget his "Thank You Note" to the fans when he was released.

Packers and Lions Both Still Undefeated

2011-10-04T10:07:00.000-07:00

(Photo from the Green Bay Press-Gazette)

The Packers finished the first quarter of their season on Sunday, by beating the Denver Broncos by the score of 49-23. Based on the way the Lions and Packers finished last year, I am not surprised that they are both doing well so far this year. But I am stunned that there are only two 4-0 teams left in the NFL, and they are both in the NFC North! Unless one of these teams goes on a losing streak, every game the Packers and Lions play becomes important. Neither team wants to fall behind the other with both looking so good.

It would be tough to overstate how great Aaron Rodgers looked in this game. He became the only quarterback in history to throw for more than 400 yards, and throw four touchdown passes, and rush for two touchdowns in a single game. James Starks did a credible job rushing with Ryan Grant sitting out this game, and the wide receivers stepped up when the Broncos decided to make sure that Jermichael Finley did not have a repeat of his 3 touchdown performance against the Bears. I have to admit that when Donald Driver was taken off on a cart in the second quarter, I thought he would be out for some time and, given his age, it certainly seemed possible that we had just witnessed the end of his career. When he came back into the huddle at the beginning of the second half, and ultimately scored a touchdown, the sense of relief, admiration and inspiration in the stadium was palpable, even just watching it on TV. He is one of the good guys, and will always be remembered as such.

Meanwhile, problems continue on the defensive side of the team. The problems are most glaring when long passes are completed against the Packers, and so the obvious solution is better secondary play. Even Dom Capers seems to attribute the problems to changes in the secondary, with Morgan Burnett stepping in to replace Nick Collins. While this undoubtedly is part of the problem, I don't think that the defensive backs are the only problem. From my viewing of the game, I come down on the side of those who say that the problem starts with the lack of pressure on the quarterback (for example, take at the game summary by the Packergeeks). Unlike during the run to and through the playoffs last year, the Packers' defensive line is just not getting enough pressure on the quarterback - or at a minimum, they did not get enough pressure on Sunday. Was it the failure to sign free agent Cullen Jenkins during the off-season, who signed instead with the team formerly known as the Dream Team? Was it the injury to Mike Neal? Obviously, both of these contributed to the problem, but so far, Dom Capers has not found the solution. When three or four rush the quarterback, the quarterback usually has plenty of time to sit back and wait for something to develop. Only when Capers sends additional rushers does the quarterback have to rush his passes, and then of course there are fewer guys left in coverage, so it is easier to complete the passes. If you saw the Jets-Ravens game on Sunday night, you saw an example of pass rush by the Ravens that was so overpowering there was not much Mark Sanchez could do. When they blitzed, they got there so fast Sanchez had little chance to unload the ball, and even when they didn't blitz, they still got enough pressure on him to disrupt things. I have not seen enough of that from the Packers this year.

What a pair of prime time games we have coming up this week. Sunday night, it is the Packers returning to the home of last year's no. 1 seed Atlanta Falcons, hoping to repeat their performance from last year in the playoffs. On Monday night, the undefeated Lions host the NFC North Champion Bears. Lots of potential playoff implications in these two games. For the Falcons and the Bears, it is a chance to start to recover from their disappointing 2-2 starts, and get back over .500 for the year. For the Packers and the Lions, it is a chance to go to 5-0 and state a solid case for being elite teams in 2011. For both teams, it will be another significant test, after starting out with the same record against similar teams.

The Packers have beaten two good teams (Saints and Bears), and two mediocre teams (Panthers and Broncos). The Lions have beaten two pretty good teams (Buccaneers and Cowboys), and two mediocre teams (Chiefs and Vikings). The major difference is that the Lions have had to stage startling comebacks in two of their games (Vikings and Cowboys). This shows that the Lions have learned how to win, and that they never give up. But it also shows a weakness, in falling so far behind to one bad team (Vikings) and to one pretty good but nicked up team (Cowboys). They can't keep that up forever. Either they get better in the early stages of games, or they start falling short in their furious comebacks. The Lions are better than the Bears, and they are playing at home. I think they will be 5-0. In the case of the Packers, I acknowledge the power of the "revenge" factor for the playoff game last year, but the Packers overcame the same factor against the Bears. The Falcons offense just does not seem as strong as it was last year (they only scored 12 and 13 points in their two losses), while their defense seems just as vulnerable as the Packers showed it to be last year. I think the Packers will also be 5-0.

Finley: Unstoppable!

2011-09-25T23:57:00.000-07:00

(Photo from the Green Bay Press-Gazette)

Just as I thought, when the Packers meet the Bears with Jermichael Finley in uniform, and in the absence of a flurry of penalties, the Packers win the game, pretty convincingly. Finley was just about unstoppable, scoring all three Packer touchdowns, apparently the first Packer tight end 3 TD game since Keith Jackson (Whoa Nellie! I am referring to the player, not the announcer) scored three touchdowns in the season opener in 1996. Sunday's game was not as close as the 27-17 final score would suggest.

The Packers' passing offense was aided significantly by a 92 yard rushing day for Ryan Grant. After missing all three Bears games last year, I am sure it felt great for Grant to be such a contributor. The defense managed to hold Matt Forte to 2 yards rushing, and while Cutler got a lot of yards, the Packers sacked him 3 times and intercepted him twice. Woodson played a lot at safety in this game, returning to his cornerback position when the Packers were in nickel pass coverage. Neither Woodson nor Matthews had gaudy stats in this game, but both were steady contributors, and Matthews in particular was very disruptive, as the TV announcers mentioned.

Meanwhile, I cannot imagine the disappointment of the Bears' coaching staff and players over the result of their masterful trick punt return play. With a minute left in the game, and trailing by 10 points, the Bears uncorked a beauty of a play. The Packers had been punting away from Devin Hester all afternoon, and did so again, punting to the Packers' left sideline. But Hester, on the Packers' right side, sprinted further to the Packers' right side, acting as if he was waiting for the ball to come to him. Every Packer player, except punter Tim Masthay, bit on the fake, assumed that Masthay had mistakenly punted to the Packers' right side, and they all swarmed to Hester's side. Meanwhile, Johnny Knox fielded the ball on the Packers' left sideline, and headed up field, with one lead blocker taking out Masthay, the only guy who realized the ball was over on the left side. It would have been a touchdown, but for an absolutely meaningless holding infraction by Corey Graham, blocking one of the gunners early on in the play. He didn't need to hold anybody; whoever he held probably was 20 yards or more away from the play at the time. Now even if the Bears got the touchdown, they would have had to recover an onside kick and score a field goal to tie up the game. But it was a beautifully-designed play, one of the sweetest special-teams plays I have ever seen, and it was screwed up by a needless penalty. Even Aaron Rodgers and Greg Jennings were raving about this play.

So the Packers are 3-0, which, as we were told, means that there is a 76% chance they will make the playoffs. In the case of the 2011 Packers, I think the chances are a little higher than that.

Watching the 2010 Packers-Bears Week 3 Game

2011-09-24T14:16:00.000-07:00

Just for the heck of it, I decided to re-watch the Week 3 game between the Packers and the Bears from last year. I knew, without looking up the details, that the Packers would lose by 3 points, and that there were something like 18 penalties against the Packers in the game. Painful as it was to watch, I think I gained some extra perspective by watching the game again.

The reason I chose to watch this Bears game is that it is the only one the Packers played against the Bears last year with Jermichael Finley. Since the Bears play a lot of Tampa-2 defense, Jermichael Finley (or any top flight tight end) should be a large factor in the game, getting open over the middle. And he was. The Packers ended up losing the game anyway, but having another shot at the Bears with Jermichael Finley in the lineup makes me think good things should happen.

First Quarter. The first quarter ended with the Packers leading 7-0. The Bears had two possessions during this quarter, both of which were extended by penalties on the Packers. Yet the Bears missed a field goal, and then Cutler was intercepted in the end zone. Rodgers looked sharp, but there was no running game to speak of (remember, this was after Ryan Grant went out for the season, and before the Packers started using Starks). The Packers got good pressure on Cutler, and sacked him once, as I recall. So far, so good.

Second Quarter: The Packers continued to outplay the Bears, getting a couple of sacks on defense, forcing a 3-and-out, and gave up a touchdown only after a Hester punt return set the Bears up in great position to score. On offense, the Packers scored only a field goal, and started mis-firing more frequently than in the first quarter. Rodgers was intercepted on the Hail Mary pass at the end of the half, which doesn't really count. Most ominously, by my unofficial count the Packers only had 6 penalties in the first half. Lots more to come.

Third Quarter: There were no scores in the quarter, but penalties started to have a real impact on the game. A Jermichael Finley TD was nullified by a holding penalty, and then Julius Peppers blocked the field goal try. The Bears got down to the 1 yard line, but threw an incomplete pass on 4th down. Six penalties in the quarter. At the end of three quarters, Packers, 10-7.

Fourth Quarter: And then came the decisive fourth quarter. Hester returned a punt for a touchdown on the second play of the quarter, giving the Bears their first lead. The Packers scored on a long touchdown drive. A Finley TD was nullified by penalty (of course) but then Rodgers ran it in. The Bears tied it up on a long drive, where a nullified interception and 30 yards of penalties contributed heavily to the drive. Then, James Jones was stripped along the sidelines, and McCarthy wasted a precious timeout challenging the play, despite the fact (1) that it happened right in front of him; and (2) the fact that there was no chance it would be overturned. This led to the go-ahead (and winning) field goal, after McCarthy decided to mount a heroic goal line stand instead of letting the Bears score, which would have given Rodgers a final chance.

So what does this tell us for this week's game? It tells me that the Packers should win. They had more yards than the Bears last year, more first downs, and more sacks. It was only the penalties, poor special-teams play, and the poor decisions by McCarthy in the fourth quarter that let the Bears win the game. Since then, the offensive line is much better (and so there should be fewer holding and offsides penalties), McCarthy's decision-making at the end of games is improved, and the special teams play is (at least a little) better. Oh, and we have a better running game this time. The loss of Nick Collins is a problem, and somewhere down the road they may lose a game because of it. But I don't think it will be this week.

Déjà Vu

2011-09-19T14:10:00.000-07:00

(Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Photo)

In the words of the immortal Yogi Berra (my favorite baseball player as a kid), "It's déjà vu all over again." Just like last year, the Packers are 2-0 after two weeks, leading into their week three matchup at Chicago. True, last year the Bears were also 2-0, and by beating the Packers they took control of the division, kept it almost all year, and ended up as the NFC North Champ for 2010, sending the Packers on the road in the playoffs. This year, if the Packers can beat the Bears at Chicago, they would put the Bears two games plus a tie-breaker behind them. That would be a nice result.

(There is another little problem down the road for the Packers - the Lions are also 2-0, looking every bit as good as we expected they might be this year. But since the Packers don't play them until Thanksgiving, there will be plenty of time to talk about the Lions later.)

As for the Bears, I admit that they surprised me in Week 1 by beating the Falcons, and beating them solidly. Sure, you can say that the Falcons have a problem on defense, as the Packers illustrated in the playoffs last year. And you can certainly criticize the Falcons for trading as many draft picks as they did for wide receiver Julio Jones, rather than addressing their defensive problems. But it is quite another thing for them to be picked apart by Jay Cutler, who may very well deserve more credit than I usually give him. Speaking of Cutler, as I was driving around late last night, I heard an ESPN Radio guy make the observation that the Bears need to do something about their offensive line, “or they are going to get Jay Cutler killed back there.” He added, “maybe that is the plan.” I paid just enough attention to the Bears game Sunday to realize that, despite getting sacked repeatedly, Cutler and the Bears’ offense made enough good plays to keep it close into the third quarter, but this time the Saints pulled away.

Against the Panthers, the Packers’ offense looked good, after getting into a 13-0 hole in the first few possessions. A fumbled kickoff return by rookie Randall Cobb contributed to the problem, but even without that the Panthers had a TD drive and another field goal drive to create the 13-0 lead. Rodgers was pretty close to flawless in parts of the second half, the running game was reasonably productive, and I really like the change-up in running styles created by playing both Ryan Grant and James Starks. Jennings, Nelson, and Finley did most of the damage in the passing game (which presumably means James Jones will continue to be irritated at the paucity of passes in his direction). Driver only caught one pass, but it was the pass that gave him the record in pass receiving yardage as a Packer, surpassing James Lofton. (He wrote a very gracious letter of thanks to the Packer fans, as noted here.) He may be nearing the end of the road, but he continues to be a contributor. For the second week in a row, he was the “hands” team guy to go up high and grab the onside kick in the closing minutes of the game.

The Packers’ defense is beginning to look like it could be a problem. Mike Neal missed the game on the defensive line, and is likely to miss a “significant” number of weeks with his injury. The Packers made what seemed at the time to be a good decision by also making Tramon Williams inactive, giving him an extra week to heal up. After all, they were playing a rookie QB, what could possibly go wrong?

When it became apparent that last week’s game was not a fluke, and that Cam Newton is the real deal, the absence of Williams became more problematic. And when Nick Collins was taken off the field strapped to a plank after a scary looking injury, things got even more troublesome. We just learned this afternoon that Collins is out for the season, which is terrible news, but I am thankful that he was well enough to return to Green Bay and attend the team meeting to tell his teammates the bad news.

So here we go - Packers and Bears in Week 3, just like last year, with injuries becoming problems for the Packers, and with a lot on the line. Déjà vu.

Great Opening Night Win

2011-09-11T00:15:00.000-07:00

So we decided to take a little journey to the land of the opening night hoopla. I have been to opening day games before, and there is always a special, "back to football at last!" sort of flavor to the first game, or even to the first home game. But I have never been to an opening night Thursday game, much less to a special, Thursday night opening game with everyone watching, and with a concert outside the stadium, colored cards for visual stunts taped to the seats, etc. Plus, the last two Super Bowl Champions facing off, Rodgers vs. Brees, the Packers' long list of receivers vs. the Saints' long list of receivers, fireworks being shot off, the whole nine yards. You could certainly say that the game had a playoff feel to it.

Last week I wondered if the Packers would remember lessons learned from last year and stay aggressive. Early returns suggest that they remember very well. They started the game in a modified no-huddle type of offense, which worked so well during the pre-season and at times last year, and drove right down the field for a touchdown on the first drive. A fumble recovery led to another quick touchdown, before the pace of the game settled down a bit. They were also aggressive enough on defense to put a lot of heat on Drew Brees. You could perhaps criticize Mike McCarthy for going a little bit into his shell on the last couple of offensive possessions. I suppose that if the game goes down to the very last play with the winner in doubt, maybe it is fair to say that McCarthy went conservative a little too early.

Except for those last couple of possessions, the Packers' offense looked great. Do did the Saints' offense. Stuck in traffic on the way up to Green Bay, I heard various predictions on the radio about how the offenses are always behind the defenses at this time of year, so the score would probably be something like 17-13. Yeah, right. These offenses were on fire, in a way that I thought was not a poor reflection on the defenses so much as it was a sign of excellence on the offensive side of the ball.

Speaking of which, stuck in traffic again on the way back from Green Bay, we heard some Bears fan call in to NFL Satellite Radio, licking his chops about how bad the Packers' and Saints' defenses are, and predicting a 3-0 record for the Bears after facing the Falcons, Saints and Packers. Talk about whistling past the graveyard! I think 1-2 or 0-3 are far more likely. We shall see, but despite the fact that the Bears won the division last year, played the Packers very tough, almost knocked them out of the playoffs, and almost beat them with their third-string quarterback, I am just not sold on the Bears.

Of course, there were some bad things in the game, like the old special teams problem rearing its ugly head, and some unnecessary penalties. There was a scary-looking injury to Tramon Williams, but it appears that it is not as serious as it looked. On the whole, what a great way to start the season for the Packers. And for the NFL and NBC, I don't know how they could have asked for a better game. On the offensive side of the ball, the Packers got a lift from the return of Jermichael Finley, and the combination of Ryan Grant and James Starks looks like it should be productive. And then there was Randall Cobb. A rookie, backup receiver and kick returner, scores his first two touchdowns on a huge stage, ties an all-time kickoff return record, and becomes the first NFL player born in the 1990's!

The Packers' defense, despite giving up 34 points, came up with two huge stops to save the game - first on a 4th and inches play late in the third quarter. The Packers must have smelled a pass, because they came after Brees, chased him backwards about 20 yards, before he finally got rid of the ball on a short pass that had no chance of resulting in a first down. Then, after an interference call on A.J. Hawk on what should have been the last play of the game, the Saints got one final chance, with zero seconds left, to get the ball in the end zone from the 1 yard line. Maybe because of the 4th and inches failure earlier, Sean Payton decided to switch things up and try a dive by Mark Ingram over the center of the line. But the Packers, this time, smelled the run (one of the defensive linemen said something about seeing the Saints' offensive linemen clenching their fists, and they knew it would be a running play). So the defensive linemen went low, to avoid being pushed backwards, and four linebackers and defensive backs went high to stuff ~~Darren Sproles~~ Mark Ingram for no gain. Final score: Packers 42, Saints 34.

Thoughts on Packers-Saints Opener

2011-09-07T10:18:00.000-07:00

Having watched the Packers' preseason games this year, I have mixed feelings leading up to Thursday night's opening game. On the one hand, the Packers' starters looked pretty good in all four games, especially on offense when they were in the no-huddle. On the other hand, the Packers ended up behind in all 4 games, lost one, and had to have the second and third-stringers stage rallies to win the other three. So what does that tell us? Probably very little. While I think Mike McCarthy was trying to win every game, his primary focus had to be on player evaluation (given the limited preseason evaluation time available), and on keeping his starters healthy which, for the most part, he did.

It seemed to many of us that Mike McCarthy evolved as a coach last season, culminating in him putting together a six-game win streak to become World Champions. I felt that McCarthy and Dom Capers got to a point where they had enough confidence in their starters (even their starters after all of the injuries), that they felt comfortable enough to have all options on the table (onside kicks, aggressive blitzing packages, aggressive offensive play-calling including the no-huddle offense). That evolution was a long time in coming and, in fairness, would not have been a good move earlier in the Aaron Rodgers era when McCarthy didn't have as much confidence in his offense, and when Capers knew that his defense was not quite ready.

Now the question is: will the coaches remember those lessons learned, and continue with the aggressive approach they used at the end of the season? Or will they start out playing their cards close to the vest, hoping to come out of their shells later?

I thought back to an interesting Packers.com article from February, in which the author, Mike Spofford, describes a conversation McCarthy had with Aaron Rodgers before the Super Bowl. McCarthy told Rodgers that he (McCarthy) would be the aggressive one with the play calling, but Rodgers would have to be the disciplined one with the decisions. Not to pick old scabs off old wounds, but can you imagine McCarthy, or Mike Sherman, putting the burden on Brett Favre to be the disciplined one? Yeah, neither can I.

So the challenge for McCarthy is to continue that same approach Thursday night. The Saints are a great football team, despite their shocking playoff loss to the Seahawks. If McCarthy and the Packers come out playing tentatively, the result could be bad. They need to come out aggressively and take the game right to the Saints. With Jermichael Finley and Ryan Grant back, and with the emergence of James Starks, it is hard to see how the Packers' offense can be contained, so long as Aaron Rodgers gets some time. And even after the loss of Cullen Jenkins, there are still enough playmakers on defense to cause some problems.

Review of Pre-Season Opener

2011-08-13T21:04:00.000-07:00

So, the Packers lost their pre-season opener Saturday night, 27-17, to the Cleveland Browns. Of course, they lost to the Browns in the pre-season last year, too, and the season worked out pretty well anyway.

I did not see anything to get me too concerned. Sure, it would be great if they looked in post-season form, but that is not too likely in a first pre-season game. On offense, the starters (minus Jermichael Finley, who was held out with a minor injury) did not look sharp on their first drive, going 3 and out. But they got it together on the next drive (the last drive for Rodgers), and moved crisply down the field, scoring in 7 plays, including nice looking passes to Donald Driver and to Greg Jennings for the touchdown.

Matt Flynn led the offense for the rest of the first half, and he looked like a very capable backup, who could lead the offense if necessary. He put 10 points on the board, on a couple of scoring drives, and made no big mistakes. Graham Harrell played quarterbacks with an all-backup team for the entire second half, and did not look nearly as good. He completed 50% of his passes, but gave up the big play of the game, a blind-side sack and strip that was returned for a touchdown. He had two other fumbles to add to this. In fairness to him, there was a lot of rotation of offensive linemen in the game, but especially in the second half, presumably so that Coach McCarthy can test out different players at different OL positions.

The defense never showed any consistency at any time in the game. Of course, they were playing without Charles Woodson (just resting) and Sam Shields (minor injury). Plus, Dom Capers called a pretty plain-vanilla style defense, as you might expect at this point. Still, the coaching staff can't be happy about letting Colt McCoy complete 90% of his passes and two scoring drives.

Among the new players, there was one real standout: rookie WR and KR Randall Cobb (the Packers' second pick in the draft this year). He was the leading receiver for the Packers in this game (3 catches for 60 yards), and he looked really promising, especially as a kickoff returner. He returned two kickoffs for a total of 58 yards, and in both cases he got an extra 5-8 yards after I expected him to go down. The league has deliberately de-emphasized kickoffs this year, by moving the kickoffs back to the 35 yard line. This will result in more touchbacks and fewer runbacks. Which might be too bad, now that we have a promising kick returner.

The bottom line is that when you add Cobb to an already-excellent receiving corps, the Packers really have something special. Plus, if Cobb is the main kick returner, we can keep Tramon Williams out of having to return kicks, which scared me every time he lined up back there. I anxiously await the return of Jermichael Finley. They can't keep all the WRs and TEs on the roster, but if they keep the good ones healthy, they will be in great shape.

Defense of the Title Starts This Week

2011-08-10T14:31:00.000-07:00

I feel as if my normal off-season rhythm was thrown off completely this year by the lockout, and even though I don't normally post much during the off-season, this year I have hardly posted at all. And here the pre-season opener against the Cleveland Browns is only three days away. It is high time to get myself back into a football frame of mind.

But before turning to the pre-season, why not take a couple of minutes and watch the story of the making of the Packers' Super Bowl rings. The rings are stunning, and I love the fact that Jostens traces the history back to the Super Bowl I rings, designed jointly by Jostens and Vincent Thomas Lombardi. Anyway, enjoy, and know that a lot of these rings will be on display in the White House on Friday. Fire up the metal detectors.

Turning to the pre-season, the big news of the week is that Clay Matthews played the second half of the season, and the entire post-season, with a broken leg. OK, it was a stress fracture, but that is still a broken leg. It was over 30 years ago that the Rams' Jack Youngblood played in Super Bowl XIV with a broken leg, and I gather that his broken leg was also a stress fracture. But it still is a powerful thought, that these guys can play, and play well, with that kind of an injury. Play well? My goodness. I still get the chills when I see the video of Kevin Greene telling Clay Matthews that "it is time" [to make a play], followed by Matthews forcing a fumble to preserve and lengthen the lead over the Steelers. To me, that Kevin Greene/Clay Matthews combination is right up there with Babe Ruth's called home run shot in the 1932 World Series.

Obviously, the key to this or any other Packer season is protecting Aaron Rodgers. Just today, Packers.com posted an article that pointed out something I had not thought of before. The starting offensive line this year will consist of three left tackles, along with a center and a right guard. Chad Clifton, Bryan Bulaga, and rookie Derek Sherrod are all left tackles by past experience. Given that, for a right-handed quarterback, the left tackle is the most important member of the offensive line, having three of them in the starting lineup provides some promise that Rodgers' sack total should drop again this year.

Let the games begin.

2011 Packers Schedule

2011-04-19T17:29:00.000-07:00

Well, the 2011 Schedule for the World Champion Green Bay Packers is out. Now, if there is only a full season for us to watch. You can find a simple chart of the schedule at Jersey Al's Packer Blog, and a printable version, suitable for taping on the refrigerator, at Packers.com. (Which is exactly what will happen with my copy as soon as I finish this blog post.)

I like the schedule, assuming the full schedule is played as listed. If the lockout continues into the season, there is just no way to tell how the league will move things around once the season starts. So, for example, the bye week happens almost in the middle of the season (in week 8), which seems like a great spot for bodies to heal. But not if the first six games just get wiped out, leaving the Packers with a bye after one game. Since there is no use speculating what might happen to the schedule, I am just going to evaluate it as it is.

The opening week Thursday night game, three days before any other teams play, features the New Orleans Saints at the Green Bay Packers. The last two Super Bowl winners, and the last two Super Bowl MVPs. Not a bad little game. I actually thought they would have Bears at Packers, to give a re-match of the NFC Championship game, but they opted for Saints at Packers. To football fans not specifically invested in the two teams, which is really the point of the opening Thursday night game, I think Saints at Packers is in fact the better choice. If I were a fan of the Carolina Panthers, or the Oakland Raiders, it is possible that I might have gotten a little bored over the years hearing about the Bears and Packers, the black and blue division, blah, blah, blah. But I would definitely tune in to check out Saints and Packers, Brees and Rodgers. This matchup, in short, probably has more curb appeal than a matchup that includes Jay Cutler as one of the quarterbacks.

There are no three-game road trips on the schedule, always a good thing, because they never seem to turn out too well. Three of the last four games are home games, and two of those games are against warm weather teams (Raiders) or dome teams (Lions). The other December home game is against the Bears, in week 16. That is a great placement for Bears and Packers, and it might just be an important game again, as it was in 2010. There are a couple of other warm weather / dome teams on the home schedule in mid-November, a Monday night game against the Vikings, and a Sunday game against the Buccaneers. So weather could be a factor from mid-November on.

Finally, as one would expect, the Packers get great exposure in prime time and other national games. The Packers play four times in night games (Saints at Packers, September 8, Packers at Falcons, October 9, Vikings at Packers, November 14, and Bears at Packers, Christmas night). They also play at Detroit on Thanksgiving, and five of their Sunday day games are in the late time slot (Packers at Bears, September 25, Broncos at Packers, October 2, Packers at Vikings, October 23, Packers at Chargers, November 6, and Packers at Giants, December 4). Not that I would actually do this, but living here on the west coast, I could sleep late every Sunday next season and not miss many Packer games.

I am anxiously awaiting the new season!

Celebrating the World Champion Green Bay Packers

2011-02-07T13:35:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Corey Wilson of the Green Bay Press-Gazette)

I have a few observations from watching hours of post-game coverage, some live, and some on tape. I will have more to say on the game itself later, but just wanted to comment on a few things from the moments of celebration.

As soon as the game ended, the idea sprang to mind that this game was a microcosm of the season as a whole. I thought it was an original thought, but then I saw Chris Berman and others use the same term. Berman, being an Ivy Leaguer from Brown, is obviously a smart guy, so it is a good thought, even if not original. But this game really did capture the whole season. Excellent play for most of the game by Aaron Rodgers, lots of dropped catchable balls, big plays on defense (especially the interception for a touchdown by Nick Collins and the forced fumble by Clay Matthews), a lull in the middle of the game, and finally a game-winning stand by the defense. If that does not replicate what happened this season, I don't know what does. [Ed. Note: I meant to mention the injuries to critical players, yet another way in which this game mirrored the season as a whole.]

Turning over the ball to the Steelers, with two minutes left, reminded the football guys on TV of the Super Bowl between the Steelers and the Cardinals two years ago, where the Steelers got the ball with about 2 minutes left and went down the field to win the game. But I could not get the image of the 2009 Packers - Steelers game out of my mind, where the Packers took a 6 point lead late in the fourth quarter, but the Steelers drove for the game-winning touchdown on the final play. Not this time, though. The Packers' defense would not let that happen.

And it still is true that the Packers never trailed in any game, all year long, including the playoffs, by more than seven points. That is a remarkable accomplishment.

I saw Greg Jennings, on the post-game show, talk about how "our no. 1 receiver, Donald Driver, went out with an injury." Now, everybody knows that Greg Jennings is the Packers' no. 1 receiver, and has been for several years. But what a classy, deferential move for Greg Jennings to describe Donald Driver that way.

Donald Driver spoke about the fact that sometimes you get injured, that you hope it doesn't happen in a Super Bowl, but that he is fine with it. He said that his teammates told him that they would win the game for him.

I saw Charles Woodson, asked about his reaction to breaking his collarbone, saying that he broke down and cried, more so than he had done since he was a little kid. And yet I also heard that, during halftime, he spoke to the team and told them just to play their hearts out and win the game. I assume that he tried to talk at greater length to the team, and just could not get the words out.

Desmond Bishop, referring to Woodson breaking down, described how powerful it was to him to see his idol, Charles Woodson, break down like that, and how it motivated him to go out and win the game for Woodson.

Speaking of Donald Driver and Charles Woodson, you could not miss them standing on the sidelines, cheering on their team. I thought Jay Cutler was unfairly criticized for not coming back into the NFC Championship Game, but it is undeniable that he mostly sat on the bench or stood by himself, and appeared to be sulking or feeling sorry for himself on the sidelines. Totally different deal with Driver and Woodson, and I would have expected nothing less of them.

I heard Charles Woodson tell an anecdote to show how loose the Packers were before the game. He described how, on Saturday night, backup defensive end C.J. Wilson sat down and started playing the piano. He said that he had always heard that Greg Jennings can sing, but he had never actually heard him, until Jennings (who, I believe, also plays the guitar) joined in with Wilson and started singing for the team, on the night before the Super Bowl.

I saw one of the players (can't remember who said this) tell the interviewer that Mike McCarthy had the team members measured for Super Bowl rings Saturday night. What a great way to bring home the immediacy of the task in front of them, and to emphasize that they expected to win the game. That was something that Mike McCarthy said all week, along with the statement that "This is our time."

And I heard Aaron Rodgers talk about how the team is made up of high quality players, and high character players. From everything we can see, as fans on the outside looking in, that is true, and I think the comments quoted above by various players tends to show it is true.

Finally, I heard the tail end of a radio interview with Dom Capers, who was asked about the loss of Woodson, and for a time, Sam Shields, and he said that the game plan went out the window. But it was the Super Bowl, with an extended halftime, and as a result, the defense had time to make the numerous adjustments that were necessary to win the game. It was certainly closer than we hoped, and every Packer fan had to be having heart palpitations during parts of the third and fourth quarters, but when it counted, the offense drove down the field to score more points (unfortunately, only a field goal), and then the defense rose up and forced a turnover on downs.

Let's relish this win, and look forward to the fact that the Packers are well positioned to have more shots at the Super Bowl in the coming years.

More Thoughts and Super Bowl Prediction

2011-02-03T23:16:00.000-08:00

"We have four quarters left." Throughout the playoffs, Mike McCarthy has discussed the Packers' goal to play 16 quarters of football in the playoffs. The time for those last four quarters has arrived. Charles Woodson, by contrast, focused on the word "one," in his famous speech after the NFC Championship Game: "One mind, one heartbeat, one goal, one more game." (This is the same speech in which he called out the President for saying that he would go to the Super Bowl if the Bears won.)

What a week this must be for Woodson. Even though I live in Oakland Raider territory, I pay as little attention to the Raiders as possible. Which is easy since most of their home games are blacked out anyway. But as a result, I guess I did not realize all the things that were going on with Charles Woodson when he was a Raider. One of the local ink-stained wretches wrote a very nice piece on Woodson this week, reflecting on the years he covered him when he was with the Raiders. Woodson was arrested a couple of times, while enjoying way too much of the nightlife, and he would fall asleep in team meetings, getting by on his pure athletic ability during the games. But just look at him now and the transformation he has undergone with the Packers. He has settled down, started a family, become a student of the game, and a leader on and off the field.

Woodson is one of only two current Packers to have played in a Super Bowl before. I remember about half of that Super Bowl very well. We were in Utah, and watched the first half of the game, and a little more, in our hotel room. But the Jon Gruden-led Buccaneers were beating his former team, the Raiders, so badly that by some point in the third quarter we decided the rest of the game was not worth watching, and we went out to do other things, listening on the car radio instead. So Woodson saw his former team blown out in the Super Bowl, then saw his career head downhill until the Packers were the only team that would take him. He then saw his current team fall just short of the Super Bowl after the 2007 season, and then lose its Hall of Fame Quarterback. I imagine that, in training camp of 2008, he must have wondered if he had enough time left to get another shot. And yet here he is, preparing for Super Bowl XLV.

One more note before getting to my prediction. ESPN's NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert, and my friend Dick Karth, brought a great article to my attention, written by Wright Thompson of ESPN. It is about Vince Lombardi's house in Green Bay. Just go read it - you won't regret it. (Vince Lombardi Lived Here.)

The expectation of most commentators, as well as those who set the point spread, is that the Super Bowl will be a close game. That is not necessarily good news, since the Steelers seem much better than the Packers in finishing on the winning side of close games. I find it not at all surprising that the point spread is only 2 or 3 points, but I don't think it will be that close.

First, let's take the intangible or psychological elements. Yogi Berra was supposed to have said that "90% of the game is half mental." While his math is questionable, and he was of course talking about baseball, still there is a significant mental aspect to the game of football. One of the themes of the media coverage this week is how much of an advantage the Steelers get out of the fact that they have been to two recent Super Bowls, and that many, if not most, of the Steelers have Super Bowl experience. I don't see this as much of a factor. I am perfectly prepared to concede that the experience factor is a plus for the Steelers. But I believe that the Packers get at least as much of a psychological edge from the desire to go out and get Super Bowl rings for their aging veterans, guys like Charles Woodson and Donald Driver, plus the desire to take the Brett Favre monkey off of Aaron Rodgers' back, so that they can put the issue behind them forever.

On the purely physical side, I think a few comparisons are pretty clear (feel free to take issue in the comments): (1) the Steelers have a better running game; (2) the Packers have a better passing game; (3) while the defenses in general are pretty equal, the Packers defensive backs, as a unit, are better; and (4) the Packers receivers, as a unit, are much better.

The point of treating the defensive backs and receivers as units is this. The Steelers have a great defensive back in Troy Polamalu, assuming he is completely healthy, a great young receiver in Mike Wallace, and a great aging veteran receiver in Hines Ward. Let's just say (without quibbling about which is better) that they are roughly the equivalent of Charles Woodson, Greg Jennings and Donald Driver on the Packers side. But even if Charles Woodson is balanced out by Polamalu on the Steelers side, with the development of Tramon Williams and Sam Shields this year, along with Peprah and Collins, I think the overall group of defensive backs likely to get significant playing time in the game is just stronger on the Packers's side. Same story for receivers. The Packers' third and fourth receivers can run circles around the third and fourth receivers for the Steelers (although, in fairness, their tight end, Heath Miller, is much better than the Packers' tight ends with Jermichael Finley on injured reserve).

I think the depth at receivers and defensive backs will be the difference in the game. In the Packers' 3 and 4 receiver formations (not to mention the 5 receiver set), who is going to cover all those guys? The Packers need a game plan involving protection for the quarterback on long balls, and quick release on all others. If they have that, and if they continue to have at least a credible running game, I think the Packers win the battle of the Packers' offense against the Steelers' defense. On the other side of the ball, the depth at defensive backs (and lack of depth of the Steelers' receivers) should allow the Packers to be good enough in coverage to avoid getting burned like the last time they played the Steelers, while freeing up Dom Capers to run some creative blitzes by Woodson, Williams, and others. Add in the relative weakness of the Steelers' offensive line (particularly if rookie center Maurkice Pouncey does not play) and there is the potential for the Packers' defense to do some real damage.

If the game ends up being close in the final minutes, I will be terrified, because of the Steelers' superior ability to pull out games in the closing minutes or seconds. But if the Packers get ahead early and keep the pressure on on offense and defense, this game might not be as close as some expect. I am picking the Packers, by a score something like 34-24.

Initial Thoughts on the Super Bowl

2011-01-28T21:34:00.000-08:00

"It is a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness."

That was the fortune in my fortune cookie last night. Well, let's see. Fifteen players on injured reserve. Barely (or should that be Bearly?) making it to the playoffs as the 6th and final seed. Playing three playoff games on the road, and winning them all to make it to the Super Bowl. Yes, I guess that was a pretty rough road.

I re-watched most of the December 20, 2009 game against the Steelers the other night. That was the game in which the Packers were behind or tied most of the game, only to gain the lead for the first time in the fourth quarter, lose the lead, re-gain it, and lose it and the game on a touchdown on the final play of the game. The score was Pittsburgh 37, Green Bay 36. I wrote about the game at the time. When the Packers defensive players and coaches cued up the tape this week, it was enough to make practically everyone in the room sick. I'm sure the Steelers defensive coaches had similar sentiments. It got so bad during the game that Pittsburgh, in the fourth quarter, did an onside kick after taking the lead because they knew they could not stop the Packers.

Michael Lombardi of the NFL Network (no relation to the namesake of the Super Bowl Trophy) summarized one of my biggest complaints about the Packers in a single paragraph, and then applied that gripe to the upcoming Super Bowl:

The Packers can play dominant football and I have wondered how they lost six games. Sunday was an example of how. They seem to have lulls in the game and allow their opponent to hang around. For as talented and competitive as the Packers are as a team, they don't seem to have the killer instinct to put good teams away. It almost cost them against Philadelphia and then again in Chicago. They better learn how to finish before taking on the Steelers.

I could not agree more, and I will say it again: I want to see the Packers take on the approach of the New England Patriots who, in Packer Blogger Jersey Al's memorable phrase, go out and execute teams "like cold-blooded killers."

There are plenty of examples out there. In the regular season, there was the Minnesota game at Green Bay. The Packers let the Vikings hang around in the second half, to the point where it took an instant replay to overturn what would have been the winning touchdown for the Vikings. There was also the Patriots game, where the Packers were ahead most of the game, only to lose the game in the fourth quarter. In the playoffs, there was the Eagles game. The Packers led for much of the game by 11 points, but it took a last minute interception in the end zone to cement the win. Or the NFC Championship Game, where the Packers led by 14-0, and it could easily have been 17-0 or 21-0. But they let the Bears hang around, and it again took a last minute interception in Packer territory to seal the deal. Michael Lombardi is exactly right: if the Packers intend to win the Super Bowl, and if they are fortunate enough to get ahead in the game, they had better learn to bring the hammer down.

Both the Packers and the Steelers are playing much better defense than they did in the last game in December, 2009. One of the Steelers' biggest defensive playmakers, Troy Polamalu, didn't play in that game but is expected to play this time. On the Packers' side, the defensive players are playing dramatically better than last year, due (in my mind) to a combination of three things: (1) greater familiarity and comfort with the defensive scheme in the second year since Dom Capers installed the 3-4 defense; (2) upgraded players in some cases, and better play by the same players in other instances (for example, the often-victimized Jarret Bush was a starting defensive back against the Steelers last year, but is a backup now, and he has in effect been replaced by a combination of Charlie Peprah and Sam Shields); and (3) a greater tendency to put pressure on the quarterback (again, probably due to greater comfort with the players in the system).

Somebody was kidding me today, saying "I think the Steelers will score 47, and the Packers . . . ." I cut him off by saying that I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. The Steelers gave up 20 points per game in the regular season in 2009, but only 14.5 points this year. The Packers gave up 18.5 points per game in the regular season in 2009, but only 15 this year. I would be nothing short of stunned if more than 70 points are scored in this game, like they were the last time the Steelers and the Packers met.

Super Bowl Bound!

2011-01-23T23:55:00.000-08:00

(Photo by Nam Y. Huh, Associated Press)

Well, I am ecstatic about the Packers' 21-14 win in the NFC Championship over the Bears, despite the fact that the Packers did not play a very good game, at least on offense, after the second quarter. To take it a step further, I am not real happy with the play calling on offense or on defense in the second half. A little too much "take no chances and preserve the lead" on offense, and a little too much "sit back in coverage and don't give up any big plays" on defense. I am also worried about Aaron Rodgers, who never seemed like himself after taking the shot to the head by Julius Peppers. Fortunately, he has two weeks to get ready for the SUPER BOWL!

Basically, the win was preserved by some excellent individual plays on defense, including the two interceptions by Sam Shields, and the interception return for a TD by B.J. Raji. He is a young guy, so he probably does not remember this first hand, but he was perilously close to Leon Lett-Don Beebe Super Bowl territory. He should look it up and learn for the future.

I am not sure if my posts over the course of the season fully reflect this, but after the injuries set in early in the year, I did not believe that the Packers could make it to the Super Bowl this year. I felt that it was just one of those things, like the case of the 2008 Patriots, who lost Tom Brady in the first game, and played well (11-5) but did not even make the playoffs. I thought that the Packers might make the playoffs this year, but I did not expect them to go very far in the playoffs if they did.

Nevertheless, in each individual playoff game, I predicted a Packers win. I thought they could beat the Eagles if they played well and avoided mistakes. I thought they could beat the Falcons, but only if they were very fortunate and avoided big mistakes (like kickoff returns for touchdowns, for example). And I thought they could, and really should, beat the Bears. In fact, I probably felt more confident about the Bears' game than either of the other two playoff games. Still, when five games in a row are must-win games, something is bound to go wrong in one of them, especially when the team is not at full strength. Put it this way: what were the chances, as of five weeks ago, that the Packers could win every one of the next five games, all against playoff teams or playoff contenders, with three of the five games on the road?

In that stretch, as I said, something was bound to go wrong and cost the Packers a game (and, in this case, the season). Take the NFC Championship game. The Bears pulled within 7 points twice in the fourth quarter. That put the Packers in quite a bit of jeopardy. A stripped ball, a deflected pass, a snap over Rodgers' head, a defensive back who slips on the turf, and we could be looking at a tie game. Which is why it drives me crazy when Mike McCarthy goes into "protect" mode, or when Dom Capers starts to dial back the pressure, resulting in two fourth-quarter touchdown drives for the Bears. "All's Well that Ends Well," Shakespeare said, but still, I prefer to see the Packers keep the pedal to the metal on offense, and the boot on the throat on defense.

Game balls have to go to Sam Shields and BJ Raji on defense. James Starks (74 yards rushing and a TD) and Greg Jennings (130 yards receiving) would certainly get game balls on offense. And punter Tim Masthay certainly gets a special teams game ball as well. He averaged 41.5 yards per punt, and 34.5 yards net. With Devin Hester returning punts, that is really special, special teams play.

I remember very well what it felt like, as a fan, for the Packers to beat the Dom Capers-coached Carolina Panthers in the NFC Championship game in January of 1997, on their way to Super Bowl XXXI. It brought (quickly-freezing) tears to my eyes sitting in the stands. It had, after all, been XXIX years since the Packers went to the Super Bowl. Thankfully, we didn't have to wait that long this time, as it was only XIII years from Super Bowl XXXII to Super Bowl XLV.

So, sure, there are lots of things to criticize, there are causes for concern, heck, there may not even be a normal season next year due to contract issues. But let us pause to savor the moment, and the minor miracle of a team that overcame this kind of adversity to reach the Super Bowl. And for all that to happen by beating the Chicago Bears in the most momentous game in the history of the rivalry just adds a little extra.

If that isn't enough, consider the youth of this team. Unlike the Bears, for example, the core of this team is young and capable of being Super Bowl contenders for years to come, even if some of the older veterans (like Charles Woodson and Donald Driver) win their Super Bowl rings and retire.

NFC Championship Preview

2011-01-19T08:22:00.000-08:00

Mike McCarthy, in his post-game speeches and in his press conferences, has described how he has talked to his team about playing 16 quarters of football. (For example, here.) They have now finished 8 quarters, and have the opportunity to play another 4 quarters on Sunday. I like this way of putting it. It is, in one sense, just a variation of the old "we play one game at a time" notion, but with two improvements. The first improvement is that it keeps the players' eyes on the ultimate goal - to win the Super Bowl. It is not just about playing the next game, but about completing all 16 quarters. The other thing is: by speaking in terms of quarters rather than games, at least subtly the point is made that you have to play complete games, all four quarters of each of the four games.

I wonder if McCarthy talks about 16 quarters, in part, as a reminder to himself, that he should not go into a shell in the third or fourth quarter with a lead. I criticized him earlier in the year for this, and as recently as the Eagles wild-card game. At some level, I think McCarthy realizes that he has to fight the impulse to go into "protect the lead" mode, and so the "16 quarters" idea also emphasizes to him that he has to make four quarters of play calls in each game, and not just three quarters.

Which brings us to the NFC Championship game. Packers and Bears, for a trip to the Super Bowl. A veritable avalanche of articles and blog posts this week discuss how monumental this game is, and it would be hard to disagree. This is a game we will remember for the rest of our lives, win or lose. Sure would be better to be on the winning side.

The Packers lost to the Bears in week 3, and they barely beat the Bears in week 17. So, not to belabor the obvious, but clearly the Packers could lose this game. But when I try to analyze the teams, I don't see any reason that the Packers should lose this game. The Bears have a better running game than the Packers, although James Starks helps a lot, even if he doesn't even the score. The Bears have better special teams than the Packers. The defenses, even though very different in approach, and with different strengths, could at best be called even, although in reality the Packers' defense has been more productive and more consistent. (Consider that the Bears only scored 16 offensive points against the Packers in their two games, i.e., an average of 8 points per game.) The Packers' passing game is far superior to the Bears, and even though Jay Cutler looks pretty good at times, he is not an elite quarterback, and Aaron Rodgers is. Overall, the Packers' offense is better and much more consistent than the Bears' offense.

The Packers lost the game in Chicago mostly because of a flurry of penalties. They also gave up a punt return touchdown to Devin Hester and a couple of turnovers did not help. Since that game, the Packers have improved dramatically on the penalty front and they at least have a plan (as shown three weeks ago) to keep Devin Hester in check. In the home game three weeks ago, the game may have been close, but it was really only as close as it was by virtue of several overthrown passes, a fumble by Driver, and a great interception by Charles Tillman.

So I think the Packers will win this game, and it might not be close. I would predict a score of something like 24-14. I understand that Willie Davis will be the honorary captain for the Packers. That seems fitting. Both defenses in this game will be important factors in the outcome of the game, and Hall of Fame defensive end Willie Davis was a great Green Bay Packer.

Still Flying High

2011-01-16T10:07:00.000-08:00

"I've been following football for 50 years. This was the greatest individual performance in a playoff game I have ever seen."

Mike Ditka, on Aaron Rodgers' performance in routing the Falcons last night, 48-21, on Sunday's NFL Countdown on ESPN. That is a hell of a statement from our old rival, Da Coach.

As of eight days ago, Aaron Rodgers' playoff record was 0-1 and some TV talking heads were suggesting that he can't win big games. Eight days later, his record is 2-1, and he has racked up some of the gaudiest playoff statistics imaginable for a young player who is really just coming into his own. And he did it in three games, all on the road, and (in the case of the two games this year) without two players who were expected to be among his most potent weapons this year, Ryan Grant and Jermichael Finley.

If he stays healthy, Aaron Rodgers could be fun to watch for a long time to come. And the Packers may have the best quarterback transition since Joe Montana gave way to Steve Young. Here are a couple of interesting stats. In all his playoff games, Brett Favre threw for over 300 yards 4 times, and the most yards he ever had in a playoff game was 331, in a loss to Dallas after the 1993 season. Rodgers has thrown for more yards than that in 2 of his 3 playoff games. Meanwhile, in all his playoff games, Brett Favre threw 44 touchdowns, as against 30 interceptions. No, it was not just our imagination that he threw an awful lot of interceptions. Aaron Rodgers has thrown for 10 touchdowns and 1 interception in his 3 playoff games.

Aaron Rodgers Career Playoff Statistics
Game	Attempts	Comp.	Yards	TDs	INTs
@ Arizona 1-10-10	28	42	423	4	1
@ Philadelphia 1-9-11	18	27	180	3	0
@ Atlanta 1-15-11	31	36	366	3	0
TOTALS	77	105	969	10	1

And then there was Tramon Williams. He sealed the win last week against Philadelphia with a leaping interception on the left side of the end zone. Last night, he had a mirror-image interception on the right side of the end zone late in the second quarter, to keep the game tied at 14-14. The Packers took the ball, went on one of their four touchdown drives of 80 yards or more, and went ahead by the score of 21-14. The Falcons tried hard to tie it up or at least get a field goal before the half, aided by a couple of defensive penalties against the Packers. They got as close as the Packers' 26, but a very timely Clay Matthews sack backed them up to the 35, and forced the Falcons to use their last time out. With 10 seconds left in the half, the Falcons decided to try to get a few extra yards on an out pattern, to make the field goal attempt a little shorter. The problem was, everybody knew the pass had to go to the sideline, including Tramon Williams, who recognized the formation, read the play perfectly, intercepted the ball at the 30, put a move on Matt Ryan and one other Falcon, and took the ball in for a 70 yard touchdown return on the final play of the half. Now that is a prime time play by a prime time player.

All in all, you could say that Aaron Rodgers and Tramon Williams have made a pretty good case for why they should have been selected to the Pro Bowl. Then again, with one more win, they would not be able to play in the Pro Bowl this year anyway.

More on the NFC Championship Game later this week. But here is a great little fact I just heard on the NFL Network. If the Packers play the Bears in the Championship Game next week (which I expect - this article is being wrapped up just as the Bears game is about to start), it will be the first playoff game between the Packers and the Bears since the 1941 Western Division Championship Game.

A family note. My brother Bruce and his family decided to go down to Atlanta for the game, and evidently had a fabulous time - much better than when they went to the last Falcons game down there. I await his pictures from the game.

Preview of Falcons Game

2011-01-13T23:48:00.000-08:00

The big question is, can the Packers keep things rolling against the Falcons, and roll on to the NFC Championship Game (most likely in Chicago)? Since the Packers played at Atlanta a mere seven weeks ago, that game is an excellent place to start.

The Packers lost that game, 20-17, when Matt Bryant kicked the game-winning field goal in the final seconds. How did they get there? Well, both Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan played excellent games, with very few incomplete passes, no interceptions, and one touchdown pass each. The Packers had no running game (Aaron Rodgers was the leading rusher for the Packers), while the Falcons got 110 yards and a touchdown out of Michael Turner. Everyone acknowledges that Turner got a big assist from the Packers' defense, which had a very bad day in only one category - tackling the guy with the ball.

One way to look at it is that the big difference in the game was two turnovers by the Packers. In the second quarter, the Packers got the ball to the Atlanta one yard line, before the ball was knocked out of Rodgers' hand, where it bounced into the end zone and was recovered by the Falcons. The Packers lost either three or seven points on that fumble, and they lost the game by three points. So that was a big turnover. And then in the fourth quarter, from the Atlanta 41, Rodgers' fourth-down pass to Driver was incomplete, just barely. The Packers were not yet in field goal range at the 41, but they were getting close.

The Falcons have had the advantage of getting a week off, plus their last couple of games didn't involve much pressure, since (I believe) they already had a bye wrapped up. So they should be rested and ready. Occasionally you see one of these second round playoff games where the team that had a bye seems rusty, but overall the record of teams that had a bye is excellent. (One source says that teams with a bye have won 75% of the time since 1990.)

On the other hand, in the seven weeks since the last Packers-Falcons game, the Packers have had some ups and downs, including heartbreaking losses to the Lions and Patriots. But on the positive side:

They have now won three must-win games in a row, a laugher against the Giants, and uncomfortably close games against the Bears and Eagles. (While winning must-win games is a good thing, it causes one to wonder when they might get to the point that they are running out of gas.)
They have cleaned up their penalty problem quite a bit in recent weeks, being called for roughly half the penalties in recent games, as compared to the prior Falcons game.
The Packers have dialed up the pressure on defense in most of the games since the Falcons game, with generally favorable results. In the Falcons game, based on a quick review, the Packers were more passive on defense.
In the last few weeks, based in part on more continuity on special teams, the Packers have finally started giving up fewer big plays on special teams. A big kickoff return, aided and abetted by a Packer facemask penalty, was a huge factor at the end of the Falcons game.
Finally, if James Starks is for real, the Packers may finally have found a running game again, which would be enormously beneficial to the offense this week.

How do all these things balance out? Well, it makes sense that the Falcons are favored by a couple of points. They are the number one seed in the NFC, they had a bye week to get healthy, and they are playing at home. But the two teams were very closely matched the first time, and the Packers have improved in the ways noted above. I think the Packers will win this game, but like almost all Packer games, it will be close.

Eagles Down, Falcons Coming Up

2011-01-10T00:16:00.000-08:00

The Packers started the 2010 season by beating the Eagles in Philadelphia by the score of 20-17. This was a big win for the Packers, because they had not won in Philadelphia since 1962. The game started story lines for each team that would last the whole year. In the case of the Packers, Ryan Grant and Justin Harrell were knocked out for the season, beginning a long list of players who ended up on injured reserve. In the case of the Eagles, the Packers did them a favor, of sorts, by knocking starting quarterback Kevin Kolb out of the game, which led to Michael Vick eventually claiming the starting quarterback position, where he proceeded to lead the Eagles to 10 wins and the division crown. But it wasn't easy - Vick led a comeback for the Eagles, and it took a 4th down stop, in Packer territory in the final two minutes to seal the win.

This week, the Packers supplied the other bookend to the Eagles season by sending them home for the offseason by the score of 21-16. This was the first Packer playoff win in Philadelphia (or anywhere else), ever. If James Jones had better hands (he dropped what would likely have been a long touchdown pass late in the second quarter), or if the Packers had better play calling when trying to grind down the clock, this game might not have been so close. But as it was, it required another stop in the final minute to ensure the win. This time, it came in the form of a game-sealing interception by Tramon Williams in the final minute of the game. (Photo by Evan Siegle of the Green Bay Press-Gazette.)

As a footnote to the Tramon Williams interception, my joy at seeing him come down with the ball was immediately replaced with a second or two of abject terror. He was not touched as he went to the ground in the end zone, and he popped up and began sauntering out of the end zone. It was clear from his body language that he was not intending to run the ball out of the end zone, he was just running to celebrate. But the ball was live, and he apparently did not realize it. So he could have spiked the ball in celebration, or perhaps flipped the ball in the direction of the official, and in either case this would be treated as a fumble, possibly turning the ball back to the Eagles. Fortunately, Charlie Peprah realized what was happening, and got Williams to go to the ground, where Peprah and Nick Collins surrounded him to make sure that nobody could reach in and pull out the ball. Take a look at the video, here.

On offense, it seems to me that there were two keys to this game. The first, and one that augurs well for next week, was the re-discovery of a running game. On the second series, James Starks established what Mike McCarthy called the hot hand, and became the main running back for the rest of the game. He had 23 carries for 123 yards, and added a couple of pass receptions. The running game has been missing in action since Ryan Grant was knocked out. If Starks can consistently gain yards on the ground, that might be just the missing link we have been looking for.

The second key was the 80 yard drive the Packers mounted in the third quarter, immediately after Rodgers fumbled, and the Eagles scored quickly, to make it 14-10. The Packers got the ball back, and put together an 11 play, 80 yard drive, eating up over 6 minutes, and ending with a beautiful screen pass for a touchdown to Brandon Jackson. The Eagles had just gotten a turnover turned into a touchdown, and the momentum of the game might have shifted to the Eagles, but for the Packers' 80 yard drive.

Improvement is still needed. The Packers' receivers have just got to stop dropping balls that would have been touchdown passes. James Jones is the worst offender, but in other games other receivers have dropped TD passes as well. That kind of inconsistency can be a killer in any given game. And while, on the whole, I like the way the Packers called the game, on both offense and defense, I still have a problem with the cautiousness with which they approached the game while protecting the lead late in the game. On every possession after the Packers went ahead 21-10, with 22.5 minutes left in the game, the Packers ran on every 1st down and on every second down. That might conceivably work if the Packers had an overwhelmingly dominant running game. But they don't. It gets a lot easier to play defense if you can predict what your opponent will do on every 1st and 2nd down play. It is no coincidence that the Packers never crossed midfield after adopting this approach. Only great defense preserved the game for the Packers - since the Packers' offense did nothing in the last quarter and a half of the game.

Wild Card Weekend Pregame Thoughts

2011-01-07T23:17:00.000-08:00

This is the oddest and most interesting stat I have heard in some time: the Packers never trailed, in any game all season, by more than 7 points. (Source here.) They are the only team in the NFL for which that is true, and the Packers as a team have never done this since the NFL-AFL merger. This might be less surprising if the Packers were 13-3 or 14-2, but for a 10-6 team? Almost unthinkable. So when we say that the Packers' defense is good enough to keep them in contention in every game, I guess I frankly did not realize how true that is. The flip side is that the Packers are losing a lot of very close games, but I think that is something we already realized.

I watched the abbreviated NFL Network version of the Week 1 Packer win over the Eagles last night. When Kevin Kolb was knocked out of the game, the Packers were obviously not prepared for Vick to be the full-time quarterback, as opposed to running a few wildcat plays here and there. Interestingly, they did not put that much pressure on him, blitzing on only a handful of plays. I have to think that this is more the result of not having a game-plan for Vick, rather than a return to the 2009-style Packer defense, where opposing quarterbacks (mostly the elite ones) were treated with kid gloves. In the 15 games since, the Packers have put lots of pressure on opposing quarterbacks, including the elite and the not-so-elite. So I don't think there is any doubt that the Packers will come after Vick on Sunday with some specially-designed, Michael Vick pressure plays from Dom Capers. That is not necessarily all good, since Vick has scrambling abilities that most opposing quarterbacks do not. But my hunch is that the pressure will cause more problems for Vick and the Eagles than it will for the Packers' defense. Vick was getting knocked around quite a bit in the last month or so of the season, and I doubt if he is 100% going into the game. He is probably a little less nimble, and a little more anxious about getting hit, than he would be if he were fully healthy.

The best news is that the Packers seem to realize that sitting back in coverage most of the time will not cut it. In the 2010 season, my perception is that the Packers blitzed more frequently than in 2009, especially against the elite quarterbacks. I am sure somebody keeps these year-over-year stats, but I have not seen them, so I am relying on my perception. But this week I saw some quotes from Charles Woodson that suggests the players (and, by extension, the coaches) are well aware of the need for more pressure than they applied last year:

“(Being aggressive is) very important. We know what we’re going up against,” said Woodson, who blitzed more than a dozen times last Sunday against Chicago’s Jay Cutler and finished with a sack, eight tackles and three pass deflections. “We know that dynamic that Vick is. He’s a very big part of what they’re doing right now. He makes a lot of plays with his feet, but we’ve got to make sure we stay aggressive and make him run if he has to and make sure that we do our job in the back end. But aggressive, that’s the way we like to play.

"I don't think anybody on our team believes we played aggressive enough (against the Cardinals). We kind of took what they gave us. So this year is not going to be that way."

Now that is music to my ears.

By the Skin of Their Teeth

2011-01-04T10:24:00.000-08:00

Well, that game against the Bears was certainly nerve-wracking. It took a 4th quarter touchdown for the Packers to win the game by the score of 10-3. After playing their most complete game of the year last week against the Giants, "all" the Packers needed was to beat the Bears, at Lambeau Field, to assure a spot in the playoffs. And the Bears had wrapped up a bye last week. And by game time, the Bears must have known that the Falcons had won, locking up the no. 1 seed, so that the Bears had no chance of improving their playoff spot in this game.

But this is one of the oldest rivalries in the NFL. And Bears coach Lovie Smith had been saying all week that he would play his starters for the whole game, and that they were going to try to win the game and knock the Packers out of the playoffs. Hats off to Lovie Smith, who must not have gone to the Bill Belichick school of NFL coaching, and therefore means exactly what he says. I have occasionally fulminated over this business of tanking games in the closing weeks of the season (most recently a year ago this week).

How maddening it would have been for the Giants this week to see their playoff hopes go up in smoke because Lovie Smith and the Bears weren't really trying to win the game. There really is an issue of the integrity of the game involved here, so I must give credit to Smith for playing as if the game mattered, as it certainly did to the Giants and to the Packers, and as it did potentially to the Buccaneers. Of course, the Bears' players might have had ulterior motives. Donald Driver reports that Bears players told him that they did not want to see the Packers in the playoffs, because the Packers have a good team. But ultimately the decision on who stays in the game was Lovie Smith's.

The Packers' defense played a masterful game against the Bears, giving up only 3 points and getting twice as many sacks as they gave up in points. It is a bizarre but interesting stat that shows that the Packers lost 6 games this year (and two more in the preseason), and every loss was by either 3 or 4 points, even though the offense sputtered in many of those games. It tells us that this defense is good enough to keep every game close, and to give the Packers a chance to win every game. Which is exactly what they did this week. Due to a combination of strong play by the Bears' defense, along with an off day by some of the Packers' receivers, and some questionable play-calling on offense, the Packers needed every bit of help they could get from the defense.

In addition to strong contributions from the usual suspects on defense, Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews, the Packers also got a critical red zone interception by Charlie Peprah, and a game-sealing interception by Nick Collins. Most interesting was the contribution by Erik Walden, signed in October, who started Sunday for Frank Zombo at outside linebacker. Zombo, of course, replaced the injured Brad Jones earlier in the season. So the third-string linebacker Walden stepped in to register 2 sacks, 10 tackles and one assist in the game, including the points-saving sack of Cutler on 3rd and goal from the 4 yard line in the second quarter. We have known all year that the Packers have adjusted well to devastating injuries, but Erik Walden is the latest example of the extraordinary depth of this team, not to mention the skill of the coaches in bringing a guy signed off the street up to speed in two months.

On offense, I really have two main issues in this game. Obviously, the Packers' offense was somewhat out of sync, but they did have some success, especially in the first, third and fourth quarters. Dropped balls, Driver's fumble, overthrows by Rodgers, and an athletic interception prevented the Packers from scoring more points. But in the second quarter, I saw way too many empty backfield formations, resulting in one sack and a number of scrambles. I would have thought that the Packers, against this defense, would have known that an empty backfield was a bad idea. The good news is that they must have figured it out, since they abandoned the empty backfield in the second half. And, what do you know, that is when they scored their points!

The other thing is the play-calling in short yardage situations, especially the first time the Packers found themselves at the one yard line. Based on Kuhn's success last week, the "Kuuuhn" chant went up from the crowd, and sure enough, the Kuhn run was stuffed. On second down, Rodgers' pass after a fake QB sneak was low, resulting in the timing being messed up, and then on third down he was sacked. The Bears, who have the second best rushing defense in the league, seemed determined not to let Kuhn beat them, and their rushing defense was up to the task. More good news, though: the Packers seemed to figure this out, too, and the next time they had first and goal at the one, the play-action pass to Donald Lee resulted in an easy touchdown.

In the playoff game against the Eagles, the Packers are going to have to play much better on offense, while keeping the defense and the special teams playing at a high level.

Most Complete Game of the Year?

2010-12-27T12:37:00.000-08:00

The Packers turned in one of their best performances of the year in beating the Giants, 45-17. This came despite the fact that the Giants had almost as much at stake as the Packers, and despite the fact that the Giants, presumably, came in with chips on their shoulders after last week's epic collapse against the Eagles. In fact, it was the Packers, and in particular, the offensive line, that played like they had chips on their shoulders. Mike Vandermause, of the Green Bay Press-Gazette argues that this is because everybody was talking about the Giants, and how fearsome their defense was. The Packers' offensive line just used all the talk as motivation to go out and pass protect and run block as if the whole season depended on it. Which it did.

Meanwhile, the Packers' defense might have had some chips on their shoulders as well. Only the Steelers have given up fewer points than the Packers, and the Packers' defense ranks in the top 10 in almost all categories, and in the top 5 in many. Plus, they are ball hawks, as top playmakers Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews showed today. Woodson and Matthews both single-handedly forced turnovers in the game by punching balls out from behind. Hawk, Collins, and Williams added legitimate interceptions, while Sam Shields added another that should have been overturned, but for the fact that Giants coach Tom Coughlin had used his last challenge in a desperate, but futile, attempt to overturn the fumble caused by Clay Matthews.

I would argue that this was in fact the Packers' best game of the year. The only games I could see being argued to be better were the road game against the Vikings, and the home game against the Cowboys. There is no doubt that those games were satisfying, on a number of levels, but they still fall short of this one. First, the Vikings and the Cowboys did not turn out to be very good this year, while the Giants were in the driver's seat for the same wild card the Packers are seeking. Second, the domination in this game was more complete on both sides of the line of scrimmage. It wouldn't be a 2010 Packer game without some moments of discomfort, and indeed when the Giants recovered Jordy Nelson's fumble and immediately tied the game at 14, with an 85 yard touchdown pass to Mario Manningham, I did start to fidget a bit in my seat.

But taken as a whole, it is hard to argue with the offensive domination when Rodgers throws for 404 yards, 4 touchdowns and no interceptions, when both Nelson and Jennings get over 100 yards receiving, Driver makes some highlight-reel catches, and when the Packers cobble together a good semblance of a running game between Jackson, Nance, and Kuuuuuuhn. On the defensive side, the 6 takeaways mentioned above, plus 4 sacks, and the dynamic duo of Bradshaw and Jacobs being held to less than 100 yards combined? Yes, that is a good day. Now if only we had a quality kick returner, and a kicker who can kick the ball somewhere closer to the end zone on a kickoff, we would be the real deal!

In all seriousness, this is a great time to be pulling it all together, if that is really what the Packers are doing. This is two really good performances in a row against high quality opponents. I think the key to the whole thing is smart play-calling by McCarthy and execution by the players. One thing that I noticed even while watching the game live was the increased emphasis on protection for Rodgers. On almost every play there was at least one player, and in many cases two, lined up in the backfield for extra protection. In fact, in re-watching the game, I think there were only two empty backfield plays in the whole game. Plus, Rodgers seemed more conscious of getting rid of the ball quickly when under pressure. That is partly a result of designing the plays with an outlet receiver, but I assume that there have been outlet receivers all year. My perception is that he was more conscious yesterday of going to the outlet to avoid a sack. And on Rodgers' two running plays, he slid on one and went out of bounds on the other. That was smart.

On defense, Dom Capers obviously felt that they could control the Giants' offense without going blitz-crazy. So he picked his spots for blitzes, and relied on three and four-man rushes most of the time to create enough pressure to hurry Manning just enough. In the process, he left enough players in coverage to give the Packers a good shot at defending every pass. In reality, if Charles Woodson had not slipped on the one touchdown pass, and if Tramon Williams had not mis-timed his leap on the other, this game might have been even more lopsided than it was.

The Bears come to town next week, for the second consecutive playoff-type game for the Packers. The Bears will most likely be going for the second seed in the playoffs and the resulting bye week, but even if they are not, they will not mimic the Colts and other teams over the last few years, by resting their starters. Lovie Smith, when he was hired in 2004, stated that he had three goals, the first of which was to beat the Packers. So I fully expect they will be bringing it on Sunday, no matter the situation. I have thought all year long that the Packers are a better team than the Bears. We will see on Sunday. Interestingly enough, if the Packers do make it into the playoffs, there is an excellent chance they will face the Bears again the following week.

New England Heartbreaker

2010-12-20T20:53:00.000-08:00

What a disheartening loss last night to the Patriots, 31-27. I admit that I did not give the Packers any chance in this game, which reflects poorly on me, I suppose. But for them to lead the Patriots for much of the game, and have a shot at winning in the final minute, but not to be able to pull it off, was painful to watch.

"Heartbreaking" was the word used independently by both my wife and my daughter to describe the game. We had to start watching this game after it was already going on for about 2 hours, so it was over by the time we were still watching the second quarter. That is a terrible way to watch a game, especially one like this. I was getting text messages from Dick Karth, from my daughter, and from my cousin during the game. Then my daughter and my in-laws called within minutes after the end of the game. All of these messages and calls were ignored, but it was pretty clear to me that something remarkable was going on - either a disaster or a miracle. I was holding out hope for the miracle until the final play.

This morning I got some interesting comments on the game from my old college buddy Dick Karth, before I got around to even starting a game review of my own. I agree with most of Dick's comments, and disagree with others. So I am making Dick the honorary guest columnist of the week. His comments (with very slight editing) are in italics, with my own comments interspersed in regular font. Sort of a point-counterpoint.

In keeping with some of my comments [sent to me by Dick during the game], I was liking what I saw as the game progressed. The opening kickoff surprised New England and their coach. It allowed the GBP to take first blood. Brilliant!

Or, as a family member put it, "I didn't know the Packers were that ballsy." Packer blogger Jersey Al used the same colorful term.

The team played solid ball (pretty much on both offense and defense) through much of the game. There were some dropped balls on both the Packer offense and defense that should have been caught, which would have turn the game into a rout. But nonetheless, in spite of those lapses, the Packers were always in the game.

The drops were just killing me. Nobody is a bigger Charles Woodson fan than I am. 95 times out of a hundred he doesn't drop that interception. I could not believe that he dropped it last night. There were other dropped balls, including by Sam Shields and Jordy Nelson. Sorry, guys, this was a big game. You just have to make those plays.

I think that Flynn did an excellent job in his first real game and against an outstanding team. He was poised. Sure the INT for a TD is a pass he wishes he had back, and might not throw that again in his career. Chris Collinsworth made an interesting comment about a pass Flynn threw to the goal line at the left sideline. Chris said that you can throw that kind of a pass in college ball, even a National Championship game, but you CANNOT throw that kind of a pass in the National Football League! If Flynn learns from those mistakes and is effectively coached while watching the tape, he has a bright future in the NFL.

Collinsworth was right. That particular pass was a mistake, and so were the two interceptions [correction - only one official interception - the other one was called back on a penalty]. But we learned something about Matt Flynn last night - if it comes to it, he can play and give us a chance to win. I don't know why I should be so surprised. Going back to the beginning of the Favre - Holmgren era, we have pretty much always had coaches with great skills developing quarterbacks on the staff, and as a result we have pretty much always had capable backup quarterbacks (even, though, ironically, the last time a backup quarterback started for the Packers before last night was more than 18 years ago).

Then things started to unwind. If I were an NFL GM, I would have a rule ... that if a team or player sets an NFL record against me that is derogatory towards my team, then I'm going to fire the responsible coach. No questions asked. To have the longest return play in NFL history by an offensive lineman be executed against your SPECIAL TEAMS is inexcusable. It would have been bad enough for an offensive lineman to have picked up his own team's fumble on a bumbled running play on a 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1 and to have lumbered (and I stress LUMBERED) 71 yards ... but on a kick-off?

Well, agreed, sort of. We do have recurring problems on special teams, and any neutral observer would have to think seriously about replacing the special teams coach, Shawn Slocum. Having said that, I don't agree with the idea of an automatic rule that says the coach is fired, immediately, if A, B, or C.

The final drive. A fraternity intra-mural team would have looked better out there. When you're playing one of the best team's in the league and you're expected to lose by almost two touchdowns, you know the only way you're likely to win the game is on a drive in the closing two minutes with one or no time outs left.

First, 13 to 15 seconds (two plays?) were squandered after plays ended before the timeout was called. Inexcusable. As the plays ended, the QB and the offensive leaders not directly involved in the play should be looking to the sidelines for time out calling direction. Were they? Or was there indecision on the sidelines? (Would not have surprised me!)

Second. Either the team goes on 60 second drill autopilot with audibles ... or two or three or four plays should be called during the T/O's. Neither apparently happened.

Look. They moved down the field in the final minutes and had a chance to win the game. My biggest criticism of the final drive is clock management. I have often been critical of McCarthy on matters of clock management. From his press conference, ironically, it appears that McCarthy had the right thinking in mind on this drive. That is, he wanted to use up time during the drive so that, if the Packers scored, there would be little time for Brady to work with. That is the right thing to do, so it seems harsh to be too critical. They overdid it, as it turned out, and they certainly wasted time they wish they would have had to play with at the end. But in this instance they were actually trying to do the right thing.

So ... in the end ... while I got excited at times during the game ... I again didn't like what I saw last night.

I guess I was happier with what I saw than Dick was. I did not give the Packers a chance in this game, and they proved me wrong and almost won the game.

The GBP were picked by smart football people at the beginning of the year to be in the Super Bowl. I can see why the smart people picked them for that. They have talent, depth, and they can play well.

More depth than I could possibly have imagined back in September.

But ... they not only almost upset New England (and could have turned it into a rout), they handed the best 2 and 10 or 3 and 10 team in the history of the NFL a four point victory that should have been a Packer victory.

On a brighter note ... this is a team that could back its way into the play-offs, into the Super Bowl, and bring the next Lombardi trophy to Green Bay as one of the few teams with NO home field play-off games during the play-offs ... if they don't beat themselves.

Apparently they don't want to win the Super Bowl the smart and easy way through the front door ... they appear to me to want to win it the dumb and hard way, through the back door.

Well, stranger things have probably happened. And I will obviously be rooting for it. But I don't see the Packers making it to the Super Bowl this year. Might they have done so without the avalanche of injuries? Hard to say, but it sure would help to have Ryan Grant, Jermichael Finley, Nick Barnett, Morgan Burnett, Mark Tauscher and 9 other players around to help out. I have been amazed by the Packers' ability to stay in contention with all these injuries. I argued before the season started that the 2010 Packers were not at the level of the 1996 Packers. If that was right, then it stands to reason that the end of season 2010 Packers are not even close.

Pre-Game Good News

2010-12-19T14:00:00.000-08:00

So I was sitting here minding my own business, watching football, when I saw the miraculously impressive come-from-way-behind victory of the Eagles over the Giants, followed in short order by the new powerhouse Lions beating the Buccaneers in overtime. It had seemed to me that it was best for the Eagles to beat the Giants, since we need either the Giants or the Eagles to lose two games, and, given that the Packers play the Giants next week, we are in a better position to ensure that the Giants lose two games than the Eagles.

Bear in mind I was and am assuming that the Packers lose tonight to New England. But when both the Buccaneers and Giants lost, it seemed to me that this has to improve the Packers' chances. So I went over to the ESPN Playoff Machine and started playing out scenarios for the remaining games. To my surprise, in every scenario where the Packers beat the Giants and Bears, the Packers end up in the playoffs. Just as I was wondering if this could possibly be right, the Green Bay Press-Gazette confirmed that it is. So, even assuming that the Packers lose tonight, they have regained control of their playoff destiny. Not bad for a day sitting around watching other games.

Now, it is obvious that with the Packers' injuries, beating the Giants and the Bears could be a tall order. But at least they now have something I did not expect after last week's loss, an unimpeded path to the playoffs.

A Perfect Opportunity. Squandered.

2010-12-13T14:18:00.000-08:00

I started writing this while watching the Patriots administering a real beat-down to the Bears. Right. The same beat-down that, when paired with a Packer victory, would pull the Packers back into a tie with the Bears. Whoops!

How many times have we seen something like this? Last year it was the loss to the previously-winless Buccaneers. I wrote about it here. I am aware that almost every team, some time during the year, loses a game that they should win. The Packers are not unique in their vulnerability to bad teams. Heck, the Patriots lost to the Browns this year. But in fairness, the Browns are an up and coming team, now struggling at 5-8. The 3-10 Lions, with more players on Injured Reserve than the Packers, and playing their third-string quarterback yesterday, are not in the same category. Nor were the 0-7 Buccaneers last year when the Packers lost to them.

So, even if the Packers are not uniquely vulnerable, it seems more predictable than with other good teams that they will screw up a game like this at least once every year. I just can't let Mike McCarthy off the hook anymore. Periodically, I feel that he is finally starting to get it in his play calling. Yesterday was not one of those days. From too much emphasis on the non-existent running game, to too much emphasis on long passes when underneath passes were available, to the idiotic play calls on the final drive (running plays on a final, must-score-a-TD drive; long pass on 4th and 1), this was not an impressive effort. I am losing confidence in McCarthy's ability to learn from past mistakes.

Another way to look at this is that, this year at least, the Packers have lost three games to teams with worse records when either Rodgers or Matthews did not play or did not finish the game. Baranczyk and Christl make this point in the Press-Gazette today. This is, perhaps, the flip side of the positive notion that the Packers have done a great job of winning a lot of games despite the devastating impact of all the injuries. That is true in general, but they seem to have a hard time dealing with the absence of their biggest stars. You could point to any number of teams who have not fallen victim to this problem - from the Vikings winning last week behind Tarvaris Jackson, to the Lions beating the Packers yesterday with their third-string quarterback.

Amazingly, the Packers could still win the NFC North, but now it will take some help from our old friends, the Chicago Bears. They looked pretty bad yesterday, but I think that was more about the New England Patriots than it was about the Chicago Bears. As Packer Blogger Jersey Al put it, the Patriots are "executing teams like cold-blooded killers." Oh, great, the Packers face New England next week.

49er Game Review

2010-12-07T14:19:00.000-08:00

Watching the 49er game, I was uncomfortable, as were others in my group of family and friends (judging from Facebook and text messages during the first half). It was another slow start, and the halftime score was only 14-13, Packers. Could this essential game slip away from us? But the Packers poured it on in the second half, and the final score was 34-16, Packers, so the concern was somewhat misplaced.

In hindsight, it is possible to see that the Packers were never in much real trouble. Both of the 49ers' first half field goals resulted, essentially, from a single long pass completion, after which the Packers' defense held. The 49ers' only touchdown resulted from a single, 66-yard touchdown pass, with a missed tackle playing a big part. Obviously, it would be better if these three long pass completions never took place, but you can't shut out every team every game.

I was far more interested to see if the Packers would be able to adjust things defensively at halftime, and to see how the Packers approached their own offensive game plan. I found things to be pleased with in both areas. On halftime adjustments, in the second half, the 49ers' longest pass completion for 20 yards, while they had three of 25 yards and over in the first half. In the first half, the 49ers completed 45% of their passes for 125 net yards. In the second half, they completed 36% of their passes, for 47 net yards passing.

The SF Bay Area media and sports talk radio were all over Coach Singletary yesterday, for not being able to make any halftime adjustments, unlike the Packers, and for being disconnected from the offensive and defensive game-calling, doing too much delegating and not having enough hands-on involvement. The 49er coaching staff was also criticized for having coached the playmaking ability out of QB Troy Smith, "turning him into Alex Smith." Left unspoken was the frequent refrain around here, that they could have had Aaron Rodgers, instead of Alex Smith. And speaking of Alex Smith, the 49ers announced today that they will start Alex Smith, not Troy Smith, this week against the Seahawks. (Singletary, at this writing, keeps his own job.)

I also saw good things in the Packers' offensive game plan. True, it was not as effective in the first half as in the second, but I still saw improvement. In the first place, the Packers seemed to finally recognize that their strength on offense is in the passing game. In the first few series, there was heavy emphasis on short passes, with runs being the exception, rather than the rule. Starting later in the first half and in the second half, the running game became more prominent, presumably because the 49ers were focussed so much on stopping the passing game. This is exactly what I have been looking for, using the passing game to open up the running game, rather than the other way around. Second, it looks like James Starks is going to be a big plus for the running game. He seems to have a better feel for the running game than does Brandon Jackson, although Jackson remains an excellent pass receiver.

The point is that the addition of Starks to the running back rotation opens up some additional options for the Packers, since the running game was not very successful before. While they only scored 14 points in the first half, this was because of a doinked field goal on the first drive, a disruptive sack on the second drive, and a sack and a pass bouncing off a defensive back's helmet on the third drive. The Packers were taking the right approach on offense, it just didn't pay off in those first three drives.

Between the improved offensive game plan and the halftime adjustments on defense, the result, as I heard it said on SF sports talk radio yesterday, was that the Packers administered a beating to the 49ers both ways, some on quick strike touchdowns and some on sustained drives.

The 1929 uniforms don't seem to have made a very good impression on anyone. One radio guy said maybe it is finally time to get rid of throwback uniforms, after seeing the Packers' uniforms this week. Here is Peter King's take on the 1929 uniforms:

Where'd you get those uniforms, Packers? Costco? And the helmets that looked like round FTD fall-bouquet vases? Without a question, those are the worst throwbacks I've seen, and there have been a lot of bad ones.

The Packers must have decided that they are never using these uniforms again, as they are selling off the game-worn uniforms at the Packer Pro Shop starting today.

With four games left, the pressure to win every game is intense. The only "easy" game is this week, at the Lions. It is very arguable that the Lions are much better than their 2-10 record, and indeed the Lions gave the Packers a hard time at Lambeau Field, and they came close to upsetting the Bears this week. None of that matters. With the Patriots, Giants and Bears coming up, there can be no excuse for not coming away with a victory at Detroit.

Steve Mariucci, on the NFL Network, predicted that the Packers and Bears will both be 10-5 going into the final week, when Chicago comes to Lambeau Field. He predicts that the Packers will win that game and the division. So let's look at the schedule. The Bears play the Patriots at home, then the Vikings in the dome, then the Jets at home, and then at the Packers. If the Bears are going to be 10-5, they need to lose 2 of the next 3 games. I don't know how the coach figured it, although I could see the Bears losing any or all of those games. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they upset the Jets, but lose to the Patriots and Vikings. For the Packers to be 10-5, they need to win 2 of the next 3. At Lions, at Patriots, and the Giants at home. I assume that Mariucci thinks the Packers will lose to the Patriots, and win the other two. Everybody knows that the coach grew up as a Packer fan. So his predictions are almost as suspect as mine. But I think he is probably right on this. After watching the relentlessness of the Patriots last night against the Jets, the Patriots are certainly the remaining team I consider most likely to beat the Packers. If so, and if the Packers win the other two games, then that Bears at Packers game will be monumental. I assume the league will flex it so it ends up as the Sunday night game, the final game of the 2010 regular season, with the NFC North Division winner, and quite possibly a playoff bye, on the line.

49ers Coming to Lambeau Field

2010-12-03T16:37:00.000-08:00

(Photos are from www.Packers.com)

I think it is the helmets, more so than the jerseys, that are going to be hard for me to get used to when the Packers wear them on Sunday. The jerseys look strange to me, much less like Packer jerseys than any of the other alternate jerseys that have been used over the years. But the helmets don't look anything like any Packer helmet I can relate to. The idea is that the plain brown helmets sort of simulate the old leather helmets worn in the early years of the league, but they still look more like Cleveland Browns helmets that got baked too long. Not to mention that brown helmets don't go with blue jerseys. Would you wear brown shoes with a blue suit?

Having lived in the SF Bay Area for 30 years, a Packers-49ers game is always special to me. Back in the pre-NFL Sunday Ticket days, it was special because I knew the game would always be on TV. Since then, it has still been special just because I have never been shy about being a Packer fan, so there is always some pre-game ribbing to be had about this game. Or there was, more so before the Packers established an enviable record of domination over the 49ers. The Packers have won 12 out of the last 13 games against the 49ers in the regular season or in the playoffs, the sole exception being the "Terrell Owens Game" in the playoffs after the 1998 season. The last time the Packers lost to the 49ers in Wisconsin was in 1990. Aaron Rodgers kept the tradition going last year by beating the 49ers, 30-24 at Lambeau Field.

The 49ers have had a weird 2010, to say the least. They are 4-7 going into the game at Green Bay, but that doesn't begin to tell the story. They have lost lopsided games to the Seahawks, the Chiefs, and the Buccaneers, and they had a blowout win of their own last week against the Cardinals. They came close to pulling off upsets against the Saints, the Eagles, and the Falcons, but in each case they fell short. All of their games this year have been started by quarterbacks named Smith. The first 7 games were started by Alex Smith, the guy the 49ers picked over Aaron Rodgers in 2005. Their record was 1-6. The last 4 games were started by Troy Smith, and their record with Troy Smith at QB is 3-1. Whether Troy Smith is the Smith of the future for the 49ers, or just enjoying a temporary blip, remains to be seen.

Head Coach Mike Singletary seemed to be in a lot of jeopardy after starting the season at 1-6. He must be helping keep his chances of coaching the 49ers next year by winning 3 of the last 4 games. At 4-7, the 49ers are one game out of first place in the pathetic NFC West, and could well end up in the playoffs if they keep winning. Time for the Packers to put a stop to that nonsense.

The Little Things

2010-11-28T23:04:00.001-08:00

It's the little things that kill you in a game like the Packers had this week against the Falcons (the Falcons won 20-17 with a field goal in the final seconds). Well, make that the little things plus one gigantic thing - the total absence of a running game. We have known about that problem pretty much ever since Ryan Grant was injured in Week One. I have come to the conclusion that the Packers are not approaching the lack of a running game the right way. More about that later.

For the second time this year, the Packers' hype has gotten way ahead of their performance on the field. Before the season, they were favored by many to go to the Super Bowl, and after they started the season 2-0, that didn't seem out of the question. When they lost three of the next four games as a cascade of injuries started to take effect, Packer fans' expectations came back down to earth. Then, when they went on their four game win streak, including a couple of blowouts, the hype started to return. Just last week, Peter King made the case that the Packers are the best team in the league. That changed today, as the Packers have dropped to no. 4, but with the comment that they have an excellent chance to return to the Georgia Dome for the NFC Championship game. One of the talking heads on one of the pregame shows Sunday said that the Packers are the best team in the NFC right now. Best team in the NFC? I am having trouble making the case that they are the best team in the NFC North. I am not yet in Jim Mora territory with this team, but I am getting closer.

The little things I have in mind include:

The return of the penalty bug. They didn't set any record for penalties this time, but just had enough of them (8), and at inopportune times, to cause some real problems.
Regression on special teams. While the special teams seemed to be getting better for a couple of games, yesterday they were not impressive. They gave up too many yards on Falcons kick returns, they didn't get much yardage on Packer kick returns, and they committed too many penalties on special teams plays.
Questionable play calling in short yardage situations. Just take goal line plays. The Packers had 6 plays during the game inside the Atlanta 5 yard line. Four of those plays were runs. One run by Nance (no gain) and three runs by Rodgers, resulting in a 1 yard gain, a disastrous fumble recovered by the Falcons, and a 1 yard TD run on a quarterback draw by Rodgers.
Poor decisions on challenges. For a couple of weeks there, Mike McCarthy was on a roll on challenges. But not against the Falcons. The costly one was the non-catch by Gonzalez on 4th down, that led to the touchdown by the Falcons at the end of the first half. I accept that in the other team's stadium, you don't always get a quick look, and that McCarthy got word from upstairs too late. But the Packers had two timeouts left in the half, and it was obviously a pivotal play. McCarthy and/or the people upstairs need to make a quicker decision here. Worst case, it costs them a timeout that, as it turns out, they did not need anyway.

The gigantic problem the Packers have is the lack of a running game. Rodgers was the leading Packer rusher yesterday, and that was not a good thing. Brandon Jackson has had exactly one 100 yard game this year, against Washington, and that was after ripping off a 71 yard run on his first carry in the game. So he got another 44 yards the rest of the game. In my view, the only time the Packers' running game has been even slightly effective (setting aside Rodgers' scrambles) has been late in games when the opposing team has been burned one too many times by the Packers' passing game. At that point, in desperately trying to avoid another pass completion, some run opportunities have opened up. Yet the Packers persist, game after game, in trying to establish a running game early in games, mostly without success. This almost always leads to a slow start by the Packer offense. This was true to some extent yesterday against the Falcons, and it was also true to some extent against the Vikings the week before.

In principle, I support the idea of trying to establish the running game. Some semblance of a balanced offense is obviously a good thing, and it helps to keep the quarterback upright and the defense off-balance. But the pattern I see developing with the Packers has three phases. In Phase I, they start off the game trying to establish the running game, which does not work, with the result that the Packers start off slowly, and frequently find themselves in a hole. Then in Phase II, they abandon the running game and go with a passing play on practically every down. They are usually much more successful in this second phase. Finally in Phase III, after the success engendered by the pass-on-every-down philosophy, the Packers find that the opposing defense is so concerned about the pass that the running game becomes more effective.

I could be nuts to make this suggestion, but if the three-phase pattern mentioned above is correct, then wouldn't the Packers be better off skipping Phase I and starting with Phase II? If they came out passing on every down (sure, mixing in some play-action passes, screen passes, roll-out passes where the defenders don't know if Rodgers will pass or run), does it not stand to reason that they would get off to a better start, probably get ahead in the game, and get to Phase III where the running game opens up, that much earlier? That is my thought, anyway.

It is not a shocking development for the Packers to lose by a field goal, on the road, to a team that came in at 8-2. Nevertheless, this loss has large implications. They now find themselves at 7-4, looking up at 3 NFC teams with better records - the Bears at 8-3 in the division, and the 9-2 Falcons and the 8-3 Saints in the NFC South. They have also dropped out of a playoff spot based on this week's games (the wild cards would currently go to the Saints and Giants). I still think that the Packers can win the division, although in fairness the Bears have not been playing down to my level of expectations for them, so who knows? While lots of strange things can happen, just looking at the records of the playoff contenders and their remaining opponents, I don't see much chance that the Packers can end up with the no. 1 seed in the playoffs. They might have a better shot at the no. 2 seed, but it will probably depend on tiebreakers that are too speculative to calculate now with 5 weeks left.

"Singletary Better Watch Out"*

2010-11-23T17:35:00.000-08:00

After being blown out by the Green Bay Packers, with the Metrodome becoming more and more like a Packer home crowd as the Vikings fans left early, the Vikings fired Head Coach Brad Childress on Monday morning. This is the second game in a row where the opposing coach has been fired after being blown out by the Packers.

The Packers (7-3) visit the Falcons (8-2) this week. I don't know what could possibly happen in that game that could result in Falcons Coach Mike Smith being fired the next day, so I think he can rest easy. But the week after that, the 3-7 49ers visit the Packers, and Coach Mike Singletary might have a little more to worry about. * Or, as Scott Clendening put it, "Singletary better watch out."

For a game that ended in a blowout bad enough to be the final straw leading to the firing of the coach, how come I was so uncomfortable for the first quarter and a half of the game? Well, that is the sort of thing that happens when you gain a total of 15 yards on offense in the first 18 minutes of the game. The Packers' defense played a great game from the first snap, a run for no gain by Adrian Peterson. It is very obvious that Dom Capers' defensive game plan was to put lots of pressure on Favre, and to never let him get comfortable. Lots of players jumping around on defense, extra rushers coming from different directions on different plays. On the first couple of series, the Packers brought extra rushers, or at least had people jumping around creating confusion about who was rushing, on almost every play. On the second drive, the Vikings were able to string together three big plays to get close enough for a field goal, their only points in the game, but other than that drive, and the one that ended with Tramon Williams' interception just before the half, the defense was in complete control.

The offense was a different story. As noted, the game was 18 minutes old before the Packers could gain more than 15 yards (as it happened, they quadrupled their offensive yardage on one play, the 47 yard pass to Jennings). The Packers only scored a field goal to tie up the game on that drive, and we all know that you can't afford to have a close game against Favre. There is just too much risk of the old Favre magic returning, as it almost did in the first game this year at Lambeau Field.

The Packers went on to score 14 more points before halftime, and 14 more points in the second half. From about the midpoint of the second quarter, it was all Packers on both sides of the ball. From my point of view, the best thing about the way this game unfolded was the fact that the Packers kept their foot on the gas until there were 10 minutes left in the game, and the Packers were ahead by 28 points. I have seen too many instances of easing up with a lead, and letting the lead get away. We need more "killer instinct," and in this case the Packers had it.

In looking back at the slow start on offense, there is no single thing that explains the ineffectiveness, unlike other games where Rodgers just seemed off, or where there were multiple instances of miscommunication between Rodgers and the receivers. Against the Vikings, the first drive was disrupted by pressure on third down, leading to a rushed and incomplete pass, the second drive was disrupted by two sacks, and the third drive was disrupted by a well-timed hit on third down, resulting in an incompletion.

The Packers' blowout of the Vikings was certainly an important win. It keeps the Packers tied with the Bears, it got them to the point where, "if the season ended now," the Packers would be in the playoffs, it increases the confidence that can only help as they face four tough games out of their last six, it evens the Favre game record at 2-2, and it effectively puts the Vikings out of contention this year. Fellow Packer Blogger Jersey Al call this game one of the top 5 most satisfying wins of the last decade.

In my review of the Cowboys game, I pointed out what a classy guy Charles Woodson is. It turns out his ex-teammate, Al Harris, is a classy guy, too. Would you believe that an athlete, in this era, and after being released by the Packers, would take out an ad in the paper to thank the Packer fans for their support? Believe it.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

Theatre Review: Lombardi on Broadway

2010-11-15T12:52:00.000-08:00

No Packer game to report on this week. The Bears and Vikings had an interesting little game yesterday, and the Vikings continued their road losing streak - now at 8 games. The Bears moved back into a tie with the Packers, although they have the tiebreaker advantage over the Packers as of right now. Lots to think about this week as the Packers prepare for what is almost certainly going to be their final game against the league's interception leader, Brett Favre.

That will have to wait for a later blog entry. Right now, I am going to play the part of theatre critic for the first, and quite possibly the only, time in the history of this blog, a review of the show Lombardi on Broadway. I have been a big fan of live theatre for a long time, almost as long as I have been a Packer fan. When I first heard that David Maraniss' book, When Pride Still Mattered, was going to be the basis of a Broadway show on the life of Vince Lombardi, I was a bit apprehensive. I started to read this book when it came out, and I found it a fascinating and richly-detailed biography, but I got busy at work and never finished it. (I pulled it off the bookshelf the other day and intend to finish it now.) It was the rich detail of it that made me wonder about a theatrical script based on this book. Vince Lombardi, in popular culture, has become something of a cartoon character, with his persona being defined mostly by the disputed quote: "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

So how do you reduce the richness and nuance of Lombardi's life to a short script, without turning him into a caricature? I should not have worried about it, as playwright Eric Simonson (who grew up in Wisconsin and had an uncle of the Packers' Board of Directors) did a great job of conveying the complexity of Vince Lombardi in a short script (the show only runs about 95 minutes, with no intermission). You get the essence of Vince Lombardi, as I remember him from my youth, from many years of seeing him on NFL Films, and from my (partial) reading of David Maraniss' book. But he comes across as a real person, flaws and all, and not as a cartoon. There is not always a lot of cross-over between the theatre world and the sports world, so it was not obvious that they would do a good job of this, and they are to be commended for having done so. To take a somewhat parallel example - how do you take a long, complex and dark novel like Victor Hugo's Les Misérables and turn it into a Broadway musical? Yet producer Cameron Mackintosh assembled a team of writers and composers who turned it into one of the most successful musicals of all time.

The NFL and the Packers have actively cooperated with the producers in putting on this show. The Packers brought in the cast and crew to visit Green Bay, to tour the Packer Hall of Fame, to spend time with Coach McCarthy, to attend practice, and even to have actor Dan Lauria sit at Vince Lombardi's desk. The NFL has helped to bring in NFL people to talk-back sessions after certain shows (we had punter Sean Landeta and broadcaster Bob Papa at the show we attended), and the NFL even has a Lombardi Trophy on display in the lobby for a short time, along with the other Packer and Lombardi memorabilia. Cheryl Nelson brought to my attention a Packers.com story published about the large group of Packer front office people, directors, guests and travelling Packer fans who saw the show on the Saturday night before the Packers-Jets game in the Meadowlands.

There are six actors in the cast. They are all good, even if we had some small issues with the actors who played Paul Hornung, Jim Taylor, and Dave Robinson. The other three were outstanding. Dan Lauria, best known for the TV series The Wonder Years, really looks the part of Lombardi, and his enthusiasm for the role is obvious, as is the fact that he is something of a natural for the part. He looks like Lombardi right down to the gap between his front teeth (which he admitted, in the talk-back session, is enhanced for the part by nail polish), and like Lombardi, he is of Italian heritage, raised in New York, he played high school and college football (as a linebacker), and was a high school football coach before concentrating on acting. Lauria plays Lombardi as driven, as you would expect, but also as a conflicted and complicated character, who deeply needs his wife Marie to soften his rough edges.

Judith Light, unknown to me but obviously known to many in the audience from various TV series including One Life to Live and Who's the Boss, plays Marie Lombardi and steals practically every scene in which she appears. I don't really remember Marie Lombardi at all, but what a fascinating portrayal of Coach Lombardi's better half. She was the quintessential New Yorker, out of place in small-town Wisconsin, with a bit of a drinking problem, a very wry sense of humor, a sharp tongue, and the only one who could really get through to the Coach at times. The players would come to her from time to time to get the Coach to lighten up. Lauria and Light's portrayal of the difficult but devoted marriage between the two gives us an insight into the couple that you will never get from NFL Films.

Finally, Keith Nobbs, also unknown to me, plays Michael McCormick, a fictional reporter for Look magazine, who spends a week with the Lombardis writing a story about the coach, and who serves, in effect, as the narrator of the play. The device of the narrator, to help make the story make sense, is artificial, of course. But he has the earnest young sports reporter character, a bit in awe of his subject, but enough of a reporter to try not to show it, down to a "T."

My wife and I are life-long Packer fans. We were of course predisposed to like this show. Maybe the better test of the quality of the show was our friend Bik Moy, a New York friend who frequently goes to Broadway shows with us when we are in New York. Bik claims not to have known Lombardi the coach from Lombardi's the pizzeria, which claims to be the first pizzeria in America. And yet she seemed to enjoy the show every bit as much as we did. I suppose that the show had a certain resonance and richness for us that it did not have for Bik. But she could enjoy the show as a biography of a fascinating historical figure, well written and well acted.

The show has received mostly favorable reviews, except in the New York Times. Interestingly, a number of the reviews make the same point made by our friend Bik's enjoyment of the show - that you don't need to be a fan of Vince Lombardi, the Green Bay Packers, or even the sport of football to enjoy this show. Some of the good reviews were published by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, Talkin' Broadway, and the New York Post.

Two final notes. I am on the traditional side as a theatre goer. I know you can go in flip-flops and a T-shirt, but it just seems wrong to me. But in the case of Lombardi, by all means wear your jersey. I did, and so did at least a couple of other people I noticed in the audience. See it while you can, the theatre business is a tough one, and there is no telling how long it will run.

And, on a related note, HBO has a new documentary on Lombardi's life. If you are on the invitation-only guest list, you can see it at Lambeau Field on November 18. The rest of us will have to wait until December 11 to see it on HBO. What is with all this interest in Vince Lombardi, 40 years after his death? More importantly, could it be some kind of omen of glory days to come?

Coach-Killing Packers

2010-11-08T21:17:00.000-08:00

The reaction, during and after the Packers' Sunday Night dismantling of the Dallas Cowboys, was elation. The domination was complete on offense and defense, and only a bit more equivocal on special teams. Why the elation? The Packers came into the game at 5-3, and the Cowboys came in at 1-6. The game was in Green Bay, and the Packers were heavy favorites to win. So big deal, they won a game that they should win.

All of that is true, but there is a long history with the Cowboys. For some of us, the sting of seven straight losses to the Cowboys, all of them in Dallas, and three of them in the playoffs, still lingers (1991 to 1996). So just on that basis alone, this win was more satisfying than it should be, looking only at current season records. But beyond the history, there is also a sense of development in the way the team is playing. The Packers played well in beating the Vikings, but it was a close game and it easily could have gone either way. The defense played masterfully against the Jets, but the offense sputtered. And then finally, against the Cowboys, the Packers pretty much put it all together in a single game, and thus went into the bye week with what is probably the highest level of confidence they have had all year.

This is at least the third time this year that the Packers' opponents have made big changes after playing, and losing to, the Packers. In Week One, the Packers knocked Kevin Kolb out of the game, and he has mostly found himself as the backup quarterback for the Eagles ever since. In Week Two, the Packers did such a job on Bills starting QB Trent Edwards that the Bills cut him soon thereafter (he is now on the roster of the Jaguars). And then in this game, the Packers drove the final nail into the coffin of head coach Wade Phillips. Could another coaching change be in store after the Packers play the Vikings again after the bye week?

Meanwhile, on Monday the Packers released Al Harris, rather than activating him or putting him on injured reserve. I am sorry to see him go, and I am worried that this will turn out to be a mistake. He has already signed on with the Dolphins, and I wish him nothing but the very best of luck with them. He was a great asset to the Packers, and from everything I could tell, a class act. Until the emergence of Clay Matthews, I would have said that the two most irreplaceable Packer defensive players were Charles Woodson and Al Harris. Here is a link to a pleasant memory, the video of one of Harris' biggest plays (the game-winning overtime interception return against the Seahawks in the playoffs).

Because of Al Harris' release, when I watched the game again, I was paying particular attention to the play of the defensive backs, to try to get a better sense why the Packers felt confident enough of the other DBs to release Harris. Charles Woodson remains at or very near the top of his game. He is strong in coverage, a real playmaker on running plays, and even if his big-play production has fallen off a bit with the emergence of Clay Matthews, he is one of the best in creating interceptions, fumbles, and sacks. At age 34, he may not have a lot of years left, but right now you could not ask for more from your starting cornerback. (See my comments on his post-game interview below.)

The other starting cornerback is Tramon Williams. I was surprised, early in the year, to notice that Tramon Williams, more often than not, has been given the job of covering the no. 1 receiver of the opponents. This may in part be so that Woodson is freed up to blitz, or at least to leave a bigger question mark in the mind of the opposing QB. But it may also be that Dom Capers now considers Williams to be the top coverage DB on the team. If so, given Woodson's talent, that is quite a statement.

The rise of rookie free agent Sam Shields may really be the key to the Al Harris decision. You can't make too much of a single play like his unbelievable interception early in the Dallas game, but the truth is he has looked good when he has gotten a chance to play in the last three weeks. Having passed up more experienced cornerbacks Jarrett Bush and Brandon Underwood on the CB depth chart, the Packers obviously felt that this was the right time to let Al Harris catch on with another team.

After the game Sunday Night, Andrea Kremer interviewed Clay Matthews and Charles Woodson on the sideline. Ever since Woodson joined the Packers, I have liked him a lot. Hard not to like his play for the Packers, where he has been far more productive than he ever was for the Raiders. Then I learned of his charitable and community activities, and my respect for him grew even more. Heck, I would probably even like his wine if it wasn't way too expensive for my tastes. But in the post-game interview, I saw yet another side of Charles Woodson. He could not have been more gracious or deferential about his teammate Clay Matthews. He said he was just glad that Clay was sharing the spotlight with him, he called Matthews the "Claymaker" and singled out Matthews' blowing up the running play on 3rd and 1 early in the game. When Kremer asked Woodson about Woodson's ability to make big plays, Woodson explained that it was because he was rushing from the same side as Matthews (and therefore the blockers' pre-occupation with Matthews freed up Woodson to make the play). At that point Kremer called Woodson the head of the Clay Matthews PR department. As good a year as Woodson himself is having, it is obvious that Clay Matthews is involved in more of the high-impact plays this year, and recognizing that fact, Woodson is doing everything he can to promote his teammate for defensive MVP. A very good guy, and we are lucky to have him on our team.

Beware of Cowboys Bearing Gifts

2010-11-06T18:02:00.000-07:00

When Cowboys Offensive Coordinator Jason Garrett brings his team onto the field at Lambeau Field tonight, I wonder if he will think of another nationally televised Cowboys-Packers game, 16 years ago on Thanksgiving. Yes, I speak of the "Jason Garrett Game." I did not write about the game at the time, as I had not yet started writing these articles/posts, but I wrote about it last year, when I saw a replay of the game on the NFL Network.

In a nutshell, in 1994 the Packers were going for their second straight playoff berth, after going to the playoffs the prior year, beating the Lions, and then losing to Dallas. As they struggled to keep their heads above water in 1994, they caught a huge break (or so it seemed) when Troy Aikman was injured and unavailable for the Thanksgiving day game against the Cowboys. The backup QB, Jason Garrett, played, and of course the Packers lost. And oh, by the way, the Packers did make the playoffs that year, where they again beat the Lions, and then again lost to the Cowboys.

So if it seems that the Packers are getting a gift, in that they are facing a banged-up Cowboy squad, I don't see a gift, I just see a potential trap game. The Packers, struggling as they are, managed to get past the part of the schedule where they lost 3 out of 4 games. They then managed to string together an emotional, hugely important win against the Vikings, and then put on an impressive defensive performance against the Jets, so all it will take is another win against the Cowboys to let the Packers go into the bye week with a 3 game win streak, a 6-3 record, and first place in the division.

Speaking of the Jets game, it was a great win, but an almost unwatchable game for a neutral observer. There are games that are just great defensive struggles, but this was not one of them. There were great individual defensive plays (like the interceptions and the Clay Mattews sack in the closing minutes), but overall the story line of this game was more about mis-fired passes, dropped balls, and turnovers. It reminded me a bit of an overtime Monday night game against the Buccaneers in 1983, when both teams struggled on offense, scoring nothing but field goals, and as I recall it, the game went on and on into overtime before finally the Packers kicked another field goal to win it, 12-9. That game, at least as I remember it, was even more unwatchable than the Jets game.

The Packers obviously know how important this Sunday night game is, and they are not playing well enough to be in a position to take anybody lightly. I think they will avoid the trap, win the game handily, and get a welcome break to get some players healthier before continuing the season in a couple of weeks.

Huge Win Against Vikings

2010-10-29T09:25:00.000-07:00

Just last week, I was making my familiar complaint about not putting pressure on the quarterback. In big games last year, the Packers seemed to mostly sit in coverage, allowing elite quarterbacks to carve them up. They lost all the games in which they did this. In the Redskins game, they did it again, and lost to Donovan McNabb and the Redskins. In fairness, the Packers were without this year's defensive MVP, Clay Matthews III, so Dom Capers had more limited options.

When it began to look like Matthews would be back against the Vikings, I wondered if the Packers would learn from last year's debacles against the Vikings, and put more pressure on Favre. Yes, they certainly did. I was at the game (more on that below), so I wanted to get a chance to watch the game again before commenting on this. But the reality is that there is a strong correlation between pressure on Favre and good things happening for the Packers. Take a look at the game highlights (on NFL.com, here). Favre had one touchdown and three interceptions. On the touchdown, the pass is a quick one, but there is no extra pressure visible in the highlight. On the three interceptions, extra Packer rushers were either in Favre's personal space or on the way. This is not a mere coincidence.

There are no magic bullets in football. If you blitz on every play, good quarterbacks and offensive coordinators can find ways to beat you. My only argument is that without a judicious use of extra pressure on the quarterback, a team like the Packers is not good enough to beat an elite quarterback. With judicious blitzing, they have a fighting chance.

I had not originally planned to go to this game. We were going to be visiting our son on the East Coast, and getting to Green Bay on the way back to California would be complicated, since we were occupied in Providence on Saturday night. (While on the East Coast, we took a side trip to New York to see Lombardi on Broadway, a couple of nights before its official opening. I will report on that when I get a chance.) Our daughter (who lives in Chicago) encouraged me to stop back through Chicago and go to the game with her. In order to make that happen, I ended up getting four hours of sleep on Saturday night, and four hours of sleep again on Sunday night after driving back to Chicago. But what a great experience to be in Green Bay for this game. We got there in time to have dinner with old friends Laura and Mike at Curly's Pub in the atrium. Mike has always been a Packer fan, despite his Chicago upbringing, and Laura, a U.P. native, really should be a Packer fan, but for some reason roots for the Vikings. At least she had the discretion not to wear any of that purple stuff in the stadium.

In re-watching the game this week, I found that the TV broadcast did not come close to conveying the atmosphere in the stadium. Sure, you could hear the cheering and the booing, you could see the signs, you could see that people in the stands were excited, but that would be true of any game at Lambeau Field. But in the stands, the atmosphere was positively electric. The intensity was something that I can only associate with a playoff game.

This was obviously a huge win for the Packers. Whether they can keep the momentum going against the Jets, now one of the best teams in the league, remains to be seen. But at least they are in a position now to continue to contend for one of the top spots in the NFC.

Two More Losses, Vikings on the Way

2010-10-21T08:55:00.000-07:00

A combination of travel and disappointment with two discouraging losses in a row have kept me from writing anything until now. It is a lot more fun writing about a game when there is something positive to talk about. But when the team loses two overtime games in a row, having had opportunities to win both games, it is a little harder.

Things can happen in any game. A player drops a pass he should have caught, a ball is stripped out at the worst possible moment, the ball slips out of the quarterback's hand. "That's why they play the games," as Chris Berman likes to say. But at a certain point, those things become a pattern, or at least suggest that there is some kind of a problem. And I think there is a problem. The most obvious problem is the injuries, but everyone has injuries during the year. And even though the Packers have had more than their share this year, it is no excuse for the way they are playing. Take our division rivals, the Bears. They lost their starting quarterback for a game a couple of weeks ago. Their backup quarterback, the very far over the hill Todd Collins, played poorly. He threw for a total of 32 yards, with no touchdowns and 4 interceptions. Not exactly the kind of stats that will usually lead to a victory. But the Bears won, by the score of 23-6. Matt Forte, the kicker (Robbie Gould) and the Bears defense made that happen.

No, I think the real problem is not injuries, but coaching. We are seeing repeated coaching mistakes: not putting pressure on the quarterback, not throwing the ball near the goal line, bad clock management, and lack of discipline leading to too many penalties.

One of my complaints last year was that the Packers seemed to hang back in coverage against elite quarterbacks, like Favre, Roethlisberger, and Kurt Warner. My feeling was that the Packers (either McCarthy or Capers) wanted to avoid looking bad on long pass plays resulting from the elite quarterback beating the blitz. But the result was less spectacular but just as bad: these quarterbacks picked the Packers apart when given the time to sit in the pocket and wait for the open receiver. Last week, against the Dolphins and without Clay Matthews, I saw the Packers doing the same thing. There was no pressure on the quarterback, and McNabb had plenty of time to pass. Coaches study game tapes. All they have to do is look at the tapes of the games against the Vikings last year to realize that the sit back in coverage strategy was not working. So try something else.

The only thing keeping the Packers in contention right now is the fact that there is no dominant team in the NFC. They may have lost three of the last four games, but at 3-3 they are still only a game behind the teams with the best records in the conference (the Giants, Eagles, Bears, Falcons and Saints). Clay Matthews is expected to be back this week, and even Atari Bigby and Al Harris may be activated. Donald Driver expects to play despite his injured quad. So they still have time to turn this around.

The Vikings don't have the magic they had last year, and Favre is hurting and much less effective. Some serious pressure on Favre obviously carries risks, but it also has the promise of causing Favre to make some of his trademark mistakes. If the Packers don't win this week against the Vikings, they will have squandered the chance to stay near the top.

Two Bad Games in a Row

2010-10-05T07:57:00.000-07:00

My old college buddy Dick Karth (make that my very old college buddy Dick Karth) said it best:

"I didn't like what I saw on Monday night.

I didn't like what I saw on Sunday.

What I saw in both games is a football team with lots of talent and with almost the same ability to squander the talent as it has talent.

I saw a team that, if it doesn't get its act in shape, is going to be 12-4 or 11-5 (maybe 9-7) which will probably be good enough to make the playoffs, but then not get past the first round.

I don't like what I saw."

I was thinking more or less the same thing. If the Packers have this much trouble with the 0-3 Lions, how are they going to handle the 2-2 Redskins, with a proven veteran quarterback, on the road? Let's assume for the sake of argument that they can beat the 2-2 Dolphins at home in two weeks, but that brings Brett Favre and the Vikings back to town. They may be 1-2 now, but it is safe to assume that they will be suitably revved up and ready to go in three weeks.

Monday Night Bears Game

So, with that depressing intro, let's review briefly the last two games.

The Monday night game against the Bears was certainly a disappointment. In many ways, the Packer outplayed the Bears, and yet a flurry of penalties and, to a lesser extent, turnovers, made it impossible to win the game. The Bears prevailed, on a last-second field goal, by the score of 20-17.

To make matters worse, Mike McCarthy made a couple of critical errors in the closing moments of the game. First, he challenged the recovery of James Jones’ fumble, when there was almost no chance of having the call overturned. He had, maybe, a 1% chance of having the recovery overturned, and a 99% chance of losing a timeout in the process. I was prepared to cut him a little slack until I heard him say, in the post-game press conference, that he was right there near where the ball was recovered. If that is the case, he knew to a virtual certainty that the call would not be overturned, and his challenge amounted to a futile wish and a prayer.

Having blown the first timeout, anyone could see, once the Bears got inside the Packers’ 10 yard line, that the Bears would have a chip-shot field goal opportunity. What are the chances that Robbie Gould will miss a field goal when the line of scrimmage is inside the 5? Maybe 2% or so? If he makes it, and almost all the time is gone, the Bears win. What if the Bears score right away, on a touchdown? Well, the bad news is that the Packers now have to score a touchdown to tie the game, but the good news is that they have close to 2 minutes to do it. Anybody who figures out the odds will realize that the Packers had a better chance to win by letting the Bears score. But instead, McCarthy opted for the heroic goal-line stand and the loss of the game.

Sunday's Lions Game

I went to this game, with my wife, my daughter, and cousin Rob. For most of the first half, the Packers seemed in control of the game, even if they weren't playing particularly well. But during the last 36 game minutes, things spun almost completely out of control. For starters, the Packers gave up an 80 yard drive for a touchdown to make the score 21-14 at halftime. But take a look at the Packers' possessions and highlights for the rest of the game.

Jordy Nelson fumbled the kickoff after the 80 yard drive, and the Lions recovered.
Charles Woodson single-handedly saved the win with his interception for a touchdown. When I first saw it live in the stadium, I had a bad angle on the play and I was not sure he caught the ball. Luckily, he did.
The Packers had a nice drive going, but after gaining 49 yards, to the Detroit 23, the drive ended with an interception.
Three and out, punt.
Fumbled kickoff, recovered by Detroit.
Long pass on the first play of the drive is intercepted.
The last drive, really the only good news on offense in the last 36 minutes of the game, found the Packers grinding out the last 6:32 of the game, getting 6 first downs in the process.

So what happened? Did the Packers, when the score was 21-7 against the winless Lions, figure the game was in the bag, and switch on the auto-pilot? I don't know, but as unacceptable as that would be, it is actually the better possible reason for how the game went. Because if that wasn't it, then I don't see how it can be argued that this team is as good as we thought it was.

Packers Beat Bills and Meet 2-0 Bears

2010-09-21T16:17:00.000-07:00

If you missed the game and just saw the score the next day, you would see that the Packers beat the Bills, 34-7, and you would assume that they probably dominated from start to finish. And yet, that is not at all how it felt watching the game live. Yes, the game started off pretty well, with the Packers putting the first 13 points on the board. But nothing much good happened for the Packers in the second quarter, and at halftime the score was 13-7. Along the way, there were missed passes, a sluggish running game, and some generally mediocre play. I am sure I was not the only one wondering if this might turn out to be a "trap" game after all.

Of course, the Packers put the game away in the second half, apparently after getting some choice encouragement from Coach McCarthy at halftime (the words "flat" and "sloppy figured prominently), so there turned out to be no problem. Still, the impression I carried away from the game was that the Packers didn't play very well, that they need lots of improvement to keep up with the better teams, and that they are lucky to be sitting at 2-0, tied with the Bears (what? how did that happen?).

All of these criticisms are valid, but I felt better about where the team is on a second viewing of the game. They started off strong, scoring on the first three possessions, while blanking the Bills. On defense, the Packers were aggressive from the start, sacking Trent Edwards on the Bills' third play, using their great "Psycho Defense." (In this defense, the players come to the line with one defensive lineman, five linebackers, and five defensive backs.) The look on Trent Edwards' face was priceless in showing how effective this alignment can be, because the quarterback is sure that a big rush is coming, but nobody is sure where the rush is going to come from.

My revised opinion is that the Packers played pretty well, even dominantly in parts of the game, but had an extremely flat second quarter that left us wondering what went wrong. The defense looked great, the special teams continue to play beyond my (meager) expectations, and the passing game was good enough to contribute to a win in most games (Rodgers completed 2/3 of his passes, for 255 yards, threw two touchdowns and no interceptions). Only the running game was really troubling, but I am prepared to wait a week or two to see if they can bring that around.

So the Packers, at 2-0, get to meet the 2-0 Bears at Soldier Field, for the Packers' only appearance on Monday Night Football this year. This game is no "gimme." While the Packers did manage to sweep the Bears last year, that was the first time since Lovie Smith has coached the Bears that the Packers swept the season series. The Bears presumably are delighted with their 2-0 record, and their fans (or the fair-weather fans among them) are snapping up tickets for the Monday Night game and raising ticket prices in the process. How sweet it would be to start the process of deflating their bubble on Monday night.

I did not realize it until I saw it in the Packers Dope Sheet on the game, but the last time the Packers and Bears met when both teams were 2-0 was September 30, 1962. The Packers won that game by the score of 49-0. That was a memorable game for me because it was the first Packer game I ever attended. Somewhere, I might even have some Instamatic snapshots from that game. For some much better pictures, see the collection published by the Press-Gazette.

A LONG Time Coming

2010-09-12T22:26:00.000-07:00

I had in mind the fact that the Packers have had trouble winning at Philadelphia. They have lost every recent game I can remember that was played in Philly. But I had forgotten that this streak goes back to 1962, until I heard that statistic in some of the post-game coverage. When you consider how long it has been, I would gladly take any win in Philadelphia, no matter how ugly.

And parts of this game were ugly. If you told me that Rodgers would throw for less than 200 yards, take three sacks and have two interceptions, I would have been pretty pessimistic about the Packers' chances. Add in a a handful of players knocked out of the game (especially Ryan Grant), and the fact that the Packers old nemesis Michael Vick was running the defense ragged for more than half the game, and I would have been positively depressed.

And yet, despite causing a lot of heartburn in the 4th quarter, the Packers won the game, 27-20. They did it, not with the smoking hot precision offense I had expected, but with good to excellent special teams (Mason Crosby hit 49 and 56 yard field goals, the latter being an all-time Packer record, and Jordy Nelson averaged 31 yards per kickoff return), and with an impressive defense. With Atari Bigby and Al Harris scheduled to miss at least the first six weeks of the season, each Eagles receiver was held to less than 50 yards receiving. With the way DeSean Jackson was tearing up the league last year, that is a significant accomplishment. Justin Harrell was knocked out of the game with what looked like a serious injury, and Cullen Jenkins played with a broken hand and a club cast. Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews did most of the damage. Woodson was always around the ball, made a handful of tackles, forced a fumble, and almost had an interception. Matthews, after missing most of the preseason, had seven tackles, two sacks, a forced fumble, and was instrumental on the critical fourth down stop of Vick to preserve the victory. With Vick at quarterback, I would have given long odds that they would get a yard on fourth down to keep their drive alive.

So yes, I will gladly accept a mixed performance for a win in the opening game. This leaves the Packers tied for the lead in the division (with Chicago!), and with the Vikings and the Lions at the bottom of the division. The Packers did not show me what I wanted to see: that they are a dominating team that has a great chance to win every game. As a result, we will have to wait to see if they can start to pull things together over the next couple of weeks.

"Everybody's Jumping on Their Jock"

2010-09-10T16:23:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the Packergeeks blog, I saw last night's quote on the Packers from Visanthe Shiancoe, tight end of the Vikings: "Everybody is jumping on their jock, like they've actually gone to the Super Bowl, and won it." Sounds like somebody is in a bad mood, after losing the NFL season opener on the national stage.

To tell the truth, neither the Vikings nor the Saints looked like Super Bowl contenders last night, except for the Saints' first drive. They looked so unstoppable in that drive that I thought they would score 40-50 points in the game. But not much happened after that drive, and the Saints ended up winning it, 14-9. Obviously, a team can start out the season slowly, and get it all together later. But last year, the Saints opened the season with victories by 18 points, 26 points, and 20 points. That turned out to be a good sign of things to come for the Saints. The Vikings also started out 3-0, but two of those games were against bad teams, and the third was one of those miracle Favre finishes against the 49ers.

Could Favre's late arrival at camp have anything to do with the team looking out of sync last night? Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune certainly thinks so, in an article titled "Pin This Loss on Favre's Belated Arrival." It is hard to argue with him, although the absence of Sydney Rice was certainly also a factor. Even Favre admitted that "I thought our timing was a little bit off." The Vikings made just enough mistakes to lose a game they easily could have won, especially after Saints kicker Garrett Hartley missed two field goals, which would have put the game out of reach by the middle of the 4th quarter. One of those mistakes, even though it didn't result directly in any points, was Favre's second quarter interception. This prompted SF Bay Area High School football player and Packer fan Scott Clendening to quip: "you know the NFL is back when Favre leads the league in interceptions."

So the season is off to a good start, with the Vikings at 0-1. A Packer victory against Philadelphia on Sunday would give them a one-game lead over the Vikings. When the Packers last had the kind of hype they have this year, in 1996, they started the season on a high note, beating the Buccaneers by 31, the Eagles by 26, and then the Chargers by 32, before some injuries started to kick in. They lost three games over the next eight weeks, and then never lost another game through and including the Super Bowl.

This week, we will start to see if the Packers can live up to the hype. I have not seen any of the Eagles' preseason games, and of course they have a new starting quarterback (Kevin Kolb) and a new starting running back (LeSean McCoy) since last year. The Packers have not had a good record at Philadelphia in recent years (that playoff loss at Philadelphia after the 2003 season still makes me shudder), so this will be an interesting test.

Scary Preseason Predictions

2010-09-03T22:49:00.000-07:00

The Packers' preseason loss to the Chiefs this week was so boring that I had to write this blog post during the latter part of the game. The Packers chose to sit most of their starters for the game, which makes some sense, but must irritate anyone stuck with a full-price ticket for the game.

Meanwhile, the preseason accolades for the Packers continue to roll in. NFL.com polled its seven experts, and all seven picked the Packers to be the NFC representative in the Super Bowl. Four of them have the Packers winning the Super Bowl, while three of them have the Packers losing to the Colts, Ravens and Bengals.

The last time the Packers were the consensus Super Bowl pick was probably 1996. I remember it well, including the Sports Illustrated cover predicting the Packers and Chiefs for Super Bowl XXXI.

I love seeing this stuff, but it scares me almost as much as it pleases me. I also guess I am not yet a complete believer. In 1996, the Packers had gone to the playoffs the prior three seasons, and they were coming off an NFC Championship Game loss to the Cowboys. The Packers had led the game in the fourth quarter. To name a few players, the Packers started the season with Favre at quarterback, Edgar Bennett and Dorsey Levens at running back, Robert Brooks and Antonio Freeman at wide receiver, and Keith Jackson at tight end. On defense, they had Reggie White and Sean Jones at defensive end, and Leroy Butler, Craig Newsome and Eugene Robinson at defensive back. On special teams, they had Desmond Howard. This was an impressive team, and it was obvious at the beginning of the season. Sure, they might not win it all, but there was no team in the NFC that you would have thought had a better shot at it.

I don't see the 2010 Packers as being at the same level. I like the 2010 Rodgers as much as I liked the 1996 Favre, and Driver/Jennings/Finley compares pretty favorably with Brooks/Freeman/Jackson. I am a Ryan Grant fan, but I don't think he stacks up well against Bennett and Levens. On defense, where are the pass rushers to match up with White and Jones? Where are the defensive backs to match up with Butler, Newsome and Robinson? Charles Woodson is probably better than the 1996 defensive backs, but with Al Harris (as well as Atari Bigby) spending the first six weeks of the season on the PUP list, I just can't make a case that the defensive backs as a whole are close to being comparable. And, of course, the special teams have been shaky for most of the preseason as well as last year.

Are the Packers better, going into the season, than the Saints, the Falcons, the Vikings, the Cowboys, or the 49ers? (The same NFL.com experts pick the Cowboys, the Saints or Falcons, and the 49ers to win their respective divisions.) Maybe. But I don't see it as being so clear cut as to make the Packers a consensus pick for the Super Bowl.

Most Points Since . . . When?

2010-08-27T16:06:00.000-07:00

The Packers, in beating the Colts last night 59-24, scored the most points they have scored in a single game since they beat the Cedar Rapids Crush, 75-0, in the 1938 pre-season. (The guys on TV said it was the most points "in a league game" since the victory over the Crush, but I think that was a mistake since the Crush never made it to the NFL.)

I wasn't happy to see 3 fumbles in the game (by Ryan Grant, Brandon Jackson, and Will Blackmon), and I wasn't happy to see Peyton Manning carve up the Packers' defense in the first few possessions. But this game answered a lot of questions for me.

Yes, the Packers are capable of putting some pressure on a quality NFL quarterback. Even though they were still not playing this as a regular season game, Dom Capers at least gave us some indication that he is willing to bring some pressure against a quality QB. The result was an interception and a strip of Peyton Manning.

Yes, the Packers offensive line looks like it is still capable of giving Rodgers the kind of protection he got toward the end of last year. Rodgers was never sacked, and this was without rookie Bryan Bulaga even dressing for the game.

Yes, the Packers continue to look very sharp on offense, even though Greg Jennings did not play last night. But Finley, Driver and James Jones picked up the slack and gained 195 yards in passing offense in the first half.

Yes, it looks like the Packers got some good players in the draft or as free agents. Although, again, Bryan Bulaga did not play, safety Morgan Burnett had a good showing. After struggling early on in the pre-season, he made some plays, most impressively including one interception he made and another that got away. Free agent linebacker Frank Zombo (why do I keep thinking of Frank Zappa?) made a bunch of tackles and stripped the ball out of Manning's hand. I would not want to be the person charged with cutting down the roster, as there are going to be some tough decisions here.

And yes, the special teams are capable of making some positive plays. While they gave up one kick return that was way too long, they also scored two touchdowns, one on a muffed punt recovered in the end zone, and another on a punt return. That is not a bad night's work, and it helps to relieve the sick feeling I have been getting whenever the special teams are on the field.

Week 2 Comments & Week 3 Preview

2010-08-25T21:04:00.000-07:00

Time to write a quick few words about last week's game against Seattle, since the next game comes tomorrow night (Thursday) on ESPN against the Colts.

The Packers' first-string offense continues to look great. Rodgers is in fine form, and in the first two games, the Packers have marched up and down the field with their first team, interrupted only by Ryan Grant's fumble in the first game.
Jermichael Finley is going to be a monster for the Packers this year. His skill became more and more apparent as the year went on last year, but he seems unstoppable in the pre-season this year. A worthy pickup in any fantasy league that has separate roster spots for tight ends.
The first-string defense continues to look spotty, but since the Packers were missing at least 6 starters on defense, I would not want to hit the panic button just yet.
Special teams were again disappointing, but maybe not quite so disappointing as a week ago.

Traditionally, the first-string teams have their longest pre-season outings in the third game, so normally I would look forward to the Colts game with great anticipation. But it is not clear to me that the first-string offense has anything left to prove this pre-season, so I would not be surprised to see them take their seats early, maybe early in the second quarter.

I do hope to see more of the starters return on defense, and it would be nice to see a little more aggressive play-calling on defense. I don't fault Dom Capers for calling the first two games conservatively - it makes sense for him to do that early in the pre-season. (Besides, there will be plenty of time to criticize him for conservative play-calling during the regular season!)

But since there are going to be some changes on defense from last year when the season opens (Al Harris looks like he won't be ready, and of course Johnny Jolly and Aaron Kampman are gone), I am sure that Capers wants to see how some of his replacement starters perform in different pressure packages. I have no idea how long the Colts' starters on offense will play (heck, they don't always play even when the games count). But for however long they play, they will provide exactly the kind of test for the Packers' defense that I would think the coaches would want to see.

Review of 1st Preseason Game

2010-08-18T09:39:00.000-07:00

I had to wait a couple of days to watch Saturday night's game until it was shown on the NFL Network on Monday. It was pretty much exactly what I expected based on the box score and a couple of stories I had seen. The first string offense looked great, except for Ryan Grant's fumble on the first play and him getting knocked out of the game a couple of carries later. Thankfully, the injury does not seem to be serious, although it does bring into play the new tougher NFL rules on concussions. Since he only fumbled once in all of 2009 (in a loss to Cincinnati, leading to the go-ahead points), it would be nice to think that this gets his fumble of the year out of the way.

The first string defense was another story. It is unfortunately accurate to say that it picked up right where it left off last year, in such games as the playoff loss to Arizona, the loss to Pittsburgh, and the losses to Minnesota. And the special teams were pretty much a mess, giving up too many yards on returns, and not doing well on Green Bay returns.

You can't make too much out of a preseason game, especially the first one. We need to see how the team looks in the next couple of weeks before getting too worried, and maybe even then worry would be premature. Suffice it to say that I did not see any strong evidence that the Packers are Super Bowl contenders, during this first preseason game.

Oh, and in other NFL news, the "Cirque du Favre" continues. By the time you read this, the official announcement will probably have taken place, that the Packers will get another shot at beating Favre.

"They Warned Us"

2010-08-05T15:18:00.000-07:00

"They warned us. Remember?

The embedded Packers fans amongst us warned us that Brett Favre would break our hearts, whether on the field of play or in the absurd theater of his mind. He would throw the killing interception when you least wanted or expected it, would turn our summers into melodramas that teased, then annoyed, then infuriated us.

Could they have been more right? Could they have asked for any more reason to say, 'I told you so?'"

So begins a not-to-be missed article from Tuesday in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune by Jim Souhan. I expressed some skepticism myself on Tuesday, but not nearly as much as was justified. It only took one day for Favre to walk away from Tuesday's stories, saying that he is in fact undecided, and that he will play if he is healthy.

Meanwhile, ticket brokers are biding time on the pricing of tickets for the Vikings' visit to Green Bay, and for everyone except Favre, training camp continues.

Favre Retires Again (!?)

2010-08-03T13:03:00.000-07:00

It doesn't take long for word to spread, when the story out of Minnesota is that Favre is retiring again. This still has not been confirmed as of this writing, and I kind of line up with those who say that they will believe it on opening night at the Superdome (September 9). My wife heard the report on the radio early this morning, and it has been pretty much non-stop Favre coverage ever since (after taking a little time out for a business call shortly after the news came out).

I was pretty sure he was coming back. His off-season surgery only made sense if he was planning to come back. The Vikings must have thought they had a great opportunity to go to the Super Bowl if Favre returned, and Favre (no shrinking violet, he) must have thought the same thing. So if he is not coming back because of his ankle, as reported, it must be a pretty serious issue with the ankle. One can make the case that the Vikings will be better off without Favre (see here), but I don't find that convincing. At all. With Favre, the Vikings would be serious contenders this year. With Tarvares Jackson? Or Sage Rosenfels? Give me a break.

And yet, parts of this story don't add up. Why would he have talked to Ryan Longwell, today, without mentioning that he is retiring? (Unless Longwell is covering for him, I suppose.) Why would he send text messages to friends saying he is retiring, but not officially notify the head coach, who has to make plans for the upcoming season. (Upon further review, forget that question. It has been obvious for several years that he doesn't care about the dilemma facing his head coach as he dithers about whether to retire.)

The bottom line is that even if this is confirmed later today, we won't really know for sure until the regular season, or possibly even later. In the meantime, I agree with my daughter's reaction, which was that this is sort of sad, because we won't have the chance to get our revenge on Favre this year.

Peter King's Rankings

2010-05-17T19:05:00.000-07:00

So I was just minding my own business today, checking on some Packer news, when I came across Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback column today. I usually read his column during the season, but only occasionally during the off-season. Still, I was shocked to see him rank the Packers as the number 1 team in the league, as of right now. To be sure, he admits that he is no good at this, and he points out that he had the Saints ranked as number 24 last year at this time. But still.

King relies on four points in favor of the Packers' number 1 rank: the maturation of Aaron Rodgers, the carryover from the somewhat fluky way their season ended in overtime, the points scored vs. points against differential (a category in which they were exceeded only by the Saints) and his prediction that Jermichael Finley will become a star in his second season. All of these are good points, with the possible exception of his point about the fluky end to the season. Sure, it was fluky, but I am not sure I see why that gives the Packers a leg up. I think you could just as reasonably make the argument that the fluky ending must have been so heart-breaking that they will have a hard time recovering from it. Bottom-line: I think that is just a make-weight add-on to his argument.

He ranks the Vikings as number 13, i.e., one would assume, just missing the playoffs. He says that whether "old What's His Name" comes back or not, they have an offensive line in decline. Interestingly, he has the Lions at number 24, with the Bears bottoming out the division at number 25. What a shame.

Well, who cares what Peter King thinks in May? And just because he picks the Packers as the number 1 team doesn't even mean that he thinks they will go to or win the Super Bowl. In fact, although he doesn't explicitly make Super Bowl picks in the article, he does make a comment suggesting that he thinks the Panthers will be the NFC representative in the Super Bowl.

One comment by one writer, in May, doesn't make a consensus, but it certainly gets the discussion going. The last time I can remember there being a consensus that the Packers were the team to beat was in 1996. I still have the Sports Illustrated cover around here somewhere, on which they predicted a Packers-Chiefs Super Bowl. That obviously did not happen, but it was the year that the Packers beat the Patriots in Super Bowl XXXI.

Greg Jennings on Criminal Minds

2010-05-04T11:43:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Facebook, I discovered this morning that our own number 85, Greg Jennings, will have a guest role on tomorrow night's episode of the CBS series Criminal Minds. Greg will be playing a Behavioral Analysis Unit tech named (what else?) "Jennings."

I like Jennings a lot. This just reinforces my high regard for him. He is only 26, and if he stays healthy, he has a lot of years of football left. Despite that, instead of just living in the moment as a big NFL star, he must have sought out the opportunity to be on a TV show. Which suggests that he is already planning for his career after football. Good for him. (Either that, or there is some Packer fan on the staff of Criminal Minds that decided it would be cool to get a Packer on the show.)

Don't miss the show - CBS, Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 9 pm EDT, 9 pm PDT, 8 pm Lambeau Field Time.

Packer Schedule is Released

2010-04-20T17:25:00.000-07:00

The NFL released the regular season schedules tonight. It caught me by surprise, since in the past the schedule release and the draft took place several weeks apart. This year, the NFL evidently thought that by releasing the schedules in prime time tonight, and then having the draft start 48 hours later, also in prime time, they can shake things up and maybe create excitement among sports fans for the whole week. I don't know about that, but I am excited by the Packers' schedule.

Having spent about 20 years in Packer purgatory, living outside of Wisconsin, before the age of sports bars and the NFL Sunday Ticket, I recall very well what it was like to wait for release of the schedule, to see if the league was going to favor me by sending a prime time game or two I could watch that year in exile in Massachusetts, Illinois, or California. And, old habits being hard to break, that is still how I look at the schedule, even though the NFL Sunday Ticket makes it largely irrelevant to me.

The Packers open the season with an artificially late game at Philadelphia, then get a Monday night game at Chicago two weeks later, a home Sunday night game against the Vikings in late October, a Sunday night home game against Dallas in November, another Sunday night game at New England in December, an artificially late game at home against the Giants, and then finish up against the Bears, at Lambeau Field, on January 2.

The other thing I look for (now that we again have a quarterback who can play in the cold) is a good collection of cold weather games. The Packers have three December or January home games (49ers, Giants, and Bears) as well as a road game against the Patriots. My only complaint is that only one of those cold weather games is against a fair weather team, the 49ers.

One more thing. Of the Packers' first 6 opponents, only one had a winning record last year, the Eagles. And the Eagles have already lost their starting quarterback, and they may well lose their starting running back as well. So the Packers are in a position to get a strong start to the season. Could they be 5-1 or 6-0 by the time the first showdown with the Vikings rolls around? Crazier things have happened.

The Packers' schedule can be found here.

Vikings-Saints Comments

2010-01-24T21:28:00.000-08:00

At last, the civil war among Packer fans is over, for this year at least. I know that it is a bit weird that I am writing to comment on the Vikings-Saints NFC Championship game before I have even finished and published a post about the Packers' loss to the Cardinals. But with the Vikings having lost to the Saints, and the Saints heading off to their first-ever Super Bowl, it seems like a good time to pipe in with a few comments.

If my own family and friends are typical, there has been a sometimes-heated battle going on for the last two years about Favre's post-Packer career. It was bad enough last year, but at least Favre was playing outside the division, and not against the Packers. And, in any event, the Jets didn't even make the playoffs. But it really got bad this year, when he signed with the Vikings, when he beat the Packers, solidly, twice, and when he continued to play as close to a flawless season as he ever has, all the way to the NFC Championship game.

I have one cousin whose "status" on Facebook today was wishing Favre an awesome day. Another cousin admitted to experiencing schadenfreude over the outcome of the game. One friend was rooting for Favre, mostly just because it is incredible that he can play the game at this level at age 40. Another relative (and here I really do need to be discreet to protect the guilty) has been photographed wearing a Vikings' Favre jersey, and seems to have been rooting for him all year.

A Packer fan I met yesterday said she was rooting for the Vikings to win the Super Bowl so that Favre would retire. It may take awhile before we find out, but I am pretty sure he will retire anyway. Now, the cynical might say that it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict that Favre will retire, and that the real question is whether he will play again. We'll see, but I don't think he will.

In my immediate family, all four of us were rooting for the Saints today, with differing sets of reasons and intensity. One of us would have been OK to see Favre go to the Super Bowl again if it turned out that way, while the rest of us (including me) did not want to see that happen. I have been very unhappy with Favre the last two years, so I suppose I am at the more militant end of the spectrum.

The thing that I have probably found most irritating about this year was that Favre played so magnificently. Favre's best two years as a Packer were probably 1995 (which ended with a loss to the Cowboys in the NFC Championship game), and 1996 (which ended with the Super Bowl victory against the Patriots. In the regular season in those two years, Favre had three times as many touchdowns as interceptions (38-13 in 1995 and 39-13 in 1996). That was as good as it got for Favre, with a much closer ratio of TDs to interceptions in every other year.

Until this year. Favre had 33 touchdowns and only 7 interceptions this year in the regular season. Almost 5 to 1 touchdowns over interceptions. This is the year he chooses to play flawlessly, for the Vikings? And he had several other career-best stats for the Vikings this year. Of course, there are reasons for this. I am no fan of Brad Childress, but I have to give him credit for reining in Favre's wildness, probably better than any coach in Favre's career. Favre probably never had as dominant a running back in the backfield as he had this year. Favre certainly had a better offensive line with the Vikings than he did in recent years with the Packers. Favre always made the receivers around him look better than they really were, so I am not giving a huge amount of credit to the receivers, though they were good. To sum it up, with the exception of the 1996 team, I don't think Favre ever had the combination of great offensive line, dominant running game, dominant passing game, and dominant defense that he had this year. So it makes sense that Favre and the Vikings had a great year.

But still, for the Vikings and their fans to get the benefit of all the good side of Favre, and almost none of the downside that Packer fans lived with every year, was infuriating to me. Today, the downside returned. Because of the pressure the Saints brought on Favre all day long, he was hit often, hit hard, and he was hurting badly by the end of the game. It is no accident that both of Favre's interceptions took place in the second half. (As an aside, the Saints did to the Vikings this week and to the Cardinals last week exactly what the Packers should have done, and could have done with a better defensive plan, but that is another column for another day.)

It was poetic justice for Favre to effectively end the Vikings' season with an interception on his final pass, just as he had done to the Packers two years ago. The pass tonight was just as incomprehensible as the one against the Giants two years ago. Yes, the late throw back across the field is the sort of thing that he has done his entire career, and he has gotten away with it many times over the years. But it is still a stupid throw. Michael Irvin (believe it or not) said it well on the NFL Network when he said that the real problem with the throw was the situation. He was at a point on the field where the Vikings had some shot at the game winning field goal even with an incomplete pass, and a much better shot if he gained a few extra yards, with his legs if necessary. To throw a low-probability, high risk pass in that situation is inexcusable. (By the way, although I did not remember this, Favre's last pass for the Jets was also intercepted - I think I am detecting a pattern here.) [Ed. note - upon further review, it was Favre's second to last pass for the Jets that was intercepted. His last pass, with 17 seconds left in his last game, was completed to Leon Washington, who then lateraled it back to Favre, who then tried to pass it again to Jerricho Cotchery, which of course resulted in a penalty for an illegal forward pass. You can't make this stuff up.]

But despite how critical I have been of Favre, my hat is off to him. He was really battered today, and was limping around for much of the second half. He demonstrated again today that he is probably the toughest quarterback in the league. He was largely responsible for keeping the Vikings in the game, despite their six fumbles. He has always showed a lot of heart in his play, and today was no exception.

More Random Playoff Thoughts

2010-01-07T10:31:00.000-08:00

Playoff time for the Packers has me thinking about various things in the days leading up to the game.

Whisenhunt Controversy

The first is the controversy/"nontroversy" over Cardinals coach Ken Whisenhunt's comments earlier in the week. The Arizona Republic had an article on Tuesday in which it was suggested that Whisenhunt was upset with the Packers for running up the score in both last week's game, and in the preseason game between the two teams. (The Packers starters led by a combined 71-10 in the two games before going to the sidelines.) "They had their plan," Whisenhunt said. "I guess they felt good about what they were doing." While Whisenhunt's whining might have been more implied than express, naturally Mike McCarthy was asked about it. He wisely refused to take the bait:

"I am worried about my own football team. His feelings toward my team or my feelings toward his team, it's a non-topic with me. I told you, I stood in here Monday and Wednesday last week and told you what our goal was. We went out there to keep our momentum going. He took a different approach."

In the meantime, Whisenhunt felt compelled to backtrack the next day, saying yes, he was peeved, not with the Packers, but with the approach of his own team, and with the way they handled it. Sure, Ken, anything you say.

Week 17 "Exhibition" Games

This little brouhaha over Whisenhunt's comments made me reflect on the broader topic of teams tanking games that "don't matter" at the end of the season. This is not a new phenomenon. Since I live in the San Francisco area (and am not a 49er fan in any way, shape or form) I still remember vividly the 1988 season finale, when the 49ers tanked their game against the Rams, which had the effect of keeping the New York Football Giants out of the playoffs. Phil Simms angrily, and quite correctly, accused the 49ers of "laying down like dogs." But if it has been going on for some time, I can't recall a year when so many teams tanked so many games. In week 16, the Colts tanked the game against the Jets. In week 17, the Cardinals tanked the game against the Packers, the Colts tanked their game against the Bills, the Saints tanked their game against the Panthers, the Bengals tanked the game against the Jets, and others (like the Patriots) could be argued to have done so. Note that the Jets made the playoffs exclusively because of gift victories in weeks 16 and 17.

Season ticket holders already resent being forced to buy full-price tickets to preseason games. Now, if there is a good chance that week 16 and week 17 games may also be phony games, this just increases the irritation factor. But as bad as that is, how demoralizing it must have been for fans of the Steelers and other teams that were hoping for that final wild card slot, to watch the Jets just waltz their way into it courtesy of lay-down game plans by the Colts and Bengals. It is not easy to devise a perfect solution to this problem, but if this season is any indicator, then the problem is getting out of hand. Mike Vandermause of the Green Bay Press-Gazette has an interesting idea on this score. In the meantime, in the absence of a solution, I will simply be hoping for cosmic payback for all of the teams that refuse to play real games in their final game or two of the season. Nothing would make me happier than to see them all go "one and done" in the playoffs.

Charles Woodson

Finally, for a feel-good note leading up to the game, take a look at this Yahoo article on Charles Woodson. He is certainly having a sensational season, and he deserves all the accolades he is getting. Even though I live in Raider country, I watch as little of the Raiders as I can get away with, thanks to the NFL Sunday Ticket. So I can't say that I knew (or remember) most of the grumblings about Woodson when he was with the Raiders. But I am sure glad that he is with the Packers now, and that he is as happy with being in Green Bay as the fans are to have him there.

Playoff Rematch Coming Up!

2010-01-03T23:19:00.000-08:00

The Packers beat the Cardinals Sunday in Arizona, by the score of 33-7. This, combined with the Vikings victory over the Giants, means that the Packers return to Arizona to play the Cardinals in the playoffs next Sunday. As if that isn't weird enough, there are two other rematches next week from today's games. The Eagles again will play at Dallas, and the Bengals and Jets will play again, but this time in Cincinnati. It would be way too tedious to look it up, but I would bet that there have never been 3 rematches from the final week of the season to the first week of the playoffs before.

The Packers and Cardinals approached the game so differently that it is hard to know what to make of it. By game time, the Cardinals knew that they could not get a bye week (because the Vikings had won), and so they evidently decided to treat this as an exhibition game. They started pulling starters in the second set of series of the game. The Packers, on the other hand, played almost all of their starters until well into the 3rd quarter. So I guess both teams have their own talking points about the results. The Packers know that they dominated the Cardinals, from the first possession of the game. When they add this to the fact that the Packers' starters dominated the Cardinals' starters in the preseason, and the fact that the Packers are one of the hottest teams in the league, having gone 7-1 in the second half of the season, the Packers have ample reason for confidence that they can beat the Cardinals again next week.

The Cardinals, on the other hand, can say "well, we weren't trying to win the game, we were just trying to get our people rested up and ready for next week." Fine. It is not a crazy strategy. But I have a hard time believing that the Cardinals are not doubting themselves a bit today. If we recognize that there is a strong mental element to the game of football, then these things matter, and I think the Packers had the far better strategy in Week 17.

Regardless of what happens in the playoffs, the turnaround the Packers had in the second half of the season was sensational. Lots of fans and writers (including me) were ready to ship out the whole coaching staff and some of the players after the Packers lost to the Buccaneers. But those same coaches and players deserve an enormous amount of credit for the improvements we have seen. It seems clear now that the Packers' defense was just not fully adjusted to the new 3-4 alignment, and that the more comfortable they have become, the better they are playing. And they are playing better despite the losses of Aaron Kampman and Al Harris for the season.

On offense, Ryan Grant has gotten stronger as the year progressed, and so has Jermichael Finley. Aaron Rodgers has been solid all year, except for his share of the blame for all of the sacks early in the year, and as the offensive line improved, and he started getting rid of the ball faster, he became one of the top quarterbacks in the league. Interestingly enough, though, as the Packergeeks note in their blog, as good as Rodgers is, it is not even clear that he is the team's MVP, given the play of Charles Woodson. The talking heads on the NFL Network after the game were agreed that Woodson probably secured the league's defensive MVP award with this game.

I have seen a few comments around the web today about how odd it is that the Cardinals had the roof closed on their stadium on such a beautiful day today. I even saw speculation somewhere (can't find it right now) that maybe the Cardinals are faking out the Packers by closing the dome today, thinking that they will leave it open next week. I can just about assure you that it will be closed next week, too.

My wife and I were in Phoenix a couple of weeks ago. Before arriving, somebody mentioned in passing that they slide the field out of the stadium on a tray between games. I had never heard of such a thing, and it sounded doubtful to me. So we looked it up online, and it is true. More on that in a minute.

We also learned that they have stadium tours, so we took the tour. Here are a couple of pictures showing the field resting outside the stadium (in the rain that day) and showing the inside of the stadium without the field in place (the field slides out in the gap under the words RED ZONE at the far end of the picture).

During the tour, the guide was asked when the stadium roof is open for games. We also had dinner with some cousins of mine, formerly from Milwaukee, who go to lots of Cardinals games. Both the tour guide and my cousins explained that the roof is always closed (or nearly always closed) during Cardinals games (as opposed to other events). Apparently Kurt Warner likes the roof closed, so that there is no wind. And so the Cardinals always have the roof closed. [Ed. Note: cousin Beth, while unfortunately outing herself as a Cardinals fan, reminds me that increasing the crowd noise is also a factor favoring the Cardinals keeping the dome closed next week and every week.]

Obviously, I would expect a much closer game next time. I assume that the Cardinals will be favored by a few points, unless the oddsmakers were so impressed with the Week 17 beat down that they make the Packers the favorites. (In fact, I would think that all four home teams will be favored.) But I think that the Packers are the more complete team of the two. The Packers have scored more points (461 vs. 375), have given up fewer points (297 vs. 325), they have a better overall record (11-5 vs. 10-6) and they had a better second half (7-1 vs. 5-3). I like the Packers' chances.

Playoff Berth Clinched

2009-12-29T16:15:00.001-08:00

I had the great fun of attending Sunday's game against Seattle, with my son, Ben. The Packers absolutely spanked their opponents, by the score of 48-10. Simultaneously, the New York Giants were losing to the Panthers, something I did not expect after the Giants' domination of the Redskins the previous Monday night. The effect of these two events was that the Packers clinched a wild card spot in the playoffs, thus avoiding the dreaded final week drama about whether the Packers make the playoffs. And finally, on Monday night, the Bears (of all teams!) beat the Vikings, in what sounds like it was a great game. This makes Brett Favre's record 0-7 in road games below 40 degrees since 2005. Now that is what you call a great week of football!

We were flying back from Chicago to San Francisco on Monday night. If the flight had left on time, we could have listened to the end of the game on the radio, driving home from the airport. But because the flight was 2.5 hours late (due to unspecified "security issues"), we missed it all. We got exactly 2 updates from the pilot during the game (remember, this was a flight from Chicago, so you might think there was some interest). He came on to tell us that the score was tied, 30-30, with 16 seconds to go in the 4th quarter. No sense of the drama that led up to that, but he did add that the dispatcher had said that the Bears had multiple opportunities to put the game away but, quoting the dispatcher, "naturally, they didn't." He came back on later to announce that the Bears had won, 36-30, in overtime. The reaction to both announcements was the same: stone cold silence. I guess nobody flying from Chicago cares? I suppose I can understand that in a way, given the Bears' season, but still, I expected some reaction. It certainly differed from the reaction on the Chicago to San Francisco flight during the playoffs two years ago, when the announcement that the Cowboys had lost to the Giants was greeted with cheers.

A couple of notes from the game, things that you probably did not see if you watched the game on TV. First, Milwaukee native and American Idol finalist Danny Gokey sang the national anthem, and did a fine job of it (see video here). And at the end of the game, since it was (barring a miracle) the last game at Lambeau Field this year, Charles Woodson and Donald Driver did victory laps around the perimeter of the field, high-fiving all the fans in the bottom rows of the stadium.

The Packers now travel to Arizona for the final regular-season game, with there being at least a 2/3 chance that they play Arizona again the following week in the playoffs. That makes for weird incentives for both teams. Both teams would surely want to play well and win the game, to increase their own confidence that they can do it again the following week. But neither team wants to show all its cards this week, lest they tip off the opponent as to how they intend to play the game that really counts. With the Packers having won 6 of the last 7 games, and barely lost the 7th game, they have to feel pretty good about themselves about now. Peter King, of Sports Illustrated, says that he wouldn't want to play the Packers right now.

At the same time, the Cardinals have played well in most of their games this season. They have the same record as the Packers (10-5), but in the NFC West, that is easily enough to win the division. Although I don't follow their games very closely, they have seemed less impressive in recent weeks, during which time they lost twice, and didn't look that great in some of the wins. Their quarterback, Kurt Warner, is only a little younger than Brett Favre, and at times he looks pretty old out there. But there is no doubt that he can pick apart a defense if given the time to throw. So the Packers would be well advised to bring some pressure on defense.

Another issue for the Packers this week is whether, and if so to what extent, to rest starters. The Packers are a wild card team no matter what, and are highly likely to be the number 5 seed. They could drop to the number 6 seed if the Packers lose and the Cowboys win, but the only real difference between no. 5 and no. 6 is that no. 5 has a very slim chance of hosting the NFC Championship game, while no. 6 has absolutely no chance. So one could take the view that there is not much at stake here. If this team had been performing at a high level of precision for weeks, maybe you could argue that the Packers should rest starters. But they haven't. The Packers took awhile to get into a rhythm against the Seahawks. The Packers' defense gave up ridiculous yardage and point totals to the Steelers. The Packers trailed the Bears in the fourth quarter. The Packers started a bit sluggishly against the Ravens. To me it seems clear that the Packers still have lots of things to work on. So I come out very strongly on the side of playing the starters, playing the game to win, and resting the starters only if the game is well in hand toward the end of the game.

Keeping some of the game plan in reserve for the following week is quite another question. That makes a lot of sense. So I would see no problem in playing a plain vanilla game plan, on offense and defense, but playing hard to win the game. Save the trick plays, the new offensive and defensive wrinkles for the playoffs. But if the Packers bench a lot of starters at the start of the game, or start resting players in the second quarter, that to me would show a foolish degree of over-confidence in how ready the Packers are for the playoffs.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Charles Woodson, Nick Collins and Aaron Rodgers for being selected to the Pro Bowl squad.

Last-Second Disaster

2009-12-20T22:11:00.001-08:00

That final drive of the game, with the Steelers scoring the game-winning touchdown on the final play, was so painful to watch yesterday. Mike Vandermause of the Green Bay Press-Gazette had the same thought I did on the game-winning TD pass by Ben Roethlisberger to Mike Wallace: it was like the 1995 "Yancey Claus" game in reverse. Back in 1995, when the Packers were still more than a year away from their Super Bowl win, the Steelers came to town on Christmas Eve. With the Packers clinging to a lead, the Steelers drove down the field, and Yancey Thigpen of the Steelers gave the Packers a Christmas present by dropping what should have been the game-winning touchdown. In fact, he described it as a Christmas present at the time. The drop gave the Packers their first division championship in 23 years, and they made it as far as the NFC Championship game before losing to the Cowboys. This made such an impression on the Packer fans that they cheered Thigpen years later when he returned to Green Bay for another game.

But of course, this time the Steeler receiver caught the ball, and the Packers lost the game. To add insult to injury, the Vikings lost Sunday night to the Panthers, meaning that the Packers would have still been alive to win the division but for the loss against the Steelers. Not that they likely would have won the division - but they would have had a shot and would have gone a long way toward clinching a playoff spot by winning this game.

I am out of town, and saw the game at Casey Jones Grill in Phoenix, home of the Desert Packer Backers group. A nice sports bar, with all the games on, but with the sound up on the Packer game, and with special sound effects to commemorate good plays, scores, etc. The Packer fans there were excited when the Packers finally took their first lead of the game in the fourth quarter, and when the Packers held the Steelers to a field goal on the ensuing drive. When the Packers had a 3rd and 14 at the 25, the sense of relief was palpable when Rodgers completed a touchdown pass to James Jones which, with a 2 point conversion, gave the Packers a six-point lead. Relief because nobody rooting for the Packers wanted to see Mason Crosby line up for a go-ahead field goal, after he had already missed a medium-range field goal earlier.

So, after all that had happened, and the Packers finally had a 36-30 lead, it was just devastating to watch the Steelers march down the field for the game-winning touchdown, after the Packers' lead had been so hard to achieve. It is not as if there were no opportunities to put the game away. The Packers intercepted Roethlisberger on one play, but the interception was nullified by a very clear illegal contact penalty. Charles Woodson had a chance for an interception on another play. The Packers just missed a sack that would have run out the clock. But the thing that frustrated me the most was Dom Capers' decision to rush only 3 or 4 players on most of the plays of the drive. I can see the arguments on the other side - the Steelers had moved the ball up and down the field all day, including (at the point the drive started) over 400 yards passing. So, in that sense, what the Packers had been doing on defense was not working, why not try something else, basically the old "prevent defense?"

But I would argue that the prevent defense is the worst decision you could possibly make. If the Packers have had trouble stopping Roethlisberger's passing game all day, why would you think it would improve your chances if you only rush 3 or 4, letting Roethlisberger have as much time as he needs on most plays? Sure, you have more players dropping back in coverage, but it is a truism that if you give a quality quarterback enough time, eventually someone will get open. I am not arguing for an all-out blitz on every play, but I am arguing that you need to put some pressure on in the hopes of disrupting the passing game. Otherwise, if you give the quarterback enough time, and if there are enough seconds left on the clock, they will just methodically move down the field and score. Which is exactly what happened.

The defense was so essential in some of those games that made up the five-game winning streak. But the defense let the team down yesterday, both generally (no turnovers, way too many yards and points given up) and especially on that last drive. The lessons I take away from this game are:

Something has to be done about the Mason Crosby problem before he loses another game for us. Whether it is just a mental thing with him right now is not clear, but he is not performing at an acceptable level. (See here for the ugly details on his slump.)
No more prevent defenses in protecting a lead of 8 points or less. Ever.

Bears Swept Away by Packers

2009-12-14T22:15:00.000-08:00

The Packers certainly still have some things to clean up in the remaining three weeks. But still, they completed a sweep of the Bears on Sunday, with the Bears hanging on to slim playoff hopes as they went into the game. This is the sixth season with Lovie Smith as the head coach of the Bears, and interestingly enough, this is the first time in those six years that the Packers have swept the Bears. When he was hired, he famously said that his first goal was to beat the Green Bay Packers, and he has done a pretty good job of that, until this year.

The Packers looked pretty good on offense in the first couple of drives (it is hard to look bad on a 62 yard, 1 play touchdown drive), but the offense started to sputter soon enough. Jennings dropped what looked like a touchdown pass on the second drive, and Rodgers misfired on 3rd and 7 on the next one. So instead of what could easily have been a 21-0 lead, the Packers were ahead only by the score of 13-0 instead.

But no matter. The defense played another solid, even dominant, game, and thanks to that effort, the Packers won their fifth game in a row. True, the Bears did go ahead in the third quarter, by the score of 14-13, so the Packers could easily have lost this game. In fact, I don't think there is any doubt that they would have lost this game last year. But now, and thanks largely to the strength of the defense, they have the ability to re-group, score some more points, and put the game away. That is what they did in the 4th quarter against the Bears, just as they did last Monday night against the Ravens.

Dom Capers again deserves credit for the creativity of his defensive game plans. First of all, you have to love any defense that has an alignment known as the Psycho Defense. I'm sure the players themselves love the defense, just because of the name. But seriously, a 1-5-5 defensive alignment? What a great way to deal with the fact that there were so many injuries on the defensive line, so that Capers wasn't really sure who he would have available at game time. And it was very successful when it was used, most likely by confusing Jay Cutler so that he did not know where the rush was coming from, and which players were covering the receivers.

The Packers are now in an excellent spot to make the playoffs as a wild card. They probably will make the playoffs with one more victory, and will definitely make it with two. I am sure we can all remember years where the Packers had to win all their games, plus three out of five games (or whatever) had to go a particular way for the Packers to make the playoffs. The problem is, things don't always go as planned. Would many of us have predicted that the 49ers would beat the Cardinals tonight? Or that the Raiders would beat the Steelers last week? It is hard enough to get your own games right, without having to rely on some other team. So I like the fact that the Packers can get this done all by themselves, starting this week in Pittsburgh.

Four Games to Go

2009-12-11T22:33:00.000-08:00

Watching the second half of the Packers' Monday Night win against the Ravens was like torture for this Packer fan. The first half had started off very slowly, with lots of dropped passes and even more penalty flags. But as the half went on, the Packers started looking a little more like themselves on offense, and even scored a big touchdown right before the half, to make the score 17-0.

And then, right on schedule, came the second half, with a definite "here we go again" feel to it. Donald Driver's fumble led to one Ravens touchdown, and when the Packers got the ball back, Rodgers' pass took a weird bounce off of Driver's leg, and was intercepted. One long pass later (complete with an obligatory pass interference call against Tramon Williams) and it was first and goal at the one yard line. Two plays later and the score was 17-14. On the very next drive, despite passes being dropped all over the field, the Packers still managed to get in easy field goal range, but a dropped snap led to a missed field goal.

After a terrible series for the Ravens, the Packers got the ball back again, and drove quickly for a touchdown to take a 10 point lead. But then another special teams letdown allowed a long kickoff return, which would have gone for a touchdown but for Tramon Williams running the returner down from behind. Following this great play, Tramon Williams was called (again) for pass interference in the end zone, and it was again first and goal at the one. On first down, Charles Woodson reacted to the handoff by charging into the Ravens' backfield and tripping up the runner at the three. This was critical because it resulted in the Ravens throwing the ball on second down. Not just any pass, mind you, but the dreaded rainbow all the way from the right sideline more than half way across the field. The ball was intercepted by (who else?) Tramon Williams, meaning that Williams had made two of the biggest plays of the game, to go along with his pair of end-zone interference penalties.

As nerve-wracking as it was watching parts of the second half, on balance I am really happy with the way the game went. Let's face it, the offense or the defense will occasionally have an off day. The special teams have off days more regularly. That is going to to happen - the question is, how does the rest of the team react? In this case, the offense really looked out of synch for most of the first half, and for parts of the second half. Rodgers made bad throws on quite a few passes, and receivers repeatedly dropped what looked like catchable balls. But the defense was dominant throughout the game, with a performance that was marred only by the plethora of penalty flags. There was even a redemptive quality to the defensive performance (vaguely reminiscent of Ryan Grant's redemption in the 2007 season playoff game against the Seahawks), in that Tramon Williams made those two, essentially win-preserving plays, despite being called for the big pass interference penalties.

Looking back on the last four games, something has happened to turn things around, especially on defense. I was very critical of the defensive game-plans earlier in the year, especially in the Vikings games. I thought that the Packers were not aggressive enough on defense, and that as a result they just let Favre carve them up. Well, something has changed. Maybe Dom Capers has realized the error of his ways, and started calling the defense more aggressively. More likely, Capers realized that it was going to take some time for his players to really internalize his new defense, and so he called the games more cautiously until he was sure the players were ready for a more aggressive game-plan. And that time seems to have come in the past four weeks. Whatever the case, Capers certainly deserves credit for the improved play of the defense. And the result is that the defense is playing well enough to keep the Packers in the game, even if the offense is mis-firing, and even if the special teams give up some big plays. That is a good feeling.

Now, with four games to go, the Packers have only one home game left, but at least they only have one game against a team with a winning record (the Cardinals). None of these games are "gimmes" (if a team that lost to the Buccaneers can ever consider a game to be a gimme). The other three opponents have records of 5-7 or 6-7, so they obviously are capable of winning a game. So a dominating defense, and a more consistent offense, would be a great way to spend the rest of the regular season.

Three Game Streak on the Line

2009-12-05T15:44:00.000-08:00

The Thanksgiving day game certainly did not start off with a bang for the Packers. First, Jordy Nelson fumbled the opening kickoff which, with the help of a roughing the quarterback penalty, led to a Lions' touchdown. Then the Packers had a sustained and impressive drive, but which ended in a missed field goal. Then the Lions drove into Packer territory quickly on the next drive. "Oh, no" (or some more colorful expression), Packer fans everywhere must have wondered, is it going to be one of those days? But Nick Collins' athletic interception at the sideline ended that drive, and it was almost all Packers for the rest of the game, which ended in a 34-12 final score. I almost forgot to mention the fantastic game Donald Driver had. Driver had 7 catches for 142 yards (including two long bombs) and a touchdown. Good enough to merit the Golden Turkey award (or whatever they call it) at the end of the game.

So the Packers go into the Monday night game against the Ravens as the proud owners of a 3-game winning streak. The timing could not be better. This leaves the Packers with a 7-4 record, with 5 games to go, which means that, almost no matter what happens, they will be in contention for a wild card spot into the last couple of weeks of the season. There is no cause to get too carried away. This 3-game streak is made up of one win against a good team (the Cowboys), another against a mediocre but improving team (the 49ers) and one against a bad, banged up team (the Lions). Still, despite my quibbles about easing up in the 4th quarter of games, the Packers were impressive in all three games and had leads of 17 to 22 points in the 4th quarter of each game.

The Baltimore Ravens will undoubtedly be a tougher opponent than the Lions. In the last three weeks, they crushed the Browns, almost upset the undefeated Colts, and beat the Steelers (who were without Roethlisberger). Three things lead me to predict a Packer victory. First, the Packers have been making a much more concerted effort to have a balanced offensive game plan, which will serve them well against a tough defense like the Ravens. Second, even though the Packers still lead the league in sacks given up, they have improved dramatically in the last three games, partly because of a more balanced game plan, and partly because Rodgers has done a better job of getting rid of the ball. Finally, while the Packers were hurt badly by the loss of Aaron Kampman and Al Harris, their replacements played well against the Lions and then got 11 days to get ready for their next game.

Now, if we could just arrange for the Vikings to lose to the Cardinals, and for the Packers to beat the Ravens, it would be a heck of a good football weekend.

Steve Hayes on Old-Man Injuries

2009-12-04T13:23:00.001-08:00

Well, I realize that I haven't written anything yet on the Lions game last Thursday, or on the upcoming Monday-nighter. I will try to get to that over the weekend. But this is just too rich not to share. Fellow Packer blogger Steve Hayes, of the Weekly Standard, Fox News, and the Packer Geeks blog, has written an article on "Old-Man Injuries" that struck home with me. As I commented at his blog, if you think it is bad now (I think he is about 38 years old), just wait.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/259dkqdv.asp

Quick Turnaround for Thanksgiving Game

2009-11-23T21:41:00.000-08:00

When the Packers played the 49ers yesterday, they started off by playing probably the best half of football they have played all year, leading the 49ers 23-3 at halftime. Then, they almost let the game get away from them, and ended up winning by the score of 30-24, prevailing only by grinding out three first downs to run out the clock. That was the way it felt while watching the game, and as happy as I was to see some more aggressiveness, on offense and defense, in the first half, I was disappointed to see the "play it safe" attitude that almost lost the game in the second half.

In the first half, the Packers finally seemed to absorb some of the things that us armchair quarterbacks think we see so clearly while sitting in our dens watching the games. On offense, there was a good balance of running and passing plays, and maybe just as important, the play calls were unpredictable. There was a series made up entirely of passes, ending with the 64 yard touchdown pass to Jennings. There were other series with multiple running plays strung together. There was continuing, welcome emphasis on plays that take some of the heat off of Aaron Rodgers, through screen passes, quick-release passes, and play-action passes. And, let's face it, the offense just played a better, more consistent game than it has in the past. Rodgers seems more conscious of getting rid of the ball before the pass-rushers converge, the offensive line played better, the return of Jermichael Finley at tight end made a difference, and Ryan Grant and Brandon Jackson had productive days at running back. On the defensive side, Dom Capers continued to unleash more of those pressure tactics that kept Tony Romo off-balance last week, to similar effect.

And then the Packers almost blew it in the second half. But after watching the game a second time, I am far less critical of the offensive and defensive calls in the second half than I was during and immediately after the game. In the first place, the Packers actually continued to be aggressive on both sides of the ball throughout the third quarter and into the early fourth quarter. With 11 minutes left in the game, the Packers had just put the heat on Alex Smith, passing from his own end zone, resulting in an interception by Nick Collins, leading to a short touchdown drive that put the score at 30-10. It was really only at that point that the Packers seemed to back off, on both sides, and play it safe to protect the lead and finish the game. The truth is that it would have taken a perfect storm of events for the 49ers to come back and win the game. The fact that it came close enough to happening to make ever Packer fan cringe does not change the fact that it was an extremely long shot throughout those scary 11 minutes.

One of the interesting NFL story lines of the past week has been the post-mortem on Patriots Coach Bill Belichick's going for it on 4th down in his own territory to try to run out the clock. The attempt failed, and the Colts drove for the winning touchdown. Watching it at the time, I thought Belichick was nuts to go for it. Or more precisely, I thought that there was no way they would actually run the play, and that if they did, then he must be nuts. That is pretty much where things stood until the Sunday morning shows yesterday, when I heard for the first time the argument that Belichick had made the right decision, even if it was unsuccessful. (For an example of the analysis leading to that conclusion, see this article.) I am open to this kind of argument, and have even made the same sort of argument before, in connection with some of the 4th down calls in the Packers' playoff loss to the Eagles in January, 2004 (see here).

Returning to the 49ers game, I am prepared to believe that, leading by 20 with 11 minutes to go, the chances of winning the game (high in any event) are improved somewhat by playing it safe on both sides of the ball. I am not claiming this is true, just saying that I could easily see it being true. So I am withholding criticism on this point. Admittedly, it feels better as a fan to watch your team continue to bring the hammer down until the closing gun, rather than coasting along. But I am no longer convinced that it was a bad strategy to play it safer in the game yesterday.

Now the Packers have only three days to get ready for the Thanksgiving Day game at Detroit. And to make matters worse, the Packers have to figure out how to deal with the fact that both Aaron Kampman and Al Harris had season-ending injuries yesterday. This is really terrible news. I know that there has been discussion about whether Aaron Kampman was like a fish out of water in the new defense. But when used properly, he is still a force on the defensive side of the ball. And even if there is room for argument about how much the loss of Kampman will mean, there really is no argument about the loss of Al Harris. With Al Harris on one side and Charles Woodson on the other, the Packers had (I think) the best pair of cornerbacks currently playing in the league. With one of them missing, the defense will suffer. So it is up to the backups to step up their game, and up to Dom Capers to come up with schemes to try to maximize the strengths the Packers still have on defense.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!