Packers Earn Bye with Convincing, but Imperfect, Win Against the Bears

D-Train, Photo by Mike Di Sisti, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

Beating your oldest rival in the league, on the last week of the season, to lock up the number one seed and get a bye week, is not a bad way to finish out the regular season!  That is exactly what the Packers did last Sunday, at Soldier Field, beating the Bears, 35-16.  The Packers also did what they could to knock the Bears out of the playoffs, but when the Rams beat the Cardinals, the Bears backed into the playoffs anyway as a Wild Card.  

More records were set or tied on Sunday.  Aaron Rodgers finished with 48 TD passes, to beat his old team record of 46.  Davante Adams broke the Packers' record for catches in a season, and tied the team record for receiving TDs at 18.  Both records had been held by Sterling Sharpe.  And Adams beat those records while missing 2.5 games this year.  If you don't remember how good Sterling Sharpe was, take a look at some of his highlights on YouTube.  

My daughter reminded me this week that when Shannon Sharpe went into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, he self-effacingly said the following:

"My big brother, Sterling, I’m the only player of 267 men that’s walked through this building to my left that can honestly say this: I’m the only pro football player that’s in the Hall of Fame, and the second best player in my own family."

And the thing is, it was a charming thing to say, but I think it is also true.  That's how good Sterling Sharpe was.  So for Davante Adams to break one record and tie the other just shows what a dominant player he has become for the Packers.  Oh, and then there are the silly records.  The Packers became only the fourth team in NFL history to finish the season with more touchdown passes than punts in a single season.  And the Packers had more touchdown passes than field goal attempts in 2020.

The Packers' win was convincing, but still very imperfect.  As good as the Packers' offense was, after catching a 72 yard touchdown pass from Rodgers in the first half, Marquez Valdes-Scantling dropped what should have been another long bomb for a TD at the start of the second half.  Big deal, they still won by 19?  Sure, but the drop led to a punt, and it seemed as if the offense went into a funk for most of the third quarter.  Drop that pass against the Buccaneers or the Saints, and the result might not be the same.  

And then there was the continuing game of Russian Roulette known as the Packers special teams.  The misadventure this week was newcomer Tavon Austin's fumble of a punt, resulting in a Bears recovery deep in Green Bay territory.  The defense, as it did all day except for the first drive, stiffened and held the Bears to a field goal.  So it could have been worse.  But this is the kind of mistake that can kill in the playoffs.

Anyway, the important thing is that the Packers have locked up the home field advantage for any games they play, and the bye week to get a bit healthier before their first playoff game.  The last time they had the number one seed was the 2011 season, when unfortunately they got knocked out in the divisional round by the pesky New York Giants.  Meanwhile, the Packers have played in 4 NFC Championship Games with Rodgers at QB, but they have all been on the road.  They beat the Bears, at Soldier Field, following the 2010 season, and went on to win Super Bowl XLV.  But they lost the other three NFC Championship Games in which they played, at Seattle following the 2014 season, at Atlanta following the 2016 season, and at San Francisco following the 2019 season.  It is high time that the Packers host, and win, an NFC Championship Game at Lambeau Field.  And this might be the year they do just that.  

Unlike last year, when going into the playoffs nobody could figure out how the Packers were going to beat the 49ers, if they met up in the Championship Game, there is no team in the NFC about which I have the same feeling this year.  True, the Buccaneers look like a bad matchup for the Packers, especially bearing in mind how the Buccaneers kicked the Packers around in October, but the Bucs are a Wild Card team, and would have to survive two road games even to get to Green Bay.  

But let's not get ahead of ourselves.  Let's watch some football this weekend, with no pressure since the Packers will be home watching the games along with us.  There will be plenty of time to worry about next week's game once we find out who the opponents will be.

Bears are Last Obstacle to Home Field Advantage

Fun in the Snow, Photo by Evan Siegle, Packers.com

 In a game that didn't matter as much as it might have (because the Seahawks won earlier in the day), the Packers nevertheless rose to the occasion, putting together their most complete performance of the year in demolishing the Tennessee Titans, 40-14, who were 10-4 coming in and heading for the playoffs.  The Packers played four quarters on offense and defense, scoring 19 and allowing 7 in the first half, and then scoring 21 and allowing 7 in the second half.  So there was no "lull" period in Sunday night's game.  

Aaron Rodgers said in the post-game interview that he was sitting on the couch earlier in the day, watching the snow and hoping it would last until game time.  Sitting a couple of time zones away, I was doing the same thing.  One of my top Lambeau Field experiences was a snow game, and the word "magical" always comes to mind when I think of that game.  So I just knew that a snow game would be so much fun to watch.  What I was less certain of was whether it would be more beneficial to the Packers, just because they are used to the weather, or whether it would allow "King" Henry to just run all over the Packers and inch closer to a 2000 yard season.

On offense, the Packers' super secret surprise star was Algiers Jameal William Dillon, Jr. ("A.J. Dillon").  Many Packers fans have been wondering all year when we would see more of Dillon.  Obviously, he missed multiple weeks with what must have been a bad case of the Coronavirus.  He returned to action December 19 against the Panthers.  He had one carry, for 18 yards, in the second quarter.  You would have thought that was enough to earn some carries in the second half, but it didn't.  It took a cold night in the snow against the Titans to bring Dillon out into the spotlight.  

Was that the plan all along?  Save Dillon for a weather game late in December and into the playoffs?  Rodgers has remarked in the past about the value of having a big powerful running back in bad weather.  At 247 pounds, with massive legs, Dillon surely fits the bill.  Still, I have a feeling that this was not exactly the plan.  Rather, with Jamaal Williams inactive for the game, they planned to get Dillon a few more carries.  And then when Aaron Jones got nicked up in the second quarter, they had to lean on Dillon more than they had planned.  And wow, did he ever make the most of his opportunity.  He won't be a super secret surprise weapon any more, but what a change of pace running back he is for the cold weather.  As a slight footnote, the Packers brought back the jet sweep motion with Tavon Austin on Sunday night, and I can't help but believe that this mis-direction also helped the offense.

On defense, Defensive Coordinator Mike Pettine came up with some wrinkles to stop Derrick Henry, including 5 and 6 man fronts on obvious rushing downs, to stop the run first, and see if Ryan Tannehill, a good quarterback with some good receiving weapons, could beat the Packers.  The bet being made by Pettine was that the defensive backs can cover man-to-man, and thus control the passing game despite being short-handed in the backfield.  The Titans could not make the Packers pay.  Instead, the Packers held Tannehill to 121 yards passing, while coming up with a pair of sacks and a couple of interceptions.  There was a series in the second where the Packers got a sack, a tipped ball, and another sack to force a 3 and out.  I did not know our defense could do that!

Meanwhile, Henry still gained 98 yards on the ground, so you could say he had a reasonably productive game.  But he had very little impact on the game.  He was outplayed by A.J. Dillon (124 yards and 2 touchdowns) and essentially equaled by Aaron Jones (94 yards, 0 touchdowns).

There were some glitches on special teams, including a missed extra point, a failed two-point conversion, and a blocked field goal that didn't actually count because of a penalty.  And speaking of things that didn't count, holder/punter J.K. Scott actually made a tackle on the blocked field goal, but that, too, was wiped away because of the penalty.  So special teams continue to not be all that special under Coach Shawn Mennenga, and you have to think that there is a good chance the Packers will be looking for a new Special Teams Coach in the off-season.  

Now the Packers go to Chicago, with lots on the line for both teams.  The very unfortunate New Year's Eve news was that David Bakhtiari was knocked out for the year in practice Thursday with an ACL injury.  That is a huge loss for the Packers, as he has been the Packers' most consistent offensive lineman in many ways.  On the other hand, Bakhtiari has missed time this year, as have other offensive linemen, and the Packers never really missed a beat.  The Packers have better quality depth in the offensive line than I had realized going into the season.  This injury, if nothing else, should serve as a reminder to Rodgers to get the ball out fast, on rhythm, before the Bears' rush can get to him.

The league has cleverly put the Packers-Bears, Seahawks-49ers, and Saints-Panthers game all at the same time (3:25 Lambeau Field Time), to ensure that the 3 NFC teams angling for the number one seed, and the bye, in the playoffs, are playing at the same time, for maximum dramatic effect.  The Packers get the number one seed in two possible ways: a Packers win or a Seahawks loss.  That's it.  In this weird year where the home field advantage doesn't mean as much, you can make a case that the Packers have the most to gain  from home field advantage of any team in  the league.

The Bears get into the playoffs two ways: with a Bears win or a Cardinals loss.  And, you got it, the Cardinals-Rams game is also being played at the same time.  So nobody gets an early peek at whether they really need to win the game or not.  At least on the NFC side, it is a perfect set up.  

Meanwhile, while we were paying very little attention to the Bears during their 6-game losing streak, it turns out that they are now on a 3-game winning streak, including dominant wins (for what it is worth) over the Texans and the Jaguars.  Plus, David Montgomery is now the number 5 running back in the league (in yards gained rushing).  And Mitch Trubisky has looked much better in his second stint as starting QB this year.  

Apart from the continuing headache of special teams, I don't think there is much argument  that the win against the Titans, in dominant fashion, over a team most likely headed for the playoffs, was the most complete game the Packers have played all year.  You talk about a team rounding into shape just as the playoffs are approaching?  If the Packers can win convincingly against the Bears in Week 17, they just might turn out to be the team that nobody wants to play in the playoffs.  Let's hope the Packers start off 2021 with a bang!

Celebrating 100 Wins Against the Bears

Opportunistic Defense, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

On Sunday Night Football, with a relative handful of fans finally back in the stands, the Packers beat the Bears, 41-25, to get their 100th all-time win against the Bears (including their playoff win back in the 2010 Super Bowl season).  The record is now 100-95, with 6 ties.  

I can remember back in the 1980's when the Packers were looking up to see the Bears way in front of them in the all-time win-loss records.  But that was before Brett Favre and now Aaron Rodgers.  If you look at the historical records by decade, there had been only one decade in which the Packers won more of the matchups than the Bears.  You got it, it was the 1960's.  But then came the 1990's, 2000's, 2010's and now the 2020's.  Over the most recent four decades, the Packers have beaten the Bears to the tune of 43 wins against 19 losses.  This dominance won't last forever, so I am glad to see the Packers get a little cushion now, while they still can.

One thing I liked a lot in the Sunday Night game was the re-emergence of the jet sweep motion.  In the several games that Tyler Ervin has been out with injuries, it seemed to me that the Packers were making much less use of this motion, and it was having a negative effect on the offense.  Sunday night, it was back (especially in the first half as they were building their lead), even without Tyler Ervin, and the results of this misdirection could be seen in how unstoppable the offense looked at times.  The jet sweep motion creates just enough hesitation on defense to create some momentary openings.  

Speaking of the jet sweep motion, whether Ervin is ready to return this week or not, I think the Packers just got somebody new who can be an effective jet sweep motion player.  With the signing of Tavon Austin, the Packers now have another speedy wide receiver, a new jet sweeper, and a likely kick returner (since the Packers waived Darrius Shepherd in order to make room for Austin).  Once or twice a game, I would just love to see MVS and Austin line up at opposite ends, take off like bats out of hell for the end zone, and see what happens.  Maybe one of them gets open for a long TD, but maybe they just pull enough DBs with them to open up the shorter passing game.  

Back to the Bears game for one last comment - I think the much-maligned defense has looked better over the last few weeks, doing a lot of swarming to the ball.  Darnell Savage had two interceptions, and I think the last two weeks are probably the best two weeks of his career.  I know they gave up a lot of points against the Colts last week, but let's not forget that there were 4 turnovers, and a lot of those points were attributable to offensive mistakes more so than defensive ineptitude.  Against the Bears, I know the final box score shows that the Packers gave up 25 points, but the score was 41-10 going into the 4th quarter.  For better or for worse, I think Mike Pettine's style in this setting is to go into slow down mode, keeping everything in front of the defense, giving up all the short plays they want, and guarding against quick scores.  You can denigrate this by calling it the "prevent defense" if you want, but when you lead by 31 with one quarter to go, that can be an effective means of sealing the win.  

Watching the much-delayed Ravens at Steelers game on Wednesday afternoon (!), I was reminded what great defenses look like.  Going into the game, these were the only two defenses to have allowed less than 200 points so far this year.  The Packers haven't had a defense like that since the Super Bowl year of 2010.  I don't see any chance that the Packers defense will magically turn into a great defense by the time the playoffs roll around.  But can they continue to make some key stops and generate a few turnovers each game, to make life a little easier on the offense?  They have recently, and I hope they can keep it up.

Anyway, the Eagles arrive in town on Sunday for another game that the Packers, on paper, should win, and win easily.  The Eagles' offense looked pretty terrible Monday night against the Seahawks, but the defense looked like it can create problems, at times, for opposing offenses.  This will be the second week in a row in which a desperate team is coming to Lambeau Field.  The Bears needed a win, as a practical matter, to stay in contention in the division.  The Eagles, at 3-7-1, should not be in the playoff hunt at all, but somehow they are.  In the NFC LEast, 3-7-1 is half a game out of first place.  So winning the division is a real possibility, but only if the Eagles can win some more games while the other woeful NFC East teams drop a few.  So beating the Packers would be a big deal for the Eagles, and if they get the smell of an upset in their nostrils, who knows?  The Packers should not do anything to encourage them.  They should put up a bunch of points fast, just like they did against the Bears, and then keep the foot on the gas until it is too late for a comeback.

Packers-Bears Week (Finally) in Week 12

Fumbling the Game Away, photo by Michael Conroy, AP

After losing to the Colts last Sunday, 34-31, the Packers find themselves at 7-3, and in the driver's seat in the NFC North.  But they also find themselves only 3-3 in the last 6 games, after their impressive 4-0 start.  The Colts game was maybe not the most disheartening of the three losses; to me that was the loss to the clearly inferior Vikings team.  The Colts were 6-3 going into the game, and had the number one defense in the league.  The Packers were underdogs, so you can't say that a loss was shocking or even unexpected.  

But what was both shocking and unexpected to me was the way that the Packers blew a 28-14 halftime lead to lose this game, by sleepwalking through most of the second half, and then fumbling the game away in overtime.  You don't win many games when you give away three or four turnovers, but the Packers were in position to win this game until the fourth turnover, a fumble by Valdes-Scantling in overtime.

The Packers have been vulnerable to the run game all year, but in the first half, they kept Nyheim Hines and Jonathan Taylor in check, giving up only 43 yards on the ground.  They gave up some bigger gains through the air, and those plays combined with the Packers' two first half turnovers, kept the Colts in the game at halftime, trailing by 14.  

The second half and overtime were very discouraging.  The defense started getting gashed in the running game.  The offense had way too many 3 and outs, leading to the defense getting tired out and being gashed some more.  Throw in a special teams turnover, in the form of a Shepherd fumble on a kickoff return, add in one final turnover in overtime, and you have the perfect recipe for blowing a lead and losing a game you should have nailed down in the third quarter.  I think both sides of the ball, and you can throw special teams into the mix, too, let up in the second half, thinking they were going to coast to victory.  And then at the end, they could not convert for a touchdown in their final drive, and had to settle for the field goal to send the game to overtime.

Needless to say, this business of winning and losing on alternating weeks is not going to result in a successful season.  The Packers will almost certainly make the playoffs, but they need to play 60 minutes of every game if they want to avoid being bounced out of the playoffs in their first or second game.  But that worry, which is a real one, will have to wait just a bit.  It is now finally Packers-Bears week.  Can anyone remember a season where the Packers and Bears have not met until Week 12 of the season?  I couldn't, and I could not readily find the answer as to whether this is the latest first meeting between the two teams in history.

This will be the 201st meeting between the two historic teams, with the Packers leading the series 99-95, with 6 ties, including their two playoff games.  The game is being played in prime time on Sunday night, with one of the Packers' fan favorites, Mitch Trubisky, back behind center for the Bears.  This will be an excellent shot for the Packers to win their 100th game against the Bears.   

The Bears come to town, as usual, with a very good defense, and a much more questionable offense.  Before their current four game losing streak, they were at 5-1.  I had seen enough of their games to think that the 5-1 record was a mirage, and the fact that they have dropped to 5-5 tends to confirm this.  However, you can toss out there every cliche in the book, and most of them are true in Packers-Bears games, including the fact that the records don't matter when these two ancient rivals play each other.  The Bears are a dangerous team because they are desperate.  If they are going to turn their season around, it needs to start Sunday night.  And if they can't turn their season around, then Sunday night is still a big game, because beating the Packers makes a bad season palatable for the Bears.  Given the Bears strong defense, and the Packers' vulnerabilities on defense, I expect a close game, but one that the Packers should win.

Getting Used to Ugly

Aaron Jones scores, Photo by Mark Hoffman, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

More of the same from the Packers last week.  This time, after taking a 21-3 lead in the second half, the Packers' offense went as cold as Lambeau Field in January, while letting the Bears creep back into the game.  The game didn't end until the final play, a Cal Band-type play, when Tramon Williams finally stopped the madness by recovering a deflected lateral at the Packers' 2 yard line.  The 21-13 win, combined with a Rams loss later in the day, was enough to put the Packers back in the playoffs for the first time in 3 years.  And since they only need one more win to secure the division, they have a 91% chance to win the division, and a 42% chance to get a bye week, which they can accomplish most easily by winning both remaining games.

The Packers' 11-3 record ought to make fans happy.  But their inconsistency of play has resulted in some very ugly wins, of which the Bears game was another one.  Article after article this week makes it seem as if the only word you can put before "win" is "ugly," at least if you are discussing the 2019 Green Bay Packers.  They may have won 11 games, but in 9 of those wins, the Packers led by only a single score (8 points or less) at some point in the fourth quarter.  The wins over the Raiders and Cowboys are the only exceptions.  Those two games were not complete performances, either, but at least no nail-biting was required in the fourth quarter.

I didn't find the Bears game as upsetting as some of the others, because Packers-Bears games are almost always close, hard-fought battles between the ancient rivals.  They have now played 200 games against each other, and while there have been some blowouts (the first game I ever went to was a Packers blowout of the Bears in 1962, 49-0), most of them have been close games battled out to the bitter end.  So I wasn't surprised with the way the game ended up, but gratified that the Packers won.

I think much of the fan dissatisfaction and anxiety has to do with the fact that we know (or think we know) that the Packers are capable of better play than the way they are playing.  So we want to see the Packers establish their identity as a good to great team by playing 60 minutes on offense, and 60 minutes on defense, and put together a convincing win against a good team.  Hell, we would take a convincing win against any team, good or bad, at this point.  The fear is that if they don't start playing up to what we think is their potential, they are going to get bounced out of the playoffs, rather unceremoniously, as soon as they come up against a good team, which will probably be in the first game.  At the moment, from week to week, we don't know if we should expect an ugly win, or a really ugly loss.  The one thing we are losing faith that we will see is a convincing win.

Aaron Nagler says, "maybe winning ugly IS their identity."  Chris Havel says, "If the Packers' identity is 'winning ugly' so be it."  The funny thing is, they might actually be on to something.  Older fans will remember teams like the "Cardiac Pack" and the "Cardiac Cards."  The identity of those teams was that they would find ways to come from behind and win games at the end.  And we have certainly seen Packers teams over the years that would find ways to lose most of the close games that they could have won.  Well, the Packers in 2019 are kind of the opposite.  They aren't generally coming from behind, so they are not like the old Cardiac Pack, but they almost always find a way to win close games that they could have lost.  The only close game they have lost was the game against the Eagles.  I am not sure that winning like this is sustainable into the playoffs, although it looks as if we will get the chance to find out soon enough.  But if this is winning ugly, I will take it as long as they continue to win.

The Vikings are usually also a tough matchup for the Packers, especially when the game is in Minnesota.  The Packers haven't yet won a game in the Vikings' new stadium, and they weren't so great in the Vikings' last stadium, either (remember the T.J. Rubley game, for instance?).  The Vikings have good weapons on offense (although Dalvin Cook might miss this game), and their defense is in some ways similar to the Packers: lots of bend but not much break, generating turnovers, etc.  While the Vikings trail the Packers by a game in the standings, they have scored more points on offense, and given up fewer points on defense.

Channeling Denny Green for a moment, I am not ready to crown the Vikings' ass just yet.  They have already been beaten by the Packers and Bears, as well as the Chiefs and Seahawks, so they are not unbeatable.  Despite some underwhelming play by the Packers in general, and Rodgers in particular, at times this year, I will still take Aaron Rodgers over Kirk Cousins, at the end of a close game, any time.  So I would like to see the Packers play their first complete game of the year, and blow the Vikings out of their dome.  But I doubt that will happen, and I will gladly take another ugly win.  Of necessity, I am getting used to ugly wins.

Another "Unsatisfying" Win

Lots of My Relatives Were at the Game

Happy Days are here again!  (Well, sort of.)  The good news is that the Packers, by beating the Redskins Sunday (20-15), have recorded their 10th win out of 13 games.  In so doing, Matt LaFleur became the first coach in the history of the Packers to get 10 wins in his first season.  Special shout out to all my family members who attended the game, including relatives from Israel.  Wish I could have been there!

The Packers now have a 93% chance of making the playoffs, according to FiveThirtyEight.com.  Also, with the 49ers' win over the Saints on Sunday (and other results), the Packers' chances of getting a first round bye have improved to 37%.  (I admit that I had to rinse the foul taste out of my mouth after rooting for the 49ers comeback.)

With Thanksgiving in the recent past, it is worth noting and giving thanks for how much better the Packers' situation is this year, as compared to the years we have had in the past where, at this time of the season, we would have to sit around and say something like, "let's see, if the Packers win out, and the Vikings lose 2 out of 3, or if the Eagles, Rams and Seahawks each lose 2 out of 3, then the Packers will sneak into the playoffs."  And of course the last two years were even worse, when the Packers finished with losing records and well out of the playoffs.

But the bad news is that the Packers looked, how shall I say it?  "Uninspired?"  They started out hot, going up 14 points in the first quarter, then let the Redskins creep back into the game, with the Packers only winning by 5 points.  Almost a carbon copy of the Giants game last week, except at least in the Giants game the Packers threw in the flourish of two touchdowns in the 4th quarter to pull away.  This time they got a field goal in the third quarter, and another in the fourth, to put the game just slightly out of reach of the weak Redskins team, playing with a hobbled rookie quarterback.  (The fast start the last two weeks with the Packers' opening scripted plays raises the half-serious suggestion, "why not script the first 50 plays if the script works so well?")  The way the team played on Sunday, you could maybe see the Packers win a home playoff game, if they are lucky enough to get one, but you have to scratch your head to figure out how the Packers would go about winning a game on the road against the 49ers, Saints, Seahawks, or even the Vikings.

I actually have some sympathy for LaFleur, Rodgers and the other players, who have to face all these questions about why the win wasn't more convincing.  I get it, style points are not included in the Win-Loss columns, and it is a good thing they aren't, because the Packers are short on style points this year.  You should not have to apologize for a 10-3 record.  But it is frustrating (for players and fans alike) that they still haven't put together a complete game all year.

You could say that they had a pretty complete game on defense against the Bears in Week 1, and a pretty complete game on offense against the Raiders in Week 7.  But they really haven't come close to putting the pieces together in a single game.  In this connection, I can't help but mention that the game against the Redskins was the first game in which all aspects of the special teams looked good.  No penalties that I recall, no missed kicks, good punts, and for the first time all year, a return game with new returner Tyler ("Swervin") Ervin.  Ervin has single-handedly, in his first game, saved the Packers from setting the record for worst punt-return yardage in an entire season.

Let's take a step back.  Obviously, nobody expected the Packers to do this well this year, with a rookie coach.  We probably expected something more akin to a rebuilding year than a title run.  It is worth remembering that, as I said a few weeks ago, the Packers are mostly finding ways to win games this year that they would have lost in prior years.  I saw a statistic that the Packers were 3-6-1 in one-score games last year, while they are 6-1 this year.  All of this is good, even if the Packers are not providing the "wow" factor where fans and teams can't see how anyone can beat this team.

Still, every week, I keep thinking that this will be the week for everything to gel, but it has not happened yet.  If the Packers could just switch on their complete game at will, they should have thrown the switch by now.  Meanwhile, other leading teams (most prominently, the Ravens) seem to be peaking at the right time, with the playoffs around the corner.

This week the Bears come to town, boasting a 3 game winning streak, and clinging to slim playoff hopes.  A loss to the Packers will essentially end any hopes of the Bears for the playoffs.  A win by the Packers will clinch a playoff berth for Green Bay.  This is the 200th meeting of the two teams, with the Packers holding a slim all-time edge over their big-city rivals.  The game will be played in the cold at Lambeau Field (current projected high is 14 degrees.)  This game is actually a huge game for both teams, and we know that the Bears will be motivated.  Will the Packers?  And if not now, then when?

Packers' Best Defense in Years?

Game-Saving INT by Adrian Amos, Photo by Mark Hoffman, Milwaukee J-S

After all these months of waiting to see the new Matt LaFleur-led Packers, I didn't have much idea what to expect in the regular season.  First, we had to suffer through another meaningless preseason, with some unfortunate injuries, but without ever seeing Rodgers, most of the offensive starters, or many of the defensive starters on the field.  The Packers didn't look very good, even though they won the two home games, but with the joke the preseason has become, there was at least room to hope that they would look better when the games started to count.

And yet, the much-vaunted 100th season opener, on the road against the Bears, promised to be a tough one, given the strength of the Bears' defense.  Mitch Trubisky is still a question mark, but the Bears have a new rookie running back who looks like he might be a good one (David Montgomery), and the Bears also have some quality receivers, even though one (Trey Burton) missed this game.  But it wasn't the Bears' offense that worried me, it was the Bears' defense, the same one that knocked Rodgers into sub-par play for all of last year, that was really the cause for concern.

The addition by the Packers of some quality rookie and free-agent defenders carried with it the possibility of improvement, but I honestly did not expect the Packers' defense to match the Bears' defense, play for play.  The most prominent free-agent acquisitions were the two Smiths, Preston and Za'Darius, and Adrian Amos.  All three made a real difference in this game, and two of them provided the decisive plays that sealed the game.  The Smith "brothers" came up with 8 combined tackles and 2.5 sacks, while Amos contributed the decisive interception.

Both defenses played very well, as should be obvious given that the game score was 10-3.  But the Packers broke through and mounted one perfect TD drive to start the second quarter.  And that single drive was the difference in the game, as the Packers' defense only gave up a field goal the entire game.  The rest of the time, they just stopped the Bears in their tracks, time after time, including on 12 of the Bears' third down plays, and both of their fourth down plays.

Still, the game wasn't over until ex-Bear defensive back Adrian Amos intercepted Trubisky in the end zone with 2 minutes left.  And even then, it wasn't quite over, as the Bears got one final chance, thanks in part to the Packers taking a chance and throwing an incomplete pass when they were trying to ice the game.  But that last-ditch chance was snuffed out by Preston Smith's 4th down sack of Trubisky.

Speaking of that decisive touchdown drive, my reaction watching the miserable first quarter was this.  Under the way preseasons were conducted until a few years ago, Rodgers and the starters would probably have played about one quarter of one game in the preseason.  They didn't do that this year, and it looked like it in the first quarter.  NBC flashed the stat that the Packers lost 17 yards on the first two drives, making them the worst two drives to start a game for Rodgers as a starter.  After they got that lousy quarter behind them (the quarter they should have played in the preseason), it was time to shake off the rust and play like the Packers.

And lo and behold, that is exactly what they did, although it was mostly that one drive at the beginning of the second quarter.  Four for four passing, 74 yards, and a TD pass to Jimmy Graham.  Boom!  We watched the game on vacation in Hawaii with our friends Stan and Lorri (see photo below).  But my daughter and I, watching the game from 5 time zones away from each other, had exactly the same reaction to the Graham TD.  This was exactly what we expected to see from Jimmy Graham last year, but rarely saw.  Rodgers with the confidence to throw it to Graham, even though he was well covered, and Graham with the skill to pull the ball in despite the coverage.

With this somewhat improbable, 10-3 upset win, the Packers managed to beat their ancient rival, go a game up and a tie-breaker against them, and pull off a win on the road to start the season.  They also, according to the excellent NBC statistics crew, managed to hand the Bears their first loss, when the opponent scores 10 or fewer points, since 1932.  Now that is an obscure statistic, one for which they had to dig pretty deep.

And now, the Packers get the luxury of having 10 days to prepare for their home opener against the Vikings.  A win there will give them a great start to the season.

Stan, Lorri, Your Humble Blogger, and Judy, Watching the Game in Hawaii

Can the Packers Put Together a Winning Streak?

Interim Coach Joe Philbin, Photo by Wm. Glasheen, USA Today

The Packers have not had back-to-back wins all year long.  Such is the misery of a 4-7-1 season.  They will get a 5th chance this week to start a winning streak.

Sunday's game against the Falcons, which the Packers won 34-20, was the first game under the leadership of Interim Head Coach Joe Philbin (or Coach Fill-In, as the guys from the Packers Therapy Podcast call him). 

A week after losing to the 2-10 Cardinals in embarrassing fashion, the Packers put together a pretty good showing against the Falcons, a team similar to the Packers in that they are a talented team having a bad season.  The Falcons and the Packers, after all, were in the NFC Championship Game just two seasons ago in January, 2017.  This suggests to me that neither team is as bad as its 2018 season record.  And the win over the Falcons shows me that the Packers are not as bad as they looked the week before.

There were a few surprises for me on offense.  First, the Packers went pass-heavy in the first half, throwing on about 80% of their offensive plays.  I would have expected them to try to establish the running game.  Switching things up surprised me, and I think it may have surprised the Falcons, as well.  That is a good sign, that Philbin designed a game plan that went against what would be expected.  Better yet, many of those pass plays were quick-release plays, which many of us have been calling for all year.  With a makeshift offensive line, it doesn't take a genius to see that Rodgers should get rid of the ball quickly.  I am just glad that they actually did it. 

Second, I re-watched most of the game, and the thing that struck me was how few obvious audibles there were on offense.  We can't know if Rodgers changes some plays in the huddle, and he might have alternate play calls that he can signal with a simple word or number from the line of scrimmage.  But I saw very few of the traditional audibles, where it is obvious that the play is being changed at the line of scrimmage.  I take this to mean that Rodgers and Philbin were more in sync on the play calls than Rodgers and McCarthy have been this year. And given that this was the first game that Philbin has called as an NFL coach, it would not surprise me if he gave extra deference to the experienced play-caller behind center. 

Now, beating the Falcons was, by itself, no big deal.  It is not unusual or unexpected for a team to rally in the first game after a coach is fired, and there are presumably all kinds of psychological factors that lead to such a result.  But now that that first game is behind them, what happens for the rest of the season, and does it matter if the Packers still have theoretical playoff hopes?  They theoretically are in the playoff race as of now, and if they were to win the rest of their games, it might get interesting, as the other things that need to happen are not completely outlandish to contemplate.  The Packers play at the Bears this week, then at the Jets, and finish at home against the Lions.  While the Cardinals game shows that there are no gimmes for the 2018 Packers, let's just take it as a given that the Packers have a pretty good chance of beating the Jets and Lions.  What about the Bears on Sunday?

On one side, you have the newly resurgent Bears, who after blowing a huge lead to the Packers in Week One, have played pretty well the rest of the season, with last week's shutting down of the Rams being maybe their best game of the year.  Only two teams, the Cowboys and Ravens, have given up fewer points.  Mitch Trubisky looks like he is for real in his second year, Tarik Cohen is an important factor in both the rushing and receiving game for the Bears, and the receivers and tight ends have contributed 17 touchdown catches of their own.  Heck, the Bears even have a serviceable backup quarterback who can step in and win a game or two for them (imagine that!).  A bunch of big pluses for the Bears.

On the other side is . . . Aaron Rodgers.  His mastery over the Bears is very similar to that of his predecessor.  Both QBs were dominant over the Bears, at home and at Soldier Field.  Rodgers has won 16 of his 20 starts against the Bears, and one of those 4 losses was when the Bears broke his collarbone in the first quarter.  But very few, if any, of those wins were against Bears teams as good as this year's version.  So we will see.  Being a realistic observer, I am expecting the Bears to win this week, effectively ending the Packers' playoff hopes, and possibly affecting the way the team approaches the final two weeks.  But with Rodgers at quarterback, anything can happen.  I hope it does.

Rodgers Puts Together an Instant Classic

Cobb's Game-Winning TD, Photo by Wm Glasheen, USA Today

What a tale of two halves.  And what a tale of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.  One of the best offensive players in the league (and the highest paid), in Aaron Rodgers, meeting one of the best defensive players in the league (and the highest paid), in Khalil Mack.  As bad as the offense and defense looked in the first half, they looked just that good in the second half.

We actually had to watch most of the game on DVR Sunday night, as we had to leave the house when the game was just starting for Rosh Hashanah services, and didn't get back until about 2 hours later.  In the meantime, we had turned off our cell phones and left them off, and turned off the answering machine so that we didn't have to listen to any messages coming in, and we turned off the car radio.  By the time we finished watching the game, it was almost midnight, Lambeau time.  So this is a bit of a stream of consciousness recap of how we learned what had happened.

We didn't know that Rodgers had been knocked out of the game, and taken off on a cart, until we got back home.   When we saw the injury, I thought one of the bones in his leg had broken based on the way the Bears player landed on the leg.  I was envisioning another lost season, or at a minimum wondering how many weeks Rodgers would have to miss.  I wasn't feeling too excited about traveling from the west coast this coming week to watch DeShone Kizer getting beat up by the Vikings.  And I was wondering how my fantasy team would survive.

But Rodgers miraculously appeared on the field, ready to play the second half.  It was obvious that he was hobbled by his knee injury, and therefore obvious that he was more vulnerable than usual to oncoming pass rushers, especially from Khalil Mack, who was like a human wrecking ball in the first half.  He was only expected to play limited snaps, but the Bears threw that plan out the window when they saw the instant impact he had on the game.  Oh, now I get why the Bears were willing to pay so much to bring him to Chicago.  But once Rodgers returned, the Packers started playing a lot of no huddle offense, and the TV announcers were exactly right in observing that the pass rush dropped off as soon as the Packers started running no huddle.  They just could not keep up with the pace of the offense and started to tire out. Meanwhile, defensive coordinator Mike Pettine also made adjustments, and after the two opening drives for the Bears, the defensive squad only gave up two more field goals for the rest of the game.

I only took one call while we were watching the game.  We got a call from our daughter, who was stuck in traffic on the way back from the game with her partner.  I answered and immediately yelled "we are only in the third quarter, can I call you back when we are done?"  She asked me how much time was left in the third quarter, and I said 5 minutes.  She said, "OK, I want to talk to you about the game when you finish."  On the surface, I learned nothing from this call.  And yet, I did not hear the slightest hint of dejection in her voice, and I would have expected to pick up on some.  The score was 20-0 at the time.  I didn't say this to my wife, but I began to wonder if somehow they had pulled off a miracle.

And then it was 20-3 after Rodgers' first drive of the third quarter.  Too bad they didn't get a touchdown, now they still needed three more scores (and a shutout or near shutout) to possibly win.  Soon, it was 20-10, thanks to a quick drive and a sensational pass from Rodgers (on one foot) and an excellent catch by Geronimo Allison in the corner of the end zone, on a 39 yard touchdown.  Hey, there were still 14 minutes left.  Who knows?  Around this time, my wife and I started to exchange looks, that, loosely translated, meant, "What do you think?  Could they possibly do this?"

Just a few minutes later, it was 20-17, thanks to another extremely efficient, 6 play, 75 yard drive.  And there were still 9 minutes left.  Unfortunately, the Bears, who had been quiet for most of the second half, put together a pretty good drive, converting third downs when necessary, and eating up 6 of the 9 minutes left on the clock.  But the Packers defense finally stiffened and forced a 32 yard field goal to make it 23-17.

Well, what do you know?  If they could somehow pull it off, this wouldn't be the first game-winning drive Rodgers engineered in the last 3 minutes.  Not even the first one against the Bears, and not the first one involving Randall Cobb.  When Rodgers hit Cobb for a short pass that Cobb turned into a 75 yard TD (who knew he still had that much speed and shiftiness?), the only problem was that they scored too fast, and left over two minutes on the clock for the Bears. The Packers would have to stop the Bears on downs to preserve the win.  And they did!  In fact they had to do it twice, when Clay Matthews (who didn't have a very good game overall) committed an inexcusable roughing the passer penalty on what should have been the game-clinching, fourth-down incompletion.  If the Bears had gone on to score and win, Matthews would have been the goat, and not the Greatest Of All Time kind, just the plain old goat.  But five plays later, Nick Perry bailed out his fellow linebacker with a fourth-down strip sack, preserving the miraculous 24-23 win.

It was my wife's observation, but one with which I agreed, that this game was sort of reminiscent of the famous "Irvin Favre" game in Oakland, the night after Favre's father died.  Yes, Favre and Rodgers played unbelievably well; but it was also the case that their teammates stepped up and played over their heads, in order to support their team leader.  If they can preserve and maintain just a little of that extra something in coming games, it will be a big plus.

I think there are some significant take-aways from this game.  The first is that maybe it isn't such a great idea to have your starting offense only play 5 plays together during the entire preseason.  I understand why they do it, in view of the season-ending injury to Jordy Nelson a couple years ago, but you cannot convince me that the lack of playing time together had nothing to do with the sluggishness of the offense in the first half.  To a lesser extent, I felt the same way about the defense.  They seemed lost and outcoached during the first half, and I wonder if more playing time as a unit might have helped them out as well.  I know the coach will have none of this, but I hope deep down inside somewhere, he takes the point.

The second thing is that the Packers should turn to the fast paced, or even no huddle offense, whenever they are having trouble getting things started.  Heck, start the game with it and see what happens.  It is so obvious that Rodgers is the master of the fast-paced offense, and it is equally obvious that it puts the defense at a serious disadvantage.  If you have Rodgers behind center, you have a natural advantage going in.  But if you really want to put the defense back on its heels, have Rodgers run the fast-paced offense.

Finally, they are going to have to play better than this to win the game on Sunday against the Vikings.  No holes to be dug out of; no sluggishness on offense or defense; more pass protection and quick-release passes from the very beginning of the game, not just after your quarterback almost gets knocked out for an extended period.  With an injured Rodgers, and with the Vikings looking very good against the 49ers this past week, you would think that the advantage goes to the Vikings.  But it was the Vikings who took Rodgers out last year.  That ought to be a little motivation for the team to play with emotion and intensity again.  I just hope they start that way from the very start.

Packers Need to Keep Winning

Rodgers Greets Hundley After the Decisive TD Pass

Please allow me to  have a large snack of crow (or Raven, given this week's game).  I had seen nothing in the last 3 games to suggest that Hundley was capable of having as good a game as he had against the Bears on Sunday, or that the Packers' defense is capable of stopping anybody with consistency, over a full 60 minute game.  But the Packers did both in beating the Bears, 23-16, at Soldier Field.  Now, let's not get too excited, it is only the Bears, but still, what a nice little win to keep the Packers' season interesting for at least another week or two. 

On the bad news/good news front, Aaron Jones injured his knee during the first quarter, Ty Montgomery (re) injured his ribs in the second quarter, and Brett Hundley injured his hamstring, although nobody outside the Packers organization knew about Hundley's injury until after the game.  It appeared to me as if the injury probably happened early in the game, as Hundley didn't seem to have as much "escapability" in the pocket as I expected.  But the Packers were able to keep things rolling, even with Jamaal Williams, their third string running back, and with an injured Brett Hundley. 

By far the funniest play of the day (if not the year) was Coach Fox's challenge of a ruling in the first half.  Cunningham, the Bears' running back, was trying to get to the end zone, and was diving for the pylon.  He was ruled out of bounds at the 2.  Fox challenged, claiming he did not step out of bounds, and it was a TD when he reached out and touched the pylon with the ball.  On review, the determination was made that (1) he never stepped out of bounds; but (2) he lost control of the ball as he was reaching for the pylon, so when the loose ball hit the pylon, it became Packers ball and a touchback.  You could sort of see this in the first several angles shown on TV, if you were really looking for it, but it was not obvious.  The people upstairs who advised Fox to challenge it had obviously not seen the one shot that clearly, and without the slightest doubt, shows that the ball had come loose before hitting the pylon.  So what seemed like a slightly aggressive challenge (after all, they would have had the ball on the 2 yard line, anyway), turned into a disastrous miscalculation.  And that was a key play in the game, as the Bears were seemingly poised to tie up the game, 10-10, but for the ill-considered challenge.

So the Packers find themselves at 5-4, in at least theoretical contention for a wild card spot, and with the Ravens coming to town.  Heck, they are tied with a bunch of teams for the wild card spots at 5-4, but the Falcons and Lions would beat them out based on head-to-head record.  Meanwhile, fan enthusiasm for the Packers seems to be waning, and what with a Rodgers-less Packers team, and the start of the hunting season, tickets are selling for well below face value for this game.  Can they keep it going against the bye-rested, 4-5 Ravens?  Every game they win now keeps things interesting; every game they lose approaches a nail in the coffin.  Before Rodgers' injury, everyone would have assumed that this would be a Packers win.  But now, the Ravens are favored, even as a road team at Lambeau Field. 

I watched the Ravens' last game, against the Titans two weeks ago.  They lost, 23-20, but they did almost nothing in the game until the 4th quarter.  Sounds a little like the Packers?  One of these teams should just pretend it is the 4th quarter at the beginning of the game!  Obviously, the defense plays differently in the 4th quarter, and in the case of the Titans-Ravens games, the two 4th quarter TDs can to some extent be seen as garbage-time TDs.  But still, how refreshing it would be to see the Packers come out in an up-tempo offense at the beginning of the game, and maybe put some points on the board right away. 

Anyway, the Ravens, statistically, have the worst passing offense in the league (although it is only fair to note that if you limited the stats to the last 4 weeks, the Packers would be right down there, too).  They have an above average rushing offense, and an above average passing defense, but they are nothing special against the run.  So the Packers can potentially pull off an "upset" in this game, if only they game-plan appropriately for the Ravens.  An offensive game plan emphasizing the running game, and including short passes as an extension of the running game, makes sense to me.  On defense, this is one of those teams where the Packers should concentrate on the run and force Joe Flacco to beat them in the air.

When the Ravens come tapping at the door of Lambeau Field on Sunday, let's hope the Packers send them away with nothing to show for it.

Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before. Surely," said I, "surely that is something at my window lattice: Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore — Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; — 'Tis the wind and nothing more." 

Edgar Allan Poe, The Raven

Packers are in a Heap of Trouble Now

Brett Hundley, All Alone, Photo by Evan Siegle, Packers.com

On Monday night, the Packers started off the game on a positive note, on both offense and defense.  On offense, the Packers marched down the field on a scoring drive, ultimately having to settle for a field goal.  On defense, the Packers forced a 3 and out in the Lions' first drive.  EXCEPT . . . Except, the Crosby field goal was blocked, and a penalty on Mike Daniels prolonged the drive, resulting in a Lions' TD.  So instead of 3-0 Green Bay, it was 7-0 Detroit.  And it was all downhill from there.  If you imagine the alternate endings to both those drives, would it have made a difference?  Probably not in the long run, but it would have at least prolonged the illusion of competitiveness.

On a couple of levels, you could say Brett Hundley wasn't the problem on Monday.  He had no interceptions, no fumbles, no huge mistakes.  And the problems on defense were so severe that even a better performance by Hundley would not have resulted in a win. 

Still, there seem to be two successful models in the NFL for surviving with backup quarterbacks, and neither model is working for the Packers right now.  One method is to have a veteran, former starter in the league as the backup, ready to step in at a moment's notice.  Think of Ryan Fitzpatrick on the Buccaneers this year, or Tony Romo as the backup for the Cowboys last year.  Or even Jimmy Garappolo when he has still the Patriots' backup.  The other model is to have a young, talented player being groomed for his big moment.  Brett Favre back in 1992, Aaron Rodgers in 2005-2007, Tom Brady back in the Drew Bledsoe days.  I was willing to give McCarthy the benefit of the doubt with Hundley, given his reputation as a mentor of quarterbacks, and the fact that he has been preparing him for the better part of three seasons.  But after almost three full games, it doesn't appear that Hundley fits the "young, talented player" model, and he is obviously not a veteran, former starter.  I am afraid he is just a journeyman backup quarterback, and you don't win many games with journeyman backups.  If you think I am being tough on him, take a look at this article, pointed out to me by my buddy (and fellow shareholder) Peter Chen.

Which is not to take McCarthy off the hook for the way he is managing Hundley during the games (as opposed to in mentoring him for this day).  There needs to be a greater emphasis on the running game, and on passing plays suited to Hundley's talents.  There is no use having him throw deep; he is not going to complete those passes.  So stretch the defense with mid-range passes that actually have a chance to be completed!

The real story, though, is how pathetic the defense looked.  They did a nice job of stopping the run, but passing against them was like child's play for Matt Stafford.  They get no pressure on the passer without a blitz, and as a result a skilled quarterback can just shred them (to use the term the Monday night crew used repeatedly during the broadcast).  You know your defense is no good when the other team does not have to punt once in the entire game.

The defense has been the Packers' Achilles Heel (apologies to Richard Sherman) for too many years, now.  There have been injuries, of course, but there are always injuries.  The fact that the defense has been a problem is illustrated by the fact that the Packers have devoted 11 draft picks in the first 4 rounds of the last 3 drafts (4 each in 2017 and 2016, and 3 in 2015).  So you could say that the Packers have drafted an entire starting lineup full of high round defensive players in the last 3 years, and yet the results are very poor.  I have never been on the "fire Capers" bandwagon until now, as I didn't think it was wise, with a perennial title contending team, to just fire a coordinator and start over with a new system.  I'm not sure I am quite there yet, but I am sizing up the height and speed of the bandwagon like a cat, judging whether to jump on.

Well, if two weeks were not enough time for the Packers to prepare to play the Lions at home, one wonders how the Packers will do on the road in Chicago on a short week?  For my entire life, I had been waiting for the Packers to catch up with, and then surpass, the Bears in all-time record between the two teams.  They finally caught up last season, and then went ahead of the Bears this year in week 4, and now lead the Bears 95-94-6.  This was the first time the Packers have led the series since 1932. 

It will be heartbreaking if after going ahead in week 4, the Packers fall back into a tie in week 10.  And yet I don't know how one can predict a Packers victory, the way they are playing right now.  It remains to be seen whether Mitchell Trubisky is the starting quarterback the Bears have been searching for all these years.  His passing stats in the four games he has started are unimpressive, and yet he has won 2 of those 4 games, with wins against the Ravens and Panthers.  The results have been better for Trubisky, after half a season in preparation, than they have been for Hundley, after 2.5 years in preparation. 

My motto for this week's game is the same as the title of the old Mel Brooks song, "Hope for the Best, Expect the Worst."

Tougher Tests Lie Ahead

I argued last week that the Packers have been starting games off too sluggishly, and that they need to come ready to play and get off to better starts, as the furious comeback model is not a good look for the Packers, or a good road to getting a lot of wins.  Sometimes that last-second pass gets dropped, or tipped and intercepted, and the comeback falls short.  Well, the Bears last Thursday night seem to be just what the doctor ordered.  By the time the first 6 minutes of the game had been played, the Packers led 14-0, and they never led by less than 14 points for the rest of the game.

While I had assumed, based on the Bears-Steelers game, that the Bears must have been better than my initial impression, that game must have been something of a fluke.  They certainly were not an impressive squad on Thursday night, and indeed the Bears have now pulled the plug on Mike Glennon and will now start Mitch Trubisky this coming week.  The point is, the Packers' fast start might have more to do with the ineptness of the Bears than it does with a greatly improved Packers' approach to the game.

Speaking of fast starts and furious comebacks, the playoff game at Dallas last year was almost the mirror image of some of the Packers' games this year.  The Packers led the game by 18 points early on, and then by 15 points a little later, before allowing the Cowboys to stage the furious comeback, which led to the last minute heroics by Rodgers, Jared Cook and ultimately Mason Crosby.  Two of the big and somewhat unexpected stars of that game were Jared Cook and Ty Montgomery.  Cook led all Packers receivers with 104 yards, and while Montgomery only had 47 yards rushing, he also scored two touchdowns.  Obviously, Cook is gone, and Montgomery is unlikely to play on Sunday.  There is no indication so far this season that Martellus Bennett is an upgrade at tight end, which the Packers must have expected when they let Cook go and signed Bennett.  This would be a great game for him to step up and finally have a big day.  Whoever does play running back, whether Williams or Jones, will  also need to step up to keep the Cowboys defense honest.  If, as appears possible, both Bulaga and Bakhtiari will be ready to play their first snaps together on Sunday, this would be a huge plus for the Packers.

I expect a close game.  Neither team is playing now at the level they were playing in the playoffs last year.  The Packers' offense may leave something to be desired, but at times they have looked improved on defense.  If they can bottle up Ezekiel Elliott and force Dak Prescott to try to beat them in the air, I think the Packers have a good shot to win the game.  Go Pack!

Packers Need to Get Off to a Faster Start

The Snap on the Game-Tying TD, photo by Tom Freeman

I think we are starting to see a disturbing pattern here with the Packers.  In the last few years, many of us have complained that the Packers sometimes have a tendency to start out the season slowly.  While none of the recent seasons fit the critique exactly, last year's team can illustrate the point.  By the time 10 games had been played, the Packers were sitting at 4-6.  It took a somewhat remarkable "running of the table" for them to get to the playoffs and ultimately to the NFC Championship Game.  

This year, we are seeing the same issue in microcosm, with the Packers starting out each game slowly, before turning it on in the second half and winning 2 out of the first 3 games.  They trailed Seattle 0-3 at halftime, before winning 17-9.  They trailed the Falcons 7-24 at halftime, before at least making it close and losing, 23-34.  They trailed the Bengals on Sunday 7-21 at halftime, before winning the game in overtime, 27-24.  My friend Harv, from whose palatial estate this blog post is being written, thinks that the Packers frequently have started games slowly, even in prior years.  I took a look at a few of the box scores from last year, and I don't think that was the case, but it certainly seems to be their routine this year.  Harv goes a step further and argues that the team, and in particular Rodgers, start out the games with a lack of urgency, almost a lackadaisical approach to the games, and  only turn on the jets later in the game.  I think my wife, Judy, agrees with at least part of Harv's argument on this.  I don't know that I agree, as I was not really watching for that when watching the games live.  I will be watching the Thursday night game, and any game I get a chance to go back and re-watch next week, with a special eye for the energy level and urgency level of the Packers, on both sides of the ball, during the early part of the games.

All in all, the Packers are lucky to be 2-1 after three games, and I suspect that all of us realize that this business of playing sluggishly in the first half, and then getting it together in the second half, just is not sustainable as a means to get to the playoffs. They could easily have lost the Bengals game on Sunday.  For example, if the Bengals had not missed a field goal earlier in the game, or if the Packers had not put together their most impressive stop of the day on the opening drive of overtime, or if Geronimo Allison did not haul in the bomb on the free play; in any of these circumstances the Packers would likely have lost the game.  Almost by definition, last-minute heroics will not save the day every time.  And when they get behind to a high quality opponent, like the Falcons, they are unlikely to be able to make up the deficit.  They are going to have to learn to start games faster, and there is no time like the present, with the Chicago Bears, carrying some renewed optimism, riding into town.  If they can just keep it together, despite their many injuries, and bring home another win on Thursday night, then they will be 3-1, with a mini-bye to get healthy, before a stretch of difficult games in October.  

*   *   *   *

This is a football blog, not a political one.  But one can't really write a football-related blog post this particular week without acknowledging the whole national anthem protest issue.  My attitude on this is as follows.  Nobody who has thought about this and knows something about our civil rights doubts that athletes have a right to kneel, lock arms, sit down, or do anything else they want to do during the national anthem.  I certainly believe that.  But just because something is legal does not mean that it is right or even a good idea.  It is also legal for football players to skydive, bungee jump, and race motorcycles.  But all three are probably contrary to the player contracts, and all three are definitely a bad idea for football players to do during their playing careers.  In my mind, if you do anything other than listen, sing along, and put your hand over your heart during the anthem, you are showing some degree of disrespect for the country and the flag.  If you do this intentionally, for the purpose of scoring a political point, then you are certainly showing disrespect.  Politicizing the national anthem by protesting it may be legal, but it isn't right.  So I am not in favor of locking arms, or sitting, or kneeling during the national anthem.  I think the Packers' players and management are wrong to suggest that the anthem should be politicized in this fashion.  

Nor do I agree with those who vow to never watch the NFL or the Packers again.  I was a Packers fan before the current crop of players were even born.  God willing,  I will be alive and rooting for the Packers when the last of the current players is retired.  My fan interest in the Packers does not depend on the conduct or attitude of the current players or the current management of the team.  As a shareholder, my involvement with the team is permanent; as players and management, their involvement is more temporary.

Not everything needs to be, or should be, political, all of the time, although right now one side or the other seeks to politicize almost everything.  I regret that the players chose to politicize football and the national anthem.  I regret that the President decided to inflame the situation with his ill-thought-out comments.  I hope we can all get back to plain old football, and soon.

Two More to Run the Table!

Montgomery Running Free, Photo by Evan Siegle, Packers.com

On last week's Bears game, which the Packers won, 30-27, let's not forget one thing.  If Davante Adams caught either of the two touchdown passes that he dropped, we wouldn't all have been having heart attacks late in the 4th quarter.  I am a big fan of Davante Adams, but not only did he not help the team on Sunday, he hurt it by having catchable touchdown passes thrown his way, and then dropping them.  Let's hope he turns things around in the next two games.  He has now shredded the gloves he used last week, so I suppose that is a start.

The all-time record between the Packers and Bears is now tied, at 94-94-6.  This is the first time that the Packers have not trailed the Bears, all-time, since 1933.  We can thank 25 years of Favre and Rodgers at quarterback, and Holmgren and McCarthy (and the others) at coach for evening the score in games.  And in points, the all-time record now stands at Green Bay, 3,335, Chicago, 3,331.  When you stop to think of how close the games and points have been, how this is the oldest rivalry, and how the rivalry has the City Slicker vs. Country Bumpkin aspect to add to it, it is not hard to understand how this is really the greatest rivalry in the history of the game.  At times over the last 25 years, the rivalry may have seemed more intense with the Vikings, or with the Cowboys or 49ers or Seahawks, and maybe this year and last with the Lions, but nothing really matches up with Packers-Bears.

I don't think the game announcers ever mentioned the direction that the wind was blowing during the game.  But I think it had to have been blowing from left to right, as you watch the TV broadcast.  With two exceptions, all the rest of the points in the game were scored by the team moving from left to right, i.e., with the wind if my supposition is correct.  The only exceptions were Crosby's late second quarter field goal, set up by (one of several) huge runs by Ty Montgomery, and the game-winning field goal by Crosby as time expired, set up by the improbable 60 yard bomb to Jordy Nelson.  This can't be a coincidence.  The wind must have played a significant role in this game, even though the backup announcing crew never mentioned it.

In thinking about the impact of the wind, consider that this is another of those games where McCarthy and Capers can be accused of going (at least in large part) to the prevent defense and the kill-the-clock or prevent offense.  After all, they were leading 27-10 after three quarters.  All they had to do was run some clock, and keep the ball in front of them on defense.  What are the chances that the Bears, with their whatever-string quarterback, will score 17 points in the 4th quarter, after scoring a total of 10 points in the first 3 quarters?  Well, as it turned out, the chances were 100%, and the Packers should consider themselves lucky that they won the game.  Even when the Packers did try to blitz, rather than play a soft zone, in the 4th quarter, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle, as the Bears now had momentum on their side.

This just drives me nuts.  There is obviously a point in a game, considering the time left and the score at the time, where dialing it back helps to improve the chances of winning, by lessening the chances of an explosive negative play.  And I suppose you could say that things turned out OK; after all the Packers won the game.  But as I said, they are lucky to have won the game.  What happens if Micah Hyde doesn't bat away the touchdown pass on the Bears' final drive, or if the Bears decide to go for it and get a TD on 4th down?  I just don't think there is any question that the Packers dialed it back way too soon, with an entire quarter left, and with the wind (under my theory) at the backs of the Bears.  I just wish that McCarthy and Capers would learn this lesson.  Sometimes you think they have learned it, for example last week against Seattle.  But on Sunday they almost "prevented" the Packers from winning the game with their conservative approach in the 4th quarter.

Anyway, now we have a Christmas eve, Minnesota at Green Bay game tomorrow.  When the Vikings started off at 5-0, including a defensive battle against the Packers, this game had the looks of a division-decider.  After all, the Vikings were 5-0, the Packers were 3-2, and the Lions were 2-3 after 5 games.  But now, the Vikings have gone 2-7 in the next 9 games, including losing 4 of 5 road games (beating only the Jaguars on the road).  They are fighting for a slim shot at a wild card, and more realistically are just fighting to be the spoilers for the Packers.

The Vikings' offense has regressed during the year, and their offensive line is a mess.  The return of Adrian Peterson seemed to do nothing for them last week, and he is still listed as questionable on the injury report.  The Vikings' defense, on the other hand, has played very well for most of the season, keeping them close in the games they lost, even against a team like the Cowboys (to whom they lost, 17-15).  Until last week, that is, when they got blown out, at home, by the Colts, 34-6.  I would be pretty shocked if the Vikings beat the Packers tomorrow.  I think this game has the potential to be a very solid win for the Packers, maybe even permitting some (voluntary!) Brett Hundley time in the 4th quarter.

May the Packers bring Packers' fans all over the world a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah!

Statement Made - Time to Keep it Going

Adams 66 Yard TD, Photo by Evan Siegle, Packers.com

Not only is it Chicago Bears week, it is "tie up the Bears series all time" week.  After blowing the chance last year in the Thanksgiving debacle, the Packers again get a chance to tie up their all time record with the Bears on Sunday, which now stands at 94-93-6 in favor of the Bears.  If they manage to tie up the record, something I have been waiting to see for many years, it will the first time since 1933 that the records have been even.

Meanwhile, according to the current forecast, the HIGH for the day in Chicago on Sunday is expected to be 1 degree.  If that is the kickoff temperature, it would end up becoming the fifth coldest game in Packers history, edging out a Lions game in 1990 during the long-forgotten Blair Kiel era.

I can't think of a convincing case as to why the Packers should lose to the Bears.  The Bears do always play the Packers tough, and last Thanksgiving's Favreapalooza game is perfect evidence of that.  And while the Bears have only won 3 games, those 3 games were against the 49ers (so that one doesn't really count as much of a win) and against the Lions and the Vikings.  And they came very close to knocking off the Lions again last week.

On this morning's edition of Good Morning Football, Bears linebacker Sam Acho, the Bears' nominee for the Walter Payton award, was a guest.  In addition to reciting a soliloquy from Richard III on the show, he also mentioned that the Bears led the Packers in the fourth quarter of their first game.  Actually, it was the third quarter, but given his knowledge of The Bard, maybe we need to extend him some poetic license.  In that game, the Packers went on to put it away with 20 unanswered points.  But if you want to detect a pattern in the games the Bears have won and come close to winning, they seem to play very well against division rivals.  Earlier in the year, maybe the Bears would have a better chance.  But I don't see the Bears hanging with the newly resurgent Packers' offense, and I think the Packers will win, even if it ends up being closer than you might expect.

And now, let's reflect for a moment on one of the great "statement" games of the Mike McCarthy era.  The Seahawks have been the Packers' nemesis going back to the Fail Mary game in 2012.  And of course no loss can compare with the epic collapse of the Packers in the NFC Championship Game in January 2015.  Just taking those two games puts the Seahawks under Russell Wilson and Pete Carroll in a special category for the Packers.  Along with the traditional division rivals, the Seahawks are now a rival, just like the 49ers and Cowboys were back in the 1990's.

The Packers found themselves a rare home underdog going into the game on Sunday, and the Packers seemed to create some motivation for themselves out of that fact.  While I had expressed optimism that the Packers could win the game, I certainly never expected anything like what I saw (the Packers won, 38-10).  This was, without doubt, the Packers' best performance of the year, and probably of the past several years.  I may be forgetting some other equivalent statement game, but off the top of my head the one that comes to mind is the Packers' rout of the Falcons, on the road, in the 2010 playoffs.

On the Packers' side, there were three things evident in this game.  First, Rodgers' accuracy is definitely back now.  Just as he was missing receivers on both long and short passes earlier in the year, he is making those passes now.  The first touchdown, the 66 yard bomb to Adams, was so reminiscent of other Rodgers touchdown passes in other years, usually passes to Jordy Nelson.  But Rodgers just flicked that ball over 50 yards in the air, with nothing but his arm, as his feet were not set.  Second, if it was not already clear, Ty Montgomery and Christine Michael need to be the primary running backs going forward.  Both of them are much better at making things happen right now, as compared to James Starks.  With Starks in the concussion protocol because of a car accident, of all things, this may be a moot point.  But they need Montgomery and Michael out there at running back.  Finally, while the defense may not be as stifling as it looked for a few weeks at the beginning of the year, they have now played three games in a row in which they have not given up more than 13 points.  If they can keep that level of performance up, the Packers may run the table after all.

I don't watch all the Seahawks games, but I have not seen the Seahawks look this bad in quite a while.  Poor Russell Wilson.  He seems like a nice young man, and I like him.  But he looked like Jay Cutler out there on Sunday.  It goes without saying, when a quarterback throws 5 interceptions, that he is not having a very good day.  It is true that 3 of the interceptions came on balls that bounced off other players.  So that, in a sense, is bad luck.  But he was truly off, even if you ignore those unlucky bounces.  It was never more evident than on the first two drives, when he overthrew receivers on both drives.  Both plays looked like touchdown passes, as the receivers were wide open.  But instead they resulted in a total of 3 points.

The Seahawks were undoubtedly hurt by the loss of free safety Earl Thomas the week before.  And as mentioned, Wilson's bad day was exaggerated beyond belief by the bad luck of having balls bounce off people and into the hands of Green Bay defensive backs.  That's fine.  This is a team that is an excellent team, and it is well-coached (even though I can't stand Pete Carroll), as the Packers have found out multiple times in past games.  But in addition to all that, they seem to always get the benefit of every weird call or botched play against the Green Bay Packers.  So it was nice to see the lucky balls bounce the other way for a change.

The Dude Meets the Dirty Birds

Our neighbor Suzanne, in a completely unrelated context, recently said that nothing we do is random.  When I saw the photo of Aaron Rodgers wearing The Dude's sweater from The Big Lebowski, I thought the same thing.  Rodgers didn't just happen to pull that sweater out of his closet because it was a little chilly Thursday night.

Rodgers is a fan of the cult classic, The Big Lebowski, as disclosed in the radio show he used to have with Jason Wilde of ESPN.  So if this was no accident, what was he trying to tell us?  I interpret it as this year's version of "R-E-L-A-X."  Packer-focused media, even including obscure blogs like this one, have been obsessed with the question, "what is wrong with Aaron Rodgers?"  If The Dude abides, as the catch-phrase from the movie states, then Rodgers is telling us that he, too, abides, meaning he lives in his State of Dudeness, unbothered by all the slings and arrows hurled at him by his critics.

At any rate, despite a slow start in the first half, with the Packers moving the ball but not scoring enough points, Rodgers ended up completing 39 passes of 56 attempts, with 3 touchdowns and no interceptions, and the Packers beat the Bears 26-10.  And it could have been much worse for the Bears.  Rodgers could easily have had 5 touchdowns, since Cobb had a TD in his hands on the first drive until the ball was knocked out of his hands, and had another in his hands at the end of the half, but could not quite get the second foot inbounds.  And of course this was despite the absence of a single running back on the roster with any game experience with the Packers.

But still, all is not right with Rodgers and Thursday's game doesn't really change that.  As Heath Evans said on NFL Network, his pass placement is still bad at times.  And he is still missing more passes than he should.  Just take Rodgers' TDs to Davante Adams.  On the first one, the ball should have been placed outside, and instead it went inside.  Only Adams' extraordinary catch through the defensive back's arm saved the TD.  On the second TD, there was a defensive screw-up and nobody was within 5 yards of Adams.  But Rodgers threw a pass that required Adams to make a diving, rolling catch to make.  Despite this, Rodgers still looked sharper on Thursday night than he has all year, with the possible exception of the first half of the Lions game.  I realize that it was "only" against the Bears, and that the Bears are a pretty bad team right now.  Still, this is where the Packers are right now, and I can only hope that they continue to improve.

With the long home stand over, the Packers now head to Atlanta to meet the on-again, off-again Falcons.  Everybody knows that Atlanta was the site of what was probably Rodgers' best game ever, when he torched the no. 1 seed Falcons in the 2010 playoffs on the way to winning Super Bowl XLV.  The last time they met (in Green Bay in 2014), the Packers barely staved off a furious comeback by the Falcons to preserve the win.  The Packers led 31-7 at the half, but after a furious and record-setting onslaught by Julio Jones, they were lucky to end up winning, 43-37.  And anyone who saw it will never forget the final Packers game ever at Milwaukee County Stadium in 1994, when Favre ignored his coach's orders and decided to dive for what turned out to be the game-winning touchdown, as depicted in the accompanying photo.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Photo

With the Packers missing at least 3 defensive backs for this game (Sam Shields, Damarious Randall and Quinten Rollins), how in the world will they defend against Matt Ryan and especially Julio Jones?  Mere preparation may not be enough, and Micah Hyde says they will be praying for a way to stop Julio Jones.  I will be praying, too.  I'm not sure that will be enough.  Even though the Falcons have lost two close games in a row (to the Seahawks and Chargers), they obviously have a lot of firepower on offense.  They have scored 23 or more points in every game this year, and they scored over 40 points twice, something that the Packers have not done all year.

On the other hand, their defense is yielding plenty of points.  With one exception (the Broncos), the Falcons have given up at least 26 points in every game.  So this has the makings of a high-scoring game, assuming that the Packers can keep up their end of the bargain.  I suspect it will be the Packers mounting the furious comeback this time, and that, just like the Falcons last time, it will fall short at the end.