Most Complete Game of the Year?

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.

The Little Things

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.

Most Points Since . . . When?

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.

Quick Turnaround for Thanksgiving Game

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!