Eagles Bring High-Flying Packers Back to Earth

One of two Critical Turnovers, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

What with going to the Broncos game on September 22, and returning from the midwest, and heavy involvement with family event planning, I never got a chance to write up a summary of the Packers 27-16 win over the Broncos.  Suffice it to say that my favorite moment was when the defense was waiting patiently through what was probably a TV timeout, orchestrating their end zone celebration, if the replay call was that the Packers got a turnover.  I think it was on the interception by Darnell Savage in the third quarter.  The Packers got the call, and hilarity ensued in the end zone.

But the good taste in my mouth left by the 3-0 start to the season, punctuated by a member of the defense saying the defense was "as comfortable as a Tempur-Pedic," was wiped away Thursday night when the Packers failed twice to tie up the game late in the 4th quarter, and instead lost to the Philadelphia Eagles 34-27, in a game marred by Packers turnovers, the defense's inability to generate turnovers or sacks, and a spate of injuries, two of which were serious enough to require players to be carted off the field with straps constraining them.

We watched the Eagles game with our good friend Al, who is a Lions fan.  When some of the nasty hits started happening, he made the comment that the thing about (former Lions head coach) Jim Schwartz is that his defenses always play on the nasty side.  And the way I read it, Cheesehead TV's Aaron Nagler agrees, proving that great minds think alike: "That whole defense is very . . . Jim Schwartz."

Remember last year when, early on, officials were making questionable calls of roughing the passer, mostly on Clay Matthews?  And then, after a few weeks, the message somehow got out to officials, and they stopped making those calls except in truly egregious cases?  I think the league has a sort of similar problem this year.  First, the league overreacted to the terrible non-call in the Saints-Rams playoff game by making calls or non-calls of pass interference reviewable.  But now, coaches are wasting challenges on obvious pass interference non-calls, like the one against Marquez Valdes-Scantling, or the one against Alshon Jeffery later in the game.  In both cases, the receiver was interfered with in a way that made the ball more difficult, if not impossible, to catch.  In both cases, the coaches challenged the non-call.  In both cases, the call was not overturned, so the challenges were wasted.

There may be some reluctance of coaches now to challenge pass interference calls or non-calls, since the league evidently will not overturn them most of the time.  But in a critical situation like a long gain or a long incompletion at a critical point in the game, coaches will feel compelled to challenge.  As a result, we will continue to get data from the league as to what will or will not be overturned.  Will the league silently and subtly adjust the criteria for overturning calls, as evidently happened last year with the roughing calls, to match up with what football viewers can see with their own eyes?  My hunch is that what will happen is that the consensus will develop that minor contact, even if it is significant to the receiver's ability to catch the ball, will not result in a reversal into a pass interference call.  Only major contact will result in a call.  I am not sure that is what the league intended in changing the rule, but it seems after four weeks as if that is where we will end up.

The thing that really stings about the Eagles loss is that, as many of us have been predicting, the offense finally seemed to find its rhythm Thursday night, at least in the passing game, with Rodgers throwing for over 400 yards.  Obviously the loss of Jamaal Williams early, and Davante Adams late, were harmful to the effort to tie the game and take it to overtime.  And the sudden inability of the defense to stop the run, or sack the quarterback, or generate any turnovers, was just shocking after the first three games of the season.

But if you give Aaron Rodgers two sets of first and goal downs to get a touchdown, you don't expect a 4 and out on the first, and an interception on the second set of downs.  The score was there to be had, and the Packers could not get it done.  When you notice, on replay, that Darrius Shepherd was wide open on the pass to Valdes-Scantling that was intercepted, it makes the loss that much tougher to swallow.  Sure, the Packers might have gone on to lose the game in overtime, and the loss would count just the same.  But if you give Rodgers (potentially) 8 chances to convert first and goal opportunities, I take it as just about a given that the Packers would score and send the game to overtime.  Yes, Valdes-Scantling was interfered with on the play.  But as noted above, the league is not going to reverse non-calls where relatively minor pass interference takes place.

Green Bay at Dallas looked like a marquee matchup in Week 5, and I think it still is.  A pair of wannabe undefeated teams are still division-leading 3-1 teams, with a lot of glorious history between them.  I wish the Packers were at full strength for this game, but instead the Packers' chances of having Davante Adams, Jamaal Williams, and Kevin King on the field Sunday look iffy.  The absence of Adams and Williams in those final two series Thursday night was arguably critical in the Packers' inability to score.  Stopping Ezekiel Elliott will be a tough task for a defense that has given up 144 yards rushing to the Broncos' tandem of running backs, and 163 yards to the Eagles' running backs.   But if they can stop him enough to force Dak Prescott to have to throw the ball, they can still win this game.  After all, the Saints, with a backup quarterback, beat the Cowboys last week.  The Packers, with Aaron Rodgers, have a good chance, too, even if some weapons are missing.

Bouncing Back Against the Panthers

Packers Arrive in Charlotte, Photo by Duke Bobber, Packers.com

In the first of two consecutive road games for the Packers against undefeated opponents, the Packers crashed and burned last Sunday night at Denver, losing 29-10.  Among many other problems for the Packers, Aaron Rodgers could not find anyone open downfield, took many hits and sacks, and scored a career low of 77 yards passing.  But stop and think, how many times on Sunday night did the Packers run plays on offense that were designed to take the pressure off of Rodgers?  I am talking about screen passes, draw plays, quick release passes, play action passes, outlet passes to a running back?  I re-watched the game, and the answer is, not nearly enough.  Part of the Packers' problem on Sunday night was that their game plan was, in some ways, too aggressive, involving too many long-developing offensive plays.  But they couldn't get away with them against a defense as good as that of the Broncos, so eventually Rodgers had to throw the ball away, and/or get hit in the process.

At that point, two additional problems kicked in.  The first has been a "problem," off and on, since Rodgers has been the starting quarterback.  Rodgers is cautious, occasionally to a fault.  He doesn't like to take reckless chances.  When he had Jordy Nelson available, he had the trust he needed to throw a ball up and count on Nelson to make a play.  I am calling it a "problem" here, but it is also his greatest strength.  Unlike his predecessor, who we all remember had a tendency to make a huge mistake at the wrong time, Rodgers is much more careful about throwing the ball up for grabs.  But when the Packers fall into a 17-0 hole against the number 1 defense, as they did Sunday night, something has to change and, I am arguing, you have to take some chances and give the receivers the opportunity to make a play, even if you don't have the same degree of trust in them that you have in Jordy Nelson.

Speaking of things needing to change, the second problem was (to my eye, anyway) the lack of in-game adjustments.  Mike McCarthy and Dom Capers have both frequently been criticized for not making enough in-game adjustments.   Some of us hoped that relinquishing the play-calling duties might free Mike McCarthy up to concentrate more on broad strategy issues during the game, rather than having to focus on calling each individual play.  But there was no evidence of that on Sunday night.  Either McCarthy is too stubborn to try to adjust his game plan during the game, or if he was adjusting the game plan, then either Tom Clements, in play-calling, or Aaron Rodgers, in calling audibles, was undermining the adjusted game plan.  

Obviously, if the Packers had to lose their first game, it is just as well that they would lose to an AFC opponent, since that loss has no playoff implications.  But now they travel to Charlotte to face the undefeated Panthers, knowing that a loss there will put the Packers two games behind the Panthers, plus a tie-breaker, in the race for home-field advantage.  So this is the game that really counts.  The Panthers, meanwhile, had an interesting game of their own this past week.  They were beating the Colts so badly that I actually turned off the game to do other things.  I then noticed that the Colts had closed to within 3 points with less than a minute to go.  They tied it up, went into overtime, exchanged a pair of field goals, and then Luck was intercepted on a tipped ball, resulting in the winning field goal for the Panthers.

The Panthers are probably playing better than the Packers have over the last few weeks, but the Packers have a more talented team.  If they play up to their talent level, the Packers should win this game easily.  But it is hard, as a fan, to have a lot of confidence in the Packers right now.  They have won 6 out of 7 games, sure, but they have looked at least somewhat bad in each of the last 4 games.  The Packers have something to prove, to me and to the rest of their fan base.  Let them show that they can bounce back after a tough road loss (they do have a pretty good record of doing this).  Let them show that they can make in-game adjustments when things are not going their way.  Let them show that they can insert some plays, when necessary, to take some pressure off Rodgers.  And let them show that they can stick to a balanced offense even when they have some trouble making it work.  Go ahead, show us.

Battle of the Unbeatens

Image by NBC Sports

Where, exactly, do the Packers stand as they finish their bye week and charge into the rest of the season?  The objective metrics say they are in great shape.  They are 6-0, one of only two remaining undefeated teams in the conference.  They have scored 164 points, while giving up only 101.  Only two teams (Patriots and Cardinals) have a greater margin of points scored over points given up.  On defense, the Packers have more sacks than any team in the NFC, and trail only the Broncos in sacks.  On offense, only Brady and Palmer have more TD passes than Rodgers (and those two have played 7 games, not 6).  Among full-time starters, only Brady has fewer interceptions.

And yet . . .  somehow it does not feel as if the Packers are in great shape.  From the fact that the offense has struggled now for three games in a row, to the fact that the defense, previously dominant, gave up a record-setting number of yards to Philip Rivers and the Chargers before the bye, there is a real sense that this team is fortunate to be sitting at 6-0.

Maybe they are, in some sense.  But I have always admired the teams that find a way to win the games that could easily have gotten away from them.  And I have frequently complained, in years past, when the Packers found ways to lose games that they could have, or should have, won.

The current Packers team is not only finding ways to win games, they are getting help from the most unexpected places.  Jordy Nelson is out for the season, Davante Adams has missed several weeks, and Ty Montgomery is injured in the middle of the game?  Jeff Janis steps in and makes a couple of big plays.  (Speaking of unexpected, could anyone have predicted, as of July of this year, that James Jones would be averaging a touchdown per game for the Packers?)  The Packers lose several defensive backs in free agency, and then Morgan Burnett misses several games?  No problem, Damarious Randall not only makes the game-preserving play on fourth down, he actually baits Philip Rivers into making the throw so he can bat it down.

State of the NFC North:

It has been obvious for weeks that only the Vikings (4-2) pose a serious division challenge to the Packers this year.  The Bears are 2-4, while the Lions have the worst record in the league at 1-6.  My Lions fan friend Al points out that it has gotten so bad that there is a petition pending to revoke the passports of the Lions while they are in London for their Sunday morning game.  I can't support that petition, since a new Lions team constructed from scratch could turn out to be better than the current team.  But anyway, the point is that the Packers' first goal is to win the division, and they are in great shape to do just that.

Sunday Night Game

The Sunday night game against the Broncos has the makings of a classic.  Two 6-0 teams meeting in a nationally televised game.  Two Hall of Fame quarterbacks, meeting each other for the last time, unless they happen to meet again in Super Bowl 50.  A lot of Packers-Broncos history, from the Monday night blizzard game back in 1984, to Super Bowl XXXII, to the Monday Night overtime game won on the bomb from Favre to Jennings on the first play of overtime in 2007.

The Packers' biggest problem will be when the Packers have the ball and the Broncos' are on defense.  The Broncos' defense is ranked no. 1 overall.  while the Packers' offense is in the top half of all teams.  Here, the bye week could make a major difference for the Packers since, in my view, injuries have been a big part of the Packers' struggles on offense.  Davante Adams has missed more time than he has played, while Randall Cobb has been hobbled by a shoulder injury, and both Eddie Lacy and James Starks have struggled with injuries.  Thanks to the bye, Adams should be back and fine, Cobb should be better, and so should Lacy.  So the Packers will have a better chance of getting the running game going, and of stretching the field with outside deep balls to Adams.

On the other side of the ball, if you think that the Packers have under-performed on offense, you should take a look at the Broncos' offense.  They are in the bottom 5 and you can't really blame it on injuries, either.  Peyton Manning is clearly nearing the end of his career, and does not seem to have the zip on the ball, or the accuracy, that he used to.  The departure of Julius Thomas to Jacksonville hurts, because he was and is one the best tight ends in the league.  And they can't seem to get the running game going, either.

Having said that, I have the uncomfortable feeling that Manning will turn it around at some point, and look like the old Peyton Manning, even if he can't maintain it for the rest of the season.  Could Sunday night be the game where he turns it around?  Let's put it this way - a nationally televised Sunday Night game, after a bye week off, is a pretty good candidate for a game in which Manning looks rejuvenated.

So I expect to see the Broncos bring out not only their formidable defense, but an offense that looks much better as well.  I am betting that the Packers' off-day on defense against the Chargers was a bit of an anomaly, and I am also betting that the Packers' offense will be improved with the return of healthy (or at least healthier) Adams, Cobb and Lacy.  The bottom line is: obviously this game could go either way.  But I like the Packers' chances, in what will likely be a very close game.

Packers and Lions Both Still Undefeated

(Photo from the Green Bay Press-Gazette)

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

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

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

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

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

Bombs Away

SAN FRANCISCO — The combination of a business trip and a visit to our college student daughter brought us to New York last weekend. I spent parts of Sunday getting ready for my business meeting, with the Giants-Dolphins snoozer in , and then parts of the Jets game on in the background. This reminded me how thankful I am for my satellite dish, since I would otherwise spend my time at home watching 49ers and Raiders games. The New York and Bay Area markets are, without doubt, the worst places to watch NFL games on broadcast TV, because of the two home teams monopolizing the airwaves.

While we could watch the Monday night Packer game anywhere, including our hotel room, we decided to look for a Packer bar in or near Greenwich Village, so that our daughter, with her crazy schedule, could watch at least part of the game with us. At some point, I remembered that Scott Crevier's web site actually has a list of Packer bars on it, so I checked it out there:

http://www.southendzone.com/bars/ [note: no longer available as of October, 2009]

Sure enough, this led us to the Kettle of Fish bar, on Christopher Street in the Village, close to the West 4th Street subway stop. I am not being compensated for this plug in any way, but I highly recommend this place. It has two rooms, and (I think) 5 decent-sized TVs. They obviously must have a satellite dish, since they show the Packer game every week, but I am told that even for a Sunday game, EVERY TV shows the Packer game. No ambivalence here - no attempt to please everyone, just all Packers, all the time. If you didn't come to watch the Packers, you are in the wrong place. We arrived about 20 minutes before the game, and the place was already pretty full. Since we were probably the oldest people in the bar, some of the young Packer fans helped to find extra chairs for us so we could sit down during the game. The owner eventually declared the place full and refused to let late-arrivals in, except for our daughter, since I had pre-arranged this with the tough looking door monitor.

When game time arrived, they turned the ESPN audio up loud, although it is still tough to follow what the announcers are saying in a bar full of 200 or so Packer fans. But the special audio feature in this bar is that when the Packers score, they turn off the TV audio, and instead play the song "I Love My Green Bay Packers" as people celebrate. During halftime, they play nothing but Packer music, including the infamous "The Bears Still Suck" song. They don't serve any food, but they have a thick envelope full of delivery menus, so all throughout the game delivery guys are bringing in everything from Chinese food to Pizzas to sandwiches.

Because I had been busy in the week leading up to the game, I had not really followed the extent to which Favre had been criticized in the press for some of his underthrown balls in the Redskins game. Does he still have the arm strength? Has he finally gone over the hill? That sort of thing. I really only became aware of this criticism in listening to Favre's post-game interview Monday night, where he (tongue-in-cheek) thanked the media for challenging him prior to the game. Anyway, a game-tying perfect 79 yard bomb in the first quarter, and then a game-winning picture-perfect 82 yard bomb in overtime seem like pretty good answers to the criticism. I guess the old guy still has a little gas left in the tank. I have never considered accuracy of long passes to be one of Favre's strengths. Lynn Dickey, for all his other weaknesses, was far more accurate with his long balls. But those two passes of Favre's on Monday night could not possibly have been any better. A couple of those a week and this team will win a lot of games.

As you might imagine, the place went completely bonkers when the winning touchdown was scored. Several minutes earlier, the Packers had been one play away from losing the game, but the defense managed to stop Cutler's run and force the tying field goal instead. Still, the Packers had not scored since the first half, the defense was getting tired, and the Broncos had tied the game in fairly dramatic fashion. All the momentum was going the Broncos' way, and all they had to do was get the ball back and continue doing what they were doing. I would have felt pretty good if I were rooting for the Broncos. Then, one play and ten seconds later, the game was over. Back at the Kettle of Fish, people were screaming, hugging and high-fiving. One guy tripped over a chair in his excitement (and inebriation) and people started piling on top of him on the floor. Then, when the Packer music started playing, people (including yours truly) started dancing the polka in the bar. It was great fun, and I would go there again if I am ever in on a Packer game day again.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The only bad part about the game is the fact that my DVD recorder flaked out on me while I was out of town, and so I don't have a copy of the Denver game. If there is anyone out there who recorded it and is willing to make a copy for me, or better yet let me borrow and return your copy, please contact me at tfreeman98@comcast.net .

Happy New Year

Well, last weekend's football sure started out on a sour note, before the miraculous turn-around at the end. Not only did the 49ers pretty much roll over for the Seahawks on Saturday (see my column last week), but the Cowboys proceeded to lose to the Saints in the early game, thus setting up the dreaded 3-way tie scenario we all had feared. As the late games started, we knew that the Packers could no longer get in to the playoffs as a Wild Card, and that they would have to win the division to keep playing. That, in turn, required BOTH a Packer victory over the Broncos, AND a Vikings loss to Arizona. Not bloody likely, I thought.

Oh, and to complete the ominous picture, when I went out to get the newspaper Sunday morning, I noticed that my Packer flag was missing. The flag and the flagpole were both missing, even though I moved the bracket much higher after the flag was stolen by (I assume) a 49ers fan a few years ago.

This time, the perpetrator would have either had to give a boost to an accomplice, or maybe jump just high enough to grab the lowest part of theflag as it hung. That is probably what happened, since the bracket was broken in the crime, suggesting that the flag and pole were pulled until the bracket broke. This time, was the thief a 49ers fan? A Raiders fan? Who knows. But my feeling was that this was a bad omen, since I always fly thePacker flag the day of a game.

Still, the Cardinals were leading the Vikings 6-0 in the first half, making all of us feel as if a miracle could happen. But then it was 7-6, then 14-6, and then 17-6 Vikings, with the time on the clock ticking away. Meanwhile, the Packers were beating the Broncos B squad, and when Ahman Green took off on his 98-yard touchdown jaunt, followed by the strip on the kickoff for another touchdown, it was obvious that more attention was neededto the Vikings game than to the Packer game. So I went into the other room,to watch the Vikings game on our second satellite receiver, because my wife hates it when I switch back and forth between games. So she watched the Packer game, I watched the Vikings game, training my full powers of negative energy on the Vikings players on the screen, and I would yell updates to her from the other room.

ME: "The Cardinals just scored a touchdown!"

JUDY: "Great, stay in there, keep working."

ME: "They missed the 2-point conversion."

JUDY: "Too bad, stay in there, keep working."

And on and on. I confirmed around the time of the onside kick that Judy is even more superstitious about Packer games than I am. When I told her that the Cardinals got the onside kick, I yelled that she should come in and watch the Vikings game with me. But no way! Things were going well, so she would stay exactly where she was, despite how utterly compelling the action was on the screen I was watching. Obviously, all of us were really starting to think that this thing might happen, when the second down sack, and then the third down sack and fumble happened. Oh, it was all just a horrible tease. They got so close to winning the game, but now it was fourth down,the clock was ticking toward zero, and, let's be honest, what are the chances of a game-winning, fourth and 24 touchdown pass on the last play of the last game of the season that knocks one team out of the playoffs and puts another one in? (Seriously, what ARE the chances? One in 1,000? Onein 10,000?)

Fortunately, the clock was running, so there were only a few seconds to contemplate those awful odds before McCown rolled right and unleashed that Favre-like toss to the end zone. Poole caught it (the catch reminded me just a little of the Dwight Clark touchdown catch against the Cowboys back in 1981), and was shoved out of bounds as he came down. I don't know about you, but I don't have a high degree of confidence that he could have gotten that second foot down inbounds. But by shoving him, the defensive back changed the equation, requiring the referee to make an instant judgment call, which he made in favor of a touchdown. I instantly thought to myself "Thank goodness that judgment calls like that are not reviewable." Anyway, after hearing me scream that the Cardinals won and the game was over, Judy came in to watch the replay of the touchdown. Then we noticed that the officials were reviewing the play, so she turned right around to wait in the other room. I was terrified that I was wrong, and that the judgment call WAS reviewable, but it turned out they were just checking to see if he maintained possession, which he clearly did.

A couple more thoughts. Later, I watched the tape of end of the Packer game, since I had missed it while watching the Vikings game. I was astonished by what a poor job the CBS crew did of keeping the viewers informed of what was happening in the Vikings game. Obviously, the announcers had given up on that game. With 9:10 left in the Packer game, the little box in the corner of the screen showed Vikings, 17-12. That was a big development, but the announcers said nothing about it for more than five minutes. They were too busy telling us the story about "old hammerhead", then showing the scoring plays from the Packer game, then just talking about other inconsequential things while a major story was developing in Arizona. I gather from what I have read that the Packers radio crew was doing a better job of giving play-by-play of both games at once, so the people in the stands, despite Mike Sherman's Vikings blackout, had a better idea of what was going on than the TV viewers around the country.

Also, not to wish bad things on another team or anything, but can you imagine a more perfect way for the season to end, from the standpoint of a Packer fan? The hated rival Vikings complete one of the most epic collapses ever seen, 2000 miles away, by getting knocked out of the playoffs in favor of the Packers, on the last play of the last game. That is just too sweet for words, and it will not be forgotten any time soon.

And now, the Packers play on, hosting the Seahawks, who will bring lots of old friends with them, including Mike Holmgren, Ray Rhodes, and Matt Hasselbeck. It will be nice and cold, and it will probably snow during the game. There are more story lines in this game than in any other game this weekend. Which is a good thing, since I will be missing all the other games in transit to and from Wisconsin to see this one. As many have remarked, it seems as if something special is going on with the Packers right now, and so this game is not to be missed.

On one hand, it is not possible to have as much confidence in a Packer home playoff victory as we all had a year ago when it could be said that the Packers had never lost such a game in their entire history. But, as Mike Sherman said in the locker room Sunday, there is a big difference this year. The team is on the upswing, they have showed a lot of character by playing their way back into the playoff picture, and their best football of the year is being played right now, perhaps in part because of the emotion of Brett Favre's personal tragedy. Last year, the opposite was true, and so maybe we should not have been so shocked when they lost to the Falcons. Plus, thePackers are much healthier this year than last at this time. All of these factors point to a Packers victory. Probably something like Packers 28, Seahawks 20.

Dave McGinniss and the Cardinals deserve a slap on the back. When so many other teams were packing it in for one reason or another, including Shanahan's Broncos and Erickson's 49ers, the Cardinals played the game as if it was actually important to try to win the game. Which, for the Packers, it certainly was.

My New Year's resolution for the Packers. Now that you have been the beneficiary of the miracle in the desert, let's see if you can make the most of the gift. And try to win enough games next year that you don't need to rely on another miracle.

Lions and Chargers and Bears . . .

. . . Oh, my!

The Packers played things just about right against the 49ers on Sunday. On defense, they decided to blitz more than they have all year, to see if the 49ers' young quarterback could be rattled. Turns out he could, and was, so the Packers kept it up, with nice results all day long except for the 4th down touchdown to Terrell Owens. On offense, it was Green, Davenport and Fisher as the main course, with the bomb to Javon Walker as the appetizer. And what a tasty appetizer it was! Just like that, the Packers about doubled their longest pass of the year so far. Especially since the injury to Favre's thumb, they have not even tried many long passes, and those they have tried have been incomplete or intercepted. So it was a welcome development for Favre to complete a long pass for a touchdown. If nothing else, it serves to remind defensive coordinators that they cannot completely ignore the pass while trying to stop the Packers' now-dominant-like-the-1960s running game. As Favre said after the game, the Packers knew they would run the ball a lot, and the 49ers knew the Packers would run the ball a lot, and yet they just could not stop the running game.

But the main point of this short article is to send out a note of caution about over-confidence. Sure, the Packers have won 3 of the last 4 games, dispatching a couple of playoff teams from last year, as well as the division-leading Vikings. Sure, the Packers only face one team with a winning record the rest of the year (the Broncos, now 6-5, at Lambeau Field in the last week of the season). Barring major injuries to the Packers, they will be favored in every game for the rest of the year. But when facing the Lions and Chargers and Bears of the league, the Packers are vulnerable to that old bugaboo of over-confidence. All of these teams are also professionals, some of them will be highly-motivated to pull off an upset (e.g. the Lions in their traditional Thanksgiving Day game), and with Favre's thumb being what it is, it would be a good idea to put these opponents away early, not let up, and not rely on the
possibility of coming from behind at the end.

The Packers' last trip to Detroit on Thanksgiving is a good example. In the 2001 season, the Packers were (as they are now) a much better team than the Lions. The Packers cruised to a 29-13 lead in that game, before turning on the auto-pilot for the rest of the game. The result: the Lions got back into the game with a touchdown and 2-point conversion, to make it 29-21. They then recovered the onside kick, and scored another touchdown with 10 seconds left. Only a missed 2-point conversion prevented the game from being tied. Nobody needs that kind of indigestion on Thanksgiving!

Best wishes to everyone for a Happy Thanksgiving, a Packer victory, and no indigestion.

What is Wrong With The Packers?

I suffered through the Denver game, and could not comprehend how the team could be so flat and inept for a game that meant so much to the fans. Why didn't the players play like it?

Then I enjoyed the San Diego game, deluding myself into thinking that the Packers had turned the corner, and would be just fine from here on out.

Then the Monday night disaster [Ed.note - the Packers played the Seahawks, and lost 27-7.] . The Packers played their worst game since, . . . , well, since two weeks before. A disaster in some ways akin to last year's disaster on Monday night against the Vikings. The players had to care about this one, just as a matter of pride, didn't they? Then how could they play like this?

I have talked with others, read some of the post-game comments, read articles online, mostly just listening, trying to make up my own mind about this. None of the people I have talked to or heard from have suggested that the Packers are playing at the level of their talent. Yes, injuries have hurt them, but not this much. They have much more talent than they have shown in two of their last three games.

Some have suggested that the coaching staff is to blame. The "country club atmosphere" has returned, and the team does not have enough discipline (the Earl Dotson debacle fits right in with this theory). The play-calling has been questioned. Why, for example, did the Packers not run more in the second half, before it got too late to recover? Dorsey Levens was gaining big chunks of yards, and the running game would have taken some pressure off of the ineffective Favre?

Others have suggested that the real problem is that Favre's hand is bothering him more than people realize. Certainly one of the fumbles could be attributed to inability to get a proper grip on the ball. I'm not surenif the interceptions could be attributed to the thumb problem, but maybe. The thing that is a bit ominous about the thumb theory is that I remember Favre having made a comment before the San Diego game, suggesting that the warm weather would make it easier to play with his injured thumb. And, maybe not coincidentally, the San Diego game was the Packers' best game of the year. Monday night in Green Bay, it was cold and blustery, and Favre had his worst (or second worst) game of the year. The ominous part is that there are only a couple of truly warm weather games left on the schedule (at Dallas, at Tampa, and at Minnesota if you count a dome game as a warm weather game). So if the thumb is the problem, we could be in for a very long year.

I come out thinking that the thumb is the main problem. The defense has looked alright. I certainly can't blame the defense for giving up 20 points (not counting the 7 points on the blocked field goal), when the offense turned the ball over 7 times. The offense was horrible, but mostly just because of the turnovers. If you could somehow cut the turnovers out of the game, it would have been a very different game. I just have a feeling that the thumb is getting worse, that it acts up more in cold weather, and that Favre is going to have this problem all year long.

Having said that, I am starting to agree with those who criticize the coaching staff, as well. It is becoming apparent that Sherman Lewis is not as good an offensive coordinator as Mike Holmgren was. I think that the Packers have been out-coached in several of the games this year. That was not usually the case with Holmgren. On the lack of discipline, certainly Dotson's outburst was inexcusable. I felt that it single-handedly eliminated any chance the Packers had of coming back to win that game. And to the extent that Favre is doing erratic things like throwing into double coverage instead of being smarter about his decision-making, maybe that is indicative of a lack of discipline as well. I'm going to try to pay more attention to the coaching decisions as the game progresses, and see if I can get a better sense of this question in the next couple of weeks.

Meanwhile, it is Bear week. This game does not have the luster it had a few years back, but the Bears almost always play the Packers tough. I'm looking for a relatively low-scoring game, with a defensive touchdown for the Packers and more of a ball control game on offense. Packers, 21-13.

Three Game Losing Streak

It's only pre-season. I know. They only had one day of practice between the Denver and Miami games. I know that, too. And I could not see the Miami game, so it is a little tough to make very much out of a game I did not see.

But try as I might, I just can't find any reason to feel overly optimistic about the upcoming season at the moment. From what I have seen of the Packers in the pre-season, they are just way too sloppy. Mistakes, turnovers, and penalties. Oh, sure, the Packers will probably be contenders, no matter what. As long as Favre stays healthy, they will win enough games to be in the hunt by the end of the season. And if they straighten things out, maybe that will even turn out to be good enough.

The trouble is, my expectations are so much higher now, and for the last couple of years. I desperately don't want them to stumble out of the gate with a 2-3 or 3-2 record after 5 weeks, looking up at Tampa Bay or Minnesota in the standings. I want to see the Packers just switch it on and start blowing people out, like they did in 1996. We'll see. Maybe these guys are such old veterans that they can just turn it on when needed. The return of Robert Brooks (assuming that he does play in the opener) will certainly help. And now the Packers and Dorsey Levens have some kind of a deal done. His return will help, too, although it seems questionable whether he will play immediately.

The end of a three game losing streak is probably a bad time to pull out the regular season schedule to count up the predicted "Ws" and "Ls," but here goes. I end up with a prediction of 11-5. I have an uncomfortable feeling that the home win streak is going to come to an end this year. In fact, based on the pre-season showing, I can see the Packers losing a couple of games at home this year. If that happens (which I hope it does not), my guess would be that they lose one of the first two weeks (Detroit and Tampa Bay). Probably the Tampa Bay game. And then, and I really hate to say this, but I have a bad feeling about the San Francisco game on November 1.

On the road, I can see losses at Detroit, at Pittsburgh and at Minnesota. That would fill out a 6-2 record at home, 5-3 on the road, for a total of 11-5. Good enough to make the playoffs, maybe good enough to win the division, definitely not good enough to win home field advantage. Good enough to go the Super Bowl and to win it? The truth is, you just can't tell right now. It all depends on momentum and talent at the end of the year, with the extent of injuries and depth figuring into the mix. The Packers might be the best team in the league come playoff time.

Unfortunately, they sure don't look like it right now.

Packers Lose to Oakland Raiders?

The questions in the Freeman family in the last couple of days have been "Are the Raiders that much better? Or are the Packers that much worse?" We went to a couple of Raider games last year, including the Packer pre-season game, and believe me, this was one bad team. They had no heart whatsoever, and with the exception of a couple of games, they just seemed to quit when they would get behind in a game. Losing to the 1997 Raiders would definitely not be taken as a good sign.

Well, it is beginning to look as if the Raiders are a much improved team. Jon Gruden may actually do some good things for this team, at least until Al Davis starts to meddle with him. So maybe it isn't quite so horrible to lose to the Raiders as one might expect.

Seriously, I am not too concerned about this loss, for a couple of reasons. In the first place, any time the offense spots the other team 17 points on turnovers, it can be a bit difficult to catch up. A pass bounces off of my namesake's hands, and is returned for a touchdown. TWO fumbles on the center-quarterback exchange. Interceptions like that just happen once in a while, and fumbled snaps are not going to happen very often in the regular season, because one way or the other, the QB and the center will at least be used to working with one another.

The other thing is something I have heard out here, even from Raider fans. The idea is that you have some teams, like Green Bay, and San Francisco, and Denver, who know what they are doing, are very good teams, and have continuity with the team from last year. They would like to win the pre-season game, but they are more interested in seeing how their players perform, and they don't really care. And then there are teams like the Raiders, who were awful last year despite a lot of talent, and who have a new coach, new coordinators, and really desperately want to win the game to make a statement. In other words, I guess, "they wanted it more." I don't completely buy this idea, but I suppose that there is something to it.

Now if you carry out the "they wanted it more" theory to the next game, you would predict that the Packers will beat the Broncos next Monday night in Mile High Stadium, basically because they have a score to settle. Certainly, Mike Holmgren will be all over the team this week because of the poor performance against the Raiders, and they should not need a lot of extra motivation to take things out on the Broncos. And if the Packers really are a better team than they showed in the Super Bowl in January, then with all of these factors working, they should win the game.

OK. Write it down. The Packers will beat the Broncos, and we will all feel a lot better.

Super Bowl XXXII Post-Mortem

Well, I guessed wrong on the Super Bowl. Probably almost everyone reading this article did, too. I just felt so sure that the Packers were the better team, and I figured that the better team usually wins in the Super Bowl. Now that more than a month has gone by since the Super Bowl, I am finally coming to grips with writing this brief post-mortem.

I have seen some fellow Packer fans argue that the Packers ARE the better team, but they just had a bad day on January 25. I'm not prepared to go that far. About as far as I would go is to say that if the Super Bowl were replayed 10 times, the Packers MIGHT win the majority of those games. And I'm not even real confident about that any more.

It's not like the Packers outplayed the Broncos but lost the game due to some bad call, or due to some fluky play. The Packers were just pushed around by the Broncos for much of the game, especially in the second half. With the benefit of hindsight, the decision to put 2 D-linemen on the inactive list, combined with Gabe Wilkins' early game injury, just put too much burden on too few D-linemen in the second half.

I do wonder why more wasn't done to adjust to the way the game was unfolding - maybe stacking the line of scrimmage, daring Elway to beat them with the passing game. Maybe the Packers did adjust, and it just didn't work, but watching the game in the stadium (i.e. without benefit of TV commentators), I did not see the adjustment.

I also question what seemed to be the almost-total abandonment of the running game in the second half. The statistics in the game show that Levens was running for a pretty good average, and run defense was supposed to be a glaring weakness of the Broncos. And the game was always a TD or less away from a tie game in the second half. Oh, what a couple of sustained drives on offense might have done for the tiring Packer defensive line. But for whatever reason, they did abandon the run, and the rest is very painful history for us Packer fans.

As this is being written on March 9, the year of 1998 seems like a nightmare. The Packers lost the Super Bowl, and now have lost Craig Hentrich, Edgar Bennett, Doug Evans, Gabe Wilkins, Eugene Robinson and Aaron Taylor. And yesterday came the sad news of the death of Ray Nitschke, one of my personal heroes.

But I prefer to look at the bright side. The Packers did win the NFC Championship, before my very eyes in the rain at 3Com Park. They did finish as the second best team in the league. They have the best quarterback in the league. They have locked up Robert Brooks, and taken steps to lock up Antonio Freeman and Dorsey Levens, at least for this year. And, according to published reports, the Packers are still the favorites to win Super Bowl XXXIII. They are listed as 5-2 favorites, followed by San Francisco and Denver at 5-1.

Things may look a little dark now. But longtime Packer fans know that things could be a whole lot worse.

Only four months to training camp....

San Diego, Here We Come!

Two weeks ago, I wrote that I felt pretty good about the Championship Game against the 49ers, but admitted to some trepidations about the game. After all, the 49ers had Home Field Advantage, had a good defense, etc., etc., etc.

A young man by the name of Jarrod Leder wrote a response to my article (BEFORE the game), pointing out eight analytical reasons why the Packers would win the game. Slightly condensed, here they are:

1) The 49ers are an untested team. [...] The Packers had to beat three of the five (not including themselves) best teams in the NFC TWICE!!!! Plus one for the Pack.

2) Barry Sanders. [...] The biggest reason why the Packers are only rated 7th in the league in defense is because of this man. He racked up close to 300 yards on the Packers this year and the 9ers didn't even play him. Plus two for the Pack.

3) Brett Favre. He has a 94.1 QB rating in the playoffs which is higher than Young. [...] Plus three for the Pack.

4) Gilbert Brown. Nobody in the league can run on this defense when he's in there and healthy. [...] Plus four for the Pack.

5) Packers secondary vs. untested receivers. Evans and Williams are [...] the most dominant tandem in the league and you can quote me on that. Plus five for the Packers.

6) Dorsey Levens. He's a freight train in the playoffs. [...] Plus six for the Packers.

7) Home field, Shmome field. The Packers won all three games of a late season road trip which included winning at Minnesota (the 49ers didn't do that) and Tampa Bay (the 49ers didn't do that either). [...] The Packers have no fear of playing on the road. [...] Plus seven for the Packers.

8) I've been right about every Packer game this season including the loss to the Colts (no joke). [...] I have the same feeling about this game that I had for the Cowboy game in November. I had a feeling the Packers were going to completely crush the 'Boys. Plus eight for the Packers.

WOW!! Jarrod, "you da man" as far as I am concerned. As I told him after the game, looking back on it now, it all seems so clear that the Packers were the better team, by far, and that they should have been able to win the game easily. Still, all those many years of something going wrong didn't allow me to realize, before the game, just how right Jarrod was.

Well, here we go again. My immediate, waterlogged reaction after the Championship Game was that the Packers would easily beat the Broncos. This lasted all the way home from 3Com Park. But then, I started to think of all of the talent John Elway has shown over the years, all of his comebacks, the clutch catches by Sterling's little brother, the strong running game led by Terrell Davis. Doubt started to creep in again.

No, forget it. The Packers will win this game, and they will win it solidly (no point-spread prediction here, though). Even if the Broncos are better than the 49ers, itself a dubious proposition to anyone who saw the Monday night debacle between those two teams a few weeks ago, the fact is that the Packers are just the better team, and are on a mission of their own, to make more history for themselves and for our glorious franchise. So sorry, John Elway, that "sentimental favorite" business carries no weight with me, with millions of other Packer fans, or with the World Champion Green Bay Packers themselves.

I have not heard from Jarrod yet about the Super Bowl, but await his analysis with great anticipation.

* * *

On the way out of the Superdome last January 26, we heard a rhythmic chant arise from our fellow Packer fans. "One and Two, Thirty-One and Thirty-Two." (Or for the Romans among us, "I and II, XXXI and XXXII.") It has been a long year since then, with a lot of ups and downs. The Packers have persevered, and are packing their bags for San Diego. All that remains to make this year's dreams come true is for them to win the game.