Finally, Another NFC Champ Game at Lambeau Field

Kneel Down Time, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

Well, the Packers beat the Rams, rather handily, in their Divisional Playoff game on Sunday, 32-18.  In the process, they have brought the NFC Championship game back to Lambeau Field for the third time in the Favre / Rodgers eras, and for the first time with Rodgers as starting quarterback.  

For the first time all year, the Packers allowed some ticketed fans in the stadium, along with invited guests.  The total attendance was 8,456, which may only be a little more than 10% of capacity, but players including Rodgers commented on how much difference it made.  There were no fans in the stands (home or away) for the first few Packers games this year, and while the typical camera shot didn't display that, when they would show an end zone shot, the emptiness of the stadiums made it seem very sterile to me, like an organized scrimmage, except one that counted in the standings.  

As soon as the Packers started playing before even a few hundred fans, at home or on the road, I felt as if I could detect some increased energy on the part of the players.  And Saturday, with the stands 10%+ filled, there was no doubt.  You could see the players interacting with the fans in the stands.  Rodgers acknowledged what it meant to him to hear the "MVP!" chants late in the game.  With a similar number of fans to be in the stands on Sunday, and with "better" weather (i.e., colder and with a good chance of snow), the Packers should finally have a real home field advantage in an NFC Championship game.

If there was a lull period in the Rams game, it was in the late 3rd quarter.  In my own family, I found very different reactions to that part of the game, when the Rams pulled to within 7 points, at 25-18.  Some of them had a "here we go again" kind of vibe.  Especially since that last Rams score was sandwiched by the only two Packers punts of the game.  Had the momentum really shifted that far in the direction of the Rams?  To state the obvious, when it is a 7 point game, the ball can take a funny bounce, or a ball can be tipped, or a ball can be stripped, and all of a sudden the game is tied.  So the game was at risk at that moment, but I never really felt as if the game was in much doubt.  The Packers had been controlling the game all day long, outplaying the Rams on both sides of the ball, and I was confident that they would put up some more points to seal the win.  And they did, with a near-perfect play action pass to Allen Lazard.  The ball was a little too far inside, which made it a harder catch for Lazard, but as soon as he secured the catch it was clear that he was gone with the "dagger" of a 58 yard touchdown catch.

The hype going into the game was that it was the irresistible force against the immovable object.  The Packers' number one offense against the Rams' number one defense.  But the final stats of the game make a real mockery of the pregame hype.  The Packers almost doubled the offensive output of the Rams, 484 to 244, gaining more yards on offense than the Rams had given up in any game all season.  The Packers controlled the ball for over 36 minutes.  The Packers almost doubled the rushing total of the Rams, 188 to 96.  And while the Packers gave up no sacks or turnovers, the Packers defense registered 4 sacks of Jared Goff, the most sacks he sustained all year.  Goff, by the way, played very well despite his broken thumb, much better than he had the previous week when he was pressed into service against the Seahawks.  So the credit for holding the Rams in check goes to the Packers' defense, and not to an ineffective Jared Goff.  

Rashan Gary, in particular, had one of his best games, contributing 1.5 sacks, 3 quarterback hits, and 1 tackle for loss.  The Packers showed again, as they have in a number of games later in the season, that they can control the line of scrimmage sufficiently to prevent a talented running back from gashing them.  And then the defensive backs, combined with the pass rush, have proved up to the task of controlling the passing game.  So as the game played out, the Packers had the far superior offense, and the far superior defense.  The Packers' special teams had some problems (a botched extra point and some long-ish kickoff returns) but no game changing plays.

The offensive line played magnificently, and were the MVPs of this game, even without David Bakhtiari, and without ever needing to bring in a substitute.  On regular offensive plays (not including special teams) the starting 5 linemen (Jenkins, Turner, Wagner, Linsley and Patrick) played 100% of the snaps.  I doubt that has happened all year long.  Steve Mariucci joked on Sunday morning that the equipment manager won't even need to wash Rodgers' jersey for next week, as the protection was so good that he was hardly ever touched.  The Packers, behind that consistent offensive line, stuck with the running game, rushing (not counting Rodgers) 32 times for 191 yards.  That is the perfect way to open up the passing game, especially on play-action passes, and it worked, with significant contributions from Adams, Lazard, Tonyan and MVS in the passing game.

The interesting thing to me is that the Packers did not play their best game against the Rams.  Rodgers, uncharacteristically, missed some passes that would have been completions if they had been closer to the mark.  And there were a number of dropped passes, too.  On defense, again, as well as the defense played on Saturday, they did not come away with a single turnover, and in most games they do get at least one turnover.  So you can look at this in two ways.  You can say that the Packers better clean up those offensive mistakes on Sunday, and they better force some turnovers, or they will be watching the Super Bowl from their couches.  Which might be true.  But the way I am looking at it is that, as good as the Packers were against the Rams, they can (and I hope, will) play even better against the Buccaneers.  They didn't even need to be at their best to beat the number one defense of the Rams.  Imagine what they could do if they play at, or closer to, their best.

I was rooting for the Saints to beat the Buccaneers on Sunday; every Packers fan I know was rooting for the same thing.  The Packers beat the Saints in the dome, 37-30, in Week 4, whereas the Buccaneers dealt the Packers their worst loss of the season in Week 6, 10-38.  So having to play Brady and the Buccaneers again in the Championship Game seems, in a way, a little too reminiscent of last year, when the Packers were manhandled by the 49ers during the season, and then had to go back to Santa Clara for the Championship game, where they were manhandled again.  

I reject that comparison.  Last year, both the Packers' offense and their defense were just not up to the job against the 49ers.  They were just beaten solidly, on both sides of the ball, on the road in both games, with regular-sized hostile crowds.  This year, the Packers' offense has played better in the LaFleur system from the first week on.  And while the defense drove fans crazy early in the year, toward the end of the season, the defense has played with much greater consistency.  Since the Week 11 loss to the Colts, the Packers have won seven straight games.  They have given up an average of 18 points in those games, and allowed more than 20 points only twice.  Meanwhile, they have been scoring an average of 33 points over that same stretch, and scored fewer than 30 points only once.  

OK, but what about the Buccaneers, you might say?  What happened in that game, and why is it likely to be different this time?  That game was a weird one, that actually started out well, and then suddenly went to hell in a hand basket.  The Packers were leading 10-0 after the first quarter, when the Buccaneers got a pick 6 to make it 10-7, and then a tipped ball resulted, one play later, in another Buccaneers touchdown on the next possession to make it 14-10, and it was all downhill from there.  In other words, I think that was a game that took an abrupt turn and then snowballed out of control (if you will excuse the expression) in the 88 degree Tampa weather.  The Packers dug the hole even deeper by the end of the half (28-10), and at that point they were forced completely out of their game plan.

So sure, it could happen again, but unlike last year, I don't feel any sense of inevitability about it.  The Bucs game was early in the season, when they were regularly getting gashed by strong running games, and indeed, the Bucs running backs gained 158 yards that day.  And while the Packers' offense had been playing at a high level early in the season, except for the Bucs game, they are playing way more consistently now.

The Packers need to commit to the running game to set up the passing game, and from re-watching the prior Bucs game, they should run the ball inside more than to the outside.  At least on a dry, hot field, the Buccaneers' linebackers were too fast to allow much in the outside running game.  And, obviously, the Packers can't give the ball away again.  On defense, the Packers need to play like they have later in the season, and hold the running backs more in check than they did in Week 6.  While I realize that Mike Pettine isn't about to change his approach dramatically, I hope he will remember that Brady needs to get some pressure.  You can't just rush 3 and drop into zone coverage against Brady, as he can carve you up.  

Right now, there is a 50% chance of snow on Sunday, with temperatures in the high 20's.  That won't phase Brady or Gronkowski in the least, but it is an open question what it will mean for the rest of the Buccaneers.  Weather can freak players out if they are not used to it, but the weather Sunday is not likely to be severe enough to have this effect.  Beyond this, I think it is mostly about footing.  If you are not used to playing or practicing in this weather, you don't have a very good feel for what you can and can't do in those conditions.  Think of how careful you are, watching each step, when you are walking on icy or wet surfaces.  The field won't be icy, but it might have an accumulation of snow, as in the Titans game, and it will definitely be damp or wet.  The Buccaneers won't be used to this, and it can have a real effect on the game.  The Packers and their fans will have a mutually reinforcing vibe going, and I think that will help the Packers as well.

The Packers can definitely win this game, and I think that they will.  The Buccaneers' defense is not as good as the Rams' defense was, but their offense is better.  So the Bucs will score some points, and the Packers need to keep the pedal to the metal all day long.  I think something like 38-30 sounds about right to me, so Go Pack!

Trap Game Blues (or Worse)

Photo by Trevor Ruszkowski, USA Today

How about talking a little Packers football, as a distraction on Election Day?  Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of happy talk to lift the spirits of Packers fans.

*   *   *   *

Is the Packers' once-promising season about to come crashing down on their heads?  When the Packers lost in embarrassing fashion to the Buccaneers, I was able to keep a little perspective by noting that (a) the Buccaneers turn out to be better than I thought they would be; and (b) maybe the Packers are only vulnerable to hard-nosed, aggressive defenses like the Buccaneers - which is obviously a problem, but maybe a problem they could work on correcting.  And then came the second Vikings game on Sunday.  Before the game, I heard comments about how Rodgers was going to slice up the inexperienced Vikings' secondary.  And on the pregame show, the question was asked, how could the Vikings win?  And the answer was "if the Packers decide not to play."  Yeah, right.  Instead the Vikings won, 28-22.

We know the Vikings aren't any good.  They were 1-5 going into this game, giving up a lot of points (over 30 points per game).  So what do we make of the Packers losing to the Vikings, in a game that really didn't feel as close as the final score?  (Bear in mind, it was 28-14 until there were less than 3 minutes left in the game.)  I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that the Packers aren't as good as I thought they were.  They are 5-2, but only one of those wins was against a good team (the Saints).  Meanwhile, they lost, and didn't look good in the process, to one good team (the Buccaneers) and one bad team (the Vikings).  That sounds like a mediocre team to me.  Tell me where I am wrong (please!).  Speaking of the Buccaneers, when the Giants play the Buccaneers tougher than the Packers did, as happened in the Monday night game, that can't be a good sign (the Giants lost the game by 2 points, and a 2 point conversion would have sent the game to overtime).

In the Vikings game, the defense had to do only one thing, as some caller on Sirius XM Radio said Monday, stop Dalvin Cook, and force Kirk Cousins to beat you.  And not only did they not do that, they let Cook set an all-time record for any player at Lambeau Field by gaining over 200 scrimmage yards and scoring 4 touchdowns.  The entire first half was taken up with 4 drives, resulting in 2 Adams touchdowns and 2 Cook touchdowns.  So which team would be the first one to break serve?  Alas, it was the Packers.  The Vikings scored on the first drive of the second half, and never looked back.  On the ensuing drive, Rodgers threw a couple of bad passes, and Equanimeous St. Brown dropped a couple of catchable balls, and they turned it over on downs.  The Packers brought a little excitement to the last few minutes of the game, but it was basically over when they turned it over on downs on the first Packers drive of the half.  

So they are not as good as I thought they were, and they got trapped by a trap game on the way to facing the 49ers on Thursday night.  My concern is that this is worse than just losing a trap game, which can happen, but evidence of much deeper problems with the Packers, particularly on defense.  I laughed when I heard Rodgers says that the Packers didn't overlook the Vikings.  Instead, he says, they didn't play with a lot of energy on Sunday.  If that is supposed to make me feel more confident about the Packers' future, it doesn't.  How do you play without energy in a game against a division rival, at home (to the extent that matters in this weird year)?

Normally, given the way they played Sunday, I would give the Packers little chance against the 49ers.  If there is one thing they can't do, it is to stop a strong running attack, and the 49ers have certainly had that.  But their star running back, Raheem Mostert, is on IR and not eligible to return Thursday.  Their backup Jeff Wilson is also on IR and not eligible to return.  I told my 49er fan friend on Sunday that as long as the 49ers have somebody they can line up at running back, they should be fine.  But that is before I learned that both QB Jimmy Garoppolo and TE George Kittle will miss multiple weeks. 

So might the Packers get lucky and steal a win that they didn't really deserve?  No sooner did that thought cross my mind when I saw that A.J. Dillon has tested positive for Covid, will miss the game, and who knows if the Packers will have other positive tests.  As of Tuesday morning, there have been no new positive tests, but two more players, Kamal Martin and Jamaal Williams, have been ruled out of Thursday's game as "high risk close contacts" with A.J. Dillon.  This leaves the Packers, as far as I can see, with Tyler Ervin, fullback John Lovett, and practice squad player Dexter Williams as the only available running backs.  Meanwhile, if there are more positive tests, and the league postpones the game, it is easy to imagine the game being deferred until later in the season, maybe even a hypothetical week 18, when all of the 49ers players mentioned above would be back.  Hey, it's 2020, and anything can happen.

We will see what happens Thursday night, if the game happens at all.  I have lowered my expectations for the Packers for the year, but if they can pull off what is (in my mind, at least) an upset, they will have a pretty good 6-2 record at the midway point of the season, and they will have bought a little more time to address their weaknesses.

Buccaneers Keelhaul the Packers in Tampa

Unwelcome Sight, Photo by Mike Ehrmann, Getty Images

It is hard to know what to say about last week's stinkeroo game against the Buccaneers.  When you jump off to a 10 point lead, how do you give up 38 unanswered points to a not-that-great Buccaneers team?  Does this mean that every time the Packers face a tough, physical defense, they will fold and slink home with their tails between their legs?  That is kind of what happened last year, against the Chargers, the 49ers and then the 49ers again in the NFC Championship game.  

There is a possible difference, at least in my mind.  Last year, the Packers never looked smooth to me.  They had a great regular season record, at 13-3, but many of those wins were close games (kind of like the Bears this year?).  Eight of the 13 wins were one possession games, including both Lions games, both Bears games, and one of the Vikings games.  Of course, the most ridiculous examples were the Lions games, where the Packers never led in either game until the final play of each game, winning field goals in both cases.  And how many times last year did we see a lack of precision?  Too many throwaways, or passes in the flat that never made it to the receiver, or long passes that were overthrown or went through the hands of the receiver.  I skimmed through my blog posts from last year, and I found phrases like "not a statement win," "ugly win," "unsatisfying win," and "two good quarters out of eight," making the point they really only had two good quarters in their first two games, but that was enough to have a 2-0 record.  Looking back on it, the Packers went 13-3, in some ways, despite their lack of precision and smoothness on offense.  

For the first four weeks of this season, the Packers were just the opposite on offense.  They looked great, Rodgers looked like the Rodgers of maybe 2010 or 2011, and he was an early candidate for league MVP.  Our biggest worry, as fans, was the defense.  Could they just make a few stops per game, and/or generate a turnover, and allow the offense to work its magic?   I suppose you could argue, somewhat counter-intuitively, that the defense did its job on Sunday.  They only gave up 24 points, while the offense gave up the other 14 on the actual pick-six, and the almost pick-six.  Any other game this year, the offense would have scored 30 plus points and would have won the game.

But last Sunday, it wasn't just the two interceptions.  It was the lack of pre-snap motion with Tyler Ervin out of the lineup.  It was Rodgers not looking comfortable back in the pocket.  It was Rodgers double (and triple and once quadruple) clutching, rather than throwing the ball in rhythm and on time.  

So which was the anomaly?  Was it the Buccaneers game?  Or was it the first four games against (in hindsight) some not very strong opponents?  I guess we will find out soon enough.  The Texans are not very good, with their 1-5 record, but they gave the undefeated Titans all they could handle last Sunday before losing, 42-36.  And the Packers look as if they will be without Tyler Ervin (can't somebody else run the jet sweep?), and probably David Bakhtiari as well.  Plus now Aaron Jones has popped up on the injury report.  Several people have made the semi-in-jest comment that the Packers play better without Davante Adams.  Well, they will have Adams, but maybe without these other weapons they can return to winning ways.  Apparently the Packers have not had a two game losing streak under Matt LaFleur.  Let's just go with that as a good reason to predict that the Packers look much better after last week's embarrassment, and come away with a victory.  

Unbeaten Packers Start Their Second Quarter

Monday Night Stud, photo by Evan Siegle, Packers.com

Before we get to some comments on last week's win against the Falcons, and some comments on the upcoming game against the Buccaneers, I feel as if I have to comment on what a terrible disappointment Week 5 (the Packers' bye week) has been. Not only did a legitimate NFL star, Dak Prescott, suffer a catastrophic injury on Sunday, but the games I cared about most went the wrong way. 

I had hoped, during the Packers' bye week, that the Packers would get some help in other games. Instead, on Thursday night, the Bears won a game against the Buccaneers that they could easily have lost. The Bears even got a big assist from a "senior moment" by Tom Brady, when he lost track of the down before turning the ball over as the Buccaneers were trying to get in position for a potential game winning field goal. The Bears' 20-19 win left them at 4-1, half a game behind the Packers. 

Then, on Sunday night, the Vikings, to my great amazement, were in position to upset the Seahawks, which would have left the Packers as the only unbeaten team in the NFC. But as the second half progressed, I just knew that the Vikings were going to blow it. And indeed they did. Many will focus on Mike Zimmer's decision to go for the kill shot at the end of the game, when it was 4th and 1. A first down there would have effectively sealed the win for the Vikings, 26-21. But an "easy" field goal (easy, except it was raining pretty hard at the time) would have made it an 8 point game, meaning the Seahawks would not only have to drive down the field for a touchdown, but also get the 2 point conversion, just to tie the game and take it to overtime. Instead, the Vikings did not convert, and the Seahawks' ensuing touchdown won the game for them, rather than just giving them a chance to tie the game up. I can't really criticize Zimmer for the call, though, because I am generally in favor of being more aggressive in trying to secure a win. As a matter of fact, there is a statistical argument that you should go for it on 4th and 1 from any place on the field.  The Seahawks' win brought them to 5-0, half a game ahead of the Packers.

Anyway, getting back to the Monday night game against the Falcons, you figured going in that the 3-0 Packers should beat the 0-3 Falcons.  But the problem for the Packers was the injuries, especially at receiver.  Allen Lazard was on IR after surgery, Marcedes Lewis was out, and Davante Adams thought he was ready, but the Packers decided to hold him out anyway.  Plus Rashan Gary and Kenny Clark were both out on defense.  Could the Packers handle the Falcons without three starting receivers?  Enter Robert, "Big Bob" Tonyan.  Or, as someone called him on the NFL Network, "I, Tonyan," noting that he took a figurative tire iron to the kneecaps of the Falcons' defense.  This was a real coming out party for Tonyan, who caught all 6 passes thrown his way for 98 yards and 3 touchdowns.  

You might wonder when the Packers last had a tight end with 3 TD catches in a game.  It turns out this is only the third time in Packers history when this has happened.  Keith Jackson got the hat trick in the 1996 Super Bowl year, and Jermichael Finley had one in 2011, en route to a 15-1 season.  So Tonyan is in pretty elite company among Packers tight ends.  When Davante Adams and Allen Lazard return, it is doubtful that Tonyan will have more 3 TD games.  But having him around can only make the receiving game more explosive going forward.  Other tight ends have had their moments in the years since Jermichael Finley was lost to injury.  But nobody has been a consistent, elite performer.  You can't say, based on Monday night's game, that Tonyan is there yet.  But going into week 5, Tonyan was tied with Mike Evans for most receiving touchdowns in the league.  If Tonyan can even be a reliable contributor, this could be a huge plus for an already potent Packers offense.

Now that this week's bye is over, the rested and healthier Packers will play in hot Tampa against the Buccaneers, who have had 10 days of rest leading up to the game with the Packers.  I am not sure what to make of the Buccaneers.  They are 3-2, in a bunch at the top of the NFC South.  The two losses were to the Bears and Saints, while the wins were against the Panthers, Broncos and Chargers.  They have a very good (top 5) run defense, but the Packers are much better on both rushing and passing offense.  While the Packers have zero interceptions this year, the Buccaneers have four, so there is a better chance of picking off Brady than Rodgers.  They have some good offensive weapons in Mike Evans, Chris Godwin, Ronald Jones, and of course Brady.  They just have not been getting as much production out of them as have the Packers.  

Going into the season, I would not have predicted that the Packers would be 4-0 after one quarter of the season.  Of course, the only one of the four teams they beat with a record above .500 was the Saints.  But the Packers have looked unstoppable on offense, and "good enough" on defense to keep them in the games and let the offense win.  What will the second quarter bring?  At the moment, the next four games only have one team above .500, the Buccaneers, followed by three below .500, the Texans, the Vikings and the 49ers, who will present a big challenge to the Packers regardless of their record.  

Home field advantage will continue to mean almost nothing in the second quarter, even if there are some fans in the stands as will be the case in Tampa this week.    Weather can still be a home field issue, and while it is mostly in the 50's in Wisconsin this week, the projected high temperature in Tampa for Sunday is 88 degrees.  Because of this, I think the Tampa Bay game and the 49ers game are the two where the Packers have the best chance of being beaten.  While I could see the Packers losing the Buccaneers game, I don't think it will happen.  I think, with the likely return of Davante Adams and Kenny Clark, the pass-catching abilities of Aaron Jones and Jamaal Williams, and the emergence of Tonyan as a threat, the Packers will be too much for Brady and the Buccaneers.

Packers Run to Victory in Overtime

Aarons Celebrating Their Birthdays Together, photo by Packers.com

On a day when Brett Hundley didn't look very good (13 complete passes for 84 yards), how would the Packers be able to pull off a win against the Buccaneers?  A huge dose of Jamaal Williams, just a pinch of Aaron Jones when needed, and NFC defensive player of the week Dean Lowry making  plays all day long.  That was enough for a 26-20 win in overtime.

The Packers were ahead at halftime, 17-10, on the strength of Williams' running and an opportunistic defense.  But the Packers basically did nothing in the second half.  When the Buccaneers went ahead, 20-17, with 6 minutes to go in the game, it was not hard to imagine the Packers losing the game.  But when a drive was needed, Hundley put one together that was just good enough to get the tying field goal.  Both on that drive and in overtime, Hundley made use of his own legs as a change of pace for the legs of Jamaal Williams.  And for the ultimate change of pace, after Williams, on successive hard driving plays, got the Packers deep into Buccaneers territory, they gave him a rest by bringing in Aaron Jones for his first carry of the day.  Boom.  Jones goes into the middle of the line, finds nothing there, and bounces it out to the left side, where he ran it in for the 20 yard, game-winning touchdown.

I will say this - with the way the Packers were giving up yardage on screen passes, and with Jameis Winston having more accuracy on passes down the field than Hundley, we were very pleased when the Packers got the ball first in overtime.  Who knows what would have happened if the Buccaneers had gotten the ball first?

It is hard not to daydream about what the Packers' offense would be like with this running game, and with Aaron Rodgers behind center.  Rodgers can test his arm by throwing passes anytime he wants.  The fact that he goes out and throws passes in pregame warmups seems to me to be sending the message that he is ready to come back.  Clay Matthews has even been quoted as saying that the Packers made a mistake putting Rodgers on IR; i.e., Matthews thinks he would have been ready to come back before 8 weeks have passed.  And if he comes back after the Browns game, and if the Packers run the table . . .

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  The bottom line is that I am still skeptical that the Packers will make the playoffs this year.  Too many things have to fall the right way for that to happen, and little things will happen, like the Seahawks knocking off the Eagles Sunday night, that will interfere with the Packers ever getting there.  And, of course, all of this depends in any event on the Packers winning the last 4 games.  Let's assume that Brett Hundley plays well enough to beat the Browns on Sunday.  After all, the Browns are the worst team in the league.  So the Packers should win that game.  And let's assume that Rodgers is healthy enough to return for the last 3 games.  Unfortunately he doesn't get any games against the Browns in that stretch.  Instead, he plays road games against the Panthers and Lions, and a home game against the Vikings.  Let's just say none of those are easy games; all of those teams have presented problems for the Packers in the past; and as a result, I frankly doubt that the Packers will win all three.  But even if they do, they still have to pass up too many teams.  An extra win for the Seahawks here, or for the Panther or Falcons or Lions there, and the playoff push goes out the window.  But as long as the Packers keep winning, things will stay interesting.  That is more than I would have predicted a few weeks ago.

So no, I am not too excited about the Packers' prospects for actually making the playoffs this year. But one thing I really am excited about is the Packers' running game for 2018.  We have discovered that we have two, high-quality, rookie running backs ready for next year, not to mention Ty Montgomery, if indeed the Packers don't either trade him or re-convert him to receiver.  It seems like forever since the Packers had two really good running backs of this quality.  Off-hand, I am thinking of Edgar Bennett and Dorsey Levens, but maybe I am forgetting a pair of backs some time in the last 20 years.  There is no need to give up on 2017 just yet, but 2018 looks very promising, indeed!

Signs of Life for the Packers

Adams on the way to the End Zone, Photo by Evan Siegle, Packers.com

The Packers lost a heartbreaker Sunday night, falling to the Steelers by the score of 31-28.  It took a 53 yard field goal on the final play to end the Packers' night, tying the record for longest field goal in Heinz Stadium. 

Nobody gave the Packers a chance going into the game.  I certainly didn't.  The oddsmakers had the Packers as 14.5 point underdogs, which is bigger than any point spread I can remember in a long time.  But this turned out to be Brett Hundley's best game, by far.  Jamaal Williams looked perfectly capable of being a starting running back in the NFL.  And Davante Adams showed that he really is to Hundley as Nelson is to Rodgers, i.e., his go-to receiver.

The comparison on everyone's mind (including mine) was the 2010 Matt Flynn game against the Patriots.  I remember the game very well.  Rodgers was out with a concussion, Flynn had to play against the Patriots, and the Packers were huge underdogs.  Because we had to go to an event that evening, we watched the game on delay, starting two hours after the game started.  I had to ignore all the text messages and phone calls we were receiving, but the volume of them suggested that something very dramatic was happening.  And indeed it was.  The Packers led the Patriots for most of the game, and took the game to the final play before succumbing, 31-27, in a heartbreaker game equivalent to this week's Steelers game.

So which Hundley-led team is the real one?  The team that beat the Bears and came close to beating the Steelers?  Or the team that set off a stink-bomb against the Ravens?  In my view, a big difference Sunday night and a sign of growth was Hundley's ability to see and connect with the open receiver.  We all remember the shot from behind that showed Hundley not seeing a wide-open Jordy Nelson a few weeks ago.  And we have seen Hundley misfire on some of his long throws.  Maybe a few weeks of actually running the offense has made Hundley a little more comfortable back there, and able to go through his progressions without panic.  At any rate, the easy TD to a wide-open Randall Cobb (who was clearly not his first read) in the first quarter must have increased Hundley's confidence.  Then add the interception by Damarious Randall, and the screen pass TD to Jamaal Williams, and you had the recipe for a possible huge upset.  Obviously, not every screen pass works as well as this one, but this is a perfect illustration of why I want to see more of them!

Well, of course, it did not come to pass.  Despite the promising first quarter, as the game went on, it became increasingly obvious that the Packers did not have an adequate answer for Le'Veon Bell (183 total yards) or Antonio Brown (169 yards and 2 TDs).  I put this down more to the credit of the Pittsburgh offense than as a knock on the Packers' defense.  The Packers played pretty well on defense, with special note being given to Blake Martinez and Mike Daniels.  Both of them seemed as if they were in on almost every play.  The Packers got three turnovers on the evening, but only cashed in on the interception in the first half.  If they had scored even a field goal on the second half interception or fumble, the game would likely have gone to overtime.  If they had scored a TD on one of the second half turnovers, they probably would have won the game.

In the post-game show, coach Tony Dungy made the case that the Packers are still in the NFC playoff hunt.  His argument was that the next two games (Buccaneers and Browns) are winnable if Brett Hundley plays like he played Sunday night.  That would take them to 7-6.  Then Rodgers is eligible to return, and the assumption was that he would win all three remaining games to bring them to 10-6 and in the midst of the Wild Card hunt.  Yeah, maybe so, but I will believe it when I see it.  As of right now, the wild cards would go to the Panthers (8-3) and the Falcons (7-4).  The Packers would have to pass up the Lions (6-5), the Seahawks (7-4) and either the Falcons or the Panthers to get a wild card spot.  That is a lot to ask.  All those teams have winning records, and there is no good reason to think that all or most of them are about to go into the tank.

Still, I think the Packers should win on Sunday, despite the fact that Jameis Winston will return from injury.  The Buccaneers just have not been as good as I expected this year, even before Winston's injury.  With the Packers' renewed confidence, and a December home game for the Packers (even if the weather will be unseasonably warm), they should be able to get this win.  We will see what happens after that.

No Margin for Error Left

Most Creative Use of Mouthpiece Award Winner

Ever have a multi-stop business trip, where things go haywire on the first stop, and it threatens to throw a monkey wrench into all of the rest of your plans?  Well, the Packers had that kind of a first stop in Buffalo last Sunday, losing to the Bills 21-13.  They were in it, sort of, until Rodgers was stripped of the ball near the goal line late in the game, and whirled around but could not find the ball.  Eddie Lacy picked the ball up in the end zone and tried to advance it.  Unfortunately for Lacy and the Packers, this brought into play the "holy roller" rule, and thus was a safety, whether or not Lacy got out of the end zone.

The holy roller rule arose out of a 1978 play involving Ken Stabler and Chilton, WI high graduate Dave Casper of the Oakland Raiders.  With seconds left in the game, and the Raiders trailing, Stabler, about to be sacked, "fumbled" the ball forward, where it was bobbled and rolled into the end zone by Casper, where he recovered it for the winning touchdown.  Of course, there were calls for the league to "do something" about this.  In a football application of the old principle that hard cases make bad law, the league came up with the holy roller rule, which basically states that in the final two minutes of a half, only the player who fumbles the ball can advance it.  Thus, when Rodgers could not find the ball, as soon as Lacy picked it up, it was a dead ball in the end zone and a safety.  Ironically, the rule was probably never necessary.  If, as was admitted at the time, Stabler intentionally fumbled the ball in an effort to have a chance for someone to advance it, then it could have been ruled an incomplete forward pass, or maybe even intentional grounding, and in either case the ball could not be advanced.  So, I would argue it was just a bad call, not a cause célèbre calling for a new rule.  But anyway, rules are rules, and the way the Packers had been playing, they didn't have much of a chance anyway.

On the plus side, Cobb and Nelson become the first pair of receivers in the long history of the Packers to have 1,000 yards and 10 touchdowns, each in the same season.  Jordy Nelson's best play of the game, however, might have been on defense.  A pass to Nelson was nearly intercepted and might have been returned for a touchdown, but for Nelson getting a hand on the ball and knocking it out of the defensive back's hands.

But the negatives far outweighed the positive.  Jordy Nelson dropped what should have been a 95 yard TD. That is something that nobody would expect out of Nelson.  And it wasn't just him.  Receivers dropped what looked like 5 or 6 catchable balls throughout the game, and Rodgers was uncharacteristically off on a number of passes.  He had two interceptions, one of which was a tipped ball, like all his previous interceptions this season, but the other was just a bad pass.  Rodgers had the lowest QB rating of his career.  He also had the most incomplete passes in a game in his career.  Remarkably and inexplicably, McCarthy did not respond to the problems in the passing game by calling more running plays, screens, draw plays, etc.  He certainly should have.

And, as a little footnote, there were more problems in the kicking game, as Crosby's 53 yard field goal attempt was blocked, and the Packers' special teams gave up a punt return for a touchdown.

The Bills have the kind of defense that Rodgers generally has problems with.  If they can put pressure on with 4 rushers, and drop everyone else in coverage, problems ensue.  This is the sort of thing that Seattle does to Rodgers, or occasionally the Jim Schwartz-led Lions.  Not entirely coincidentally, Schwartz is now the defensive coordinator for the Bills.

This game featured the worst announcer pair I have ever heard, Justin Kutcher and David Diehl.  My working theory is that they were switched in to cover this game after Fox decided to show the Johnny Manziel game to most of the country, because they acted as if they had done no preparation whatever for the game.  Bryan Bulaga's name was repeatedly pronounced "Beluga" until they finally figured it out in the 4th quarter.  Maybe they grew up listening to the Raffi children's song, Baby Beluga.  Or maybe they love caviar.  Poor Micah Hyde had his name butchered as "Makiah Hyde."  The Old Testament Prophet must be rolling over in his grave.  One of the announcers had the verbal tic where he pronounces the "T" in Kyle Orton as if it were a glottal stop, not a letter to be pronounced.  And I can't count the number of times during the game that one of them said, "my mistake."

The Packers, of course, have to put all the negatives behind them and move on to the Tampa Bay game.  Fans have no choice but to do the same.  The Packers' loss to the Bills puts them in the position where they dropped back into a tie with the Lions, and it is a severe blow to any thought the Packers had of claiming the number 1 seed.  But if they beat the Buccaneers on the road and the Lions at home, the Packers still win the division and get at least the number 2 seed (and the resulting bye).

So the Packers have a lot to play for, and no remaining margin for error.  I was amused today by a Press-Gazette article remembering the time that Brett Favre had to wave his arms to quiet the Packer fans' "Go Pack Go" chant in the Tampa stadium.  I remember the game more for the way it set off a rant from Buccaneers quarterback Trent Dilfer after the game.  Anyway, that was against a Buccaneers team that made the playoffs.  This year, the Buccaneers are 2-12.  While the Buccaneers usually have trouble selling out home games, this game was sold out 6 months ago, and the tickets are now reselling way over face value.  You tell me who is buying those tickets.  To put it a different way, if the Packers have trouble with the Buccaneers in their home away from home, then they are in a heap of trouble overall.  I expect a convincing win from the Packers.  It is time to play like champions again.

10-0, But Far From Perfect

(Image by Duff Damos)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buccaneers Up Next

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

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

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

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

49er Week

The Packers' up and down season continues. After the stirring victory over the Vikings 3 weeks ago, they let one slip away against the Eagles the following Monday night. Then they put on a very impressive show to win against the Buccaneers in Tampa, and now here come the San Francisco 49ers to try to spoil things for them.

Before leaving the Buccaneer game, I just have to comment on two things. That 98.5 yard drive to win the game was one of the sweetest drives seen on a football field in a long time. As one of the TV guys said, if that drive happened in a playoff game, it would be as famous as Elway's "The Drive" against Cleveland years ago. It included what was probably Favre's best pass of the day, on third down from the 1, it included Packer dominance in the running game, and it included Mike Sherman's wonderful decision to go for it on 4th and 1 at the Buccaneers' 16 yard line. When Driver was stopped short of the first down, I hoped that Sherman would go for it, but was afraid he would chicken out, as so many coaches would do in that situation. I think he deserves congratulations for making a tough but great decision.

The other thing is the performance of the running game, but especially that of Najeh Davenport. You don't really expect the backup running back to have that kind of impact on a game, but when Green was out in the 4th quarter, the Packers didn't lose a thing when Davenport came in. In fact, it was probably on Davenport's 27-yard gain as part of the game-winning drive that my wife yelled out "That guy is like a truck!" I suppose you might even say that he is like a dump truck, if you were so inclined. But seriously, I like the way all the runners are playing, and of course lots of credit has to go to the offensive line, who also get credit for keeping that idiot Sapp away from Brett Favre, and for ending the Buccaneers' streak of games with a sack.

Moving on to the 49ers, last year I commented on the fact that the Packers have beaten the 49ers 90 percent of the time (9 out of 10 games) starting with that first playoff game played out here in San Francisco in January of 1996. Normally, this would be cause for a fair amount of confidence in Packer fans about this Sunday's game, except for three problems. First, the Packers' home field advantage seems to have disappeared under mysterious circumstances. They have ALREADY lost three games at Lambeau Field this year, never mind that horrible loss in the playoffs in January. Second, there is the little matter of Favre's broken thumb, and the weather forecast for Sunday: cold and rainy. The last time the weather was like that was the Eagles' Monday night game, and that didn't go too well for the Packers.

Third, the 49ers are playing against a backup quarterback on Sunday, Tim Rattay. I have commented on this before, but the Packers have had the weirdest way over the years of making backup quarterbacks look like one-game shoo-ins for the Hall of Fame. You can take any number of examples, but offhand I cannot remember a situation where the Packers played against a backup quarterback, made life miserable for him, and cruised to a victory. (If you can remember one, please email me so I will feel better about the whole deal.) Also, from what I have seen of him in the last two weeks, Rattay has looked pretty good. Last year, at the end of the Packers-49ers game, I thought Jeff Garcia made two critical errors which basically cost the 49ers any real shot at winning the game (and probably cost Mariucci his job, as well). The final mistake was throwing his fourth down pass to the tight end at the Packers' seven yard line. The pass was incomplete, but even if it had been completed, there was almost no chance that it would have resulted in a first down. To me, it was a case of not using the brain power to realize that you had better throw the ball in the end zone in a situation like that, even if the guy in the end zone is covered. From what I have seen, Rattay cannot be counted on to make that kind of stupid mistake, so the Packers need to make sure that the game is not close at the end.

Finally, we learned this week that Bob Harlan has been elected to the Packers' Hall of Fame. This is an honor that is richly deserved. Bob Harlan started the ball rolling that brought Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren, Brett Favre and Reggie White to Green Bay, and led to one Super Bowl win and another one that got away. He also gets most of the credit for the renovation of Lambeau Field, which, despite the temporary jinx that seems to have caused, was absolutely essential for the long-term health and stability of the Packers. He has my sincere congratulations and thanks.

Ready for Prime Time?

I had looked forward to a quiet week of watching wild card games, waiting for the Packers to play next week, after their bye week off. Everything had been set up so perfectly. First, the Buccaneers lost last Monday night, giving the Packers an opening as wide as a barn door to claim the number 2 seed in the NFC playoffs, and a bye week to rest up and get healthy. Then, my daydream came true, and the Giants beat the Eagles at the Meadowlands on Saturday, opening the way for the Packers to claim home field advantage throughout the NFC playoffs.

Now, I knew that the Jets were a good team, and that they were playing extremely well, and I knew that they were playing the Packers at the Meadowlands. So I figured that there was a good chance the Jets might win the game. But I also expected (or at least hoped) that the Packers would rise to the occasion, given everything that was on the line. The 2002 Packers are not a dominant team, and it is doubtful that they would be dominant even if they had not suffered the injuries they have endured. But most if not all of their margin for error has been eliminated by the injuries. This is why I have assumed, for some weeks now, that the Packers would not end up in the Super Bowl this year. But the one thing that could have changed all of that was home field advantage. The Packers in their current beat-up state may not be invincible, even at home, but the odds of a Super Bowl appearance would have improved dramatically with a win against the Jets on Sunday.

This year's struggle for home field advantage was truly bizarre. Nobody seemed to want it. First, the Buccaneers gave away their own shot at home field by losing to the Steelers. Then the Eagles failed to nail it down, by losing to the Giants (despite the Giants’ friendly efforts to fumble away the game). Then, when the Packers had it sitting right at their feet, they could not take advantage, and could not even keep the game close, so the Eagles ended up with home field by default.

So instead of a week off to rest up, the Packers go from the frying pan (Chad Pennington) into the fire (Michael Vick) and a game against the Falcons on Saturday night. And I find myself on a plane to Chicago with my son as I write this, so we can be there way up in Row 58, Section 128, in the chilly night air (and maybe snow!) to watch the game. Early in the season, before most people knew who Chad Pennington was, Michael Vick was already becoming the young, exciting phenom at quarterback. He almost beat the Packers in a brutally hot opening day game at Lambeau Field. The Falcons, after lots of early excitement, ended up backing into the playoffs, after their own problems in the last few weeks were not quite enough to knock themselves out, but only because the New Orleans Saints were losing even more games than the Falcons. The Falcons could not score a potential game-tying touchdown last week against the Browns after four shots at it inside the 5 yard line, seemingly frittering away their playoff hopes, but their season was saved when the Saints also lost their game.

So the Falcons meet the Packers Saturday night, with neither team exactly on a roll. The league's experiment with Saturday night playoff games last year turned out to be a smashing success, given everything you could ask for in the Oakland at New England game, a good matchup, a close game, heavy snowfall, and even a controversial, game-deciding call. I suspect the league thinks that all the elements are present again. Brett Favre, the aging superstar, gunning for one more Super Bowl ring before retiring. Michael Vick, the next generation of superstar quarterbacks. ABC's own superstars in the form of the Monday Night Football crew. Lambeau Field, on a night when the tundra actually might be frozen, and now with the likelihood of snow.

I'm not saying it will be easy, but I think the Packers will win this game. The conditions on Saturday night should be such that Michael Vick will be slowed down, hopefully enough for the Packers' defenders to keep up with him. I would feel a lot better about this game if I knew that Driver and Sharper would be ready to play, but as of this writing they are both listed as questionable. I also think the Giants will easily defeat the 49ers. The Giants are on a roll, and the 49ers are not. The 49ers' defensive backs are not very good, and I keep thinking of the Giants carving up the Vikings' defensive backs in the NFC Championship game a couple of years ago.

If these predictions come true, it will be Green Bay at Tampa next week, along with the Giants at Philadelphia. There are lots of interesting story lines there, but that is a subject for another column, next week, if and when my predictions pan out.

We're Number Two!

“We’re Number Two! We’re Number Two!”

Okay, maybe it doesn’t have the same ring as the more traditional “We’re Number One” cheer, but in the NFL, being the number two seed in the playoffs is a vast improvement over being the number three seed. I didn’t really think that the Packers would move up to the number two seed. The Eagles refuse to lose a game (and they continued to win this week), and even though the Buccaneers have looked a little shakier in recent weeks, I didn’t really expect them to lose at home on Monday night.

As for the Packers’ win over Buffalo, for the second time this month, a Packer player played through a personal tragedy. In this case, Vonnie Holliday learned on Saturday that his second cousin, a rising star high school athlete, had collapsed and died that day. Holliday had to break the news to his relatives, many of whom had flown in on Saturday for the Packers’ game against the Bills. Holliday not only played Sunday, he set a team record for sacks in a game, by sacking Drew Bledsoe five times and forcing three fumbles in the process.

The Packers, by beating Buffalo, became the only team in the league this season to go undefeated at home. That is a matter of pride for the Packers and their fans. Mike Sherman emphasized this point by going around the stadium with several players after the game, to offer “high fives” to the fans, and by stating in his post-game comments that the Packer fans are undefeated this year at home.

The most striking thing about the game itself, other than Vonnie Holliday’s performance, was the wind. Both Sherman and Favre were emphatic in their post-game comments that the wind was MUCH worse than the previous week at San Francisco (not to mention that it was a lot colder). It was swirling, and moving mostly across the field (whereas in San Francisco it moved from one end of the field to the other), so that it was very difficult to either predict, or compensate for it. Sherman said that when the wind affects Brett Favre’s throws, you really know it is windy. Favre said that this was the worst combination of wind and cold in which he has played.

Then on Monday night, the Pittsburgh Steelers, another franchise with a storied history, did their friends from Green Bay an enormous favor by beating the Buccaneers, 17-7. It was the greatest gift from the Steelers franchise since the famous “Yancey Clause” game on Christmas Eve of 1995. In that game, Yancey Thigpen dropped what should have been a touchdown pass in the end zone late in the game, ensuring the Packers would win the NFC Central Division for the first time in the Brett Favre/Mike Holmgren era. The Buccaneers’ loss, combined with the Packers’ win over Buffalo, moved the Packers past the Buccaneers and, at least temporarily, into the number two seed in the playoffs. If they stay there, they will get a week off to get healthy before starting the playoffs at home, and in my judgment a much improved chance of hosting the NFC Championship game.

To maintain the number two seed, all the Packers have to do is beat the Jets in New Jersey on Sunday. That won’t be easy, as the Jets are playing pretty well. But the Packers, overall, are a better team, and therefore can and should win this game. If you want to get a little greedier, you could hope for the Giants to beat the Eagles on the same field in New Jersey on Saturday. If the Packers win and the Eagles lose, the Packers become the number one seed, and then we can all use the more traditional version of the cheer. The Eagles really could lose to the Giants, as the Giants have played very well in recent weeks, but then I have been saying that the Eagles were bound to lose some games ever since Donovan McNabb was injured.

The Ninety Percent Solution

A few random thoughts and local flavor from the Packers’ big, wet weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area. For me, the weekend started Saturday morning. On a weekend like this, I wear Packer stuff pretty much wherever I go and whatever I do. So my wife and I were at a meeting in San Francisco Saturday morning. When we were about to take a break, a guy said, "This has nothing to do with what we have been talking about, but what is with your Packer shirt?" I said "This is our big weekend - at least I hope it is." Later, talking on the side with him, I said, "We have never missed a Packer game in San Francisco or Oakland in over 22 years of living here." He said, "Oh, well if you have lived here that long you must have a bit of mixed loyalty." To which I replied, "Not for a minute, not even for a second." So we were on a roll.

Sometimes when the Packers are in town, we try to figure out where they are staying, and then hang around their hotel. We got our picture taken with Reggie White that way before the NFC Championship game after the 1997 season, for example. This year, we didn’t get the chance to go over there, but I did read in the paper that Packers’ plane was delayed because of the weather, but that the Packer fans waited as long as it took at the team hotel. You’ve got to love those Packer fans.

My theory has been that, if the Packers can just win all of their games, someone will slip up in front of them, and they may sneak into a number 2 (or even a number 1) seed. That would be a huge development, since it would give them a badly needed week off before their first playoff game. Well, the Packers have now won three games in a row. But then the Buccaneers pulled out another game on Sunday, when they certainly could have lost. And the Eagles can't keep winning with their third string quarterback. But they do. So all the Packers can do at this point is to keep winning and hoping.

We had a really fabulous time at the game on Sunday, along with maybe 20,000 fellow Packer fans. It is hard to estimate, but I think there were a lot more Packer fans this time than in the "Terrell Owens" game, for example. My shiny new NFC North Champions hat from the Packer Pro Shop (which arrived exactly when they told me it would, those guys at the Packer Pro Shop are great) made a big hit with lots of the fellow Packer fans. The weather was bad, of course. It rained, at times quite heavily, throughout most of the game. Because we were invited by a good friend to watch the game with a bunch of 49er fans in a suite, we stayed completely dry. But from our dry vantage point, the weather was bad, but not nearly as bad as it was for the NFC Championship game here after the 1997 season. That day we needed all the rain gear we could get our hands on.

As the game started, we realized that Gilbert Brown was not playing, which came as a shock, since we had not seen or heard any of the pre-game shows. That seemed like a really bad sign, but the defense played better against the run than it has in weeks. The first half seemed kind of sluggish, with both teams playing fairly conservatively, and it ended with the 49ers leading, 6-3.

Then things changed in a hurry. We had assumed that the Packers would pick on the 49er defensive backs throughout the game, after watching the way the Eagles second and third string quarterbacks picked them apart a few weeks ago. In the first half, the Packers went with a more balanced attack, and the running game was not working that well. But the Packers marched down the field on the opening drive of the second half, throwing on 6 out of the 8 plays in the 79-yard drive, and scored a touchdown to take the lead. Four plays later, the Packers intercepted Garcia on a deflection, and quickly moved 29 yards for another touchdown, throwing on 4 out of the 6 plays on that drive. These drives were classic examples of using the pass to set up the run.

The momentum in the game had changed dramatically. We were struck by the fact that these two drives had resulted in touchdowns against the wind, meaning that things should be easier for the Packers and harder for the 49ers in the 4th quarter. After the second touchdown, it seemed as if the Packer fans were about to take over the stadium, as their cheers seemed almost as loud as the noise being made by the 49er fans at other points. In fact, if the 49ers had not scored their only touchdown of the day on the very next drive, I think the crowd would have been mostly Packer fans by some time in the 4th quarter.

But of course they did, and as a result, the game ended up as a nail-biter. On the final drive, as the 49ers moved methodically down the field, the game had every appearance of being headed for another Terrell Owens disaster, just like the playoff game after the 1998 season. But the Packers played better on defense this time, and Jeff Garcia made a couple of critical bad decisions on the last few plays. His incompletion on first down from the Packers’ 14 yard line was a bad choice. He could have run for 8 to 10 yards. And his fourth down pass was completely unfathomable to me (but totally welcome). Owens was covered tightly, and so presumably Garcia worked through his progressions leading to an incomplete pass to the tight end at about the 7 yard line. But the problem with the pass was not that it was incomplete, but that it had absolutely no chance of getting a first down. What Garcia did, most likely, was to follow the progression rules of his system, without applying the judgment factor that says in a case like this it is better to try to force a pass to someone in the end zone than to throw a pass at the feet of the tight end at the 7 yard line. That is a mistake that Brett Favre (or Steve Young, for that matter) would never have made.

And so the Packers emerged with the win, for the 9th time in 10 tries in the Brett Favre era. Living here through the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the glory years of the 49ers, it sometimes seemed as if no team would get the upper hand on the 49ers for long. And yet, starting with that first playoff game between the Packers and the 49ers after the 1995 season, Brett Favre and the Packers have beaten the 49ers 90% of the time. That is the best record the Packers have against any team in the Brett Favre era, other than a couple of teams that the Packers have only played 2 or 3 times. Yes, it is even better than the Packers’ record against the Bears over that period of time. This era is not going to last forever, so enjoy it while you can.

Traffic was unbelievably bad on the way home. California drivers don't know how to drive in the rain. But this gave us plenty of time to listen to the 49er post-game show on the radio. There were heavy doses of whining and complaining. Several callers felt that Gilbert Brown (!?!) should have been penalized for what they called his "forearm shiver" on Garcia. Then there was complaining about Steve Mariucci, and how he can't get the job done (the point being that the reason he was brought in was to beat the Packers). There was complaining about play-calling (the 4th down play, the 49ers didn't throw downfield enough, Garcia should have run for the first down, how could they call a running play to Garrison Hearst when they needed a touchdown, etc.). The host of the show wasn’t buying most of the complaints. So then he was accused of being too supportive of the team, and not critical enough. Then they complained about the 49er ticket holders selling their tickets to Packer fans. This was just great fun. It made the 2 hour plus trip home a lot easier to take.

Then, Monday morning, on John Madden's call-in on KCBS radio, they discussed the Packer-49er game. The sports guy said that the 49ers, to a man, say that they are not that concerned about having to go on the road during the playoffs, and that they can win on the road, including Lambeau Field. He asked Madden if he agrees. Madden: "Uhhhhh, no. When you talk about playing the Packers in Lambeau Field in the playoffs, now you are talking about not just a 5 year or 10 game streak, you are talking about a team that has NEVER lost a home playoff game in history." Sports guy: "Someday they are going to lose a playoff game at Lambeau Field." Madden: "Yeah, but it won't be to the 49ers."

Eerie Parallels?

Much has been made in the last few weeks about the parallels between this season and the 1996 season, which ended with the Packers' victory over New England in Super Bowl XXXI. The Packers rolled their way to an 8-1 record in 1996, before injuries started to take their toll. With a depleted group of receivers, they lost a couple of games in a row (to the Chiefs and then to the Cowboys) to drop to 8-3. Then, the team rallied, after signing Andre Rison as a replacement receiver, and did not lose a game for the rest of the year, including the crowning glory Super Bowl victory in New Orleans.

But before getting back on track, they looked like they were in danger of losing their third straight game, at St. Louis (not a very good team at the time), where they trailed 9-0, and then 9-3 at the half. Doug Evans sparked the comeback in the third quarter when he intercepted Tony Banks' pass and ran it in for a touchdown to put the Packers in front, and they never relinquished the lead.

The same general story can be told about the 2002 season, so far. The Packers had an 8-1 record, before injuries (most recently to Chad Clifton) started to catch up with the Packers. The Packers lost consecutive road games at Minnesota and at Tampa Bay. They then played a game against a lesser opponent, the Chicago Bears, and they played poorly in the first half, trailing 14-6 at the half. And once again, defensive plays sparked the comeback, first, an amazing all-out effort by Javon Walker (playing defense after Favre's pass was intercepted on the last play of the half), running down the Bears' ball carrier who seemed surely on his way to a touchdown. And then, the other Walker, Rod, pulled an equally amazing defensive play in the second half to steal the ball away from the center and quarterback just as it was being snapped, with the Bears poised to score from the Packers' 1 yard line. The Packers roared back to win that game, and continued the win streak this week against Minnesota.

So, are the Packers on their way to home field advantage, a cruise through the playoffs, and another Super Bowl win? Who knows, but it looks like it will be much harder to pull off a Super Bowl victory this year. The parallels simply don't hold up when you look more closely. The Packers, in 1996, were a really dominant team, except for that stretch in the third quarter of the season. They started strong, and they finished strong, and they were never in much danger of losing any of the three playoff games that year.

This year, the Packers had a few convincing wins in the second quarter of the season, but otherwise every game has seemed in danger of being lost. Unlike 1996, when Desmond Howard was the Packers' secret weapon on special teams, this year, the Packers' special teams have been ordinary at best. But why take my word for it? During the Tampa Bay game, the announcers said that they had asked Brett Favre to compare this year's team to the 1996 team. Favre said that the 1996 team was much stronger than this year's team. The announcers seemed surprised to hear this, but anyone who has watched all of the games would have to agree with Favre.

Home field advantage itself is going to be difficult or impossible to achieve this year. The Packers are tied with the Eagles and the Buccaneers for best record in the league at 10-3, but both of those teams have tie-breaker advantages over the Packers, so even winning their remaining games will not guarantee home field advantage. Just today, the Buccaneers played the Falcons. You might think the Falcons, with the sensational Michael Vick, would have a shot to beat the Buccaneers, but the game was not close. The Eagles, with their third-string quarterback, went to Seattle to play the Seahawks. But again the game was not competitive. The 49ers, who trail the Packers by a game, had a game they easily could have lost at Dallas, but they rallied to win it at the end of the game. So, today at least, the Packers got no help whatsoever from other teams. And they are going to need help to get the home field advantage.

Next week, the Packers travel to the birthplace of the West Coast Offense, San Francisco. The 49ers seem vulnerable, based on their last couple of games, and yet despite their vulnerability they have managed to pull out wins in most of their games. The Packers don't have to look very far to get a game plan as to how to beat the 49ers. All they have to do is pull out the tapes of the Monday night victory by the Eagles (another West Coast Offense team) against the 49ers a couple of weeks ago. The Eagles, with their second and third-string quarterbacks, clearly displayed the weakness of the 49ers defensive backs. If the offensive line can give Favre some time, he should be able to carve the 49ers up. I will be there, of course. I have never missed a Packer game in San Francisco or Oakland in the 22 years I have lived here.

Must-Win Game?

Must-win game? The first reaction is “of course not.” The Packers are 8-2, and they lead their division by 5 games with 5 games left in the season. There will be no must-win games for the Packers until the playoffs.

Still, there is an uncomfortable feeling that this week’s game at Tampa will determine home field advantage in the NFC playoffs. And that is a big deal for both teams. It is a big deal for the Buccaneers because of the oft-cited statistic that the Buccaneers have NEVER won a game, in the entire history of the franchise, in cold weather (where the kickoff temperature is below 40 degrees). It is almost as huge a factor for the Packers. The Packers have never, in the history of Lambeau Field, ever lost a home playoff game. They have won plenty of games on the road, in the regular season and in the playoffs, but their recent history is not as good. In fact, the Packers have lost the last 2 playoff games they have played on the road (at St. Louis last year, and at San Francisco after the 1998 season). So the Packers would prefer not to have to return to Tampa or New Orleans or San Francisco in January (not to play a football game, anyway).

So let’s look forward to the end of the season. Realistically, there are only 3 teams in contention with the Packers for the home field advantage in the NFC, the Buccaneers, the 49ers and the Eagles. The Packers and the Buccaneers are both 8-2 at the moment, and the 49ers and Eagles are both 7-3.

The Packers’ schedule is: at Tampa, Bears at Green Bay, Minnesota at Green Bay, at San Francisco, Buffalo at Green Bay, and at New York Jets. My best guess is that the Packers will lose 2 of those games, and end up at 12-4.

The Buccaneers’ schedule is: Green Bay at Tampa, at New Orleans, Atlanta at Tampa, at Detroit, Pittsburgh at Tampa, and at Chicago. My guess is that they will end up at 12-4 or 13-3, AND that they will get their first-ever cold weather win at Chicago.

The 49ers have Philadelphia at San Francisco, Seattle at San Francisco, at Dallas, Green Bay at San Francisco, at Arizona, and at St. Louis. I would imagine that they will end up at 11-5 or 12-4.

Finally, the Eagles play at San Francisco, St. Louis at Philadelphia, at Seattle, Washington at Philadelphia, at Dallas, and at the New York Football Giants. But the key factor in the case of the Eagles is that they have lost Donovan McNabb, probably at least for the rest of the regular season. How will they do with Koy Detmer behind center? Hard to say, but I would be surprised if they end up better than 10-6.

So, when you think about it, this really is a key (almost must-win) game for the Packers. If the Packers win, they will probably end up at 13-3 and with the home field advantage. The Buccaneers won’t be able to catch the Packers unless the Packers lose two more games, and the 49ers won’t be able to catch the Packers unless they beat the Packers straight up AND pick up another game somewhere along the way. The reverse is pretty much true if the Buccaneers win. They would probably end up with a 13-3 record and the home field advantage.

The only difference is that the Buccaneers face what I consider to be a tougher schedule. It is a little easier to imagine the Buccaneers losing more than one game in the games against New Orleans, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh (or maybe even at Chicago if you really believe in the cold weather jinx), but I would not count on it.

This game, which will be shown to 87% of the country by FOX, is the biggest game of the year for either team. If the Packers can win (which would be their first win at Raymond James stadium, by the way) they will be well on their way to securing home field advantage. [Ed. note - the Packers lost to the Buccaneers, 21-7.]

2001 in Review

Last night, we brought to a close a year many of us would rather put behind us, and today we welcome what we hope will be a much better year. Outside the football world, 2001 was a terrible year. A controversial Presidential election split the country right down the middle as the year began, and the stock market and the whole economy were in the tank. Then came the unfathomable terrorist attacks by Bin Laden's foot soldiers. Thousands of our fellow citizens lost their lives because of a handful of religious fanatics. And on and on. It was a year we will never forget, and a year that helped us football fanatics to put our fanaticism into some perspective, for a change.

But back to the Packers. 2001 started off quietly, too quietly, as the Packers were out of the playoffs for the second year in a row. On the bright side, that string of four straight victories in December, 2000 against NFC Central opponents left us with a sense that 2001 could bring better things for the Packers.

And sure enough, the Packers started out the 2001 season with a bang, winning the first three games in a fashion that was impressive, except for nagging doubts about the quality of their opponents. They then dropped a close game in Tampa, and then quite unexpectedly beat the World Champion Ravens in Green Bay. That was, in some ways, the high point of the season. Since that time their record has been 7-3, which is pretty good, but the three losses were to teams they should have beaten, and a couple of the victories required either miracle finishes (in Jacksonville) or serious nail-biting (in Detroit, and in Chicago). Most frustrating of all was the Packers' tendency to lose an "easy" game immediately after an important victory. All of this leaves one thinking wistfully of what might have been if the Packers had not dropped one of those games.

Sunday's game looked like it might fit right into that mold. The Packers had made the playoffs the week before, and now the Packers had no running game, the passing game was mostly misfiring, and the defensive line was being gashed by the Vikings' running backs, despite the total absence of any passing game from the Vikings' third string quarterback. The Packers were letting the Vikings hang around through the entire game, and when the Vikings scored to go ahead in the 4th quarter, 13-10, it looked like an upset in the making. But then the Packers turned it on, Packers marched down the field on the next drive, and went ahead for good.

What was the story? Were they just toying with the Vikings? Not exactly. It turns out from the post-game interviews that there was method in the Packers' madness, at least on defense. They were determined not to let the Vikings' receivers (especially Randy Moss) get open, and if that meant less attention to defending the run, so be it. The Packers were pretty sure that the Vikings would not win the game on the ground, and it turns out they were right. On offense, the picture is more complicated. The running game was not working, but the passing game was also misfiring, with a combination of off-target passes and dropped passes. This is the kind of inconsistency we have seen on and off all year, except this time it did not cost the Packers the game.

My sense is that the Packers are a year away from doing any serious damage in the playoffs. Living here in 49er country, the 49er fans seem to have the same question about their team that I have about the Packers: how is this team going to beat the Rams? The answer is that neither the 49ers nor the Packers have much chance of doing that. Of course, on any given Sunday anything can happen, but speaking for myself, I am not making any reservations for New Orleans.

Still, the season for the Packers has at least two weeks to go, and that is a much better situation than the Packers found themselves in a year ago. There are no guarantees, but the Packers have a reasonable shot of beating any other NFC team in the playoffs, except the Rams in the dome. So if things go right, the Packers could even end up in the NFC Championship game, and I suppose if someone else knocks off the Rams (like the Buccaneers?) they could possibly end up in the Super Bowl. But that seems like too much to ask of this team. A much more likely scenario is a first-round victory, followed by a frustrating loss in the second round. That will have been a very good season for the Packers, and something to build on for next year.

In the meantime, Happy New Year to Packer fans everywhere, and to all Americans.

The Favreian Dilemma

Today's game, in which the Packers beat the Buccaneers by a final score of 21-20, highlights a problem the Packers have had, on and off, for the entire Brett Favre era. The problem is that Favre is not only the Packers' best player, he is also sometimes the Packers' biggest problem. Not in the way that Terrell Owens, Randy Moss or Brian Cox can be problems for their teams.
The mature Brett Favre seems to be a good citizen, on and off the field. But Favre's somewhat reckless style, in addition to leading to some of his most astonishing, creative, and sensational plays, also leads to his tendency to turn the ball over and create points for the other side.

Today's game is a perfect example. The Buccaneers scored 20 points, and almost won the game. Some could even say they should have won the game, although I would disagree. What is clear is that 17 of those 20 points were scored after Favre's two interceptions and Ahman Green's fumble. If Favre's third "interception" had not been overruled on replay when it was determined that the ball hit the ground before the interceptor gained control of the ball, chances are good that the Buccaneers would have picked up the game winning points on the drive that would have resulted from that turnover. In other words, mistakes by the Packers' two best players on offense led to 85% of the Buccaneers' points today. Take away those mistakes, and the game isn't even close. (To illustrate this, consider the fact that when Ahman Green scored on his long touchdown run, the total offense of each team was Green Bay, 323 yards, Tampa Bay, 121 yards.)

So couldn't we just get all the good plays out of Brett Favre, but tell him to be a little more careful about where he throws it? Or couldn't we get all the good plays from Ahman Green but tell him to hold on tight when he is struggling for extra yards? Well, I guess it does not really work that way. They should certainly be told to be more careful with the ball, and in fact I would argue that Favre is a lot more careful with the ball than he was earlier in his career. But just like you have to take all of the calories along with the ice cream sundae, we have to accept that Favre's basic style of play is going to lead to some mistakes on most days, along with all of the great plays. If the Packers were as dominant as they were in 1996, the mistakes would hardly matter at all. But they are not, and as a result they will certainly lose some games that they should have won. This team would not be 5-2 without Brett Favre and Ahman Green, make no mistake about it.

* * * *

On a lighter note, I am going to award today's game ball not to Brett Favre, or to Ahman Green, or even to Allan Rossum, but instead to Judy Freeman (my wife). When the score was 17-7 in favor of the Buccaneers, she told me I should move the Packer flag on our house back to its original location. My mind raced back to the fact that I had moved the flag bracket from the left side of the garage to the right side, JUST BEFORE THE DISASTROUS GAME AGAINST THE VIKINGS! And here it was, 17-7 in favor of the Buccaneers. Now I am not as superstitious as I used to be, but faced with these facts, why take the chance? I ran outside, screwdriver in hand, and moved the bracket back to the left side, after which the Packers ended up winning the game. Coincidence? You be the judge. Are all football fans this superstitious, or is it just us Packer fans?

And then, to put the icing on the cake, when the score was 20-14, Buccaneers, and the Bucs were lining up to punt, Judy said "it would be nice if you run the ball in right now." Ten seconds later (did you see Rossum's acceleration through the hole?), the Packers were ahead.

Having witnessed these events, you would think I would be smarter than to go out to do some yard work during the late game, with the Bears losing, 21-7 and a couple of minutes left. I thought the game was under control. But for the second week in a row, the Bears came back from a 14 or 15 point deficit in the closing minutes to win the game in overtime. Now that is a scary prospect if the Bears have developed into a team that can come from way behind and win games. Since the 49ers and the Browns don't seem to know how to beat the Bears, the Packers will have to take care of the Bears by themselves.