Back to the Present

Packers' only Score, Photo by Packers.com

We have learned a couple of things in the last two weeks.  The Packers are good enough to win a game against the league leading and previously undefeated Cardinals, even if they are without their top 3 receivers (Adams, Lazard, and Valdes-Scantling).  The Cardinals gift-wrapped the win, to be sure, by giving up a game-clinching interception in the end zone in the closing seconds, but the Packers played well enough all game long to feel good about pocketing the win.

And we have learned that the Packers are not good enough to beat a pretty average Chiefs team, even though they got their receivers back, but with second year QB Jordan Love behind center.  We were all hoping for a better result than the 13-7 loss to the Chiefs, but it was obvious that Love is not really ready to be the heir apparent just yet.  He showed promise at times, especially in the fourth quarter, but in my opinion Matt LaFleur, fresh off a brilliant game plan against the Cardinals, did Love no favors by underemphasizing the running game.  With Jones averaging more than 4 yards per carry, and Dillon averaging more than 5 yards per carry, a game plan where Love ended up throwing the ball 34 times compared to a combined 20 carries for Jones and Dillon, makes no sense, and LaFleur, since the game, has acknowledged that he should have done a better job in game planning.  Might another start or two for Love help him take the next step and show himself capable of taking over the reins when Rodgers departs?  Maybe.  But it seems clear that if Rodgers is cleared to play on Saturday, they will almost certainly have him start the game.  

Under the right circumstances, a team can come together and "have the back" of a backup quarterback.  In week 8, that happened when the Jets, Saints, Cowboys and Seahawks won their games while starting backup quarterbacks.  But the rest of the team, and the coaching staff, have to pick up the slack.  Unfortunately for the Packers, only the defense showed up for Jordan Love.  The defense essentially held the once-explosive Chiefs offense to 10 points (the other three points were courtesy of the muffed punt).  But the special teams were a wasteland, with two missed field goals, and two muffed punts, one of which resulted in a turnover and an easy 3 points for the Chiefs.  All told, you could say that the special teams cost the Packers 9 points on the day, which obviously might have been enough to make the difference between a loss and a win.  And the coaching staff, in addition to under-emphasizing the running game, also called a lot of pass plays with deep dropbacks by Love.  How different the game might have been if they had emphasized the run, and emphasized the quick passes that amount to an extension of the running game.  

Oh, well, lesson learned, or at least we can hope that the lesson has been learned.  This week, the Packers will most likely have Rodgers back, and they will most likely have David Bakhtiari back for the first time this year.  Rodgers may not be in great game shape, since he has been quarantining on his couch for the 10 days leading up to the game.  So the coaching staff may still have the opportunity to come up with a creative game plan to take advantage of Rodgers' talents without exposing him to unnecessary fatigue due to his conditioning.  

Russell Wilson has been out for most of the last four games, during which the Seahawks had a 1-3 record.  While the Seahawks' passing game will be much improved with the return of Wilson, the running game is still a bit of a mess, with Chris Carson on IR and not expected back this week.  The Seahawks game is one that the Packers should win, and it would be very helpful to get back into the Win column, with games coming up in the next few weeks against the Rams, Viking, Ravens and Browns.  Go Packers!

The Sky is Falling! Or is it?

Supply Your Own Caption

The Packers have no chance!  It is a total disaster!  With one of the Packers' biggest stars out of the lineup due to Covid, and various other injuries and Covid problems, playing against one of the better teams in the league, there is no way that the Packers can keep their winning streak going.  The Packers will be lucky if the game is not totally out of hand by halftime.

As you might have guessed by now, that was more or less my reaction last week, when the news came down that Davante Adams would almost certainly miss the game against Arizona, Allen Lazard would definitely miss the game, and neither MVS not David Bakhtiari would be ready to return to the lineup.  And yet, the Packers won the game, holding on for a 24-21 victory when recent signee Rasul Douglas abruptly ended the Cardinals' chance with a dramatic end zone interception in the closing seconds of the game.  

Head coach Matt LaFleur deserves a lot of credit for a game plan that took advantage of the weaknesses of the Cardinals' defense, by emphasizing the running game rather than the passing game, which (not coincidentally) also emphasized the Packers' stronger suit under the circumstances, with Aaron Jones and A.J. Dillon leading the way.  Acting defensive coordinator Jerry Gray (taking the place of Joe Barry, also sidelined by Covid), also called a great game by consistently applying pressure to the Cardinals' passing game.  

Now, it is true that by the end of the game, the Cardinals were poised to spoil the Packers' day by either winning the game in the final seconds with a touchdown, or by getting a "gimme" field goal to take the game to overtime where, with all of the momentum having shifted to the Cardinals' side, the Cardinals would probably have won.  This, in my view, was mostly the result of questionable play calling by LaFleur (or perhaps Rodgers at the line of scrimmage) in the red zone.  Three times, the Packers had first downs inside the Cardinals' 5 yard line (once in the second, once in the third, and once in the fourth quarters).  Despite the game planning for the running game, inside the 5 yard line, the Packers mostly emphasized the pass.  They ended up with 10 points to show for those 3 possessions.  Sticking with the running game plan would likely have yielded 14 points, maybe 17 points, maybe even 21 points.  Any of those results would have changed the complexion of the game in the closing minutes.  As it was, it took the last minute interception by Douglas to secure the win.

OK, well if last week I thought the Packers would almost certainly lose, what about this week?  This time, they have to travel to play the Chiefs, and this time they are without their biggest star, Aaron Rodgers, who has not only come down with Covid-19, it turns out he has clearly been trying to mislead the public by creating the impression that he has been vaccinated ("Yeah, I've been immunized"), when the truth is that he has not.  Even vaccinated players can catch the virus, but by (in my opinion, stupidly) refusing to get vaccinated, Rodgers increased the odds that he would get the virus, and increased the chances that his infection might be a serious one.  Not exactly a profile in team leadership, and he richly deserves all the blowback he is getting in the media and with fans.  

At any rate, instead of getting the Mahomes vs. Rodgers matchup many had been anticipating, we now will have the first career start by second year QB Jordan Love.  Is Love up to the task?  As Matt LaFleur said, "we'll find out."  Either way, this will be a preview of coming attractions when Rodgers leaves town, and whether we like it or not, we will be getting that preview sooner than we had hoped.

While Love's first start will be against the reigning AFC Champions, that is not quite as daunting a task as it would have appeared at the beginning of the season.  The Chiefs have been having a weird season, and they are only 4-4. and have given up more points (220) than they have scored (208).  They have lost to some good teams, but they also came close to losing to the Giants last week.  Meanwhile, the Packers will have Lazard and MVS back this week, and most likely Adams as well.  It is possible that even Bakhtiari will be back.  With Rodgers out, Love's backup would normally have been Kurt Benkert, but Benkert is also out on the Covid list.  Fans of the series The Good Place will be happy to know that Blake Bortles was whisked off a Florida golf course, caught the next plane to Green Bay, and will serve as Love's backup on Sunday.

Having escaped with a short-handed win against the previously undefeated Cardinals NFC team last week, the Packers are essentially playing with house money at this point.  LaFleur has had all week to design a game plan around Love's strengths and avoiding his weaknesses.  Love looked pretty good in his limited action for the Packers in the preseason and in mop up duty in Week 1.  To my mind, the Packers' task this week is far less hopeless than the task last week against the Cardinals.  I think they have a real chance to win this game.  And if they don't, at least the loss will be to an AFC team, which is obviously less harmful than a loss to an NFC team.  Go Packers!

Packers Finding Ways to Win Games

Aaron Jones, star of the game, photo by Ed Zurga, Associated Press

Sunday night's game was another game that the Packers, in past lives, might have lost.  They have for many years had a habit of making backup quarterbacks look great, going back to Jason Garrett as the backup quarterback for the Cowboys.  In this case, Andy Reid had smartly devised a game plan where the ball was out of Matt Moore's hands as quickly as possible.  So as a result, he ended up getting hit far less frequently than Rodgers.  And he looked pretty good - like one of the veteran backup quarterbacks we wished we had on the roster during the seasons that Rodgers missed a lot of time.  He certainly looked good enough to have a real chance to manage a game tying drive at the end and send the game to overtime.

Reid had also designed a good defensive game plan, involving a lot of physical man coverage and a lot of blitzes against Rodgers.  So even though the Packers quickly went up 14-0, the Chiefs kept the pressure up and came back to take a 17-14 lead.  In the fourth quarter, the Packers went back on top, first by 24-17, and later by 31-24. 

So when the Packers held the Chiefs and forced a punt with 5 minutes left in the game, and the punt was downed at the Green Bay 2, there were all kinds of things that could go wrong.  A turnover, a safety, a 3 and out giving the Chiefs the ball back at around midfield, a Tyreek Hill punt return.  And in the case of past Packers teams, one of those things would probably have happened - most likely giving the Chiefs the ball back with enough time to at least mount a drive to try to tie the game.

When the Packers found themselves with 3rd and 5 at the two minute warning, I wanted to see a passing play to get the first down and ice the game.  I can see the argument being made that you have to run the ball to keep the clock moving, and anyway your defense should be able to prevent a touchdown.  So run it, hope for the best, and probably have to punt the ball.  But LaFleur obviously decided that, with a Hall of Fame quarterback behind center, a short pass to get the first down is the way to go.  If they call the perfect defense, Rodgers is smart enough not to do something stupid, and at worst he can pull the ball down and hit the turf for a couple yard loss.  I like the philosophy that we will go out and try to win, rather than just avoid all risk and hope to hold them.  As LaFleur apparently told Rodgers, "go win the game."  Which they did, 31-24.

The Packers are doing lots of things right this year, in spite of a defense that is sometimes too porous, an offense that had a slow start to the year, and special teams that are a mess except for Mason Crosby and J.K. Scott.  But if there is one thing that they are doing right better than I have seen in years, it is finding a way to win close games.  Not every game is going to be a blowout, and the Packers have had to come from behind in 5 of their 8 games this year.  Only against the Eagles did they fail to complete the job and win the game, although they had multiple chances to tie up the game.  I have always felt that the really good teams find ways to win those close games, and this year the Packers seem to be doing that.

The evidence becomes more clear every week that there is a silver lining to the absence of Davante Adams.  The Packers have discovered that Aaron Jones is a legitimate receiving threat, and they lined him up as a wideout on numerous occasions during the game.  He ended up being the leading receiver for both teams in the game with 159 receiving yards, two receiving touchdowns, and another one where he stepped out of bounds.  If you imagine the offense being as good as it is right now, and then layer in Davante Adams on top of that, this could turn out to be a very special season if everyone stays healthy after he returns.

I don't think anybody would have predicted that the Packers would be 7-1 at this point in the season.  The next game, against the Chargers at Dignity Health Sports Park in Los Angeles is one of the road games where I expect a win.  The Chargers don't really have a home fan base yet in Los Angeles, and they have had a disappointing season.  So the tiny, 27,000 seat temporary stadium will be filled with Packers fans, including cousins John and Ben, and even my local State Farm agent, Matt.  We would normally go to a game this close to home, but we are out of the country and unable to attend.  The weather should be great (unless it is still smoky from all of the California fires), and I hope I can figure out a way to watch the game.

"Scary" Packers Offense Gives Raiders a Tough Time

Cousins Having Fun at the Game

Many of us have been predicting that the Packers' offense would improve every week.  And with the exception of a dip in points production in the Lions' game last week, that is basically exactly what has happened.  But Sunday's game against the Raiders was the ultimate culmination of that trend, as the Packers scored 42 points in beating the Raiders, 42-24.  Rodgers threw 5 touchdown passes (each one to a different receiver), ran in a 6th touchdown, and Rodgers had the first perfect quarterback rating of 158.3 in the 100 year history of the Packers.  Rodgers also became the quarterback to get to 350 touchdown passes in the smallest number of games played (172).  As Za'Darius Smith said, "that's some legendary stuff."  So it would be hard to expect any further improvement in the offense, and, quite frankly, I am OK with the offense just as it played on Sunday.

The defense was a different story.  You could say that it was somewhat effective on Sunday, in the sense that it was very "bendy" but not very "breaky."  In fact, despite the offensive explosion by the Packers in this game, the Raiders actually gained 3 more yards with their 484.  That is a lot of yards, and yet they only gave up 17 points while it mattered, and another 7 points in garbage time.  The defense has had better days this year, when they were generating both sacks and lots of turnovers, but as has been true of several games this year, the defense seems to have the capability to tighten up near the goal line, despite giving up big chunk plays as the opponent gets down the field.  So I would love to see the defense give up fewer big plays, but unlike in the past, even when they do, there is still reason to think that the Packers can stop them or limit them to field goals (which was never more true than in the Lions game).  One of the stops Sunday was basically Derek Carr's fault (with a slight assist from Blake Martinez) in fumbling the ball through the end zone for a turnover.  That play was really the turning point in the game.  But three other times the Packers stopped the Raiders, once limiting them to a field goal, once stopping them on fourth and goal, and once intercepting Carr in the end zone. 

Turning Point, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

Speaking of sacks, the Packers didn't even register a single sack Sunday, which was anti-climactic since the Smith Brothers had cooked up a Halloween-themed sack celebration and gotten it approved by Coach LaFleur.  Next week's game at Kansas City is still before Halloween, but apparently they don't intend to use it next week, even if they do get a sack.

I am excited about the Packers' offense seeming to have pulled it all together, even without their best weapon, Davante Adams.  Family member Alan makes the interesting point that there is, in effect, a silver lining behind Adams' absence for these past 3 games: it has forced Rodgers to build rapport and trust with the young receivers.  It is scary for the rest of the league what this offense would look like if it plays as well as it did on Sunday, and gets Davante Adams back to boot. 

The Packers have now arrived at the "on the other hand" part of the season.  It was great that they played 5 of their first 7 games at home, and even better that they managed to win the two road games, along with 4 of the 5 home games.  They also are 3-0 in the division, and 4-1 in the conference, all good stuff when it comes to the end of the year.  But, on the other hand, they only have 3 home games left in their final 9 regular season games. 

They have three sets of 2-game road trips coming up, the first of which starts on Sunday in Kansas City, and then continues in Los Angeles against the Chargers.  I had assumed, despite a little inconsistency by the Chiefs, that the Packers would end up losing to the Chiefs in Kansas City.  But with Patrick Mahomes apparently set to miss this game, I think the Packers have a real chance to win the game. 

And then as far as the Chargers game is concerned, the Chargers have been a huge disappointment this year, and Dignity Health Sports Park is likely to be Lambeau West on Sunday, November 3.  So I could easily see the Packers winning both games on this next road trip.  A fast start to the season doesn't guarantee a successful ending.  I still remember a season where the Raiders started off, as I recall it, 8-2, only to lose the last 6 games.  But I love the Packers' chances if they are 7-2 or 8-1 in a couple of weeks.

Packers On the Road Again to California

Best Game-Day Attire Ever

Maybe I am crazy, but I had almost the opposite reaction from everybody else to the Monday Night Chiefs game, which the Packers won, 38-28.  I heard lots of people talking about Aaron Rodgers' game, using words like "surgical" and "masterful" and "at the very top of his game."  We went to the game, and I did not come away with that impression at all.  Sure, he had a good game, but I did not see it as one of his best of all time.  I probably am putting too much emphasis on his early missed passes (he missed his first three) and the pass that should have been intercepted in the early third quarter, which would have broken his streak of home games without an interception.  So I re-watched the game when I got back to California, and I have mellowed a little.  I still don't think it is one of his best games ever, but maybe watching the game with Jon Gruden's superlatives being drummed into my head has helped me to realize some of the finer points that I might have missed in the stands.

Turning to the defense, everybody (including me) was happy with the way the Packers' defense performed for the first 2.5 to 3 quarters.  But I have heard a lot of complaining about "taking the foot off the gas" and going into "prevent defense" mode way too early in the game.  I can see that point, but I think it is severely overstated.  This game was effectively over at halftime (when the score was 24-7), and then it was again over toward the end of the third (when it was 31-14), and then it was really over when it was 38-14 with 12 minutes left.  (And if they had not blown all their time-outs, it would have been over one last time when the 4th and 18 pass came up short but was treated as a first down anyway.)  But it just didn't feel as if it was really over.  And the only reason it didn't feel that way was because of the traumatic experience of last year's NFC Championship Game.

But this game never approached, in my view, the circumstances of that game.  It was never as close (the Chiefs trailed by at least 16 points until they reduced their deficit to 10 points with 1:25 left in the game).  While you can never say never, the chances of scoring another 10 points in 1:25, with 2 time-outs, is close to zero.  It would have required 2 successful onside kicks, and at least one very fast score (broken coverage, or a defensive back falls down, or whatever).  I just wasn't that worried.  Also, while you can say that in some sense the Packers were playing more of a prevent type defense late in the game, it wasn't the kind that drives me crazy, where they rush 3, put no pressure on the quarterback, and let him take short passes for granted.  Here, even after the two-minute warning, the Packers were still rushing 4 or 5 on every play and occasionally blitzing.

Having finally beaten the Chiefs in Lambeau Field for the first time in history, the Packers have now beaten every team there but one: the Houston Texans.  I don't know when they will next come to Lambeau Field, but I look forward to it.

When you live over 2,200 miles away from Green Bay, you don't often get to see back-to-back Packer games in person.  But that is what we get to do this week, when we venture up to Santa Clara to see the 49ers' new stadium, keep our streak alive of going to every Bay Area Packers game since 1980, and hopefully witness the exorcism of the Kaepernick evil spirit from the Packers once and for all.  While the 49ers played well against the Vikings in week one, they have looked like a mess the last two weeks.  I was never a fan of Jim Harbaugh, but he seemed like a much better coach than the new guy.  There must be some fairly serious disarray in that organization, given that they got rid of a good (but obnoxious) coach, turned Kaepernick from a Packers-killer into somebody who seems to have regressed substantially, and have seen at least 10 players retire or leave in free agency, apparently just to get the hell out of there.

I expect Clay Matthews to play most of the game at inside linebacker, probably assigned just to keep tabs on Kaepernick.  I expect the Packers to play well on offense (the 49ers defense has taken some severe hits in retirements and free agency) and I expect the Packers' defense to continue to play well, and aggressively, and hopefully put this game away early.  I am looking for a big win to take the Packers to 4-0.

Next Goal: Home Field Advantage

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

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

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

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

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

Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah to all.

Scary Preseason Predictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doing Things the Hard Way

My Mom would sometimes say that I liked to do things the hard way. I suppose there is some truth to that. But if she thought I had this tendency, she should have seen the 2003 Green Bay Packers. During the course of this season, the Packers have lost games on the road to 2 of the worst teams in the league, the Arizona Cardinals and the Detroit Lions. They have also lost home games to 2 of the (arguably) best teams in the league, when they had the upper hand but let games against the Chiefs and Eagles get away from them. I still have trouble believing the Packers really lost that game against the Chiefs.

I realize that almost every team can play this mind game almost every year, but just imagine if the Packers had beaten the Cardinals and the Lions, or if they had not let the Chiefs game and the Eagles game get away. They would be leading the division at 9-4, with a realistic hope of a bye week in the playoffs, if not home field advantage. If they had won all 4 of these games, they would be tied for the best record in the league at 11-2.

Of course, Packer fans who have watched the games know that these Packers are not playing like an 11-2 team, or even (at least most of the time) like a 9-4 team. But, in doing things the hard way this year, they have put a lot of pressure on themselves in these last 3 weeks of the season. They are a game out of first place to the Vikings, and if the Vikings beat the Bears in the cold this weekend, the Packers will also have screwed up any chance at having a tie-breaker advantage against the Vikings, since the Vikings will finish their NFC North games with a better divisional record. The Packers also trail the Seahawks and Cowboys by a game for a wild-card spot, although at least in this instance, the Packers have the tie-breaker advantage locked up against the Seahawks because of the Packers' victory over the Seahawks in week 5 of the season.

So, what lies ahead for the Packers? Two road games against 2 of the worst teams in the league, the Chargers and the Raiders, followed by a home game (now anything but an automatic win) against a good Denver Broncos team. The Packers could lose any or even all of those games, but to have a real shot at the playoffs, they must win all of them. If they do, I think they will get into the playoffs. I think Seattle (itself a bad team on the road) will lose this Sunday at St. Louis. And I would not be shocked if the Vikings lose to the Bears on Sunday, although I am not really expecting it. Both the Vikings game and Seahawks games will be just about over by the time of the kickoff in San Diego. In all likelihood, there will be good news in at least one of those games. Maybe, just maybe, the Packers will manage for a change to win a game when they have a chance to move into a tie for a playoff slot.

Do Politics and Football Mix?

Greetings from the sunny state of California, home of the ever-more-bizarre Gubernatorial Recall Election. Today's news is that Arianna Huffington has dropped out of the race. This leaves Governor Davis running against his own pathetic record, with the main candidates trying to take his job as Cruz Bustamante on the far left, Tom McClintock on the far right, and Arnold Schwarzenegger somewhere in the middle.

A week or so ago on one of the local talk radio shows, the host, Ronn Owens(who thought up the name Ronn, by the way?) was interviewing one of thec andidates. McClintock, if I recall correctly. McClintock argued thatBustamante, from his perspective, is even worse than Governor Davis. Owens responded, only slightly facetiously, that he has said all along that Governor Davis' anti-recall slogan should be "Bustamante would be even worse."

How, you might ask, am I going to connect this up with the Packers? Here is how. I know that the Packers have a kind of a new slogan, referring to the remodeled Lambeau Field: "Rebirth of a Legend." But as long as they are coming up with new slogans, how about this one: "The Bears and Lions are even worse." Kind of catchy, isn't it?

This is my way of saying that I wouldn't want to get too excited about the Packers' dominating performance over the Chicago Bears last night. Oh, it was fun to watch, and all. But it was only the Bears. My wife even started to feel a little sorry for the Bears, but I wouldn't go that far. Let 'em suffer!

The Packers may have evened their record at 2-2, but I am afraid that there is a real good chance that they will be 2-4 in a couple of weeks. Both of the next two games are at home, so the Packers certainly have a shot at winning at least one of the two, but the Seahawks and the Chiefs just look like better football teams to me right now, as much as it pains me to sayit.

I liked the aggressiveness of the Packer defense last night, although it was a bad sign when even the Bears started to make the game close early in the4th quarter. I still wonder why the Packers are not taking a few more shots downfield with the passing game. Maybe the problem is that they are not completing the few long passes they try, so they are shying away from it.But nothing loosens up the defense like a long completion once in awhile.The point was made vividly in this football market on Sunday by the vaunted match-up between two of the biggest jerks in the NFL, Randy Moss and Terrell Owens. The Vikings, even with their backup quarterback, just like to chuck the rock downfield. Moss goes up for the ball, and most of the time he comes down with it. Either way, the defense has to adjust to take account of the long ball. By contrast, Owens complains early and often that the49ers are not throwing the ball downfield, as he takes shots at his teammates, his coach, etc. The result is that it is not that hard for a good team to shut down the 49er offense.

I have not seen much of the Seahawks or Chiefs this year. I do know that, unlike the Bears, both of these teams have hugely successful running games.Blitzing on the majority of downs, like they did with the Bears, will not have the same effect on the Seahawks and the Chiefs. The Packers need to find a way to slow down Shaun Alexander and Priest Holmes, and they need to be more efficient in taking advantage of their own scoring opportunities. A few turnovers won't hurt, either.

Preseason Blackout Blues

This is a tough time of year for Packer fans not living in the State of Wisconsin. With all due apologies to Hoagy Carmichael, I’ve got those No TV Reason, Packer Preseason, Blackout Blues.

Two weeks ago, I caught the beginning of the Hall of Fame game against the Chiefs before leaving the office, planning to watch the end of the game on tape later that evening or the next day. Of course, the end of the game never happened, and I couldn’t get motivated to go back and watch any more of the 9-0 bore-fest from the parts I had missed.

Then, last week, I knew that the game against the Falcons would not be televised here, but I figured I could at least listen to part of the audio feed on my computer. Wrong. Turns out the league is charging for the audio feeds this year. I can’t blame them – they have been giving away the audio feeds, and there was no reason to think that they would continue to do so forever. And I willingly pay for the NFL Sunday Ticket to watch the regular season games on TV. But I will be darned if I am going to pay for audio-only feeds on a preseason game.

Finally, last weekend, I got to watch the entire Packer game against the Browns. It tended to confirm what I had been hearing and reading – big problems on defense, fewer problems on offense now that the starting offensive linemen and receivers are playing. But even this game seemed in jeopardy of not happening for awhile on Friday, what with the blackout on the east coast and with reports of sporadic outages in Cleveland continuing during the day on Friday.

And now, having escaped from the big blackout, I am plunged back into darkness for two more weeks, as the Packers finish their pre-season games at home, but without the benefit of national telecasts. I can’t wait for the regular season to start, when DirecTV will rescue me from my temporary Packer blackout.

I hope to have more to say as the real season approaches. For now, I am crawling back under my rock.

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.

It's Never Too Soon to Start Worrying

You probably think that I am writing these words as a nervous Packer fan. After all, the Packers barely escaped Tokyo with a 27-24 victory over the Chiefs in the American Bowl Saturday night, after fumbles on the first two offensive possessions led directly to two touchdowns for the Chiefs.

Actually, "It's Never Too Soon to Start Worrying" was the headline of Tim Keown's article in the Monday San Francisco Chronicle, and he was talking about the 49ers. They, too, managed a close victory, also over a quality opponent (the Patriots), by the score of 14-13. Basically, the 49ers offense performed poorly on Sunday, accounting for 7 points in the entire game. If the Patriots' quarterback didn't fumble in the end zone in the second quarter, the 49ers probably would have lost the game.

Of course, who cares about the 49ers game, or for that matter the Packer game at this stage of the "season?" They were just first exhibition games, a week earlier than most teams start their games, and the starters played one quarter or less. Still, the much ballyhooed (at least here in Northern California) new 49er "aggressive offense" was not a smashing success in its debut, and the reserves (at least on offense) did nothing. The 49ers rolled up 13 first downs and only 53 rushing yards, while the Packers had 23 first downs and 225 rushing yards, by contrast.

So, if you want to take anything away from the first week of exhibition games, I think the lesson is that the Packers have very good backups, at least on offense. I have been concerned about the depth of the squad, what with the free agency losses. But the backups impressed me on offense, to the point that I now think the Packers could get by for awhile despite injuries or holdouts of offensive starters.

It is natural for long time Packer fans to feel that "It's Never too Soon to Start Worrying," but I think our West Coast competition has more to worry about right now than we do.

Quarterly Review - No Cause For Panic In Packerland

There has been a fair amount of grumbling among Packer fans in the first quarter of the 1997 season. "The Packers were in some danger of losing each game this year!" "They haven't looked dominating in any game, except for the second quarter of the Vikings game!" "They lost to the Eagles and didn't even score a TD!" "The rash of injuries has robbed the Packers of all of their depth!" Etc., etc. etc.

But let's stop for a second and take a closer look. One quarter of the regular season is over, and the Packers are 3-1. Last year, they dominated in the first 3 games, but then lost at Minnesota, and had the same 3-1 record. Many of us (myself included) overreacted to the situation. I know that I felt that the Packers would never be able to catch the Vikings, given tie-breakers. What an overreaction that was, as the Packers won the division by 4 games, with the home field advantage throughout the playoffs. And, in a sense, the Packers are better off this year, since their loss is outside of the division.

By contrast, take a look at the 49ers. They have started to dominate their opponents, and to all appearances, they seem to have overcome the loss of Jerry Rice, and seem to be taking better care of Steve Young. But hold on a minute! The teams they have beaten are the Rams, the Saints and the Falcons, three of the most pathetic teams in the league. They lost to Tampa Bay, but as we are beginning to appreciate, that is no great shame given the way the Buccaneers are playing. Let's wait until the 49ers have a couple of games against quality opponents before concluding that they are back in the driver's seat.

All in all, I feel pretty good about the Packers' season. I think they will only get better, as some of the injured players return to the lineup, and as some of the reserves pressed into action get more experience. Last year, the injury plague induced a two game losing streak against Kansas City and Dallas. This year, the Packers have come through an injury plagued first quarter with a 3-1 record. Not too bad. I see (conservatively) at least an 11-5 record for the Packers this year.