Big Test Coming up Against the Colts

Using the Ref, Photo by Mark Hoffman, Milw. Journal-Sentinel

Well, the good news is this: the Packers' win over the Jaguars 24-20 last Sunday, combined with the Seahawks' loss, leaves the Packers with the number one seed in the NFC playoffs (as they always say, if the playoffs started today).  The bad news is, the way they played on Sunday, that number one seeding might not last long, maybe not past the upcoming game at Indianapolis on Sunday.  

For the second time in three weeks, in windy and cold conditions at Lambeau Field, the Packers seemed to play without energy or emotion, especially on offense.  And for the second time in three weeks, they played down to the level of an inferior team.  At least this time the Packers were close enough in the fourth quarter to be in a position to be able to rally for the go-ahead touchdown, and then the defense shut down the final Jaguars drives to preserve the win.  I'm sure I was not the only one who was having flashbacks when the Packers had the Jaguars at 4th and 26.  But unlike the more famous 4th and 26 in January of 2004, this time the pass was incomplete and the game was over except for a couple of kneel-downs.

My favorite play on offense has to be the 78 yard TD pass to Valdes-Scantling, depicted in the photo.  He made a little cut that sent the ref flying into the path of one of the pursuing defensive backs.  I laughed at least the first 5 or 6 times I watched this play.  On defense, my favorite series was the final one, when the defense (Rashan Gary and Preston Smith) rose up on back-to-back plays and sacked QB Jake Luton to set up the 4th and 26 play.

I am not as despondent as some other Packers fans I know.  "We suck."  "We'll be one and done in the playoffs."  Yeah, they might.  I am pretty sure they will be one and done if they play like they did against the Jaguars.  I am trying to figure out which playoff-caliber team they could beat with an effort like they made on Sunday, and I am coming up blank.  But look, if the Packers lose all these poor effort games in the middle of the season, maybe they end up with a 9-7 record, playing on the road (if they make the playoffs at all).  But if they win ugly games like the Jaguars game, maybe they get a good enough record to host a home game, and maybe if things break right they end up with home field advantage.  The Packers certainly rode some ugly wins last year all the way to the NFC Championship Game.  And if (and it is a big if) the Packers can use the next seven weeks to get their act together, maybe they become the proverbial team that nobody wants to play in the playoffs.  

One of the things they ought to take a look at is creating more unpredictability in their offense.  This past week, Lamar Jackson of the Ravens complained that defenses are calling out the Ravens' plays at the line of scrimmage.  I wonder if some of that isn't happening with the Packers, too?  I understand the idea of sticking with the run, even if it is not working.  But if the Jaguars have been stopping the Packers' run game all day long, why, on 3rd and 1 with the game hanging in the balance late in the fourth quarter, do you just run Aaron Jones up the middle for no gain?  And how many times can you call a straight-up run on second and ten before the defense knows what to expect?  Four times on Sunday the Packers found themselves at 2nd and 10.  Three times they ran the ball in conventional running plays.  The only first down they gained on 2nd and 10 was the one time they passed the ball.

Anyway, I feel as if we will have a much better feel for who the Packers are after the Colts game.  The Colts lead their division at 6-3, so they are no joke.  They certainly looked good last Thursday in beating the Titans.  I think the Packers are a much better team on offense than the Colts, even if they don't look like it every single week.  I would not trade any of our starting "skill position" players to the Colts for their players at those positions.  But I think the reverse is true on defense.  I think the Colts have a better and more consistent defense than the Packers.  

Having said that, when I re-watched the Jaguars game, I realized that the Packers' defense looked better than I remembered.  While the final drive was the one that initially caught my attention, with the back-to-back sacks, actually the defense played pretty well the entire game.  They only gave up 13 points (the other 7 was on the punt return TD).  The only TD they gave up was on a short, 16 yard drive set up by Adams' fumble.  They gave up no long drives during the entire game.  They kept pretty consistent pressure on Luton, frequently without having to blitz.  Now, you can say, "well, sure, but the Jaguars aren't that good on offense."  Which is true, but in other games this year, all you had to do was hand the ball off and gain a lot of yards.  The Jaguars have a pretty good running back, in James Robinson, and yet he wasn't able to run all over the Packers.  In other words, on further review, it was the offense, with its two turnovers resulting in 10 points for the Jaguars, and the special teams, giving up another 7 points, that were the problems on Sunday, not the defense.

The Packers are actually underdogs this week, and maybe that sort of perceived slight can be used as motivation for the offense to go out and prove something.  We'll see, but if the defense can play as well as it played against the Jaguars, and again show some energy, and if the offense, in the absence of wind and cold, can play a clean game with more energy than they showed on Sunday, then I think the Packers will win this game.

The Second Half of the Season Starts Now

Preston Smith Causing an Interception, Photo by Packers.com

The three best things about the Packers' 34-17 win against the 49ers last week: (1) beating the 49ers, regardless of circumstances; (2) getting a mini-bye to get healthier before their next game; and (3) moving up the playoff seeding chart to the 3rd NFC seed, (as they say) if the playoffs started today.

Let's be honest.  You can't draw any firm conclusions from the Packers' win against the 49ers.  They are simply too beat up, with players lost for the season, players temporarily on IR, and players on the Covid list.  I am sure I am missing some of them, but among the key players not available last Thursday night were Nick Bosa, Richard Sherman, Jimmy Garoppolo, George Kittle, Deebo Samuel, Raheem Mostert, Kendrick Bourne, and Brandon Aiyuk.  The 49ers had 13 players on IR, the most in the league.  Not a single player who touched the ball on offense for the 49ers in the NFC Championship game last year was in uniform Thursday night.  So as much fun as it was to watch, and as satisfying as it always is to this former Bay Area resident when the Packers beat the 49ers, I don't think we can just assume that all is now well again with the Packers.  And judging by the 14 point pointspread this Sunday when the Jaguars come to Lambeau Field, a dominant win in that game won't answer any questions about where the Packers are, either.

Still, all the players in the league are professionals, there are no easy wins in the NFL, and you don't get to pick when and where you play your opponents.  The undefeated Steelers almost lost to the reeling Cowboys on Sunday, and the not-great Patriots almost lost to the worst team in the league (the Jets) Monday night.  So you can't take any game for granted, as I think the Packers might have done before playing the Vikings two weeks ago.

On offense last Thursday, the two most encouraging developments were the successful return of Aaron Jones, and the re-emergence of Marquez Valdes-Scantling.  The Packers' medical/training staff is notoriously conservative, for example in holding out Davante Adams a week longer than he wanted to be held out.  So it was great that Aaron Jones played, despite reports earlier in the day that he would be held out.  It was a big boost for the offense, even though they were a bit on the cautious side in how much they used him.  

And just when everybody has had about enough of Marquez Valdes-Scantling and his drops, he gets single coverage, makes a great move on the DB and finds himself all by himself waiting for a 52 yard TD bomb.  I swear, if he had dropped that ball, people would have been calling for him to be cut at halftime.  But he hauled it in to make it 21-3 just before the half.  And he added another short TD later.  Maybe he can play well enough to be a second WR option (or maybe the third option after Lazard returns).  I laughed out loud when I saw this in one of the Packers Facebook groups during the game:

"Bears dropped Ted Ginn, Jr.  Gotta be better than MVS.

Update: maybe not."

On defense, I loved seeing the return of the "Smith Brothers" as impact players in the game.  Preston Smith created the first turnover of the game, and it seemed to change the momentum of the game.  Before that play, the Packers were sitting on a 7-3 lead early in the second quarter.  I wasn't worried about the outcome, but a big play here or there for the 49ers could easily have turned the game in their favor.  Instead, pressure from Smith led to a Raven Greene interception, which led to the TD pass to Marcedes Lewis.  From that point on, the game never seemed in doubt.  And then in the third quarter, Za'Darius Smith's strip sack and recovery put a bow on the win.  The score was 28-3 at the time, but for all practical purposes, it was over then, if not before.  

Anyway, next up are the 1-7 Jaguars to start the second half of the season.  They are obviously not going anywhere this year with their 1-7 record.  But last week and this week, their second year QB Gardner Minshew will be out, so they will be led on the field by rookie QB Jake Luton.  I found him impressive in his first start.  His first completion was a long bomb TD to DJ Chark.  He threw for over 300 yards, while rookie running back James Robinson chipped in with 99 yards on the ground.  The Jaguars came within a botched 2 point conversion of taking the Texans to overtime in Luton's first start.  On the other hand, the Jaguars defense gave up some big plays, especially in the passing game, yielding long bomb TDs to Will Fuller and Brandin Cooks.  It seems to me as if a year or two ago, the Jaguars had a strong defense, giving up few points and generating turnovers.  Whatever has happened to the defense, it didn't look that good last Sunday.  So Rodgers and Adams (and hopefully other receivers as well) ought to be able to do some damage on offense.  And rookie QBs make rookie mistakes, and I will be disappointed if the Packers don't come away with some more turnovers on Sunday.  

On paper, the Jaguars game is the easiest game remaining on the schedule.  After that, the Packers will have to face the Colts, the Titans, the Bears twice, the Lions, the Panthers and the Eagles.  But "on paper" means nothing if you don't go out and win the game.  "Sufficient unto the day . . . ," and all that good stuff.  So let's go get a win on Sunday, and worry about next week's game next week!

Packers Start Season With a Win

Green Bay Press-Gazette Cover

It has been a long time since my last post.  I just could not find the motivation in the off-season or the preseason to have much to say about the Packers.  But now that games that actually count have returned, I am back and raring to go.  When people ask how good the Packers will be this year, I say that I expect them to be good, in the playoffs, and have a shot at the Super Bowl.  The trouble is, I say that every year.  But since that is true every year, maybe my optimism is justified!

On the offensive side of the ball, the three big questions for me were: how will Lane Taylor do replacing Josh Sitton; how will Jordy Nelson look; and will Jared Cook make a difference at tight end?  Oddly enough, we got the clearest answer about Lane Taylor in the Packers's 27-23 win over the Jaguars.  He looked fine.  Unlike past replacement guards and tackles who have created real problems, with Rodgers running for his life and/or getting hammered back there, Taylor seemed to be doing a very respectable job of protection.

Nelson looked good, but had none of his explosive plays, as we have seen in the past.  It may be that he has lost a step over his year of recovery, but I think it is way too early to conclude that now.  The starters on offense got almost no time together in the preseason, and of course Nelson got 0 snaps in a preseason game.  So if the offense looked a little rusty, it makes sense.

Well, actually it goes beyond looking rusty.  There was confusion on offense, there were unnecessary timeouts.  The spectacle of Rodgers trying to call a second time out on the same play, and ending up with a delay penalty, is something I won't forget soon.  One more play like that and they will need to put Rodgers through the concussion protocol.  He just doesn't make mistakes like that.

As to Jared Cook, I have been expecting big things of him this year.  You know the argument.  Cook is a top quality tight end, but has never had a top quality quarterback.  The Packers have an important role in their offense for a dependable, big tight end, but have not had a top quality tight end since the forced retirement of Jermichael Finley.  Well,  Cook made very little impact in the first game, but he looked primed to do big things.  He was responsible for a big gainer without catching the ball, by drawing a long pass interference call down the field.  I think Sunday night against the Vikings could be his big debut.

On defense,  I had two main questions: whether shifting Clay Matthews back outside will create the kind of disruption that he supplied before switching him inside.  The early returns are pretty good.  Especially early in the game, Matthews was exactly what I remembered, getting one sack and stopping another play for a loss.  While he was not as big a factor after the first quarter, I wonder if the hot and humid conditions had anything to do with it (or, for that matter, with Julius Peppers' seemingly entering the witness protection program during the game).

My other question was whether the defensive line would be serviceable in light of B.J. Raji's "retirement" and Mike Pennel's short term suspension.  It was.  The line helped to provide pass rush all day, while doing an even better job of protecting against the run.

All in all, to come up with a win in an opening day road game, under insanely hot and humid conditions, against an up and coming team with three excellent pass-receiving weapons, is a pretty good start to the season.

The Packers' unusual (weird might be a better word) schedule this year continues with another road game, opening the Vikings' new stadium on Sunday night, before returning home for a four game home stand, packaged around an early bye in week 4.  The Packers are slight favorites against the Vikings, so I didn't really understand why so many people seem to assume that the Vikings will win.  Sure, new stadium, high emotions, blah blah blah.  But the Packers are still a better team, particularly after the Vikings lost Teddy Bridgewater for the season.

I watched the Vikings' opening day win against the Titans.  Shaun Hill was at quarterback for the Vikings in the opener, and I can easily understand why the Vikings reportedly will switch to the recently-acquired Sam Bradford for the game against the Packers.  Hill did very little for the Vikings, managing to engineer 4 field goal drives.  The other 13 points in the Vikings' 25-16 win were created by defensive scores, an interception return and a fumble return.  My prediction is that the Packers will shake off a little of the rust, and look much sharper on offense, probably winning a fairly close game.  If they manage to accomplish that, with 4 home games coming up, they will be in great shape.

Another Close Shave

So the Packers wrap up an exciting little victory over the Lions (way too exciting, in fact), giving them an 8-5 record, and sole possession of first place in the NFC North for the first time all season. They are all set to take some new momentum into the playoffs, and then who knows what will happen? It is possible to believe that, at least somewhat.

The Packers host the Jaguars next week, followed by a Christmas Eve trip to Minnesota, and then finish upon the road at Chicago. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Packers lose the Vikings game and win the other two. The will end up at 10-6 in this scenario.

Meanwhile, the Vikings play at Detroit, then host the Packers, and then play on the road at Washington. Now everyone knows that think the Vikings could easily lose a road game outdoors at Washington in January, but again, for the sake of argument,let's say they win all remaining games to also finish at 10-6. The Packers and Vikings will have split the season series, so we look next at the Division records, where we find the Packers at 4-2, and the Vikings also at4-2 (given these assumptions). Turning to common opponents, the next tie-breaker, the Packers will have a record against common opponents of 7-5(wins against Dallas, Houston,Detroit, Jacksonville, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, and losses against Philadelphia, Chicago, Tennessee, N.Y. Giants, and Indianapolis), while theVikings will have a record of 8-4 (wins against Dallas, Chicago, Houston,Tennessee, Detroit, Jacksonville, Detroit and Washington, and losses against Philadelphia, N.Y. Giants, Indianapolis, and Chicago). So, under this set of assumptions, the Vikings would win the division. If this is incorrect,please send an email, but it appears to be correct.

If that is so, then it will take a Packer victory at Minnesota to win the division (or it will take Minnesota to stumble against one of the other teams). You could have lost a lot of money over the years counting on a Green Bay victory at Minnesota. Could have? Many of us probably actually have lost a lot of money counting on Green Bay wins at Minnesota.Now, even if the Packers lose the division, they might still be a wild card,but that means no home games, and frankly not much of a chance.

To be honest, there is no strong reason for optimism even if the Packers do win the division. Take a look back at the Packers' record this year. They have played only 3 games against teams that currently have winning records (Indianapolis,Minnesota, and Philadelphia). The Packers are 1-2 in those games, and the Colts and Eagles games were pretty tough to even watch until the end. The other 10 games have been against teams with a losing record as of now, and the Packers are 7-3 in those games, with some close shaves thrown in, which is NOT a reference to Brett Favre's new hairdo. In other words, the Packers are not exactly blowing the doors off even in games where you might say that they should win. For this reason, even though the Packers have won 7 out of their last 8 games, it is hard to develop too much excitement about their chances this year. In spite of the improbable way the Packers got into the playoffs last year, the Packers' chances last year were much better to go somewhere in the playoffs last year than they seem this year. Only the 4th and 26 disaster stopped the Packers short of a trip to the NFC Championship game, where they certainly would have had a real shot of earning another trip to the Super Bowl. This year, the Packers look distressingly like a team heading for one and out in the playoffs.

Obviously, they still have to play the games one at a time, and it is not too late to get really hot going into the playoffs. They may get lucky if they get there, and go a long way. But nobody should count on it.

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.

Bring on Da Bears!

Before getting to the Bears, it is worth stopping for a moment, just to marvel at the Packers' comeback against the Jaguars on Monday night. Oh, sure, they should not have had to have a come-from-behind finish against a 3-7 team, but the Jaguars played just well enough, and the Packers played just poorly enough, to fall behind 13-0 and then 21-7. And then Brett Favre seemed to strap the rest of the team on his aching, "old man" back and carry them to victory. I re-watched the early part of the game over the last couple of days, and of course it seems much different when you know how the game is going to come out. At the time on Monday night, I was just despondent about all of the bad things that happened, and then was almost broken when the sack, strip, and touchdown return happened to make it 21-7. But watching it again, it seemed to me that the Packers were playing better than I had recalled. A couple of touchdowns were just barely missed (the ball in the second quarter that went through Schroeder's hands after he and the defensive back collided and the defensive back fell down; the ball to Driver in the end zone that was just tipped away in the first drive of the third quarter). The Packers came away with no points on these drives, but could have had 14 points. Of course they also got the benefit of a somewhat questionable interference call to negate what would have been an interception. But still, they were playing better (in my mind) than the score up on the board.

And then they just got it all together, starting with the two-minute drill to end the first half. Hmmm, let's see now, they scored 14 of their 28 points in two-minute drill offenses. Maybe the Packers should serve up some hurry-up offense of their own, just as they did back in the mid-1990's a few times. Given how the hurry-up offense of the Jaguars set the Packers back on their heels in the first half, I really think this is worth some consideration. Anyway, the comeback was something to watch in amazement and enjoy, and I hope that we have not become so used to watching this sort of thing, as Packer fans, that we no longer realize how good we have it and have had it over the last 9 years.

And now, here come our primal enemies from across the border. I suppose we all knew, deep inside, that it would come down to this. Even after the Packers' win in Chicago 4 weeks ago, it was apparent that the re-match would count for something, unless you assumed that the Bears would simply collapse after losing to the Packers. At the time, I guess that a collapse seemed feasible, since the Bears had been winning under the most improbable circumstances, so it was possible that, their bubble having been burst, they would crawl back under a rock or something of the sort.

But if it wasn't clear then, it certainly is now, that the Bears have some talent. They went into the House of Horrors (a/k/a the Metrodome) and beat the Vikings, something the Packers seemed to have no chance of doing in their game there earlier this year. The Bears beat the Buccaneers in Tampa, too, another thing the Packers could not do. In fact, the only games the
Bears have lost have been to the Packers and the Ravens, both pretty good teams, and both were fairly close games. The Bears have not been blown out in any games (unlike the Packers, in Minnesota), and they have not lost any games to inferior teams (unlike the Packers, in Tampa, Minnesota and against Atlanta). In short, I hate to say it, but the Bears have been a lot more consistent than the Packers this year.

As a result, I don't expect the Packers to have an easy time of it on Sunday, much as I might wish that they would. If the Packers put it all together, for 60 minutes, I suppose that they should have no trouble with the Bears. But since they haven't really done that all year, maybe with the exception of the Ravens' game, I am not expecting them to do it this week. (It would be a heck of a good time to start, however.)

This game could go either way, but I think the Packers will win it, in a close game. Something like 24-17. My guess is that the Bears will fall short mostly because of their tendency all year to play so conservatively on offense. They are among the lowest in the league in average gain per pass attempt, which suggests that they throw mostly short passes. So they are not as prone to making the big mistake, but they also are not as likely to make a big play. Packer fans will probably recall that the announcers criticized the Bears' offense for not going downfield throughout the first meeting between the two teams.

This should be a good game. It is the Packers and the Bears, playing for the division lead and a possible bye week in the playoffs, in December, in Lambeau Field. What could be better than that? It brings back memories of Lombardi and Halas, Butkus and Nitschke, Sayers and Hornung. It reminds me personally of the first Packer game I ever attended, in 1962, when the
Packers beat the Bears by the score of 49-0! More recently, it reminds me of the animosity that was so evident between Mike Ditka and Forrest Gregg when they coached these teams, and the Instant Replay game, and the Refrigerator, and the Bears' 46 defense. I guess that I am biased, but I don't think there is a better rivalry in the NFL than the rivalry between the Packers and the Bears, even if it seemed to lose some of its luster for awhile there during the Dave Wannstedt years. My only regret (other than not being there) is that it will probably be just slightly too warm for it to snow. This game should be played in snow flurries, just like that game back in 1995 when Favre had a badly sprained ankle, but played anyway, and threw 5 touchdown passes to beat the Bears, 35-28.