The Future Starts Now

McCarthy Contemplates Future, Photo by Dylan Buell, Getty Images

Hours after losing to the Cardinals last Sunday (20-17), the Packers fired Mike McCarthy, ending his 13 year tenure as Packers head coach.  I never expected the Packers to fire Mike McCarthy before the end of the regular season, but that is exactly what they did. 

I may  not have expected it, but I think it was the right call.  Sunday's loss to the Cardinals, maybe, was just the last straw, so disheartening that it forced Mark Murphy's hand.  Or who knows?  Maybe McCarthy and Murphy got into a shouting match, ending with "you're fired!"  Or more likely than that, I could see McCarthy, no dummy and realizing what was coming after Week 17, saying "Let's just get it over with right now."  Why prolong the agony if the end result was a given, anyway?

Everybody knew that the only thing that could save him was a deep playoff run, and that chance was (all but mathematically) ended on Sunday.  I have seen some hand-wringing that this was unprecedented, that McCarthy deserved better treatment, etc., but I am not sure letting him dangle on the sidelines, with all the reaction shots as four more tedious games play out, would have been kinder to him in any way. 

Both the Packers and McCarthy himself made nice gestures after the firing.  The Packers allowed McCarthy to come back and say goodbye to the coaching staff and the players, and he reportedly received a standing ovation from the players.  And Mike McCarthy took out a classy full-page ad in the paper, thanking the Packers and the community for a good run as head coach. 

McCarthy's replacement was due, if not overdue, as I said last week.  But that doesn't mean I take any real joy in seeing him fired.  "We may have lost, but it felt like a win."  This was one of the Facebook messages to Aaron Nagler on his Daily Chat Sunday afternoon/evening.  I can't get behind that kind of gloating at all.  McCarthy was a good coach, he led the Packers to a Super Bowl victory, and he is one of only 3 coaches in Packers history who can say that.  But the time had come to make a change, and that pathetic loss to the Cardinals evidently made it clear to Mark Murphy that the time was now.

What is the point of firing him now and moving on with an interim coach?  I see lots of points.  McCarthy, as noted above, is put out of his misery.  We don't have to listen to all the questions, see all the reaction shots, etc., for the next 4 weeks.  The Packers can begin their job search in earnest without having to answer any questions about any interview or scouting activity that takes place.  But most fundamentally, it gives the team a chance to try to change the momentum.  Four more games like we saw on Sunday, and the off-season would be filled with nothing but bitter memories.  With two home games remaining, this gives the team a chance to show if they can get a better vibe going, and at least generate some interest in what happens for the end of the year.  The players get a chance to try to demonstrate that they were not the cause of the Packers' woes this year.  Joe Philbin gets a chance to see what he can do, as a tryout for this job or any other future job.  They get to see more playing time for some of their rookies in a low-risk environment.  If, hypothetically, the team wins at least a couple games, we fans can at least see some hope for next year.  If they look better, and get a new coach that excites the players and the fans, this team can be a contender again soon.

Is It Time?

Kevin Greene, Super Bowl XLV, Photo by Kevin Eulitt, KC Star, via Getty Images

The Green Bay Packers are 4-6-1 going into Sunday's game against the Cardinals.  So are the Cleveland Browns.  Let that sink in for awhile.  The Browns have already fired their head coach, and installed their heir apparent at quarterback.  The Browns are over-performing most people's expectations this year. 

The Packers still have the same head coach, and don't have an heir apparent in the wings at quarterback or at coach for that matter.  And they are under-performing the expectations of almost everybody.  With, arguably, the best QB in the league.  And with a "highly successful NFL coach" at the helm. 

The Wisconsin natives are restless.  Wisconsin ex-pats, like me, are also restless.  The bandwagon jumpers are beyond restless and are looking for another bandwagon.  Something must be done!  Fire McCarthy now!  This has been going on for weeks, but intensifies after each disappointing loss.

Even a measured guy like Chuck Todd, of Meet the Press fame (and a Packers fan) says (on a non-sports radio show) that Mike McCarthy has worn out his welcome, is not a winner, and really does not know what to do in crunch time.  He says McCarthy really should hire a clock management coach, because he just doesn't know how to manage the clock.  (Don't get me started on clock management.  This has been a bugaboo for some time.)

It is amazing how quickly it has become conventional wisdom that McCarthy will be fired this off-season, unless the Packers pull off some miraculous recovery.  Headlines abound, such as "McCarthy's Latest Blunder" (referring to the 4th down punt at the end of the Seahawks game).  "McCarthy-Rodgers Marriage Can't be Saved."  "Rodgers, McCarthy at Odds Over Offense."  "How it All Went Wrong."  This last article is probably the best single article I have read on the current state of the Packers.

There have even been conspiracy theories that Rodgers has been under-performing intentionally in an attempt to get McCarthy fired.  While I don't believe that, it is not really in doubt that Rodgers has ignored open receivers looking for a bigger play.  And then when the big play is not converted, the result all too frequently is a punt, not a first down.  And of course he has missed easy, third down passes that any rookie QB could make in the last couple of games. As the Sports Illustrated article suggests, Rodgers has so much latitude to change plays, and changes them so frequently, that if, after watching a game, you are unhappy with the play-calling, it is not clear how much of the blame goes to McCarthy, and how much to Rodgers.

Is a new coach going to be able to convince Rodgers to hit the open man?  Or show him how to hit an easy short pass for a first down?  Those seem like open questions to me.  In other words, replacing McCarthy will not necessarily result in better on-field decisions by Rodgers.  Will he be better when his injury is fully healed, and if he has a new head coach?  We better hope so, given the investment the team made in him this year.  Because of that investment, the Packers are not getting rid of Rodgers.  And the only other key party not replaced last year is McCarthy.

Traditionally, I have thought that firing McCarthy was a bad move.  First of all, in his own immortal words, he is a "highly successful NFL coach."  And in truth, he obviously has a record as a coach many teams would love to have.  Plus, if there are a bunch of sure-thing head coach candidates sitting around just waiting to take the league by storm, why haven't they been hired already?  It is a hit or miss process.  You might end up with the next Sean McVay.  Or you might end up with the next Sean McDermott (hired at the same time as McVay), who might already be on his way out as coach of the Bills.  Or worst of all, you might pay a king's ransom and end up with the results that Jon Gruden has had.  Not even a proven winner from the past like Gruden is a sure thing in today's NFL.  So if you decide to fire your "highly successful NFL coach," you have to do it with trepidation.

But something is seriously wrong with this team.  I doubt that there is a single team in the league that has had as much "bad luck" this year.  The Matthews penalty that wouldn't have been called a month later.  The worst day in Mason Crosby's career.  The Ty Montgomery fumble.  The Aaron Jones fumble.  The decision to punt against Seattle.  The missed TD to Adams against the Vikings.  The bad passes on third and short.  Some of that stuff can happen just as a result of luck.  But it can't all be luck.  Some of it is players not playing up to their potential.  You don't have to accept the conspiracy theory to believe that a new coach might change the atmosphere in the locker room, bring some new excitement to the team, and get better performances out of some of the key players. 

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion, echoing Kevin Greene, that "it is time."

Rodgers-McCarthy Rift Now Resolved?

All Smiles for Rodgers, Photo by Mike De Sisti, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

The reactions to Sunday's game against the Bills, which the Packers won by the score 22-0, were all over the lot.  Many of us were delighted, and maybe just a little relieved, to see that the Packers were able to win a game, at home, as a significant favorite.  Others were happy with the result of the game, but dissatisfied with the fantasy football points generated by the Packers players on their fantasy teams.  (Not to mention any names here.)

But there really was something about the performance that was not that convincing, especially on offense.  Aaron Rodgers said, in his post-game press conference, that the defense had played at a championship level, while the offense played at a non-playoff-team level.  "Terrible," and "not acceptable," were other words that Rodgers used to describe the offense, which despite those terms still racked up over 400 yards of total offense. 

Rodgers' statement, despite the hyperbole, was basically right about the offense.  While the offense played well enough to win this game (with help from the defense pitching a shutout and generating three turnovers), that is not to say that they played well.  There were dropped passes again, bad passes from Rodgers again, heck, there was even a rare missed extra point.  Nobody would confuse the Packers' offense on Sunday, with the finely-tuned offenses of either the Rams or Vikings last Thursday night.  And that seems to be the not-too-well-hidden message in Rodgers' comments after the game.  Rodgers may have been all smiles in the photo above walking off the field, but he definitely wasn't in his press conference, giving clipped, sometimes one-word, answers.  Beat writers interpreted this as a widening rift between Rodgers and McCarthy, over play-calling and offensive philosophy.  Maybe so.  Going public with this rift may not be the most diplomatic move Rodgers has ever made, but if it results in better play-calling and better play-making, all for the better.

As to the defense, I think Rodgers' comments are in the right direction, but ridiculously premature.  Until the Bills game, the Packers had given up at least 23 points in each game, and if they had done so against the Bills, the score might have been 23-22 and another loss.  The defense embarrassed itself in the first half against the Bears, in the second half and overtime against the Vikings, and in the first half against the Redskins.  So one measure of improvement by the defense would be if they could play an entire 60 (or more) minute game, instead of taking a half off.  By that measure, they certainly improved against the Bills.  You can't argue with a shutout, less than 150 total net yards, 2 interceptions, and 7 sacks.  But in fairness, you have to consider the opponent, and despite the Bills having somehow beaten the Vikings, the Bills are just not a very good team, and certainly didn't play like one against the Packers.  Let's see how they perform in the next game, against the Lions, before we anoint the Packers defense. 

By Wednesday of this week, both Rodgers and McCarthy were insisting that everything is fine between them.  But whereas on Sunday, Rodgers seemed clearly to be criticizing the game plan, by Wednesday he was talking only about execution.  My sense is that there is a real rift, but that McCarthy and Rodgers are both trying to paper over the differences, and that is a good thing.  That kind of dirty laundry is probably better aired out in the locker room or in the Coach's office, rather than from the podium.

But what exactly was the problem with Sunday's offense?  Having re-watched the game, I think it was more about execution than about game plan.  I can certainly point to individual plays that reflect a bad plan, or a bad offensive philosophy, or both.  For example, the "give up" running play on third and long, from near midfield, at the end of the first drive.  I agree with the sentiment expressed by Chris and Dave on the Packers Therapy podcast: you have Aaron Rodgers, just chuck it downfield.  Maybe you complete it, maybe you get a pass interference penalty, maybe it gets intercepted, but if so it is just like a punt.  And if the ball is incomplete, you punt anyway. 

Similarly, I have commented before about the McCarthy tendency to go into "prevent offense" mode late in a game when holding onto a lead.  I think most of the fourth quarter looked like that, with a very unimaginative offensive game plan.  I suppose this is what Rodgers was complaining about in his post-game conference.  And, as a matter of sheer stubbornness by Coach McCarthy, I was just as surprised, the second time around, that McCarthy tried so hard to spread the running plays out among Jones, Williams and Montgomery.  Anybody watching the game can see that Jones is by far the best running back of the three.  And even if you can't see that, you certainly have to admit that he had the hot hand on Sunday.  So why not feature him?  Stubbornness by the Coach.

But in general (at least in the early portion of the game), what I saw was failure to execute plays that themselves were pretty well conceived, whether through dropped passes, poor passes, or Rodgers spending too much time looking around for the big hitter.  Instead they should go with the quicker passes to move the chains; this will cause the defense to play closer to the line of scrimmage, opening up the big hitter later.  But anyway, since Rodgers is the one with the ball in his hands, and since he has a lot of leeway to change the plays at the line of scrimmage, Rodgers has significant discretion in what plays are actually run.  So if the plays are bad, then Rodgers bears some responsibility, along with McCarthy.  And if the problem is (as I believe) more a matter of poor execution, then Rodgers and the players all need to step up their games, rather than making veiled criticisms of the coaching staff.

Recapping the divisional games in the first quarter of the season, the Packers were lucky to escape at home with a win against the Bears, and they were lucky to escape with a tie at home against the Vikings.  How will they fare against the new and improved Lions at Ford Field?  I can't figure the Lions out, to be honest.  They beat the Patriots, soundly, at home, but were also blown out at home by the Jets.  They lost close games to the 49ers and to the Cowboys, both on the road.  In the Patriots game, there was a lot of the "student vs. mentor" vibe going on between the Lions new Coach, Matt Patricia, and the old master, Bill Belichick.  But still, under the right circumstances, the Lions have enough talent to beat even an elite team in the league.  So they can obviously beat the Packers, who have not looked elite so far.  My gut sense before checking the records was that the Lions always give the Packers a hard time at home.  But actually, in the Rodgers era, the Packers are 6-4 against the Lions at Ford Field, or 6-2 if you exclude the Brett Hundley game last year, and the Matt Flynn game in 2013.  So it is more true to say that Rodgers has the Lions' number than the other way around. 

I'm just glad that the Lions (presumably) will not be wearing their stealthy, all gray "ghost" uniforms on Sunday.  It is hard to see them out there with no contrast.  But with or without contrasting uniform colors, the Lions have some offensive weapons, including Stafford's complement of receivers (Tate, Jones and Golladay) and now a new and energized running game with Kerryon Johnson.  I don't expect an easy game. 

The Lions have one of the better pass defenses in the league, but they are among the worst in rush defense.  So this would be a great time to decide to ride the legs of Aaron Jones until the Lions are able to stop him.  I would like to see more running plays than passing plays for the Packers (an unusual stat line for them), which in turn would both exploit the Lions' weakness on defense, and hopefully keep Rodgers out of danger as he continues to heal.

I think the Packers should win the game, but I I also don't feel confident that we know what the 2018 Packers really are yet.  I will consider them fortunate if they escape Detroit with a victory.

Something Has to Give

All Downhill After the Onside Kick, Photo by Evan Siegle, Packers.com

A disappointing season came to a fittingly disappointing end on Sunday, when the Packers lost to the Lions, 35-11, at Ford Field.  If it was unclear before the game (and it wasn't) that there is a problem with the Packers' defense, the problems could not be ignored after the game.  The Packers gave up passing TDs of 54 and 71 yards, to Kenny Golladay and Golden Tate.  Then, sort of as the cherry on top of the sundae, they gave up a 2-point conversion pass from Golden Tate to Matthew Stafford to close out the scoring.

The offense was again sub-par, although that perhaps was something to be expected given the absence of Jordy Nelson and Davante Adams.  If it wasn't for Randall Cobb and Trevor Davis, we might not have had any passing offense at all.  And Jamaal Williams again looked good, gaining 82 yards with a 3.7 yard average.  But when your starting QB throws for less than 200 yards and throws twice as many interceptions as touchdowns, you know you are in trouble.

In my house, we were calling for Joe Callahan no later than the third quarter.  Not because we thought Callahan was going to win the game for the Packers, but because we thought it was worth seeing what he looks like in live action, since Brett Hundley has so clearly failed as the Packers' backup quarterback.

I have nothing more to say about the game, other than to mention that some players were clearly not just mailing it in, players like Jamaal Williams and Randall Cobb on offense, and players like Clay Matthews and Mike Daniels on defense.  Good for them.

So what now?  Something has to give.  I have heard friends and family members calling for the firing of Ted Thompson, Mike McCarthy, and Dom Capers.  We will know what happens not long after I finish this blog post, but my vote is to fire Dom Capers (or let him retire) and to retain McCarthy and Thompson.  There are, admittedly, problems with both Thompson and McCarthy.  Ted Thompson is ultimately responsible for the lack of a quality backup quarterback, and many other problems on the roster.  But he has a strong record of finding quality players in the late rounds and among unsigned players, and I think it would be a mistake to turn away from those talents.  He needs better marching orders (self-imposed or imposed from above), but with those marching orders he should be retained until he chooses to retire, which will probably be in another year or two.

I have many issues with Mike McCarthy.  In-game adjustments (the lack thereof), poor clock management, and an incredibly stubborn streak.  His reputation as a trainer of young quarterbacks is in serious question in light of his constant advocacy for Brett Hundley.  Could Hundley have been so much better in practice than in games, that McCarthy was just fooled about his talent level?  Or was McCarthy's judgment just way off in thinking that he had an adequate backup for Aaron Rodgers?  I think it has to be the latter.  But despite all that, McCarthy has had an extremely good record with the Packers, and I don't know where we would find a replacement who could step in and better manage the remaining years of the Aaron Rodgers era.  So I don't support firing McCarthy, and I doubt it will happen.

Finally, we come to Dom Capers.  I like Capers.  I don't wish him any ill will.  But I think it is time for him to go.  Obviously, there is more to judging a defense than looking at the number of points given up, but points given up in the regular season tell a devastating story in this case.  In Capers' first year, the Packers gave up 297 points.  In his second year, the Packers gave up 240 points, were second in the league in scoring defense, and went on to win the Super Bowl with a very healthy dose of a ball-hawking defense in the playoffs and the Super Bowl.

But since then, it has gone downhill.  The Packers have given up 323 points or more (20 points per game) in every year starting with 2011.  2013 was the low point, with 428 points given up, but in 2016 they gave up 388 points, and this year they gave up 384.  That is 24 points per game.  Even with Aaron Rodgers behind center, you are going to lose some winnable games if you are giving up 24 points per game.  And if you don't have Aaron Rodgers, well, we all know how that story ends.

So what happened?  Has the game "passed him by?"  I never know quite what is meant by that term, but I suppose one example would be where opposing offenses learn to adjust to the defensive coordinator's tendencies, and then the defensive coordinator doesn't make good counter-adjustments.  Is he too old, at age 67, to relate well to players in their 20's?  Has Ted Thompson failed to get him good players to work with?  Who knows what the problem is.  I don't think it is all explainable by lack of quality players, as the Packers have drafted some high quality defensive players in the last few years, but they don't seem to be getting the most out of them.  It is painful to see players (like Casey Hayward) leave the Packers and perform better elsewhere, but that has certainly happened in a number of cases.  At least some of that has to be put at the doorstep of the defensive coaching staff.  It is for this reason that I have become convinced that the Packers will do better with a new defensive coordinator.  My favorite candidate is Vic Fangio of the Bears, who I believe is available (especially now that John Fox has been fired).

2017 was a tough year both on the football field, and in real life for my family.  I am hoping for a much improved 2018.  Happy New Year!

Getting Tired of Home Shutouts

Tubing in Titletown, Photo by Adam Wesley, USA Today

The Packers played their final home game on Saturday night, and got shut out by the Vikings, 16-0.  Since the Packers suffered two shutout losses in Lambeau Field this year, maybe we should consider the fact that this is the last home game to be a blessing of sorts.  By the time we next see the Packers in Lambeau Field, (1) Aaron Rodgers and numerous others will be back from injured reserve; (2) the Packers will have another chance to do something about their defense; and (3) we are likely to have seen some changes in the coaching staff.  I will have more to say about coaching changes in my year-end post in a week or two.

In the meantime, since there are no more games, this would be a great time to check out the tubing hill in the Titletown District, which opened this past week.  I would check it out myself if I lived nearby.

As far as the game is concerned, I did not see a lot to like in the Packers' performance.  I also wasn't too impressed with the Vikings.  They scored 10 points in the first quarter, and then could only manage another 6 points for the rest of the game.  They did not, to me, seem like a team likely to go rolling through the playoffs, and then play and win the Super Bowl in their own stadium.  Especially if they have to play a game outdoors, I don't see them winning that game. In light of last night's game, the Eagles now have the number one seed, so if the Vikings are to advance, it will have to be by going through Philly, unless the Eagles get knocked off in their first game.  The Eagles didn't look too great, either, so that could quite possibly happen.

But the vulnerability of the Vikings makes the Packers' performance all the more disappointing.  The Packers had exactly one promising drive in the game, late in the second quarter, which ended on a terrible interception by Hundley in the red zone.  Every time Hundley threw a ball over 10 yards, it seemed like it was either too short, or, more frequently, too long.  Unlike the Goldilocks tale, none of them were "just right."  Well, technically he did complete several passes over 10 yards, but the impression this viewer had was that every time he threw a longer pass, I just knew the pass would be incomplete. 

That would be hard to take if Hundley were a first year player, but at least in that context you could wait for better play from him in the future.  In this case, he has been McCarthy's backup, "the guy" for three years now, and McCarthy has repeatedly vouched for him.  So how can he be as mediocre as he seems to be? 

Back in the first couple of weeks that Hundley was playing, I thought people were jumping all over him way too fast.  Give the kid a chance to settle in, and all.  But despite having won 3 of the 9 games he played in, I don't know how you can avoid the conclusion that Brett Hundley just isn't good enough to be the Packers' backup, at least if the goal is to keep them winning enough games to get to the playoffs.  Now, I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that McCarthy's faith in Hundley is misguided, which raises questions about whether he will be able to develop a better backup for Rodgers for next season.

Indeed, it really calls into question McCarthy's judgment and his reputation as a quarterback whisperer.  Whereas Mike Holmgren and Ron Wolf prepared backup after backup, and several of them went on to become starters in the league (Matt Hasselback, Mark Brunell, Ty Detmer, Doug Pedersen), the same cannot be said about Mike McCarthy, unless you give him credit for bringing along Aaron Rodgers after he was drafted to replace Brett Favre.  I guess you could count Matt Flynn, but when he got his chance to be a starter, he was beaten out by rookie Russell Wilson.  And to make matters worse, they put the more promising backup candidate, Taysom Hill, on the practice squad, where he was signed away by the Saints.  I know, that was a calculated risk, but in hindsight, why not keep Hill and get rid of Joe Callahan, if they don't have enough confidence in Callahan to run him out there in a game where Hundley is doing nothing?

At any rate, while the Packers have plenty of problems on defense, and that needs to be addressed for next season as well, the defense wasn't really the problem Saturday night.  They held the sometimes high-scoring Vikings to 16 points.  That ought to be good enough to give the Packers a chance to win, but as it happened, they had no chance at all with the Brett Hundley-led offense.  It is going to be a long-than-usual offseason for Packers fans, and a very interesting one, as well.

Happy New Year!

Packers are in a Heap of Trouble Now

Brett Hundley, All Alone, Photo by Evan Siegle, Packers.com

On Monday night, the Packers started off the game on a positive note, on both offense and defense.  On offense, the Packers marched down the field on a scoring drive, ultimately having to settle for a field goal.  On defense, the Packers forced a 3 and out in the Lions' first drive.  EXCEPT . . . Except, the Crosby field goal was blocked, and a penalty on Mike Daniels prolonged the drive, resulting in a Lions' TD.  So instead of 3-0 Green Bay, it was 7-0 Detroit.  And it was all downhill from there.  If you imagine the alternate endings to both those drives, would it have made a difference?  Probably not in the long run, but it would have at least prolonged the illusion of competitiveness.

On a couple of levels, you could say Brett Hundley wasn't the problem on Monday.  He had no interceptions, no fumbles, no huge mistakes.  And the problems on defense were so severe that even a better performance by Hundley would not have resulted in a win. 

Still, there seem to be two successful models in the NFL for surviving with backup quarterbacks, and neither model is working for the Packers right now.  One method is to have a veteran, former starter in the league as the backup, ready to step in at a moment's notice.  Think of Ryan Fitzpatrick on the Buccaneers this year, or Tony Romo as the backup for the Cowboys last year.  Or even Jimmy Garappolo when he has still the Patriots' backup.  The other model is to have a young, talented player being groomed for his big moment.  Brett Favre back in 1992, Aaron Rodgers in 2005-2007, Tom Brady back in the Drew Bledsoe days.  I was willing to give McCarthy the benefit of the doubt with Hundley, given his reputation as a mentor of quarterbacks, and the fact that he has been preparing him for the better part of three seasons.  But after almost three full games, it doesn't appear that Hundley fits the "young, talented player" model, and he is obviously not a veteran, former starter.  I am afraid he is just a journeyman backup quarterback, and you don't win many games with journeyman backups.  If you think I am being tough on him, take a look at this article, pointed out to me by my buddy (and fellow shareholder) Peter Chen.

Which is not to take McCarthy off the hook for the way he is managing Hundley during the games (as opposed to in mentoring him for this day).  There needs to be a greater emphasis on the running game, and on passing plays suited to Hundley's talents.  There is no use having him throw deep; he is not going to complete those passes.  So stretch the defense with mid-range passes that actually have a chance to be completed!

The real story, though, is how pathetic the defense looked.  They did a nice job of stopping the run, but passing against them was like child's play for Matt Stafford.  They get no pressure on the passer without a blitz, and as a result a skilled quarterback can just shred them (to use the term the Monday night crew used repeatedly during the broadcast).  You know your defense is no good when the other team does not have to punt once in the entire game.

The defense has been the Packers' Achilles Heel (apologies to Richard Sherman) for too many years, now.  There have been injuries, of course, but there are always injuries.  The fact that the defense has been a problem is illustrated by the fact that the Packers have devoted 11 draft picks in the first 4 rounds of the last 3 drafts (4 each in 2017 and 2016, and 3 in 2015).  So you could say that the Packers have drafted an entire starting lineup full of high round defensive players in the last 3 years, and yet the results are very poor.  I have never been on the "fire Capers" bandwagon until now, as I didn't think it was wise, with a perennial title contending team, to just fire a coordinator and start over with a new system.  I'm not sure I am quite there yet, but I am sizing up the height and speed of the bandwagon like a cat, judging whether to jump on.

Well, if two weeks were not enough time for the Packers to prepare to play the Lions at home, one wonders how the Packers will do on the road in Chicago on a short week?  For my entire life, I had been waiting for the Packers to catch up with, and then surpass, the Bears in all-time record between the two teams.  They finally caught up last season, and then went ahead of the Bears this year in week 4, and now lead the Bears 95-94-6.  This was the first time the Packers have led the series since 1932. 

It will be heartbreaking if after going ahead in week 4, the Packers fall back into a tie in week 10.  And yet I don't know how one can predict a Packers victory, the way they are playing right now.  It remains to be seen whether Mitchell Trubisky is the starting quarterback the Bears have been searching for all these years.  His passing stats in the four games he has started are unimpressive, and yet he has won 2 of those 4 games, with wins against the Ravens and Panthers.  The results have been better for Trubisky, after half a season in preparation, than they have been for Hundley, after 2.5 years in preparation. 

My motto for this week's game is the same as the title of the old Mel Brooks song, "Hope for the Best, Expect the Worst."

Showdown with Motown

I was not really sure what to expect in the Saints game preceding the Packers' bye week.  I thought, at the end of the day, that the Saints were likely to beat the Packers.  Sure, their record was technically worse than the Packers, and the game was in Green Bay.  But with a backup QB and a banged up defense, I figured that the Packers would not be able to keep up with the Saints' scoring machine.

As a result, I was pleasantly surprised and somewhat hopeful when the first half ended with the Packers leading by the score of 14-7.  The two first quarter interceptions by the Packers had not led to any points, but they at least slowed the Saints down.  In hindsight, those interceptions kept the Packers in the game, keeping the Saints from scoring (those two drives were probably worth 10 or 14 points to the Saints if the interceptions had not happened).  But the failure to take advantage of at least one of those turnovers (or the turnover that almost happened on the muffed punt by Ted Ginn) ultimately contributed to the eventual loss, by the score of 26-17.

On first watching of the game live, my impression was that Mike McCarthy went into his now-familiar conservative game-calling mode in the second half.  Taking no chances, just making the most conservative choices and hoping for the best against the high-powered Saints.  Re-watching the game leads to the same conclusion.  In the first half, the Packers' offense ran a lot of play-action passes, fake end-arounds, etc., and the creativity of the calls led to greater success in the running game, with Aaron Jones scoring one of the TDs on a 46 yard run, and Brett Hundley scoring on the other when he decisively pulled down the ball and used his legs to score the TD.

But watching the second half again confirmed my initial impressions.  Virtually every play was a straight hand-off, a straight drop-back pass, or a shotgun snap for a pass.  I don't recall any play-action passes at all, much less other plays designed to deceive.  The results were predictable.  The Packers, having scored 14 in the first half, scored 3 in the second half.  The defense did not generate any turnovers to slow down the Saints, and as a result they scored 19.  Why didn't Mike McCarthy see this coming?  Why didn't he adjust his game plan as the second half wore on?

McCarthy, in his characteristically testy way, even acknowledged that he did not do a good job of coaching against the Saints.  While he got into no details, it was certainly clear to me as an observer that part of that poor coaching job was his play calling in the second half.  When you lead 14-7 at halftime, you can't just run out the clock on the entire second half, especially against a team with an offense like the New Orleans Saints.  And yet, if you didn't know the score or the amount of time left, you would assume that the Packers were trying to do just that: run out the clock in the second half.

When the Lions come to Green Bay on Monday night, in theory there is a lot on the line.  The Vikings are at 6-2 and on their bye week.  They may be close to having all 3 of their QBs available, Case Keenum, Sam Bradford, and Teddy Bridgewater.  If the Packers hope to stay in the playoff mix at 4-3, a win here would be a big step forward, showing that they can win at least some games with Brett Hundley.  And for the 3-4 Lions, this game is pretty critical.  Absent the injury to Rodgers, one would have expected the Packers to win this game.  Playing against Brett Hundley gives the Lions the chance to steal a game that they would have assumed to be a loss just three weeks ago.

In the Saints game, the Packers teased us in the first half, but ultimately disappointed us and did not play up to the level of our hopes as fans.  I am going to go out on a limb and predict a Packers win on Monday night.  This will require McCarthy to call a better game, Hundley to play a better game with few to no mistakes, and the rest of the team to play up to their considerable abilities. 

Hundley's abilities are what they are.  It is clear that he does not have Rodgers' accuracy on long passes.  It is clear that, although mobile, he does not have Rodgers' accuracy while on the run.  The best strategy for him seems to be to rely on shorter throws, and to emphasize that if his first couple of options are not open, he should quickly decide to pull the ball down and take off.  But a short passing game, with little threat of the long ball, will only work if the play-calling is creative enough to include the element of deception.  Play-action passes, screen passes, end-arounds, fake end-arounds, etc.  This is squarely on McCarthy to call a better game. 

Maybe he needs to designate somebody to stand next to him, and to remind him to call a more creative game.  I have someone in mind: how about Aaron Rodgers?  He is back in Green Bay, and has nothing better to do during the game.  I hope he can elevate McCarthy's game calling.  Let's see what happens.

Last Chance to Get Hot!

Press-Gazette Cover, Dec. 28, 2015

The question that has to be asked is: how bad are the Green Bay Packers right now? In losing to the Cardinals by 30 points on Sunday (38-8), they suffered their worst defeat since being blown out by the Lions by the same margin on Thanksgiving Day 2013.  And Matt Flynn was the QB that day, with Aaron Rodgers still recovering from his broken collarbone.  In fact, this is the worst points deficit the Packers have ever had with Rodgers at QB.  To find a bigger points deficit for a Packers team, you have to go all the way back to 2006, when the Patriots beat the Packers 35-0.  If you are a glutton for punishment, you can pile on other stats to show how bad the game was; for example, when the other team has more sacks than your team has points, or when the opposing defense scores more than your entire team, you have a real problem.

But what exactly is the problem, and, more importantly, what is the solution?  Indeed, is there any solution in the short run, or is this a situation where the team has to wait until next year's return of injured players, or worse yet, be torn down and reconstructed?
Before answering that question, let's consider Colin Kaepernick and Chip Kelly for a minute.  Kaepernick, two or three years ago, was almost on top of the world.  He had narrowly lost the "Harbaugh Bowl" Super Bowl to the Ravens, and the following year narrowly lost the NFC Championship game to the Seahawks, who went on to win the Super Bowl.  Less than two years after that, he was benched, then put on injured reserve (apparently at his own request), and has almost certainly played his last game for the 49ers.  Sure, there were injuries, retirements, the loss of a head coach, etc.  But what happened to Kaepernick himself?  He certainly knew how to destroy the Packers in particular, so how did he get so bad so quickly?

As to Chip Kelly, he was the head coach of the Eagles for one week short of 3 years before being fired this week, and while he never took them near the Super Bowl, the new tempo of the Eagles looked unstoppable for a short period of time, and the Eagles finished their first two seasons with him as coach at 10-6.  But this year, they were 6-9 with one game to go, when the Monday sports cover page of the Philadelphia Daily News asked, "Abandon Chip?" while helpfully noting that Andy Reid's Chiefs have made the playoffs.  A day later, he was gone.  Again, there are all kinds of reasons having to do with players coming and going, and with defensive coordinators learning how to adjust to the fast-paced offense, but still, it is remarkable how quickly things soured in Philly.

The reason I bring up Kaepernick and Kelly is to point out how fast things can change in the Not For Long league.  Could we be in a similar spot with Aaron Rodgers/Mike McCarthy/Dom Capers?  Look, the offensive line is in triage mode, so is the defensive backfield, the receivers can't get open, and the running back position has been the subject of a lot of drama.  But the Packers have had most or all of these problems before, and for a long time this season, and why is it that, all of a sudden, the play-calling seems so bad and Rodgers' performance is so sub-par?  Has Aaron Rodgers suddenly lost his confidence, so that he will never be the same player again?

I'm not ready to reach that conclusion, and I think it is more likely that we will learn, in the off-season, that he has been suffering from some lingering injury most of the year.  If he is not hurt, then the injury to Jordy Nelson, and the musical chairs on the offensive line certainly are factors.  But the play-calling by Tom Clements (earlier) and now Mike McCarthy is not giving much help to the Packers' offense.  Where are the screen passes, the quick slants, the quick outs, or any quick release pass?  They generally work when we try them, but we are just not calling them nearly enough.  And since it is pretty well established that Eddie Lacy runs better out of a conventional pro set than from the shotgun, why is Rodgers in the shotgun almost all the time, and how much of an impact does that have on the running game?  It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Packers are not very good right now, and not destined to go far in the playoffs.  Could they still get hot now that it matters and do some damage in the playoffs?  Sure, but I can't point to any evidence that that is likely to happen.  They are 4-4 over their last 8 games, and really only looked good in 2 of those games (including the Vikings game).

Every game obviously has its own ebb and flow.  The Packers aren't really as bad as they looked against the Cardinals (right?).  But they got behind early, and when they had a chance to make it close, they gave up an interception in the end zone, and the Cardinals scored again, and suddenly it was 17-0 at halftime, when hypothetically it could have been 10-7.  At that point, the rout was on.

Contrast this with the last Vikings game.  While the Packers won the game, 30-13, they had their problems in that game.  They lost some players during the game, too (Linsley and Hyde) and they didn't put the game away until the early 4th quarter.  But the difference is that they were in a position to put the game away that time, and didn't need a miracle to do it.  The biggest factors in that game were a resurgent running game led by Eddie Lacy, more quick passes, controlling Adrian Peterson, and a fearsome pass rush featuring 6 sacks by the Packers.

There isn't any reason that the Packers can't do the same thing on Sunday night against the Vikings, this time at home.  I'm just fresh out of confidence that they will do it.  I have seen some suggestions that maybe the Packers would be better off losing against the Vikings, because they would then play the Redskins on the road in the first round of the playoffs.  I hope that the Packers are not looking at it that way.  Winning the division for the fifth straight season, and hosting a home playoff game, are big deals.

Go Pack Go!  And Happy New Year to everyone, especially to the Green Bay Packers.

Building Some Momentum (Finally)

Great Pair of Signs from the Game Broadcast

It would be a mistake to make too much of the Packers' 28-7 win over the Cowboys last Sunday.  With Tony Romo now out for the year, the Cowboys are struggling mightily, and backup Matt Cassel has clearly not been the answer.  The Cowboys had their moments, breaking off some long runs, but the passing game was almost non-existent, and they had little chance to keep up with the Packers.  The Packers' win, coupled with the Vikings' loss, put the Packers back in sole possession of first place in the NFC North, and guaranteed that the Packers will be no worse off, going into the final week Minnesota at Green Bay game, than to be playing to win the division.

To what do we attribute the Packers' rejuvenated offense?  Well, Mike McCarthy took back the play-calling duties for the first time this year, and the Packers had one of their better offensive games of the season.  McCarthy let Eddie Lacy out of the "penalty box" from his missed-curfew incident, and Lacy responded by having his best game of the year.  With two of the Packers' remaining games being potential "weather games," the running game could not be more welcome.  Weather forecasts show that rain is likely for this week's game at Oakland, and the season finale against the Vikings could really be in harsh conditions.

So was McCarthy's play-calling the difference?  He said he felt it was something he had to do; that he thinks spending time concentrating on defense and special teams earlier made the team better and made him a better coach; and that he will take it a week at a time as to who will call the plays going forward.  Rodgers, diplomatically, said that it was not about play-calling, it was about execution.

I have been pretty critical of McCarthy's play-calling in the past.  I found it, at times, unimaginative, timid, and predictable.  So, when McCarthy gave up play-calling duties at the beginning of the year, I thought it was a good move.  But the results suggest otherwise.  Sure, the Packers started out the year 6-0, and they were 8-4 before McCarthy took back play-calling.  But they had won only 2 of their previous 6 games, and it took a miracle to accomplish one of those wins.  The defense was playing well enough to win almost every game, but the offense was not.  In short, based on the 12 games that Tom Clements called, the play-calling was not getting better; it was getting worse.  So, although I did not see it coming, I am glad McCarthy is back in the driver's seat.  If nothing else, Rodgers and McCarthy seem to be more in sync, and had fewer problems with running out of play clock in getting the ball snapped.

The next three weeks are all about making the playoffs and playoff seeding.  The good news, as mentioned above, is that the Packers have put themselves in a position where, regardless of what happens on the road against the Raiders and Cardinals, they can be in no worse shape than to be playing for the division title in the finale against the Vikings.  But the Packers are obviously in no position to just coast into that final game and hope for the best.  Much better to keep winning and build some momentum, maybe lock up the division before the final game, and keep alive the (admittedly slim) hope that they might end up as the second seed and get a bye week.

The first stop is at Oakland.  This will be the Packers' first visit there since the historical "Irvin Favre" game in December, 2003, which I wrote up here.  It would be a huge mistake to look past the Raiders.  They just pulled off a big deal of an upset last week, beating their arch-rivals, the Broncos, in Denver.  And, they are still ever-so-slightly in the hunt for a wild card spot, so they have everything to play for and very little to lose.  Which makes them a dangerous team.  When you consider Khalil Mack and the still impressive Charles Woodson on defense (there is a nice article on Woodson and his continuing connections to Green Bay here), and Derek Carr, Amari Cooper, and Michael Crabtree on offense, you realize that the Raiders are on the upswing.

Still, they have only won 2 of the last 6 games, beating both Denver and Tennessee by 3 points.  They are giving up way too many points to have a winning record, 25 points per game.  The Raiders could obviously beat the Packers.  The way they were playing a few weeks ago, anybody could beat the Packers.  But I don't see it happening.  The Packers are (finally) on a bit of a roll, and I am hoping and expecting that it will continue.

No Excuse for What We Saw Sunday

Photo from Packers.com

As weird as it seems, you can argue that the Packers lost the NFC Championship Game in the first 10 minutes of the first quarter, when they twice kicked field goals on 4th and goal at the 1 and 2 yard lines.  Oh, sure, the Packers played a great game in the first half, and despite those decisions, they led 16-0 at the half.  But by failing to get more points out of those opportunities, they put themselves in a position where the Seahawks stayed in striking range of the Packers, despite how poorly they played in the first half.  We had a group of 8 watching at our house, all Packers fans or at least Packers fans for the day.  There was disagreement among us about the 4th and short decisions, but my argument at the time was that the Packers should go for it.  You start with the fact that teams get a first down more than 50% of the time on fourth and one, two or three.  So mathematically, the Packers' expected return for going for it both times was more than 7 points.  Even if you score on one and turn the ball over on the other, you score 7 points (instead of the 6 for two field goals) and you leave the Seahawks with the ball on the one or two yard line.  That extra point would have come in handy given that the fourth quarter ended with a score of 22-22.  And with Eddie Lacy and a quality offensive line, not to mention the possibility of a play-action fake, you have a great chance to score twice and (in hindsight) put the game away.

But beyond this, if you go into the Championship game as heavy underdogs, on the road in one of the hardest places to win on the road, then you have to make the most of the chances that you make for yourself, or that fall your way.  To play it safe, taking the "sure" 6 points instead of a chance at 7 or 14 points, is not, in my mind, playing as aggressively as you need to in those circumstances.  Now I can almost hear Coach McCarthy, bellowing that "we are nobody's underdogs," to justify playing it safe rather than "panicking" by taking risks that he would not normally take.  But that, in my view, is really the problem.  His normal approach to these decisions is too timid.  We see too many "run, run, pass, punt" series, especially if Rodgers is injured, as now, or out of the game, as he was last year.  We see too many dive plays to John Kuhn inside the 5 yard line.   And we see too many field goals kicked on 4th and short yardage.

Pete Carroll takes chances to win games (such as the fake field goal Sunday).  Bill Belichick takes chances to win games (among other things, think of the weird, trick formation plays last week).  You could probably also think of spying on opposing teams and deflating footballs as risk-taking in order to win games, but I am talking here only about perfectly legal risks in play-calling and game strategy.  And Sean Payton takes chances (remember the surprise onside kick in the Super Bowl a few years ago).

This is by no means black and white.  Sometimes, Mike McCarthy takes those kind of chances.  But not often enough for my taste.  Even last week, against the Cowboys and with an injured Rodgers, the Packers were more aggressive in their four-minute offense, and they won the game.  Earlier in the year, in the Jets and Patriots games (but with a healthy Rodgers), the Packers were more aggressive in the four-minute offense, and won those games.  Why so tight and risk-averse this time?  I think the magnitude of the game got to him, and when taking into account Rodgers' injury, he basically came to the conclusion that the Packers were lucky to be ahead, and so he started playing not to lose, not playing to win.  I really like McCarthy, and I think he is an excellent coach.  I don't think he should be fired.  But this is my single biggest criticism of him - the unwillingness to play more aggressively when it is needed.  It is possible to like McCarthy, and respect him as a coach, and still assign a lot of responsibility to him for excessive timidity in his game calling.  If you want to have an example of the opposite approach, take the Patriots.  They were still throwing the ball and playing aggressively in the fourth quarter, when they were already ahead by 38-7.  You could perhaps accuse them of piling it on, but one thing is for sure: in the same circumstances, the Patriots would not have found the game slipping away in the face of a furious and miraculous comeback such as the one mounted by the Seahawks.

There were many manifestations of this lack of aggressiveness on Sunday.  The field goals on the 4th and short plays in the first quarter.  Kicking on the other two 4th and 1 situations in the game, one at the Seattle 22 and the other around midfield.  I can't really blame the coaching staff for it, but what in the world was Morgan Burnett thinking when he slid to the ground after making what should have been the game-clinching fourth interception in the 4th quarter?  He had some easy yards available in front of him, and it is not as if there were 2 minutes left - there was 5:13 left on the clock.  Unfortunately, he got the "go down" signal from Julius Peppers, which I think is sort of tragic - there was so much effort to get him another shot at the Super Bowl, and here his signal to Burnett contributed mightily to the Packers missing that chance.

So, after Burnett slid to the ground, the Packers take the ball at that point, needing 2 or three first downs to run out the clock, and instead they go run, run, run, punt.  Then, given the onside kick recovery, they never got another chance to try to run out the clock, but instead were skillful enough (and a little lucky) to get the field goal to tie the game and go into overtime.  That aggressiveness, born of necessity, was, alas, too little and too late.  With all the momentum on their side, and maybe the Packers' defense tiring a little, the Seahawks won the toss and marched downfield in 6 plays to score the game-winning touchdown, to win 28-22.

If you have not seen it, you should watch Aaron Rodgers' post-game press conference.  The body language, the clipped answers, the tone of voice, the unwillingness to elaborate on some questions.  "We gave it away."  "We weren't playing as aggressive as we usually are."  "That is how you lose games."  He, like all players, is hyper-competitive, and he is disappointed to the point of being despondent by what he saw.  If we, as fans, hurt after a loss like this, imagine how someone as competitive as Rodgers, and who actually plays the game and is trying to build his legacy, must feel.  I may be mis-reading him, but I hear in his comments and in his tone something beyond the disappointment.  I think he is disgusted by the lack of aggressiveness in the play-calling.  "You can't let them complete a pass for a touchdown on a fake field goal, you can't give up an onside kick and you can't not get any first downs in the fourth quarter and expect to win," Rodgers said. "And that's on top of being really poor in the red zone in the first half. Put it all together and that's how you lose games. This was a great opportunity. We were right on the cusp."

Don't get me wrong.  This loss was not all Coach McCarthy's fault.  There was John Kuhn failing to get the ball over the goal line, and Rodgers having a mediocre day, and receivers dropping passes, and Bostick not playing his assigned role on the onside kick, and Burnett following Peppers' instruction to drop to the ground.  Change one or two of those plays, and we are all looking forward to the Super Bowl.  But to say, in effect, "oh well, mistakes are made, and there is nothing anyone can do about it" is to miss the bigger picture - the fact that there is a problem with in-game management, and no apparent intent to try to do things differently in the future.

This game is in the books, and the Packers are into off-season mode.  The question is: what happens now?  Ideally, the Packers would learn something from the mistakes made, and have a better chance to avoid making those mistakes next year.  So far, I don't see anything that signals to me that the Packers have learned any lessons.  In the post-game press conference, Coach McCarthy said "I have no regrets.  I don't regret anything."  It is almost impossible to believe that that is really true, but if it is, I don't know if this will ever get fixed.  The Packers have had special teams problems, off and on, for a number of years, but Coach Slocum is still the special teams coach.  Coach McCarthy has, for some time, had a tendency to play too cautiously in big games when the game is still in question.  A friend called it a combination of the "prevent defense" and the "kill the clock offense."  We certainly saw both in the fourth quarter of the game on Sunday.  All I really want is to hear Coach McCarthy acknowledge that there are problems, and that he intends to work on solving those problems in the future.  Or, if he is constitutionally incapable of doing that, then let him put on his Pittsburgh tough guy bluster about having no regrets, as long as we have some reason to believe that, in his heart of hearts, he knows and will work on it.  So far, there is no indication that is true.  Maybe in his Wednesday press conference, the Coach will send us a signal.  I certainly hope so.

UPDATE: As most readers probably know by now, Coach McCarthy's younger brother Joe died on Wednesday, January 21, and as a result his press conference was postponed.  A really bad week for the Coach just got exponentially worse, on a personal level, reminding us all that football is, after all, just a game.  Prayers for the McCarthy family.  There will be time to get the Packers' problems resolved when he is back.

Monday Morning Game Day Thoughts

Photo by USATSI

The photo above depicts the key defensive moment in last week's 26-21 victory over the New England Patriots.  The Packers were playing one of the best teams in the league, with the league's best record at 9-2, and the Patriots were on a 7 game winning streak, with one of the best quarterbacks in the league at the helm.  The Packers had never trailed in the game, but it had been a close game since the second quarter, with the Packers never leading by more than 9 points in that span.  On offense, the Packers' main problem all day had been in the red zone, where they ended up having to settle for four field goals and one missed field goal.

So when the Packers' drive in the fourth quarter stalled, and Mason Crosby kicked his fourth field goal of the day to bring the score to 26-21 with 8:45 left in the game, Packer fans could be forgiven for contemplating the possibility of a long, clock-eating drive, ending in a go-ahead touchdown by the Patriots.  While the Packers' defense had kept Brady under control all game, they had never sacked him, until it was 3rd and 9 from the Packers' 20, after the Patriots' drive had consumed over 5 minutes of the clock and 52 yards.  It was at that moment that Mike Daniels and Mike Neal came up with the only Packers sack of the game, putting the Patriots too far out to try a fourth-down play, and forcing them to try to kick a field goal, which they missed.  Two Lacy runs, one clutch pass to Cobb, and 3 kneel-downs later, the game was over.  While this game was obviously not a Super Bowl, the Daniels-Neal sack immediately reminded me of Reggie White's two, back to back sacks of Drew Bledsoe in Super Bowl XXXI, to effectively finish out the game.

Back when the Packers were 1-2, none of us really contemplated the Packers being in a position to win 7 out of 8 games, or to knock off two division-leading teams like the Eagles and the Patriots within a three week span.  But they have done exactly that.  Keeping more of their players healthy has been a big factor, obviously, but so has the continuing development of young players like Eddie Lacy and David Bakhtiari and Corey Linsley and Davante Adams (other than his big drop of what would have been a touchdown pass) on offense, and like Datone Jones, and Micah Hyde, and Ha Ha Clinton-Dix on defense.  And finally, the coaching staff deserves a lot of credit.  Over the years, many of us have been critical of Mike McCarthy and his staff, for poor clock and game management, unimaginative play calling, being slow to adjust within games, etc.  But I have to admit that the Packers, for most of this year, have been doing a better job of changing things up to keep the opposing teams off balance.  On defense, the creative use of Clay Matthews in the last four weeks has made a huge difference in the overall performance of the defense, and on offense, last Sunday's game showed how the creative use of Randall Cobb in many different alignments can create massive problems for the opposing team's defense.  Where was all this creativity hiding for the last few years?  Hard to tell, but let's enjoy it while it lasts.

Much has been made this week of Bill Belichick seeking out both McCarthy and Rodgers after the game to have a few words with them.  Neither McCarthy nor Rodgers would disclose what was said, but it is fair to assume that Belichick was acknowledging the excellent play-calling and performance of the Packers in the game.

The Packers have four winnable games left in the regular season.  Atlanta at home, Buffalo and Tampa Bay on the road, and then the huge rematch with the Lions.  The Falcons, despite their 5-7 record, should not be taken lightly.  They still have Julio Jones and Roddy White on offense, and if Matt Ryan gets hot, they can score a lot of points.  They have also won 3 of their last 4 games, including a win over Arizona, so they are getting their season back on track after a really poor start.  Plus, at 5-7 they are like the old joke about the two men being chased by a bear.  Since they currently actually lead the NFC South, they don't need to win enough games to have a good record; they just need to finish in front of the Saints and Panthers.  If they do, they will win the division and host a home playoff game.

We all remember that it was just four short years ago that the Falcons had the best record in the NFC, and the Packers knocked them off on the way to Super Bowl XLV.  They have lost a lot of players since then, but they still have plenty of talent.  And this is, for the reasons noted, a big game for the Falcons.  But I don't see them pulling off a massive upset of the Packers at Lambeau Field.  I think the Packers will win this one by at least 10 points.  Go Pack!

A Game Nobody Could Have Predicted

Photo by Mark Hoffman, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."  So goes the famous Monty Python line.  And in calculating NFL Division standings, nobody expects a tie game.  For that matter, nobody expects the Packers to have 4 quarterbacks playing in the course of three weeks.  But that, of course, is exactly what happened when the Packers played the Vikings on Sunday, with the game ending at 26-26 after each team scored a field goal in overtime, but neither team could score again.

This game felt, in a way, like three different games.  The "first game" was made up of the first 2.5 quarters.  The game started well enough, with the Packers taking their first lead in the last three games on Scott Tolzien's spinning scramble for a touchdown.  It was his first NFL TD scored (as opposed to a TD pass), and also his first Lambeau Leap.  But after that promising start, the offense bogged down, and the defense started giving up chunks of yardage, especially on the ground.  The score was 20-7 in favor of Minnesota almost halfway through the third quarter.  By that time, Tolzien had completed less than 50% of his passes, for 98 yards, no TDs and no interceptions.  He wasn't having a horrible day, but his play was not, at that point, competitive enough to keep the game from getting away from the Packers.

The "second game" started when McCarthy benched Tolzien and brought in Matt Flynn, and lasted until about the end of the fourth quarter.  Flynn lit a fire under the Packers' offense, and perhaps sensing some hope, the defense played better, too.  The defense only gave up a field goal during that quarter and a half, to make it 23-7, while Flynn drove the Packers for 2 touchdowns and 1 field goal, to tie the game at 23-23, and put the game in overtime.  With perfect hindsight, when the Packers scored their first touchdown under Flynn with 11:27 left in the fourth quarter, they could have gone for 1 point, and since they would go on to score 10 more before the end of the game, they would have won, 24-23.  I have already seen some second-guessing online about the decision to go for 2, but I think that critique is overblown.  The Packers had just scored for the first time since the first quarter, and with 11:27 left in the game, 2 TDs with 2-point conversions seemed like a better shot to tie up the game than 2 TDs and 1 field goal.

The "third game" started in that final Packers drive of the 4th quarter, and continued throughout overtime.  The Packers had gotten to first down at the Minnesota 12, with 1:10 left, but at that point the Packers seemed to get a little tentative, and had to settle for the field goal to tie the game, rather than getting the game-winning touchdown.  The same thing happened even more clearly in overtime, when the Packers, with some grit and some good fortune, overcame a bad start on their first drive to aggressively move the ball down the field to first and goal at the Minnesota 7.  But a run, a run and a pass later, they had to settle for a field goal to go up by three points, and give the Vikings a shot to either tie or win the game on their next drive.  At that point, the Packers' defense started giving up yards in big chunks again, allowing the Vikings to tie the game at 26.  The Packers' next opportunity was killed by incomplete passes, and their final opportunity was squandered with three offensive line penalties rendering it all but impossible to score.

With all the attention to the quartet of Packer quarterbacks and Flynn's heroic comeback, it would be easy to lose sight of the fact that it was poor defense by the Packers that let the Vikings build up their 16 point lead in the fourth quarter, and poor defense that led to the Vikings' field goal in overtime to tie the game.  Yes, the Packers' defense at times made crucial stops, and they did get 6 sacks and recover 1 fumble.  But on the whole this was not a good effort.  When you give up 447 yards to a bad Vikings team, something is not right on defense.

One could go either way in evaluating a tie game.  Was it basically a victory for the Packers, in engineering the comeback to avoid the devastating loss?  Some fans reacted that way, as did at least one columnist.  Or did this tie basically amount to a loss for the Packers, because of the squandered opportunities to win the game in the 4th quarter and in overtime, and because of the lost chance to move into a tie for the division lead?  Some fans, many of the players, and another columnist take that view.  Count me mostly in the latter category.

So going into the Thanksgiving week, the Bears and Lions are in first place at 6-5, while the Packers are half a game back at 5-5-1.  I guess there are two silver linings here.  A tie is still better than a loss, although it is heartbreaking to have that kind of a stirring comeback and not come away with a win.  Beyond that, it is now highly unlikely that the Packers will end up in a tie for the division lead at the end of the season.  They might win the division by half a game, or they might lose it by half a game (or more).  But it is not going to come down to a tiebreaker, which is just as well, given the Packers' losses in the division and conference.

Who will start at quarterback for the Packers on Thanksgiving?  McCarthy said he has "no idea" if Rodgers will start.  (Well, he must have some idea, but we can let that pass as the usual McCarthy uncommunicative response.)  I am assuming it will be Flynn.  My guess is that Rodgers could use the extra 10 days to heal before the Falcons game.  I like Scott Tolzien, I thought he would be the winning QB Sunday, and I felt a little bad for him getting benched.  But given the Packers' current circumstances, McCarthy had to treat this game as akin to a playoff game.  If he felt Flynn gave the Packers a better chance, he had to make the change, and it is clear to me that he made the right call.  Flynn just looked more comfortable out there, and despite the Packers' offense bogging down twice, when a touchdown would have won the game, the offense was much more productive under Flynn on Sunday.  He completed 21 of 36 for 218 yards and a touchdown, in about 2.5 quarters (including overtime).  Can he beat the Lions?  Well, he did have a record-setting day against the Lions less than two years ago.  It would be great to see a repeat of that game, but ideally with better defensive play.

Make or Break Week Ahead

Photo by Brad Penner, USA Today

How disappointing it was to watch the Packers lose their third game in a row last week to the Giants, 27-13.  Maybe I was kidding myself (always a danger as a fan watching a game), but I really thought the Packers had a shot in the 4th quarter, until the devastating pick-6 interception by Jason Pierre-Paul.  The situation before that play was that the Packers trailed by 7 points, and they had just stopped the Giants with a 3 and out, including two sacks (by Brad Jones and Clay Matthews) to force a punt.  So the Packers had some momentum on their side.  One play later, the game was effectively over, as Jason Pierre-Paul  made a sensational interception for a touchdown against Scott Tolzien.  The ball just stuck in his outstretched hands, as if the ball was metal and his hands were a super-magnet.  From there, he strolled into the end zone to completely change the dynamic of the game.

In a post by blogger Jersey Al Bracco, who naturally attended the game himself, Jersey Al makes two great points on the problems with the Packers in the Giants game.  First, Coach McCarthy did the Packers no favors with his offensive play-calling.  Way too many times, he called runs on both first and second down to start possessions, almost all of which were unsuccessful, and many of which led to punts.  Re-watching the game with this comment in mind, it really was true.  Not coincidentally, the success the Packers offense had in the game (including all three scoring drives) came exclusively on possessions that varied from the run, run, pass model.

Jersey Al takes it a step farther, to make the point that the Packers' offense was so predictable that not only did the Giants seem to know what play was coming next, but so did Jersey Al himself, watching from the upper deck.  In fact, as he notes, Pierre-Paul told Press-Gazette reporter Wes Hodkiewicz after the game that he was able to read the formation of the Packers, and knew exactly what play was coming on his pick-6.  That makes it a lot easier, doesn't it?

Enough about the Giants.  The Packers' season may be made or broken in the next 5 days, as the Packers play the Vikings at home on Sunday, and then the Lions at Detroit on Thanksgiving Day.  Aaron Rodgers is out against the Vikings, and reading between the lines of some of the comments, I don't think he will be starting on Thanksgiving, either.  If the Packers win both these games, they will be no worse off than tied for first place in the division.  If they lose both, time to start planning for next year's draft.  If they split the games, who knows?  They will still be alive but on shaky ground.

I saw enough from Scott Tolzien last week to think that the Packers should beat the Vikings.  A little more imaginative play-calling would help, but the Vikings just aren't good enough to beat the Packers at home, in the cold, even with our third-string quarterback.  Can they also beat the Lions on the road on Thanksgiving?  I am not at all sure about that, but we will know more when we figure out how the Packers look tomorrow, and whether Rodgers will be able to return for the Thanksgiving game.

Happy Thanksgiving!  And Happy Hanukkah!

Next QB Up (Again!)

Photo by Mike Roemer, AP

Since it is now Saturday evening as I write this, it is a little late to be commenting on last Sunday's 27-13 loss to the Eagles, in which QB 2 Seneca Wallace went down with a groin injury, pressing QB 3 Scott Tolzien into service.  So I will only say a few things about that game.

Sitting in the stands at Lambeau Field, we were just as shocked as the TV audience was when Tolzien came in on the second series.  We didn't see Wallace get hurt or have any difficulty coming off the field, and now that I have watched the TV broadcast, the announcers obviously had no clue, either.  There was a brief sideline shot, focusing on other things, but showing Scott Tolzien warming up, but evidently the announcers did not notice this, or did not make anything of it.  After Tolzien came in, Wallace continued throwing on the sideline and practicing dropping back for quite awhile, right down in front of us.  There just wasn't anything we saw in what he was doing that would have suggested that he had a season-ending injury.  So I can only read one thing into McCarthy immediately naming Tolzien as the starter this week, and in putting Wallace on IR when Matt Flynn was signed.  McCarthy must have concluded that Tolzien is a better option than Wallace, even if both are healthy.

If that was his conclusion, I can understand why.  Tolzien made two huge errors Sunday in throwing two interceptions.  I don't think it would have made the difference in the game, given the Packers' defensive collapse in the second half, but the game would have been a lot closer but for those interceptions.  Tolzien just looked better out there in his almost-full game than Wallace had in his partial game last Monday night, and his one series on Sunday.  Tolzien was decisive, seemed to have a pretty good arm, and if McCarthy was telling the truth when he said that Tolzien was running plays he had never practiced, then he is a good student of the game.

McCarthy's greater confidence in Tolzien's leading the offense was also shown by the fact that he was more willing to let Tolzien play a more aggressive game.  Unlike Monday night with Wallace, on Sunday McCarthy called more rollouts, screen passes, quick passes to the sideline, and even some deep balls.

So here we are, having our third starting quarterback in 3 weeks, after going the preceding 20 plus years with a total of three starting quarterbacks.  How will that work out for the Packers?  Well, if there are two teams in the league that seem to have the Packers' number in the last few years, the Giants are one of those teams, and the 49ers are the other.  But the Giants have been a bit of an enigma this year.  They lost the first 6 games of the year.  Every one of those teams is at least .500 as of right now, but still, the Giants lost every game.  Since then, the Giants have played two bad teams (the Vikings and the Raiders) and one 5-5 team (the Eagles), and they won all three of those games.  In hindsight, we can see that the Giants are a better team than we thought 3 weeks ago, but I don't think their 3 game winning streak is enough to convince me that the Giants are back as a contending team.

The Packers, when the same QB starts and finishes the game, are 5-2.  When the QB gets knocked out in the opening minutes of the game, they are 0-2.  So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Tolzien lasts the entire game, after preparing the entire week to be the starting QB.  Do the Packers have a chance?  Sure they do.  They now have the best running game they have had in years.  This takes an enormous amount of pressure off the passing game, and tends to tire out the opponents' defense.  While the Packers' defense played way below expectations the last two weeks, especially in the second half, they had been playing much better before that, so they should be capable of a better showing.  The Giants' offense just isn't playing the way it used to, for a combination of reasons including injuries, personnel, and the regression of Eli Manning as a QB.  I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it, but I think the Packers will win this game.

Will the 2013 Packers Survive the Next Few Weeks Without Rodgers?

AP Photo by Morry Gash

The news as of Tuesday afternoon was that Packers' quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who was injured in the opening minutes of the Monday night loss to the Chicago Bears (27-20), will be out 3-6 weeks with a broken clavicle.  To add insult to injury, Jermichael Finley was placed on IR on Tuesday, as well.  We probably all knew that was coming, but still, just what we needed to hear Tuesday.

Maybe Bears Head Coach Marc Trestman is the Boy Genius after all.  Josh McCown looked good last week when pressed into service against the Redskins (although the Redskins did pull out a win at the end of the game), and he looked very solid Monday night in beating the Packers.  Meanwhile, Mike McCarthy, who has always had the reputation of being a great developer of quarterbacks, has had 8 weeks to work with Seneca Wallace as his backup quarterback, and yet he clearly was not ready to step in and perform at an adequate level.

To make matters worse, McCarthy seemed unwilling to let Wallace air it out.  Or at least, he seemed unwilling to let him pass most of the time until it was third down.  As in, "run, run, pass, punt."  Now I can understand that, when one of Wallace's first passes was tipped up and intercepted by Julius Peppers, it tended to reinforce McCarthy's cautious nature.  But he did the team's chances to win no favors when he pulled the reins so tight with Wallace.  Football fans talk all the time about the prevent defense, and how all it does is prevent a win.  Monday night, I am afraid we saw something that amounts to a prevent offense.  The way I see it, when Rodgers went out, there were two ways that the Packers were going to end up winning this game.  Either the defense and/or special teams were going to step up and make the difference in the game, or the offense was going to have to play aggressively and get a little lucky.

The special teams actually had a pretty good night.  There were two great special teams plays, the blocked punt, and the surprise onside kick the Packers recovered in the third quarter.  And McCarthy certainly gets all the credit for having the guts to call the onside kick.  These two plays led to 10 points for the Packers, half of their total for the night.  I think you could make a pretty good case that the special teams kept the Packers in the game, despite very pedestrian results kicking and receiving the ball.

The defense, on the other hand, picked a hell of a time to play their worse game since the opening day loss to the 49ers.  The defense had been improving all year, until Monday night.  After giving up 494 yards and 34 points to the 49ers in week 1 (a loss), they dialed it back to 422 yards but only 20 points in beating the Redskins in week 2.  In games 3 through 7. the Packers never gave up more than 360 total yards in any game, and in 4 of those 5 games, they held their opponent to less than 300 yards.  Monday night, the Packers gave up 442 yards and 27 points to the Bears playing with a backup quarterback of their own.  The Packers rarely got any pressure on McCown (he was sacked only once), and there were many instances of poor tackling by Packer defenders.

So, seeing how things were going, you would think that McCarthy would realize that more creativity and aggressiveness would be required on offense to have a good chance to win the game.  More play action passes, since it was obvious that the Packers were going to run the ball most of the time.  More screen passes or bootleg plays, or designed rollouts, to take a little starch out of the Bears' pass rush.  Maybe a trick play or two.  After re-watching the game, I now know that Wallace dropped back to pass 23 times, including plays where he was sacked.  He dropped back in the pocket 22 times.  Rollouts: 1.  Screens: 0.  Trick plays: 0.  He may have had a play action pass or two, but in general he just dropped straight back.

McCarthy's innate cautiousness made him shy away from being too aggressive with his backup quarterback. He probably would say that his strategy almost worked, given the Packers' strong running game, which frankly was a surprise given that the Bears knew it was coming.  The Packers led in the 3rd quarter.  They got as far as the Bear's 40 yard line, in the 4th quarter, while trailing by only 4 points.  So they weren't far away from squeaking out a win.  Still, I believe that this approach was a mistake.  Sure, if McCarthy got aggressive, there might be some big negative plays (a pick-6, for example).  But really, it may feel worse to get beat by 20 points than by 7, but they both count as a single loss.  And if you take some chances, you also create the chance to have a real shot at winning the game.

In contrast to McCarthy's overly cautious approach, take a look at the bold play Trestman pulled in the 4th quarter, going for it on 4th and inches, in the Bears' own territory, while holding a 4 point lead.  That is something that is very rarely seen, even though statistically you can make a good case for going for it on 4th and 1 from any position on the field.  But most NFL coaches are way too risk-averse to do it.

The bottom line is that the Packers were outcoached Monday night, their backup quarterback outplayed the Packers' backup quarterback, and the Packers' defense was woefully inadequate to make up the difference.  Congratulations to Marc Trestman and the Bears.

I have to assume that McCarthy will open it up at least a little in the coming weeks.  McCarthy will have a week, albeit a short one, to get Wallace ready to start against the Eagles on Sunday.  Over the next 3.5 weeks, the Packers will play 4 games against mediocre (or worse) teams: the Eagles (4-5) at home, at the Giants (2-6), at home against the Vikings (1-7), and at Detroit (5-3) on Thanksgiving.  Could the Packers win at least two of those games?  I think so, and if they do, they would be 7-5 and in pretty decent shape by the time Rodgers is about ready to come back.  The Eagles game would be an excellent time to start.