Reggie White, R.I.P.

Going into the Friday game, we had the Packers' pathetic historical record in the dome, pointing in one direction, and the Vikings' traditional late-season collapse, pointing in the other. Most Packer fans, including me, were probably pretty pessimistic about the chances for the Packers.

Lots of bad things happened during the game. The Packers' defense could not stop the Vikings all day long. Favre threw his traditional interception as a Christmas gift to the Vikings, although this one was caused more by a tremendous leaping grab by Claiborne than by an error by Favre. But, to make matters worse, this interception took place in the fourth quarter, with the score tied. To make matters worse still, this interception was returned for the go-ahead touchdown.

Not content to let this one slip away, Favre guided the Packers on a 5 minute, 13-play drive, which ended when Favre threw a 3-yard touchdown pass to Driver on 4th down. The score was tied, with over 3 minutes left to play. Still, the way the defense had been playing all season, it would have been no shock for the defense to let the Vikings drive downfield for the winning score. But for once, the defense rose to the occasion, with the help of a couple of penalties on the Vikings, and forced a punt.

The Packers had the ball, at their own 13 yard line, with 1:35 to go and 2 timeouts. That deep in their own territory, on the road, would they play for the tie and take the game into overtime? Not without taking some carefully controlled shots at some yardage first. The Packers proceeded to mount another long drive, with 12 plays, leading to the game-winning field goal as time expired.

Ryan Longwell deserves a lot of credit. This is the fourth time in the last seven weeks he has kicked game-winning field goals in the final seconds of a game. He is certainly not perfect (longer kickoffs would be nice), but he is as dependable as any kicker in the league in this kind of situation. And Mike Sherman deserves a lot of credit, too. Quietly, almost without anyone noticing, he has built a 7-3 record against the Vikings, including a 3-2 record at the dome. When you consider that Mike Holmgren's record against the Vikings was 5-9, and 1-6 in the dome, Sherman's accomplishment in turning around that futility is significant and welcome. As a result, the Packers won the division for the third year in a row, and will have their home game in the first round of the playoffs. All was well in the world of the Green and Gold.

Until Sunday morning. That is when the shocking news came of Reggie White's death, at the age of 43. The day Reggie White signed with the Packers is probably etched in the minds of many of us. Living in the San Francisco area, I can remember very well the smug assumption in these parts that Reggie would sign with the 49ers. After all, they were the "classiest organization in all of sports" (as 49er fans and media types were fond of telling us) and they had been at or near the top since 1981. Why wouldn't someone like Reggie want to jump on board? I remember being asked by a 49er fan that day, "Did we get Reggie White?" Which allowed me to use the punch line of the old joke, "What you mean WE, kemosabe?"

None of us will soon forget the sight of Reggie White taking a victory lap around the Super Dome after Super Bowl XXXI, with the Lombardi trophy held high for all to see. My family will never forget his graciousness in posing for a picture with us, at the San Francisco hotel restaurant, the night before the NFC Championship game the following year, or the fact that he signed and send back the picture to us after it was developed.

Reggie White was on the receiving end of criticism for some of his politically incorrect remarks off the football field, to some extent deservedly so. Let us not dwell on that now. Nobody who is honest about it will dispute that this was a good man, a proud man of faith, and one who tried to do the right thing in his personal and professional life. He was also a phenomenal football player. The two games that stand out most in my mind were the game against Denver, in 1993 (Reggie's first year with the Packers) when he single-handedly preserved the victory by sacking Elway several times on the pivotal, 4th quarter drive, and of course Super Bowl XXXI, when he did the same thing to Drew Bledsoe late in the game. He left us far too soon, and there is no more fitting tribute to him than the New Testament epigraph that appears at the beginning of the book Reggie wrote with Andrew Thomas:

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith."

I Would Have Double-Bagged It

How ironic that Brett Favre's newest TV commercial, for Master Card, is all about Monday Morning Quarterbacks. There certainly has been enough Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on in the wake of the Phenomenal Phlop in Philly.

Generally, I hate to indulge in this particular sport. I try to remember that from what I see (and understand) on TV, it is difficult to pass judgment on whether a player should have zigged, instead of zagged. But this time, with a whole off-season to think about it, I feel compelled to throw in my 2 cents worth.

There are 4 plays in the game that people have been talking about. I don't take serious issue with two of them, so I will set them off to the side. Going for it on 4th and goal in the second quarter seemed like a good idea to me at the time, and I refuse to criticize it now just because it was unsuccessful. Yes, in hindsight it would have been nice to have the 3 points, but 7 points at that time would have been pretty devastating to the Eagles' chances for a comeback, and the Packers have a very powerful short yardage rushing game.

And, at the end of the game, many people have complained about the pass on 1st down in overtime, which was intercepted and led very shortly to the win by Philadelphia. As to that play, I would have run the ball, but there is something to be said for surprising the other side, and if the play call had not been met by a heavy blitz, and accompanied by a horrible decision as to where to throw the ball by Favre, none of us would be complaining about the play. In short, I believe that Brett Favre deserves the criticism he is getting for the throw he made, but I think that much of the criticism directed to the play call is misdirected.

When the game is lost (especially a playoff game), the play-caller is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, which the coaches fully understand. In his season-ending press conference on Wednesday, Mike Sherman even noted the fact that he has been criticized both for going for it on 4th and 1 in the first half, and for not going for it on 4th and 1 in the second half. Which does show how unfair Monday Morning Quarterbacking can be. What would be nice, though, is if we could get some sense that lessons can be taken away from the inevitable agony of Monday Morning Quarterbacking - something that can be applied in seeking a different result in the future.

With that background out of the way, the plays I would like to subject to scrutiny are the 4th and 1 play late in the 4th quarter, and the defensive play call on the 4th and 26.

4th and 1, Fourth Quarter

On the 4th and 1 at the Eagles' 41, I thought the Packers should have gone for it instead of punting. Many have criticized the punt, but others have said it was the right decision, so there is no unanimity on this call. Here is my thinking. If the Packers got the first down there, with about 2 minutes and 30 seconds left, the game was over, barring some miracle for the Eagles. If the Packers punted, the Eagles would have plenty of time to try to drive for the tying field goal or winning touchdown. So in evaluating the 4th down call, getting a first down was pretty close to winning the game. Plus, would you rather keep the ball on offense if you could, or hope the Packers' defense could stop a drive to tie or win the game? All hindsight aside, the Packers have not done a good job of stopping those drives all year, including the prior week's Seahawks game at the end of the 4th quarter, and including the Monday night game against the Eagles. So, I would rather put my trust in the ability of the offense to get a yard, especially considering how well they were playing, and how they had been wearing down the Eagles' defense.

Even though the Packers had failed on 4th down and 1 in the second quarter, my sense (without having statistics in front of me) was that the Packers had a high likelihood of getting the first down. They have a great offensive line, and a great running back, and my recollection of similar situations throughout the year was that they were almost always successful. Plus, Mike Sherman had made the point the prior week that he had asked the players to play aggressively, and that in turn the coaching staff would make calls aggressively. All of these factors suggested going for it.

Since the game, the Tuesday Morning Quarterback column on NFL.com has pointed me to the Football Outsiders web site, where they have collected statistics on 3rd and 1 and 4th and 1 calls throughout the season. The statistics show that when a team runs on 3rd or 4th and 1, they make the first down 72% of the time. They also have statistics on a slightly larger category of plays, what they call "power" plays, defined as 3rd or 4th and 1 or 2 yards to go, or 1st or 2nd and goal from the 1 or 2 yard line. Interestingly, the Packers have 79% success on rushes on "power" plays, which should not be surprising if you believe, as I do, that the Packers have a better than average short yardage running game. Since "power" plays are a somewhat wider category, the Packers'success on 3rd or 4th and 1 is almost certainly greater than 79%.

Bear with my math. Let's take, conservatively, a 75% chance of success if the Packers had gone for it on 4th and 1. If they went for it, they had a 75% chance of essentially winning the game right there. And if they failed (the other 25%), the game was not lost -the question was whether they could prevent the Eagles from scoring from about their own 41 yard line with 2.5 minutes to go and only one time out left. Let's say the Packers had a 50% chance of preventing a score in the situation where the Packers turned the ball over. So, overall, if thePackers went for it, they would have around an 87.5% chance of winning (75%plus 12.5%). Pretty good odds.

Now, take a punt. Obviously, you put the ball in McNabb's hands, but you assume that they will have to start much closer to their own goal line.Therefore, they will have to go 20 or 30 yards farther in order to score the field goal for a tie, or the touchdown for the win. What are the chances the Eagles will score if they start from the 10 or 20 yard line? Plug in your own number, but I would suggest they have around a 30% chance of scoring, meaning that the Packers have a 70% chance to prevent a score and therefore win the game. So, accepting my non-scientific percentages, the Packers REDUCED their chances to win from 87.5% to 70% by punting the ball. If you differ with me on the percentages, plug in your own numbers and see what you come up with. But I think these stats help to prove that the right choice in that situation was to go for it, not to mention that it was consistent with Sherman's pledge to call the game aggressively, and it has a greater chance of keeping the ball out of McNabb's hands altogether.

4th and 26, Fourth Quarter

Now let's consider the next possession, as the Eagles were driving for the field goal to tie the game and send it to overtime. In this and the previous two possessions, the Packers had been applying relentless pressure to McNabb, causing a game's-worth of sacks and lots of incompletions. On the decisive drive, that pressure had put the Eagles exactly where the Packers wanted them, 4th and 26. So, do they continue to apply significant pressure on that key play? No. They drop back into soft zone coverage, McNabb has all day to throw the ball, Freddie Mitchell finds the seam in the zone, and the rest is history.

Why? Why not keep applying the same pressure that put the Eagles into 4th and 26? Oh, I know, the theory of it is that all you have to do is keep the receivers in front of you, and that way, even if you give up 25 yards on theplay, the ball still is turned over on downs. If you put pressure on and some receiver gets free in single coverage, you can LOSE the game right there. But how many times have we seen conservative play-calling kill a team? In fact, even though it was before Ed Donatell's time, his predecessor called exactly the same soft zone coverage on the decisive play in the "Terrell Owens" playoff game in January, 1999 (Mike Holmgren's last game as coach of the Packers), with similar results.

These two 4th down plays in the Eagles game have something in common. Both represent situations where the coaches could have called the game aggressively (as they had pledged to do the week before), but where they went conservative instead. They also are situations where the coaches opted not to continue doing what was working well, and opted for more conservative, but ultimately disastrous, different choices. Long time reader Thomas Sattler works in the computer field, and plays golf, and he offers a rule that fits perfectly in this situation. He calls it Sattler's Law of Golf and Systems Development: "Go with what works."

Now, in the wake of the game, defensive coordinator Ed Donatell has been fired, although allegedly not because of the 4th and 26 failure. Let's hope that this makes a difference. Certainly, Donatell's successor will come in with a mandate to be aggressive on defense, and that is a good thing. Repeatedly, this year, the Packers' defense has given up drives at the ends of games to either tie or lose the game, or to let the opponent turn small leads into larger leads. Take a look at the 4th quarter drives given up against Arizona, Kansas City, Philadelphia (regular season), Detroit (2d game), Seattle (playoffs) and Philadelphia (playoffs). That simply can't be allowed to happen as often as it did.

It would be nice to think that the Packers (and Mike Sherman in particular) learned something from the Eagles game. Maybe it is too much to expect, butI would have loved to hear him say "It seemed like a good idea to punt at the time, but if I had it to do again, I would run the ball" or "A soft zone seemed like a safe play call, but since it burned us I would probably put some pressure on in a similar situation if it came up again." Instead, Sherman, in his press conference, defended the 4th and 1 punt, and talked about how the Packers had the Eagles where they wanted them at 4th and 26,rather than really addressing the unbelievable failure on that play. Maybe this was just a defense mechanism on Sherman's part, and he really has taken something away from this game that he will put to better use in the future, even if he won't admit it publicly. That is what I hope, anyway, because the window of opportunity for this team grows shorter every year.

49er Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're Number Two!

“We’re Number Two! We’re Number Two!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

3-1 Underachievers

Two more weeks under the Packers' belts, and there is good news and bad news. The good news is that the Packers are now 3-1, in sole possession of first place in the NFC North, and tied for the best record in the NFC. The bad news is that the Packers have given their fans almost no reason to think that they can continue to win 75 percent of their games.

They came close to losing to the Lions in Detroit, in a game very reminiscent of last year's Thanksgiving Day affair. And then the Packers barely survived the invasion of the Panthers, with a missed chip shot field goal being the only thing that saved the Packers from overtime. On the plus side, the defense actually looked quite a bit better against the Panthers, despite the fact that they continue to give up big plays at the most maddening moments. And given the slew of people on both offense and defense who were on the injury list, maybe surviving a scare for a 17-14 win isn't so bad. None of us who saw it will soon forget Mike Sherman's temper tantrum on the sideline after the officials originally ruled Bubba Franks' touchdown pass an illegal forward pass. Whether the purpose of the tantrum was to stall until the replay official upstairs had time to call for a replay, or whether he was trying to fire up the team, or whether he just plain lost it, it was a sight to behold.

And now it is Packer-Bear week. It has been said many times, but it really is true that this is the greatest rivalry in the NFL, maybe in all of professional sports. It has everything you could want in a rivalry. Over 80 years of history, big city vs. small town, a genuine historical dislike between the teams and the fans. Halas vs. Lambeau and Lombardi, Nitschke vs. Butkus, and I could go on and on. Both teams have been hit hard by injuries early this season, so a big part of the game may be which team has been able to adjust better to the personnel changes. I would be more worried about this game, given how the Packers have been playing, it I had not seen the Bears blow a 20 point lead in week 3 to lose to the Saints, and then lose again in week 4 to the Bills. So the Packers have a decent shot at this game.

The key to the Packers season, as things appear right now, is for them to keep winning most of the close games until they get healthier, and until the defense gets to the point where it is playing more consistently. Last week was a real improvement for the defense, and this week would be an excellent time to keep that momentum moving in the right direction. I can't wait for Monday night.

* * * * * *

This week's column is dedicated to the man who took me to my very first Packer game, 40 years ago this week. That man was my Dad, who died peacefully last week at age 90, unfortunately a few days before we arrived for a visit. Continuing the generational tradition, my wife, kids and I stayed in town and went to the Packer game on Sunday. Thank goodness the Packers kept up their end of the bargain by winning the game. Oh, by the way, that first Packer game I went to, 40 years ago, was also a Packer-Bear game. Packers 49, Bears 0, September 30, 1962.

Thud!

"The Packers' season came to an end on Sunday with a crashing thud. They were destroyed by a far superior St. Louis Rams team, blown out by the score of 45-17. Just like those early playoff years of the Favre/Holmgren era, they met up with a team (the Cowboys then, the Rams now) that they seemed to have no chance to beat."

At least that is what you would think if you missed the game, woke up on Monday morning and just read the final score. But on closer inspection, this game had a different feel to it. Oh, the Rams' victory was no fluke, and the Rams are certainly the better team. But unlike the feelings of despair in those years against the Cowboys, when it was clear that the Cowboys were so much better than the Packers that the Packers would never beat them until the Cowboys were well past their prime, this time the Packers seemed pretty close to the victors. Take away the ridiculous number of turnovers (PLEASE take them away!), and the Packers played right with the Rams. In fact, it could be argued that they outplayed them. The Packers had more rushing yards, more passing yards, more time of possession, more of most everything except points, where there was a huge deficit.

So what happened? Well, obviously, enough turnovers for 4 games (6 interceptions, tying a playoff record, and 2 fumbles lost). But the interesting question is, why? Antonio Freeman's fumble was mostly just a great play by Aeneas Williams in stripping the ball. Ahman Green's fumble was the result of poor ball-carrying technique, something he will work on in the off-season.

And then there were the interceptions. The first one (returned for a touchdown) was the obvious result of either Favre or Schroeder making a mistake, but without knowing the details of what the Packers' offensive system is for adjusting routes on the fly, it is difficult to know whose fault it was. Certainly, Schroeder's adjustment (to head up field) was a good idea in the abstract (i.e. apart from whatever the system calls for), because he would have been wide open for a long gain or a touchdown. But Favre and Schroeder have frequently seemed not to be on the same page this year, and as much as it is nice to see the local Sheboygan boy make good, I am not sure he will be back.

Four of the interceptions came on tipped balls, so there was a certain fluky aspect to those interceptions, although there is plenty of room to question both Favre's judgment on some of the throws, and the inability of the Packer receivers to pull the balls down.

More and more, and after re-watching most of the game, I am coming around to the view that the problem was a combination of several factors: (1) a slightly over-aggressive (and thus risky) approach to the game plan; (2) the fact that this risky approach came home to roost in the form of several early interceptions, one for a touchdown and one for a near touchdown, so that early in the second quarter the Packers were down 21-7; (3) the fact that one of the breaks that could have kept the Packers in the game (Rossum's kickoff return for a touchdown) was called back on a penalty; and (4) the fact that the early 14 point lead allowed the Rams to start playing almost a prevent type defense, which, combined with the continuing aggressive approach by the Packers' offense, led to an obscene number of interceptions.

What I mean by the slightly over-aggressive approach is this. The Packers seemed to come into the game with the attitude that they needed to score a lot of points to win the game, so they went right after it, somewhat aggressively, from the start. No jockeying for field position, not a lot of runs or short passes, but a lot of medium range or longer passes. Now that is not a bad thing; in fact I think it was a good strategy. But unfortunately it is a higher-risk strategy, and it backfired on the Packers when the early turnovers started putting extra points on the scoreboard for the Rams. And as the Rams got ahead, and as the minutes for a possible comeback ticked off the clock, it led to an ever-increasing sense of desperation for the Packers, so they started putting the ball up even more, trying to squeeze it into small spaces, etc. And this just allowed the Rams' defensive backs to have a field day.

Mike Sherman, in his dual role as head coach and general manager, will have a busy off-season. It will have been a successful off-season, in my view, if he is able to upgrade the wide receiver corps. Right now, the Packers' wide receivers are not keeping defensive coordinators from sleeping at night. The Packers need a substantial improvement of at least one of their starting wide receivers, whether through maturation of players on the existing roster, through free agency, or through the draft. A relatively modest improvement at wide receiver will really open up the running game, and help to take some pressure off of Favre.

And then, if he has some free time left over, it would be good if he could figure out a way to keep the team better motivated against bad teams. The Packers lost three games to non-playoff teams this year, Atlanta, Minnesota, and Tennessee. Turn one of those losses into a win, and the Packers would have won the division and had a bye week in the playoffs. Turn two of them into victories, and the Packers would have had home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Games against bad teams are always important, every year. But looking back at the 2001 season, the importance of those games could not have been clearer for the Packers.

Making a Statement

It is not an original thought to call yesterday's 31-23 victory over the Baltimore Ravens a "statement game." Others have used this phrase, both before, during and after the game. But that is exactly what it was. The statement has been made, and the message has been received around the NFL: the Packers look like a legitimate Super Bowl Contender. From Chris Berman's gushing on ESPN Prime Time last night ("Wow!" and "Favre is the best"), to MSNBC ("Packers Looking Super") to CNN/SI's Peter King (" we will never see this edition of the Ravens' defense carved up as it was Sunday at Lambeau by Dr. Brett Favre"), everyone is starting to see that there is something special about the way this team is playing. What a shame that they could not quite get the job done last week at Tampa.

And, as those of you who saw it know, it was not nearly as close as the final score. The Packers led 31-10 with about 4 minutes left in the 4th quarter. A soft, prevent-type defense led to one touchdown, and a recovered onside kick led to another, but the game was not in any serious jeopardy.

There were so many great moments from this game. The much-maligned Antonio Freeman catching pass after pass, including a touchdown at the end of the first half, and finishing off the game by recovering the last onside kick attempt, jumping around like a little kid in excitement. Darren Sharper's missed interception in the first half being redeemed by his interception in
the second half. (His mother's look of horror at the missed interception was matched by mine watching the game at home.) Santana Dotson's sack and forced fumble saving 3 or 7 points in the second quarter. Driver's fabulous catch on the next play, even if the ground may have assisted him a little in gathering in the ball. Corey Bradford's catch of a long ball coming straight down over the top of his head, on the same play that led to an interception the week before. Brett Favre's nearly-perfect day, including the astounding total of 337 passing yards, 391 total yards, 3 touchdowns and no interceptions against the Ravens' defense. Touchdown drives of 59, 74, 80 and 82 yards against the league's number 1-rated defense. Favre cheerleading in the hail in the fourth quarter.

I loved some of the post-game comments, too. Brian Billick (head coach of the Ravens) saying that he hopes the Ravens never play the Packers again. Brett Favre, telling the story about how Tom Rossley (offensive coordinator of the Packers) told him early in the week that the Packers would gain 400 yards against the Ravens. Favre, politely, said "OK, Tom, you're right," but admitted after the game that he was thinking "This guy is crazy. He must be drinking."

So where do we go from here? Ironically, winning more games, in a way, does nothing but put even more pressure on the team. The Packers seem to be in great shape for a trip to the playoffs, so now some thought about playoff positioning and home field advantage becomes inescapable. The official position of the Packers is that they focus on one game at a time. But maybe the Packers' fans can be excused if they take a little peek at what lies ahead.

The game this week at Minnesota becomes a big game on so many levels. There is the "house of horrors" aspect. The Packers have lost so many games there in the Brett Favre era, that one could not even think of becoming complacent about a trip to the Dome. And a team with the weapons the Vikings possess is always a scary prospect. And the Vikings game, being a division andconference game, counts for a lot more than the game against the Ravens, for tie-breaker and playoff position purposes.

On the other hand, Mike Sherman is 2-0 as a head coach against the Vikings, and the Vikings are struggling, so there is every reason to hope for a good outcome. When I looked at the schedule before the season, I figured that the Packers would probably lose the Tampa game, the Ravens game, and the Vikings game, meaning a three-game losing streak leading into the bye week.
Now, I am predicting that the Packers will win this game, by a score of something like 34-21. If they accomplish that, and thus achieve a 5-1 record before the bye week, I hope that Mike Sherman gives them the whole week off. They will certainly deserve it.

Too Little, Too Late

What a fabulous victory today by the Packers, in the Dome, against the Vikings. The Packers played with heart and intensity, and except for theone long TD to Moss, the game would not have been close at the end.

Some interesting facts about the game:

1. The Vikings were the last team in the NFL this year to lose a game in their home stadium. They finish with a 7-1 home record.

2. They are 11-2 against the rest of the league, 0-2 against the Packers.

3. Mike Holmgren's record against the Vikings was something like 8-8, 1-7 at the Dome. Mike Sherman's record is 2-0, 1-0 at the Dome.

4. The only win by the Packers in the Dome during the Holmgren years was in 1997, one of Mike Sherman's two years with the Packers as an assistant coach, and, I believe, the year that Holmgren asked Sherman to figure out why the Packers could never seem to win in the Dome. Maybe Mike Sherman is on to something.

5. Darren Sharper continues to lead the league in interceptions, and is the only Packer in the Pro Bowl. The turn-around this guy has had this year is nothing short of amazing. Congratulations to Sharper!

6. After starting out 2-4, the Packers have gone 6-3 the last 9 weeks, and have their first 3-game winning streak in quite a while. I think this puts to rest the question whether Mike Sherman will be back next year.

Unfortunately, all of this good stuff is still probably too little, too late, thanks to the fact that the Lions beat the Jets in the rain in New Jersey. Unless the Lions manage to lose to Chicago next week in the Silverdome (ain't gonna happen), the Packers will end their season next week against Tampa Bay.

Today's column is dedicated to 10-year-old Rocky Sonkowsky, of New Prague, Minnesota, a young man with the courage of his convictions, who is learning a lot about the meaning of free speech in our society. My kids are growing up in 49er/Raider country, and as a result I know a little about how brave Rocky must be. Way to go, Rocky! (If you don't know who Rocky is, take a
look at this article:
[Ed. note - original article in Journal-Sentinel online is no longer available. This article tells the same basic story: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3192.]

Still Alive?

My last column was written after the discouraging loss to Detroit, when the Packers were 2-4 and going nowhere. Five weeks later, they are 5-6, and most likely still going nowhere. But there are some signs of life in the last few weeks. They barely beat San Francisco, but then they should have beaten Miami but let the game get away in the second half. Then they beat Minnesota on the "improbable bobble" play in overtime. Then they lost at Tampa Bay, although they certainly had their chances, even with Favre gone for most of the second half. And this week they hung on to beat the Colts in the snow flurries.

Considering that the Dolphins, the Vikings, the Colts, and probably the Buccaneers are playoff teams, to go 3-2 the last 5 weeks is not bad. If I had guessed the results after the Lions game, in the mood I was in at the time, I would have predicted 1-4 over that stretch. What do the next five weeks hold for the Packers? Only two home games (Detroit and Tampa Bay), with a third road game in "Packer weather" at Chicago, and two other games at Carolina and at Minnesota. It will take another three wins to get to 8-8, and it will take 4-1 or 5-0 to make the playoffs.

The Packers could win this coming Monday at Carolina, they could win at Chicago, they might beat Detroit at Lambeau Field, and history tells us that they probably will beat the Buccaneers in the cold on December 24. It will take something just as improbable as the bobble for the Packers to win at Minnesota, however, and my guess is that they will also lose another game somewhere along the way. That would put them at 8-8, same as last year, and home for the playoffs for the second year in a row. Then we will be able to debate about whether the 8-8 this year is more encouraging than last year's 8-8, and whether Mike Sherman should meet the same fate as Ray Rhodes.

But all of that is a few weeks away. For now, they are still alive. We should take some encouragement from the fact that the Packers have beaten two of the best teams in the league in the last 3 weeks, and hope that they can continue to improve as the season winds down.

A Clean Slate

I have just finished six months of almost total withdrawal from football. It reminded me of the days before the internet when exiled Packer fans like myself had a hard time finding much information about our team even during the season, much less during those awful months between January and July when there is no football to watch.

This year, my withdrawal was self-imposed. In the first place, I found myself discouraged by the Packers' 1999 season, and did not know enough about the new coaches to have a sense whether things would turn around in the new millennium. I also found myself swamped beyond reason with things going on at work and at home, so that I really did not have the time to spend keeping up on the Packers. I rarely checked the familiar web sites for information, and I even unsubscribed from the Packer e-mail list.

I have now returned both from my football withdrawal and from a vacation,and think of this season from the perspective of a clean slate, personally. I have been out of touch, I know almost nothing about the coaches, and I really don't have a preconception as to how the Packers will do this year.

What little I have heard suggests that they are on the right track. Looking back at 1999, I was very unhappy with the hiring of Ray Rhodes. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for awhile, but as time went on I became more and more discouraged with the way the team was playing. By the end of the season, I really thought that the best move would be for the Packers to fire him, but I also thought they would never actually do it. I was pleasantly surprised when they did. Mike Sherman seems to have his head screwed on right, and with any luck the team will, too.