"Scary" Packers Offense Gives Raiders a Tough Time

Cousins Having Fun at the Game

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

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

Turning Point, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial Win Leaves Packers in First Place

Crosby's First Lambeau Leap, Photo by William Glasheen, USA Today

Monday night, the Packers never led until the final play of the game, when Mason Crosby's short field goal lifted them to a 23-22 win over the Detroit Lions.  But the blowback over penalties and non-penalties in the game was severe, almost enough to take the fun out of it for the team and its fans. 

Random comments seen on the internet late Monday night, some by famous people, some by unknown Facebook posters: "We had no business winning this game . . . but I'll take it!!"  "Thank you referees!  We got the win, but seriously those referees were incompetent."  "I'm obviously biased toward the Packers, but the refs are taking this game away from the Lions."  "The refs need to be investigated.  This is horrendous.  Check bank accounts."

My take?  I think there were a number of bad calls in this game, and most of them favored the Packers.  The hands to the face penalties made against Trey Flowers were indeed questionable (at best), but they were not nearly as clear as the TV crew made out, no matter how much former defensive lineman "Booger" McFarland bellowed about it on the broadcast.  (See photo below.)  The league's official position seems to be that the first hands to the face penalty was correct, but the second was not.  The non-call against Will Redmond for pass interference against Marvin Jones seemed wrong to me, as Redmond did interfere with Jones' ability to catch the ball, but even Matt Patricia realized that it was the sort of call that would not be reversed on replay, so he didn't challenge it.  And, speaking of calls, I am not so sure that Kerryon Johnson actually scored on fourth and goal in the first quarter, but once the call on the field was made for a touchdown, I knew it would not be reversed on review. 

Photo by Darnell Hall

Look, if I were a Lions fan, I would feel robbed at the end of this game.  We watched the game with our good friend Al, who is a Lions fan, and I am pretty sure that is exactly how he felt.  But let's play this out.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the hands to the face calls, and the interference non-call, were all the wrong calls.  I have already said that the interference non-call is not the type that would be overturned on review as it is being done this year (because it was not egregious enough).  If the hands to the face calls were reviewable, I don't think they could have been overturned, either.  They both looked wrong, but I would argue that they were not obviously and indisputably in error.  If that is so, how do they get overturned?  Even taking the league's position that the last call was wrong, I think at least 2 of the 3 calls would have stood, if all had been reviewable. 

The biggest question always is, what was the call on the field?  Because once that call is made, it becomes tough (and should be tough) to overturn it.  So errors will inevitably go uncorrected, because the evidence is not clear enough to justify overturning them.  This was exactly the situation with the Kerryon Johnson TD.  Either way the officials called it on the field would have stood.  And the Packers (and every other team) have certainly been on the short end of possibly erroneous calls this year and every year.  But, as Aaron Rodgers said after the game, "I think it equals out pretty good over the years."  Every Packers fan can point to calls and non-calls that would have changed a loss to a win: the Seattle Fail Mary game, the Jerry Rice non-fumble in the Terrell Owens game, the Arizona face mask non-penalty in the playoff game.  The refs did the Lions no favors in this game, but I think some of the proposed solutions (full time refs, make every play reviewable for everything, etc.) are way over the top.

Now it is also true that the Lions screwed up this game all by themselves, and if they had not done so, they wouldn't have been in the position where a bad call at the end would essentially cost them the game.  Early in the game, Al was counting squandered Lions points.  I think he stopped counting at 16 points lost (3 times they settled for field goals instead of TDs, and then there was the 12 men on the field penalty on an attempted field goal by Crosby that effectively gave the Packers an extra 4 points).  Of course, you can play that game almost every time, but still, early Lions mistakes cost them the opportunity to walk away with what could have been an easy win. 

The bottom line is that the Lions got off to a roaring good start with their early long pass plays, and kudos to them and their coaches for going out and aggressively trying to get an early lead.  The Packers looked slow and out-coached early on, by comparison.  Unfortunately for the Lions, their inability to finish drives, combined with some questionable or bad calls, made them unable to close out the win against the Packers. 

Before leaving the Lions game, I almost forgot to mention Allen Lazard stepping up and, in the process, presumably moving up to the depth chart.  Davante Adams was out, Geronimo Allison had been knocked out of the game, Marquez Valdes-Scantling had been knocked out of the game but returned, and Darrius Shepherd had made two bad plays resulting in turnovers.  Somebody had to step up.  Apparently Rodgers suggested that the coaches put Allen Lazard in the game, because Rodgers had observed how hard he studies and practices.  The results were like a fairy tale.  Lazard made a great catch on a perfect pass for a touchdown on the penultimate Packers drive of the game, and then made 3 more catches on the next drive, to set up the game-winning touchdown.  I think we will be seeing more of Lazard.

Meanwhile, Sunday brings a game against the Raiders, this time not on a shortened, pock-marked field, but on the full-sized, professional football stadium of Lambeau Field.  Last year, the Jon Gruden experiment looked like a bust, as the Raiders finished with a puzzling 4-12 record.  This year, with the Antonio Brown drama, I wondered if it was going to be another bad year, as the Raiders finish out their second stay in Oakland.  But instead, the Raiders are 3-2 so far this year, and they have beaten the Broncos, Colts and Bears.  None of those teams are terrible, so I am a little surprised by the Raiders.  But on balance, I think the Packers (even with their current injuries) have better players, and I think they will get the win to make it to 6-1. 

Playoff-Bound Packers Looking for More

Photo by Jim Biever, Packers.com

To the left is a shot of James Jones racing down the field against the Raiders, presumably on his touchdown catch.  It might be just my imagination, but I think he plays better when he is wearing his hoody.  I hope he wears it Sunday against the Cardinals, as the Packers will need any edge they can get.

The Packers got off to a shockingly good start on Sunday, in the rain, at Oakland.  Two interceptions of Derek Carr led to a 14 point lead in the first quarter.  After that, while the Packers continued to lead for the entire first half, they effectively blew the entire lead, ending the half at 14-13.  Along the way, they were completely ineffective on offense, and trailed the Raiders in yards gained by 225 to 97 at the half.  The weird thing about that stat is that almost two-thirds of those yards were gained on the Packers' last full possession of the half, which ended when Charles Woodson knocked the ball out of Starks' hands, and the Raiders recovered.

From the Fox game broadcast

Fortunately for the Packers, they got their act together in the second half, and ended up winning the game by the score of 30-20, after trailing the Raiders only once, and very briefly (for about one minute of game clock time in the third quarter).  The best part of this game, from my perspective, was that I got to witness what seems like a rare occurrence: the Packers actually made halftime adjustments that worked!  It was obvious to everyone that the Packers' offense wasn't working in the first half.  The run game was almost non-existent, with the Raiders stuffing the box with defenders to prevent the run.  Normally, you would turn to the passing game, but that wasn't working either, with the recurring problem of the Packers' receivers not getting open, but this time compounded by a wet ball and a wet field.

From the Fox game broadcast

McCarthy changed things up by lining up Cobb in the backfield, which seemed to loosen everything up in the Raiders' defense.  The Packers' running backs are pretty good pass-catchers, but Cobb coming out of the backfield is an exponentially greater pass-receiving threat.  Putting Cobb back there seemed to open up both the running game and the passing game, and the defense performed well in the second half, giving up one touchdown drive, but shutting out the Raiders for the last 22 minutes of the game!

I made a last minute decision to go to the Raiders game.  I had an enjoyable, if wet, afternoon.  There were plenty of Packers fans I saw on the way to the stadium, in the stands, and after the game on the way to my hotel.  The funny thing about my time in the stands was that I found myself sitting next to some old time Raiders fans.  They started peppering me with questions as soon as I sat down.  "Who is your nose tackle?"  "What is the story with your rookie defensive backs?"  "Do you realize what happened the last time the Packers played here in Oakland?"  I apparently passed their little test, which I assume was designed to figure out if I was a real fan with some knowledge, or just some johnny-come-lately without much knowledge of football or the team.  We had some very pleasant conversations after that throughout the game.

My photo, after the game

If we had any doubt about whether Charles Woodson is coming back after this season, he made it clear early this week that he will not.  He has had a shoulder injury all year long, which was clearly evident on one play where he upended Randall Cobb but came up wincing and holding his shoulder awkwardly.  Because the Christmas eve Raiders game against the Chargers was the last Raiders home game of the year, Woodson announced that he will retire, in order to give the fans a chance to say goodbye (something that the fans did not have a chance to do in Green Bay after his last year there).  This turned a meaningless Christmas eve game into something of a Charles Woodson tribute.  He was one of my favorite Packers' players, and a significant contributor to the 2010 Super Bowl season.  He has been described as one of the most instinctive players in the history of the game.  I have interspersed some photos of Woodson, from the Packers game and from the Christmas eve game, into this post.

From the NFL Network game broadcast

While the Raiders are improving, and look like they are definitely on the upswing in the AFC West and in the league in general, the Packers' next opponents, the Cardinals, have already arrived, and are trying to secure a bye week in the playoffs by winning one more game out of their remaining two.  Win or lose, the Packers will still be playing for the division title next week against Minnesota, unless the Packers win on Sunday and the Vikings lose Sunday night to the Beckham-less Giants.  So at the moment, both Packers and Cardinals have something to play for, and it should be a good test.

It is stating the obvious to say that the Packers are going to have to play better than they did on Sunday, if they want to beat the Cardinals.  The Cardinals have a better overall offense, better overall defense, and have scored way more points than the Packers have this year.  The Cardinals did lose the "Honey Badger" for the year, and that gives the Packers' passing game a little break, but it is no accident that the Cardinals are sitting at 12-2 so far this year,  But if the Rams and Steelers can beat the Cardinals, as they did earlier this year, surely the Packers have some chance.

It might feel a little like Lambeau West in Arizona on Sunday, as prices for the game are the highest in five years for a Cardinals regular season home game.  I will give you one guess as to who is buying those tickets.  I have been waiting for weeks to see if the Packers end up being one of those "hot teams" going into the playoffs that "nobody wants to play."  Cliches aside, the Packers may have a three game winning streak going right now, but they just don't look like one of those teams.  If I have to predict, I would predict a Packers' loss, but if they are going to get hot, Sunday afternoon would be an excellent time to do it.

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.

Raiders Blown Out by the Packers

(Photo by Corey Wilson, Green Bay Press-Gazette)

During the first few offensive plays for the Raiders, I wondered if we Packer fans would be in for "another one of those days."  The Packers gave up a couple of passes for first downs, and it looked like the Raiders would just march down the field.  But just like that, Clay Matthews got after Carson Palmer, causing Palmer to hurry his throw, which resulted in an interception by D.J. Smith.  After a Raiders penalty on the Packers' first snap (the first of many Raiders penalties to follow), Ryan Grant broke off a 47 yard touchdown run, and after that, the only question was how bad it was going to get for the Raiders.

At some point during a commercial in the middle of the second quarter, Judy (my wife) said, "what is the score now, 31-0?"  And indeed it was.  The Packers eventually gave up some points, and the final score was Packers 46, Raiders 16.  It is a bit of a cliche to say that the game was not as close as the score, but it really wasn't.  The Raiders, their fans, and the local media here in the Oakland area are well aware that the Raiders were blown out for the second week in a row.  The online version of the game story in the Oakland Tribune has a different headline, but my local print paper's article on the game is titled: "Another 34-0 Deficit, Another Debacle."

The Packers' defense looked much more like its normal 2011 self this week, meaning they give up way too many yards, they don't get enough sacks, but they really do "bend" mostly without "breaking," and they continue to be among the best ball-hawking defenses in the league.  (Against the Raiders, they intercepted Palmer four times, and recovered a fumble.)  Truth be told, the Raiders dropped a lot of catchable balls in the game, and the Raiders committed lots of penalties, and both factors made things easier on the Packers' defense, but still, the point is that the defense looked like the kind of defense the Packers can continue to win with.

Against the Raiders, it was the offense that had an off day, if you can consider it an off day when you score 39 points on offense, and give your backup quarterback lots of playing time in the third and fourth quarters.  There were balls that should have been caught, balls that were just a little off target, and one ball that was wrestled away from our sometimes unstoppable tight end, Jermichael Finley, for an interception.  However, in the absence of James Starks, Ryan Grant looked like the Ryan Grant of a couple of years ago, breathing some new life into the running game just when it is needed, as the weather gets cold.

Rodgers, in the course of having his "off" day, managed to tie the Packers' team record for TD passes in a season, at 39.  The record was held by Brett Favre, for 39 TD passes in 1996, which was of course the year that the Packers won Super Bowl XXXI.  The Packers also set the team record for points scored in a season, by reaching 466 points.  Rodgers and the Packers have three more games in the regular season to add to those record totals.

The injury to Greg Jennings is obviously a major concern.  I consider him to be one of the top 4 playmakers on the team, along with Rodgers, Matthews and Woodson.  As of this writing, it looks like he will miss the last 3 weeks of the regular season, but that he should be back in time for the playoffs.  Normally, one would expect a problem when a player of Jennings' caliber misses three games, but the 2011 Packers have what can only be described as an embarrassment of riches at WR, most prominently Jordy Nelson, Jermichael Finley, James Jones, Donald Driver, and Randall Cobb.  I think they will be just fine.

I heard an interesting fact on the local (San Francisco) CBS post-game show: the Raiders have not beaten the Packers since Ronald Reagan was in office.  That would have been September 13, 1987, when the Raiders came to Lambeau Field and beat the Packers, 20-0.  That was so long ago that I have no recollection of the game, but the starting quarterback for the Packers was Randy Wright, and this was during the period that Randy Wright and his successor, Don Majkowski, were sharing the starting quarterback duties.  (Special Randy Wright memories: the gnarly older woman with the gravelly, smoker's voice who sat behind us in our old seats at Lambeau Field, and/or her partner, could be counted on at least once each game to yell out the following lines: "Randy Wrong, Randy Wrong." . . . "Come ON, youse guys, DO something!" . . . "Yah, I seen him piss away the Rose Bowl.")

Dredging up these Randy Wright memories brings to mind another thought.  While the Wright / Majkowski sharing of the starting quarterback job was a weird experiment, it is probably closer to the typical team's quarterback situation than what the Packers have had over the last 20 years.  Most teams struggle to find the right long-term quarterback, and may go through a couple of starting quarterbacks a year for a number of years before settling on their guy.  Think of the Chicago Bears, for instance.  But since the third week of the 1992 season, the Packers have had exactly two starting quarterbacks (not counting the concussion-induced start by Matt Flynn last year), both of whom are probably headed for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  The only other back-to-back quarterback combination I can think of that is even comparable is Joe Montana - Steve Young in San Francisco.   We are lucky enough to be living through another golden age of Packers football, and we should, from time to time, take a moment to reflect on that.

And, of course, we are also living through what might end up being the most magical single season for a team in history.  Earlier in the season, I always thought that the Packers would lose a game here or there, and they still might, given the fact that the defense is not playing at the same level as it did last year.  But there are only three games left in the regular season.  The 5-8 Kansas City Chiefs, who fired their head coach this week, don't seem like they will be the ones to knock off the Packers.  The 7-6 Bears, probably without Jay Cutler and possibly without Matt Forte?  It could happen, as they do usually play the Packers very well, but I doubt it.  The self-destructing 8-5 Lions, playing in the cold?  Very little chance.  We will talk about the playoffs later, but at this point, having gotten by the Lions, Giants and Raiders, I think the Packers will end up 16-0.

NFC North Champion Packers!

(Photo Courtesy of Packers.com)

In the course of one day, the Packers: (1) won their 18th straight game, a streak that began with their win against the Giants last year; (2) successfully completed the third quarter of the regular season without a loss; (3) achieved a 12-0 record for the first time in team history; (4) clinched a playoff spot when they beat the Giants on the last play of the game; (5) executed a classic one-minute drill to lead to the final play victory; and (6) clinched the NFC North Title later Sunday evening when the Lions lost.  Not bad for a day's work.  As for goals for next week, the Green Bay Press-Gazette Facebook page, NFL Historian Jon Zimmer reports that a win next week will match the best start ever by a defending Super Bowl Champion (matching the 1998 Denver Broncos).

Still . . . it is impossible to ignore the problems on the Green Bay defensive side.  From total points given up (35) to total yards allowed (447) to gain per rush (5.0) to gain per pass (8.5), this was not an elite defensive performance against the Giants.  And the Giants, while talented, are not really an elite team, having been crushed by the Saints on Monday Night Football six days before the Packers played them.  The Packers started the game with starters Desmond Bishop and A.J. Hawk inactive, and ended the game with Charles Woodson out with a concussion.  But the Packers and their fans have come to expect that the "next man up" will get the job done.  Looks like Woodson will be back this week, Hawk may be back, but Bishop probably will not be ready this week.

And now another wildly inconsistent team, the Oakland Raiders, comes to town on Sunday.  It was only four years ago that I reminisced about some of the great moments in Packers-Raiders history, from Super Bowl II, to the first Lambeau Leap, to the Irvin Favre game.  So rather than repeat that history now, just go take a look at the 2007 article.

The Raiders, at 7-5, are tied for first place in the AFC West, but as of now would lose the tie-breaker to the Broncos, and would finish out of the playoffs.  They have beaten some good teams, but have also lost, in embarrassing fashion, to the Chiefs and to the Dolphins in the last six weeks.  Suffice it to say, a team with a positive record, at 7-5, but with a negative points differential (giving up more points than it scores), is unlikely to be able to keep up with the 2011 Green Bay Packers.  I expect a fairly easy win (but bear in mind, I expected the same last week, too).

*  *  *  *

Meanwhile, the Packers' latest sale of stock is underway, as I mentioned last week.  Sure, being an "owner" of the Green Bay Packers is not, in any meaningful way, an investment.  But the fact that we, the fans, actually own our team is, and always has been, one of the greatest things about the Green Bay Packers.  Apparently I am not the only one who feels that way, from comments sent in by shareholders to ESPN's NFC North reporter, Kevin Seifert.

Raider Memories

The last three games went exactly as I expected. Wins against Carolina and Detroit, and (another) unfortunate loss against the Cowboys in Texas. It is easy to make excuses and argue that the Packers will have a better chance, if it comes down to an NFC Championship game at Dallas in January. The Packers were without several starters on defense, Favre was injured in the first half, etc. Now the absence of Charles Woodson and KGB really was a big deal, so that can't be discounted. But the reality is, the score was 27-10 by the time Aaron Rodgers took his first snap, so I don't think Favre's injury was a big factor in this game. In fact, after Favre was hurt, the Packers seemed to abandon their peculiar "all bombs, all the time" strategy on offense, which allowed the impressive Aaron Rodgers to almost bring the Packers back. But the bottom line is, even if the Packers have a better chance next time, it is hard to be convinced that they would actually win the next time around.

With four games left in the season, the Packers now host the Oakland Raiders this week. The Packers and the Raiders have only played each other 10 times in history (not counting pre-season games). But there is a fair amount of history in those games. The first game, of course, was Super Bowl II, on January 14, 1968. The Packers won their second straight Super Bowl, this time by the score of 33-14. I was a teenager at the time, and although I don't really remember the game, I remember the mindset we had in those days. We could not imagine that an AFL team could keep up with an NFL team, and so we assumed that the NFL teams would continue to crush the AFL teams in Super Bowls for years to come, just as the Packers had the first two years. It was only a year later that Joe Willie Namath and the Jets showed that our belief in the invincibility of the NFL teams was an illusion. As if to prove the point, the Raiders went on to win 5 in a row against the Packers after Super Bowl II, and only a 4 game winning streak by the Packers has brought the record back to an even 5-5.

In 1993, the Raiders went to Green Bay on a cold, December day, and were shut out 28-0. One of our Raider fan friends called around halftime to concede the game. But the game is famous for a defensive touchdown, after Leroy Butler forced a fumble, and Reggie White recovered the ball. The big man pitched it to the smaller and faster Butler, who ran it in for a touchdown and (spontaneously, as far as we know) jumped into the stands for the first "Lambeau Leap." That play will undoubtedly be shown on the game broadcast this week.

And then there was that game four years ago in Oakland, also in December, when the Packers were playing in the Monday night game the day after Brett Favre's father died. We have been to a few games at the Oakland Coliseum, and Raider fans are a tough crowd. But not that night. I have never seen Raider fans show as much respect and affection for an opposing quarterback as they did that night. And the Packers' receivers just stepped it up, catching anything that was anywhere near them, as the Packers went on to win, 41-7. It was a magical night, with tears in the eyes of many of the Packer fans in the crowd. You can expect to see highlights from that game, as well.

This week, it was announced that Brett Favre is the Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year. The issue is not out yet, but the article is available online. Packer fans simply must read this article, as it is filled with great memories of things we all know about, and (at least in my case) details about Brett Favre the man that we never knew. The article can be found at http://tinyurl.com/3cuefb

Finally, I want to wish a warm welcome back to a relative of my wife, First Lieutenant Daniel Belzer, who has recently returned from Iraq. I sent Daniel DVDs of the Packer games over most of the last season and a half, and I gather that he is far from the only Packer fan in the Army. Now that he is back, I understand that he is catching up on the DVDs from the last few weeks, since we were advised not to send any more packages after a certain date, since they would not arrive in time. The recording of the Cowboy game may not be to his liking, but there are lots of other great moments from this season to watch over again.

All on the Line

Is it any wonder that I hate the 49ers so much? This is being written Saturday night, after the 49ers failed, miserably, to offer the slightest bit of assistance to the Packers in their quest to make the playoffs. The Seahawks had a 1-6 record on the road going into this game, and the 49ers were 6-1 at home. Sounds like a good matchup for the 49ers, eh? And if the 49ers had won, the Packers would have been in the playoffs, period, no other games required, no strength of schedule analysis. Plain and simple.

So what did the 49ers do? After jumping off to a 14-0 start, they were outscored 24-3, and lost the game. This was not quite as outrageous a situation as the one I can recall from the 1980's, when the 49ers just had to play a decent game against a lesser opponent, which would have gotten the New York Giants into the playoffs, but, in the immortal words of Phil Simms, the 49ers "laid down like dogs", lost the game, and kept the Giants out of the playoffs. This time, they just played without any spark or inspiration from the second quarter on, apparently thinking more about their trips home than about the game at hand.

As a result, Packer fans need to buckle their seatbelts tomorrow, follow not just the Packer game, but get out their schedules and calculators to keep track of the other games as well. The only simple scenarios are these: (1) if the Packers win and the Vikings lose (not likely to happen), the Packers will win the division. (2) if the Packers win and the Cowboys win, then the Packers are the 2d wild card (unless the Vikings lose, in which case the Packers win the division). (3) if the Packers lose, they are out. Beyond, this, if the Packers win, the Vikings win, and Cowboys lose, it will come down to the strength-of-schedule tiebreaker, and the Packers will probably
be left out of the playoffs.

I can't go on any longer without acknowledging the awe-inspiring way Brett Favre and the Packers played on Monday night. I thought, Sunday night, that it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that Favre would play Monday night,for reasons having nothing to do with his games-started streak, and having everything to do with his loyalty and commitment to his team and teammates. The thing I was less sure of was how he would play. I could imagine him playing really well (but not as well as he actually played), but I could also imagine one of those games where everything goes wrong, like that playoff loss at St. Louis two years ago. The result was unforgettable, and
I am happy that we were there to see it. Even my kids, who don't follow football as much as they used to, were quite impressed.

But to me, just as impressive as the way Favre played was the way his teammates played - especially the receivers. I have been watching these receivers all year, and they NEVER play as well as they played Monday night. With the exception of the potential touchdown pass at the start of the second half, the receivers seemed to catch anything anywhere near them. This game was a fitting tribute by Brett Favre to his father, and a great show of support from his teammates to Favre. As Mike Sherman said, he wishes he could put what they had going that night in a bottle and pull it
out any time it is needed.

A couple of comments about the scene at the Network Associates Coliseum. When the Packers' offensive starters were introduced, the first ten were booed (as expected) by the crowd, and then Favre got a semi-cheer from the crowd. I was listening to the Raiders radio guys at the time, and they characterized it as a "standing ovation" for Favre. A lot of people were standing (throughout the introductions), but to call it a standing ovation was quite a stretch in my view. It was nice, but let's not get carried away.

Then, when I watched the tape of the TV broadcast later in the week, I noticed that Madden and Michaels made quite a point at the beginning of the game about how they expected a lot of Packer fans, but not many showed up. One of them said "about 400 of them are here." Well, that is way off-base. I would guess maybe 20% of the crowd was made up of Packer fans. I was a bit disappointed with this - I really thought the crowd would be 30 or 35% Packer fans. But there were a lot of us there, and Madden and Michaels missed the boat. Finally, at the end of the game, my daughter noticed one of the Packer players was high-fiving people over in the Black Hole area, and she wondered what that was about. I was shocked, too, until I realized that it was Grady Jackson, a former Raider.

My predictions for Sunday, December 28. The Packers will win, I think pretty easily. There could be a letdown after the difficult and emotional week, but I think that the enthusiasm of the home crowd for Favre and the team will provide enough of a boost to keep things going. I think the Vikings will also win. They have had a lot of problems in the second half of the season, but I do not expect them to fall to the Cardinals like the Packers did back at the beginning of the year. And, I think the Cowboys will beat the Saints, even though the Cowboys, as I understand it, have now clinched a playoff berth as a wild card, and cannot be the division winner. So there is a chance of the kind of letdown by the Cowboys that could kill the Packers, but I don't think it will happen. These results would put the Packers in the playoffs as the second wild card.

A Perfect Day

I don't know about you, but I can't find much of anything to complain about from last Sunday. First, I woke up to find out that Saddam Hussein had been captured. That was a good start. Then, the Rams beat the Seahawks (that one I expected) and the Bears beat the Vikings (I didn't have enough courage to come right out and predict that one). I was flipping back and forth between these two games, enjoying both very much. I hope you saw the way the Vikings game ended. In the closing minutes, with the Bears leading 13-10, the Vikings got the ball back and had driven to the Bears' 10 yard line. Then, Culpepper went back to pass, Moss went up for the ball in the end zone, it was in his hands for what would probably be the winning touchdown, when the Bears' defensive back just scooped it out of Moss' hands and came down with the ball for the
game-preserving interception. That might be the best play by a defensive back of the new millennium so far. It sort of looked as if he was trying to bat the pass out of Moss' hands, but it was a controlled bat, instead of smacking the ball as hard as he could, and he literally just scooped it away from the great Moss. What a way to win a game and help the Packers out.

Now it was time to switch to the Packer game, although somehow the NFL Sunday Ticket (and I guess the whole FOX network) forgot to throw a switch, so that the Packers were actually ahead 7-0 by the time they switched to the game. Other than a few really painful minutes at the start of the 4th quarter, this game went exactly as I had hoped. [Ed. note - the Packers beat the Chargers, 38-21.] The result: the Packers are now tied for first in the division (with complicated tie-breaker implications at the minute) and tied for the first wild card (with a clear tie-breaker advantage over the Seahawks). If the Packers win their last two games, it is almost certain (but not yet 100% certain) that they will be in the playoffs.

Looking forward to this weekend, the Chiefs play at the Vikings on Saturday. The Chiefs are not as good as they seemed at times this year, and the Vikings might not be quite as bad as they have seemed in recent weeks. Still, I think the Chiefs have enough strength and motivation to beat the Vikings. On Sunday, I don't think it is reasonable to think that the Cardinals will beat the Seahawks, so the Packers will not likely get any help there. It is debatable whether it is better for the Packers for the Cowboys to win, or to lose, but in any event I expect them to beat the Giants.

Which brings us, of course, to Monday night. The re-match of Super Bowl II. Another game between the same two teams who were playing the day that Leroy Butler invented the Lambeau Leap. Most likely the last time the Raiders will ever play against Brett Favre, and most likely the last time the Packers ever play against Jerry Rice and Tim Brown. Lots of history in this game, and despite the fact that most of the Raiders' home games have been blacked out here in the Bay Area, so that I have not seen as many Raider games as you might expect, I cannot believe that the Raiders are as bad as their 4-10 record. In fact, the Raiders' victory over the Ravens last week (who were fighting for a playoff spot) tends to prove the point, and hopefully will help the Packers to avoid complacency.

My wife was driving during the Raiders game last week, and heard the radio announcers say that the Raiders' attendance was the lowest of the year. Bear in mind, even if the Raiders were out of the playoffs, the Raiders sort of had a score to settle with the Ravens, since the Ravens kept them out of the Super Bowl a few years ago. Still, the paid attendance was 45,398 in a stadium that holds over 63,000 in football configuration. I just checked (Friday afternoon)on Tickets.com, and it looks as if there are nothing but single tickets left for the game Monday night. Who bought all those extra tickets for the game this Monday? You know as well as I do who bought the tickets. I think that means that the crowd will be approximately one-third Packer fans on Monday night. Including yours truly and family, of course. (A little advice to Packer fans attending the game: be careful, some Raiders fans are just as crazy as they appear.)

I am not saying it is going to be easy, but I think the Packers will win this game, probably convincingly. The Packers' running game is too strong for the Raiders' depleted defense, and if they try too hard to stop Ahman Green, I think that Favre's thumb is now getting healthy enough for the passing game to do the trick. The Packers' defense may have some deficiencies, but are Rick Mirer and a couple of the oldest receivers in the league going to beat them? I don't think so.

If all goes well, the Packers will be in sole possession of first place in the NFC North by late Monday night.

The Table is Set

Packer fans had the Sunday off. The division leading Buccaneers were in town to play the Raiders. What better way to spend the afternoon than to go to the game and root against the Buccaneers. (Besides, since this is the 27th straight blacked out home Raider game, I could not very well stay home and watch it.

Well, as we all know, the Raiders completely destroyed the Buccaneers, 45-0. We did not stay until the bitter end, but I imagine that the Buccaneers must have had to crawl off the field at the end of the game. Now the Raiders are OK, but they are not that good, which suggests that the Buccaneers are not as great as some might think. The game films will show how you beat the Buccaneers. You play aggressive defense and put pressure on the rookie QB, Shaun King. Oh, if only the Packers had a defense! If only they could rush the QB!

Meanwhile, what a weekend to set the table for the Packers and Vikings on Monday night. True, the Panthers won on Saturday, but they are still only at 7-7, so not yet really a factor to the winner of the Monday night game. In the NFC East, The Redskins lost, and dropped to 8-6. The Giants lost, to drop to 7-7, and the Cowboys lost, to drop to 7-7 as well. The 6-7 Cardinals have not yet played as of this writing, but again, they are not yet a factor.

In the NFC Central, the Buccaneers were crushed and dropped to 9-5. The Lions lost to the Bears, and the Lions are now 8-6. And the 7-6 Packers play the 7-6 Vikings tomorrow night.

So the table is set. All the Packers have to do tomorrow night is to beat the Vikings in Minnesota, to move into a tie for 2d place in the division. And all they have to do next week is to win at Tampa to move into a first place tie. If there was ever a time for this team to step up, this is it.

Unfortunately, the Packers have been wildly inconsistent all year, so there is no really good reason to think that the Packers will win both of these games. But it could happen. The Buccaneers, given their offense, are pretenders as was shown today. And the slumping Vikings are not exactly world beaters, either. But you could not have asked for a better set of results in the Sunday games, to make the Monday night game even more critical than it already was.

Must Rhodes Go?

The internet has been buzzing for several weeks about the sad state of the 1999 Packers. Most of the flak has been directed at Ray Rhodes and his coaching staff. Many have suggested that Rhodes be fired immediately. I don't think that will happen, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is hard to see how firing the head coach in the middle of the season will help to salvage this season. No other obvious coaching candidates are available from the outside, and it is certainly not clear that there is an up-and-coming head coach candidate on the Packers' staff (past enthusiasm for Sherman Lewis has been dissipated).

For weeks, I took the view that the main problem is Brett Favre's thumb. I'm not so sure anymore. While I can't claim to have studied game tapes after the fact, something has struck me in watching the last couple of games live. When the Packers are on offense, it seems like the defense is ALWAYS in Favre's face. And when the Packers are on defense, it seems like the Packers NEVER get any pressure on the quarterback without blitzing.

So maybe it is not just the thumb. Maybe it is both lines as well. And this has caused me to ask the next question: how could the offensive and defensive lines deteriorate so badly in less than a year? Granted, Reggie White retired. Mark Chmura is on injured reserve. There have been injuries, etc. But I just cannot believe that these factors have made that much difference. So I am coming to the conclusion, more firmly as every week goes by, that the coaching staff has to shoulder a lot of the blame. This coaching staff is just not get getting much production out of these players, most of whom were in the Super Bowl two years ago.

Every year, some team comes along and achieves more than its talent should allow it to do. The Falcons were probably an example of that last year. And every year, there is a team that never plays up to the level of its talent. Around here, that team is usually the Raiders. Sadly, this year, there is no team that looks like more of an under-achiever than the Packers.

If things don't turn around immediately, this is a lost season. I hate to say it, but I don't see any reason to think that things will turn around. This team is playing like a 4-5 team (or worse), and I can't think of a good reason to think that they will go 7-0 or 6-1 to finish the season. If they don't turn it around, then Rhodes must go.

Desmond Howard Returns

Can six months really have gone by since that unfortunate day in January? Can training camp really be starting in less than a week? It is high time that I shake off my post-season lethargy and sit down and write an article.

Of all of the things that have taken place this off-season, the one that I am most excited about is the return of Desmond Howard. His career with the Raiders was lucrative for him, but otherwise a disaster. While, presumably, the Raiders gave him a shot to make a name for himself as a receiver (why else would they have paid him that much money?), he did not pan out. He had decent statistics as a kick returner, but nothing like his year of glory in Green Bay.

So we now know that Desmond Howard is not a viable starting receiver in the NFL. OOPS! I guess we knew that before. It turns out that the great Al Davis was not smarter than the Packers and the Redskins and the Jaguars, after all.

But he is a heck of a kick returner. Who can forget the way he single-handedly destroyed the 49ers in the "Freezing Rain Bowl" in the first playoff game that year? Or the way he snuffed out the Patriots' comeback attempt, just like that? True, he didn't exactly set the AFC-West on fire during his two year stint with the Raiders. True, his year with the Packers could have been an extraordinarily lucky fluke. And even if it wasn't he could be all washed up now, three years later.

I'm betting that he is not washed up. I think the key to understanding Desmond Howard's phenomenal year with the Packers is the fact that they have had good special teams for a number of years. All kinds of players have been shuttled in and out (Schroeder, Preston, Beebe, even Robert Brooks a few years back) and they have all done pretty well, although some have had questions raised about fumbles, poor decision-making and the like. So my theory as to why Howard's years with the Raiders were not that spectacular is that the Raiders' special teams play generally does not match up with the special teams of the Packers. And the returner can't do it all by himself.

To put it a different way, the magic of 1996 resulted from the rare combination of really good special teams play, and a really good kick returner. (OK, and probably some good luck, too.) Take away one, and the magic disappears, which is what happened the last two years. Put them back together and the sky is the limit.

So we will see. If Howard still has it, his game could make a big difference for the Packers. If he doesn't, they can keep Arnold or someone else as their returner, and they have lost very little (basically just the signing bonus).

I'm looking forward to the season already.

Packers Lose to Oakland Raiders?

The questions in the Freeman family in the last couple of days have been "Are the Raiders that much better? Or are the Packers that much worse?" We went to a couple of Raider games last year, including the Packer pre-season game, and believe me, this was one bad team. They had no heart whatsoever, and with the exception of a couple of games, they just seemed to quit when they would get behind in a game. Losing to the 1997 Raiders would definitely not be taken as a good sign.

Well, it is beginning to look as if the Raiders are a much improved team. Jon Gruden may actually do some good things for this team, at least until Al Davis starts to meddle with him. So maybe it isn't quite so horrible to lose to the Raiders as one might expect.

Seriously, I am not too concerned about this loss, for a couple of reasons. In the first place, any time the offense spots the other team 17 points on turnovers, it can be a bit difficult to catch up. A pass bounces off of my namesake's hands, and is returned for a touchdown. TWO fumbles on the center-quarterback exchange. Interceptions like that just happen once in a while, and fumbled snaps are not going to happen very often in the regular season, because one way or the other, the QB and the center will at least be used to working with one another.

The other thing is something I have heard out here, even from Raider fans. The idea is that you have some teams, like Green Bay, and San Francisco, and Denver, who know what they are doing, are very good teams, and have continuity with the team from last year. They would like to win the pre-season game, but they are more interested in seeing how their players perform, and they don't really care. And then there are teams like the Raiders, who were awful last year despite a lot of talent, and who have a new coach, new coordinators, and really desperately want to win the game to make a statement. In other words, I guess, "they wanted it more." I don't completely buy this idea, but I suppose that there is something to it.

Now if you carry out the "they wanted it more" theory to the next game, you would predict that the Packers will beat the Broncos next Monday night in Mile High Stadium, basically because they have a score to settle. Certainly, Mike Holmgren will be all over the team this week because of the poor performance against the Raiders, and they should not need a lot of extra motivation to take things out on the Broncos. And if the Packers really are a better team than they showed in the Super Bowl in January, then with all of these factors working, they should win the game.

OK. Write it down. The Packers will beat the Broncos, and we will all feel a lot better.

Franchise Free Agency

There has been a fair amount of attention on the internet and in the popular press about the effects of free agency. Is it a plus or a minus for a small market team like the Packers? Now that the Packers are on top of the heap, does free agency help them (because they are relatively attractive to free agents looking for a shot at a ring) or does it hurt them, because the participants in a Super Bowl always get more attention from other teams than they deserve (see Neil O'Donnell, Larry Brown and, yes, even Desmond Howard).

These are all interesting questions, and I might even have something to say about them one of these days. But my topic today is FRANCHISE free agency, not player free agency.

As a Packer fan, I suppose it is obvious that I have my biases on the question of franchise free agency, but try as hard as I can, I can't see anything good about the present system. Yes, there are some teams with whom the fans have just fallen out of love. I suppose the Oilers are the best example. A year or so ago they had a rally in downtown Houston to try to keep the Oilers, and something like 36 people showed up. This is amazing to me, given how recent it was that the Astrodome was known as the "House of Pain" and was filled to the rafters with nut cases with their faces painted blue. But right now the team has no support in Houston, and I suppose that the owner had little choice but to try to find a new home somewhere else. The Rams are probably another more or less comparable example.

But then there are the Raiders, and the way that Al Davis screwed the City of Oakland, not once but twice. The first time was when he took the Raiders away from sellouts and a solid fan base in a dispute with the city over luxury boxes. And the second time was when he brought them back under the burden of the highest ticket and PSL prices in the league, which are not selling out and which will leave the taxpayers in the City of Oakland holding the bag under the financial guarantees they provided to the Raiders to lure them back.

And the saddest case, to me, is the Browns/Ravens. Browns fans were like Packer fans, in many ways. They had a devoted, working class fan base, they were one of the old time teams in the league, and they had a wonderful history and tradition. And, quite unlike the Raiders, the Browns had an old-time, NFL guy for an owner, not a lifelong renegade like Al Davis. But Art Modell took the Browns away just as ruthlessly as Al Davis took away the Raiders.

The people of Cleveland will be getting a new Browns team in a couple of years, but it won't be the same. Never again will the people feel as if this is really "their" team. They will always know that some rich guy can take it all away in an instant over some future dispute over stadiums, luxury boxes, or something we can't even imagine now.

Compare these situations to the Packers. The fans (or more precisely some of them) actually own the team. It is not feasible to imagine a set of circumstances, other than outright financial failure of the franchise, under which the team would no longer be in Green Bay. There is no reason for a kid, or even an adult, to hold back on giving his heart to this team.

Here is the part that I don't understand. Can't everyone see that this is a better situation for the team, for the fans, and for the league, than the situation in Cleveland, Oakland, Baltimore, Houston, Los Angeles, etc? Then why is it that the league currently prohibits Packer-style public ownership, with the Packers being the sole team that is "grandfathered?" This just seems nuts to me.

I would respectfully suggest that the Green Bay Packer ownership model is the ideal fix for the problem with the league and franchise free agency. The league ought to be encouraging community ownership, rather than prohibiting it. Nothing much can be done with the existing franchises, but as the league adds new teams in Cleveland, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, and as teams are sold, community ownership should be the preferred (if not exclusive) model. The NFL right now is the hottest thing in sports. But they are very close to having the league ruined because of problems like franchise free agency.

If you agree, why not take a minute and write a letter to the Commissioner about this. I have already done so. The address is:

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue
National Football League
410 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022