Finally, Another NFC Champ Game at Lambeau Field

Kneel Down Time, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

Well, the Packers beat the Rams, rather handily, in their Divisional Playoff game on Sunday, 32-18.  In the process, they have brought the NFC Championship game back to Lambeau Field for the third time in the Favre / Rodgers eras, and for the first time with Rodgers as starting quarterback.  

For the first time all year, the Packers allowed some ticketed fans in the stadium, along with invited guests.  The total attendance was 8,456, which may only be a little more than 10% of capacity, but players including Rodgers commented on how much difference it made.  There were no fans in the stands (home or away) for the first few Packers games this year, and while the typical camera shot didn't display that, when they would show an end zone shot, the emptiness of the stadiums made it seem very sterile to me, like an organized scrimmage, except one that counted in the standings.  

As soon as the Packers started playing before even a few hundred fans, at home or on the road, I felt as if I could detect some increased energy on the part of the players.  And Saturday, with the stands 10%+ filled, there was no doubt.  You could see the players interacting with the fans in the stands.  Rodgers acknowledged what it meant to him to hear the "MVP!" chants late in the game.  With a similar number of fans to be in the stands on Sunday, and with "better" weather (i.e., colder and with a good chance of snow), the Packers should finally have a real home field advantage in an NFC Championship game.

If there was a lull period in the Rams game, it was in the late 3rd quarter.  In my own family, I found very different reactions to that part of the game, when the Rams pulled to within 7 points, at 25-18.  Some of them had a "here we go again" kind of vibe.  Especially since that last Rams score was sandwiched by the only two Packers punts of the game.  Had the momentum really shifted that far in the direction of the Rams?  To state the obvious, when it is a 7 point game, the ball can take a funny bounce, or a ball can be tipped, or a ball can be stripped, and all of a sudden the game is tied.  So the game was at risk at that moment, but I never really felt as if the game was in much doubt.  The Packers had been controlling the game all day long, outplaying the Rams on both sides of the ball, and I was confident that they would put up some more points to seal the win.  And they did, with a near-perfect play action pass to Allen Lazard.  The ball was a little too far inside, which made it a harder catch for Lazard, but as soon as he secured the catch it was clear that he was gone with the "dagger" of a 58 yard touchdown catch.

The hype going into the game was that it was the irresistible force against the immovable object.  The Packers' number one offense against the Rams' number one defense.  But the final stats of the game make a real mockery of the pregame hype.  The Packers almost doubled the offensive output of the Rams, 484 to 244, gaining more yards on offense than the Rams had given up in any game all season.  The Packers controlled the ball for over 36 minutes.  The Packers almost doubled the rushing total of the Rams, 188 to 96.  And while the Packers gave up no sacks or turnovers, the Packers defense registered 4 sacks of Jared Goff, the most sacks he sustained all year.  Goff, by the way, played very well despite his broken thumb, much better than he had the previous week when he was pressed into service against the Seahawks.  So the credit for holding the Rams in check goes to the Packers' defense, and not to an ineffective Jared Goff.  

Rashan Gary, in particular, had one of his best games, contributing 1.5 sacks, 3 quarterback hits, and 1 tackle for loss.  The Packers showed again, as they have in a number of games later in the season, that they can control the line of scrimmage sufficiently to prevent a talented running back from gashing them.  And then the defensive backs, combined with the pass rush, have proved up to the task of controlling the passing game.  So as the game played out, the Packers had the far superior offense, and the far superior defense.  The Packers' special teams had some problems (a botched extra point and some long-ish kickoff returns) but no game changing plays.

The offensive line played magnificently, and were the MVPs of this game, even without David Bakhtiari, and without ever needing to bring in a substitute.  On regular offensive plays (not including special teams) the starting 5 linemen (Jenkins, Turner, Wagner, Linsley and Patrick) played 100% of the snaps.  I doubt that has happened all year long.  Steve Mariucci joked on Sunday morning that the equipment manager won't even need to wash Rodgers' jersey for next week, as the protection was so good that he was hardly ever touched.  The Packers, behind that consistent offensive line, stuck with the running game, rushing (not counting Rodgers) 32 times for 191 yards.  That is the perfect way to open up the passing game, especially on play-action passes, and it worked, with significant contributions from Adams, Lazard, Tonyan and MVS in the passing game.

The interesting thing to me is that the Packers did not play their best game against the Rams.  Rodgers, uncharacteristically, missed some passes that would have been completions if they had been closer to the mark.  And there were a number of dropped passes, too.  On defense, again, as well as the defense played on Saturday, they did not come away with a single turnover, and in most games they do get at least one turnover.  So you can look at this in two ways.  You can say that the Packers better clean up those offensive mistakes on Sunday, and they better force some turnovers, or they will be watching the Super Bowl from their couches.  Which might be true.  But the way I am looking at it is that, as good as the Packers were against the Rams, they can (and I hope, will) play even better against the Buccaneers.  They didn't even need to be at their best to beat the number one defense of the Rams.  Imagine what they could do if they play at, or closer to, their best.

I was rooting for the Saints to beat the Buccaneers on Sunday; every Packers fan I know was rooting for the same thing.  The Packers beat the Saints in the dome, 37-30, in Week 4, whereas the Buccaneers dealt the Packers their worst loss of the season in Week 6, 10-38.  So having to play Brady and the Buccaneers again in the Championship Game seems, in a way, a little too reminiscent of last year, when the Packers were manhandled by the 49ers during the season, and then had to go back to Santa Clara for the Championship game, where they were manhandled again.  

I reject that comparison.  Last year, both the Packers' offense and their defense were just not up to the job against the 49ers.  They were just beaten solidly, on both sides of the ball, on the road in both games, with regular-sized hostile crowds.  This year, the Packers' offense has played better in the LaFleur system from the first week on.  And while the defense drove fans crazy early in the year, toward the end of the season, the defense has played with much greater consistency.  Since the Week 11 loss to the Colts, the Packers have won seven straight games.  They have given up an average of 18 points in those games, and allowed more than 20 points only twice.  Meanwhile, they have been scoring an average of 33 points over that same stretch, and scored fewer than 30 points only once.  

OK, but what about the Buccaneers, you might say?  What happened in that game, and why is it likely to be different this time?  That game was a weird one, that actually started out well, and then suddenly went to hell in a hand basket.  The Packers were leading 10-0 after the first quarter, when the Buccaneers got a pick 6 to make it 10-7, and then a tipped ball resulted, one play later, in another Buccaneers touchdown on the next possession to make it 14-10, and it was all downhill from there.  In other words, I think that was a game that took an abrupt turn and then snowballed out of control (if you will excuse the expression) in the 88 degree Tampa weather.  The Packers dug the hole even deeper by the end of the half (28-10), and at that point they were forced completely out of their game plan.

So sure, it could happen again, but unlike last year, I don't feel any sense of inevitability about it.  The Bucs game was early in the season, when they were regularly getting gashed by strong running games, and indeed, the Bucs running backs gained 158 yards that day.  And while the Packers' offense had been playing at a high level early in the season, except for the Bucs game, they are playing way more consistently now.

The Packers need to commit to the running game to set up the passing game, and from re-watching the prior Bucs game, they should run the ball inside more than to the outside.  At least on a dry, hot field, the Buccaneers' linebackers were too fast to allow much in the outside running game.  And, obviously, the Packers can't give the ball away again.  On defense, the Packers need to play like they have later in the season, and hold the running backs more in check than they did in Week 6.  While I realize that Mike Pettine isn't about to change his approach dramatically, I hope he will remember that Brady needs to get some pressure.  You can't just rush 3 and drop into zone coverage against Brady, as he can carve you up.  

Right now, there is a 50% chance of snow on Sunday, with temperatures in the high 20's.  That won't phase Brady or Gronkowski in the least, but it is an open question what it will mean for the rest of the Buccaneers.  Weather can freak players out if they are not used to it, but the weather Sunday is not likely to be severe enough to have this effect.  Beyond this, I think it is mostly about footing.  If you are not used to playing or practicing in this weather, you don't have a very good feel for what you can and can't do in those conditions.  Think of how careful you are, watching each step, when you are walking on icy or wet surfaces.  The field won't be icy, but it might have an accumulation of snow, as in the Titans game, and it will definitely be damp or wet.  The Buccaneers won't be used to this, and it can have a real effect on the game.  The Packers and their fans will have a mutually reinforcing vibe going, and I think that will help the Packers as well.

The Packers can definitely win this game, and I think that they will.  The Buccaneers' defense is not as good as the Rams' defense was, but their offense is better.  So the Bucs will score some points, and the Packers need to keep the pedal to the metal all day long.  I think something like 38-30 sounds about right to me, so Go Pack!

Big Test Coming up Against the Colts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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