Another "Unsatisfying" Win

Lots of My Relatives Were at the Game

Happy Days are here again!  (Well, sort of.)  The good news is that the Packers, by beating the Redskins Sunday (20-15), have recorded their 10th win out of 13 games.  In so doing, Matt LaFleur became the first coach in the history of the Packers to get 10 wins in his first season.  Special shout out to all my family members who attended the game, including relatives from Israel.  Wish I could have been there!

The Packers now have a 93% chance of making the playoffs, according to FiveThirtyEight.com.  Also, with the 49ers' win over the Saints on Sunday (and other results), the Packers' chances of getting a first round bye have improved to 37%.  (I admit that I had to rinse the foul taste out of my mouth after rooting for the 49ers comeback.)

With Thanksgiving in the recent past, it is worth noting and giving thanks for how much better the Packers' situation is this year, as compared to the years we have had in the past where, at this time of the season, we would have to sit around and say something like, "let's see, if the Packers win out, and the Vikings lose 2 out of 3, or if the Eagles, Rams and Seahawks each lose 2 out of 3, then the Packers will sneak into the playoffs."  And of course the last two years were even worse, when the Packers finished with losing records and well out of the playoffs.

But the bad news is that the Packers looked, how shall I say it?  "Uninspired?"  They started out hot, going up 14 points in the first quarter, then let the Redskins creep back into the game, with the Packers only winning by 5 points.  Almost a carbon copy of the Giants game last week, except at least in the Giants game the Packers threw in the flourish of two touchdowns in the 4th quarter to pull away.  This time they got a field goal in the third quarter, and another in the fourth, to put the game just slightly out of reach of the weak Redskins team, playing with a hobbled rookie quarterback.  (The fast start the last two weeks with the Packers' opening scripted plays raises the half-serious suggestion, "why not script the first 50 plays if the script works so well?")  The way the team played on Sunday, you could maybe see the Packers win a home playoff game, if they are lucky enough to get one, but you have to scratch your head to figure out how the Packers would go about winning a game on the road against the 49ers, Saints, Seahawks, or even the Vikings.

I actually have some sympathy for LaFleur, Rodgers and the other players, who have to face all these questions about why the win wasn't more convincing.  I get it, style points are not included in the Win-Loss columns, and it is a good thing they aren't, because the Packers are short on style points this year.  You should not have to apologize for a 10-3 record.  But it is frustrating (for players and fans alike) that they still haven't put together a complete game all year.

You could say that they had a pretty complete game on defense against the Bears in Week 1, and a pretty complete game on offense against the Raiders in Week 7.  But they really haven't come close to putting the pieces together in a single game.  In this connection, I can't help but mention that the game against the Redskins was the first game in which all aspects of the special teams looked good.  No penalties that I recall, no missed kicks, good punts, and for the first time all year, a return game with new returner Tyler ("Swervin") Ervin.  Ervin has single-handedly, in his first game, saved the Packers from setting the record for worst punt-return yardage in an entire season.

Let's take a step back.  Obviously, nobody expected the Packers to do this well this year, with a rookie coach.  We probably expected something more akin to a rebuilding year than a title run.  It is worth remembering that, as I said a few weeks ago, the Packers are mostly finding ways to win games this year that they would have lost in prior years.  I saw a statistic that the Packers were 3-6-1 in one-score games last year, while they are 6-1 this year.  All of this is good, even if the Packers are not providing the "wow" factor where fans and teams can't see how anyone can beat this team.

Still, every week, I keep thinking that this will be the week for everything to gel, but it has not happened yet.  If the Packers could just switch on their complete game at will, they should have thrown the switch by now.  Meanwhile, other leading teams (most prominently, the Ravens) seem to be peaking at the right time, with the playoffs around the corner.

This week the Bears come to town, boasting a 3 game winning streak, and clinging to slim playoff hopes.  A loss to the Packers will essentially end any hopes of the Bears for the playoffs.  A win by the Packers will clinch a playoff berth for Green Bay.  This is the 200th meeting of the two teams, with the Packers holding a slim all-time edge over their big-city rivals.  The game will be played in the cold at Lambeau Field (current projected high is 14 degrees.)  This game is actually a huge game for both teams, and we know that the Bears will be motivated.  Will the Packers?  And if not now, then when?

Not Quite a "Statement" Win

I Love Snow Games!  Photo by Adam Hunger, AP

In the wake of the disaster in Santa Clara last week, I was looking for two things in Sunday's game at the Meadowlands against the Giants: first and foremost a Packers win; and secondarily a convincing win to give me some level of confidence that the Packers were back on track.  Sunday's 31-13 win over the Giants was one of those games where you can really say that the game was closer than the final score.  It was a 4 point game at the beginning of the 4th quarter, and while I never felt as if the Packers were in much danger of losing the game, they did not blow me away playing against a pretty terrible New York Giants team.  I know, it counts just the same in the Win-Loss columns, but I was looking for a real statement, and I didn't feel as if I got it.  If you want to know what a statement win looks like, look no farther than the Ravens win against the 49ers.

The defense certainly played better against this terrible Giants team.  In giving up only 13 points, they had their best game since week one against the Bears (which the Packers won, 10-3).  They also got 3 interceptions, but obviously poor throws by Daniel Jones (under relentless pressure from Za'Darius Smith and others) had something to do with that.

On the other hand, the Packers' defense got no sacks despite the pressure, and they gave up 335 total yards, including giving up 20 first downs, 3 of them on 4th down plays.  So the bad news is that the Packers gave up lots of yards, and allowed sustained drives that used a lot of time and kept the ball away from the Packers' offense.  But the good news is that despite all that, they only gave up 13 points, in a good demonstration of the "bend but don't break" style of defense. 

I saw lots of things on defense that I didn't like.  While they, in general, did a good job of containing Saquon Barkley, they still gave up 4 plays to him of more than 10 yards (including one pass).  And they gave up two of their patented long passes down the middle of the field, one to WR Cody Latimer, and another to TE Kaden Smith. 

On offense, the Packers obviously looked a lot better than they did against the 49ers, but that is a pretty low bar.  The running game was nothing special, which is a little concerning against a team that is not that great against the run.  The game was won with the passing game.  I liked the fact that Rodgers threw the ball to 10 different receivers (7 of whom had catches).  I was less thrilled with the fact that Davante Adams was targeted as heavily as he was, but on the other  hand, Adams (along with Allen Lazard) was doing the most damage in the passing game, so good for the Packers for going with what was working. 

Special teams looked good, for a change, with perfect performance by the grieving Mason Crosby, a much stronger effort by J.K. Scott, and even good work on the return game (both as kicking and receiving teams).

In the last 5 games of the season, you would have thought that the Packers have an excellent chance to win 4 of them, including Sunday's Giants game (the other games are the Redskins, the Bears and the Lions).  The fifth game, at the Vikings, may well decide who wins the division, although the Monday night loss by the Vikings to the Seahawks really gives the advantage to the Packers to win the division.  But the Packers can't afford any missteps in the other games, or they potentially hand that advantage right back to the Vikings.  The win against the Giants was the first step, but I still think they are going to have to play better to get the job done.  The Redskins game at Lambeau Field would be an excellent way to get some momentum going.

Meanwhile, the playoff positioning goal has to be to get one of the byes.  At the moment, that would mean finishing above either the Saints or the Seahawks, both of whom are currently at 10-2 (so are the 49ers, but they are currently a Wild Card).  Among the top teams in the NFC, the Packers and Vikings have the most favorable schedule, since they each only play one team above .500 (when they play each other).  The Seahawks play the Rams and 49ers, while the 49ers play the Saints, Rams and Seahawks, and the Saints play the 49ers and Titans.  This will become a lot more clear as each week goes by, but if the Packers were to win out, I don't see a realistic way that they would not end up with a bye.  So just keep winning.

Packers Need to Play Smarter on Offense

Allison, Wide Open, Photo by Jim Matthews, USA Today

The last week has brought quite a few changes in the NFC North.  After a hard-fought, 70 minute game ending in a tie against the Vikings, the Packers and Vikings were tied for the lead in the division.  But last week's games changed everything.  The Packers and Vikings both lost games to teams that, at least on paper, were inferior teams.  The Packers at least lost to the Redskins on the road, and the loss was convincing but not devastating (Redskins, 31-17).  The Vikings, on the other hand, lost overwhelmingly to the previously winless Bills, at home, 27-6. 

Meanwhile, the Lions beat the Patriots, pretty convincingly, to get their first win of the season, and the Bears beat the Cardinals, narrowly, to get their second win of the season.  As a result, at the end of Sunday, the Bears led the division at 2-1, with all 4 teams being within a game of each other. 

And then last night, the Vikings lost a shootout on the road to the Rams, 38-31, so they are on a two-game losing streak.  But there is no shame in losing to the Rams, especially on the road, since the Rams are certainly a leading contender to win the NFC this year.  So it is a little early to count the Vikings out.  At the same time, if the Packers can beat the Bills at home on Sunday, they will be no worse off than a half game out of first place in the division.  Sunday will be a good indicator of whether the Bills are for real, or if last week's game against the Vikings was a bit of a fluke.  But it will also be a good test of the Packers and whether they can bounce back from a road loss and take care of business at home. 

At the moment, it seems that nobody can play defense in the NFC North, other than the Chicago Bears.  Certainly, the Packers are having their problems.  My overall impression, just from watching the games, is that the defense is improved this year, as compared to last year, and yet the points allowed so far don't show any improvement at all.  The Packers have been giving up over 27 points per game, and you can't win many games that way, especially when the offense is not exactly blowing the doors off.  Sunday, against the Redskins, there were way too many drops by receivers (at least 4, by my count), and a shocking number of bad passes by Rodgers (I counted at least 6).  Add in some injuries on both sides of the ball (Wilkerson, out for the season, Bulaga, knocked out of the game) and you have the recipe for an upset. 

Alarmingly, it is almost as if the Packers don't learn anything from experience.  The hurry-up offense was instrumental in the comeback over the Bears in Week One.  Not only was the tempo itself helpful to the Packers' rhythm, it obviously wore the Bears' defense down.  So why have we seen so little of the hurry-up offense in Weeks Two and especially in Week Three?  I don't get it.  The eternal optimist side of me thinks maybe we will see some this week.  And with an injured QB, a nicked up offensive line, you would have thought we would at least see a lot of quick-release passes against the Redskins, rather than a lot of deep drop, slow developing plays, that have a tendency to lead to sacks.  But that didn't happen against the Redskins, and I only counted a handful of quick-release passes in the entire game.  This must be a joint decision of Rodgers and McCarthy, both of whom seem to prefer the big hitter plays. 

Don't get me wrong, the long TD to Allison (pictured above) was a great example of the good that can come from deep drops and letting Rodgers scan the entire field.  But at the same time, with Rodgers under siege for parts of the game, it is not a reach to suggest quick-release passes to loosen up the defense.  Maybe then more big hitter plays will open up.  And if you are averaging over 5 yards per carry, why do the Packers go with 3 times as many passing plays as running plays?  Yes, I understand, the Packers were behind all game.  But they were not so far behind as to rule out the running game.  Wouldn't a better balance on offense force opposing defenses to take the run game more seriously?  And wouldn't this, in turn, open up the passing game?  Again, maybe we will see a better balance on Sunday against the Bills.

All About Rhythm

Photo by Jim Biever, Packers.com

In the first 17 minutes of Sunday's game, the Redskins scored in almost every way possible - a safety, a field goal, and a touchdown with a missed extra point.  While they were building their 11-0 lead, the Packers had one completed pass in 8 attempts, one first down, and they ran the ball 4 times for a total of 5 yards.  (The wind was against the Packers in the first quarter, but still . . .)  Who would blame Packers fans for saying "here we go again."

But when things changed in the second quarter, they changed for good.  All of a sudden, there was more variety in the passing game, which suddenly seemed in sync and, most importantly, in rhythm, for most of the rest of the game.  And of course, as soon as that happened, the run game improved, too.  Funny how that works.  When the defense can't just sit back there and dare Aaron Rodgers to throw the ball, opportunities pop up all over the place, leading to the convincing 35-18 win.

Once again, Randall Cobb was one of the key players.  By lining him up in the backfield occasionally, starting in the second quarter, the Packers in effect forced the Redskins out of their base defense and into a nickel defense (because they were worried about where Cobb might go, and felt the need for an extra defensive back).  Another key was the fast tempo, either the no-huddle, or a sort of mushy, semi-huddle near the line of scrimmage.  Put the uncertainty about who is lining up where together with the fast tempo, and you have a recipe for problems for the defense.  The Redskins were caught with 12 men a couple of times as they tried to make substitutions, leading directly to one of the touchdowns, and generally putting the Redskins in a position where they sometimes felt that they just could not take the risk of substituting.  This combination left the Redskins at times with the wrong personnel on the field, which then opened up the running game, in which Eddie Lacy had his longest carry of the season.  It also seemed to make the game fun again for Aaron Rodgers, who seemed to relish the challenge of keeping the Redskins off balance and taking advantage.

A final key on offense was J.C. Tretter.  When Bakhtiari was again inactive at left tackle, everybody knew that the Packers would not put Josh Sitton over there again.  So backup center Tretter was the man, and although the game started inauspiciously for him (he gave up the sack for the safety to start the scoring), he quickly adjusted his footwork and was solid for the rest of the game.  I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that regardless which offensive lineman goes out with an injury, Tretter should be the first option to replace him.

You can argue, as does Rob Demovsky of ESPN, that there are three reasons the Packers can win in Arizona, Aaron Rodgers as the best player on the field, a resurgent if not outstanding defense this year, and much-improved special teams.  There is merit in all three of those reasons.  The Packers' prior game at Arizona, as bad as it was, was not really an accurate representation of the difference between these two teams.  The Packers' offensive line was a mess that day, they got behind early, Rodgers was getting mauled as a result of the Cardinals' strong defense and the Packers' porous offensive line, and then things just snowballed.  If you replay that game 100 times, the Packers might lose by 30 or more points only a couple of times.  The Cardinals' were a much better team that day, but the difference was not as great as it looked.

The question is, if the Packers are a better team than showed up three weeks ago, can things swing the other way so far that the Packers can actually win the game?  Well, let's count the factors.  The Packers' offensive line is in much better shape, even if Tretter has to play left tackle again, but if Bakhtiari plays, they may have their starting line intact for the first time in a long time.  The convincing win over the Redskins puts a little confidence back in the heads of the Packers, adding a little weight to McCarthy's "we're nobody's underdogs" bluster.  B.J. Raji looks like he will be back, whereas he missed most of the prior Cardinals game.  Jayrone Elliott and Sam Shields may be back, and Shields in particular has been sorely missed.  And the Cardinals put two players (including starting DT Alex Okafor) on injured reserve this week, despite not having played a game in the last two weeks.  On the negative side, it looks doubtful that Davante Adams will be able to play, which is a shame since he has finally started to look like the Davante Adams we expected all year long.  And of course, the Cardinals are a much better defensive team than the Redskins.

Let's just leave it at this: if the Packers plan to win the game, they can't just waste the entire first quarter, like they did last week.  The offensive line has to play better from the start, Rodgers needs to get rid of the ball quickly, and with some rhythm in the passing game, the running game has to be strong enough to keep the Cardinals pass rushers from pinning their ears back, and receivers have to catch the contested passes.  On defense, the Packers need to put some hits on Carson Palmer, early and often, and see how he performs when it is not just pitch and catch back there.

I still have to predict that the Packers lose this game, and go into off-season mode next week.  But funnier things have happened than an upset in this round of the playoffs, and they certainly have a chance.

Can the Packers Win on the Road in Washington?

Photo by Wm. Glasheen, Press-Gazette Media

The photo depicts one of the two best plays by the Packers in the Sunday night loss to the Vikings, 20-13.  It is Micah Hyde's astonishing, one-handed, back-handed interception of a Teddy Bridgewater left-handed mistake of a pass.  The other great play was Mason Crosby knocking the ball out of Cordarrelle Patterson's hand on his long kick return, where the ball was recovered by Hyde, keeping the Packers' hope for a comeback alive at the time.  Unfortunately, the Packers' comeback was too little and too late.

This is the first time since 1968 that the Packers have lost all their divisional games at home.  Now in fairness, it has to be noted that for quite a few of those years, there was a 5th team in the division (the Buccaneers).  And there were a couple of times that the Packers lost to the Bears, Vikings and Lions at home, but did beat the Buccaneers.  Still, think about this for a second.  Those of us old enough to have lived through the bad years in the 1970's and 1980's saw some pretty bad football teams runs out on the field in those days.  But none of them ever lost all of their divisional games at home.

If you had to pick one stat that explains Sunday night's result, try this one: the Packers converted only 2 of 15 third down plays, their lowest conversion rate of the season.

In the first six weeks of the season, when the Packers went 6-0, they got off to a fast start in every game, scoring between 7 and 14 points in the first quarter of each game.  Then, in many cases, whether because of the Packers easing up or the opponents making good adjustments, the opposing teams would climb back into the game and make it close in the 4th quarter.

But the last 10 weeks have been very different.  The much more typical model in those games has been that the Packers have not started fast (they have averaged only 4 points in the first quarter).  They generally fall behind, sometimes way behind in the third quarter (3-20 vs. Vikings, 0-20 vs. Detroit).  Then in most games (excluding the Broncos and Cardinals games) they mount a furious comeback, which was successful (miraculously so) in the second Lions game, but fell short in the Panthers, first Lions, second Bears, and second Vikings games.

There have been many contributing factors to the decline of the Packers, starting with the Broncos game.  Bad passes by Rodgers, dropped passes by receivers, a mess on the offensive line, injuries to the defensive backs, too many turnovers on offense and not enough on defense.  Looking ahead to the Redskins playoff game, I just want to focus on a couple of things.  I am not too worried about the Packers' defense, even though the Redskins have some good weapons in Jordan Reed, DeSean Jackson, Pierre Garcon, and Alfred Morris.  My concern is more with the offense, for reasons that ought to be obvious.

In re-watching the Vikings game, two things stand out.  The first thing is how successful the Packers' running game was on the first possession, even though the drive stalled and only resulted in a field goal.  But given how well the run game was working, why in the world did the Packers all but abandon the running game for the next 5 possessions?  It is one thing to abandon the running game when it is not working, but to abandon it when it is working?  Insanity.  By the time they again tried to run the ball consistently (after the outstanding Micah Hyde interception), the run game was unfortunately aborted by the strip sack of Rodgers, that was then returned for a touchdown, and at that point it was 20-3, late in the third quarter, probably too late to try again to rely on the running game.  Maybe the Packers should assign one of the assistant coaches, or even somebody like Jordy Nelson, who really has nothing to do during the games, to stand next to McCarthy and remind him, on every offensive series, to run the ball.

The other thing that stands out is Rodgers' discomfort when he drops back to pass.  A caller to the WTMJ post-game show talked about the passing offense not having any rhythm to it.  Re-watching the game, the caller had a point.  Rodgers frequently looks very fidgety back there in the pocket, bouncing around in this direction and that, before finally scrambling to avoid pressure and then throwing the ball.  I don't think he used to look that uncomfortable.

I put the current discomfort down to at least three things, and possibly a fourth.  First and most obvious is the offensive line.  Sunday night it was a total disaster, but it has been hurting for much of the year, and as a result, Rodgers is under constant pressure.  Second is the play-calling.  For whatever reason, by my count, the Packers called at least twice as many deep dropback passes in the first three quarters as they did quick outs, quick slants, or any other pass where Rodgers gets rid of the ball fast.  That just compounds the pressure on Rodgers.  Third, as I have noted before, the receivers, absent Jordy Nelson, are not doing a good job of getting open, and as a result Rodgers spends time looking around and trying to buy enough time for someone to get open.  Finally, I have to wonder if Rodgers has lost some confidence in the receivers / the play calling / and/or himself, to the point where he is reluctant to pull the trigger and ends up getting sacked or at least hit instead.  My two pronged solution to this problem is (a) to stick with the running game, which ought to open up more opportunities in the passing game; and (b) to call more quick-release passes, which seem pretty successful when we do call them, and which ought to force the defensive backs to play closer to the line, which in turn might open up the occasional longer pass.

Despite how bad the Packers have looked in the second half of the season, for some inexplicable reason I actually expect them to win at the Redskins on Sunday.  The Packers have a much better defense than do the Redskins, while the Redskins have been playing better on offense (at least recently) than the Packers.  When the Packers have the ball, if they play even a bit better on offense than they did against the Vikings, they ought to be able to take advantage of the Redskins' defense, where the Redskins are bottom 8 or worse in run defense, pass defense, and overall.  On the other side of the ball, the Packers' defense is good enough to cause some problems for the Redskins, especially in the passing game, and likely cause some turnovers.  The Redskins are on a 4-game winning streak, but it is worth noting that they have not beaten a single playoff team, or a team that ended with a winning record, all season.

Packers' Record-Breaking Performance

Photo by Rob Grabowski, USA Today Sports

Karma moment of the year is pictured in the USA Today photo - Brandon Meriweather being taken off the field after his second helmet-on-helmet hit against a Packers running back.  The first one knocked Eddie Lacy out of the game with a concussion.  In the second one, Meriweather knocked himself out with a concussion.  Both the Packer players and the fans in the stadium gave him a nice hand on his way off the field.  In that regard, they are much more generous than I am.  I was glad to see him knock himself out of the game before he injured anybody else. 

Either the league is serious about preventing helmet-to-helmet hits, or it is not.  If it is, Meriweather should be suspended, especially because he has a history as a head-hunter.  Ndamukong Suh just last week got a $100,000 fine, when anybody else without his history would have been fined much less.  Given Meriweather's history, nothing but a suspension will suffice.

But back to the game itself, a game filled with big smiles on the Packer sidelines and in the stands.  The Packers completely dominated the game, from start to finish, leading at one point in the third quarter by 31-0, before finishing the game 38-20, a misleading score if I ever saw one.

My favorite things about this game?  Just about everything.  Better decisions on kick returns by Jeremy Ross, a score on the opening drive despite back-to-back sacks, aggressive play on offense, including the no-huddle and a 4th down touchdown pass, aggressive play on defense, including swarming run defense and nice use of blitzes at appropriate times.  James Starks, playing in relief of Eddie Lacy, had the first 100 yard rushing game by a Packer since Brandon Jackson did it in 2010.  He also made great decisions on individual running plays, and he was the beneficiary of the Packers' old staple play, the screen pass - something they should run more often, because it was successful in both games this season.  The only real negative was the fact that the Packers gave up 4 sacks, which is not the way to keep Aaron Rodgers upright and healthy the whole year.

Speaking of records, Aaron Rodgers tied the Packers' single game passing record at 480 yards.  He shares that record with the perennial backup, Matt Flynn (now playing backup for the third team in as many seasons).  The Packers also had a 400 yard passing game and a 100 yard rusher in the same game for the first time in the long history of the franchise.  To take it one step further, no team in NFL history had a 450 yard passing game and a 125 yard rushing game in the same game, until the Packers did it on Sunday.  And finally, the Packers had the second-most YAC (yards after catch) in a game in the history of the NFL on Sunday (295 YAC).

So at 1-1, trailing the Bears by a game in the NFC North, the Packers have something to build on as they play the Bengals, in Cincinnati on Sunday, hoping to go 2-1 before their very early bye week.  In the wake of the 49ers game in week 1, I was personally worried about the possibility of the Packers going 0-3.  I was still worried about 1-2, but frankly the Bengals did not impress me that much in their Monday night game.  They do have a fearsome pass rush, they have the great A.J. Green and a developing running game with BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Giovani Bernard.  But I think the Steelers are pretty much all done, and yet they were able to stay close to the Bengals for most of the game.  So I think a team like the Packers has an excellent chance of beating them, even on the road.

Disappointing First Game

Photo by Tom Freeman

It was a tough day at the old ball park on Sunday.  The Packers played much better Sunday than they did in their January trip to Candlestick Park, in almost all aspects of the game.  But it was not enough, and they lost their season-opener to the 49ers for the second year in a row, this time by the score of 34-28.

We knew this was going to be a tough game, as I said last week.  In an effort to change up the karma, we went Packer-stalking Saturday night, and did manage to find the Packers' hotel, and see several Packers in the lobby (James Jones and Clay Matthews).  We used to do this back in the 1990's, and the Packers won all but one of those Green Bay at San Francisco games.  Jones was talking to unidentified teammates about his routes.  (Since he had no catches on Sunday, maybe he needed to spend more time talking about his routes.)  Matthews was talking to a friend in a very animated fashion, right before going into a team meeting at 8:00 pm.  The animation carried over to Sunday, when he played with intensity all day long (including the one play where he overdid it).

As for the day of the game, things were mixed, both on and off the field.  Off the field, things started out very well, as we attended a great tailgate party hosted by our Packer fan friends, Hazel and John.  We arrived in the stadium and were lucky enough to have really excellent seats (the picture above was taken from the seats).  But after such a great start, the game began.  I have to admit that, objectively speaking, it was a very good and entertaining game, but for us, it was painful, for obvious reasons.  After the game, we were stuck in massive traffic jams, perhaps due in part to the novelty of the newly-reconfigured Bay Bridge.  It took us well over 3 hours in traffic to get home, although in retrospect some of that time was lost in unsuccessful attempts to find a way around all the traffic. 

But hey, it could have been a lot worse: at least we didn't fall off the elevated Jamestown Street walkway outside of Candlestick Park and die, as one drunk football fan did on Sunday just as the game was getting started.  It turns out that he fell off a pedestrian bridge that allows fans to cross Jamestown Street  to enter the stadium's main parking lot from above without disrupting traffic.  We used the same bridge on our way in and out of the stadium on Sunday, where we encountered other drunk 49ers fans (the deceased was a 49ers fan).  You would have to be pretty drunk, or pretty stupid, or both, to fall off this bridge, since there is a railing 3.5 to 4 feet high on the entire bridge (the bridge is pictured in the photo in this KTVU story).

As for the play of the Packers on the field, I had mixed feelings.  There is no non-division team I want to beat more than the 49ers, so the game was obviously a major disappointment.  And yet, despite the fact that the Packers were either tied or behind most of the game, so that it was at all times easier to imagine the 49ers winning the game than the Packers, there was a lot of good to take away from the Packers' loss.  I liked the extensive use of the no-huddle offense by the Packers.  The play of Jermichael Finley was also appreciated, and it really does look as if the pre-season talk about him being ready to have a break-out year may be justified.  I liked the play of Eddie Lacy, who fumbled once and struggled to get started, but who looked better the longer the game went on, and who really looked good when he got in the open field, particularly on a screen pass in the first quarter.  The play of the offensive line was a pleasant surprise, as they did a pretty good job protecting Rodgers despite the absence of Bulaga.  And I liked the aggressive play of the defense, particularly Clay Matthews, despite his costly error on the late hit out of bounds.  To Matthews' credit, he owned up to the mistake, calling it "not a very smart play," but given the pre-game talk about going after the quarterback, I thought he was a little lucky not to be thrown out of the game.  And I really liked seeing Johnny Jolly back and in extended action, and I have to wonder how much his presence on the defensive line had to do with the Packers' much better play against the run.

To me, the difference in the game came down to two things, turnovers and injuries.  Eddie Lacy had the ball stripped from him in a pile, resulting in a 49er touchdown, and a ball bounced off Finley's hands and was intercepted, although the 49ers did not score on the ensuing drive.  Meanwhile, the Packers forced no turnovers on defense.

As for injuries, the Packers played without two starting-quality defensive backs, Morgan Burnett and Casey Hayward (who is technically not a starter, but is a strong contributor in many defensive packages).  The Packers played a lot of zone defense in the game, which I think makes sense given their emphasis on stopping Kaepernick from running.  Scrambling quarterbacks frequently pick up lots of extra yards against a man-to-man defense, because some of the defenders have their backs to the ball and realize too late that the quarterback is running.  So it made good sense to play the zone, but Anquan Bolding and Vernon Davis were able, very effectively, to exploit the gaps in the zone, especially in the middle of the field, and without Morgan Burnett and Casey Hayward on the field, the Packers were just not able to make enough plays to stop them.  The Packers played pretty well, much better than in either of the 49er games last year, they had their chances to win this game, and they were in the game until the final play, all without Burnett and Hayward.  Would they have made the difference?  Who knows, but the Packers' chances would have been better with them playing.

This week, The Washington Redskins (yes, I called them the Redskins) come to town for the opening game at Lambeau Field.  This will be the second of three straight games against playoff teams from last year to start the season, and the only home game of the three.  I expect to see the Packers win the game.  As compared to last week, the Packers will pick up the home field advantage, plus it looks hopeful that Morgan Burnett will be back.  On the Redskins' side, while I like RG III a lot as a player, I think he is less likely, given his injury last year, to take off running than was Kaepernick.  I don't think the Redskins receivers or tight ends are as good as those of the 49ers, and I don't think the Redskins' defense is anywhere near as good as the defense of the 49ers.  Put all of these factors together, and I think you have the recipe for a win for the home team.

Happy Bye Week!

SAN FRANCISCO — It is indeed a happy bye week for the Packers. After their disappointing Sunday night loss to the Bears, they had one more game before the bye, against the Washington Redskins. The Redskins, according to some analysts in the days before the game, actually had the best defense of all the teams the Packers had played this season. Thus, it would be important to win that game, to avoid going into the week off with a two-game losing streak.

Before getting to the Redskins game, a word or two on the loss to the Bears. After an impressive first half, in which the Packers staked themselves to a halftime lead of 17-7, it seemed as if the Packers were in position to win again. But in the second half, the Packers scored only 3 points, while the Bears scored 20 and won the game. During the second half, John Madden made comments about the Packers playing very conservatively on offense, and watching the game, it certainly seemed that way to me, too. At the time, it seemed like the Packers were so convinced that they had the game in hand, that they thought they could, in effect, just run out the clock on the second half. It was painful to watch the game slip away that way. I always admire teams that keep on pounding with whatever is working until the game is out of reach. The Patriots, for example, seem to do this, continuing to play aggressively, without mercy, until the game is almost over. The best single example of what I am talking about was the NFC Championship Game after the 2000 season, during which the Giants attacked the Vikings with the long ball from the very beginning of the game. After building the lead, they did not let up, or start to use up time with the running game. They just kept hammering the Vikings until it was over, 41-0. So it was very disappointing to see the Packers seem to think that they could just play it safe and protect their 10 point lead for 30 minutes of football. It was also disappointing to hear Mike McCarthy deny that the Packers had played conservatively. How refreshing it would have been to hear him say that, in hindsight, maybe we did play too conservatively, and that is a mistake we will not make again. But I guess coaches just don't say things like that.

As for the Redskins game, it was a terrible day on offense for the Packers, during which Favre set the all-time interception record, and did not throw a touchdown pass. While there have been hints of an improving running game in a couple of the earlier games (ironically, especially in the loss to Chicago), the running game was totally ineffective against Washington. After three games in a row where Favre threw for more than 300 yards per game, these figures were almost cut in half, as Favre threw for only 169 net passing yards.

It seemed clear early on in the Redskins game that only the defense could put the Packers in position to win this game. And that is exactly what they did, scoring the go-ahead and winning points on a fumble return for a touchdown by Charles Woodson. Not the most impressive way to win a game, but at least it leaves the Packers at 5-1. Now, I would argue that they are the worst 5-1 (or 4-1, or 4-2) team in the league. But then, in the past, haven't Packer fans said pretty much the opposite? Last year, weren't the Packers the best 8-8 team in the league? Or the best non-playoff team in the league? At least as a mediocre 5-1 team, they have the chance to get their act together, get their running backs healthy and hopefully more effective, get all their receivers healthy and keep Favre in one piece, and win a bunch of games.

One Good Shot Syndrome

Three eventful weeks have gone by since the last West Coast Offensive column. During that time, the Packers lost the next game, dropping to 1-4.This had many of us convinced that yet another (maybe the last) Brett Favre season would be squandered. It also sent many casual Packer fans off to find other hobbies for the rest of the football season.

Occasional golfers are probably familiar with the "one good shot" syndrome.They don't play often enough to keep their game in tune. So when they do play, things can go pretty badly. The front nine is miserable. The back nine is not much better. Then, on maybe the 17th tee, the occasional golfer hits one just right. Straight down the fairway. A beautiful shot. And that one good shot is enough to convince the golfer not to give up on the game.

These last two weeks have been like that for Packer fans. Oh, sure, I am going to watch all the games anyway. My NFL Sunday Ticket package is paid up for the whole season. But, let's face it. Sundays would be a lot less fun now if the Packers were at 1-6, instead of 3-4. They have climbed just close enough to being back in the race that each game seems to matter again.For a while, anyway.

And that brings us to this week's game at the Washington Redskins. A game that brings together Packer football and the Presidential election. For it turns out that there are many factors that historically have been good predictors of the Presidential election. The candidate whose Halloween mask sells best usually wins (Bush, in this case). The candidate who wins in various national school polls usually wins (Bush again). And there is a very interesting indicator relating to the Redskins' last home game before the election. This has been reported in a number of venues, but here is how it was described by Gregg Easterbrook, NFL.com's Tuesday Morning Quarterback:

"As many readers, including Dan Danka of Pittsburgh, have pointed out,forget the polls and focus groups, the Washington Redskins reliably predict elections. For each presidential contest going back to 1940 -- the first presidential year the Redskins performed in Washington -- if in their final home game before the voting the Skins win, then the party in power keeps the White House; if the Skins lose, the party out of power takes the White House. This Sunday, Green Bay plays at Washington in the Redskins' final home appearance before the election. So if the Packers win, John Kerry will be the next president, while if the Redskins win, George W. Bush will be re-elected. How fitting the Packers should draw this assignment -- they're from a swing state, Wisconsin! TMQ has learned, on an exclusive basis, that the Democratic National Committee has been funneling donations to the Green Bay salary cap, while the Pentagon has secretly equipped Redskins quarterbacks with GPS-guided footballs. Remember, this is a Tuesday Morning Quarterback exclusive."


So, what is a Packer fan to do? Here is my advice. To John Kerry fans, you have no problem. Go out and root for the Packers on Sunday, and then root for Mr. Lambert Field on Tuesday. To fans of George Bush, you know as well as I do that this is one of those weird coincidences. It is, in short, junk science. So root for the Packers on Sunday and do not worry about the outcome of the election.

Never in Doubt

When the Redskins and Packers get together on Monday Night Football, you can always count on an interesting game. The last time, in 1983, the two teams combined for the highest-scoring Monday Night Football game in history. The Packers prevailed, 48-47, when Mark Moseley, the last of the "conventional" NFL place kickers, missed a 39 yard field goal in the closing seconds. I
was on an airplane from San Francisco to Los Angeles the morning after that game. Presumably not a lot of Packer fans or Redskins fans on the plane. But the Monday Night game was all anybody could talk about that morning.

This time around, only a Packer fan or a Redskin-hater could really appreciate the game. I would imagine that half of the audience switched off the game by early in the third quarter. The Packers were so dominant, and the Redskins so powerless, that there was no doubt that the Packers would win from very early on. I remember having a little bit of nervousness when Favre's pass was intercepted at the end of the first half. The Redskins were only two touchdowns away from the lead, after all. But who was I kidding? The Packers were in complete control, and it would have taken some really bizarre events for the Packers to lose the game.

I had two favorite moments from last night. One was before the game, when the players rushed out on the field, led by Chris Gizzi carrying the flag. It was a stirring moment, made all the more poignant when it was mentioned that he had been chosen for the honor because he is an Air Force Reserve Officer.

And the other was the touchdown pass to Bill Schroeder. Living in the San Francisco area, I have suffered through any number of Montana to Rice or Young to Rice slant passes for touchdowns over the years. It always seemed as if the passes led Rice perfectly, hitting him in stride, and that Rice would accelerate through the gap between the defenders and be off to the end zone. I remember one of these passes to Rice against the Packers, where the defenders were chasing Rice for maybe 40 or 50 yards to the end zone. Anyway, the pass to Schroeder last night was EXACTLY like those passes. The pass could not have been more perfect, Schroeder never had to slow down to get it, and he turned on the jets to run right past those guys to the end zone. This was not the most dramatic Packer touchdown pass I have ever seen. The most dramatic was probably either Favre's very first game-winning touchdown pass, to Kitrick Taylor, after Don Majkowski was knocked out of the game what seems like many years ago, or maybe the game-winning overtime pass to Freeman last year. But it is the prettiest Packer touchdown pass I have seen in some time.

Let's not get carried away with this win. Neither the Lions nor the Redskins are very good teams. But, on the other hand, how many times over recent years have you seen the Packers play down to the level of the competition, either squeaking out a victory over an inferior opponent, or even losing the game? I am encouraged by the way that the Packers dominated these two very weak opponents. Now the Packers need to carry that intensity on the road, as they play two better-quality teams in the next two weeks, the Panthers and the Buccaneers. We will know a lot more about what the Packers' season will look like after those two games.