Packers Preparing for Short Turnaround Week

Old Friends Getting Together for Some Football

Game 6 for the Packers turned out to be primarily another Davante Adams show.  When it was announced that Bakhtiari, Tyler Ervin and Aaron Jones would all be out on offense, along with Kevin King, Darnell Savage, and Tyler Lancaster on defense, I admit to being a little concerned.  I knew that the Texans' defense isn't that good, despite having playmakers like J.J. Watt and Whitney Mercilus.  But still, how many of the Packers' offensive stars can be out before the offense just doesn't work?  And on defense, I know that the Texans traded away DeAndre Hopkins in the offseason, but the Texans offense still scored 36 points last week and took the Titans to overtime before succumbing.  Could the Packers really keep the Texans' offense under control with a depleted secondary?

Turns out I need not have worried.  Billy Turner took over for David Bakhtiari and provided good protection.  Rodgers was not sacked, although he was pressured and hit from time to time.  Jamaal Williams, in replacing Aaron Jones, reminded us that he is a high quality running back, even if he doesn't have Jones' explosiveness.  Williams ended up with 114 yards from scrimmage and a touchdown.  Every time the Packers needed a third down catch to continue a drive, Davante Adams was there, ending up with 13 catches for 196 yards and 2 TDs.  

On defense, to my eye the career debut of inside inside LB Kamal Martin was a positive factor.  He was one of the team leaders in tackles.  The defense pretty consistently applied pressure to DeShaun Watson and sacked him three times.  The defensive backs as a group kept Will Fuller and Brandin Cooks under control, with Alexander primarily shadowing Fuller, and Josh Jackson covering Cooks.  Only our old friend Randall Cobb was able to do much damage, catching 8 passes for 95 yards.  I doubt this would happen, but with all the talk about how the Packers should acquire a veteran receiver, wouldn't it be fun if the Packers traded to bring Randall Cobb back?  This might have been a very different Texans team if they had not traded away DeAndre Hopkins.  The final score was GB 35, Houston 20.  Another 30+ points on offense and another double digit win.

Creative use of motion and misdirection is one of the hallmarks of the LaFleur offense.  Until the last two weeks, a player streaking down the line of scrimmage pre-snap was seen a lot.  But Tyler Ervin was the primary runner of the jet sweep motion, and for whatever reason, in his absence the Packers have made much less use of this motion.  But speaking of creative use of motion, LaFleur's former mentor, Sean McVay, pulled an interesting play out of his hat Monday night, when McVay's Rams played the Bears.  Inside the Bears' 5 yard line in the first quarter, the Rams huddled up, and then sprinted to the line of scrimmage, snapped the ball almost immediately, and the play went for a touchdown.  It is the opposite of Rodgers' normal M.O.  He likes to study the defense, noting among other things how the defense reacts to any motion by the Packers, and seeing what he can read about the defense's intentions based on their movements before the snap.  Here, the situation is reversed.  By the Rams sprinting to the line and snapping the ball immediately, the defense has no opportunity to see and react to the offensive formation.  The Bears were caught flat-footed and gave up a touchdown.  I don't remember ever having seen the Packers run a play like this, other than maybe in a two minute drill.  But just as a change of pace, once or twice a game, this would be an intriguing and winning innovation.

This Sunday, the Packers host the Minnesota Vikings, who now find themselves in last place in the North at 1-5 and going nowhere.  And then four days later, the Packers head to Santa Clara to face the injury-riddled but still formidable 49ers.  I am concerned that this makes the Vikings game a bit of a trap game.  There is no reason the Packers should lose to the Vikings.  But there are lots of reasons that the Packers might lose to the 49ers.  And if, in the course of preparing and practicing for two games in short order, the Packers look past the Vikings to worry about the 49ers game, they could easily lose both games.  It is not just blowing smoke to say that the Vikings usually play the Packers very tough, and few coaches have more experience preparing for the Packers than Mike Zimmer.  Let's not forget that the Vikings still have Dalvin Cook, Adam Thielen, and Justin ("Could Have Had Him") Jefferson, so even though they have not played well, they are still dangerous.  And of course the Vikings' Anthony Barr broke Rodgers' collarbone 3 years ago.  He is out for the season this year, but I still would think that the Packers want to get the ball out quickly and on rhythm.

I heard LaFleur, in his Thursday press conference, say that they are not thinking about the 49ers, that the 49ers are the farthest thing from his mind.  I don't believe that.  I have to assume that at least a skeletal (how is that for a Halloween week reference) game plan has been put together.  But anyway, I hope he is truthfully relaying that the Packers are not looking past the Vikings.

Buccaneers Keelhaul the Packers in Tampa

Unwelcome Sight, Photo by Mike Ehrmann, Getty Images

It is hard to know what to say about last week's stinkeroo game against the Buccaneers.  When you jump off to a 10 point lead, how do you give up 38 unanswered points to a not-that-great Buccaneers team?  Does this mean that every time the Packers face a tough, physical defense, they will fold and slink home with their tails between their legs?  That is kind of what happened last year, against the Chargers, the 49ers and then the 49ers again in the NFC Championship game.  

There is a possible difference, at least in my mind.  Last year, the Packers never looked smooth to me.  They had a great regular season record, at 13-3, but many of those wins were close games (kind of like the Bears this year?).  Eight of the 13 wins were one possession games, including both Lions games, both Bears games, and one of the Vikings games.  Of course, the most ridiculous examples were the Lions games, where the Packers never led in either game until the final play of each game, winning field goals in both cases.  And how many times last year did we see a lack of precision?  Too many throwaways, or passes in the flat that never made it to the receiver, or long passes that were overthrown or went through the hands of the receiver.  I skimmed through my blog posts from last year, and I found phrases like "not a statement win," "ugly win," "unsatisfying win," and "two good quarters out of eight," making the point they really only had two good quarters in their first two games, but that was enough to have a 2-0 record.  Looking back on it, the Packers went 13-3, in some ways, despite their lack of precision and smoothness on offense.  

For the first four weeks of this season, the Packers were just the opposite on offense.  They looked great, Rodgers looked like the Rodgers of maybe 2010 or 2011, and he was an early candidate for league MVP.  Our biggest worry, as fans, was the defense.  Could they just make a few stops per game, and/or generate a turnover, and allow the offense to work its magic?   I suppose you could argue, somewhat counter-intuitively, that the defense did its job on Sunday.  They only gave up 24 points, while the offense gave up the other 14 on the actual pick-six, and the almost pick-six.  Any other game this year, the offense would have scored 30 plus points and would have won the game.

But last Sunday, it wasn't just the two interceptions.  It was the lack of pre-snap motion with Tyler Ervin out of the lineup.  It was Rodgers not looking comfortable back in the pocket.  It was Rodgers double (and triple and once quadruple) clutching, rather than throwing the ball in rhythm and on time.  

So which was the anomaly?  Was it the Buccaneers game?  Or was it the first four games against (in hindsight) some not very strong opponents?  I guess we will find out soon enough.  The Texans are not very good, with their 1-5 record, but they gave the undefeated Titans all they could handle last Sunday before losing, 42-36.  And the Packers look as if they will be without Tyler Ervin (can't somebody else run the jet sweep?), and probably David Bakhtiari as well.  Plus now Aaron Jones has popped up on the injury report.  Several people have made the semi-in-jest comment that the Packers play better without Davante Adams.  Well, they will have Adams, but maybe without these other weapons they can return to winning ways.  Apparently the Packers have not had a two game losing streak under Matt LaFleur.  Let's just go with that as a good reason to predict that the Packers look much better after last week's embarrassment, and come away with a victory.  

Let it Snow!

Cobb's TD, photo by Wm. Glasheen, USA Today

After many squandered early opportunities by the Packers, Sunday's game against the Texans sat at 7-7 at the end of the third quarter.  Just exactly what fans did not want to see.  There was no good reason to think that the Packers would go on to lose the game, after all they were at home, in a snowy Packer environment.

And yet - the Texans' offense had just come alive to tie the game, the Packers had not scored or even moved the ball much since the second quarter, and in a snowy environment, even more than in any other game, all it takes is a defender slipping, or a ball getting knocked out of the hands, and a game can take a crazy turn.

So, when the Texans punted the ball to the Packers' 2 yard line late in the 3rd quarter, as a fan I was just looking for a couple of first downs to improve the field position battle.  Instead, the Packers produced a magnificent, 98 yard drive (108 yards counting a 10 yard penalty) to score what turned out to be the winning touchdown.  Then, after forcing a punt, they followed it up with another drive, this time 89 yards, to put the game out of reach at 21-7 (the final score was Green Bay, 21-13).

So what do we make of the Packers now?  Are they as good as they looked in the fourth quarter?  Or as listless as they looked for most of the rest of the game?  I don't think it is unfair to say that the 98 yard drive served to keep their playoff hopes alive, but the question is, how alive are they at this point?

For starters, I didn't think they would win both of the last 2 games, so I start out from a place of skepticism about how good the team is.  And the Seahawks were overpowering, at home, against the Panthers last week.  But on closer inspection of their record, they are under .500 on the road (2-3-1).  They have lost to the Rams, Saints and Buccaneers, and tied the Cardinals, and of those teams only the Buccaneers even have a winning record at this point.  So they can be beaten outside of their noisy home stadium.

Weather and injuries will be factors.  As of now, the forecast calls for 1 to 3 or 2 to 4 inches of snow, depending on the source, and with a late start time, it is almost a certainty that snow will be sticking all over the field.  The Seahawks have plenty of bad weather in their stadium, but rarely do they have snow.  In fact, I saw that Richard Sherman has never played in the snow, so that tells you something about Seattle weather.  Russell Wilson played at the University of Wisconsin, so he says "I'm hoping it's a downpour of snow."  I don't think downpour is quite the right word (he has been in Seattle too long), but this is a smart thing to say even if he doesn't mean it.  So weather will be a factor, a wild card, and that wild card ought to favor the home team used to playing in those conditions.

The Seahawks lost their excellent free safety Earl Thomas for the year last week, and the Packers have already announced that linebackers Kyler Fackrell and Nick Perry for the game.  Half a dozen others are listed as questionable, although all of them participated in practice today on a limited basis.  Mike Pennel has been suspended for the last four games of the season, so he will be missing, too.

I think the Packers can win this game, and maybe even should win the game, despite being listed as underdogs.  I would feel much better about this game if it wasn't Seattle.  There is too much of a history of crazy things in Seattle games, although most if not all of those crazy things have happened at Seattle.  It should be a fun game to watch.

Running the Table?

Davante Adams TD, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

The saying goes that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  If that is so, the proof of Aaron Rodgers' comment that the Packers would run the table would have to begin with a single win, as it did on Monday night at the Eagles, 27-13.  And it was certainly a pleasure to watch a Packers win, for the first time after a four-game losing streak, and an even greater pleasure to see the Packers play well in all three phases of the game.  All four if you count coaching, as both McCarthy and Capers seemed to have excellent game plans in the same game!  Which doesn't happen all that often.

Although, to be honest, after the first two drives of the game, the game looked like it might be another one of those no defense, 48-47 affairs, with the last team with the ball winning the game.  But the Packers' defense (and, for that matter, the Eagles' defense to a lesser extent) settled down rather nicely.  And even the special teams contributed, especially with the punt downed at the one yard line (although the kick was very close to being a touchback).  Since the Eagles ended up scoring a FG on the drive, it is good that they had to go all the way from the 1 in order to score.  A touchback could easily have led to a touchdown.

Davante Adams put on a show again on offense, catching 5 passes for 113 yards and 2 touchdowns.  It is safe to say that he won't spend any more time on my fantasy football bench.  You can certainly make a case that Adams is the best performer on offense right now, other than Rodgers himself.  Rodgers was driving us all crazy just a few weeks back, but the adjustment that was made over a few weeks, to move toward a quick-release, dink and dunk offense (and I do not mean that as an insult, but as a compliment in the context of this season), with occasional shots down the field, has really brought him back on the right path.  Argue it however you will, I think he has looked good to excellent in 5 of the last 6 games, with the Titans game being the major exception.  So even though they lost 4 of those games, it is hard to put those losses all, or even mostly, on Rodgers.

So are the Packers in a position to run the table, squeak into the playoffs, and make some noise in the playoffs?  It's a little hard for me to see that happening.  For starters, I don't think it is reasonable to assume they can win all their remaining games, even though three of the five are at home.  I especially have a hard time seeing them beating the Lions in the dome in week 17.  Yes, I know, the Packers were leading the Lions 31-3 in the first game before the Lions started their comeback.  But it is hard to argue that the Lions have not played as the better team for the rest of the season to date.

Still, who knows?  It has been a crazy season in many ways.  You can think back to the improbable 2010 Super Bowl run, but in fairness, even though the Packers truly had to sneak their way into the playoffs that year before getting hot, they still had a 7-4 record after 11 games, unlike this year's team's 5-6 record.  As of today, the Packers would have to leapfrog over 4 other teams (Saints, Vikings, Buccaneers and Redskins) just to sneak in as the 6th seed in the playoffs.  That is a tall order, but they have 5 weeks to do it.  Getting by the Lions to win the division would be even better, but bear in mind, the Lions have won 6 of their last 7 games, so that is no small task.  But apparently Brett Favre, on his SiriusXM radio show, has predicted that the Packers will win the North.

The Packers play the Texans at Lambeau Field tomorrow.  The Texans have a better record, at 6-5, and lead their division, so they are not pushovers.  But they have won only once on the road (at the Jaguars), have lost two in a row, and of course are without the great J.J. Watt for the rest of the season.  Brock Osweiler, who everybody expected to take over for Peyton Manning in Denver, went to the Texans instead.  But he hasn't played all that well, throwing more interceptions (13) than touchdowns (12), despite having some quality receivers (Hopkins, Fuller, Fiedorowicz).  So maybe the Packers will have another few chances for takeaways tomorrow.

I think the Packers should win this game.  That would be very welcome, as it would keep the chances for a playoff berth realistic.  Go Packers!

Packers' Best Game of the Year

Green Bay Press-Gazette Photo by Evan Siegle

Loss-Win-Loss-Win-Loss-Win.  Could a team be any more inconsistent than that?  Which team is the real Packer team?  The team of the collapse of epic proportions from the Colts game?  Or the team that went out and knocked off the unbeaten Texans, on the road, in convincing fashion?  I wish I knew.

Until the Texans game, you could say that the Packers had not performed particularly well in any game.  They lost to the 49ers, Seahawks and Colts.  The Packers were outplayed and out-coached by the 49ers.  There may be an asterisk next to the Seahawks loss, but you wouldn't want to have to defend the proposition that the Packers played well in that game.  And as for the Colts game, the Packers played a good first half, and then fell apart at the seams to lose the game.

What about the two previous wins?  The Packers beat the Bears solidly, but then again I am not really a believer in Cutler or the Bears, despite their division-leading 4-1 record, so color me somewhat unimpressed.  The win against the Saints was important and satisfying at one level, but (a) they barely beat the Saints and could easily have lost; and (b) the Saints are not the Saints of a couple of years ago.  So the Packers not only needed a win against the Texans, they needed a convincing one, for the sake of their own confidence and the confidence of their fans.  This game ought to do the trick.  The Texans were not only undefeated, they were looking like a Super Bowl contender.  They had one of the highest-powered offenses in the league, featuring Arian Foster and Andre Johnson.

Despite all that, the Packers outplayed the Texans from the first possession on, and won the game 42-24.  They looked good on offense, and on defense, and on special teams (other than the blocked punt that was recovered for a TD).  Alex Green did a solid if unspectacular job of replacing Cedric Benson, and the passing game looked the best it has looked all season, even if it is still not quite at the level of last year.  On defense, the Packers put pressure on Schaub all night long, sacked him three times, and intercepted him three times.  Both Foster and Johnson were kept in check, and Schaub finished with 232 yards, no TDs and 2 interceptions.

The frequently frustrating James Jones seems to be taking a step forward this year.  He has caught two TD passes in 3 consecutive games, including the sensational catch pictured above.  No Packers player has done that since DON HUTSON did it a long time ago.  That seems impossible to believe.  Jennings, Driver, Freeman, Brooks, Sharpe, Lofton, Dale, McGee, Dowler, and Howton never did it, but Hutson and Jones did?  That is pretty remarkable company.  Speaking of Packer records, how about Aaron Rodgers?  He tied the all time Packer record for TDs in a single game (6), set by . . . Matt Flynn last year.

The Packers lost another starter for the year (D.J. Smith) and several other players were knocked out of the game with injuries that looked less serious.  The backups played well, especially rookie defensive back Casey Hayward, who made two interceptions and looked great.  Now the Packers will finish their three game road trip at St. Louis, where the Rams are also 3-3.  The Packers are favored in this game, so you would certainly think that they have a good chance of winning 2 of 3 on the road trip, and getting above .500 for the first time this year.  Maybe the Packers have the rest of the league exactly where they want them, with a 3-3 record, just like they had in 2010.