I Would Have Double-Bagged It

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

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

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

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

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

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

4th and 1, Fourth Quarter

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

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

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

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

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

4th and 26, Fourth Quarter

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

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

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

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

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

Sudden Death

To tell you the truth, I was kind of hoping for a laugher. You know, the kind of game where Pederson and some of the other backups can get some playing time, and where a Packer win is all but assured in the third quarter. That way, I figured, even if the Packers did not get a bye, at least the starters would not get as banged up. Plus, laughers tend to end sooner, and since we were driving back to Chicago after the game for a flight Sunday night (through a snow storm from Fond du Lac on, as it turned out), we would have a better chance to make the flight.

Well, so long as the Packers ended up winning, it is hard to complain about being present for one of the all-time great playoff games, the only one to ever end on an interception return for a touchdown. "Sudden death" doesn't get much more sudden than that.

It is possible to argue that, if the Packers had this much trouble with the Seahawks, it is a bad sign, but I saw it the other way. My view was that this was an inspired and hard-fought game, almost completely error-free, between two teams that know each other pretty well. In fact, if the Seahawk receivers played as well as Matt Hasselbeck and the Seahawk defense, I think they would have won the game. I like Matt Hasselbeck, and it is too bad that he had to be the guy who made the game-ending error, but that is the way it goes in football.

What an aggressive and gutsy call by Ed Donatell (defensive coordinator) to go with an all-out blitz on that last play, resulting in the game-winning interception return. So many times, fans complain that their team lost the game because they played conservatively on defense, trying to avoid any big mistake, with the result that the other team marched down the field in small chunks to win the game. Ed Donatell's call, approved by Mike Sherman during the timeout, was as diametrically opposed to that approach as possible. It is no wonder that Donatell raced into the end zone after Al Harris to congratulate him, as he undoubtedly would have been raked in the press if the all-out blitz had resulted in a game-winning touchdown for the Seahawks. Mike Sherman took the same approach on offense, in less dramatic fashion, by going for it successfully on a couple of fourth downs. This aggressive approach to coaching seems to have inspired the players to play aggressively. As Sherman said, in the playoffs you have to go get the game, rather than waiting for the game to come to you.

But, as great a game as it was, I suspect that the Packers' season will end this week in the City of Brotherly Love. It's not that the Eagles are so much better than the Packers, or that the home-field advantage is decisive in this case (after all, the Eagles only went 5-3 in their new stadium this year). Instead, I think that the bye is the key to the win. It is really hard for a team that played in the Wild Card round to beat a team that had a bye. In fact, the No. 1 seed in the NFC has not lost its first playoff game since 1987 (when Minnesota knocked off San Francisco). Reaching even further back into the record book, the Packers have not won a game in Philadelphia since 1962, having lost 6 in a row near the shore of the Delaware River. On the other hand, all of those road losses were played on the concrete surface of Veteran's Stadium, and this week's game will be played on grass at the new Lincoln Financial Field. So maybe the Packers will have a better chance.

If you want to make a case for the Packers winning, consider this. While the Packers lost to the Eagles at Lambeau Field on November 10, there are a number of things that have happened since then that cut in favor of the Packers. That game was played in the rain, always a wild card in a game, whereas the weather Sunday should be cold but dry. In that game, Brett Favre had not yet gotten used to playing with his broken thumb, and that, combined with the wet ball, led to him fumbling 3 times, including the final fumble that prevented any chance at a comeback. In that game, Ahman Green also fumbled twice, before changing the material on his forearm to something not as conducive to having the ball slip out. And finally, Grady Jackson was playing sparingly in his first game with the Packers that night, whereas now he is fully integrated into the defense.

So that is my case for the Packers having a real shot. As against that, you have to consider that the Eagles were without a number of their starting defensive backs that night, and most or all of them will be back for the game. And although the Eagles will be without their leading rusher, Brian Westbrook, in the Eagles' "running back by committee" approach this should not be as big a factor as it would be for other teams. While the Packers have a much better chance in Philadelphia than they would have had in St. Louis this week, I still think the Eagles will win. It will take another inspired game by all concerned, and a few key Eagles mistakes, for the Packers to prevail, but I am not sure they have enough left in the tank. If they do, then maybe this really is a team of destiny.

Happy New Year

Well, last weekend's football sure started out on a sour note, before the miraculous turn-around at the end. Not only did the 49ers pretty much roll over for the Seahawks on Saturday (see my column last week), but the Cowboys proceeded to lose to the Saints in the early game, thus setting up the dreaded 3-way tie scenario we all had feared. As the late games started, we knew that the Packers could no longer get in to the playoffs as a Wild Card, and that they would have to win the division to keep playing. That, in turn, required BOTH a Packer victory over the Broncos, AND a Vikings loss to Arizona. Not bloody likely, I thought.

Oh, and to complete the ominous picture, when I went out to get the newspaper Sunday morning, I noticed that my Packer flag was missing. The flag and the flagpole were both missing, even though I moved the bracket much higher after the flag was stolen by (I assume) a 49ers fan a few years ago.

This time, the perpetrator would have either had to give a boost to an accomplice, or maybe jump just high enough to grab the lowest part of theflag as it hung. That is probably what happened, since the bracket was broken in the crime, suggesting that the flag and pole were pulled until the bracket broke. This time, was the thief a 49ers fan? A Raiders fan? Who knows. But my feeling was that this was a bad omen, since I always fly thePacker flag the day of a game.

Still, the Cardinals were leading the Vikings 6-0 in the first half, making all of us feel as if a miracle could happen. But then it was 7-6, then 14-6, and then 17-6 Vikings, with the time on the clock ticking away. Meanwhile, the Packers were beating the Broncos B squad, and when Ahman Green took off on his 98-yard touchdown jaunt, followed by the strip on the kickoff for another touchdown, it was obvious that more attention was neededto the Vikings game than to the Packer game. So I went into the other room,to watch the Vikings game on our second satellite receiver, because my wife hates it when I switch back and forth between games. So she watched the Packer game, I watched the Vikings game, training my full powers of negative energy on the Vikings players on the screen, and I would yell updates to her from the other room.

ME: "The Cardinals just scored a touchdown!"

JUDY: "Great, stay in there, keep working."

ME: "They missed the 2-point conversion."

JUDY: "Too bad, stay in there, keep working."

And on and on. I confirmed around the time of the onside kick that Judy is even more superstitious about Packer games than I am. When I told her that the Cardinals got the onside kick, I yelled that she should come in and watch the Vikings game with me. But no way! Things were going well, so she would stay exactly where she was, despite how utterly compelling the action was on the screen I was watching. Obviously, all of us were really starting to think that this thing might happen, when the second down sack, and then the third down sack and fumble happened. Oh, it was all just a horrible tease. They got so close to winning the game, but now it was fourth down,the clock was ticking toward zero, and, let's be honest, what are the chances of a game-winning, fourth and 24 touchdown pass on the last play of the last game of the season that knocks one team out of the playoffs and puts another one in? (Seriously, what ARE the chances? One in 1,000? Onein 10,000?)

Fortunately, the clock was running, so there were only a few seconds to contemplate those awful odds before McCown rolled right and unleashed that Favre-like toss to the end zone. Poole caught it (the catch reminded me just a little of the Dwight Clark touchdown catch against the Cowboys back in 1981), and was shoved out of bounds as he came down. I don't know about you, but I don't have a high degree of confidence that he could have gotten that second foot down inbounds. But by shoving him, the defensive back changed the equation, requiring the referee to make an instant judgment call, which he made in favor of a touchdown. I instantly thought to myself "Thank goodness that judgment calls like that are not reviewable." Anyway, after hearing me scream that the Cardinals won and the game was over, Judy came in to watch the replay of the touchdown. Then we noticed that the officials were reviewing the play, so she turned right around to wait in the other room. I was terrified that I was wrong, and that the judgment call WAS reviewable, but it turned out they were just checking to see if he maintained possession, which he clearly did.

A couple more thoughts. Later, I watched the tape of end of the Packer game, since I had missed it while watching the Vikings game. I was astonished by what a poor job the CBS crew did of keeping the viewers informed of what was happening in the Vikings game. Obviously, the announcers had given up on that game. With 9:10 left in the Packer game, the little box in the corner of the screen showed Vikings, 17-12. That was a big development, but the announcers said nothing about it for more than five minutes. They were too busy telling us the story about "old hammerhead", then showing the scoring plays from the Packer game, then just talking about other inconsequential things while a major story was developing in Arizona. I gather from what I have read that the Packers radio crew was doing a better job of giving play-by-play of both games at once, so the people in the stands, despite Mike Sherman's Vikings blackout, had a better idea of what was going on than the TV viewers around the country.

Also, not to wish bad things on another team or anything, but can you imagine a more perfect way for the season to end, from the standpoint of a Packer fan? The hated rival Vikings complete one of the most epic collapses ever seen, 2000 miles away, by getting knocked out of the playoffs in favor of the Packers, on the last play of the last game. That is just too sweet for words, and it will not be forgotten any time soon.

And now, the Packers play on, hosting the Seahawks, who will bring lots of old friends with them, including Mike Holmgren, Ray Rhodes, and Matt Hasselbeck. It will be nice and cold, and it will probably snow during the game. There are more story lines in this game than in any other game this weekend. Which is a good thing, since I will be missing all the other games in transit to and from Wisconsin to see this one. As many have remarked, it seems as if something special is going on with the Packers right now, and so this game is not to be missed.

On one hand, it is not possible to have as much confidence in a Packer home playoff victory as we all had a year ago when it could be said that the Packers had never lost such a game in their entire history. But, as Mike Sherman said in the locker room Sunday, there is a big difference this year. The team is on the upswing, they have showed a lot of character by playing their way back into the playoff picture, and their best football of the year is being played right now, perhaps in part because of the emotion of Brett Favre's personal tragedy. Last year, the opposite was true, and so maybe we should not have been so shocked when they lost to the Falcons. Plus, thePackers are much healthier this year than last at this time. All of these factors point to a Packers victory. Probably something like Packers 28, Seahawks 20.

Dave McGinniss and the Cardinals deserve a slap on the back. When so many other teams were packing it in for one reason or another, including Shanahan's Broncos and Erickson's 49ers, the Cardinals played the game as if it was actually important to try to win the game. Which, for the Packers, it certainly was.

My New Year's resolution for the Packers. Now that you have been the beneficiary of the miracle in the desert, let's see if you can make the most of the gift. And try to win enough games next year that you don't need to rely on another miracle.

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.

Doing Things the Hard Way

My Mom would sometimes say that I liked to do things the hard way. I suppose there is some truth to that. But if she thought I had this tendency, she should have seen the 2003 Green Bay Packers. During the course of this season, the Packers have lost games on the road to 2 of the worst teams in the league, the Arizona Cardinals and the Detroit Lions. They have also lost home games to 2 of the (arguably) best teams in the league, when they had the upper hand but let games against the Chiefs and Eagles get away from them. I still have trouble believing the Packers really lost that game against the Chiefs.

I realize that almost every team can play this mind game almost every year, but just imagine if the Packers had beaten the Cardinals and the Lions, or if they had not let the Chiefs game and the Eagles game get away. They would be leading the division at 9-4, with a realistic hope of a bye week in the playoffs, if not home field advantage. If they had won all 4 of these games, they would be tied for the best record in the league at 11-2.

Of course, Packer fans who have watched the games know that these Packers are not playing like an 11-2 team, or even (at least most of the time) like a 9-4 team. But, in doing things the hard way this year, they have put a lot of pressure on themselves in these last 3 weeks of the season. They are a game out of first place to the Vikings, and if the Vikings beat the Bears in the cold this weekend, the Packers will also have screwed up any chance at having a tie-breaker advantage against the Vikings, since the Vikings will finish their NFC North games with a better divisional record. The Packers also trail the Seahawks and Cowboys by a game for a wild-card spot, although at least in this instance, the Packers have the tie-breaker advantage locked up against the Seahawks because of the Packers' victory over the Seahawks in week 5 of the season.

So, what lies ahead for the Packers? Two road games against 2 of the worst teams in the league, the Chargers and the Raiders, followed by a home game (now anything but an automatic win) against a good Denver Broncos team. The Packers could lose any or even all of those games, but to have a real shot at the playoffs, they must win all of them. If they do, I think they will get into the playoffs. I think Seattle (itself a bad team on the road) will lose this Sunday at St. Louis. And I would not be shocked if the Vikings lose to the Bears on Sunday, although I am not really expecting it. Both the Vikings game and Seahawks games will be just about over by the time of the kickoff in San Diego. In all likelihood, there will be good news in at least one of those games. Maybe, just maybe, the Packers will manage for a change to win a game when they have a chance to move into a tie for a playoff slot.

Lions and Chargers and Bears . . .

. . . Oh, my!

The Packers played things just about right against the 49ers on Sunday. On defense, they decided to blitz more than they have all year, to see if the 49ers' young quarterback could be rattled. Turns out he could, and was, so the Packers kept it up, with nice results all day long except for the 4th down touchdown to Terrell Owens. On offense, it was Green, Davenport and Fisher as the main course, with the bomb to Javon Walker as the appetizer. And what a tasty appetizer it was! Just like that, the Packers about doubled their longest pass of the year so far. Especially since the injury to Favre's thumb, they have not even tried many long passes, and those they have tried have been incomplete or intercepted. So it was a welcome development for Favre to complete a long pass for a touchdown. If nothing else, it serves to remind defensive coordinators that they cannot completely ignore the pass while trying to stop the Packers' now-dominant-like-the-1960s running game. As Favre said after the game, the Packers knew they would run the ball a lot, and the 49ers knew the Packers would run the ball a lot, and yet they just could not stop the running game.

But the main point of this short article is to send out a note of caution about over-confidence. Sure, the Packers have won 3 of the last 4 games, dispatching a couple of playoff teams from last year, as well as the division-leading Vikings. Sure, the Packers only face one team with a winning record the rest of the year (the Broncos, now 6-5, at Lambeau Field in the last week of the season). Barring major injuries to the Packers, they will be favored in every game for the rest of the year. But when facing the Lions and Chargers and Bears of the league, the Packers are vulnerable to that old bugaboo of over-confidence. All of these teams are also professionals, some of them will be highly-motivated to pull off an upset (e.g. the Lions in their traditional Thanksgiving Day game), and with Favre's thumb being what it is, it would be a good idea to put these opponents away early, not let up, and not rely on the
possibility of coming from behind at the end.

The Packers' last trip to Detroit on Thanksgiving is a good example. In the 2001 season, the Packers were (as they are now) a much better team than the Lions. The Packers cruised to a 29-13 lead in that game, before turning on the auto-pilot for the rest of the game. The result: the Lions got back into the game with a touchdown and 2-point conversion, to make it 29-21. They then recovered the onside kick, and scored another touchdown with 10 seconds left. Only a missed 2-point conversion prevented the game from being tied. Nobody needs that kind of indigestion on Thanksgiving!

Best wishes to everyone for a Happy Thanksgiving, a Packer victory, and no indigestion.

49er Week

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things Getting Interesting

Well, things are getting pretty interesting around the NFC North. Going into last week's game, the Vikings were leading the division at 6-1, the Packers were 3-4, and the Packers were almost certain to lose the Sunday night game to the Vikings. It was in the dome, Favre's personal house of horrors, and with a broken thumb, yet. I really could not think of a reasonable scenario under which I could convince myself that the Packers would win the game.

Plus, I was in New York with my kids, and despite the Eastern time zone start, I figured I would miss a good chunk of the game. I just hoped that there would be something worth watching by the time I got back to the hotel.

I made good use of my cell phone checking the score with my wife, and when I rolled into the hotel in the third quarter, amazingly, the Packers were leading, 20-17. I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of the game, including Favre's "bat out of hell" block on Ahman Green's run. (I call it that because he took off like a bat out of hell, just aching to get a block. And what a block it was.) I also loved Javon Walker's touchdown catch of the ball thrown, probably intentionally, a bit behind him. And when I eventually saw his other TD, the one where he cut back to the right to get into the end zone, I liked that one even better.

So, the Packers pulled within two games of the Vikings. My brother-in-law called me early Monday morning, on my way to the airport, to say "Just when you are about ready to count the Packers out, they pull out a game like that." And he certainly is right. I had prepared myself for the Packers' loss, and realistically, that would have knocked them out of playoff contention. And then they won, under the most improbable circumstances.

And now, as I type this, the Vikings are in the process of losing their third game in a row, which will leave them at 6-3, while a Packer victory tomorrow night would bring them to 5-4. Now THAT would be interesting.Which means, of course, they probably will lose. But sitting here today, there is reason to hope that the Packers can pull within one game tomorrow night. That is much more than I would have expected just eight days ago. I can't wait for the game.

Bye Week

Dateline: Philadelphia, PA. I am here in Philadelphia to scout out the Packers' upcoming opponent, the Eagles. In our pre-game meeting with the Eagles tonight, they told me . . . .

OK, I made that up. Except for the part about being here in Philadelphia. I am here for a firm meeting, which ended early this afternoon. As a bunch of us were standing outside the small conference room where we had finished up a small break-out meeting, who walked by? Vinny Testaverde, Chad Pennington, Phil Simms and others I did not recognize. The Jets are here to play the Eagles tomorrow, and I gather that Simms must be broadcasting the game. So he was going in for the pre-game meeting, not me, and it was with the Jets, not the Eagles. Pennington, in case you are interested, is still wearing a small, soft, removable cast on his hand, and I gather that the Jets plan to get him some playing time tomorrow.

Ah, yes, Chad Pennington. The guy who got the Packers started down their slippery slope last year. In the 9 games since that count, starting with that game, the Packers have gone 3-6. But I imagine they will turn it around after the bye week, and will probably run the table to finish 12-4.

Oops - daydreaming again. I really have to stop doing that. The truth is, the Packers are more likely to finish 0-9 than 9-0. Not that they will do either. They will probably end up something like 8-8, just like the bad old Forrest Gregg days.

The Packers just don't seem to have what it takes to win consistently. The single thing they seem to need most is some pass rush. They never have any pass rush unless they blitz, NEVER! In this league, without at least some occasional non-blitz pressure on the quarterback, you are not going to win a lot of games. The result is that they are wasting one of the last years, if not the last year, of Favre's career, which is a shame.

At this point, I think about the most one can hope for is some positive momentum by the end of the year. Maybe a nice 3 or 4 game winning streak, sufficient to convince Favre that it is worth returning for another year or two. I suppose they might even make the playoffs, although I would not count on it.