NFC Championship Preview

Mike McCarthy, in his post-game speeches and in his press conferences, has described how he has talked to his team about playing 16 quarters of football. (For example, here.) They have now finished 8 quarters, and have the opportunity to play another 4 quarters on Sunday. I like this way of putting it. It is, in one sense, just a variation of the old "we play one game at a time" notion, but with two improvements. The first improvement is that it keeps the players' eyes on the ultimate goal - to win the Super Bowl. It is not just about playing the next game, but about completing all 16 quarters. The other thing is: by speaking in terms of quarters rather than games, at least subtly the point is made that you have to play complete games, all four quarters of each of the four games.

I wonder if McCarthy talks about 16 quarters, in part, as a reminder to himself, that he should not go into a shell in the third or fourth quarter with a lead. I criticized him earlier in the year for this, and as recently as the Eagles wild-card game. At some level, I think McCarthy realizes that he has to fight the impulse to go into "protect the lead" mode, and so the "16 quarters" idea also emphasizes to him that he has to make four quarters of play calls in each game, and not just three quarters.

Which brings us to the NFC Championship game. Packers and Bears, for a trip to the Super Bowl. A veritable avalanche of articles and blog posts this week discuss how monumental this game is, and it would be hard to disagree. This is a game we will remember for the rest of our lives, win or lose. Sure would be better to be on the winning side.

The Packers lost to the Bears in week 3, and they barely beat the Bears in week 17. So, not to belabor the obvious, but clearly the Packers could lose this game. But when I try to analyze the teams, I don't see any reason that the Packers should lose this game. The Bears have a better running game than the Packers, although James Starks helps a lot, even if he doesn't even the score. The Bears have better special teams than the Packers. The defenses, even though very different in approach, and with different strengths, could at best be called even, although in reality the Packers' defense has been more productive and more consistent. (Consider that the Bears only scored 16 offensive points against the Packers in their two games, i.e., an average of 8 points per game.) The Packers' passing game is far superior to the Bears, and even though Jay Cutler looks pretty good at times, he is not an elite quarterback, and Aaron Rodgers is. Overall, the Packers' offense is better and much more consistent than the Bears' offense.

The Packers lost the game in Chicago mostly because of a flurry of penalties. They also gave up a punt return touchdown to Devin Hester and a couple of turnovers did not help. Since that game, the Packers have improved dramatically on the penalty front and they at least have a plan (as shown three weeks ago) to keep Devin Hester in check. In the home game three weeks ago, the game may have been close, but it was really only as close as it was by virtue of several overthrown passes, a fumble by Driver, and a great interception by Charles Tillman.

So I think the Packers will win this game, and it might not be close. I would predict a score of something like 24-14. I understand that Willie Davis will be the honorary captain for the Packers. That seems fitting. Both defenses in this game will be important factors in the outcome of the game, and Hall of Fame defensive end Willie Davis was a great Green Bay Packer.

Still Flying High

"I've been following football for 50 years. This was the greatest individual performance in a playoff game I have ever seen."

Mike Ditka, on Aaron Rodgers' performance in routing the Falcons last night, 48-21, on Sunday's NFL Countdown on ESPN. That is a hell of a statement from our old rival, Da Coach.

As of eight days ago, Aaron Rodgers' playoff record was 0-1 and some TV talking heads were suggesting that he can't win big games. Eight days later, his record is 2-1, and he has racked up some of the gaudiest playoff statistics imaginable for a young player who is really just coming into his own. And he did it in three games, all on the road, and (in the case of the two games this year) without two players who were expected to be among his most potent weapons this year, Ryan Grant and Jermichael Finley.

If he stays healthy, Aaron Rodgers could be fun to watch for a long time to come. And the Packers may have the best quarterback transition since Joe Montana gave way to Steve Young. Here are a couple of interesting stats. In all his playoff games, Brett Favre threw for over 300 yards 4 times, and the most yards he ever had in a playoff game was 331, in a loss to Dallas after the 1993 season. Rodgers has thrown for more yards than that in 2 of his 3 playoff games. Meanwhile, in all his playoff games, Brett Favre threw 44 touchdowns, as against 30 interceptions. No, it was not just our imagination that he threw an awful lot of interceptions. Aaron Rodgers has thrown for 10 touchdowns and 1 interception in his 3 playoff games.

Aaron Rodgers Career Playoff Statistics
Game	Attempts	Comp.	Yards	TDs	INTs
@ Arizona 1-10-10	28	42	423	4	1
@ Philadelphia 1-9-11	18	27	180	3	0
@ Atlanta 1-15-11	31	36	366	3	0
TOTALS	77	105	969	10	1

And then there was Tramon Williams. He sealed the win last week against Philadelphia with a leaping interception on the left side of the end zone. Last night, he had a mirror-image interception on the right side of the end zone late in the second quarter, to keep the game tied at 14-14. The Packers took the ball, went on one of their four touchdown drives of 80 yards or more, and went ahead by the score of 21-14. The Falcons tried hard to tie it up or at least get a field goal before the half, aided by a couple of defensive penalties against the Packers. They got as close as the Packers' 26, but a very timely Clay Matthews sack backed them up to the 35, and forced the Falcons to use their last time out. With 10 seconds left in the half, the Falcons decided to try to get a few extra yards on an out pattern, to make the field goal attempt a little shorter. The problem was, everybody knew the pass had to go to the sideline, including Tramon Williams, who recognized the formation, read the play perfectly, intercepted the ball at the 30, put a move on Matt Ryan and one other Falcon, and took the ball in for a 70 yard touchdown return on the final play of the half. Now that is a prime time play by a prime time player.

All in all, you could say that Aaron Rodgers and Tramon Williams have made a pretty good case for why they should have been selected to the Pro Bowl. Then again, with one more win, they would not be able to play in the Pro Bowl this year anyway.

More on the NFC Championship Game later this week. But here is a great little fact I just heard on the NFL Network. If the Packers play the Bears in the Championship Game next week (which I expect - this article is being wrapped up just as the Bears game is about to start), it will be the first playoff game between the Packers and the Bears since the 1941 Western Division Championship Game.

A family note. My brother Bruce and his family decided to go down to Atlanta for the game, and evidently had a fabulous time - much better than when they went to the last Falcons game down there. I await his pictures from the game.

Preview of Falcons Game

The big question is, can the Packers keep things rolling against the Falcons, and roll on to the NFC Championship Game (most likely in Chicago)? Since the Packers played at Atlanta a mere seven weeks ago, that game is an excellent place to start.

The Packers lost that game, 20-17, when Matt Bryant kicked the game-winning field goal in the final seconds. How did they get there? Well, both Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan played excellent games, with very few incomplete passes, no interceptions, and one touchdown pass each. The Packers had no running game (Aaron Rodgers was the leading rusher for the Packers), while the Falcons got 110 yards and a touchdown out of Michael Turner. Everyone acknowledges that Turner got a big assist from the Packers' defense, which had a very bad day in only one category - tackling the guy with the ball.

One way to look at it is that the big difference in the game was two turnovers by the Packers. In the second quarter, the Packers got the ball to the Atlanta one yard line, before the ball was knocked out of Rodgers' hand, where it bounced into the end zone and was recovered by the Falcons. The Packers lost either three or seven points on that fumble, and they lost the game by three points. So that was a big turnover. And then in the fourth quarter, from the Atlanta 41, Rodgers' fourth-down pass to Driver was incomplete, just barely. The Packers were not yet in field goal range at the 41, but they were getting close.

The Falcons have had the advantage of getting a week off, plus their last couple of games didn't involve much pressure, since (I believe) they already had a bye wrapped up. So they should be rested and ready. Occasionally you see one of these second round playoff games where the team that had a bye seems rusty, but overall the record of teams that had a bye is excellent. (One source says that teams with a bye have won 75% of the time since 1990.)

On the other hand, in the seven weeks since the last Packers-Falcons game, the Packers have had some ups and downs, including heartbreaking losses to the Lions and Patriots. But on the positive side:

• They have now won three must-win games in a row, a laugher against the Giants, and uncomfortably close games against the Bears and Eagles. (While winning must-win games is a good thing, it causes one to wonder when they might get to the point that they are running out of gas.)
• They have cleaned up their penalty problem quite a bit in recent weeks, being called for roughly half the penalties in recent games, as compared to the prior Falcons game.
• The Packers have dialed up the pressure on defense in most of the games since the Falcons game, with generally favorable results. In the Falcons game, based on a quick review, the Packers were more passive on defense.
• In the last few weeks, based in part on more continuity on special teams, the Packers have finally started giving up fewer big plays on special teams. A big kickoff return, aided and abetted by a Packer facemask penalty, was a huge factor at the end of the Falcons game.
• Finally, if James Starks is for real, the Packers may finally have found a running game again, which would be enormously beneficial to the offense this week.

How do all these things balance out? Well, it makes sense that the Falcons are favored by a couple of points. They are the number one seed in the NFC, they had a bye week to get healthy, and they are playing at home. But the two teams were very closely matched the first time, and the Packers have improved in the ways noted above. I think the Packers will win this game, but like almost all Packer games, it will be close.

Eagles Down, Falcons Coming Up

The Packers started the 2010 season by beating the Eagles in Philadelphia by the score of 20-17. This was a big win for the Packers, because they had not won in Philadelphia since 1962. The game started story lines for each team that would last the whole year. In the case of the Packers, Ryan Grant and Justin Harrell were knocked out for the season, beginning a long list of players who ended up on injured reserve. In the case of the Eagles, the Packers did them a favor, of sorts, by knocking starting quarterback Kevin Kolb out of the game, which led to Michael Vick eventually claiming the starting quarterback position, where he proceeded to lead the Eagles to 10 wins and the division crown. But it wasn't easy - Vick led a comeback for the Eagles, and it took a 4th down stop, in Packer territory in the final two minutes to seal the win.

This week, the Packers supplied the other bookend to the Eagles season by sending them home for the offseason by the score of 21-16. This was the first Packer playoff win in Philadelphia (or anywhere else), ever. If James Jones had better hands (he dropped what would likely have been a long touchdown pass late in the second quarter), or if the Packers had better play calling when trying to grind down the clock, this game might not have been so close. But as it was, it required another stop in the final minute to ensure the win. This time, it came in the form of a game-sealing interception by Tramon Williams in the final minute of the game. (Photo by Evan Siegle of the Green Bay Press-Gazette.)

As a footnote to the Tramon Williams interception, my joy at seeing him come down with the ball was immediately replaced with a second or two of abject terror. He was not touched as he went to the ground in the end zone, and he popped up and began sauntering out of the end zone. It was clear from his body language that he was not intending to run the ball out of the end zone, he was just running to celebrate. But the ball was live, and he apparently did not realize it. So he could have spiked the ball in celebration, or perhaps flipped the ball in the direction of the official, and in either case this would be treated as a fumble, possibly turning the ball back to the Eagles. Fortunately, Charlie Peprah realized what was happening, and got Williams to go to the ground, where Peprah and Nick Collins surrounded him to make sure that nobody could reach in and pull out the ball. Take a look at the video, here.

On offense, it seems to me that there were two keys to this game. The first, and one that augurs well for next week, was the re-discovery of a running game. On the second series, James Starks established what Mike McCarthy called the hot hand, and became the main running back for the rest of the game. He had 23 carries for 123 yards, and added a couple of pass receptions. The running game has been missing in action since Ryan Grant was knocked out. If Starks can consistently gain yards on the ground, that might be just the missing link we have been looking for.

The second key was the 80 yard drive the Packers mounted in the third quarter, immediately after Rodgers fumbled, and the Eagles scored quickly, to make it 14-10. The Packers got the ball back, and put together an 11 play, 80 yard drive, eating up over 6 minutes, and ending with a beautiful screen pass for a touchdown to Brandon Jackson. The Eagles had just gotten a turnover turned into a touchdown, and the momentum of the game might have shifted to the Eagles, but for the Packers' 80 yard drive.

Improvement is still needed. The Packers' receivers have just got to stop dropping balls that would have been touchdown passes. James Jones is the worst offender, but in other games other receivers have dropped TD passes as well. That kind of inconsistency can be a killer in any given game. And while, on the whole, I like the way the Packers called the game, on both offense and defense, I still have a problem with the cautiousness with which they approached the game while protecting the lead late in the game. On every possession after the Packers went ahead 21-10, with 22.5 minutes left in the game, the Packers ran on every 1st down and on every second down. That might conceivably work if the Packers had an overwhelmingly dominant running game. But they don't. It gets a lot easier to play defense if you can predict what your opponent will do on every 1st and 2nd down play. It is no coincidence that the Packers never crossed midfield after adopting this approach. Only great defense preserved the game for the Packers - since the Packers' offense did nothing in the last quarter and a half of the game.

Wild Card Weekend Pregame Thoughts

This is the oddest and most interesting stat I have heard in some time: the Packers never trailed, in any game all season, by more than 7 points. (Source here.) They are the only team in the NFL for which that is true, and the Packers as a team have never done this since the NFL-AFL merger. This might be less surprising if the Packers were 13-3 or 14-2, but for a 10-6 team? Almost unthinkable. So when we say that the Packers' defense is good enough to keep them in contention in every game, I guess I frankly did not realize how true that is. The flip side is that the Packers are losing a lot of very close games, but I think that is something we already realized.

I watched the abbreviated NFL Network version of the Week 1 Packer win over the Eagles last night. When Kevin Kolb was knocked out of the game, the Packers were obviously not prepared for Vick to be the full-time quarterback, as opposed to running a few wildcat plays here and there. Interestingly, they did not put that much pressure on him, blitzing on only a handful of plays. I have to think that this is more the result of not having a game-plan for Vick, rather than a return to the 2009-style Packer defense, where opposing quarterbacks (mostly the elite ones) were treated with kid gloves. In the 15 games since, the Packers have put lots of pressure on opposing quarterbacks, including the elite and the not-so-elite. So I don't think there is any doubt that the Packers will come after Vick on Sunday with some specially-designed, Michael Vick pressure plays from Dom Capers. That is not necessarily all good, since Vick has scrambling abilities that most opposing quarterbacks do not. But my hunch is that the pressure will cause more problems for Vick and the Eagles than it will for the Packers' defense. Vick was getting knocked around quite a bit in the last month or so of the season, and I doubt if he is 100% going into the game. He is probably a little less nimble, and a little more anxious about getting hit, than he would be if he were fully healthy.

The best news is that the Packers seem to realize that sitting back in coverage most of the time will not cut it. In the 2010 season, my perception is that the Packers blitzed more frequently than in 2009, especially against the elite quarterbacks. I am sure somebody keeps these year-over-year stats, but I have not seen them, so I am relying on my perception. But this week I saw some quotes from Charles Woodson that suggests the players (and, by extension, the coaches) are well aware of the need for more pressure than they applied last year:

“(Being aggressive is) very important. We know what we’re going up against,” said Woodson, who blitzed more than a dozen times last Sunday against Chicago’s Jay Cutler and finished with a sack, eight tackles and three pass deflections. “We know that dynamic that Vick is. He’s a very big part of what they’re doing right now. He makes a lot of plays with his feet, but we’ve got to make sure we stay aggressive and make him run if he has to and make sure that we do our job in the back end. But aggressive, that’s the way we like to play.

"I don't think anybody on our team believes we played aggressive enough (against the Cardinals). We kind of took what they gave us. So this year is not going to be that way."

Now that is music to my ears.

By the Skin of Their Teeth

Well, that game against the Bears was certainly nerve-wracking. It took a 4th quarter touchdown for the Packers to win the game by the score of 10-3. After playing their most complete game of the year last week against the Giants, "all" the Packers needed was to beat the Bears, at Lambeau Field, to assure a spot in the playoffs. And the Bears had wrapped up a bye last week. And by game time, the Bears must have known that the Falcons had won, locking up the no. 1 seed, so that the Bears had no chance of improving their playoff spot in this game.

But this is one of the oldest rivalries in the NFL. And Bears coach Lovie Smith had been saying all week that he would play his starters for the whole game, and that they were going to try to win the game and knock the Packers out of the playoffs. Hats off to Lovie Smith, who must not have gone to the Bill Belichick school of NFL coaching, and therefore means exactly what he says. I have occasionally fulminated over this business of tanking games in the closing weeks of the season (most recently a year ago this week).

How maddening it would have been for the Giants this week to see their playoff hopes go up in smoke because Lovie Smith and the Bears weren't really trying to win the game. There really is an issue of the integrity of the game involved here, so I must give credit to Smith for playing as if the game mattered, as it certainly did to the Giants and to the Packers, and as it did potentially to the Buccaneers. Of course, the Bears' players might have had ulterior motives. Donald Driver reports that Bears players told him that they did not want to see the Packers in the playoffs, because the Packers have a good team. But ultimately the decision on who stays in the game was Lovie Smith's.

The Packers' defense played a masterful game against the Bears, giving up only 3 points and getting twice as many sacks as they gave up in points. It is a bizarre but interesting stat that shows that the Packers lost 6 games this year (and two more in the preseason), and every loss was by either 3 or 4 points, even though the offense sputtered in many of those games. It tells us that this defense is good enough to keep every game close, and to give the Packers a chance to win every game. Which is exactly what they did this week. Due to a combination of strong play by the Bears' defense, along with an off day by some of the Packers' receivers, and some questionable play-calling on offense, the Packers needed every bit of help they could get from the defense.

In addition to strong contributions from the usual suspects on defense, Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews, the Packers also got a critical red zone interception by Charlie Peprah, and a game-sealing interception by Nick Collins. Most interesting was the contribution by Erik Walden, signed in October, who started Sunday for Frank Zombo at outside linebacker. Zombo, of course, replaced the injured Brad Jones earlier in the season. So the third-string linebacker Walden stepped in to register 2 sacks, 10 tackles and one assist in the game, including the points-saving sack of Cutler on 3rd and goal from the 4 yard line in the second quarter. We have known all year that the Packers have adjusted well to devastating injuries, but Erik Walden is the latest example of the extraordinary depth of this team, not to mention the skill of the coaches in bringing a guy signed off the street up to speed in two months.

On offense, I really have two main issues in this game. Obviously, the Packers' offense was somewhat out of sync, but they did have some success, especially in the first, third and fourth quarters. Dropped balls, Driver's fumble, overthrows by Rodgers, and an athletic interception prevented the Packers from scoring more points. But in the second quarter, I saw way too many empty backfield formations, resulting in one sack and a number of scrambles. I would have thought that the Packers, against this defense, would have known that an empty backfield was a bad idea. The good news is that they must have figured it out, since they abandoned the empty backfield in the second half. And, what do you know, that is when they scored their points!

The other thing is the play-calling in short yardage situations, especially the first time the Packers found themselves at the one yard line. Based on Kuhn's success last week, the "Kuuuhn" chant went up from the crowd, and sure enough, the Kuhn run was stuffed. On second down, Rodgers' pass after a fake QB sneak was low, resulting in the timing being messed up, and then on third down he was sacked. The Bears, who have the second best rushing defense in the league, seemed determined not to let Kuhn beat them, and their rushing defense was up to the task. More good news, though: the Packers seemed to figure this out, too, and the next time they had first and goal at the one, the play-action pass to Donald Lee resulted in an easy touchdown.

In the playoff game against the Eagles, the Packers are going to have to play much better on offense, while keeping the defense and the special teams playing at a high level.

Most Complete Game of the Year?

The Packers turned in one of their best performances of the year in beating the Giants, 45-17. This came despite the fact that the Giants had almost as much at stake as the Packers, and despite the fact that the Giants, presumably, came in with chips on their shoulders after last week's epic collapse against the Eagles. In fact, it was the Packers, and in particular, the offensive line, that played like they had chips on their shoulders. Mike Vandermause, of the Green Bay Press-Gazette argues that this is because everybody was talking about the Giants, and how fearsome their defense was. The Packers' offensive line just used all the talk as motivation to go out and pass protect and run block as if the whole season depended on it. Which it did.

Meanwhile, the Packers' defense might have had some chips on their shoulders as well. Only the Steelers have given up fewer points than the Packers, and the Packers' defense ranks in the top 10 in almost all categories, and in the top 5 in many. Plus, they are ball hawks, as top playmakers Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews showed today. Woodson and Matthews both single-handedly forced turnovers in the game by punching balls out from behind. Hawk, Collins, and Williams added legitimate interceptions, while Sam Shields added another that should have been overturned, but for the fact that Giants coach Tom Coughlin had used his last challenge in a desperate, but futile, attempt to overturn the fumble caused by Clay Matthews.

I would argue that this was in fact the Packers' best game of the year. The only games I could see being argued to be better were the road game against the Vikings, and the home game against the Cowboys. There is no doubt that those games were satisfying, on a number of levels, but they still fall short of this one. First, the Vikings and the Cowboys did not turn out to be very good this year, while the Giants were in the driver's seat for the same wild card the Packers are seeking. Second, the domination in this game was more complete on both sides of the line of scrimmage. It wouldn't be a 2010 Packer game without some moments of discomfort, and indeed when the Giants recovered Jordy Nelson's fumble and immediately tied the game at 14, with an 85 yard touchdown pass to Mario Manningham, I did start to fidget a bit in my seat.

But taken as a whole, it is hard to argue with the offensive domination when Rodgers throws for 404 yards, 4 touchdowns and no interceptions, when both Nelson and Jennings get over 100 yards receiving, Driver makes some highlight-reel catches, and when the Packers cobble together a good semblance of a running game between Jackson, Nance, and Kuuuuuuhn. On the defensive side, the 6 takeaways mentioned above, plus 4 sacks, and the dynamic duo of Bradshaw and Jacobs being held to less than 100 yards combined? Yes, that is a good day. Now if only we had a quality kick returner, and a kicker who can kick the ball somewhere closer to the end zone on a kickoff, we would be the real deal!

In all seriousness, this is a great time to be pulling it all together, if that is really what the Packers are doing. This is two really good performances in a row against high quality opponents. I think the key to the whole thing is smart play-calling by McCarthy and execution by the players. One thing that I noticed even while watching the game live was the increased emphasis on protection for Rodgers. On almost every play there was at least one player, and in many cases two, lined up in the backfield for extra protection. In fact, in re-watching the game, I think there were only two empty backfield plays in the whole game. Plus, Rodgers seemed more conscious of getting rid of the ball quickly when under pressure. That is partly a result of designing the plays with an outlet receiver, but I assume that there have been outlet receivers all year. My perception is that he was more conscious yesterday of going to the outlet to avoid a sack. And on Rodgers' two running plays, he slid on one and went out of bounds on the other. That was smart.

On defense, Dom Capers obviously felt that they could control the Giants' offense without going blitz-crazy. So he picked his spots for blitzes, and relied on three and four-man rushes most of the time to create enough pressure to hurry Manning just enough. In the process, he left enough players in coverage to give the Packers a good shot at defending every pass. In reality, if Charles Woodson had not slipped on the one touchdown pass, and if Tramon Williams had not mis-timed his leap on the other, this game might have been even more lopsided than it was.

The Bears come to town next week, for the second consecutive playoff-type game for the Packers. The Bears will most likely be going for the second seed in the playoffs and the resulting bye week, but even if they are not, they will not mimic the Colts and other teams over the last few years, by resting their starters. Lovie Smith, when he was hired in 2004, stated that he had three goals, the first of which was to beat the Packers. So I fully expect they will be bringing it on Sunday, no matter the situation. I have thought all year long that the Packers are a better team than the Bears. We will see on Sunday. Interestingly enough, if the Packers do make it into the playoffs, there is an excellent chance they will face the Bears again the following week.

New England Heartbreaker

What a disheartening loss last night to the Patriots, 31-27. I admit that I did not give the Packers any chance in this game, which reflects poorly on me, I suppose. But for them to lead the Patriots for much of the game, and have a shot at winning in the final minute, but not to be able to pull it off, was painful to watch.

"Heartbreaking" was the word used independently by both my wife and my daughter to describe the game. We had to start watching this game after it was already going on for about 2 hours, so it was over by the time we were still watching the second quarter. That is a terrible way to watch a game, especially one like this. I was getting text messages from Dick Karth, from my daughter, and from my cousin during the game. Then my daughter and my in-laws called within minutes after the end of the game. All of these messages and calls were ignored, but it was pretty clear to me that something remarkable was going on - either a disaster or a miracle. I was holding out hope for the miracle until the final play.

This morning I got some interesting comments on the game from my old college buddy Dick Karth, before I got around to even starting a game review of my own. I agree with most of Dick's comments, and disagree with others. So I am making Dick the honorary guest columnist of the week. His comments (with very slight editing) are in italics, with my own comments interspersed in regular font. Sort of a point-counterpoint.

In keeping with some of my comments [sent to me by Dick during the game], I was liking what I saw as the game progressed. The opening kickoff surprised New England and their coach. It allowed the GBP to take first blood. Brilliant!

Or, as a family member put it, "I didn't know the Packers were that ballsy." Packer blogger Jersey Al used the same colorful term.

The team played solid ball (pretty much on both offense and defense) through much of the game. There were some dropped balls on both the Packer offense and defense that should have been caught, which would have turn the game into a rout. But nonetheless, in spite of those lapses, the Packers were always in the game.

The drops were just killing me. Nobody is a bigger Charles Woodson fan than I am. 95 times out of a hundred he doesn't drop that interception. I could not believe that he dropped it last night. There were other dropped balls, including by Sam Shields and Jordy Nelson. Sorry, guys, this was a big game. You just have to make those plays.

I think that Flynn did an excellent job in his first real game and against an outstanding team. He was poised. Sure the INT for a TD is a pass he wishes he had back, and might not throw that again in his career. Chris Collinsworth made an interesting comment about a pass Flynn threw to the goal line at the left sideline. Chris said that you can throw that kind of a pass in college ball, even a National Championship game, but you CANNOT throw that kind of a pass in the National Football League! If Flynn learns from those mistakes and is effectively coached while watching the tape, he has a bright future in the NFL.

Collinsworth was right. That particular pass was a mistake, and so were the two interceptions [correction - only one official interception - the other one was called back on a penalty]. But we learned something about Matt Flynn last night - if it comes to it, he can play and give us a chance to win. I don't know why I should be so surprised. Going back to the beginning of the Favre - Holmgren era, we have pretty much always had coaches with great skills developing quarterbacks on the staff, and as a result we have pretty much always had capable backup quarterbacks (even, though, ironically, the last time a backup quarterback started for the Packers before last night was more than 18 years ago).

Then things started to unwind. If I were an NFL GM, I would have a rule ... that if a team or player sets an NFL record against me that is derogatory towards my team, then I'm going to fire the responsible coach. No questions asked. To have the longest return play in NFL history by an offensive lineman be executed against your SPECIAL TEAMS is inexcusable. It would have been bad enough for an offensive lineman to have picked up his own team's fumble on a bumbled running play on a 3rd and 1 or 4th and 1 and to have lumbered (and I stress LUMBERED) 71 yards ... but on a kick-off?

Well, agreed, sort of. We do have recurring problems on special teams, and any neutral observer would have to think seriously about replacing the special teams coach, Shawn Slocum. Having said that, I don't agree with the idea of an automatic rule that says the coach is fired, immediately, if A, B, or C.

The final drive. A fraternity intra-mural team would have looked better out there. When you're playing one of the best team's in the league and you're expected to lose by almost two touchdowns, you know the only way you're likely to win the game is on a drive in the closing two minutes with one or no time outs left.

First, 13 to 15 seconds (two plays?) were squandered after plays ended before the timeout was called. Inexcusable. As the plays ended, the QB and the offensive leaders not directly involved in the play should be looking to the sidelines for time out calling direction. Were they? Or was there indecision on the sidelines? (Would not have surprised me!)

Second. Either the team goes on 60 second drill autopilot with audibles ... or two or three or four plays should be called during the T/O's. Neither apparently happened.

Look. They moved down the field in the final minutes and had a chance to win the game. My biggest criticism of the final drive is clock management. I have often been critical of McCarthy on matters of clock management. From his press conference, ironically, it appears that McCarthy had the right thinking in mind on this drive. That is, he wanted to use up time during the drive so that, if the Packers scored, there would be little time for Brady to work with. That is the right thing to do, so it seems harsh to be too critical. They overdid it, as it turned out, and they certainly wasted time they wish they would have had to play with at the end. But in this instance they were actually trying to do the right thing.

So ... in the end ... while I got excited at times during the game ... I again didn't like what I saw last night.

I guess I was happier with what I saw than Dick was. I did not give the Packers a chance in this game, and they proved me wrong and almost won the game.

The GBP were picked by smart football people at the beginning of the year to be in the Super Bowl. I can see why the smart people picked them for that. They have talent, depth, and they can play well.

More depth than I could possibly have imagined back in September.

But ... they not only almost upset New England (and could have turned it into a rout), they handed the best 2 and 10 or 3 and 10 team in the history of the NFL a four point victory that should have been a Packer victory.

On a brighter note ... this is a team that could back its way into the play-offs, into the Super Bowl, and bring the next Lombardi trophy to Green Bay as one of the few teams with NO home field play-off games during the play-offs ... if they don't beat themselves.

Apparently they don't want to win the Super Bowl the smart and easy way through the front door ... they appear to me to want to win it the dumb and hard way, through the back door.

Well, stranger things have probably happened. And I will obviously be rooting for it. But I don't see the Packers making it to the Super Bowl this year. Might they have done so without the avalanche of injuries? Hard to say, but it sure would help to have Ryan Grant, Jermichael Finley, Nick Barnett, Morgan Burnett, Mark Tauscher and 9 other players around to help out. I have been amazed by the Packers' ability to stay in contention with all these injuries. I argued before the season started that the 2010 Packers were not at the level of the 1996 Packers. If that was right, then it stands to reason that the end of season 2010 Packers are not even close.

Pre-Game Good News

So I was sitting here minding my own business, watching football, when I saw the miraculously impressive come-from-way-behind victory of the Eagles over the Giants, followed in short order by the new powerhouse Lions beating the Buccaneers in overtime. It had seemed to me that it was best for the Eagles to beat the Giants, since we need either the Giants or the Eagles to lose two games, and, given that the Packers play the Giants next week, we are in a better position to ensure that the Giants lose two games than the Eagles.

Bear in mind I was and am assuming that the Packers lose tonight to New England. But when both the Buccaneers and Giants lost, it seemed to me that this has to improve the Packers' chances. So I went over to the ESPN Playoff Machine and started playing out scenarios for the remaining games. To my surprise, in every scenario where the Packers beat the Giants and Bears, the Packers end up in the playoffs. Just as I was wondering if this could possibly be right, the Green Bay Press-Gazette confirmed that it is. So, even assuming that the Packers lose tonight, they have regained control of their playoff destiny. Not bad for a day sitting around watching other games.

Now, it is obvious that with the Packers' injuries, beating the Giants and the Bears could be a tall order. But at least they now have something I did not expect after last week's loss, an unimpeded path to the playoffs.

A Perfect Opportunity. Squandered.

I started writing this while watching the Patriots administering a real beat-down to the Bears. Right. The same beat-down that, when paired with a Packer victory, would pull the Packers back into a tie with the Bears. Whoops!

How many times have we seen something like this? Last year it was the loss to the previously-winless Buccaneers. I wrote about it here. I am aware that almost every team, some time during the year, loses a game that they should win. The Packers are not unique in their vulnerability to bad teams. Heck, the Patriots lost to the Browns this year. But in fairness, the Browns are an up and coming team, now struggling at 5-8. The 3-10 Lions, with more players on Injured Reserve than the Packers, and playing their third-string quarterback yesterday, are not in the same category. Nor were the 0-7 Buccaneers last year when the Packers lost to them.

So, even if the Packers are not uniquely vulnerable, it seems more predictable than with other good teams that they will screw up a game like this at least once every year. I just can't let Mike McCarthy off the hook anymore. Periodically, I feel that he is finally starting to get it in his play calling. Yesterday was not one of those days. From too much emphasis on the non-existent running game, to too much emphasis on long passes when underneath passes were available, to the idiotic play calls on the final drive (running plays on a final, must-score-a-TD drive; long pass on 4th and 1), this was not an impressive effort. I am losing confidence in McCarthy's ability to learn from past mistakes.

Another way to look at this is that, this year at least, the Packers have lost three games to teams with worse records when either Rodgers or Matthews did not play or did not finish the game. Baranczyk and Christl make this point in the Press-Gazette today. This is, perhaps, the flip side of the positive notion that the Packers have done a great job of winning a lot of games despite the devastating impact of all the injuries. That is true in general, but they seem to have a hard time dealing with the absence of their biggest stars. You could point to any number of teams who have not fallen victim to this problem - from the Vikings winning last week behind Tarvaris Jackson, to the Lions beating the Packers yesterday with their third-string quarterback.

Amazingly, the Packers could still win the NFC North, but now it will take some help from our old friends, the Chicago Bears. They looked pretty bad yesterday, but I think that was more about the New England Patriots than it was about the Chicago Bears. As Packer Blogger Jersey Al put it, the Patriots are "executing teams like cold-blooded killers." Oh, great, the Packers face New England next week.