Jarret Boykin, blocking the punt before it is kicked |
At times over the years, I have almost succumbed to the delusion that the Packers-Bears rivalry is not such a big deal as it used to be. After all, the Packers have dominated the Bears for more than 20 years now, starting with Mike Holmgren and Brett Favre, and continuing under Mike McCarthy and Aaron Rodgers. Favre's record against the Bears was 22-10, and I am almost surprised that his winning percentage wasn't higher. I think a different figure was presented on the Sunday night broadcast, but I counted the games myself, and Rodgers' record is 12-3, including the NFC Championship game in 2010. So the aggregate record is now 34-13 over 23 seasons.
But saying that the rivalry is no longer a big deal is lunacy. The Packers-Bears rivalry has everything going for it. The David and Goliath aspect - the smallest town franchise in major sports against one of the great American big cities. The fact that the teams are only a couple of hundred miles away from each other. The fact that they are in the same division and play each other twice a year. The sneering "Cheesehead" slur by Bears fans that was turned into a thriving business by Foamation. Let's not forget that it is the oldest rivalry in the NFL, and that the Packers and Bears are numbers 1 and 2 in total NFL Championships (the Packers are number 1, of course). I can well remember the years when a Packers losing season could be salvaged by beating the Bears at least once. And I think the shoe is now on the other foot.
Most Packers fans under their mid-50's have never witnessed a more lopsided win over the Bears than the Packers achieved Sunday night. But I am older than that, and in fact my dad took me to my very first Packers game in 1962, when the Packers beat the Bears 49-0 at Lambeau Field. Somewhere, buried deep in a box of stuff, I even have a black and white snapshot I took in the stands that day. So I have a little history with the Packers and the Bears, including having lived in the Chicago area for a couple of years, and having a daughter who lives there now.
If you think the rivalry is not that important, then consider that Lovie Smith was brought to Chicago with the explicit, number one goal, of beating the Packers. I didn't remember that the idea of trading for Jay Cutler was also about beating the Packers, but the announcers mentioned that Sunday night. Irony alert: his record is now 1-11 against the Packers. And wasn't Marc Trestman, the "boy genius," also brought in to upgrade the offense, in order to beat the Packers?
Still not convinced? How about the fact that one Chicago Tribune columnist thinks that Marc Trestman should have been fired at halftime? Or what about the Packer fan who ordered a customized Packers jersey, number 6, Cutler?
So yes, upon further review, Sunday night's destruction of the Bears was a big deal. I am sure I am missing some of the records that were set or tied, but they included: Rodgers set an NFL record by throwing his 16th TD pass of 70 yards or more; Rodgers had his first career game with 4 TD passes in the first half; Rodgers tied Daryle Lamonica's record by throwing 6 TD passes in a half; Rodgers became the first player to throw 10 TD passes and no interceptions against a single team in a single season; the Packers set a team record for points scored against the Bears; the Packers set the record for most points scored against the Bears in one half; the 42 point halftime lead was the second largest halftime lead in history; and (this one is my favorite) the Bears became the first team to allow 50+ points in successive games since the 1923 Rochester Jeffersons.
The most interesting development in the Bears game was the Packers having moved Clay Matthews to inside linebacker for the majority of his snaps. Everybody knows that the Packers' defense has had a problem with the running game all season long. Prior to Sunday's game, the Packers had given up an average of 153 rushing yards per game, and never gave up less than 108 rushing yards. By lining up Matthews inside, everything changed, and the Packers gave up only 55 rushing yards to the Bears. That just cannot be a coincidence, although there are two factors in the Bears game that may not apply in any other game: the element of surprise, and the fact that the Packers got up so far so fast, thus taking the Bears out of their normal mix of running and passing plays.
But the Packers have no time to rest on their laurels. This Sunday, the high-flying Eagles come to town, ready to match their no-huddle offense against that of the Packers. A few weeks ago, I would have seen this game as a loss for the Packers. Then, after QB Nick Foles was knocked out with a collarbone injury, I thought the Packers had a much better chance. But then when I watched the Eagles lay waste to the Panthers on Monday night behind backup Mark Sanchez, I started to be concerned again.
But after re-watching both the Packers game and the Eagles game, I am cautiously optimistic about the Packers' chances. While the Eagles ran up the score to 31-7 in the first half, they did this with the benefit of 4 turnovers by the Panthers, an additional turnover on downs, and 5 sacks against the hobbled Cam Newton. I don't expect the Packers to be similarly generous to the Eagles, and I also have trouble believing that Mark Sanchez, even with the high-powered Eagles offense, will be able to keep pace with Aaron Rodgers and the Packers. I would guess that the game will be high-scoring, but that the Packers will come out on top.
I forgot to add one thing to this post. The Packers are in need of a "statement" game. They haven't really beaten any good teams yet. The only playoff contender they have beaten is the Dolphins (I refuse to treat the 3-6-1 Panthers as a playoff contender). Whereas they have lost to playoff contenders Seattle, Detroit and New Orleans. An excellent time to make that statement would be Sunday, against the Eagles.
ReplyDeleteI married a Bear fan. After we met, the first Packer/Bear game we watched together was the one Don Majkowski won in the final seconds with a pass the Bears still claim was over the line of scrimmage. My wife still puts up Bear decorations and I don't mind because it's almost sad seeing her hopes crushed year after year. Almost.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - as you might have seen in last week's post, I was at the Instant Replay game. It is actually one of only a handful of Bears games I have attended. "Almost sad." I chuckled. I was lucky enough to marry a Packers fan. It makes life much easier.
DeleteExcellent article. I had posted same question on my packers fan club page.In way i kinda miss the tougher games that we won instead of just the utter destruction of a team we are seeing now. Im goona link ur article to my page if it is ok.
ReplyDeleteBarry - of course, feel free to link. Thanks for your comment.
DeleteThose 1923 Rochester Jefferrsons were a really bad team. They had difficulty fielding enough players and had received special dispensation from the league to line up with less than 11 players. They often played with nine and ten men. So this puts the 2013 Chicago Bears in pretty rare company.
ReplyDeleteDick - I assume you are making that stuff up. But I am too lazy to check your facts. Bro-in-law Bruce and son are going to game tomorrow. I assume you are not, since it is a Gold Game?
Delete