Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Packers are Down, but are they Out?

Photo by Mark Hoffman, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Poof!  That sound you hear just  might be the sound of a promising season blowing up.  When Aaron Rodgers hit the deck hard, with the weight of the tackler on top of him, just like that, the chances that the Packers would make it to the Super Bowl this year were reduced to next to nothing. The 23-10 loss to the rival Vikings seems insignificant when compared to the fact that Aaron Rodgers will be out for most or all of the season.

My own opinion is that it was not in the category of dirty plays or cheap shots.  But you could fairly call it unnecessary roughness, not that a 15 yard penalty would make things any better under the circumstances.

The problems on the offensive line were not directly responsible for the hit, as Rodgers was scrambling as he frequently does to extend plays.  But by the end of the game, three of the offensive linemen who had started the game were on the sideline with injuries, and that fact significantly reduced any chance that backup QB Brett Hundley would pull a "Brett Favre" and be successful in his emergency duty.

Coach McCarthy and the staff have always seemed high on Brett Hundley, and they have had more than two years to get him ready to step in as he must do now.  McCarthy says he is happy with the QBs he has, Brett Hundley as the new starter and Joe Callahan, who has been brought up from the practice squad.  But in fairness, he said the same things 4 years ago about Seneca Wallace and Scott Tolzien, when Rodgers broke his other collarbone, before eventually signing Matt Flynn, who had become available.

But McCarthy needs to give Hundley a chance to succeed.  Watching the game live on Sunday, it appeared to me, and to family members Sam and Judy, that McCarthy had Hundley under too tight a leash.  In re-watching the game, I don't remember a single play where McCarthy had Hundley do anything other than hand off or drop straight back in the pocket.  Not a single rollout, let alone flea-flickers or other imaginative plays!  And yet one of Hundley's strengths is  his athleticism.  Take off the handcuffs and let him play!

And now the inevitable arguments have started about whether the Packers should or should not go out and try to sign Colin KaepernickTony Romo's name comes up, too, but I think signing Romo is highly unlikely.  Given his injury history in recent years, the state of the Packers' offensive line, and the fact that he is getting rave reviews as a member of the CBS broadcast booth, I just can't see him being anxious to put the pads back on.

As to Kaepernick, I don't see it for at least three reasons.  First, as mentioned, the Packers have always been high on Brett Hundley.  My friend Peter tells me that Hundley is the classic over-hyped, over-rated Pac 12 quarterback, who piled up stats against bad defenses, and is a turnover machine.  I don't follow college football, but let's assume Peter is right.  Could McCarthy and his staff have helped to mold and improve Hundley's game in his two-plus years as a member of the Packers?  I certainly hold out hope that he has, and we will begin to find out soon enough, as McCarthy certainly is going to go with Hundley for right  now.  Can we at least give Hundley a week of prep as the starter before hitting the panic button and pulling the plug on him?  The Packers went 2-4-1 in 2013 in the seven games Rodgers missed when he broke his other collarbone.  That was not a good record (barely enough to get them to the playoffs), but in that seven week span they went through Seneca Wallace and Scott Tolzien as starters before re-signing and settling on Matt Flynn.  Flynn went 2-2 in the games he started.  I think Hundley can do better than 2-4-1, but we will see.*
*As an aside, if the Packers are interested in signing some quarterback who has not played in some time, I would rather see them sign Matt Flynn - he is available as a 32-year-old free agent.  The downside is that he has effectively not played in two years.  But on the upside, he at least knows the offense, the coaching staff, and many of the players.
Second, Kaepernick has succeeded in exactly one offense in the NFL, specifically designed around his talents by Jim Harbaugh, and before NFL defenses adjusted to the read option offense.  He has not succeeded in any other offense.  Are the Packers going to re-design their entire offense to suit the skills of one player who, at most, is going to play the next 10 games for the Packers?  Obviously not.  Well then, can Kaepernick quickly learn and adapt to the Packers' existing offense?  There are no data to suggest that he can, based on his past performance.  So it is not enough to say, "well, Kaepernick has won games in the NFL as a starting quarterback, gone to the Super Bowl and to another NFC Championship game, so therefore he can win games for the Packers."  Not all former starting quarterbacks are interchangeable.  With Kaepernick, you end up with a round hole and a square peg. 

In short, I think there are serious questions about his skill set and whether the Packers (or any other team, really, since nobody is running the Harbaugh-Kaepernick read option offense right now) are a natural fit for those skills.  Mike Sando of ESPN has written an interesting article, setting forth his notes over the past 4 years from his discussions with league insiders about Kaepernick.  The takeaway is an increasing level of doubts about how good a quarterback he really is as those years go by, starting well before he became famous for his National Anthem protest.  So my basic argument is that he does not have the right skills and is not a good fit from a football standpoint.

But finally, and I know this will piss some people off, I am arguing that Kaepernick's political activism is not only not a plus, but is a negative, and he would become a distraction if he joined the Packers roster.  I don't care if he is from Wisconsin, and if there is that cute picture of him as a kid in a Favre jersey.  The Packers are the team of the smallest town in the NFL.  They are owned by members of the community, your humble blogger included.  People from Wisconsin have somewhat traditional values and, for the most part, do not appreciate National Anthem protests.  The fans in the stands at the Bears game, for instance, did not seem to have any interest in adopting Aaron Rodgers' compromise suggestion to lock arms during the anthem.

While the National Anthem protests have expanded to have a wider focus than the one originally espoused by Kaepernick, he is the one who started the whole thing in the NFL.  And he was very clear about his motivation: "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color." So others joining in the National Anthem protests, like Martellus Bennett, may not be protesting the flag or the country, but Kaepernick, in his own words, clearly was.  And now he has apparently filed a grievance against the NFL for collusion.  And then there are the socks he wore on the sidelines depicting police as pigs.  And the praise for the Castro regime.  I agree with Boomer Esiason, who said, "This guy's like a tooth ache that just won't go away. . .

If you think all of that is consistent with him being a "Packers person," and a welcome addition to the Packers' locker room, then your definition of the term is very different from mine.

9 comments:

  1. Your analysis is always excellent and you're spot on about Kaepernick in every respect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow keep your ass backwards politics out of this you hack. What a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Only valid argument is his QB quality. I agree with you that he can shine in certain type of offense and I do believe that he is not capable of adaptation to something else. Or not capable of adaptation in short time window...
    That argument is enough by itself!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Unknown: if kaep's name comes up, it's a political discussion and you can't avoid the elephant in the room.

    Anon: see above. That's why it's an issue, although i agree his arm is all you need to see to know it's a stupid idea. So why do people still care about him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To Unknown and the two Anonymous commenters: It is true that I could have stopped the Kaepernick analysis after the first two points: the Packers are not going to do it; and he is not any good in this setting anyway. Interestingly, I really haven't heard much disagreement on the merits of those points.

      But as the second Anon points out, politics is the elephant in the room in any discussion of Kaepernick. In fact, I think some people say "the Packers should sign Kaepernick yesterday" precisely because of his politics, without bothering to stop to ask if he would be any good in the Packers offense. Or is it just a coincidence that some of my most liberal family members and friends (not to mention bloggers and writers)are on the "sign Kaepernick" bandwagon, without explaining why that makes sense?

      So I didn't think I could ignore that elephant, and in my mind it is 100% clear that the political angle is a minus, not a plus. Flip it around the other way and the analysis is the same: imagine some far right QB with extremely polarizing views and marginal skills for the offense: a football equivalent of, say, Roy Moore. Can you ignore the divisive and polarizing aspects of having him in the locker room? I can't.

      Delete
  5. I believe that if Hundley stays healthy and we can put some healthy guys around him, we'll be fine when we start the second half of the season....almost 4 weeks from now. Even if our atrocious defense can't contain New Orleans at all and we drop to 4-3, we have a bye week to prepare for a home match against Detroit. If we win that game we'll be 5-3 at the halfway point I like our chances.

    As regards the backup, there are lots of choices out there. What about RGIII, for example? But I think the reality is that if Hundley gets hurt the season is lost anyway so it really doesn't matter that much who the backup is.

    As regards the Kaepernick issue.....I'd like to support people who are against police brutality, because I'm not in favor of it either. But I'm not going to disrespect the flag or the Anthem or the people who support it. So it would have been nice if they had chosen a form of protest that I could support, because they chose one I can't. It's insulting to me.

    Anybody who wants to hire him can. Nobody wants him on their team. The QB position is about leadership, and this is not the guy I want leading me, or my team.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PackerNation: Thanks for the comment. I think I agree with every aspect of it.

      Delete
  6. I’m against Colin for the main reason that I thought he wasn’t going anywhere after his first year in the pros. Ok it took longer, but to me, it seemed gimmicky. The Running Back Quarter Back. Or how to change your QB into the Road Runner. Well that would be fine if defenses were all run by Wil E. Coyote but they aren’t. Defenses are managed by intelligent men who adjust to new tricks. Eventually roadrunner QBs are going to take hits thst aren’t very helpful for them performing their other QB duties like throwing, or staying in charge of the offense. As a QB they are just more vulnerable by body position alone than are running backs. Colin had his day and now he’s been figured out, and in an offense that struggles to establish the run in the first place??? Elephants aside, I think Colin would be a horrible choice.

    Elephants included though, and I think my brother is quite right. I still live in WI. And I don’t think Colin would be a very good cultural match given his current baggage, or perhaps travel trunk. The socks were it for me, and any good will he had prior to that went out the window. Wisconsin is about pulling together and righting wrongs by demonizing one side just doesn’t seem to fit here, well bears excluded of course.

    Your brother Bruce

    ReplyDelete