After Grounding the Eagles, Can the Packers Tame the Lions?

Record Setters, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

The Packers improved their record to 9-3 in beating the Eagles, 30-16, on Sunday.  That is worthy of a little celebration.  It is certainly a better record than I imagined that the Packers would have at this point of the season, and it virtually assures the Packers a playoff spot, and makes another division crown and a home game in the playoffs highly likely.  

It was also a game with lots of significant milestones.  Davante Adams caught a TD for the seventh game in a row, tying the record set long ago by Don Hutson.  Aaron Rodgers threw his 400th TD pass, joining an elite group of 6 other QBs to reach that mark.  And Rodgers got to 400 in the fewest number of games, 193.  Robert Tonyan caught a TD for the third game in a row, solidifying his position as the best TE the Packers have.  Rodgers became the first QB in NFL history to throw 35 TD passes in 5 seasons.  Adams reached 1000 yards for the second time in his career.  And the Packers became the first team in NFL history to reach 800 wins (regular season + playoffs).  However . . 

However, it is hard to ignore the bad taste left in the mouth by what happened in the middle of the fourth quarter.  The Packers had just kicked a field goal to make it 23-3, and the game seemed well in hand.  Easy for me to say that, sitting on the couch with no responsibilities for blocking or tackling.  Unfortunately, apparently the Packers thought the game was in hand, too.  So the defense slow-walked their way through a 9 play, 73 yard drive to make it 23-10.  Then the offense went 3 and out, and the special teams gave up another kick return touchdown, this time on a 73 yard punt return, making it 23-16 (the extra point was missed).  Then the offense went 3 and out again, giving the ball back to the Eagles with almost 5 minutes left on the clock and plenty of time to go down and tie it up.  Fortunately, the defense finally awakened from their early evening nap and forced a punt.  The offense, or at least Aaron Jones and his blockers MVS and Bakhtiari, also woke up, and when Jones raced 77 yards for a touchdown, to make it 30-16, the game was finally really in hand.

I know that you can get away with this kind of crap (most of the time, anyway) when you are playing a dysfunctional 3-7-1 team that is falling apart before our eyes, but could you get away with that against a better team?  That remains to be seen.  I can't make any excuses for the special teams.  Maybe Tavon Austin will bring some special teams receiving spark starting this week, since Tyler Ervin has been put on IR.  And as for the kicking part of special teams, I don't know what to do other than to pray that we don't see J.K. Scott trying to make a tackle again for the rest of the year.  Or (and this is only half in jest) have Mason Crosby do the punting, since he at least knows how to tackle!

More and more, I am coming around to the view that the defense is a different story.  Yes, they had a lapse on one drive in the fourth quarter, and that should not happen.  But they held the Eagles' running backs to under 100 yards, which might be the first time the Packers have done that all season.  And they certainly applied lots of pressure to Wentz, and to Hurts after he was brought in, sacking them a total of 7 times, and forcing an interception late in the game to slam the door shut.  Obviously, it helps that Carson Wentz is both slow and somewhat indecisive now, a bad combination for a quarterback under pressure.  But the bigger point is that I think Mike Pettine is becoming a bit more aggressive in his calls on defense, especially late in the game, and it is starting to show up in turnovers and sacks.  

I would like to see them build on this approach in the remaining games, so that the Packers can go into the playoffs on a high note.  I have no worries about the offense in this second year under LaFleur.  The Packers lead the league in points scored, and that is no fluke.  I am less concerned than some about the defense, and hope that Pettine continues to be more aggressive, as I think he has at times over the last few weeks.  Special teams will continue to terrify me, but hopefully they can keep their act mostly together.  It would be helpful if the Packers just never have to punt the ball!

The Packers play the Lions this week.  On paper, the Packers should win the game.  But that was true against the Vikings a few weeks ago, too.  And the Lions showed signs of life in orchestrating a comeback win over the Bears last week.  At 5-7, the Lions are two games back in the wild card chase, and can't afford to drop further back.  So they will be motivated to pull off the upset, and much has been made this week about how the Packers have been slow starters against the Lions, at home and away.  It was just last year that the Packers never led against the Lions until the final play of both games, ending up 2-0 for the season, but they were two plays away from being 0-2.  I want to see a fast start on offense, solid and aggressive play on defense, and no more special teams mishaps.

Celebrating 100 Wins Against the Bears

Opportunistic Defense, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

On Sunday Night Football, with a relative handful of fans finally back in the stands, the Packers beat the Bears, 41-25, to get their 100th all-time win against the Bears (including their playoff win back in the 2010 Super Bowl season).  The record is now 100-95, with 6 ties.  

I can remember back in the 1980's when the Packers were looking up to see the Bears way in front of them in the all-time win-loss records.  But that was before Brett Favre and now Aaron Rodgers.  If you look at the historical records by decade, there had been only one decade in which the Packers won more of the matchups than the Bears.  You got it, it was the 1960's.  But then came the 1990's, 2000's, 2010's and now the 2020's.  Over the most recent four decades, the Packers have beaten the Bears to the tune of 43 wins against 19 losses.  This dominance won't last forever, so I am glad to see the Packers get a little cushion now, while they still can.

One thing I liked a lot in the Sunday Night game was the re-emergence of the jet sweep motion.  In the several games that Tyler Ervin has been out with injuries, it seemed to me that the Packers were making much less use of this motion, and it was having a negative effect on the offense.  Sunday night, it was back (especially in the first half as they were building their lead), even without Tyler Ervin, and the results of this misdirection could be seen in how unstoppable the offense looked at times.  The jet sweep motion creates just enough hesitation on defense to create some momentary openings.  

Speaking of the jet sweep motion, whether Ervin is ready to return this week or not, I think the Packers just got somebody new who can be an effective jet sweep motion player.  With the signing of Tavon Austin, the Packers now have another speedy wide receiver, a new jet sweeper, and a likely kick returner (since the Packers waived Darrius Shepherd in order to make room for Austin).  Once or twice a game, I would just love to see MVS and Austin line up at opposite ends, take off like bats out of hell for the end zone, and see what happens.  Maybe one of them gets open for a long TD, but maybe they just pull enough DBs with them to open up the shorter passing game.  

Back to the Bears game for one last comment - I think the much-maligned defense has looked better over the last few weeks, doing a lot of swarming to the ball.  Darnell Savage had two interceptions, and I think the last two weeks are probably the best two weeks of his career.  I know they gave up a lot of points against the Colts last week, but let's not forget that there were 4 turnovers, and a lot of those points were attributable to offensive mistakes more so than defensive ineptitude.  Against the Bears, I know the final box score shows that the Packers gave up 25 points, but the score was 41-10 going into the 4th quarter.  For better or for worse, I think Mike Pettine's style in this setting is to go into slow down mode, keeping everything in front of the defense, giving up all the short plays they want, and guarding against quick scores.  You can denigrate this by calling it the "prevent defense" if you want, but when you lead by 31 with one quarter to go, that can be an effective means of sealing the win.  

Watching the much-delayed Ravens at Steelers game on Wednesday afternoon (!), I was reminded what great defenses look like.  Going into the game, these were the only two defenses to have allowed less than 200 points so far this year.  The Packers haven't had a defense like that since the Super Bowl year of 2010.  I don't see any chance that the Packers defense will magically turn into a great defense by the time the playoffs roll around.  But can they continue to make some key stops and generate a few turnovers each game, to make life a little easier on the offense?  They have recently, and I hope they can keep it up.

Anyway, the Eagles arrive in town on Sunday for another game that the Packers, on paper, should win, and win easily.  The Eagles' offense looked pretty terrible Monday night against the Seahawks, but the defense looked like it can create problems, at times, for opposing offenses.  This will be the second week in a row in which a desperate team is coming to Lambeau Field.  The Bears needed a win, as a practical matter, to stay in contention in the division.  The Eagles, at 3-7-1, should not be in the playoff hunt at all, but somehow they are.  In the NFC LEast, 3-7-1 is half a game out of first place.  So winning the division is a real possibility, but only if the Eagles can win some more games while the other woeful NFC East teams drop a few.  So beating the Packers would be a big deal for the Eagles, and if they get the smell of an upset in their nostrils, who knows?  The Packers should not do anything to encourage them.  They should put up a bunch of points fast, just like they did against the Bears, and then keep the foot on the gas until it is too late for a comeback.

Eagles Bring High-Flying Packers Back to Earth

One of two Critical Turnovers, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

What with going to the Broncos game on September 22, and returning from the midwest, and heavy involvement with family event planning, I never got a chance to write up a summary of the Packers 27-16 win over the Broncos.  Suffice it to say that my favorite moment was when the defense was waiting patiently through what was probably a TV timeout, orchestrating their end zone celebration, if the replay call was that the Packers got a turnover.  I think it was on the interception by Darnell Savage in the third quarter.  The Packers got the call, and hilarity ensued in the end zone.

But the good taste in my mouth left by the 3-0 start to the season, punctuated by a member of the defense saying the defense was "as comfortable as a Tempur-Pedic," was wiped away Thursday night when the Packers failed twice to tie up the game late in the 4th quarter, and instead lost to the Philadelphia Eagles 34-27, in a game marred by Packers turnovers, the defense's inability to generate turnovers or sacks, and a spate of injuries, two of which were serious enough to require players to be carted off the field with straps constraining them.

We watched the Eagles game with our good friend Al, who is a Lions fan.  When some of the nasty hits started happening, he made the comment that the thing about (former Lions head coach) Jim Schwartz is that his defenses always play on the nasty side.  And the way I read it, Cheesehead TV's Aaron Nagler agrees, proving that great minds think alike: "That whole defense is very . . . Jim Schwartz."

Remember last year when, early on, officials were making questionable calls of roughing the passer, mostly on Clay Matthews?  And then, after a few weeks, the message somehow got out to officials, and they stopped making those calls except in truly egregious cases?  I think the league has a sort of similar problem this year.  First, the league overreacted to the terrible non-call in the Saints-Rams playoff game by making calls or non-calls of pass interference reviewable.  But now, coaches are wasting challenges on obvious pass interference non-calls, like the one against Marquez Valdes-Scantling, or the one against Alshon Jeffery later in the game.  In both cases, the receiver was interfered with in a way that made the ball more difficult, if not impossible, to catch.  In both cases, the coaches challenged the non-call.  In both cases, the call was not overturned, so the challenges were wasted.

There may be some reluctance of coaches now to challenge pass interference calls or non-calls, since the league evidently will not overturn them most of the time.  But in a critical situation like a long gain or a long incompletion at a critical point in the game, coaches will feel compelled to challenge.  As a result, we will continue to get data from the league as to what will or will not be overturned.  Will the league silently and subtly adjust the criteria for overturning calls, as evidently happened last year with the roughing calls, to match up with what football viewers can see with their own eyes?  My hunch is that what will happen is that the consensus will develop that minor contact, even if it is significant to the receiver's ability to catch the ball, will not result in a reversal into a pass interference call.  Only major contact will result in a call.  I am not sure that is what the league intended in changing the rule, but it seems after four weeks as if that is where we will end up.

The thing that really stings about the Eagles loss is that, as many of us have been predicting, the offense finally seemed to find its rhythm Thursday night, at least in the passing game, with Rodgers throwing for over 400 yards.  Obviously the loss of Jamaal Williams early, and Davante Adams late, were harmful to the effort to tie the game and take it to overtime.  And the sudden inability of the defense to stop the run, or sack the quarterback, or generate any turnovers, was just shocking after the first three games of the season.

But if you give Aaron Rodgers two sets of first and goal downs to get a touchdown, you don't expect a 4 and out on the first, and an interception on the second set of downs.  The score was there to be had, and the Packers could not get it done.  When you notice, on replay, that Darrius Shepherd was wide open on the pass to Valdes-Scantling that was intercepted, it makes the loss that much tougher to swallow.  Sure, the Packers might have gone on to lose the game in overtime, and the loss would count just the same.  But if you give Rodgers (potentially) 8 chances to convert first and goal opportunities, I take it as just about a given that the Packers would score and send the game to overtime.  Yes, Valdes-Scantling was interfered with on the play.  But as noted above, the league is not going to reverse non-calls where relatively minor pass interference takes place.

Green Bay at Dallas looked like a marquee matchup in Week 5, and I think it still is.  A pair of wannabe undefeated teams are still division-leading 3-1 teams, with a lot of glorious history between them.  I wish the Packers were at full strength for this game, but instead the Packers' chances of having Davante Adams, Jamaal Williams, and Kevin King on the field Sunday look iffy.  The absence of Adams and Williams in those final two series Thursday night was arguably critical in the Packers' inability to score.  Stopping Ezekiel Elliott will be a tough task for a defense that has given up 144 yards rushing to the Broncos' tandem of running backs, and 163 yards to the Eagles' running backs.   But if they can stop him enough to force Dak Prescott to have to throw the ball, they can still win this game.  After all, the Saints, with a backup quarterback, beat the Cowboys last week.  The Packers, with Aaron Rodgers, have a good chance, too, even if some weapons are missing.

Running the Table?

Davante Adams TD, Photo by Dan Powers, USA Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement Made - Now Avoid the Trap Game

Photo by Jeff Hanisch, USA Today

Last week, I made the comment that the Packers hadn't really beaten any good teams yet, with the possible exception of the Dolphins, and that they really needed a "statement" game.  Well, beating the high-flying, at the time 7-2 Eagles, by the score of 53-20, qualifies as a statement in my book.  The Packers turned in their second 50 + point game in two weeks, and dominated the Eagles on both sides of the ball, and (to some extent) on special teams as well.

The Eagles gained a lot of yards, but the Packers forced just enough mistakes to hold them to 20 points.  For the second week in a row, Clay Matthews' part-time gig as an inside linebacker paid dividends, with Matthews causing matchup problems inside, and registering a sack when lined up outside.  Julius Peppers scored his second interception return touchdown of the year, and did a MUCH better Lambeau Leap this time.  I assume he has been practicing.

On offense, in re-watching the game, I was impressed by the front line's protection of Rodgers.  He was sacked once, but otherwise generally had plenty of time.  If I am not mistaken, this is the first time in years that the same 5 offensive linemen have started every game all season, despite some of them being banged up in a number of games.  That continuity is making a lot of difference, as is more attention to quick releases by Rodgers, screen passes, and other mis-direction plays.  The highlight of the game for me, even though the game was already out of reach, was Eddie Lacy's 4th quarter "boom . .boom . . boom" style touchdown on a short dump-off pass to the left side.  Thirty-two yards and five would-be tacklers later, Lacy was in the end zone.  Most of the country missed the score, as Fox, I think, had already switched to another game, but what an impressive effort by Lacy.

One thing that I have not seen written about anywhere is whether Jordy Nelson hurt himself in the first quarter of the game.  Watching on TV, we both had the impression that he came up with a slight limp after a long incomplete pass on a free play, when the Eagles jumped offsides.  He missed a couple of plays, then returned and played the rest of the game, and did not appear on any injury reports this week, so I have to assume he will not be hampered in any way on Sunday.

Special teams was more of a mixed bag.  Micah Hyde had a great punt return for a touchdown, but there was also a botched extra point and a missed extra point.  If you are going to miss easy kicks, do it in blowout games where it doesn't make any difference.

This week, the Packers get to play the Vikings outdoors, at the University of Minnesota.  It will be the first Packers-Vikings road game played outside since 1981.  While the Metrodome was mostly a house of horrors for the Packers in the Brett Favre era, the same has not been true for the McCarthy-Rodgers era.  The Packers are 8-1-1 in their last 10, and 3-1 in the last four games at the Metrodome.  Playing outdoors in Minnesota, if anything, has to be a plus for the Packers.  The Vikings' temporary stadium only holds 52,000, and of course with an open end, and an open roof, it has to be easier on the ears than the Humptydome.  Weather shouldn't really be a factor either way, as the high will be near 40 degrees, unless it is raining.

The Vikings are playing better recently than they were earlier in the year, and Teddy Bridgewater looks like he will be a definite upgrade for the Vikings at quarterback.  All of which sets this game up as a potential "trap" game.  The Packers have had many of these games over the years.  The would-be perfect season in 2011 was spoiled by the trap game against Kansas City.  The Chiefs had their own trap game Thursday night against the previously winless Raiders.  Still, I just can't see the Vikings keeping up with the Packers on Sunday, and I expect a comfortable win.  You could argue that the Packers are "peaking" too early this season, but I don't think that it will make any difference on Sunday.  And, if the Lions lose in their visit to New England on Sunday, the Packers will find themselves in sole possession of first place in the division come Sunday evening.

How Sweet It Is!

Jarret Boykin, blocking the punt before it is kicked

"How Sweet It Is!"  This was a catch-phrase made  popular by entertainer Jackie Gleason, in the various iterations of his TV shows in the 1950's and 1960's.  It was also the first thing my mother-in-law, Carole Casper, said about Sunday night's Packers-Bears game, which the Packers won, 55-14.  And sweet it was.

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.

Next QB Up (Again!)

Photo by Mike Roemer, AP

Since it is now Saturday evening as I write this, it is a little late to be commenting on last Sunday's 27-13 loss to the Eagles, in which QB 2 Seneca Wallace went down with a groin injury, pressing QB 3 Scott Tolzien into service.  So I will only say a few things about that game.

Sitting in the stands at Lambeau Field, we were just as shocked as the TV audience was when Tolzien came in on the second series.  We didn't see Wallace get hurt or have any difficulty coming off the field, and now that I have watched the TV broadcast, the announcers obviously had no clue, either.  There was a brief sideline shot, focusing on other things, but showing Scott Tolzien warming up, but evidently the announcers did not notice this, or did not make anything of it.  After Tolzien came in, Wallace continued throwing on the sideline and practicing dropping back for quite awhile, right down in front of us.  There just wasn't anything we saw in what he was doing that would have suggested that he had a season-ending injury.  So I can only read one thing into McCarthy immediately naming Tolzien as the starter this week, and in putting Wallace on IR when Matt Flynn was signed.  McCarthy must have concluded that Tolzien is a better option than Wallace, even if both are healthy.

If that was his conclusion, I can understand why.  Tolzien made two huge errors Sunday in throwing two interceptions.  I don't think it would have made the difference in the game, given the Packers' defensive collapse in the second half, but the game would have been a lot closer but for those interceptions.  Tolzien just looked better out there in his almost-full game than Wallace had in his partial game last Monday night, and his one series on Sunday.  Tolzien was decisive, seemed to have a pretty good arm, and if McCarthy was telling the truth when he said that Tolzien was running plays he had never practiced, then he is a good student of the game.

McCarthy's greater confidence in Tolzien's leading the offense was also shown by the fact that he was more willing to let Tolzien play a more aggressive game.  Unlike Monday night with Wallace, on Sunday McCarthy called more rollouts, screen passes, quick passes to the sideline, and even some deep balls.

So here we are, having our third starting quarterback in 3 weeks, after going the preceding 20 plus years with a total of three starting quarterbacks.  How will that work out for the Packers?  Well, if there are two teams in the league that seem to have the Packers' number in the last few years, the Giants are one of those teams, and the 49ers are the other.  But the Giants have been a bit of an enigma this year.  They lost the first 6 games of the year.  Every one of those teams is at least .500 as of right now, but still, the Giants lost every game.  Since then, the Giants have played two bad teams (the Vikings and the Raiders) and one 5-5 team (the Eagles), and they won all three of those games.  In hindsight, we can see that the Giants are a better team than we thought 3 weeks ago, but I don't think their 3 game winning streak is enough to convince me that the Giants are back as a contending team.

The Packers, when the same QB starts and finishes the game, are 5-2.  When the QB gets knocked out in the opening minutes of the game, they are 0-2.  So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Tolzien lasts the entire game, after preparing the entire week to be the starting QB.  Do the Packers have a chance?  Sure they do.  They now have the best running game they have had in years.  This takes an enormous amount of pressure off the passing game, and tends to tire out the opponents' defense.  While the Packers' defense played way below expectations the last two weeks, especially in the second half, they had been playing much better before that, so they should be capable of a better showing.  The Giants' offense just isn't playing the way it used to, for a combination of reasons including injuries, personnel, and the regression of Eli Manning as a QB.  I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it, but I think the Packers will win this game.

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.

A LONG Time Coming

I had in mind the fact that the Packers have had trouble winning at Philadelphia. They have lost every recent game I can remember that was played in Philly. But I had forgotten that this streak goes back to 1962, until I heard that statistic in some of the post-game coverage. When you consider how long it has been, I would gladly take any win in Philadelphia, no matter how ugly.

And parts of this game were ugly. If you told me that Rodgers would throw for less than 200 yards, take three sacks and have two interceptions, I would have been pretty pessimistic about the Packers' chances. Add in a a handful of players knocked out of the game (especially Ryan Grant), and the fact that the Packers old nemesis Michael Vick was running the defense ragged for more than half the game, and I would have been positively depressed.

And yet, despite causing a lot of heartburn in the 4th quarter, the Packers won the game, 27-20. They did it, not with the smoking hot precision offense I had expected, but with good to excellent special teams (Mason Crosby hit 49 and 56 yard field goals, the latter being an all-time Packer record, and Jordy Nelson averaged 31 yards per kickoff return), and with an impressive defense. With Atari Bigby and Al Harris scheduled to miss at least the first six weeks of the season, each Eagles receiver was held to less than 50 yards receiving. With the way DeSean Jackson was tearing up the league last year, that is a significant accomplishment. Justin Harrell was knocked out of the game with what looked like a serious injury, and Cullen Jenkins played with a broken hand and a club cast. Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews did most of the damage. Woodson was always around the ball, made a handful of tackles, forced a fumble, and almost had an interception. Matthews, after missing most of the preseason, had seven tackles, two sacks, a forced fumble, and was instrumental on the critical fourth down stop of Vick to preserve the victory. With Vick at quarterback, I would have given long odds that they would get a yard on fourth down to keep their drive alive.

So yes, I will gladly accept a mixed performance for a win in the opening game. This leaves the Packers tied for the lead in the division (with Chicago!), and with the Vikings and the Lions at the bottom of the division. The Packers did not show me what I wanted to see: that they are a dominating team that has a great chance to win every game. As a result, we will have to wait to see if they can start to pull things together over the next couple of weeks.

"Everybody's Jumping on Their Jock"

Thanks to the Packergeeks blog, I saw last night's quote on the Packers from Visanthe Shiancoe, tight end of the Vikings: "Everybody is jumping on their jock, like they've actually gone to the Super Bowl, and won it." Sounds like somebody is in a bad mood, after losing the NFL season opener on the national stage.

To tell the truth, neither the Vikings nor the Saints looked like Super Bowl contenders last night, except for the Saints' first drive. They looked so unstoppable in that drive that I thought they would score 40-50 points in the game. But not much happened after that drive, and the Saints ended up winning it, 14-9. Obviously, a team can start out the season slowly, and get it all together later. But last year, the Saints opened the season with victories by 18 points, 26 points, and 20 points. That turned out to be a good sign of things to come for the Saints. The Vikings also started out 3-0, but two of those games were against bad teams, and the third was one of those miracle Favre finishes against the 49ers.

Could Favre's late arrival at camp have anything to do with the team looking out of sync last night? Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune certainly thinks so, in an article titled "Pin This Loss on Favre's Belated Arrival." It is hard to argue with him, although the absence of Sydney Rice was certainly also a factor. Even Favre admitted that "I thought our timing was a little bit off." The Vikings made just enough mistakes to lose a game they easily could have won, especially after Saints kicker Garrett Hartley missed two field goals, which would have put the game out of reach by the middle of the 4th quarter. One of those mistakes, even though it didn't result directly in any points, was Favre's second quarter interception. This prompted SF Bay Area High School football player and Packer fan Scott Clendening to quip: "you know the NFL is back when Favre leads the league in interceptions."

So the season is off to a good start, with the Vikings at 0-1. A Packer victory against Philadelphia on Sunday would give them a one-game lead over the Vikings. When the Packers last had the kind of hype they have this year, in 1996, they started the season on a high note, beating the Buccaneers by 31, the Eagles by 26, and then the Chargers by 32, before some injuries started to kick in. They lost three games over the next eight weeks, and then never lost another game through and including the Super Bowl.

This week, we will start to see if the Packers can live up to the hype. I have not seen any of the Eagles' preseason games, and of course they have a new starting quarterback (Kevin Kolb) and a new starting running back (LeSean McCoy) since last year. The Packers have not had a good record at Philadelphia in recent years (that playoff loss at Philadelphia after the 2003 season still makes me shudder), so this will be an interesting test.

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.

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.

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.

Ready for Prime Time?

I had looked forward to a quiet week of watching wild card games, waiting for the Packers to play next week, after their bye week off. Everything had been set up so perfectly. First, the Buccaneers lost last Monday night, giving the Packers an opening as wide as a barn door to claim the number 2 seed in the NFC playoffs, and a bye week to rest up and get healthy. Then, my daydream came true, and the Giants beat the Eagles at the Meadowlands on Saturday, opening the way for the Packers to claim home field advantage throughout the NFC playoffs.

Now, I knew that the Jets were a good team, and that they were playing extremely well, and I knew that they were playing the Packers at the Meadowlands. So I figured that there was a good chance the Jets might win the game. But I also expected (or at least hoped) that the Packers would rise to the occasion, given everything that was on the line. The 2002 Packers are not a dominant team, and it is doubtful that they would be dominant even if they had not suffered the injuries they have endured. But most if not all of their margin for error has been eliminated by the injuries. This is why I have assumed, for some weeks now, that the Packers would not end up in the Super Bowl this year. But the one thing that could have changed all of that was home field advantage. The Packers in their current beat-up state may not be invincible, even at home, but the odds of a Super Bowl appearance would have improved dramatically with a win against the Jets on Sunday.

This year's struggle for home field advantage was truly bizarre. Nobody seemed to want it. First, the Buccaneers gave away their own shot at home field by losing to the Steelers. Then the Eagles failed to nail it down, by losing to the Giants (despite the Giants’ friendly efforts to fumble away the game). Then, when the Packers had it sitting right at their feet, they could not take advantage, and could not even keep the game close, so the Eagles ended up with home field by default.

So instead of a week off to rest up, the Packers go from the frying pan (Chad Pennington) into the fire (Michael Vick) and a game against the Falcons on Saturday night. And I find myself on a plane to Chicago with my son as I write this, so we can be there way up in Row 58, Section 128, in the chilly night air (and maybe snow!) to watch the game. Early in the season, before most people knew who Chad Pennington was, Michael Vick was already becoming the young, exciting phenom at quarterback. He almost beat the Packers in a brutally hot opening day game at Lambeau Field. The Falcons, after lots of early excitement, ended up backing into the playoffs, after their own problems in the last few weeks were not quite enough to knock themselves out, but only because the New Orleans Saints were losing even more games than the Falcons. The Falcons could not score a potential game-tying touchdown last week against the Browns after four shots at it inside the 5 yard line, seemingly frittering away their playoff hopes, but their season was saved when the Saints also lost their game.

So the Falcons meet the Packers Saturday night, with neither team exactly on a roll. The league's experiment with Saturday night playoff games last year turned out to be a smashing success, given everything you could ask for in the Oakland at New England game, a good matchup, a close game, heavy snowfall, and even a controversial, game-deciding call. I suspect the league thinks that all the elements are present again. Brett Favre, the aging superstar, gunning for one more Super Bowl ring before retiring. Michael Vick, the next generation of superstar quarterbacks. ABC's own superstars in the form of the Monday Night Football crew. Lambeau Field, on a night when the tundra actually might be frozen, and now with the likelihood of snow.

I'm not saying it will be easy, but I think the Packers will win this game. The conditions on Saturday night should be such that Michael Vick will be slowed down, hopefully enough for the Packers' defenders to keep up with him. I would feel a lot better about this game if I knew that Driver and Sharper would be ready to play, but as of this writing they are both listed as questionable. I also think the Giants will easily defeat the 49ers. The Giants are on a roll, and the 49ers are not. The 49ers' defensive backs are not very good, and I keep thinking of the Giants carving up the Vikings' defensive backs in the NFC Championship game a couple of years ago.

If these predictions come true, it will be Green Bay at Tampa next week, along with the Giants at Philadelphia. There are lots of interesting story lines there, but that is a subject for another column, next week, if and when my predictions pan out.

We're Number Two!

“We’re Number Two! We’re Number Two!”

Okay, maybe it doesn’t have the same ring as the more traditional “We’re Number One” cheer, but in the NFL, being the number two seed in the playoffs is a vast improvement over being the number three seed. I didn’t really think that the Packers would move up to the number two seed. The Eagles refuse to lose a game (and they continued to win this week), and even though the Buccaneers have looked a little shakier in recent weeks, I didn’t really expect them to lose at home on Monday night.

As for the Packers’ win over Buffalo, for the second time this month, a Packer player played through a personal tragedy. In this case, Vonnie Holliday learned on Saturday that his second cousin, a rising star high school athlete, had collapsed and died that day. Holliday had to break the news to his relatives, many of whom had flown in on Saturday for the Packers’ game against the Bills. Holliday not only played Sunday, he set a team record for sacks in a game, by sacking Drew Bledsoe five times and forcing three fumbles in the process.

The Packers, by beating Buffalo, became the only team in the league this season to go undefeated at home. That is a matter of pride for the Packers and their fans. Mike Sherman emphasized this point by going around the stadium with several players after the game, to offer “high fives” to the fans, and by stating in his post-game comments that the Packer fans are undefeated this year at home.

The most striking thing about the game itself, other than Vonnie Holliday’s performance, was the wind. Both Sherman and Favre were emphatic in their post-game comments that the wind was MUCH worse than the previous week at San Francisco (not to mention that it was a lot colder). It was swirling, and moving mostly across the field (whereas in San Francisco it moved from one end of the field to the other), so that it was very difficult to either predict, or compensate for it. Sherman said that when the wind affects Brett Favre’s throws, you really know it is windy. Favre said that this was the worst combination of wind and cold in which he has played.

Then on Monday night, the Pittsburgh Steelers, another franchise with a storied history, did their friends from Green Bay an enormous favor by beating the Buccaneers, 17-7. It was the greatest gift from the Steelers franchise since the famous “Yancey Clause” game on Christmas Eve of 1995. In that game, Yancey Thigpen dropped what should have been a touchdown pass in the end zone late in the game, ensuring the Packers would win the NFC Central Division for the first time in the Brett Favre/Mike Holmgren era. The Buccaneers’ loss, combined with the Packers’ win over Buffalo, moved the Packers past the Buccaneers and, at least temporarily, into the number two seed in the playoffs. If they stay there, they will get a week off to get healthy before starting the playoffs at home, and in my judgment a much improved chance of hosting the NFC Championship game.

To maintain the number two seed, all the Packers have to do is beat the Jets in New Jersey on Sunday. That won’t be easy, as the Jets are playing pretty well. But the Packers, overall, are a better team, and therefore can and should win this game. If you want to get a little greedier, you could hope for the Giants to beat the Eagles on the same field in New Jersey on Saturday. If the Packers win and the Eagles lose, the Packers become the number one seed, and then we can all use the more traditional version of the cheer. The Eagles really could lose to the Giants, as the Giants have played very well in recent weeks, but then I have been saying that the Eagles were bound to lose some games ever since Donovan McNabb was injured.

The Ninety Percent Solution

A few random thoughts and local flavor from the Packers’ big, wet weekend in the San Francisco Bay Area. For me, the weekend started Saturday morning. On a weekend like this, I wear Packer stuff pretty much wherever I go and whatever I do. So my wife and I were at a meeting in San Francisco Saturday morning. When we were about to take a break, a guy said, "This has nothing to do with what we have been talking about, but what is with your Packer shirt?" I said "This is our big weekend - at least I hope it is." Later, talking on the side with him, I said, "We have never missed a Packer game in San Francisco or Oakland in over 22 years of living here." He said, "Oh, well if you have lived here that long you must have a bit of mixed loyalty." To which I replied, "Not for a minute, not even for a second." So we were on a roll.

Sometimes when the Packers are in town, we try to figure out where they are staying, and then hang around their hotel. We got our picture taken with Reggie White that way before the NFC Championship game after the 1997 season, for example. This year, we didn’t get the chance to go over there, but I did read in the paper that Packers’ plane was delayed because of the weather, but that the Packer fans waited as long as it took at the team hotel. You’ve got to love those Packer fans.

My theory has been that, if the Packers can just win all of their games, someone will slip up in front of them, and they may sneak into a number 2 (or even a number 1) seed. That would be a huge development, since it would give them a badly needed week off before their first playoff game. Well, the Packers have now won three games in a row. But then the Buccaneers pulled out another game on Sunday, when they certainly could have lost. And the Eagles can't keep winning with their third string quarterback. But they do. So all the Packers can do at this point is to keep winning and hoping.

We had a really fabulous time at the game on Sunday, along with maybe 20,000 fellow Packer fans. It is hard to estimate, but I think there were a lot more Packer fans this time than in the "Terrell Owens" game, for example. My shiny new NFC North Champions hat from the Packer Pro Shop (which arrived exactly when they told me it would, those guys at the Packer Pro Shop are great) made a big hit with lots of the fellow Packer fans. The weather was bad, of course. It rained, at times quite heavily, throughout most of the game. Because we were invited by a good friend to watch the game with a bunch of 49er fans in a suite, we stayed completely dry. But from our dry vantage point, the weather was bad, but not nearly as bad as it was for the NFC Championship game here after the 1997 season. That day we needed all the rain gear we could get our hands on.

As the game started, we realized that Gilbert Brown was not playing, which came as a shock, since we had not seen or heard any of the pre-game shows. That seemed like a really bad sign, but the defense played better against the run than it has in weeks. The first half seemed kind of sluggish, with both teams playing fairly conservatively, and it ended with the 49ers leading, 6-3.

Then things changed in a hurry. We had assumed that the Packers would pick on the 49er defensive backs throughout the game, after watching the way the Eagles second and third string quarterbacks picked them apart a few weeks ago. In the first half, the Packers went with a more balanced attack, and the running game was not working that well. But the Packers marched down the field on the opening drive of the second half, throwing on 6 out of the 8 plays in the 79-yard drive, and scored a touchdown to take the lead. Four plays later, the Packers intercepted Garcia on a deflection, and quickly moved 29 yards for another touchdown, throwing on 4 out of the 6 plays on that drive. These drives were classic examples of using the pass to set up the run.

The momentum in the game had changed dramatically. We were struck by the fact that these two drives had resulted in touchdowns against the wind, meaning that things should be easier for the Packers and harder for the 49ers in the 4th quarter. After the second touchdown, it seemed as if the Packer fans were about to take over the stadium, as their cheers seemed almost as loud as the noise being made by the 49er fans at other points. In fact, if the 49ers had not scored their only touchdown of the day on the very next drive, I think the crowd would have been mostly Packer fans by some time in the 4th quarter.

But of course they did, and as a result, the game ended up as a nail-biter. On the final drive, as the 49ers moved methodically down the field, the game had every appearance of being headed for another Terrell Owens disaster, just like the playoff game after the 1998 season. But the Packers played better on defense this time, and Jeff Garcia made a couple of critical bad decisions on the last few plays. His incompletion on first down from the Packers’ 14 yard line was a bad choice. He could have run for 8 to 10 yards. And his fourth down pass was completely unfathomable to me (but totally welcome). Owens was covered tightly, and so presumably Garcia worked through his progressions leading to an incomplete pass to the tight end at about the 7 yard line. But the problem with the pass was not that it was incomplete, but that it had absolutely no chance of getting a first down. What Garcia did, most likely, was to follow the progression rules of his system, without applying the judgment factor that says in a case like this it is better to try to force a pass to someone in the end zone than to throw a pass at the feet of the tight end at the 7 yard line. That is a mistake that Brett Favre (or Steve Young, for that matter) would never have made.

And so the Packers emerged with the win, for the 9th time in 10 tries in the Brett Favre era. Living here through the 1980’s and early 1990’s, the glory years of the 49ers, it sometimes seemed as if no team would get the upper hand on the 49ers for long. And yet, starting with that first playoff game between the Packers and the 49ers after the 1995 season, Brett Favre and the Packers have beaten the 49ers 90% of the time. That is the best record the Packers have against any team in the Brett Favre era, other than a couple of teams that the Packers have only played 2 or 3 times. Yes, it is even better than the Packers’ record against the Bears over that period of time. This era is not going to last forever, so enjoy it while you can.

Traffic was unbelievably bad on the way home. California drivers don't know how to drive in the rain. But this gave us plenty of time to listen to the 49er post-game show on the radio. There were heavy doses of whining and complaining. Several callers felt that Gilbert Brown (!?!) should have been penalized for what they called his "forearm shiver" on Garcia. Then there was complaining about Steve Mariucci, and how he can't get the job done (the point being that the reason he was brought in was to beat the Packers). There was complaining about play-calling (the 4th down play, the 49ers didn't throw downfield enough, Garcia should have run for the first down, how could they call a running play to Garrison Hearst when they needed a touchdown, etc.). The host of the show wasn’t buying most of the complaints. So then he was accused of being too supportive of the team, and not critical enough. Then they complained about the 49er ticket holders selling their tickets to Packer fans. This was just great fun. It made the 2 hour plus trip home a lot easier to take.

Then, Monday morning, on John Madden's call-in on KCBS radio, they discussed the Packer-49er game. The sports guy said that the 49ers, to a man, say that they are not that concerned about having to go on the road during the playoffs, and that they can win on the road, including Lambeau Field. He asked Madden if he agrees. Madden: "Uhhhhh, no. When you talk about playing the Packers in Lambeau Field in the playoffs, now you are talking about not just a 5 year or 10 game streak, you are talking about a team that has NEVER lost a home playoff game in history." Sports guy: "Someday they are going to lose a playoff game at Lambeau Field." Madden: "Yeah, but it won't be to the 49ers."

Eerie Parallels?

Much has been made in the last few weeks about the parallels between this season and the 1996 season, which ended with the Packers' victory over New England in Super Bowl XXXI. The Packers rolled their way to an 8-1 record in 1996, before injuries started to take their toll. With a depleted group of receivers, they lost a couple of games in a row (to the Chiefs and then to the Cowboys) to drop to 8-3. Then, the team rallied, after signing Andre Rison as a replacement receiver, and did not lose a game for the rest of the year, including the crowning glory Super Bowl victory in New Orleans.

But before getting back on track, they looked like they were in danger of losing their third straight game, at St. Louis (not a very good team at the time), where they trailed 9-0, and then 9-3 at the half. Doug Evans sparked the comeback in the third quarter when he intercepted Tony Banks' pass and ran it in for a touchdown to put the Packers in front, and they never relinquished the lead.

The same general story can be told about the 2002 season, so far. The Packers had an 8-1 record, before injuries (most recently to Chad Clifton) started to catch up with the Packers. The Packers lost consecutive road games at Minnesota and at Tampa Bay. They then played a game against a lesser opponent, the Chicago Bears, and they played poorly in the first half, trailing 14-6 at the half. And once again, defensive plays sparked the comeback, first, an amazing all-out effort by Javon Walker (playing defense after Favre's pass was intercepted on the last play of the half), running down the Bears' ball carrier who seemed surely on his way to a touchdown. And then, the other Walker, Rod, pulled an equally amazing defensive play in the second half to steal the ball away from the center and quarterback just as it was being snapped, with the Bears poised to score from the Packers' 1 yard line. The Packers roared back to win that game, and continued the win streak this week against Minnesota.

So, are the Packers on their way to home field advantage, a cruise through the playoffs, and another Super Bowl win? Who knows, but it looks like it will be much harder to pull off a Super Bowl victory this year. The parallels simply don't hold up when you look more closely. The Packers, in 1996, were a really dominant team, except for that stretch in the third quarter of the season. They started strong, and they finished strong, and they were never in much danger of losing any of the three playoff games that year.

This year, the Packers had a few convincing wins in the second quarter of the season, but otherwise every game has seemed in danger of being lost. Unlike 1996, when Desmond Howard was the Packers' secret weapon on special teams, this year, the Packers' special teams have been ordinary at best. But why take my word for it? During the Tampa Bay game, the announcers said that they had asked Brett Favre to compare this year's team to the 1996 team. Favre said that the 1996 team was much stronger than this year's team. The announcers seemed surprised to hear this, but anyone who has watched all of the games would have to agree with Favre.

Home field advantage itself is going to be difficult or impossible to achieve this year. The Packers are tied with the Eagles and the Buccaneers for best record in the league at 10-3, but both of those teams have tie-breaker advantages over the Packers, so even winning their remaining games will not guarantee home field advantage. Just today, the Buccaneers played the Falcons. You might think the Falcons, with the sensational Michael Vick, would have a shot to beat the Buccaneers, but the game was not close. The Eagles, with their third-string quarterback, went to Seattle to play the Seahawks. But again the game was not competitive. The 49ers, who trail the Packers by a game, had a game they easily could have lost at Dallas, but they rallied to win it at the end of the game. So, today at least, the Packers got no help whatsoever from other teams. And they are going to need help to get the home field advantage.

Next week, the Packers travel to the birthplace of the West Coast Offense, San Francisco. The 49ers seem vulnerable, based on their last couple of games, and yet despite their vulnerability they have managed to pull out wins in most of their games. The Packers don't have to look very far to get a game plan as to how to beat the 49ers. All they have to do is pull out the tapes of the Monday night victory by the Eagles (another West Coast Offense team) against the 49ers a couple of weeks ago. The Eagles, with their second and third-string quarterbacks, clearly displayed the weakness of the 49ers defensive backs. If the offensive line can give Favre some time, he should be able to carve the 49ers up. I will be there, of course. I have never missed a Packer game in San Francisco or Oakland in the 22 years I have lived here.

Must-Win Game?

Must-win game? The first reaction is “of course not.” The Packers are 8-2, and they lead their division by 5 games with 5 games left in the season. There will be no must-win games for the Packers until the playoffs.

Still, there is an uncomfortable feeling that this week’s game at Tampa will determine home field advantage in the NFC playoffs. And that is a big deal for both teams. It is a big deal for the Buccaneers because of the oft-cited statistic that the Buccaneers have NEVER won a game, in the entire history of the franchise, in cold weather (where the kickoff temperature is below 40 degrees). It is almost as huge a factor for the Packers. The Packers have never, in the history of Lambeau Field, ever lost a home playoff game. They have won plenty of games on the road, in the regular season and in the playoffs, but their recent history is not as good. In fact, the Packers have lost the last 2 playoff games they have played on the road (at St. Louis last year, and at San Francisco after the 1998 season). So the Packers would prefer not to have to return to Tampa or New Orleans or San Francisco in January (not to play a football game, anyway).

So let’s look forward to the end of the season. Realistically, there are only 3 teams in contention with the Packers for the home field advantage in the NFC, the Buccaneers, the 49ers and the Eagles. The Packers and the Buccaneers are both 8-2 at the moment, and the 49ers and Eagles are both 7-3.

The Packers’ schedule is: at Tampa, Bears at Green Bay, Minnesota at Green Bay, at San Francisco, Buffalo at Green Bay, and at New York Jets. My best guess is that the Packers will lose 2 of those games, and end up at 12-4.

The Buccaneers’ schedule is: Green Bay at Tampa, at New Orleans, Atlanta at Tampa, at Detroit, Pittsburgh at Tampa, and at Chicago. My guess is that they will end up at 12-4 or 13-3, AND that they will get their first-ever cold weather win at Chicago.

The 49ers have Philadelphia at San Francisco, Seattle at San Francisco, at Dallas, Green Bay at San Francisco, at Arizona, and at St. Louis. I would imagine that they will end up at 11-5 or 12-4.

Finally, the Eagles play at San Francisco, St. Louis at Philadelphia, at Seattle, Washington at Philadelphia, at Dallas, and at the New York Football Giants. But the key factor in the case of the Eagles is that they have lost Donovan McNabb, probably at least for the rest of the regular season. How will they do with Koy Detmer behind center? Hard to say, but I would be surprised if they end up better than 10-6.

So, when you think about it, this really is a key (almost must-win) game for the Packers. If the Packers win, they will probably end up at 13-3 and with the home field advantage. The Buccaneers won’t be able to catch the Packers unless the Packers lose two more games, and the 49ers won’t be able to catch the Packers unless they beat the Packers straight up AND pick up another game somewhere along the way. The reverse is pretty much true if the Buccaneers win. They would probably end up with a 13-3 record and the home field advantage.

The only difference is that the Buccaneers face what I consider to be a tougher schedule. It is a little easier to imagine the Buccaneers losing more than one game in the games against New Orleans, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh (or maybe even at Chicago if you really believe in the cold weather jinx), but I would not count on it.

This game, which will be shown to 87% of the country by FOX, is the biggest game of the year for either team. If the Packers can win (which would be their first win at Raymond James stadium, by the way) they will be well on their way to securing home field advantage. [Ed. note - the Packers lost to the Buccaneers, 21-7.]