Theatre Review: Lombardi on Broadway

No Packer game to report on this week. The Bears and Vikings had an interesting little game yesterday, and the Vikings continued their road losing streak - now at 8 games. The Bears moved back into a tie with the Packers, although they have the tiebreaker advantage over the Packers as of right now. Lots to think about this week as the Packers prepare for what is almost certainly going to be their final game against the league's interception leader, Brett Favre.

That will have to wait for a later blog entry. Right now, I am going to play the part of theatre critic for the first, and quite possibly the only, time in the history of this blog, a review of the show Lombardi on Broadway. I have been a big fan of live theatre for a long time, almost as long as I have been a Packer fan. When I first heard that David Maraniss' book, When Pride Still Mattered, was going to be the basis of a Broadway show on the life of Vince Lombardi, I was a bit apprehensive. I started to read this book when it came out, and I found it a fascinating and richly-detailed biography, but I got busy at work and never finished it. (I pulled it off the bookshelf the other day and intend to finish it now.) It was the rich detail of it that made me wonder about a theatrical script based on this book. Vince Lombardi, in popular culture, has become something of a cartoon character, with his persona being defined mostly by the disputed quote: "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

So how do you reduce the richness and nuance of Lombardi's life to a short script, without turning him into a caricature? I should not have worried about it, as playwright Eric Simonson (who grew up in Wisconsin and had an uncle of the Packers' Board of Directors) did a great job of conveying the complexity of Vince Lombardi in a short script (the show only runs about 95 minutes, with no intermission). You get the essence of Vince Lombardi, as I remember him from my youth, from many years of seeing him on NFL Films, and from my (partial) reading of David Maraniss' book. But he comes across as a real person, flaws and all, and not as a cartoon. There is not always a lot of cross-over between the theatre world and the sports world, so it was not obvious that they would do a good job of this, and they are to be commended for having done so. To take a somewhat parallel example - how do you take a long, complex and dark novel like Victor Hugo's Les Misérables and turn it into a Broadway musical? Yet producer Cameron Mackintosh assembled a team of writers and composers who turned it into one of the most successful musicals of all time.

The NFL and the Packers have actively cooperated with the producers in putting on this show. The Packers brought in the cast and crew to visit Green Bay, to tour the Packer Hall of Fame, to spend time with Coach McCarthy, to attend practice, and even to have actor Dan Lauria sit at Vince Lombardi's desk. The NFL has helped to bring in NFL people to talk-back sessions after certain shows (we had punter Sean Landeta and broadcaster Bob Papa at the show we attended), and the NFL even has a Lombardi Trophy on display in the lobby for a short time, along with the other Packer and Lombardi memorabilia. Cheryl Nelson brought to my attention a Packers.com story published about the large group of Packer front office people, directors, guests and travelling Packer fans who saw the show on the Saturday night before the Packers-Jets game in the Meadowlands.

There are six actors in the cast. They are all good, even if we had some small issues with the actors who played Paul Hornung, Jim Taylor, and Dave Robinson. The other three were outstanding. Dan Lauria, best known for the TV series The Wonder Years, really looks the part of Lombardi, and his enthusiasm for the role is obvious, as is the fact that he is something of a natural for the part. He looks like Lombardi right down to the gap between his front teeth (which he admitted, in the talk-back session, is enhanced for the part by nail polish), and like Lombardi, he is of Italian heritage, raised in New York, he played high school and college football (as a linebacker), and was a high school football coach before concentrating on acting. Lauria plays Lombardi as driven, as you would expect, but also as a conflicted and complicated character, who deeply needs his wife Marie to soften his rough edges.

Judith Light, unknown to me but obviously known to many in the audience from various TV series including One Life to Live and Who's the Boss, plays Marie Lombardi and steals practically every scene in which she appears. I don't really remember Marie Lombardi at all, but what a fascinating portrayal of Coach Lombardi's better half. She was the quintessential New Yorker, out of place in small-town Wisconsin, with a bit of a drinking problem, a very wry sense of humor, a sharp tongue, and the only one who could really get through to the Coach at times. The players would come to her from time to time to get the Coach to lighten up. Lauria and Light's portrayal of the difficult but devoted marriage between the two gives us an insight into the couple that you will never get from NFL Films.

Finally, Keith Nobbs, also unknown to me, plays Michael McCormick, a fictional reporter for Look magazine, who spends a week with the Lombardis writing a story about the coach, and who serves, in effect, as the narrator of the play. The device of the narrator, to help make the story make sense, is artificial, of course. But he has the earnest young sports reporter character, a bit in awe of his subject, but enough of a reporter to try not to show it, down to a "T."

My wife and I are life-long Packer fans. We were of course predisposed to like this show. Maybe the better test of the quality of the show was our friend Bik Moy, a New York friend who frequently goes to Broadway shows with us when we are in New York. Bik claims not to have known Lombardi the coach from Lombardi's the pizzeria, which claims to be the first pizzeria in America. And yet she seemed to enjoy the show every bit as much as we did. I suppose that the show had a certain resonance and richness for us that it did not have for Bik. But she could enjoy the show as a biography of a fascinating historical figure, well written and well acted.

The show has received mostly favorable reviews, except in the New York Times. Interestingly, a number of the reviews make the same point made by our friend Bik's enjoyment of the show - that you don't need to be a fan of Vince Lombardi, the Green Bay Packers, or even the sport of football to enjoy this show. Some of the good reviews were published by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, Talkin' Broadway, and the New York Post.

Two final notes. I am on the traditional side as a theatre goer. I know you can go in flip-flops and a T-shirt, but it just seems wrong to me. But in the case of Lombardi, by all means wear your jersey. I did, and so did at least a couple of other people I noticed in the audience. See it while you can, the theatre business is a tough one, and there is no telling how long it will run.

And, on a related note, HBO has a new documentary on Lombardi's life. If you are on the invitation-only guest list, you can see it at Lambeau Field on November 18. The rest of us will have to wait until December 11 to see it on HBO. What is with all this interest in Vince Lombardi, 40 years after his death? More importantly, could it be some kind of omen of glory days to come?

Coach-Killing Packers

The reaction, during and after the Packers' Sunday Night dismantling of the Dallas Cowboys, was elation. The domination was complete on offense and defense, and only a bit more equivocal on special teams. Why the elation? The Packers came into the game at 5-3, and the Cowboys came in at 1-6. The game was in Green Bay, and the Packers were heavy favorites to win. So big deal, they won a game that they should win.

All of that is true, but there is a long history with the Cowboys. For some of us, the sting of seven straight losses to the Cowboys, all of them in Dallas, and three of them in the playoffs, still lingers (1991 to 1996). So just on that basis alone, this win was more satisfying than it should be, looking only at current season records. But beyond the history, there is also a sense of development in the way the team is playing. The Packers played well in beating the Vikings, but it was a close game and it easily could have gone either way. The defense played masterfully against the Jets, but the offense sputtered. And then finally, against the Cowboys, the Packers pretty much put it all together in a single game, and thus went into the bye week with what is probably the highest level of confidence they have had all year.

This is at least the third time this year that the Packers' opponents have made big changes after playing, and losing to, the Packers. In Week One, the Packers knocked Kevin Kolb out of the game, and he has mostly found himself as the backup quarterback for the Eagles ever since. In Week Two, the Packers did such a job on Bills starting QB Trent Edwards that the Bills cut him soon thereafter (he is now on the roster of the Jaguars). And then in this game, the Packers drove the final nail into the coffin of head coach Wade Phillips. Could another coaching change be in store after the Packers play the Vikings again after the bye week?

Meanwhile, on Monday the Packers released Al Harris, rather than activating him or putting him on injured reserve. I am sorry to see him go, and I am worried that this will turn out to be a mistake. He has already signed on with the Dolphins, and I wish him nothing but the very best of luck with them. He was a great asset to the Packers, and from everything I could tell, a class act. Until the emergence of Clay Matthews, I would have said that the two most irreplaceable Packer defensive players were Charles Woodson and Al Harris. Here is a link to a pleasant memory, the video of one of Harris' biggest plays (the game-winning overtime interception return against the Seahawks in the playoffs).

Because of Al Harris' release, when I watched the game again, I was paying particular attention to the play of the defensive backs, to try to get a better sense why the Packers felt confident enough of the other DBs to release Harris. Charles Woodson remains at or very near the top of his game. He is strong in coverage, a real playmaker on running plays, and even if his big-play production has fallen off a bit with the emergence of Clay Matthews, he is one of the best in creating interceptions, fumbles, and sacks. At age 34, he may not have a lot of years left, but right now you could not ask for more from your starting cornerback. (See my comments on his post-game interview below.)

The other starting cornerback is Tramon Williams. I was surprised, early in the year, to notice that Tramon Williams, more often than not, has been given the job of covering the no. 1 receiver of the opponents. This may in part be so that Woodson is freed up to blitz, or at least to leave a bigger question mark in the mind of the opposing QB. But it may also be that Dom Capers now considers Williams to be the top coverage DB on the team. If so, given Woodson's talent, that is quite a statement.

The rise of rookie free agent Sam Shields may really be the key to the Al Harris decision. You can't make too much of a single play like his unbelievable interception early in the Dallas game, but the truth is he has looked good when he has gotten a chance to play in the last three weeks. Having passed up more experienced cornerbacks Jarrett Bush and Brandon Underwood on the CB depth chart, the Packers obviously felt that this was the right time to let Al Harris catch on with another team.

After the game Sunday Night, Andrea Kremer interviewed Clay Matthews and Charles Woodson on the sideline. Ever since Woodson joined the Packers, I have liked him a lot. Hard not to like his play for the Packers, where he has been far more productive than he ever was for the Raiders. Then I learned of his charitable and community activities, and my respect for him grew even more. Heck, I would probably even like his wine if it wasn't way too expensive for my tastes. But in the post-game interview, I saw yet another side of Charles Woodson. He could not have been more gracious or deferential about his teammate Clay Matthews. He said he was just glad that Clay was sharing the spotlight with him, he called Matthews the "Claymaker" and singled out Matthews' blowing up the running play on 3rd and 1 early in the game. When Kremer asked Woodson about Woodson's ability to make big plays, Woodson explained that it was because he was rushing from the same side as Matthews (and therefore the blockers' pre-occupation with Matthews freed up Woodson to make the play). At that point Kremer called Woodson the head of the Clay Matthews PR department. As good a year as Woodson himself is having, it is obvious that Clay Matthews is involved in more of the high-impact plays this year, and recognizing that fact, Woodson is doing everything he can to promote his teammate for defensive MVP. A very good guy, and we are lucky to have him on our team.

Beware of Cowboys Bearing Gifts

When Cowboys Offensive Coordinator Jason Garrett brings his team onto the field at Lambeau Field tonight, I wonder if he will think of another nationally televised Cowboys-Packers game, 16 years ago on Thanksgiving. Yes, I speak of the "Jason Garrett Game." I did not write about the game at the time, as I had not yet started writing these articles/posts, but I wrote about it last year, when I saw a replay of the game on the NFL Network.

In a nutshell, in 1994 the Packers were going for their second straight playoff berth, after going to the playoffs the prior year, beating the Lions, and then losing to Dallas. As they struggled to keep their heads above water in 1994, they caught a huge break (or so it seemed) when Troy Aikman was injured and unavailable for the Thanksgiving day game against the Cowboys. The backup QB, Jason Garrett, played, and of course the Packers lost. And oh, by the way, the Packers did make the playoffs that year, where they again beat the Lions, and then again lost to the Cowboys.

So if it seems that the Packers are getting a gift, in that they are facing a banged-up Cowboy squad, I don't see a gift, I just see a potential trap game. The Packers, struggling as they are, managed to get past the part of the schedule where they lost 3 out of 4 games. They then managed to string together an emotional, hugely important win against the Vikings, and then put on an impressive defensive performance against the Jets, so all it will take is another win against the Cowboys to let the Packers go into the bye week with a 3 game win streak, a 6-3 record, and first place in the division.

Speaking of the Jets game, it was a great win, but an almost unwatchable game for a neutral observer. There are games that are just great defensive struggles, but this was not one of them. There were great individual defensive plays (like the interceptions and the Clay Mattews sack in the closing minutes), but overall the story line of this game was more about mis-fired passes, dropped balls, and turnovers. It reminded me a bit of an overtime Monday night game against the Buccaneers in 1983, when both teams struggled on offense, scoring nothing but field goals, and as I recall it, the game went on and on into overtime before finally the Packers kicked another field goal to win it, 12-9. That game, at least as I remember it, was even more unwatchable than the Jets game.

The Packers obviously know how important this Sunday night game is, and they are not playing well enough to be in a position to take anybody lightly. I think they will avoid the trap, win the game handily, and get a welcome break to get some players healthier before continuing the season in a couple of weeks.

Huge Win Against Vikings

Just last week, I was making my familiar complaint about not putting pressure on the quarterback. In big games last year, the Packers seemed to mostly sit in coverage, allowing elite quarterbacks to carve them up. They lost all the games in which they did this. In the Redskins game, they did it again, and lost to Donovan McNabb and the Redskins. In fairness, the Packers were without this year's defensive MVP, Clay Matthews III, so Dom Capers had more limited options.

When it began to look like Matthews would be back against the Vikings, I wondered if the Packers would learn from last year's debacles against the Vikings, and put more pressure on Favre. Yes, they certainly did. I was at the game (more on that below), so I wanted to get a chance to watch the game again before commenting on this. But the reality is that there is a strong correlation between pressure on Favre and good things happening for the Packers. Take a look at the game highlights (on NFL.com, here). Favre had one touchdown and three interceptions. On the touchdown, the pass is a quick one, but there is no extra pressure visible in the highlight. On the three interceptions, extra Packer rushers were either in Favre's personal space or on the way. This is not a mere coincidence.

There are no magic bullets in football. If you blitz on every play, good quarterbacks and offensive coordinators can find ways to beat you. My only argument is that without a judicious use of extra pressure on the quarterback, a team like the Packers is not good enough to beat an elite quarterback. With judicious blitzing, they have a fighting chance.

I had not originally planned to go to this game. We were going to be visiting our son on the East Coast, and getting to Green Bay on the way back to California would be complicated, since we were occupied in Providence on Saturday night. (While on the East Coast, we took a side trip to New York to see Lombardi on Broadway, a couple of nights before its official opening. I will report on that when I get a chance.) Our daughter (who lives in Chicago) encouraged me to stop back through Chicago and go to the game with her. In order to make that happen, I ended up getting four hours of sleep on Saturday night, and four hours of sleep again on Sunday night after driving back to Chicago. But what a great experience to be in Green Bay for this game. We got there in time to have dinner with old friends Laura and Mike at Curly's Pub in the atrium. Mike has always been a Packer fan, despite his Chicago upbringing, and Laura, a U.P. native, really should be a Packer fan, but for some reason roots for the Vikings. At least she had the discretion not to wear any of that purple stuff in the stadium.

In re-watching the game this week, I found that the TV broadcast did not come close to conveying the atmosphere in the stadium. Sure, you could hear the cheering and the booing, you could see the signs, you could see that people in the stands were excited, but that would be true of any game at Lambeau Field. But in the stands, the atmosphere was positively electric. The intensity was something that I can only associate with a playoff game.

This was obviously a huge win for the Packers. Whether they can keep the momentum going against the Jets, now one of the best teams in the league, remains to be seen. But at least they are in a position now to continue to contend for one of the top spots in the NFC.

Two More Losses, Vikings on the Way

A combination of travel and disappointment with two discouraging losses in a row have kept me from writing anything until now. It is a lot more fun writing about a game when there is something positive to talk about. But when the team loses two overtime games in a row, having had opportunities to win both games, it is a little harder.

Things can happen in any game. A player drops a pass he should have caught, a ball is stripped out at the worst possible moment, the ball slips out of the quarterback's hand. "That's why they play the games," as Chris Berman likes to say. But at a certain point, those things become a pattern, or at least suggest that there is some kind of a problem. And I think there is a problem. The most obvious problem is the injuries, but everyone has injuries during the year. And even though the Packers have had more than their share this year, it is no excuse for the way they are playing. Take our division rivals, the Bears. They lost their starting quarterback for a game a couple of weeks ago. Their backup quarterback, the very far over the hill Todd Collins, played poorly. He threw for a total of 32 yards, with no touchdowns and 4 interceptions. Not exactly the kind of stats that will usually lead to a victory. But the Bears won, by the score of 23-6. Matt Forte, the kicker (Robbie Gould) and the Bears defense made that happen.

No, I think the real problem is not injuries, but coaching. We are seeing repeated coaching mistakes: not putting pressure on the quarterback, not throwing the ball near the goal line, bad clock management, and lack of discipline leading to too many penalties.

One of my complaints last year was that the Packers seemed to hang back in coverage against elite quarterbacks, like Favre, Roethlisberger, and Kurt Warner. My feeling was that the Packers (either McCarthy or Capers) wanted to avoid looking bad on long pass plays resulting from the elite quarterback beating the blitz. But the result was less spectacular but just as bad: these quarterbacks picked the Packers apart when given the time to sit in the pocket and wait for the open receiver. Last week, against the Dolphins and without Clay Matthews, I saw the Packers doing the same thing. There was no pressure on the quarterback, and McNabb had plenty of time to pass. Coaches study game tapes. All they have to do is look at the tapes of the games against the Vikings last year to realize that the sit back in coverage strategy was not working. So try something else.

The only thing keeping the Packers in contention right now is the fact that there is no dominant team in the NFC. They may have lost three of the last four games, but at 3-3 they are still only a game behind the teams with the best records in the conference (the Giants, Eagles, Bears, Falcons and Saints). Clay Matthews is expected to be back this week, and even Atari Bigby and Al Harris may be activated. Donald Driver expects to play despite his injured quad. So they still have time to turn this around.

The Vikings don't have the magic they had last year, and Favre is hurting and much less effective. Some serious pressure on Favre obviously carries risks, but it also has the promise of causing Favre to make some of his trademark mistakes. If the Packers don't win this week against the Vikings, they will have squandered the chance to stay near the top.

Two Bad Games in a Row

My old college buddy Dick Karth (make that my very old college buddy Dick Karth) said it best:

"I didn't like what I saw on Monday night.

I didn't like what I saw on Sunday.

What I saw in both games is a football team with lots of talent and with almost the same ability to squander the talent as it has talent.

I saw a team that, if it doesn't get its act in shape, is going to be 12-4 or 11-5 (maybe 9-7) which will probably be good enough to make the playoffs, but then not get past the first round.

I don't like what I saw."

I was thinking more or less the same thing. If the Packers have this much trouble with the 0-3 Lions, how are they going to handle the 2-2 Redskins, with a proven veteran quarterback, on the road? Let's assume for the sake of argument that they can beat the 2-2 Dolphins at home in two weeks, but that brings Brett Favre and the Vikings back to town. They may be 1-2 now, but it is safe to assume that they will be suitably revved up and ready to go in three weeks.

Monday Night Bears Game

So, with that depressing intro, let's review briefly the last two games.

The Monday night game against the Bears was certainly a disappointment. In many ways, the Packer outplayed the Bears, and yet a flurry of penalties and, to a lesser extent, turnovers, made it impossible to win the game. The Bears prevailed, on a last-second field goal, by the score of 20-17.

To make matters worse, Mike McCarthy made a couple of critical errors in the closing moments of the game. First, he challenged the recovery of James Jones’ fumble, when there was almost no chance of having the call overturned. He had, maybe, a 1% chance of having the recovery overturned, and a 99% chance of losing a timeout in the process. I was prepared to cut him a little slack until I heard him say, in the post-game press conference, that he was right there near where the ball was recovered. If that is the case, he knew to a virtual certainty that the call would not be overturned, and his challenge amounted to a futile wish and a prayer.

Having blown the first timeout, anyone could see, once the Bears got inside the Packers’ 10 yard line, that the Bears would have a chip-shot field goal opportunity. What are the chances that Robbie Gould will miss a field goal when the line of scrimmage is inside the 5? Maybe 2% or so? If he makes it, and almost all the time is gone, the Bears win. What if the Bears score right away, on a touchdown? Well, the bad news is that the Packers now have to score a touchdown to tie the game, but the good news is that they have close to 2 minutes to do it. Anybody who figures out the odds will realize that the Packers had a better chance to win by letting the Bears score. But instead, McCarthy opted for the heroic goal-line stand and the loss of the game.

Sunday's Lions Game

I went to this game, with my wife, my daughter, and cousin Rob. For most of the first half, the Packers seemed in control of the game, even if they weren't playing particularly well. But during the last 36 game minutes, things spun almost completely out of control. For starters, the Packers gave up an 80 yard drive for a touchdown to make the score 21-14 at halftime. But take a look at the Packers' possessions and highlights for the rest of the game.

1. Jordy Nelson fumbled the kickoff after the 80 yard drive, and the Lions recovered.
2. Charles Woodson single-handedly saved the win with his interception for a touchdown. When I first saw it live in the stadium, I had a bad angle on the play and I was not sure he caught the ball. Luckily, he did.
3. The Packers had a nice drive going, but after gaining 49 yards, to the Detroit 23, the drive ended with an interception.
4. Three and out, punt.
5. Fumbled kickoff, recovered by Detroit.
6. Long pass on the first play of the drive is intercepted.
7. The last drive, really the only good news on offense in the last 36 minutes of the game, found the Packers grinding out the last 6:32 of the game, getting 6 first downs in the process.

So what happened? Did the Packers, when the score was 21-7 against the winless Lions, figure the game was in the bag, and switch on the auto-pilot? I don't know, but as unacceptable as that would be, it is actually the better possible reason for how the game went. Because if that wasn't it, then I don't see how it can be argued that this team is as good as we thought it was.

Packers Beat Bills and Meet 2-0 Bears

If you missed the game and just saw the score the next day, you would see that the Packers beat the Bills, 34-7, and you would assume that they probably dominated from start to finish. And yet, that is not at all how it felt watching the game live. Yes, the game started off pretty well, with the Packers putting the first 13 points on the board. But nothing much good happened for the Packers in the second quarter, and at halftime the score was 13-7. Along the way, there were missed passes, a sluggish running game, and some generally mediocre play. I am sure I was not the only one wondering if this might turn out to be a "trap" game after all.

Of course, the Packers put the game away in the second half, apparently after getting some choice encouragement from Coach McCarthy at halftime (the words "flat" and "sloppy figured prominently), so there turned out to be no problem. Still, the impression I carried away from the game was that the Packers didn't play very well, that they need lots of improvement to keep up with the better teams, and that they are lucky to be sitting at 2-0, tied with the Bears (what? how did that happen?).

All of these criticisms are valid, but I felt better about where the team is on a second viewing of the game. They started off strong, scoring on the first three possessions, while blanking the Bills. On defense, the Packers were aggressive from the start, sacking Trent Edwards on the Bills' third play, using their great "Psycho Defense." (In this defense, the players come to the line with one defensive lineman, five linebackers, and five defensive backs.) The look on Trent Edwards' face was priceless in showing how effective this alignment can be, because the quarterback is sure that a big rush is coming, but nobody is sure where the rush is going to come from.

My revised opinion is that the Packers played pretty well, even dominantly in parts of the game, but had an extremely flat second quarter that left us wondering what went wrong. The defense looked great, the special teams continue to play beyond my (meager) expectations, and the passing game was good enough to contribute to a win in most games (Rodgers completed 2/3 of his passes, for 255 yards, threw two touchdowns and no interceptions). Only the running game was really troubling, but I am prepared to wait a week or two to see if they can bring that around.

So the Packers, at 2-0, get to meet the 2-0 Bears at Soldier Field, for the Packers' only appearance on Monday Night Football this year. This game is no "gimme." While the Packers did manage to sweep the Bears last year, that was the first time since Lovie Smith has coached the Bears that the Packers swept the season series. The Bears presumably are delighted with their 2-0 record, and their fans (or the fair-weather fans among them) are snapping up tickets for the Monday Night game and raising ticket prices in the process. How sweet it would be to start the process of deflating their bubble on Monday night.

I did not realize it until I saw it in the Packers Dope Sheet on the game, but the last time the Packers and Bears met when both teams were 2-0 was September 30, 1962. The Packers won that game by the score of 49-0. That was a memorable game for me because it was the first Packer game I ever attended. Somewhere, I might even have some Instamatic snapshots from that game. For some much better pictures, see the collection published by the Press-Gazette.

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.

Scary Preseason Predictions

The Packers' preseason loss to the Chiefs this week was so boring that I had to write this blog post during the latter part of the game. The Packers chose to sit most of their starters for the game, which makes some sense, but must irritate anyone stuck with a full-price ticket for the game.

Meanwhile, the preseason accolades for the Packers continue to roll in. NFL.com polled its seven experts, and all seven picked the Packers to be the NFC representative in the Super Bowl. Four of them have the Packers winning the Super Bowl, while three of them have the Packers losing to the Colts, Ravens and Bengals.

The last time the Packers were the consensus Super Bowl pick was probably 1996. I remember it well, including the Sports Illustrated cover predicting the Packers and Chiefs for Super Bowl XXXI.

I love seeing this stuff, but it scares me almost as much as it pleases me. I also guess I am not yet a complete believer. In 1996, the Packers had gone to the playoffs the prior three seasons, and they were coming off an NFC Championship Game loss to the Cowboys. The Packers had led the game in the fourth quarter. To name a few players, the Packers started the season with Favre at quarterback, Edgar Bennett and Dorsey Levens at running back, Robert Brooks and Antonio Freeman at wide receiver, and Keith Jackson at tight end. On defense, they had Reggie White and Sean Jones at defensive end, and Leroy Butler, Craig Newsome and Eugene Robinson at defensive back. On special teams, they had Desmond Howard. This was an impressive team, and it was obvious at the beginning of the season. Sure, they might not win it all, but there was no team in the NFC that you would have thought had a better shot at it.

I don't see the 2010 Packers as being at the same level. I like the 2010 Rodgers as much as I liked the 1996 Favre, and Driver/Jennings/Finley compares pretty favorably with Brooks/Freeman/Jackson. I am a Ryan Grant fan, but I don't think he stacks up well against Bennett and Levens. On defense, where are the pass rushers to match up with White and Jones? Where are the defensive backs to match up with Butler, Newsome and Robinson? Charles Woodson is probably better than the 1996 defensive backs, but with Al Harris (as well as Atari Bigby) spending the first six weeks of the season on the PUP list, I just can't make a case that the defensive backs as a whole are close to being comparable. And, of course, the special teams have been shaky for most of the preseason as well as last year.

Are the Packers better, going into the season, than the Saints, the Falcons, the Vikings, the Cowboys, or the 49ers? (The same NFL.com experts pick the Cowboys, the Saints or Falcons, and the 49ers to win their respective divisions.) Maybe. But I don't see it as being so clear cut as to make the Packers a consensus pick for the Super Bowl.