Packers' Record-Breaking Performance

Photo by Rob Grabowski, USA Today Sports

Karma moment of the year is pictured in the USA Today photo - Brandon Meriweather being taken off the field after his second helmet-on-helmet hit against a Packers running back.  The first one knocked Eddie Lacy out of the game with a concussion.  In the second one, Meriweather knocked himself out with a concussion.  Both the Packer players and the fans in the stadium gave him a nice hand on his way off the field.  In that regard, they are much more generous than I am.  I was glad to see him knock himself out of the game before he injured anybody else. 

Either the league is serious about preventing helmet-to-helmet hits, or it is not.  If it is, Meriweather should be suspended, especially because he has a history as a head-hunter.  Ndamukong Suh just last week got a $100,000 fine, when anybody else without his history would have been fined much less.  Given Meriweather's history, nothing but a suspension will suffice.

But back to the game itself, a game filled with big smiles on the Packer sidelines and in the stands.  The Packers completely dominated the game, from start to finish, leading at one point in the third quarter by 31-0, before finishing the game 38-20, a misleading score if I ever saw one.

My favorite things about this game?  Just about everything.  Better decisions on kick returns by Jeremy Ross, a score on the opening drive despite back-to-back sacks, aggressive play on offense, including the no-huddle and a 4th down touchdown pass, aggressive play on defense, including swarming run defense and nice use of blitzes at appropriate times.  James Starks, playing in relief of Eddie Lacy, had the first 100 yard rushing game by a Packer since Brandon Jackson did it in 2010.  He also made great decisions on individual running plays, and he was the beneficiary of the Packers' old staple play, the screen pass - something they should run more often, because it was successful in both games this season.  The only real negative was the fact that the Packers gave up 4 sacks, which is not the way to keep Aaron Rodgers upright and healthy the whole year.

Speaking of records, Aaron Rodgers tied the Packers' single game passing record at 480 yards.  He shares that record with the perennial backup, Matt Flynn (now playing backup for the third team in as many seasons).  The Packers also had a 400 yard passing game and a 100 yard rusher in the same game for the first time in the long history of the franchise.  To take it one step further, no team in NFL history had a 450 yard passing game and a 125 yard rushing game in the same game, until the Packers did it on Sunday.  And finally, the Packers had the second-most YAC (yards after catch) in a game in the history of the NFL on Sunday (295 YAC).

So at 1-1, trailing the Bears by a game in the NFC North, the Packers have something to build on as they play the Bengals, in Cincinnati on Sunday, hoping to go 2-1 before their very early bye week.  In the wake of the 49ers game in week 1, I was personally worried about the possibility of the Packers going 0-3.  I was still worried about 1-2, but frankly the Bengals did not impress me that much in their Monday night game.  They do have a fearsome pass rush, they have the great A.J. Green and a developing running game with BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Giovani Bernard.  But I think the Steelers are pretty much all done, and yet they were able to stay close to the Bengals for most of the game.  So I think a team like the Packers has an excellent chance of beating them, even on the road.

Disappointing First Game

Photo by Tom Freeman

It was a tough day at the old ball park on Sunday.  The Packers played much better Sunday than they did in their January trip to Candlestick Park, in almost all aspects of the game.  But it was not enough, and they lost their season-opener to the 49ers for the second year in a row, this time by the score of 34-28.

We knew this was going to be a tough game, as I said last week.  In an effort to change up the karma, we went Packer-stalking Saturday night, and did manage to find the Packers' hotel, and see several Packers in the lobby (James Jones and Clay Matthews).  We used to do this back in the 1990's, and the Packers won all but one of those Green Bay at San Francisco games.  Jones was talking to unidentified teammates about his routes.  (Since he had no catches on Sunday, maybe he needed to spend more time talking about his routes.)  Matthews was talking to a friend in a very animated fashion, right before going into a team meeting at 8:00 pm.  The animation carried over to Sunday, when he played with intensity all day long (including the one play where he overdid it).

As for the day of the game, things were mixed, both on and off the field.  Off the field, things started out very well, as we attended a great tailgate party hosted by our Packer fan friends, Hazel and John.  We arrived in the stadium and were lucky enough to have really excellent seats (the picture above was taken from the seats).  But after such a great start, the game began.  I have to admit that, objectively speaking, it was a very good and entertaining game, but for us, it was painful, for obvious reasons.  After the game, we were stuck in massive traffic jams, perhaps due in part to the novelty of the newly-reconfigured Bay Bridge.  It took us well over 3 hours in traffic to get home, although in retrospect some of that time was lost in unsuccessful attempts to find a way around all the traffic. 

But hey, it could have been a lot worse: at least we didn't fall off the elevated Jamestown Street walkway outside of Candlestick Park and die, as one drunk football fan did on Sunday just as the game was getting started.  It turns out that he fell off a pedestrian bridge that allows fans to cross Jamestown Street  to enter the stadium's main parking lot from above without disrupting traffic.  We used the same bridge on our way in and out of the stadium on Sunday, where we encountered other drunk 49ers fans (the deceased was a 49ers fan).  You would have to be pretty drunk, or pretty stupid, or both, to fall off this bridge, since there is a railing 3.5 to 4 feet high on the entire bridge (the bridge is pictured in the photo in this KTVU story).

As for the play of the Packers on the field, I had mixed feelings.  There is no non-division team I want to beat more than the 49ers, so the game was obviously a major disappointment.  And yet, despite the fact that the Packers were either tied or behind most of the game, so that it was at all times easier to imagine the 49ers winning the game than the Packers, there was a lot of good to take away from the Packers' loss.  I liked the extensive use of the no-huddle offense by the Packers.  The play of Jermichael Finley was also appreciated, and it really does look as if the pre-season talk about him being ready to have a break-out year may be justified.  I liked the play of Eddie Lacy, who fumbled once and struggled to get started, but who looked better the longer the game went on, and who really looked good when he got in the open field, particularly on a screen pass in the first quarter.  The play of the offensive line was a pleasant surprise, as they did a pretty good job protecting Rodgers despite the absence of Bulaga.  And I liked the aggressive play of the defense, particularly Clay Matthews, despite his costly error on the late hit out of bounds.  To Matthews' credit, he owned up to the mistake, calling it "not a very smart play," but given the pre-game talk about going after the quarterback, I thought he was a little lucky not to be thrown out of the game.  And I really liked seeing Johnny Jolly back and in extended action, and I have to wonder how much his presence on the defensive line had to do with the Packers' much better play against the run.

To me, the difference in the game came down to two things, turnovers and injuries.  Eddie Lacy had the ball stripped from him in a pile, resulting in a 49er touchdown, and a ball bounced off Finley's hands and was intercepted, although the 49ers did not score on the ensuing drive.  Meanwhile, the Packers forced no turnovers on defense.

As for injuries, the Packers played without two starting-quality defensive backs, Morgan Burnett and Casey Hayward (who is technically not a starter, but is a strong contributor in many defensive packages).  The Packers played a lot of zone defense in the game, which I think makes sense given their emphasis on stopping Kaepernick from running.  Scrambling quarterbacks frequently pick up lots of extra yards against a man-to-man defense, because some of the defenders have their backs to the ball and realize too late that the quarterback is running.  So it made good sense to play the zone, but Anquan Bolding and Vernon Davis were able, very effectively, to exploit the gaps in the zone, especially in the middle of the field, and without Morgan Burnett and Casey Hayward on the field, the Packers were just not able to make enough plays to stop them.  The Packers played pretty well, much better than in either of the 49er games last year, they had their chances to win this game, and they were in the game until the final play, all without Burnett and Hayward.  Would they have made the difference?  Who knows, but the Packers' chances would have been better with them playing.

This week, The Washington Redskins (yes, I called them the Redskins) come to town for the opening game at Lambeau Field.  This will be the second of three straight games against playoff teams from last year to start the season, and the only home game of the three.  I expect to see the Packers win the game.  As compared to last week, the Packers will pick up the home field advantage, plus it looks hopeful that Morgan Burnett will be back.  On the Redskins' side, while I like RG III a lot as a player, I think he is less likely, given his injury last year, to take off running than was Kaepernick.  I don't think the Redskins receivers or tight ends are as good as those of the 49ers, and I don't think the Redskins' defense is anywhere near as good as the defense of the 49ers.  Put all of these factors together, and I think you have the recipe for a win for the home team.

Another Season, Another 49er Opener

Today I went to the local DMV counter at the AAA office here in the suburbs of San Francisco.  My purpose was to get my "PACK FAN" plates reassigned to my new car.  The clerk asked, in a good-natured fashion, if I wanted to switch the plates today or wait until after the game on Sunday.  He also pointed out that they are offering a free 49ers blanket if I get an insurance quote.  The funny thing is, this office is in the East Bay, much closer to Oakland than to San Francisco, and yet they are not offering any Raiders blankets.  Yes, I love these California bandwagon-jumpers.

Lots of pregame coverage around here revolving around the rules for hitting read-option quarterbacks.  First, the NFL put out a media training video that explains the rules (warning: it takes forever to load - NFL Video).  The bottom line of the video is that a read-option QB is considered a runner, whether or not he actually has the ball, until he is out of the play or is in a "passing posture" (for example, standing upright, either still or backing away from the play).  So if the QB hands off the ball but continues to run forward in order to continue the uncertainty about who has the ball, he is in a "running posture" and can be tackled.  When Bay Area media asked Clay Matthews about this the other day, he explained the rule as the Packers understand it.  Which caused Jim Harbaugh to immediately start whining about the Packers' "tough talk," saying that he has contacted the league office to ask for clarification of the rule, and also intends to talk to the officials in the stadium on Sunday about what he perceives as sounding like the targeting of a specific player.

At least one member of the Bay Area lapdog sports media was right there with Harbaugh. "What’s behind the NFL’s failure to protect read-option quarterbacks like Colin Kaepernick?"  Maybe that had something to do with the fact that Harbaugh upped the ante on Friday by saying that the rule is "flawed and biased."  My sense (and hope) is that this issue will fade away, one way or the other.  The league's rule is not new - only the explanation and examples are new.  Obviously, if the QB is either running the ball or trying to deceive the defense as to who is carrying the ball, the QB has to be treated as a ball carrier, and not as a quarterback entitled to special protection against harm.  One of two things is likely to happen with respect to this rule and this game.  Either Harbaugh will cut down or even eliminate the usage of the read-option, to protect Kaepernick, or he won't, and Kaepernick will take some hits.  If the Packers are able to do this with some discipline and discretion (an open question), it might work out well for them.

On a personal level, I don't think I have been as pessimistic about a 49ers-Packers game since that first playoff game back in January, 1996.  Then, I just assumed that the defending Champion 49ers would win, and I didn't know if Favre and the Packers were ready to compete on that level.

This time, my pessimism comes from the fact that the 49ers were almost impossible to stop late in the year and in the playoffs last year.  The Packers, by contrast, just were not on any kind of a roll at the end of the year, and blew the chance for a bye week by losing to the Vikings in the final regular-season game.  I know that the preseason doesn't mean much (if anything at all).  Still, in the preseason this year, the Packers have just not done anything to give me a lot of confidence.  I am enthusiastic about Eddie Lacy bringing a new dimension to the offense, but that enthusiasm is tempered by the loss of DuJuan Harris and Brian Bulaga for the year, and I don't know if it is reasonable to assume that they will have a successful running game together by Week 1 of the season.  On defense, I find it encouraging that the Packers spent a lot of time studying how to stop the read-option during the offseason (and I will set aside the question of why they didn't do a little of that homework in preparation for the playoff game last year), but the Packers will still be without Casey Hayward (out with a hamstring) and probably without Morgan Burnett (also with a hamstring).

The Packers have enough talent to go in and win this game.  And maybe the 49ers will turn out to be a bit of a one-year wonder.  But if I honestly predict the winner of the game, I see the 49ers winning, in a closer game than the playoff game last year.

Next Stop, San Francisco

Your Humble Correspondent with Family & Friend

When it was announced that the Vikings had made starting quarterback Christian Ponder inactive for the
Saturday night playoff game against the Packers, the logical reaction was to think of this as a plus for the Packers.  The Packers had a huge problem stopping Adrian Peterson in the regular season, and the Vikings beat the Packers last week in the regular season finale largely because Ponder played the game of his career so far, putting the Packers in the position of having to defend not only Adrian Peterson, but also a newly-productive Christian Ponder.  With Ponder out in favor of Joe Webb, the argument would be, the Packers could now focus almost exclusively on stopping Peterson.

That was not my reaction.  I had just arrived at my seat in Lambeau Field when my brother-in-law Bruce Casper sent me a text message that Ponder was inactive.  I didn't really believe him (he has been known to BS me, from time to time), but I quickly confirmed that it was true.  But I have been writing for over 10 years about what I call the Brad Hoover Syndrome, where a backup player gets an unexpected start against the Packers, and turns out to be the key player in the Packers' loss.  Ever since Brad Hoover got a start for the Panthers in a 2000 Monday Night game against the Packers, in place of Tim Biakabatuka, I have treated these situations as potential poison.

Thankfully, in this case things worked out exactly as they should have.  I had not seen Joe Webb play since he replaced Brett Favre (then with the Vikings) a couple of years ago.  In the first series, I realized that I had forgotten how mobile the guy is.  He and Peterson combined to run the ball down the field, leading to the Vikings getting their only lead of the day, at 3-0.  But I soon also remembered what a poor quarterback he is.  He is inaccurate, and makes poor decisions under pressure.  Twice he threw "pop-ups" as he was under extreme pressure, and only his lucky stars prevented these passes from being intercepted or returned for touchdowns.  I could not help but be troubled by the second half, after the Packers took a 24-3 lead.  They seemed to go to sleep, coasting for the rest of the way, with one 3-and-out after another.   Not a great plan, and one to be avoided at all costs in a game against a team with more firepower.

So now the Packers will be coming out here to Northern California to play the 49ers.  This game has so many echoes for me.  The very first playoff game I ever attended was Packers at 49ers, in January 1996.  It was the coming out game for the Packers.  Sure, they had been in the playoffs the two prior years, but had not made much noise.  And here they had to play the defending world champion 49ers, at Candlestick, in the second round of the playoffs.  I almost didn't go, thinking that they would probably lose, but since I had attended every Packer game since 1980 in Northern California against the 49ers or Raiders, I decided I had to go.  (That streak is still alive, and I will be there Saturday night.)  That January 1996 game was the first time you really had to look at the team and say "these Holmgren/Favre/White Packers might actually win the Super Bowl."  They didn't, that year, but did so the following season.

That game was the first of four years in a row where there were playoff games between the Packers and 49ers, with three of those games in San Francisco.  There was the euphoria of the emergence of the Packers in January, 1996, the dismantling of the 49ers at Lambeau in the freezing rain the next year (the year of Super Bowl XXXI), the drowning of the 49ers at Candlestick in the heavy rain the following year (the year of Super Bowl XXXII) and then finally, the Terrell Owens game at Candlestick the following year, where both teams were well past their prime (the Terrell Owens game was also Mike Holmgren's last game as Packers' head coach and, for that matter, the last radio game for Max McGee and Jim Irwin).

Local media here in the days leading up to the game have been surprisingly guarded in their outlook for the game.  "Rodgers has edge vs. 49ers," said one article, while "QB duel would not favor S.F.," said another.  There was coverage of the fact that former 49er owner Eddie DeBartolo still has nightmares about the Packers and Cowboys.  And of course there has been coverage everywhere of the ironic fact that California-native Rodgers grew up as a 49er fan, while Wisconsin-native Colin Kaepernick grew up as a Packers fan.  So this is a huge personal game for both starting quarterbacks, and of course the chip on Rodgers' shoulder is legendary by this point.  The Packers have played inconsistently at times during this season, but whereas they lost 3 of their first 5 games, they have won 10 of their last 12, and they are probably healthier now than they have been in months.  Sure, the Packers could lose this game, and they could lose it badly if the 49ers get in a rhythm and the Packers get in a rut.  But I like the Packers' chances against a young QB playing his first playoff game, and against a fearsome defense, but one that is a bit banged up at the moment.

Exorcise the Demon

Going into the final week of the regular season, the Packers had the chance to secure a week off and get some rest before starting the playoffs.  Of course, they blew that chance and let the Vikings’ Adrian Peterson run wild all over the Metrodome, leading to a 37-34 loss to the Vikings.  At times, one could be forgiven for wondering if the Packers had just decided to let Adrian Peterson get the all-time single season rushing record, as some kind of twisted and belated Christmas present.  Sort of like Brett Favre falling to the turf to give up a sack to his pal Michael Strahan.

I ran out of time this week to go back and re-watch the game, so I haven’t counted up the number of times Peterson bounced a run to the outside, whereupon the Packers defender realized that he had an impossible angle to get to Peterson, and had to adjust the angle so as to give up another 10 or 20 yards, but at least have a chance to catch up to Peterson.  Suffice it to say that it seemed like it happened a lot. 

Heading into the playoffs, there were a lot of potential revenge games that could have materialized for the Packers’ first game.  Would it be a chance to pay back Seattle, for (as it turns out) costing the Packers a bye week, and coming darn close to ruining the Packers’ season?  Would it be the Giants, with the Packers getting one more chance to show that the Giants’ defense does not really have the Packers’ number?  How about a flashback to all those Packers-49ers playoff games from the 1990’s and a chance to avenge the disastrous Terrell Owens game?

Nope.  Instead, the Packers get a do-over.  Another chance to show that the Packers don’t always give up 200 yards rushing to Adrian Peterson.  Another chance to stop the otherwise unimpressive Christian Ponder from carving them up.  And (forgive me for this) a chance to “wipe away” the Randy Moss playoff game from January 2005. 

To get it done, the first thing they have to do is do a better job of tackling.  The Packers showed in week 13 that you can give up a lot of yards to Adrian Peterson and still win the game, so long as you don’t also let Christian Ponder have time for a shoe shine and a shave while sitting back comfortably in the pocket.  Ponder had what was probably his best day in the NFL against the Packers last Sunday.  

The most interesting article I have read this week is by Kevin Seifert of ESPN.  He brings the stats to show that, in the first game between the two teams, the Packers blitzed 75% of the time on third down, and on those downs, Ponder was horrible.  For reasons known only to Dom Capers, on third down in the second game, the Packers only blitzed 25% of the time.  We all saw the results.  I am sure that Ponder has improved over the course of the year, and in particular he has looked much better in the last month, but he is not as good as he looked in that game.  So the second necessary change is to get in Ponder's face some more, and the turnovers will come.  One interception is all it would have taken to turn around the game last week.  Move the game outside in the cold, give the Packers a home crowd, rush more than three on third down, and the Packers should win this game.  It might not even be close, but given the way that the Packers rarely put away a lesser opponent, it probably will be.  Something like 31-24.

My wish list for the game includes a lot of rushing yards for Grant and Harris (I would love to see the first 100 yard rushing game for the Packers in a long time), a few catches for Donald Driver in what will most likely be his last home game, more sacks for Clay Matthews, a smashing return for Randall Cobb, and a sack or an interception (or both!) for Charles Woodson.  The most important item on my list is probably the rushing game for the Packers.  With Evan Dietrich-Smith and Don Barclay now starting on the offensive line, it is to be expected that these young players are more advanced in run blocking than they are in pass protection.  So rather than have Rodgers drop back 50 times and take 5 or 6 sacks, it would be great if the Packers could get the running game going, with the one-two punch of Grant and Harris, and take some pressure off of Rodgers.  If the Packers win Saturday night, they take a trip to my backyard to play the 49ers the following Saturday night.  That matchup will be a tough one for the Packers, if it happens.  But first things first.  Time to exorcise the Adrian Peterson-monster.

Gut-Check Time

Photo by Jeffrey Phelps, AP

In my last post, I was wondering when the last time was that the Packers got off to a fast start.  One word from me apparently was all it took.  Against the Titans, the Packers led 14-0 at the end of the first quarter, 20-0 at the half, and 34-0 at the end of the third quarter.  They went on to win 55-7, losing the shutout in the final two minutes of the game.

Not only that, but the Seahawks (yes, the same blasted Seahawks who almost screwed up the Packers' season with the Fail Mary game) went out and put a major hurt on the 49ers.  Who knew the Seahawks were for real?  But apparently they are, having scored 58, 50 and 42 in their last three games.  This really shook things up.  It put the Packers in the no. 2 seed for now, with the bye week that entails, it left the Vikings clinging to the no. 6 seed, but probably needing to beat the Packers next week to hold onto it, it moved the Packers-Vikings to the 3:25 pm (LFT) time slot next week, and it leaves the final NFC playoff spot to be determined in the Sunday night Cowboys-Redskins game.

Now comes the test for the Packers.  After starting the season 2-3, I remember having discussions with family and friends about whether the Packers could even recover sufficiently to make the playoffs.  Ten games and nine wins later, they have made the playoffs, won the division, will have a home game, and all they need is one last win against the Vikings to secure a first round bye.

I can think of seasons where the Packers had to depend on the outcome in another game in the final week to see if they made the playoffs.  Sometimes it worked out (as in the miraculous Cardinals-Vikings game to close the 2003 season, when the final play of the game, on 4th and 24, knocked the Vikings out of the playoff and the Packers into the playoffs).  More often it did not.  I can recall some game in the late 1980's or early 1990's when the Monday Night crew, in the final game of the regular season, kept going for reaction shots to Don Majkowski's den, where he and several teammates were watching the Packers' playoff chances going up in smoke.

Without looking it up to find an example, I know there have been other years when the burden was on the Packers, to win in order to advance to the playoffs, or to win to better their position in the playoffs.  In some of those cases, they came up short and failed.  Well, they get another chance on Sunday, before a national audience, to go into the playoffs on a high note.  The Vikings are playing better than I expected this year.  True, they are last in the league in passing offense, as might be expected with Christian Ponder at quarterback, but they are third in the league in rushing offense, thanks to the marvelous year Adrian Peterson is having.  Peterson needs 208 yards rushing to break the all-time single season rushing record, so he obviously has lots of motivation to play well, and the Vikings will probably need to win to get the wild card spot.  So there is a lot on the line for the Vikings.

Packer fans might be a little gun-shy about getting a bye week, after last year's debacle against the Giants, but let's not kid ourselves.  A week off to get healthy, at this time of year?  Plus the opportunity to get to the Super Bowl after winning only two playoff games, instead of three?  It is a no-brainer to try to get that bye week.

So, to spur the Packers along a little, let me offer this: I wonder when the last time was that the Packers came out and just shut down a top-notch running back, basically taking him out of the game as an impact player?

Remember the Titans?

Trivia question: when was the last time the Packers got off to a fast start in a game?  Because they certainly didn't do it against the Bears last Sunday.  The Packers misfired on their first offensive series, with Rodgers throwing the ball behind receivers several times, and took a couple of sacks on the first two series, before ending a scoreless first quarter.  To make matters worse, they came close to giving up an interception on one tipped ball, and they almost had their first punt blocked.  The Bears got on the board first, in the second quarter, with a TD pass to new public enemy no. 1, Brandon Marshall, before the Packers finally seemed to get started in the game.

At the end of the day, the Packers were able to win the game in what would have been a comfortable fashion, but for one of the worst coaching calls in recent memory - the 4th quarter Randall Cobb "throwback" trick play punt return - Cobb caught the punt, then threw the ball across the field.  It looked like it could have been a good play with lots of potential in the right situation.  The receiver could have done a better job of going to get the ball, but instead the ball was fumbled and recovered by the Bears.  Close to your own goal line?  Leading by 11 points and with 8 minutes left, when the Bears have had almost no offense all day long?  I just don't see the risk-reward balance on this play as making it even close to being a sensible decision.

Mason Crosby missed another pair of field goals, from 43 and 42 yards.  This has got to be a mental issue at this point - Crosby has talent, but is not executing the kicks.  I question whether there is a better kicker out there bagging groceries and waiting for a call, so I am reluctantly in McCarthy's camp on this - Crosby is our kicker, period, so get over it and hope he gets through this soon.  Meanwhile, for an amusing look at a kicker who apparently is available to replace Crosby on a moment's notice, take a look at this video, located by the Acme Packing Company website.

Trap Game Ahead?  And now the Tennessee Titans come to Lambeau, for the last regular season home game of the year.  The Titans are 5-9, and have given up 396 points this season.  Only the Raiders and the Bills have given up more (402).  But they also have Chris Johnson who, as the Jets found out Monday night, is capable of taking over a game.  And the Packers have been known, from time to time, to give up big games to running backs.  So this game could be one of those games that could jump up and bite the Packers.  But I doubt it.  As bad as the Jets are now, the Titans only beat them by 4 points, despite a 94 yard touchdown run by Chris Johnson.  The Packers are just a better team, and the Titans are a little out of their element playing in Wisconsin in January.  Still, there is no margin for error if the Packers hope to rise to the no. 2 seed, so it would be advisable for them to "remember the Titans."

Bye Week Possibilities.  I really figured the 49ers would lose to the Patriots on Sunday night.  And of course, if they had, the Packers would be sitting at the No. 2 NFC seed right now.  I sort of gave up hope when the 49ers were ahead 31-3.  But I kept watching, mostly for Fantasy Football reasons.  Lo and behold, the Patriots tied it up at 31, before losing the game 41-34.  So the question now becomes, assuming the Packers beat the Titans, can the Seahawks give the Packers a little help by beating the 49ers?  It would be a welcome "payback" by the Seahawks to the Packers, after the "Fail Mary" game.  It almost seems like completely different 49er and Seahawks teams will be playing Sunday night, as compared to their last meeting 10 weeks ago, when the 49ers won, 13-6.  Both teams are scoring a lot more points now.  The Seahawks scored 50 or more points the last two weeks, admittedly against bad teams.  But the way they are playing now, the Seahawks certainly have a shot, and it would not even be a huge upset if they won.

Bear Down Against the Chicago Bears

Mike Daniels makes the Lambeau Leap

Let's see - a magically beautiful snow game, the Packers falling into an 0-14 hole due in part to turnover(s), Ryan Grant on the field, the Packers come back to win the game.  Why does this all seem so familiar?  Ah, yes.  The famous Snow Globe Game.  The final score against the Lions last Sunday was not as convincing, just 27-20, but given that the Bears and 49ers both lost on Sunday, the significance of the victory over the Lions can't be underestimated.  Sunday's game against the Bears, of course, will be even more significant.

After getting back Sam Shields last week, it looks like the Packers will finally get Clay Matthews back on Sunday.  Unfortunately, Jordy Nelson, James Starks, C.J. Wilson, and Charles Woodson are still out.  My thought has been that the only upside to this year's raft of injuries was that the Packers would start to get back some of those players not on Injured Reserve at just the right time to close out the year strong and go into the playoffs.  There is still room for that to happen, but it is not happening as fast as I would have liked.  The return of Greg Jennings was offset almost immediately by the loss of Jordy Nelson, so the Packers continue to be slightly short-handed at receiver.  That said, the return of Matthews should be an enormous benefit to the Packers this week.  Maybe the brightest spot for the Bears' offense this season is the Jay Cutler - Brandon Marshall connection (32 catches in his last three games).  While the burden for defending against Marshall will fall primarily on the defensive backs, more pressure on Cutler will definitely contribute to holding Marshall in check.

Meanwhile, the Bears have given up 170 or more rushing yards in each of the last two games (against the Vikings and Seahawks).  If only the Packers had a rushing game.  Oh, wait!  The Packers, all of a sudden, have one, having gained 140 or more against the Lions and Vikings.  Ryan Grant, who I assume will get more than one carry on Sunday, has a history, both of performing well against the Bears, and of performing well when the weather turns sloppy.  So I look forward to seeing what he can do against the Bears.  Plus I like the three-headed monster of a running back group of Ryan Grant, DuJuan Harris, and Alex Green.  They each have different styles, they each have shown that they can be effective (assuming, in Ryan Grant's case, that there is gas left in the tank) and they all are healthy and should have fresh legs at this time of the season.  If the Packers can keep a semblance of a running game going, they will be hard to stop.

The Bears always seem to play a tough game against the Packers, but I don't see the Bears actually winning the game on Sunday, especially missing Brian Urlacher, Tim Jennings, and a couple of other defensive players.  Full disclosure: I always think the Packers will beat the Bears, so I am not necessarily a good judge of this game.  But there are lots of stats that tend to back me up on this one.  I see big days for the Packers' running backs, and big days for at least a couple of the receivers, most likely Jermichael Finley (believe it or not) and Greg Jennings.  The Packers have started off the last two games very slowly, and dug themselves considerable holes before turning things around.  If they can avoid that fate this time, the game may not be close.

Which Packer Team Will Show Up?

Green Bay Press-Gazette Photo

The game against the Giants two weeks ago left me in a very foul mood.  You figure that a team will lose some games in a season.  Every team since the 1972 Dolphins has done so.  But the Packers in 2012 have found some creative and different ways to lose games this year.  The opening day loss to the 49ers was just a case of getting beat by what was, on that day anyway, a better team.  The Seattle "Fail Mary" loss was one for the ages - but in a bad way.  We will be talking about that game 20 years from now, the way the Bears fans still talk about the Majkowski-Sharpe "Instant Replay" game from 1989 (except the call in this case really was a travesty, unlike the call in the "Instant Replay" game).  The Indianapolis "Epic Collapse" game was shocking and disgusting at the time, but now that the Colts are 8-4, we can see that they are a much better team than we assumed.

But the Giants game was just an old-fashioned ass-kicking.  The Giants beat the Packers in every facet of the game, and it wasn't even close.  How bad was it?  Kevin Seifert of ESPN gives the ugly details.

The Giants may or may not "have the Packers' number" (whatever that means), but they have shown repeatedly over the last 6 seasons that they know how to exploit the weaknesses in the Packers' team.  The thing that made me more angry than sad is to read that the Packers' players said that they played the game without emotion.  This has been repeated in many venues, including Packers.com.   I can excuse the players for making physical mistakes (like taking a bad angle on a tackle), or for not being good enough (like Tramon Williams trying to cover Hakeem Nicks) a lot easier than I can excuse them for not playing with emotion.  The division lead is on the line, after a long, hard slog to get back in first place in the NFC North.  The Packers had two playoff losses to the same Giants in the last 5 seasons, interrupting what looked like Super Bowl runs.  The Packers (arguably) play better on the road than at home.  And then they come out and get man-handled, and their excuse is that they "played without emotion?"

Anyway, this left the Packers trailing the Bears by a game for the division lead, with 5 games to go.  The toughest remaining game for both teams is the week 14 matchup between the two, which in many scenarios will decide the division.  But given the beat-down administered by the Giants, could anyone be faulted for fearing that the Packers would drop another game somewhere along the way, making the game with the Bears irrelevant?  That, I have to admit, is what I was worried about going into the Vikings game.

And there were moments during that game when it looked like that was exactly what would happen.  After getting off to a 10-0 start ("hey, this is going to be easy after all") thanks to an unbelievable catch in the end zone by James Jones, the game started slipping away.  When the Packers started practicing their "Olé!" tackling technique on Adrian Peterson, another 10 point lead was blown, and the Packers trailed 14-10 at halftime.  It was about to get worse, when Morgan Burnett (MVP of the game, according to my daughter) pulled in the first of his two interceptions to cut off a Minnesota scoring drive. 

Of course, the Packers went on to win the game, so everything was good.  On top of that, the Bears lost in overtime to Seattle, and the 49ers lost to the Rams in overtime.  Which put the Packers back in first place in the division, and got me to thinking about the possibility of passing up the 49ers for the second seed and the bye.  Until my daughter brought me back to earth by pointing out that it is crazy to think about that, with the Packers looking as inconsistent as they have this year. 

So which Packer team is the real one?  The team that looks great in beating the Texans?  Or the team that gets crushed by the Giants and blows a huge lead to the Colts?  If the "good" Packers are the real team, this is the time of year for them to step up.  We will start to find out, tonight, against the Lions.  The Lions obviously have some talent, and the Packers obviously have lots of injuries.  But if this is a team that is going to contend for a championship, there is no excuse, this time of year, at home, for not going out and taking care of business.

Bye Week Blues? No, Bye Week Bonus!

As much as the Packers may have needed a bye week to have a chance to get healthy, their fans usually don't look forward to the bye week.  Sure, you can watch other NFL games, or clean out your garage, or catch up on some paperwork or whatever.  But usually it is a letdown, a lost Sunday right in the middle of the football season.

Going into the weekend, the Packers were on a four game winning streak, with a 6-3 record, sitting in second place in the division.  "If the playoffs started today," as they say, the Packers would be a wild card, and the 5th seed, looking up at the four division leaders.  So what happened to those four division leaders?  The number one seed Falcons, previously 8-0, went out and lost to the New Orleans Saints, despite having a couple of opportunities in the closing minutes to take the lead.  The Saints had an impressive goal line stand in the final two minutes of the game to preserve the win.

The 7-1 Chicago Bears were the number 2 seed, and led the Packers by a game and a half.  But a sloppy weather game in Chicago, and a concussion for Jay Cutler, was all it took for them to lose their second game, to the Texans.  Truth be told, they didn't look that good even before Cutler got knocked out, having scored only 3 points in the first half with Cutler at the helm.

The 6-3 New York Giants not only lost their game to the Bengals, but they looked pretty bad in the process.  They gave up big plays on defense, turned over the ball 4 times on offense, and didn't look very good on special teams, either.

The 49ers started the day at 6-2, and because they opened the season by beating the Packers, they would win any head-to-head tiebreaker with the Packers.  They battled the Rams to a 24-24 tie.  This was heartbreaking for the Rams, since they gave up several opportunities to win the game in overtime alone, on devastating penalties.  The good news about the 49ers ending up in a tie is that it makes it highly unlikely that the Packers and 49ers will end up in a head-to-head tie at the end of the year.

So the Packers picked up ground on every NFC team that was ahead of them in the playoff race.  Not a bad days' work for a bunch of guys sitting on the couch watching TV.  As a result, the Packers now control almost all aspects of their 2012 destiny.  If they just keep winning, they will win the NFC North, and start the playoffs with a home playoff game.  For a team that, a month ago, was at 2-3 and heading off to face the unbeaten Texans, that is pretty good.