I'm in shock after yesterday's loss to the Buccaneers. The previously winless Buccaneers, who couldn't score more than 21 points in a game prior to facing the Packers. The Bucs who turned to a rookie quarterback to make his first start. I'm shocked.
But not surprised.
I'm disappointed. I saw the Packers squander opportunity after opportunity. I saw our best players look like they didn't know how to counter the efforts of a desperate team making desperate plays. I saw an offensive line that played servicably through most of the game collapse like a house of cards when it mattered most. I was devastated.
But not surprised.
I'm angry. How could the Packers have sunk to this low point, after teasing us with a 13-3 season two years ago? And, other than changing the quarterback, adding to the cast since then, rather than having any other major subtractions? How can our line be so bad, our pass rush so inept, our playcalling so uneven, our special teams so awful? I'm ticked.
But not surprised.
No, I was surprised in 2007, when the Packers had a dream season, nearly making the Super Bowl. For a team that was building through the draft, it seemed unlikely to have it all come together so quickly. In retrospect, it sure seems like that one winning season out of Ted Thompson's four-and-a-half was the aberration to what appears to be the rule in Packertown today.
For all the potshots that have been volleyed over the last couple of seasons, I am here to define to you today what a REAL PACKER FAN is. It is NOT being a fan of certain players. It is also NOT defining the team as the head coach or the general manager, either.
Being a REAL PACKER FAN is about caring for your team above all, above any player, any coach, any GM. If that player/coach/GM is helping your team, he's great. If he isn't, he's a toxin that needs to be removed, like an ugly wart or mole from your skin.
Because, in the end, every piece of this team is transitory, sooner or later. Every person who celebrated the departures of Mike Sherman and Brett Favre is now seeing the men they glorified right on the same path out of town. Funny how what comes around, goes around, isn't it? But, there's always enough pitchforks and torches for everyone.
I was actually reviewing some of my posts from 2006 over in the archives at PackerChatters, and was amused at some of my musings all those years ago. So many of my words that I published back then are being recited today, I'm considering filing a plagiarism complaint.
* I expressed discontent at how, despite his claims that the Packers were "trying to win now" in 2005, Mike Sherman became an expensive scapegoat for what was clearly a cap-clearing year. A few years later, Mike McCarthy pulled a mass execution of his defensive and special teams coaches following a late-season collapse.
* I expressed concern that we kept so much cap money unspent in the offseason and early parts of the season that might have been used for free agents or trades options.
* I expressed how just because Mike Sherman traded up unsuccessfully in the draft did not automatically mean trading back was a guaranteed success. In fact, I often cited "quantity over quality" would leave the Packers with a mediocre talent base in the future.
* I expressed little vitriol in the release of established Sherman veterans, but ruminated many times over the lack of an apparent plan to replace them. Trust me, Klemm and Whittaker were not upgrades over Wahle and Rivera. I certainly understood the way the business works, and that losses in free agency are expected, but there was seemingly no plan in place to at least compensate, other than street free agents and late-round draft picks.
But the whole Thompson/McCarthy regime had a certain glimmer to it with many fans who celebrated the ouster of Sherman. I joked at the time that by simply firing Sherman, there were fans ready to bronze another statue outside the Atrium of ol' White Top. Took some flack for that too, but most of those folks have now gone pretty quiet or changed their tune.
There was a point of realization I had before the game, that despite drafting ten offensive linemen in five drafts, the Packers were starting three holdovers from the Sherman regime this Sunday (Wells, Tauscher, and Clifton).
Mike "McPadLevel" McCarthy is getting the most heat following this loss, and much of it deservedly so. But equal criticism should be leveled at the man who hired him and bought into his scheme changes as he pursued personnel, Ted Thompson. Certainly, McCarthy's press conference excuses and explanations have eroded from coachspeak to repeating vague errors to some borderline self-deception (my favorite from the PC today: "I'm very confident in the issues that we've had in pass protection, that they are correctable." You're confident that the issues exist?).
And, as I've mentioned several times in the past few weeks, the Packers are suffering from "antergy", the opposite of synergy. As the good players get weighted down by the ineffectiveness of the team, the end result is a team that is worse than it looks on paper. Right now, the Packers are not even equal to the sum of its parts. And that falls squarely on the head of the head coach, who axed a lot of assistants at the end of last season in what is looking more and more as a scapegoating move.
But like any leadership, it starts at the top, and Ted Thompson has the responsibility of giving the chef (McCarthy) the quality ingredients he needs to turn this team into a decent meal. And, as McCarthy has devolved from being so gruff and ornery his first couple of years to the more passive sidestepper of the issues, you have to believe he is taking on Thompson's leadership style.
And face it: Thompson has invested only one draft pick in the first two rounds on an offensive lineman, and that was for a guard. The majority of "competition" along the line has been with mid-level draft choices, which explains why we just can't seem to shake the aging players left over from the last regime.
The Vikings have done more than defeat us twice this season. They have stuck a silencer on all the people who claimed that free agency won't buy you success. I have no idea if the Vikings will go far in the playoffs, but I can guarantee you one thing: they will go a lot farther than the Packers will. Just like trading up or trading down in the draft, the success of free agency is picking the right guy at the right time (for the right price). Avoiding any of them at all costs simply costs your team opportunities to improve itself.
When the Packers bid farewell to Brett Favre two summers ago, the team was squarely placed on the shoulders of Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson. This was no longer Brett Favre's team, and the successes or failures of the team had nowhere else to fall. Perhaps they had an inflated self-image given the success of the 2007 season, but since the train left the station, the Packers have gone 10-14, and according the ColdHardFootballFacts.com, are 3-10 against quality opponents (0-3 this year).
I'm not naive enough to suggest that this implosion is all because Favre is no longer here, or that the Packers should have caved in and brought him back. But, I do believe that Ted Thompson far overestimated what he had to work with when he placed the Packers under the microscope by sending Favre on his way, and the results have not been pretty.
As a TRUE PACKER FAN, I questioned Thompson's methods three years ago not because I was a fan of a quarterback or a head coach, but because I had some serious reservations about where those methods would lead us. In the end, I am a Packer fan until the end, born and bred in the 70's and 80's, when diehard fans were the only fans there were.
I am not calling for anyone's head. But, I will say that the climate that is currently being developed is quickly working its way to DEFCON 1. I'm not in any mood for another complete overhaul and rebuilding effort. There are a lot of players I've grown to like on this roster and would like to see them have success and develop into the players that they have the potential to be: Greg Jennings, Aaron Rodgers, Tramon Williams, Clay Matthews. These guys are going to be the leaders on this team once Donald Driver, Charles Woodson, and Al Harris have moved on.
As a TRUE PACKER FAN, I want what is best for this team, a team that I want to win and be competitive, not just piling up cheap wins against terrible teams. But this last game may have sealed not only the virtual end of this season, but have been the clock tolling on the master plan of Ted Thompson. In the end, perhaps it is the fans who booed Brett Favre at Lambeau Field who may come to realize that Favre didn't do what he did to hurt Packer fans, but to call out the man he felt had taken away the competitiveness of the team.
Could he have been right? Certainly, there's little evidence that the Packers are being competitive, at least against quality opponents. Is that the fault of the cook, or the man supplying the ingredients?
All I know is that yesterday's game left an awful sour taste in my mouth. I'm not going to any other restaurant, but the management better figure out the problems real soon or they will be looking for new jobs.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Train Has Left The Station...And Now It's Back.
You know how trends come and go. If you just leave your old clothes in the closet long enough, eventually they'll come back in style. You know, like your Ahman Green jersey.
As we turn on the game this Sunday, we may have to check the channel and make sure we're not watching Retro TV, because it may suddenly seem like the Mike Sherman era all over again.
Oh, sure, the number is different on Ahman Green's jersey, but it is still the same guy. Not quite running like he did in in 2003, like we all were hoping. More likely, he's running like he did in 2006, a season in which we begrudgingly admitted he was no longer the same back and didn't bat an eye when he left for Houston.
And, who is that possibly starting at the tackle spots this week? Why, if the injury fairy works in our favor, it'll be old stalwarts Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher, the bookends from those great running teams of the Sherman years. Unfortunately, it's not the Tausch and Clifton from 2003, either, but the older versions we've been murmuring about upgrading for the last several seasons.
Over much of GM Ted Thompson's tenure, much has been made of bringing in young players, putting the future in motion, and only select holdovers from the Sherman regime were kept on the roster. It was time for "Packer People".
But at last check, Green and Tauscher were presumed to be little more than additions to the Packer Hall of Fame, and this offseason, many fans were pushing for Clifton to join them. "We have our young talent, and we're just letting them sit on the bench while the old veterans are just declining. Time to move forward. The train has left the station. We're crossing the Rubicon."
But, after seven games, "moving forward" is looking a whole lot like going back in time. I keep checking around for a souped up DeLorean in the hopes that Doc Brown might be able to explain to me why the Packers can't just get the train moving. And, as long as he's around, I have a couple questions about pad level to shoot at him, too. The way its been going, it sounds like a problem only a quantum physicist could fix, anyway.
In some ways, the sign-backs of two beloved players who had their heyday during the Sherman era is appeasing some of the masses. Veteran leadership, they cried. This team doesn't have the team leaders in the locker room. We need to sign some free agents!
And, the best that Ted Thompson can manage are two street free agents who were willing to come back to the team that had discarded them, for little more than a veteran's minimum salary? Puts a whole different light on the concept of "loyalty", doesn't it?
A skeptic might characterize the signings of Tauscher and Green as little more than a PR move. However, the fact that both Clifton and Tauscher are penciled in to start on Sunday (if healthy), as well as Green already supplanting DeShawn Wynn and Brandon Jackson as the #2 running back behind Ryan Grant should make many of Thompson's supporters take pause.
Why in God's name are these guys getting significant playing time at all? Ted Thompson has had five seasons to prepare for each of these declines and departures. Five years is the "old plan", the universally accepted time period that a good GM could turn things around and get a team to a Super Bowl. In reality, that time period is actually much shorter nowadays, thanks to free agency and salary caps.
But, regardless, there is little excuse for there not being talent on the roster acquired by Thompson over the last five years that would supplant two injured, aging, and declining offensive tackles, and a running back that was discarded after the 2006 season. And yet, here we are, watching TJ Lang and Allen Barbre each take a seat for the old veterans to come back in and try keep defenders out of reach of their quarterback.
Further compounding the intrigue is that fact that the Packers put a waiver claim today on another player from their discard pile, Anthony Smith, who was waived by the Rams. Few final cutdown moves were more surprising and questioned (and defended by some) as much as Smith, a veteran who had made some plays in the preseason and seemed a lock for the third safety spot.
Oh, certainly, there were questions about his locker room presence and his knack for playing outside the scheme at times. But since that time, the Packers have cut their third safety (Aaron Rouse, who is now starting for the Giants next week), acquired a safety from the Ravens via trade (who is apparently nothing better than a special teams player), and ended up having to play...Jarrett Bush.
The very fact that the Packers put in a bid to get this player back seems to suggest that they have come to grips with the belief that he wasn't all that bad of a player after all. Suddenly, that terrible team attitude and freelancing on the field didn't seem like such a big deal anymore, did it? However, the Packers weren't awarded Smith anyway, just adding to the egg on the face in placing the claim to begin with.
This is a sign to me that the cracks in the armor are starting to grow. While we never get to see all the reasons and rationale for personnel moves transparently, one can easily surmise that the Packer brass is starting to backtrack and cover for their errors.
Like, drafting one second-round running back covered with injury red-flags, and populating the rest of the backfield with undrafted rookies and an overpaid guy that cost us a 6th round pick.
Like, building your offensive line with mid-round draft picks hoping that competition would somehow make their fifth-round talent play like top-tier talent.
Like, cutting conceivably the second-best safety in your training camp in order to keep project guys and special teams players.
Now, I predicted this years ago: the Thompson approach of eschewing free agency and trading back in drafts was going to produce a mediocre team. But the call was always for "moving forward". When we let a veteran player go, like Green, we were content to believe that Brandon Jackson would someday be a far better player. Just like Barbre and Rouse.
In many ways, Thompson has been guilty of some of the same over-loyalty to his draft picks that Sherman was accused of. It is no small irony that, as Thompson kept under-producing players like Jackson, Aaron Rouse, and Tony Moll on the roster for far too long, that in response to that failure we actually end up turning back to the players we left behind.
In reality, we all know it is too late for Green, Clifton, and Tauscher to save us. The good players who could actually make a difference aren't going to be sitting on the street waiting for us to give them a vet's minimum salary for the honor to play for the Packers again. Anthony Smith, a guy in his prime that actually may have made a difference, is still too much in demand to come back to Green Bay. Perhaps in 2014 or so, Smith will be sitting at home waiting for a phone call to play for as little as possible, with no other suitors for his services.
The question is, will Thompson be working for the Packers when he makes that call?
As we turn on the game this Sunday, we may have to check the channel and make sure we're not watching Retro TV, because it may suddenly seem like the Mike Sherman era all over again.
Oh, sure, the number is different on Ahman Green's jersey, but it is still the same guy. Not quite running like he did in in 2003, like we all were hoping. More likely, he's running like he did in 2006, a season in which we begrudgingly admitted he was no longer the same back and didn't bat an eye when he left for Houston.
And, who is that possibly starting at the tackle spots this week? Why, if the injury fairy works in our favor, it'll be old stalwarts Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher, the bookends from those great running teams of the Sherman years. Unfortunately, it's not the Tausch and Clifton from 2003, either, but the older versions we've been murmuring about upgrading for the last several seasons.
Over much of GM Ted Thompson's tenure, much has been made of bringing in young players, putting the future in motion, and only select holdovers from the Sherman regime were kept on the roster. It was time for "Packer People".
But at last check, Green and Tauscher were presumed to be little more than additions to the Packer Hall of Fame, and this offseason, many fans were pushing for Clifton to join them. "We have our young talent, and we're just letting them sit on the bench while the old veterans are just declining. Time to move forward. The train has left the station. We're crossing the Rubicon."
But, after seven games, "moving forward" is looking a whole lot like going back in time. I keep checking around for a souped up DeLorean in the hopes that Doc Brown might be able to explain to me why the Packers can't just get the train moving. And, as long as he's around, I have a couple questions about pad level to shoot at him, too. The way its been going, it sounds like a problem only a quantum physicist could fix, anyway.
In some ways, the sign-backs of two beloved players who had their heyday during the Sherman era is appeasing some of the masses. Veteran leadership, they cried. This team doesn't have the team leaders in the locker room. We need to sign some free agents!
And, the best that Ted Thompson can manage are two street free agents who were willing to come back to the team that had discarded them, for little more than a veteran's minimum salary? Puts a whole different light on the concept of "loyalty", doesn't it?
A skeptic might characterize the signings of Tauscher and Green as little more than a PR move. However, the fact that both Clifton and Tauscher are penciled in to start on Sunday (if healthy), as well as Green already supplanting DeShawn Wynn and Brandon Jackson as the #2 running back behind Ryan Grant should make many of Thompson's supporters take pause.
Why in God's name are these guys getting significant playing time at all? Ted Thompson has had five seasons to prepare for each of these declines and departures. Five years is the "old plan", the universally accepted time period that a good GM could turn things around and get a team to a Super Bowl. In reality, that time period is actually much shorter nowadays, thanks to free agency and salary caps.
But, regardless, there is little excuse for there not being talent on the roster acquired by Thompson over the last five years that would supplant two injured, aging, and declining offensive tackles, and a running back that was discarded after the 2006 season. And yet, here we are, watching TJ Lang and Allen Barbre each take a seat for the old veterans to come back in and try keep defenders out of reach of their quarterback.
Further compounding the intrigue is that fact that the Packers put a waiver claim today on another player from their discard pile, Anthony Smith, who was waived by the Rams. Few final cutdown moves were more surprising and questioned (and defended by some) as much as Smith, a veteran who had made some plays in the preseason and seemed a lock for the third safety spot.
Oh, certainly, there were questions about his locker room presence and his knack for playing outside the scheme at times. But since that time, the Packers have cut their third safety (Aaron Rouse, who is now starting for the Giants next week), acquired a safety from the Ravens via trade (who is apparently nothing better than a special teams player), and ended up having to play...Jarrett Bush.
The very fact that the Packers put in a bid to get this player back seems to suggest that they have come to grips with the belief that he wasn't all that bad of a player after all. Suddenly, that terrible team attitude and freelancing on the field didn't seem like such a big deal anymore, did it? However, the Packers weren't awarded Smith anyway, just adding to the egg on the face in placing the claim to begin with.
This is a sign to me that the cracks in the armor are starting to grow. While we never get to see all the reasons and rationale for personnel moves transparently, one can easily surmise that the Packer brass is starting to backtrack and cover for their errors.
Like, drafting one second-round running back covered with injury red-flags, and populating the rest of the backfield with undrafted rookies and an overpaid guy that cost us a 6th round pick.
Like, building your offensive line with mid-round draft picks hoping that competition would somehow make their fifth-round talent play like top-tier talent.
Like, cutting conceivably the second-best safety in your training camp in order to keep project guys and special teams players.
Now, I predicted this years ago: the Thompson approach of eschewing free agency and trading back in drafts was going to produce a mediocre team. But the call was always for "moving forward". When we let a veteran player go, like Green, we were content to believe that Brandon Jackson would someday be a far better player. Just like Barbre and Rouse.
In many ways, Thompson has been guilty of some of the same over-loyalty to his draft picks that Sherman was accused of. It is no small irony that, as Thompson kept under-producing players like Jackson, Aaron Rouse, and Tony Moll on the roster for far too long, that in response to that failure we actually end up turning back to the players we left behind.
In reality, we all know it is too late for Green, Clifton, and Tauscher to save us. The good players who could actually make a difference aren't going to be sitting on the street waiting for us to give them a vet's minimum salary for the honor to play for the Packers again. Anthony Smith, a guy in his prime that actually may have made a difference, is still too much in demand to come back to Green Bay. Perhaps in 2014 or so, Smith will be sitting at home waiting for a phone call to play for as little as possible, with no other suitors for his services.
The question is, will Thompson be working for the Packers when he makes that call?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Did Rodgers Outplay Favre?
Interesting conversation I observed today. Two buddies were going back and forth regarding yesterday's game, and naturally, one was very Pro-Favre and the other was very Not-Pro-Favre. One of the guys was trying to make the point that Rodgers actually outplayed Favre yesterday.
The reason? "If you put Favre behind our offensive line, and Rodgers behind Minnesota's line, Rodgers would have had a better game than Favre did. Look at it: he was getting hit and chased left and right, and still had over a 100 efficiency rating. Favre would have thrown 5 interceptions if he'd been playing behind our line."
Interesting. And to be sure, there is some merit. Nearly any quarterback in history who had a great season was playing behind at least an adequate offensive line, if not a great one. Look at the differences in Troy Aikman's and Steve Young's careers once they had some powerful lines in front of them.
But to extrapolate to say that Rodgers "woulda" had a better game if he had Minnesota's offensive line is like saying Errict Rhett was a better running back than Emmitt Smith because of the lines they ran behind.
Aaron Rodgers is, in many ways, the Anti-Favre, particularly in how they handle themselves with pressure. They are very different from each other.
Favre is still better at managing the rush simply by maneuvering the pocket around and putting his linemen in the position to keep that block held for another half-second. Rodgers tends to either push up or back with his speed, and while sometimes it works, it doesn't give the linemen a chance to reset their blocks.
Rodgers is better at using his feet to generate positive yardage. Once again, he outstripped all of the Packer running backs yesterday...our only true rushing threat. For as much as Favre was once hyped as a mobile quarterback, he really never was...he was just good at moving around and buying time.
Rodgers is also better at not forcing the ball. Favre would avoid the sack by getting the ball off, even if it was early or forced into coverage. Rodgers was once pretty good at throwing it away, but is now content apparently to eat the ball as so not to turn the ball over.
And therein lies the real interesting comparison: where Favre would throw into coverage, Rodgers preserves the possession at the cost of a sack. Two very different approaches as to how you deal with pressure. And that has a stark impact on Rodgers' passing efficiency rating.
By not throwing an interception yesterday, Rodgers had a rating of 108.5, incredibly high for any quarterback, especially one in a loss. The avoidance of throwing those interceptions keeps that number quite high, though. If he had thrown one interception instead of an incompletion (or a sack), his rating drops to 98.3. Two interceptions brings it down to an 88.1, and three would be a 78.0.
Instead, he took six more sacks for a loss of 29 yards...almost as many yards as Ryan Grant had rushing. He also took ten more hits besides that, which explains why he's still limping today.
So sure, Rodgers might look even better behind a solid offensive line like Minnesota's, and would be greatly helped by having a home-run threat in the backfield like Adrian Peterson. I'm sure his stats would have been just as good as Favre's if he would have time in the backfield to pass and had a running back to take some pressure off of him.
However, if you put Favre behind our offensive line, and gave him a running back that only rushed ten times for thirty yards, what would you have?
Right...the same situation he was in his last three years as a Packer. Is what the Packers are doing on offense any more effective than our line with Wil Whittaker and Adrian Klemm? Is Grant doing any better than Samkon Gado did at the end of 2005?
Favre's already been in this scenario...we don't have to try and extrapolate it at all. And Favre dealt with playing behind a terrible offensive line and having no running game by throwing 29 interceptions. This may come as a surprise, but this was not anywhere near the NFL record of 42 in a single season.
Rodgers is dealing with the same scenario in his own way...piling on sacks instead of turnovers. And he is back on track for 74 sacks this season, just two short of the NFL record set by David Carr.
And it makes you understand, to a degree, why Favre had pressed Thompson so hard for some veteran leadership and talent to surround him on offense. No, I'm not condoning his actions, thinking he could dictate a direction to Ted Thompson, but the fact is that Rodgers is now the one dealing with not having an adequate offensive line in front of him, or a true rushing threat behind him.
In the end, Favre got where he wanted to go, and is reaping the benefits of a team built in an Anti-Ted fashion. But, for no good reason, Aaron Rodgers is still working behind a line that features only one second round draft pick and the rest second-day picks. He's handing off to an overpaid average running back that has no vision or burst unless the holes are ten feet wide.
And there is no excuse for this. Thompson has had five years to build the team to surround Aaron Rodgers. There is not one offensive lineman who you can look at that is even remotely worth of Pro Bowl status. The plan to develop flexible, interchangeable linemen has backfired: it is clear that the Packers have a bunch of interchangeable linemen who are simply ineffective wherever you put them.
And, in the backfield, the Packers invested one second-round pick on an injury red-flag running back that hasn't done much since. The rest of the candidates have been late-round picks, street free agents, and other preseason darlings-turned-disappointments.
Rodgers is a bona fide franchise quarterback, but the Packers are going to do to him what Houston did to Carr and the 49ers did to Alex Smith, but it will be far worse. Those teams drafted a young kid and started him as a rookie with the horrible team around him. But, the Packers wisely were able to groom Rodgers on the bench for three years before thrusting him into the spotlight, with a 13-3 team surrounding him. But that level of execution quickly vanished, and Rodgers has been asked to win games purely on his arm.
Just like someone else we remember. But, this isn't how it was supposed to be with Rodgers.
So, don't think too hard about imagining Rodgers playing with Minnesota's offensive line and running game. I'm sure Favre imagined that for quite some time, too, and it ended up coming true.
The reason? "If you put Favre behind our offensive line, and Rodgers behind Minnesota's line, Rodgers would have had a better game than Favre did. Look at it: he was getting hit and chased left and right, and still had over a 100 efficiency rating. Favre would have thrown 5 interceptions if he'd been playing behind our line."
Interesting. And to be sure, there is some merit. Nearly any quarterback in history who had a great season was playing behind at least an adequate offensive line, if not a great one. Look at the differences in Troy Aikman's and Steve Young's careers once they had some powerful lines in front of them.
But to extrapolate to say that Rodgers "woulda" had a better game if he had Minnesota's offensive line is like saying Errict Rhett was a better running back than Emmitt Smith because of the lines they ran behind.
Aaron Rodgers is, in many ways, the Anti-Favre, particularly in how they handle themselves with pressure. They are very different from each other.
Favre is still better at managing the rush simply by maneuvering the pocket around and putting his linemen in the position to keep that block held for another half-second. Rodgers tends to either push up or back with his speed, and while sometimes it works, it doesn't give the linemen a chance to reset their blocks.
Rodgers is better at using his feet to generate positive yardage. Once again, he outstripped all of the Packer running backs yesterday...our only true rushing threat. For as much as Favre was once hyped as a mobile quarterback, he really never was...he was just good at moving around and buying time.
Rodgers is also better at not forcing the ball. Favre would avoid the sack by getting the ball off, even if it was early or forced into coverage. Rodgers was once pretty good at throwing it away, but is now content apparently to eat the ball as so not to turn the ball over.
And therein lies the real interesting comparison: where Favre would throw into coverage, Rodgers preserves the possession at the cost of a sack. Two very different approaches as to how you deal with pressure. And that has a stark impact on Rodgers' passing efficiency rating.
By not throwing an interception yesterday, Rodgers had a rating of 108.5, incredibly high for any quarterback, especially one in a loss. The avoidance of throwing those interceptions keeps that number quite high, though. If he had thrown one interception instead of an incompletion (or a sack), his rating drops to 98.3. Two interceptions brings it down to an 88.1, and three would be a 78.0.
Instead, he took six more sacks for a loss of 29 yards...almost as many yards as Ryan Grant had rushing. He also took ten more hits besides that, which explains why he's still limping today.
So sure, Rodgers might look even better behind a solid offensive line like Minnesota's, and would be greatly helped by having a home-run threat in the backfield like Adrian Peterson. I'm sure his stats would have been just as good as Favre's if he would have time in the backfield to pass and had a running back to take some pressure off of him.
However, if you put Favre behind our offensive line, and gave him a running back that only rushed ten times for thirty yards, what would you have?
Right...the same situation he was in his last three years as a Packer. Is what the Packers are doing on offense any more effective than our line with Wil Whittaker and Adrian Klemm? Is Grant doing any better than Samkon Gado did at the end of 2005?
Favre's already been in this scenario...we don't have to try and extrapolate it at all. And Favre dealt with playing behind a terrible offensive line and having no running game by throwing 29 interceptions. This may come as a surprise, but this was not anywhere near the NFL record of 42 in a single season.
Rodgers is dealing with the same scenario in his own way...piling on sacks instead of turnovers. And he is back on track for 74 sacks this season, just two short of the NFL record set by David Carr.
And it makes you understand, to a degree, why Favre had pressed Thompson so hard for some veteran leadership and talent to surround him on offense. No, I'm not condoning his actions, thinking he could dictate a direction to Ted Thompson, but the fact is that Rodgers is now the one dealing with not having an adequate offensive line in front of him, or a true rushing threat behind him.
In the end, Favre got where he wanted to go, and is reaping the benefits of a team built in an Anti-Ted fashion. But, for no good reason, Aaron Rodgers is still working behind a line that features only one second round draft pick and the rest second-day picks. He's handing off to an overpaid average running back that has no vision or burst unless the holes are ten feet wide.
And there is no excuse for this. Thompson has had five years to build the team to surround Aaron Rodgers. There is not one offensive lineman who you can look at that is even remotely worth of Pro Bowl status. The plan to develop flexible, interchangeable linemen has backfired: it is clear that the Packers have a bunch of interchangeable linemen who are simply ineffective wherever you put them.
And, in the backfield, the Packers invested one second-round pick on an injury red-flag running back that hasn't done much since. The rest of the candidates have been late-round picks, street free agents, and other preseason darlings-turned-disappointments.
Rodgers is a bona fide franchise quarterback, but the Packers are going to do to him what Houston did to Carr and the 49ers did to Alex Smith, but it will be far worse. Those teams drafted a young kid and started him as a rookie with the horrible team around him. But, the Packers wisely were able to groom Rodgers on the bench for three years before thrusting him into the spotlight, with a 13-3 team surrounding him. But that level of execution quickly vanished, and Rodgers has been asked to win games purely on his arm.
Just like someone else we remember. But, this isn't how it was supposed to be with Rodgers.
So, don't think too hard about imagining Rodgers playing with Minnesota's offensive line and running game. I'm sure Favre imagined that for quite some time, too, and it ended up coming true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)