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?
Friday, November 6, 2009
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.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
TundraVision QuickHits: Favreageddon Aftermath
Having just returned from the game, I probably should sit down with the DVR and review this game on television before writing a game review. However, I can tell you now that I don't plan on watching this game again until my body has rid itself of the toxins left behind from watching it the first time, so I will simply comment based on what I saw live.
I went into this game believing there would be no moral victories...this was a must-win, no excuse or rationalization. However, in retrospect, I think I was wrong. When the Packers roared back in the second half, there was a part of me that was so excited that I felt even if they lost in the last seconds in a close game, I was much happier than the way the game had started. However, when the Packers returned to their first-half uninspired and disjointed play, I think it left me even more disappointed.
This game was about a lot more than the quarterback for the other team, no matter how much we hyped it and overblew it. It looks like the Packers also forgot to focus on what was important, too. With that, the QuickHits for this week:
* This game turned on one decision: the choice to go for a 50-yard field goal. Yes, 4th and 8, down by five points in the fourth quarter on the Viking 33 is probably a no-brainer...normally.
But this is Mason Crosby, who melts in the face of pressure and kicks over 35 yards long. If you were listening, there was a voice resonating from Section 130, Row 35, screaming "No! Don't do it!", bringing back memories of Frankie Winters yelling at T.J. Rubely. But, no, that was me screaming to Mike McCarthy, pleading with him not to give the Vikings the ball at midfield and the momentum back. But, he did.
Simply put, Mason Crosby is an excellent kickoff guy. But this is the second big kick in two seasons of Vikings games he's blown. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. As soon as that eeked outside the uprights, you could tell the whole team lost every bit of steam they had in their stride.
* I've already noticed Aaron at Cheesehead TV starting to take heat for reacting emotionally to this game. Please. And if the Packers had won, we would be censoring our own emotionalism? No way. We CHOSE to make this game the biggest game on the home schedule this year. And no matter how much we deny it, how much we say we're "sick of Favre", we made it all about him today, made beating "him" the only goal. And we lost...badly.
The Packers have been a part of what will be two of the highest rated NFL games this season outside of the Super Bowl, and it isn't because of who is playing on their team, who is coaching them, or who is leading them. It was because of who they were playing. Now, all that attention is going to go away for the rest of the season, and it is up to us to figure out the mess left behind.
There's going to be LOTS of emotional statements. "It's a business" has been a common phrase uttered since Ted Thompson took over the Packers, justifying his approach to building a team. Look for that to change soon. Yes, the Packers are a business, but it ain't all about dollars and cents. It's about wins.
* Clay Matthews rocks. I have been trying to decide what jersey I want, and I may have decided on this kid. I still can't justify the amount we paid to get him, but it sure is nice to have a first rounder pan out and contribute right away.
* The lack of pressure on Favre compared to the pressure on Rodgers was laughable. Some of it was due to the differences in the offensive lines, and Lang/Barbre did nothing to alleviate the concerns that Thompson did not have a very good plan in place to replace Clifton/Tauscher. But the harshest lesson has to be watching Favre's most underrated skill set: his ability to sense pressure in the pocket and move it around with slight adjustments, helping his linemen keep in front of the rushers. Rodgers seems to be regressing, holding onto the ball so bloody long, when last year we regularly applauded him throwing it out of bounds.
Six sacks on Rodgers, and ten hits on him. That's simply unacceptable. Favre again went without a sack, and while he did have five hits on him that, at times, upset his passes, you sure didn't see him limping around after each play.
I love Aaron Rodgers. I think he has the potential to be a great quarterback in this league. But he's going to get hurt soon, and worse, he's going to keep developing bad habits that quarterbacks get when they never have time to throw.
* Nothing against Jermichael Finley, but Spencer Havner is doing what we've been waiting for Jermichael Finley to do. Maybe it is simply a component of the offense, and as long as you have a nice athletic body in there, these red-zone TDs are what we should expect. I'm sure Havner is feeling really good about his job security after the last few weeks.
* Oftentimes, stats tell you a pretty clear story, but not today. The Packers owned time of possession, edged the Vikings in first downs, turnovers, passing yardage. But they lost out on the most important stat: the final score.
My favorite stat? Ryan Grant, our leading halfback, had 30 yards on 10 carries. The Packers had 6 penalties for 45 yards. Once again, our halfback couldn't outstrip our penalties.
* Maybe someone has a good explanation for me, but was anyone else confused when Ahman Green was returning kicks? I mean, wasn't he just activated for the game, and has he ever had experience returning kicks? Just didn't make a lot of sense. Maybe the radio or TV broadcast explained it. Just struck me kind of odd.
* Again, stats belie what happened on the field. Sure, Rodgers again has a glowing passing rating of 108.5, but since he never turns the ball over, that will always keep that number respectable. Rodgers looked as flustered as I've ever seen him, even back to his rookie year. He looked out of sync with his receivers, throwing the ball into wide-open spaces. He took unnecessary sacks and used his legs to outrush every other back on our team combined.
If you just look at his stats, you'd say he had a good game. But this was far from his best.
* Yes, Adrian Peterson finished with almost a hundred yards, but the defense did a very good job keeping him under control. A third of his yards came on one carry, and without it, he averaged just over 2 yards a carry. Seems like every time we face him, everyone assumes he's going to "get his yards". But the Packers have stymied him each time, a feather in the cap for a run defense that was maligned at the beginning of the season.
* Scary moment when Donald Driver went down. Seemed like a lot of knicks and cuts this week, which usually seem to happen more when you are losing. Glad to see he was alright.
* Viking fans in the crowd made me a bit nervous. How exactly do this many Viking fans get tickets for a sold-out game with nothing but season ticket holders? I saw at least two Viking fans led out of the stadium by police, so here's hoping some of those season ticket holders who can't seem to keep their tickets away from people with purple jerseys lose their tickets. The Vikings fans nearest me were very polite and gave (and took) some good-natured ribbing, but I didn't have to look too far to see some very antagonistic behavior.
* Listening to Mike McCarthy talk after the game did not sound much different from what he's said for the last year and a half. "I felt the game had really flipped and you need to ride those waves. Especially at home. That's the benefit of playing home football. That's the benefit of playing here at Lambeau Field. We didn't take advantage of that. That's a lesson that needs to be learned. We made too many mistakes to win the game and that's a fact. I didn't do a very good job of getting the offense in rhythm in the first half."
I know, what is he supposed to say? The point is, though, he's been saying the same thing for over a year now and we are still waiting for this team to show up consistently for four quarters against quality opponents. I think MM is playing for his job the rest of this season.
* This game sure showed a huge difference from the last two games, where I think the Packers could have sat their starters and still beat the level of competition they were up against. There was no rhythm, no motivation, no discipline...until what seemed to be a "sugar rush" in the third quarter that dissipated short of the goal. The same old problems resurfaced; sacks, lack of pressure on the quarterback, non-combat penalties, missed tackles, lack of discipline.
This is a team that is simply playing with "antergy", which is the opposite of synergy. They aren't playing up to their ability, much less exceeding the sum of their parts. This game exposed the holes on the roster and the square pegs in round holes of the 3-4 defense.
Brett Favre didn't beat Aaron Rodgers today. Favre and the Vikings beat the team Ted Thompson was supposed to have built around Rodgers.
I went into this game believing there would be no moral victories...this was a must-win, no excuse or rationalization. However, in retrospect, I think I was wrong. When the Packers roared back in the second half, there was a part of me that was so excited that I felt even if they lost in the last seconds in a close game, I was much happier than the way the game had started. However, when the Packers returned to their first-half uninspired and disjointed play, I think it left me even more disappointed.
This game was about a lot more than the quarterback for the other team, no matter how much we hyped it and overblew it. It looks like the Packers also forgot to focus on what was important, too. With that, the QuickHits for this week:
* This game turned on one decision: the choice to go for a 50-yard field goal. Yes, 4th and 8, down by five points in the fourth quarter on the Viking 33 is probably a no-brainer...normally.
But this is Mason Crosby, who melts in the face of pressure and kicks over 35 yards long. If you were listening, there was a voice resonating from Section 130, Row 35, screaming "No! Don't do it!", bringing back memories of Frankie Winters yelling at T.J. Rubely. But, no, that was me screaming to Mike McCarthy, pleading with him not to give the Vikings the ball at midfield and the momentum back. But, he did.
Simply put, Mason Crosby is an excellent kickoff guy. But this is the second big kick in two seasons of Vikings games he's blown. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. As soon as that eeked outside the uprights, you could tell the whole team lost every bit of steam they had in their stride.
* I've already noticed Aaron at Cheesehead TV starting to take heat for reacting emotionally to this game. Please. And if the Packers had won, we would be censoring our own emotionalism? No way. We CHOSE to make this game the biggest game on the home schedule this year. And no matter how much we deny it, how much we say we're "sick of Favre", we made it all about him today, made beating "him" the only goal. And we lost...badly.
The Packers have been a part of what will be two of the highest rated NFL games this season outside of the Super Bowl, and it isn't because of who is playing on their team, who is coaching them, or who is leading them. It was because of who they were playing. Now, all that attention is going to go away for the rest of the season, and it is up to us to figure out the mess left behind.
There's going to be LOTS of emotional statements. "It's a business" has been a common phrase uttered since Ted Thompson took over the Packers, justifying his approach to building a team. Look for that to change soon. Yes, the Packers are a business, but it ain't all about dollars and cents. It's about wins.
* Clay Matthews rocks. I have been trying to decide what jersey I want, and I may have decided on this kid. I still can't justify the amount we paid to get him, but it sure is nice to have a first rounder pan out and contribute right away.
* The lack of pressure on Favre compared to the pressure on Rodgers was laughable. Some of it was due to the differences in the offensive lines, and Lang/Barbre did nothing to alleviate the concerns that Thompson did not have a very good plan in place to replace Clifton/Tauscher. But the harshest lesson has to be watching Favre's most underrated skill set: his ability to sense pressure in the pocket and move it around with slight adjustments, helping his linemen keep in front of the rushers. Rodgers seems to be regressing, holding onto the ball so bloody long, when last year we regularly applauded him throwing it out of bounds.
Six sacks on Rodgers, and ten hits on him. That's simply unacceptable. Favre again went without a sack, and while he did have five hits on him that, at times, upset his passes, you sure didn't see him limping around after each play.
I love Aaron Rodgers. I think he has the potential to be a great quarterback in this league. But he's going to get hurt soon, and worse, he's going to keep developing bad habits that quarterbacks get when they never have time to throw.
* Nothing against Jermichael Finley, but Spencer Havner is doing what we've been waiting for Jermichael Finley to do. Maybe it is simply a component of the offense, and as long as you have a nice athletic body in there, these red-zone TDs are what we should expect. I'm sure Havner is feeling really good about his job security after the last few weeks.
* Oftentimes, stats tell you a pretty clear story, but not today. The Packers owned time of possession, edged the Vikings in first downs, turnovers, passing yardage. But they lost out on the most important stat: the final score.
My favorite stat? Ryan Grant, our leading halfback, had 30 yards on 10 carries. The Packers had 6 penalties for 45 yards. Once again, our halfback couldn't outstrip our penalties.
* Maybe someone has a good explanation for me, but was anyone else confused when Ahman Green was returning kicks? I mean, wasn't he just activated for the game, and has he ever had experience returning kicks? Just didn't make a lot of sense. Maybe the radio or TV broadcast explained it. Just struck me kind of odd.
* Again, stats belie what happened on the field. Sure, Rodgers again has a glowing passing rating of 108.5, but since he never turns the ball over, that will always keep that number respectable. Rodgers looked as flustered as I've ever seen him, even back to his rookie year. He looked out of sync with his receivers, throwing the ball into wide-open spaces. He took unnecessary sacks and used his legs to outrush every other back on our team combined.
If you just look at his stats, you'd say he had a good game. But this was far from his best.
* Yes, Adrian Peterson finished with almost a hundred yards, but the defense did a very good job keeping him under control. A third of his yards came on one carry, and without it, he averaged just over 2 yards a carry. Seems like every time we face him, everyone assumes he's going to "get his yards". But the Packers have stymied him each time, a feather in the cap for a run defense that was maligned at the beginning of the season.
* Scary moment when Donald Driver went down. Seemed like a lot of knicks and cuts this week, which usually seem to happen more when you are losing. Glad to see he was alright.
* Viking fans in the crowd made me a bit nervous. How exactly do this many Viking fans get tickets for a sold-out game with nothing but season ticket holders? I saw at least two Viking fans led out of the stadium by police, so here's hoping some of those season ticket holders who can't seem to keep their tickets away from people with purple jerseys lose their tickets. The Vikings fans nearest me were very polite and gave (and took) some good-natured ribbing, but I didn't have to look too far to see some very antagonistic behavior.
* Listening to Mike McCarthy talk after the game did not sound much different from what he's said for the last year and a half. "I felt the game had really flipped and you need to ride those waves. Especially at home. That's the benefit of playing home football. That's the benefit of playing here at Lambeau Field. We didn't take advantage of that. That's a lesson that needs to be learned. We made too many mistakes to win the game and that's a fact. I didn't do a very good job of getting the offense in rhythm in the first half."
I know, what is he supposed to say? The point is, though, he's been saying the same thing for over a year now and we are still waiting for this team to show up consistently for four quarters against quality opponents. I think MM is playing for his job the rest of this season.
* This game sure showed a huge difference from the last two games, where I think the Packers could have sat their starters and still beat the level of competition they were up against. There was no rhythm, no motivation, no discipline...until what seemed to be a "sugar rush" in the third quarter that dissipated short of the goal. The same old problems resurfaced; sacks, lack of pressure on the quarterback, non-combat penalties, missed tackles, lack of discipline.
This is a team that is simply playing with "antergy", which is the opposite of synergy. They aren't playing up to their ability, much less exceeding the sum of their parts. This game exposed the holes on the roster and the square pegs in round holes of the 3-4 defense.
Brett Favre didn't beat Aaron Rodgers today. Favre and the Vikings beat the team Ted Thompson was supposed to have built around Rodgers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)