Sunday, October 14, 2007

Green Bay 17, Washington 14

Whew, that was ugly. The Packers escaped with a 17-14 slobbernocker that could only a Big-11 fan could enjoy. They gave one away last week, and stole one today. Lets call it even. Matt even switched to the Tampa-Tennessee game for more stimulation. I had to catch the second half on the radio, so if I'm dead wrong...let me know.

The Good:
- Defense. They made big plays when they had to, specifically in the second half. The Skins did nothing in the second. They came in as one of the best rushing offenses in football, only to get 90 yards for a 3.2 per carry average.
- Woodson and Kampman made the biggest. And the radio guys seemed to call Bigbie's name every other play. Man, what a find this guy was. Talk about an upgrade over Manuel!
- Al Harris and Chuck Woodson must be commended as the two starting WRs (Randel-El, and Santana Moss) combine for a grand total of 30 yards receiving.
- Donald Lee continues to make teams think about GB's TEs for the first time since the Chewy-Keith Jackson days.
- Barnett with his usual strong showing. That 4th and 2 stop was huge.
- The penalty situation was much improved. From 12 last week to 4 today.
- Green Bay is 3-0 vs the NFC East this year....with a visit to Dallas coming up.

The Bad:
- I called Cooley having a big game right on the money. Poppy, Hawk, and Collins all had trouble with Cooley. He was slowed in the second half, but I couldn't see who was guarding him.
- The offense was non-existent. Then again, that wasn't much of a shock. Not in that weather, against that secondary, with their defensive scheme.
- Crosby missed two big field goals. That can't happen.
- They were on the bad side of two calls. The first one took 4 points off the board on the TD to Jones because of a questionable holding call on Tausch. At least that's what the announcers, Matt, and the JS said. The second was the Bubba out of bounds TD catch. I guess it was a bad call as he was forced out of bounds. Crosby then doinked the FG giving us zero points. That's 10 points we should have had....but didn't, whatever.
-That Trammon Williams guy is boom or bust. He averaged like 14 per kickoff today. He looked good with a 65 yarder last week.

Final Word:
I'll let PackerNews.com explain - Three times this season, the Packers won because of Favre. Twice now, they’ve won in spite of him. He wasn’t sharp in either the Week 1 win over Philadelphia or in Sunday’s win over Washington. Against the Eagles, the special teams picked him up. On Sunday, it was the defense’s ability to create turnovers. Say what you want about the Packers squeaking by or catching mediocre teams at the right time, but good teams find ways to win. At this point, with the Packers at 5-1 heading into their bye, it’s hard to call them anything other than a good team. They’re not great, but they’re no fluke, either.

It's hard to argue with this assessment. The "no fluke" label looks even better considering they've won 9 of the last 10. Washington is a good team. Frankly, I bet they win more than 9 games. To win a game in that weather, with Favre sucking, DD non existent, no running game, against a good team, and missing 2 O-linemen...those are the kind of games good teams win. I think they matched Matt's win prediction and doubled Goldy's. And we're only through week 6.

19 comments:

AP said...

The two calls that took Packer points off the board were absolutely horrible. I think those calls went a long way in making that an ugly win, and they went a long way in contributing to Favre sucking. You make one of those calls the right way, and the Packers win pretty easily, Favre's day looks a lot better, an so does Crosby's day for that matter. I do agree that Favre looked horrible on deep balls though; he threw everything straight in the air like he was throwing a punt.

woziszeus said...

Paging AJ Hawk? Has anybody seen him yet this year?

Besides that recovered fumble yesterday...I can barely remember a time when his name was called this year.

Goldy said...

That second half was a truly pathetic display by both teams. Like AP said, thinks probably look a lot different if the Packers don't get hosed on those 2 calls, but man, both teams looked horrendous in the second half.

On that 4th and 2 play, if I am a Redskins fan, I just hate that playcall. On 3rd and 2 I can accept that, but on 4th, you have to throw that ball past the marker.

On a final note, Al Harris gave a truly piss poor effort on Campbell's TD run. Harris could have at least made an effort to hit him at the goal line. Who knows, maybe the ball pops loose. But Harris just stood about 3 feet away and watched.

AP said...

Good call by Woz too on AJ Hawk. At the end of last year I hated Barnett & I thought Hawk was about 2 years away from being a pro-bowler every year. Right now, Hawk looks very average and #56 is playing out of his skull. It'd be scary if both of those guys could play great at the same time.

I also enjoyed watching Kampman push the tackle back into Campbell like he was on roller skates all day long. With two weeks until we play next, what are the odds that Jennings & Morencey are both healthy next week? 20%? I believe we get Koren Robinson back now also, provided the league reinstates him. How about 5-wide/empty backfield for the rest of the year? Works for me....

Goldy said...

Also like to point out that a #30 for the Packers had a positive gain (can't remember if it was a run or a pass) and had some good blocks on the few plays he was in. I have no clue who this guy is.

Another thought on Harris. The JS keeps talking about how banged up he is every week and mentioned he is staying in GB over the bye week to get treatment on his back. I understand that it probably wasn't worth the effort to try and pop Campbell when there is a 99% chance he will score, it just looked funny. I am just glad the real Al Harris is back and not the Al Harris of the first 8 weeks of last season when he was pissed about his contract.

matt said...

Big assist from Santana Moss in this game. The Redskins must have dropped about 10 passes.

If I was playing the Packers, I'd go with 3 and 4 TE sets - the inability to cover even a mediocre tight end is laughable.

Brad said...

Matt - They have been beat by pretty good TEs: Gates, Cooley, Shockey. The Bears TEs (Olsen, Clark) combine for a good game. They shut down LJ Smith and the Vikes TEs.

To their credit, they figured out Cooley in the second half: 2 catches, 8 yards. Credit halftime adjustments on that one.

matt said...

I don't think you can call Cooley a pretty good TE. He's fair. He had something like 8 catches on the season coming into the game.

Covering the TE is a big problem for the Packers.

NFL Scout said...

Cooley is just a guy.

Anonymous said...

Cooley is more than just a guy.

Tony said...

Sorry to inform you but Cooly is a J.A.G.

Anonymous said...

Is he on your crappy fantasy team or something?

Tony said...

No but my fantasy team is full of JAGs so I am kind of a JAG talent expert

AP said...

I know it might not be the most accurate way to measure talent, but on Yahoo fantasy football Cooley is ranked #7 in the league for TE's & #60 for all players. At TE he is ahead of guys like Heap, Crumpler, & Shockey. I understand if you want to say he is no world beater, but he is definitely better than J.A.G.

matt said...

All I was saying is that he had 10 catches for 80-some yards coming into the game. On the season. I think he matched those numbers in the first half.

Our linebackers are unable to cover tight ends.

Anonymous said...

...with 3 TDs. 700+ yards and 7 TDs last year. The same in 05. He's a good tight end.

Goldy said...

Cooley is a top tight end. Not only is he a good reciever, he also is a good blocker. Probably the best blocking/recieving TE in the league. And yes, he is on my fantasy team.

Goldy said...

If you go back and check, my final prediction was 6-10. http://wisconsinsportsblogs.blogspot.com/2007/09/official-packer-predictions.html

AP said...

I will admit to being a Cooley fantasy owner as well. Perhaps I am biased, but I agree that he is pretty good.