I didn’t see the Viking game and didn’t have time to analyze the play-by-play. However, if as was said, the Vikings had a more run-heavy offense and limited Favre (which I somewhat expected since on top of all his injuries, which I wouldn’t have expected them to limit him for, ESPN reported Sunday morning that he might have pneumonia), that explains why they only scored 17 points. Running will do that, and that means the defense won the game. They only won by 7, which means the game could have gone either way, which then means that because they did all that running, they barely beat a team they are much better than. That’s what happens when you run–you don’t score a lot and keep the other team in the game. This is a general rule, but as I’ve always said, it applies every time to a Favre team and almost every time to the Packers.
I enjoyed the comment about the bears being 4-0 since they went to a more-balanced offense. This is what all the reporters say, too, and in my opinion could not be more wrong. I believe the bears started out the season with a lot of wins (prior to the Washington and Seattle games), and they won those games, which no one expected them to win, by passing. They then lost some games. People feel the 4 straight wins are because of the balanced offense. I know the real reason, and that reason is that the bears are probably the healthiest team in the league, and they keep playing teams that lost key guys the week before, which is the real determining factor regarding the outcome. It’s the injury situation, not the balanced offense. Let’s look at the bear wins, and I’ll include the early-season wins, too. I will not discuss opposition coaching idiocy at this point, but will later in this e-mail.
Lions–played a healthy team, although I think Stafford went out during the game, and won the game on a ridiculous rule. Sports Illustrated ran a photo of Johnson in the endzone holding up the ball, while completely inbounds.
Cowboys–not sure of their injury situation, so I’ll assume they were healthy
Packers–lost a number of key starters two weeks and one week prior to the game. Would have lost to healthy Packer team.
Vikings–no receivers. Rice was already out, and Berrian went out just before the game. Harvin didn’t practice much (headaches) and got hurt during the game. Would have lost to healthy Viking team.
Miami–lost first- and second-string QB the week before, and a lot of their offensive line. Would have lost to healthy Miami team.
Eagles–lost Asante Samuel and Ellis Hobbs the week before the game. This allowed Cutler to pass very effectively. ESPN announcer said Samuel would have picked off Cutler 3 times. Would have lost to healthy Eagle team.
This week they play the Lions, and I heard Shaun Hill will not play due to a broken finger suffered last week, of course, meaning if this is true, they will play a third-string QB. A tough game in Detroit just got a lot easier if this is true, and might have determined the outcome.
It’s obvious that health is the reason the bears are winning, not a balanced offense.
Now, a few words about coaching. Of course the Packer, Viking, Dolphin, and Eagle coaching had a tremendous amount to do with the bears winning. Balanced offense or not, the bears don’t win any of those games except possibly the Miami game if the opposing coaches had a clue. We’ve been through all the games except the Eagle game, so here’s my take on this. The bears played their 2 safeties in the middle of the field and deep (15-20 yards), to try to take away the bombs to Jackson and Maclin. They are both very fast receivers, and the bears wanted to limit this threat. From the beginning of the game, I said that 12-15 yards on both sidelines was wide open, and they needed to attack that. It was so obvious this was open due to the way the safeties were playing, but they didn’t get this. They could have also run crossing routes in front of the safeties to these areas. I know Urlacher dropped deep in the middle on some plays, but the sidelines were wide open. Also, kicking deep cost them the game just by itself. Two big returns hurt them, especially Hester’s big return to start the second half. How many games (Green Bay included) does Hester have to win by returns until coaches understand this?
I am asked why I criticize the Packers for not taking Favre back since Rodgers is doing so well. Let me go back to what I said at the time. I said that I thought Aaron Rodgers was going to be very good, and the QB of the future. The Packers had just reached the NFC championship game, losing in overtime to an inferior team due to one of the worst coaching jobs on both sides of the ball in the history of the NFL. They were the youngest team in the league, and should have won the Super Bowl. Since they weren’t rebuilding, but were contending, I said that they should keep Favre for 2 more years since they’d be competing for the championship and offer Rodgers an ADDITIONAL $5 million per year to stay as the backup, letting him know the job was his in 2 years and he’d be the starter if Favre got hurt. I was always pro-Rodgers. Let’s look at what happened. The first year Favre was gone, the Packers went something like 6-10. 7 of their losses were by 3-4 points or less. Rodgers was getting experience, but it’s obvious that Favre would have been the difference in those games. So, in the first year, they not only didn’t win the Super Bowl, but didn’t make the playoffs, and could have been a serious contender with Favre. Last year was year 2 post-Favre. The Packers and Rodgers had a very good year, but were knocked out of the playoffs by the refs. Favre went on to win the Super Bowl with Minnesota. So, I was correct. Had the Packers kept Favre those 2 years, they had an excellent chance of being champions both years.
One final point. I’ve been saying from the beginning that year after year, the Packers get robbed by the refs. I thought it was interesting last year that the refs knocked two teams out of the playoffs, which everyone admitted, and those two teams were the Vikings (Favre) and the Packers. I think there are 30 or 32 teams in the league, but I guess it’s just coincidence that the two teams that were robbed were those two. Now, to my point. The Packer-Falcon game was the biggest game of the year in the NFC. The winner would be in great shape for the playoffs, have the inside track for homefield advantage, and be in great shape for playoff tiebreakers. So, what happens? The refs blatantly steal the game from the Packers, which the announcers, ESPN, local Chicago sports anchors, etc. all commented on. This dramatically impacts the season, because as a Falcon player said, they didn’t want to have to go to Green Bay in January. This happens year after year. Of course McCarthy and his staff should have challenged, which was just one of the idiotic things he did to also cost the Packers the game (including kicking deep in overtime), but that’s not the point. And, by the way, this is a perfect example of what I’ve always said is wrong with the NFL. Replay clearly showed the 4th-down pass was incomplete, and it wasn’t even close. Everyone in the entire country except the people in the stadium knew the Packers stopped the drive. Why isn’t it set up where the booth can call down and let the refs know the call was wrong? We want to limit fixing bad calls to coaches’ challenges, and not let the players decide the outcome? I can see if it’s a very close play that would take time to review, and in that case, the coach could challenge. But when the call is obviously wrong and can immediately be seen, who can benefit by knowingly letting a bad call stand? Back to my point–the Packers would have had a much easier path to the Super Bowl had the game been officiated fairly, and now run the risk of not even making the playoffs since they have so many injuries and could have more. Of course I still think they are the best team in the NFC, but anything can happen. This is what I deal with every year.