Despite Injuries, Despite Two-Game Lead, Packers Need to Play to Win
Green Bay needs to treat the game against Chicago on Christmas just like any other game they've played this season.
I was rather shocked to read the opinions of some Packers fans in the comments section here at Cheesehead TV today regarding how the Packers should approach Sunday's Christmas Day game against the Chicago Bears at Lambeau Field.
Two examples:
I’m not entirely sure I care that much about the Packers securing the number 1 seed anyway. I’m not sure if I’d rather play San Francisco at home or at their place. In the end, it may not matter.
Agree. The Packers do well in warmer conditions and have had success in SF. Not sure if the last two games are worth risking further injury. The Bears and Lions always play tough. Haney looked sharp against the Pack in last year’s championship, so don’t underestimate. GB should play this like a tuneup for the playoffs. Use the backups. Rest the injured.
It might be the case that opinions like these are in the minority, but the fact that I read more than one comment like this set off red flags inside my brain.
I can see where they're coming from. Their most compelling piece of evidence comes in the form of quarterback Aaron Rodgers, whom the Packers can't afford to be injured, especially in light of the numerous injuries along the offensive line. I would assume the same goes for the other stars on the Packers roster to a lesser extent.
There's also the two-game lead the Packers have in the quest for home-field advantage with two games remaining in the regular season. Their magic number is one: any combination of one Green Bay win (or tie) or one San Francisco loss (or tie) would wrap up every game being played at Lambeau Field for the duration of the playoffs. Not exactly a stretch of the imagination to think that's going to happen.
But the Packers haven't clinched that scenario yet. The 49ers made sure of that when they disposed of the Steelers last night at Candlestick Park.
As the cliche goes, the Packers can only worry about themselves and what they can control. That means they can't hope and pray the Niners lose. And that means taking care of business on Sunday to ensure the path to the Super Bowl runs through Lambeau Field.
No one wants to face a situation where the Packers lose and the 49ers win in Week 16, and the race for home-field advantage comes down to the final week of the season with the Packers on a two-game losing streak.
Obviously, there's no need to take risks with injured players. Their health comes first and foremost. But if the players healthy enough to play, they should be playing just like this is Week 1 of the season.
There's several risks with resting the starters against the Bears, the first being routine. The players need and are used to the same consistency week after week.
The preparation, the importance placed upon the game, the message the players receive should be the same as it has been all season long.
If the Packers start resting Rodgers now, for example, he'd be going basically a month between games when you take into account the final two games of the regular season along with the bye the Packers have already secured in the first round of the playoffs. That's not an ideal situation for anyone.
And yes, the Packers have played well in controlled environments the past few years under Mike McCarthy. But they've also played well everywhere, including at Lambeau Field.
After losing some of that mystique with home losses in playoffs to the Falcons in 2003, the Vikings in 2005 and the Giants in 2007, it's starting to come back. The Packers are 13-1 at Lambeau the past two seasons.
There's a reason the home team in any sport at any level is more likely to win than the road team, everything else being equal. The absence of travel, the routine, the comfortable environs, the crowd noise and the weather are all small factors individually that add up to a palpable difference.
Who wouldn't want to play at Lambeau Field in January? The players do, the coaches do, and the fans do.
Plus the revenue made from two playoff games helps the Packers in the long run, and the local economy in the short run.
The Packers need these things. They need home-field advantage. And they need to defeat the Bears to ensure it.
Hopefully the Packers get out to a huge second-half lead like they did two weeks ago against the Raiders and then rest the starters the remainder of the game.
Until that happens, game on.
Brian Carriveau is a writer for Cheesehead TV. To contact Brian, email [email protected].
Comments (44)
December 20, 2011 at 06:15 pm
Wow. I inspired a Carriveauen article. That said, my comment wasn't exactly a resounding shout from the rooftops that I hope they DON'T secure the number 1 seed, I was merely saying I'm not sure how concerned I am. I think you know that, but I just want to make that clear.
Secondly, I'm not entirely sure how much we are in the minority. Just in my casual listen to ESPN radio this morning I heard a couple pundits mention the same thing. And yes, that's a scientific poll, so don't even think of arguing with THAT point.
Finally, perhaps your greatest argument for holding the NFC Championship at Lambeau went untold above. That is, the passing game favors being able to, ya know...see the ball. In short, light is generally helpful in both passing and receiving. Candlestick (boy, how friggen ironic is that name, by the way) can clearly not provide this.
December 20, 2011 at 06:34 pm
We have to win both games, thereby knocking out the lions, assuming they lose to the Chargers, which I think they will. Don't forget what happened to the bears last year.
December 20, 2011 at 07:11 pm
I agree...it's too risky playing somebody 3 times in a year
December 20, 2011 at 07:01 pm
They already have the second seed, yes? If so, is there really much difference between a number two and one seed? Basically, the NFC championship game, right? We're assuming SF is going to be there. If not, #2 plays at home.
GB plays well on the road, if it comes to that, and AR played inspired after sitting out a game following the concussion. They have two other QBs and some subs that could use the experience, too.
I'm not saying not to try to win, but you have to figure GB risks getting beat up by the Bears and Lions (smelling blood in the water) and that off of a physical game.
The goal is the playoffs. This season is largely done.
December 20, 2011 at 07:14 pm
Good article, by the way.
December 20, 2011 at 08:48 pm
So you're essentially poo-pooing the 1 seed vs. The 2? No flight, sleep in their own bed, know every inch of their field, crowd getting after it. You hear players talking about the importance of getting home field throughout, those are just a few reasons. Big difference.
December 20, 2011 at 08:54 pm
And how confident would you feel if the Saints got the 2? I sure as Hell don't want any part of them "in that dome", Lambeau = different story.
And just curious, what the Hell was so glorious about the 80's? Mullets, Cindy Lauper... Members only jackets, parachute pants. Quite possibly the worst decade ever.
December 20, 2011 at 08:55 pm
Did I mention Cindy lauper?
December 20, 2011 at 09:41 pm
and tight-rolled jeans. There is NO BODY who looks back at that and says "I'm really glad I did that."
December 21, 2011 at 12:23 am
Lol, I forgot about that... Seventh grade when that "craze" hit. Wish I could go back and slap myself.
December 20, 2011 at 09:31 pm
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you Fitz, but I don't think there's a scenario where the Packers would play the Saints in New Orleans. If the Saints clinch the 2 seed, it will be in part because the Packers clinched the 1.
December 21, 2011 at 12:21 am
Lol, u r 100% right. I just downright flaked for a minute... I'm gonna blame that on the 80's too!
December 20, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Dude what about hair metal?
December 21, 2011 at 12:26 am
I firmly believe the less Whitesnake, Warrant and Nelson... The better! Boy, I did love me some Belinda Carlisle from those days... Handsome woman. Puberty!
December 21, 2011 at 02:10 pm
80's was pretty much the dark ages, generally speaking. Terrible music, terrible fashion, terrible habits.
Then again, Justin Bieber.
December 20, 2011 at 07:56 pm
Let's face it: the Lions are dirty. You don't want to put AR out there against them if you don't have to. Yes, I'd really rather knock the Lions out of the play-offs, but if that is not a possibility then don't risk Rodgers. Beat the Bears.
December 20, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Yes, clinch it this week, the boy named suh may try a forearm to the back of our qb's head
December 21, 2011 at 12:07 am
I think that's sort of the other side, though. That's the point. Would you rather try to secure the #1 seed and know any games go through Lambeau, or would you rather go in knowing you have your MVP and other key players in order.
Personally, I'd rather go to San Francisco WITH Aaron Rodgers than play at home without him.
December 21, 2011 at 09:36 am
We don't play scared!
December 21, 2011 at 03:14 pm
Yeah, but for me personally - I'd like for GB to lock up homefield this wk against CHI and DET to lose to SD. Then GB keeps them out of the playoffs the last wk in Lambeau.
With Matt flynn at QB
December 20, 2011 at 08:20 pm
After watching SF's pass rush at home with crowd noise, I am certain the Pack doesn't want to play there.
December 20, 2011 at 08:29 pm
The Bears game is a must win. I will be appalled if the Packers do not treat it just that way.
December 20, 2011 at 08:39 pm
The Pack have already gained the most important aspect of a successful regular season - 1st round bye. It's also likely they'll end up seeded #1 for all its added benefits (if any). At this point, SF is the ONLY road game that GB can possibly play in the playoffs (aside from Indy).
" Who wouldn't want to play at Lambeau Field in January? The players do, the coaches do, and the fans do. "
I'll never believe this statement without some 'real' numbers to support it. Personally, I'd rather see AR ripping passes in SF on a sunny 60 degree day than trying to throw passes on a near zero degree day in GB along with a 20 MPH northerly breeze.
The only road game that GB can play would be in SF on 1/22/12 at 5:30 Packer Time. (2nd round - Conference Championship) This year on 1-22-11 in GB the temp range was MINUS 10 to 10 degrees above zero with 8 mph wind speed with gusts up to 17 mph. In SF on 1-22-11, the temp range was 56 to 67 degrees with a wind speed of 3 mph.
Players & Coaches? I doubt it. Fans? Choose between your couch & below zero possibilities.
December 20, 2011 at 08:42 pm
Everything you say is true. BUT, there is another reason they need to play to win... For the fans that are going out to support them on Christmas! I ditched the fam the several years ago the last time we hosted duh bares on Christmas, we got our asses kicked AND I felt like a total piece of shit for choosing football over family (I do have a conscience... Small, but it exists). So if people are going to fill the bleachers... On Christmas... They better damn well play to win, whether they're 1-13 or 13-1. Period.
GBP 4 LIFE
December 20, 2011 at 09:53 pm
Even to a fault, MM will play to win. That's what I'm afraid of. I still believe GB can whip 3 teams in the playoffs but not without AR starting & finishing all 3 playoff games.
December 20, 2011 at 09:52 pm
Better for NO to go through SF.
December 20, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Rest assured that the Packers will be playing all starters and going balls to the wall to win.
December 20, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Still needing to play to win is the best thing for this team. Complacency is a death sentence.
December 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm
I guarantee that a loss this weekend will mean we are one and done in the playoffs.
December 21, 2011 at 12:14 am
Amen.
December 21, 2011 at 11:56 am
Because of the profit sharing agreement, the Packers organization will get no added financial benefit by hosting playoff games -- outside of Pro Shop revenue. Of course it is a great thing for the local GB economy (hotels, restaurants, bars, etc)
Brian Carriveau
December 21, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Yes, that applies to tickets. The Packers get to keep parking, concessions, and other money brought in from the Atrium such as Curley's Pub as well.
PackerAaron
December 21, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Not strictly true. They get to have one, hopefully two, games that weren't originally scheduled.
December 21, 2011 at 12:42 pm
sorry to be the potentially jinxing presence here, but it seems a little absurd to me that so many people are acting like:
rodgers playing in the next 2 games = rodgers out with injury for playoffs
am i missing something here? this is the same quarterback that was sacked like 384 times in 4 games a couple years ago, and i think has missed one game as a starter, and it was because of a concussion, which is the flavor of the age to be ultra careful about with the nfl these days... right?
hand it off a few more times than usual, get the ground game good and ready for lambeau in january, use some play-action for a few bombs to nelson and cobb and AND BEAT DOWN OUR LOWLY DIVISION FOES 2 IN A ROW LIKE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO.
for christ's sake people. this isn't indianapolis, it's fucking Green Bay.
PackerAaron
December 21, 2011 at 12:48 pm
A. Men.
December 21, 2011 at 01:21 pm
I hope I'm not being lumped in on this (If I'm not, ignore my upcoming rant). My take has been rather casual and far from staunch from the beginning on this. In short, if we end up with the 2 seed, I won't be that upset. I'd be disappointed we're going in with a 3-game losing streak, but I don't think that's something the Packers can't overcome. I've also never suggested Rodgers will for sure be out if he plays the next two weeks.
Is it more likely that Rodgers gets hurt while playing, especially behind a line that features a back-up left tackle and guard playing right-tackle? Yes. Have I said that this guarantees injury? No. Aside from Rodgers, I'm hoping we get some key people healthy.
Again, I hope they play these guys, but are strategic in who they pull and when. Despite the fact that I think they RISK injury with these guys, I'm more concerned that they play football. I'd hate to see them play their first live snaps 4 weeks from now.
Look, two years ago, we went out and mopped the floor with the Cardinals in what was essentially a "meaningless" game. We got beat by the next week in the first round. The bottom line - the argument for sitting vs. playing has two completely rational arguments on both sides.
December 21, 2011 at 02:12 pm
Really depends on the players' mentality. If they aren't giving their best out there and are already thinking about the playoffs, then it's worrysome to put them out there. You get hurt when you're not 100% focused.
But if they are, I'm with you.
December 21, 2011 at 01:35 pm
i want the number 1 seed for sure. but if pigs start flying and we get the number 2. assuming its a gb-sf nfccg...are we forgetting who is our qb? world #1 grudge master? he'd go to sf and lay down 6tds like it was nothing just on that already-overcompensated-slight from draft day...
December 21, 2011 at 05:27 pm
Not to overlook is the fact that if we get the #2 seed we'll play the highest remaining seed in the divisional playoffs.
That probably means NO, otherwise the NFC East champs or Atlanta. In no case the #6 seed. And then we've got to travel(probably)...
December 21, 2011 at 07:22 pm
I'd argue the seeding is a total crapshoot. The Packers were the 6th seed last year.
December 22, 2011 at 09:34 am
but that works both ways. for those who want this or that team as a matchup, this fact means that the playoffs are just as, if not even more unpredictable than the regular season. i was thrilled to have the giants at lambeau for the NFC Championship game a few years ago.
It doesn't, however, mean that you don't shoot for every possible advantage of circumstance the system will allow to those who do their job in December and win games. Being the 1 seed, having the bye (i know they've already earned it), and no travel until February IS AN ADVANTAGE. An advantage I consider more predictable in its value than any particular matchup or weather conditions.
YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
December 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm
My only point on this was, if you're hoping for a specific matchup, asking for the 1 seed or 2 seed at THIS point isn't going to help. The seeding could go a lot of different ways.
To the other point, I agree that there are advantages to home-field. In the end it's a risk/reward. The risk of not playing to win with your starters is a couple of losses and potentially having to fly to a warm-weather climate to play an away game. The risk for playing your starters to win the game is that key players get injured and you may still lose the game.
Very simply, my casual stance from the outright I'm choosing the players on the field over the field itself. If McCarthy decides to play starters the entire time the next two games and says "there are no meaningless games" I'd be fine with that. Really. I'm not strong enough in my stance to care so much that I'd throw myself on a sword for it.
I'm not saying my answer is perfect, it's just my opinion. Also, the 80's sucked. That's fact.
December 22, 2011 at 12:44 pm
we only slightly disagree in the end i think. mostly, i just like watching playoff games where the topic of the day is how unbelievably cold it is at Lambeau.
and you're mostly right about the 80's -- there were a boatload of good movies, most of which involved Bill Murray.
December 23, 2011 at 01:23 pm
As fans, we tend to look at these "games" as the most important things in our lives of how far the Packers go this year. We have this scenario playing out and that scenario playing out as what we think is the best way. We are not the players or the coaches. This is their profession.
In my profession, I go to work everyday and give each one of my patients the best care I can give them. I don't conserve my energy for tommorrow's patients. I expect the Packer's organization would do the same. They prepare and perform each game like professionals doing their "job". It is clear, that this is the McCarthy Era mentality. This was the Lombardi way. You play hard to win every game. You tough it out like Football players. Gridiron. None of this pansy ass resting business. Let these guys do their job and success will follow.