The Exception To The Rule
The Packers have led a charmed life, defying logic as injuries have seemed to only make them better. Will their luck run out as they reach the post-season?
By tundravision
I am often given the mantle of being the "negative Packer blogger", a title I accept, if I must. As a die-hard Packer fan, I do realize that as an analyst, you have to be...well, analytical. Sometimes, such observations don't always shine with the green-and-gold luster that we would expect anything written about a 13-0 team to have.
But my latest "negative" analysis has led me to the following concern: the Packers are getting dangerously close to stretching their injury safety net too far, just in time for the playoffs. What do I mean by that? Simply put, the Packers' injuries are mounting, and these injuries just might be the ones the make the Packers mortal at the most inopportune time.
Now, let me be perfectly (and glowingly honest): the Packers have dealt with a rash of injuries over the last two seasons that would have crushed any other normal NFL team. The Packers have been the exception to the rule. Injuries have derailed far more campaigns than aided them...a posit you could actually make in the Packers' favor in the 2010 championship season.
But you never hear a coach for any team say something to the effect of, "We'll have a chance to contend if we stay focused and lose 20% of our starters to injury." It doesn't happen. But injuries to key players have befallen the Packers since September of '10, and for some odd reason...even in defiance of logic...it hasn't seemed to slow them down.
There are three reasons that I attribute to the success of the Packers to persevere beyond their injuries:
1) The deft drafting and roster-building of Ted Thompson. He has players in mind that he wants on this team, and he is willing to wheel-and-deal on draft day to get them. The result has been rosters of players that are built for the system he has envisioned from the start. When a player has gone down, another player has been waiting in the wings with a skill set appropriate for the position he's stepping into.
2) The mental fortitude of Mike McCarthy, who has coached this group of players into a team-first attitude that doesn't tolerate fools or me-first antics. Many times in Packer (and NFL) history, campaigns were completely derailed because of an over-dependence on one player (see: Peyton Manning), but that doesn't happen under McCarthy's watch. He has always...always...taken the hand he's been dealt and spits-and-wires it together, and expects nothing less from the next man up.
3) A little bit of good fortune. In 2010, the players lost to injury were, for the lack of a better term, expendable. Okay, that is a little harsh, but let's face it: the loss of Nick Barnett and Morgan Burnett were survivable, not only because there might have been a more talented (and hungry) player on the bench (see: Desmond Bishop), but because solid veterans were alongside the backups (see: AJ Hawk and Nick Collins). The losses of Ryan Grant and Jermichael Finley on offense simply led to the Packers becoming a more pass-heavy team that relied on their wide receivers and less on the run game. In other words, the injuries actually forced the offense to play to their strength: Aaron Rodgers.
But this season, despite the record, the injuries have had more of an impact, particularly on the 31st-ranked defense, which relies even more on turnovers to keep opponents out of the red zone. The loss of Cullen Jenkins, though unavoidable, has created a void on the defensive line that, quite simply, Jarius Wynn and Mike Neal haven't come close to filling, and has diminished the impact of Ryan Pickett and BJ Raji.
More obvious has been the loss of safety Nick Collins. While Charlie Peprah did an admirable job filling in opposite Collins last year, the veteran's savvy sure helped him out. Just watching the safeties flail around as Travis Beckum simply changed direction on the way into the end zone reminded us just how much we miss Collins in the backfield.
And with the loss of both interior linebackers against the Giants, you saw their backups were not quite ready for prime time yet. While I've been critical of Bishop and Hawk this year for leaving the middle of the field open too much this season, the Giants offensive production made both veterans conspicuous by their absence.
At this point, you might be asking, "So, what's your point?! Just because we had an 'almost-loss' last Sunday, the world is falling apart? Did Chicken Littles like you know how much we would have killed for an 'almost-loss' in the seventies and eighties?"
Actually, I did live through both of those decades, and remember those teams (and records) well. And as long as those first two reasons I posited earlier remain in place, the Packers are going to remain competitive (and likely winning) through the rest of the regular season. Thompson and McCarthy mean that much.
But, I also believe, wholeheartedly, that Aaron Rodgers has willed this team to many of its victories this season. It's not like 2010, when the offense often turned the game over to the defense and prayed they'd pull out some miracle turnover to end the game. No, it's been Rodgers building up leads, and like last week, adding to leads late in the game to stave off a comeback.
For all of a certain ESPN pundit's criticism of Tim Tebow being superior than Rodgers, claiming that the youngster is able to pull out come-from-behind wins from his golden ass, the simple truth is that Rodgers never has to come from behind. He never gives the other team a chance to mount a lead against him.
Which is why it is monumental to keep Rodgers upright and healthy. Yes, the defense, for all its warts this season, has done just well enough to keep Rodgers from having to play safety, too. But the continued absence of Desmond Bishop and the tenuous status of concussed cornerback Charles Woodson (as well as the Packers committal to non-performing Mike Neal) diminishes the defense's impact even more.
No, more concerning are the losses on offense. Already, the losses of Josh Sitton and Chad Clifton have made the Packers rely on Evan Dietrich-Smith and Marshall Newhouse, both of whom have to be described as inconsistent, at best. And unfortunately, both are apparently better than first-round pick Derek Sherrod, so that let's you know where the cupboard is along the offensive line. The continued absence of James Starks is also concerning, as he really had been coming into his own as a yard- and clock-eater late in games, something the Packers really needed last Sunday.
More importantly might be the loss of TE Andrew Quarless, who may have been quiet most of the season, but was the de facto #2 tight end and a key blocker in the run game. While the Packers have Tom Crabtree, a good blocker himself, on reserve, the number of people available to keep the pressure off of Rodgers is growing.
Simply put, there isn't a player in the NFL right now more important to their team than Aaron Rodgers. That honor might have gone to Manning at some point, but Rodgers is now the man. The Packers can absorb injury after injury and seemingly defy logic as they work their way towards their destiny in the regular season. But the key to a Super Bowl win depends on the Discount Double Check of #12.
The Packers need to figure out how to keep defenders out of the backfield, and preferably, how to keep Rodgers back there. The Giants generated two sacks and kept Rodgers on edge most of the game with plenty of pressures and hits. Moreover, he was the Packers' leading rusher with 32 yards on 4 scrambles. For a quarterback who missed a start last season after two concussions, keeping Aaron's bell from ringing as we get closer to the postseason is critical for the Packers.
There's nothing Packer fans want more than another Super Bowl trophy, and nothing this coaching staff and team deserves any less than after two seasons of triumph through adversity. But as the Packers struggled against a mediocre Giant team vying for a wild card, the Packers need to, once again, adapt their backups to protect our most important asset.
And maybe, just maybe, I'm worrying too much. You know, being negative. But you can't look at an "almost loss" and not come away with some yellow or red flags. I know that Mike McCarthy and his coaching staff never settle for "good enough", and while we celebrate our great team and their accomplishments, we know they have some warts that need to be remedied before we hit the playoff season.
And as these injuries mount, our fortune may run out at the most inopportune time. That's why it's important to learn from your "almost losses" in the regular season, so they don't become a "just barely loss" in the postseason.




Comments (30)
December 10, 2011 at 09:46 pm
You are right from the standpoint that the losses of Collins has been tough on this team. TT made a rare miscalculation with Jenkins. He could have had him back. I think that TT will admit one day that this was a mistake, particularly if they do not win the Super Bowl.
IMHO, part of the reason for the more apparent drop-off this year has to do with the lack of an off-season as well. And don't be so quick to write some of these guys off. To me, this week is Neal's real test, after being out with injuries. Smith can learn a lot from one start at ILB; Francois maybe less so because he has been around a while, but he probably won't start either. Sitton has been off all year, and EDS is doing o.k. And while I'd rather have Clifton than Newhouse, the truth is that Clifton didn't look as good this year as he did last year. And don't count Sherrod out for the future, or even the present if needed.
December 10, 2011 at 10:46 pm
you should have entitled this article 'i am about to jinx the Packers'.
first you give them 13 wins - even though they only have 12. then you go on about how important it is to keep Rodgers healthy.
if anything happens to our winning streak or our quarterback - it's on you, bro.
tundravision
December 10, 2011 at 11:25 pm
LOL...damn, man, if I had that much control over the team by simply wishing things, I'd have solved the whole Favre issue long before it happened. But thanks for your faith in me. :)
December 10, 2011 at 11:05 pm
What a downer.
December 11, 2011 at 11:17 am
You're so going to hate the one I'm writing right now, then.
December 11, 2011 at 01:26 am
If you're wondering how it could be, 31st ranked defense and still 12-0... or maybe, how is it that natural selection somehow favors this strange situation of a poorly ranked defense, I would like to offer a theory. Check out the drive stats for the NFL. The Pack offense leads in points per drive (almost 10% ahead of the Saints) and also in not turning the ball over.
I haven't fully worked this out, but it looks like a TO for the Pack means a 5 point swing while for other teams it would be closer to 3. Its not MERELY that turnovers are good, it's that they are ESPECIALLY good for the Pack this year.
Still, big plays allow the opponent to get down the field in less pass attempts, which takes away chances for us.
For what it's worth...
December 11, 2011 at 04:17 am
What a negative Nancy article.
Charles Woodson is not concussed he is starting against the Raiders. I remember Rodgers playing last year against the Giants after his second concussion and he performed at a very high level.
Mike Neal's performance is improving game by game and his play last game allowed others to make better plays. Think Raji.
Quotes “The return of Mike Neal from a knee injury has allowed Trgovac to use a six-man rotation in the last three games.”. “I think the snap reduction has helped him tremendously”. “It's probably no coincidence that Raji is coming off his best pass-rushing game of the season Sunday against the New York Giants.”
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-raji-gets-more-out-of-pla...
Josh Sitton and Chad Clifton are getting healthier and will be available for the post season.
James Starks will also be back in a couple of games and will be fresh and ready to go.
Lots and lots of bad assumptions in this article.
PackerAaron
December 11, 2011 at 11:04 am
<em>Mike Neal’s performance is improving game by game</em>
It actually isn't. But he is giving Raji some rest.
December 11, 2011 at 10:28 am
IMHO there are 3 key players on this team: Rodgers, Matthews and Woodson.
We saw what happened without them. Without Woodson, the defense went from allowing 3 points with him to 22 points without him in the SB, and against the Giants was the same. While not a great performance overall, it was stark the contrast between the first and second half.
We saw what happened without Matthews, against Miami last year. The defense simply could not get any pressure whatsoever.
And Rodgers is pretty self-explanatory, but there's also evidence. I have no doubt we would've won against NE were not for the pick 6 Flynn threw. He did play a great game, and I do believe he could start for a lot of teams out there, but Aaron is simply on another level.
Wells, Raji and Tramon play big parts in this team, and their absense would be felt. Wells handles all the protection adjustements, we saw the difference in blitz pickup with and without him in the lineup in 2009. Raji is basically the only source of interior pressure we have. And Tramon, when healthy, can lock on the other team's best receiver and take him out of the game.
But not to the extent of those other guys. Rodgers is the most important part of the offense, and the whole defensive scheme is based on Matthews and Woodson.
Without those 3, we're an average/good team, not an historically great team.
December 11, 2011 at 10:35 am
PackersRS,
re: Woodson- and our intermittent discussion about his coverage skills eroding:
This is from an article on JSonline written by Bob McGinn that was posted today, the topic being points of weakness on the Packers team that could be addressed via the 2012 draft:
"The Packers scraped by for another year keeping Woodson from being isolated outside. Next season, they might have to kick him inside full-time to a safety-slot role."
Again, I think Woodson is a irreplaceable piece of the Packers defense..He's a monster around the LOS, rushing the passer, and roaming the short middle of the field almost a linebacker. I just think that it has very little to do with his coverage skills.
I am not the only one who has noticed he's becoming a liability when matched one on one on wr's down the field.
Here's the link to the Article, worth reading in its own right:
http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/despite-perfect-start-packers-stil...
December 11, 2011 at 11:06 am
If you read McGinn, you know that you're not right.
MAN coverage, I'm with you.
There's more to coverage than man coverage.
December 11, 2011 at 11:35 am
Could you clarify your comment "If you read McGinn, you know that you're not right."?
Do you mean McGinn has stated contrary, or that McGinn's take is a poor barometer? Or something else?
December 11, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Yeah, I saw it not too long ago an article by McGinn on Woodson saying he was getting beat man-to-man but all around was still a great defensive player, very savvy on zone coverage, blitzes etc...
But since I can't find it...
December 11, 2011 at 10:43 am
Also, regarding your bigger point of indispensable players, I'd add that Raji is definitely on that list.
Even though he's had a relatively quiet year, if you don't have nose tackle who can consistently hold the point of attack vs. double teams in a 3-4 defense, the entire scheme falls apart. Integrity of the defense up the gut is priority #1 in a 3-4, everything is built on that foundation.
Maybe i should say the Packers' NT's are vital, as opposed to just naming Raji, since Ryan Pickett plays NT just as well. Those two guys, and heck, even Green, are all immovable when they drop their hips and hunker down.
December 11, 2011 at 11:07 am
Normally, you would be right, but, like you said, I believe that the way the Packers play, Pickett fills that role even better than Raji.
December 11, 2011 at 10:54 am
CD, I love your articles, but it really isn't rocket science analysis to say if we lose a few more guys our season is shot. I think it is pretty easy to see that.
What would be really interesting to me is to have someone discuss or analyze how we can win with the guys we have. On defense, how can Capers use these guys in some other means to become more stout against the run? Or how can do come up with some other blitz packages that will get home? Is it possible that Dom is holding back some stuff because we are winning and there is no need to reveal everything we can do?
In contrast, on offense how can we help the line protect Rogers better? Would three step drops, quick slants, more screen passes help the line? Could the offense function effectively with more two tight end sets where their primary purpose is to block and then get open as a safety valve?
I am not a coach or analyst of any kind, but that is the kind of analysis I would like to read or speculate about. How do we succeed with the personnel we have? I would love to read your thoughts on that....
December 11, 2011 at 11:03 am
Steve, I just got back from brunch with Mike McCarthy, and I had asked him the exact same thing.
I asked, "Mike, how do we succeed with the personnel we have?"
McCarthy sat silent, his fork still loaded with his denver omelet gently tapping his lower lip in contemplation before looking me dead in the eyes and responding:
"Two words, Oppy, two words.. PAD. LEVEL." **
**this story is a complete fabrication. I have absolutely no reason to believe MM likes Denver Omelets.
December 11, 2011 at 11:16 am
I'm dying here. Awesomesauce.
December 11, 2011 at 11:19 am
What a load of crap. Everyone knows that any MM story isn't true unless he mentioned fundamentals...
December 11, 2011 at 11:33 am
Now that you mention it, he might have mentioned fundamentals, but I couldn't quite make it out, as he mumbled the words through an entire mouthful of corned beef and hash.
To be honest, I count myself lucky to just make it out of the conversation unscathed by the half-chewed projectiles. Bob and weave, bob and weave.
December 11, 2011 at 11:15 am
Steve, I think a lot of what you say is my point. First of all, "rocket science" would have dictated that we shouldn't have made the playoffs last year, right? The point is that the injuries were in places we were able to shore up and continue playing ball.
As for how we compensate for the injuries we have, that's where I left the article off for discussion...hell, if I had the answers, I wouldn't be writing a blog. I'd be working full-time in the Packers front office. But you're right...it begs the question, as I said, how do we shore up that offensive line that has been dangerously porous? How do we get pressure on the quarterback?
Hate to say it, but if Collins is gone for good, I move Woodson back to safety and invest in a quality corner in the draft or free agency. But I don't think you could do that this year, as the Woodson-as-safety-in-a-pinch experiment has failed each time we've tried it. He's got to go into an offseason preparing for that role.
December 11, 2011 at 11:30 am
I think Woodson would be a great in-the-box safety, but that's pretty much exactly his role right now as it stands.
The problem we've seen in the few instances where the Packers have used Woodson as a traditional safety is that he was still freelancing and gambling instead of maintaining his over-the-top leverage and sticking with the gameplan. That equaled giving up massive chunks of real estate.. He simply played with zero discipline, since that's what he's allowed to do when he's in his normal role.
December 11, 2011 at 11:20 am
Or, as Lance Briggs would say, rocket scientist.
December 11, 2011 at 11:38 am
Rocket Scientist?
When did Briggs talk about Brad Jones?!
December 11, 2011 at 11:07 am
First of all, those of us who don't use appellation 'we' when referring to the Packers don't consider you a 'negative' blogger. ;)
Secondly, as usual, you bring up good arguments. I wondered last week already whether the injuries wouldn't soon get to the limit where the team is unable to overcome them. It's inevitable that, the further down the bench they're forced to go, they'll eventually reach the point of diminishing returns.
'12' makes up for a multitude of sins; let's hope he can do so the remainder of this season.
December 11, 2011 at 11:40 am
Hey, I say "we" all the time when referring to the Packers, and I don't consider C.D. a negative blogger, nor do I consider myself a blind homer.
On the flip side, you have to ask yourself, "Can I take anyone who starts a sentence with 'hey' seriously?"
December 11, 2011 at 12:45 pm
You know, I always thought Happy Days was a bit farfetched, but could not put my finger on it...
December 11, 2011 at 01:14 pm
Since I don't take myself seriously, why would I hold you to a different standard?
December 11, 2011 at 08:27 pm
Well played!
December 11, 2011 at 12:12 pm
i recall a blogger mentioning using woodson as an outside linebacker. after a chuckle, i wondered if that could be a possibility... using him as a defensive back/pass rusher. capers has so much up his sleeve that if the pack were to be loaded at defensive back, then i wonder if that could be a possibility. hated to see quarless loss. he was coming on real well and offered leverage with finley.