I enjoy reading Don Banks of Sports Illustrated, and I generally find his analysis to be very informative and insightful. I was pleased, therefore, to see that he had written so much specifically about the Packers in his breakdown of Sunday’s action around the NFL. (You can read the whole column here.)
I found, however, that I was not in complete agreement with his analysis of Green Bay’s performance and situation.
Specifically, I think he is too hard on Matt Flynn:
I guess we all got a vivid lesson on how valuable Aaron Rodgers is to the Packers. True, Rodgers didn't make much happen when he was in the game Sunday in Detroit. But with him sidelined from the second quarter on with his second concussion of the season, the Packers offense was mostly anemic in the hands of backup quarterback Matt Flynn, who was at the wheel for the rest of Green Bay's damaging 7-3 loss.
And, later…
The Packers like backup quarterback Flynn's potential, but until Sunday, they never had to ask him to win a game. Now they have, and the former LSU standout couldn't come through, finishing 15 of 26 for 177 yards and one interception in leading Green Bay to only one field goal in six possessions. Flynn ended his best drive with a hugely costly interception to Lions middle linebacker DeAndre Levy in the end zone, when the game was 3-0 Green Bay and there for the taking.
Peter King arrives at the same conclusion more succinctly:
Aaron Rodgers, QB, Green Bay. Saw his value pretty well when he was concussed and the Pack had to try to limp through a bad day with Matt Flynn. And couldn't.
And, on NFL.com, Pat Kirwan adds his voice to the chorus:
In a matter of minutes, the Packers went from a true playoff contender to a team that couldn't beat the Detroit Lions with backup Matt Flynn under center. With Aaron Rodgers out of the game due to a concussion, the Packers generated one field goal in the loss to Detroit.
Now I certainly don’t dispute the importance of Aaron Rodgers. I am a huge Rodgers fan, as I think I have faithfully reflected in this blog. But I disagree with the thesis statement that “we all got a vivid lesson on how valuable (he) is to the Packers.” The whole offense was utterly ineffective against the Lions on Sunday, and we didn’t play substantially better with Rodgers in than with Flynn. In fact, I was favorably impressed by Flynn under the circumstances.
Flynn’s interception in the end zone was deadly, to be sure, and it will be remembered because we lost. But he had managed to get the team into that red zone position in the first place. He got them into position for their lone field goal. And he had them moving in for the kill again at the end of the game. He failed to connect on the 4th-and-1 long pass, and maybe Rodgers would have made that completion. But it was McCarthy’s call, and I would say that the play-caller was more at fault than the player.
If we had been lighting it up with Rodgers on Sunday and then fell off the map with Flynn, I’d buy the conventional wisdom on this. I certainly think we have a better chance of winning in any given game with Rodgers under center than Flynn. But I am inclined to resist the prevailing wind about Sunday’s game in Detroit. Rodgers was generally ineffective when he was in, and I thought Flynn performed rather admirably under the circumstances.
Meanwhile, I completely agree with Banks’ analysis of where we stand now:
Things are suddenly starting to look bleak for the Packers, the team I picked (for the second consecutive year) to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. After its 7-3 start, Green Bay (8-5) has lost two of three games, both on the road, in dome environments (Atlanta and Detroit).
This loss really puts the Packers' playoff hopes in some jeopardy, because with games at New England, and home against the Giants and Bears in the final three weeks, there will be no more soft touches on Green Bay's schedule. The Lions' upset was a boon for NFC playoff hopefuls like the Giants (8-4), Eagles (9-4), Bucs (8-5) and the NFC North-leading Bears (9-4), who despite their blowout loss at home to New England remain one game ahead of the Packers, plus own the head-to-head tiebreaker.
It’s not time to cue the proverbial ‘fat lady’ yet, but she may be warming up her vocal cords as the Packers play in New England next Sunday Night.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment