Ol' Bag of Donuts » Ben Roethlisberger

Golic and Smith say A-Rodg is best QB under 30 – but do I agree?

admin — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 07:24:34 +0000

So, I’m watching “NFL Live” – why wouldn’t I be, right? Nothing screams “NFL!” like late June - and during a segment, ESPN’s Michael Smith, Mike Golic and Cris Carter debated which quarterback under 30 is the best in the league.

Smith and Golic – not the Golic from “Saved by the Bell: The College Years”, as it turns out - both put our guy Aaron Rodgers at the top of the list. Carter went with Nasty Ben (aka, Ben Roethlisberger).

You didn’t really think Carter would give love to a Packer, now did you?

Anyways, that got me to thinking: I certainly love Rodgers and have a hard time believing I’d pick any other quarterback under 30 to guide my favorite team. But, being the football geek that I am, I had to investigate it just to make sure.

(Reminder, ladies: I’m single)

My first step: Figuring out the list of candidates.

I came up with seven possible names. Keep in mind, I was pretty inclusive with the first step:

Philip Rivers, Matt Schaub, Eli Manning, Jay Cutler, Matt Ryan, Rodgers and Nasty Ben. Tony Romo just turned 30 in April, so that’s why he’s not on the list. And JaMarcus Russell just barely missed the cut – barely.

Second step: Whittling down the list.

Cutler, Schaub and Ryan were the first three to fall. Cutler lacks discipline and I have major doubts about his ability to be an actual leader. My “Second Coming of Jeff George” feeling about him hasn’t subsided yet.

Schaub is certainly capable of putting up massive numbers. Last season alone, he put up 4,770 yards, 29 touchdowns and just 15 picks. Of course, last season was also the first time he made it through an entire 16 games. He needs to be better at avoiding the injury bug to earn serious consideration.

Truth be told, I think Ryan is headed for elite status…but not quite yet. His numbers from last season aren’t great (2,916 yards, 22 touchdowns, 14 interceptions in 14 games) and, sometimes, he still plays like it’s a Thursday night game at Virginia Tech. In other words, he needs to work on his decision-making. But he’s there as a leader already. He’s one of the main reasons the Falcons kept playing hard even after they were eliminated from the playoffs.

That, of course, left me with four options: Rivers, Manning, Rodgers and Nasty Ben.

Each of the four brought something to the table.

Over the past two seasons, the Chargers have become Rivers’ team. He’s certainly proven he’s worthy of such a title, throwing for over 8,000 yards with 62 touchdowns and just 20 interceptions in that time span. Rivers also has a swagger to his game that I like. He’s cocky, but it never clouds his on-field performance.

Manning’s a great fit for the running game/playaction passing system that the Giants run and has never buckled in the face of pressure that would wreck most of us. Seriously, can you imagine being Peyton’s little brother and playing in New York City? And, oh yeah – he’s got that Super Bowl ring, too, which never hurts your case.

Rodgers has put up two massive seasons and, like Manning, has never been broken by the massive amount of pressure he’s consistently been under. He’s also quieted the naysayers who questioned his toughness prior to taking over as starter. As his skill position players – like Jermichael Finley – continue to grow, he should only get better.

Nasty Ben is capable of putting up ridiculous numbers – I believe us Packers fans saw that firsthand last season – and has great improvisational skills. He’s also, hands down, the toughest quarterback in the league to tackle (there’s no way he plays at the 241 pounds he’s listed at). And if Manning’s one Super Bowl ring is impressive, what can you say about the two Nasty Ben has to his credit?

Again, though, I had to make the cuts.

The first name to go was Nasty Ben’s. The two rings are great, but with a nickname like that – and the allegations that brought on such a nickname – is there any way I could pick him? No.

Down to three. Easy enough, right?

Here’s why I didn’t pick Manning: His overall numbers. In five seasons as a full-time starter, he’s averaged roughly 3,500 yards passing, 24 touchdowns and 16 interceptions a season. Those numbers aren’t bad at all, nor is his completion rate (consistently hovers in the high 50-low 60 percent range), but they don’t necessarily scream “franchise quarterback.” Now I know there’s more to that status than mere numbers, but I wonder how Manning would fare in an offense that was passing-based.

You probably think you know what’s coming next. Guess again.

Here’s why I didn’t pick Rodgers: The postseason. I’m fully aware that he’s only been at the helm for two seasons and that one player – even a quarterback – can only do so much. But with the competition he’s up against here, I had to factor in that he’s 0-1 in the second season. If I was to go back and do this list again in a year or two, Rodgers very well could have some gaudy postseason victory numbers. I hope that’s the case. But, as of now, it isn’t. So, looking at it objectively, he can’t be my selection.

My choice would be Rivers.

He’s got the numbers (see: above) and has had success in the postseason (a 3-4 record, yes, but also an AFC Championship Game appearance). He’s faced his share of pressure – the offense became his only after it was LaDainian Tomlinson’s – and has put up his numbers without the help of a big-time wideout (Antonio Gates is a tight end, remember). Despite his cocky demeanor, he seems like a solid guy off-the-field, as he’s married with four kids. Not that that’s always stopped guys before, but as of now, he’s steered clear of any trouble. All in all, I’d feel the most comfortable handing over the keys to him.

That’s my take. What’s yours?

-Chris Lempesis

One more question involving Big Ben: What if he was a Packer?

admin — Fri, 07 May 2010 08:02:07 +0000

(Thursday, I wrote about a topic submitted to us by one of our readers, Nathan Heineke. Unfortunately, I was not able to touch on the final part of Nathan’s multi-layered question. I will do that now.)

Nathan asked in his e-mail: “At what price comes winning – would we tolerate a Roethlisberger with the Pack if he brought home the rings?”

It’s an interesting, and difficult, question to answer.

Originally, I was certain we would not tolerate such a player on the Green Bay Packers. The first thing – or should I say, person – that came to my mind was Mark Chmura.

When sexual assault allegations were leveled against Chmura in 2000, stemming from an incident at a post-prom party in Waukesha, it didn’t take long for Packers fans to collective turn on the former Pro Bowl tight end. He had yet to go to trial, but to many of us, he was already guilty of terrible judgement. As such, he was no longer someone we considered “one of us.” The organization clearly agreed, quickly releasing Chmura (who was, of course, later found not guilty on all charges).

The idea of a player needing to be “one of us” – or, as some put it, “Packer People” – was really started by Ron Wolf, the same man who released Chmura. It’s essentially a nice way of saying that anyone who plays for the Packers must also be a person of high character. Wolf was always a big believer in the idea that you could not win with bad character people. Mike Sherman and Ted Thompson have followed Wolf’s thinking, for the most part, and it’s become a fairly important factor in the decision-making process for the organization. Not all organizations take the same approach (see: the Cincinnati Bengals).

Roethlisberger, through and through, does not seem like a “Packer Person.” He comes across as rude, arrogant and intolerant of those he deems to be beneath him. Even his own teammates have turned against him in the past and, again, that’s not even mentioning the sexual assault allegations that have been thrown at him.

So, there it is, cut and dry, right? We wouldn’t tolerate him, would we?

Then, of course, my mind quickly drifted to Chmura’s old drinking buddy, Brett Favre. If Chmura provides us a (somewhat dated) reference of how the team might handle a player dealing with sexual assault allegations, Favre provides us a (somewhat dated) reference on how the team might handle a quarterback going through numerous off-field issues.

So many people, especially the idiots at ESPN, like to gloss over Favre’s checkered past now, but we all remember how he used to be. An admitted alcoholic and drug addict – with a wife who almost left him on at least one occassion – Favre was very much a PG-13 version of what Roethlisberger is now. We know more about Roethlisberger’s non-sexual assault-related bad behavior than we do Favre’s, true. But that’s likely because of today’s 24-hour news cycle and the fact that, as I’ve always said, a lot of the Packers get their incidents swept under the rug due to Green Bay being a smaller city and more protective of its football team.

And it was when I thought about Favre that I came to this ultimate conclusion: We would, as sad as it might sound to some, tolerate Roethlisberger if he were on the Packers.

(I’ll give you a moment to calm down. Okay. We good?)

At numerous points during Favre’s struggles, the organization and fans stuck by him. A lot of that had to do with Favre genuinely seemingly like a good person (came up snake eyes on that roll, huh?). Again, Roethlisberger wouldn’t have that going for him if he were in Green Bay because he seems like an utter prick.

He’d have this though: Two Super Bowl championships (for the purposes of this discussion, I’m assuming Roethlisberger has been a Packer his entire career and done everything in Green Bay that he’s done in Pittsburgh.)

We stuck by Favre because, even then, he was a larger-than-life figure, yet someone whom we felt we knew. But let’s not kid ourselves, either – we also stuck by him because he was a winner, a three-time MVP who brought us our first Super Bowl title in nearly 30 years. If Favre had been mediocre or even simply average, it’s unlikely the organization and fans would have stuck by him as vigorously as we did. Remember, Roethlisberger and Favre play the most important position not just in football, but in all of sports. That goes a long way in making such decisions.

It’s even harder today to both win games and find good quarterbacking than it was 15 years ago, something that only furthers my case. And, really, that’s what we as Packers fans care about more than anything – winning. We are as passionate a fan base as you will find in sports, professional or collegiate, and we need Green Bay to be good, to win. We want our players to be good people; we need them to be winners. There’s a huge difference, whether some of us are willing to admit that or not.

(Example: The Packers had a great run in the 1990s. We got a title of out it. The Dallas Cowboys got three in that decade. If you could switch players, meaning all the guys who played for Dallas would have played for Green Bay and vice versa, and the success was exactly the same – meaning we’d have won three titles – would you do it? Believe me, it’s not as easy an answer as you might expect.)

Don’t get me wrong, though. We’d be every bit as furious at Roethlisberger as Steelers fans are. Some of us would turn our backs on him, as of now. We’d refuse to wear his No. 7 jersey, we’d curse him while out with friends and we’d talk a big game about how the organization should do everything in its power to get rid of him.

The key words in that last paragraph: as of now. Come July – and especially come September – we’d want him back on that field playing for our squad, because he’s an elite quarterback and, more often than not, he’ll lead the team we care about to victory. Remember, as Herm Edwards famously said, you play to win the games. You don’t just play to play.

With someone like Roethlisberger, we’d know we were playing to win. Is that a sad commentary on us as fans? Perhaps.

To tolerate such a player, would we be selling off a tiny piece of our souls? Again, maybe.

But if you want to win, sometimes sacrifices have to be made. That’s just the way it is.

-Chris Lempesis

Roethlisberger prompts re-examination of some age-old questions

admin — Thu, 06 May 2010 07:43:44 +0000

(Recently, we asked you guys – the faithful OBOD readers – if you had any interesting ideas that you’d like us to write about over the next few months. One reader, Nathan Heineke, sent along a couple of cool ideas. This was one of them. Thanks, Nathan. If you have any ideas, again, feel free to e-mail them to us at olbagofdonuts@gmail.com.)

We watch the games. We read the articles. We visit the blogs.

We buy the jerseys, the caps, the sweatshirts.

We talk, sometimes endlessly, with our friends and family members about these teams, these players, these “silly little games.”

Why?

Simple, stupid: Because we care. You can argue whether or not that’s right all day long, but you’d be missing the point. It doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. We care. And you’re not going to change us now.

By caring as we do, we invest our time – and with it, a little piece of ourselves - in these people.

We want that to mean something to them. We want validation that our time has not been wasted. After all, time is the one thing you can never get back.

We sure would like it if they reciprocated that feeling back to us – or, at the very least, carried themselves in a manner that we would find acceptable.

Please don’t cheat on your wives. Please don’t throw the organization and fans under the bus because you aren’t getting exactly what you want. Please don’t be mean or nasty to people who are “lower” than you. Please don’t drink too much. Please don’t take performance-enhancing drugs. And, please, for the love of God, don’t (allegedly) sexually assault any underage drunk girls in a club bathroom that’s being blocked off by your bodyguards.

In other words, we care – but not unconditionally. There are strings attached.

…

Lately, it sure doesn’t seem like a great deal of validation or reciprocation is coming our way, does it?

To be a sports fan in 2010 is to go through a seemingly daily routine of grimacing, groaning and cursing upon learning of the actions and/or whereabouts of our supposed “heroes.”

The money is never enough. They get paid. They want more.

The women are never enough. They date or marry beautiful creatures, goddesses. They want more.

Strip clubs, drugs, guns and excessive – maybe even illegal – sexual activity seem to be the guiding lights in the lives of many professional athletes nowadays.

And as bad as that all is, if we actually encounter one of them, a lot of times it’s even worse.

We ask for their autographs or a picture with them, an ever-so-fleeting moment of their time. They act as though we’re asking to be put into their will – or worse, flat-out turn us down. Unless, of course, we’re drunk, hot and underage – then they just might (allegedly) rape us.

Apologies for this type of behavior? Don’t bother asking for any. Or, should I say, don’t bother asking for a sincere one. You won’t get it. You’ll get something short, scripted and not-so-sweet. Basically, a 30-second long “piss off” to whom it may concern.

The reason for this is simple: They aren’t really sorry. Because, to a lot of them, our adulation should end at the final buzzer. They are (insert player’s name here). They’re somebody. Why shouldn’t they get to have their cake and eat it, too?

After the game ends, they say they are simply trying to “live their lives.” Their job for the day is done, they like to say, and they are now trying to be as normal as they can possibly be.

They owe us nothing more than hard work and dedication on the field, they tell us. If they do what they are supposed to do (i.e., play hard, play well, and win), we’re selfish to ask for any more of them.

As for their personal lives, we hear much of the same. They are no different than any of us, they’ll say, subject to making many of the same mistakes we all make or have made or will make. They say it’s wrong to hold them to a higher standard simply because of their on-field successes.

“You want role models? Look to your parents or your teachers. I throw a football. Don’t look at me.”

In other words, they want us to care about them – but not unconditionally. There are strings attached.

…

So, who’s right and who’s wrong? Us or them?

The answer is very simple, yet completely complex.

We’re both right. And we’re both wrong.

(Before I go any further, let me say that not all professional athletes behave the way I have described. I was simply trying to point out the truly awful behavior of some of them and paint a picture of what it feels like to be a fan a lot of the time nowadays. A lot of them really do get it. There are plenty of Ben Roethlisbergers, yes – but there are plenty of Donald Drivers and Charles Woodsons, too.)

Where are we, as fans, right? Well, we are right to expect and want athletes to behave in an acceptable manner. They very much are representatives of something we care about. They’ve been given amazing talents and gifts (and all the perks that accompany those talents and gifts). They should be appreciative and carry themselves as such, both towards us and others they may encounter.

We may, perhaps, be wrong to be shocked when they let us down, though. Look, I’ll be honest: As a former sports journalist, I’ve spent quite a bit of time around athletes at varying levels. A great deal of them are, oh, how shall I put this nicely, dumb. And when you take a dumb person and give them overwhelming fame, money and attention, you should not be surprised if that person handles themselves poorly or breaks the law. They’re likely too stupid to know any better (see: Roethlisberger). I’m not excusing such disgusting behavior, rather simply explaining why it happens.

Where are athletes right? Well, they are right to say they should be allotted some semblance of a normal life. They should be allowed to dine in peace once in a while or go out for a few beers if they choose. These guys put in an honest day’s work (even if they receive nothing close to an honest day’s pay) and deserve many of the same things you and I get at the end of our respective days.

They are, unquestionably, wrong to become outraged when they do not receive such things, though. Again, they’ve been blessed with things almost no one else in the world has. There are, of course, some drawbacks to that, the biggest being a loss of privacy. Well, too bad. You take the money and the fame and the cars and the women – you have to just accept the fact that people will want your time at all times. It’s the higher standard you are held to, the yin and the yang of the situation and if they’d like to trade places, surely they’d have no shortage of takers.

Same goes for the idea of athletes being role models. It doesn’t matter if they want to be or not – they are. You can argue whether that’s right or wrong all day, but again, you’d be missing the point. People, especially children, do look at athletes as role models.

Case in point: Growing up, I had an absolutely amazing teacher. His name was Jim Jajich (I’m an adult now, I get to finally call him by his first name!). He taught me in third grade and later on in the eighth grade. He introduced me to things like The Clash and Monty Python. At the time, I knew he was a good teacher. But I never looked at him as a role model. Why? ‘Cause he made me do math and wouldn’t let me talk whenever I wanted!

You know who didn’t make me do such terrible things? Michael Jordan, Steve Yzerman, Cecil Fielder and Brett Favre. They were the ones I wanted to be. They were cool. I wanted to do the things they did. I, like every other kid I knew, patterned myself after them.

Of course, I grew up and realized that people like Jim Jajich and my amazing parents, Andy and Marilyn, are really the people I should have wanted to be. We never realize that until later on, though.

To the athletes upset about that, again, too bad. Go work at McDonalds. No one will look at you as a role model then.

Finally, if you’re reading this and hoping for some answers to these problems, I’m sorry to inform you that I have none. Sadly, I don’t think the situation really can be solved. Fans want what we want. Athletes want what they want. Neither side’s going to budge any time soon. It’s the uneasy dance we do.

I do know, however, that we have a meeting point: The games.

They love to play. We love to watch.

As long as we have that, the dance will continue.

-Chris Lempesis

Other thoughts on the first weekend of free agency

admin — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:00:23 +0000

So far, we at OBOD have covered the hell out of free agency as it relates to the Green Bay Packers and the rest of the NFC North.

(Okay, maybe we haven’t “covered the hell” out of it. But we’ve been good….solid….decent. Yeah, let’s stick with that – decent.)

But what about the rest of the NFL? After all, there has been activity outside of the division and, with it being Monday morning and all, it seems like a good time to expand our horizons and look at some of the other notable moves made. Some of these, of course, have Packers-related repercussions and we’ll mention them, as needed.

Cardinals taking big steps back – After watching Kurt Warner retire awhile back, the Cardinals lost three more key players this past weekend. Arizona finally rid themselves of Anquan Boldin, trading the somewhat malcontent receiver and a fifth round pick this year to the Baltimore Ravens for third and fourth round picks this year. Boldin might have been a pain in the butt, but he’s also an elite talent who is as tough as they come. Steve Breaston is decent, but Boldin he is absolutely not (love this move for the Ravens, by the way, as Boldin finally gives them the big-time wideout they seemingly have never had). Another big loss comes in the form of middle linebacker Karlos Dansby – I remember seeing him do something big a couple of months ago, but I can’t remember what - signing with the Miami Dolphins (five years, $43 million with $22 mil guaranteed). Dansby, while not an elite ‘backer, is very good and was a great fit for that defense. The Cards also lost safety Antrel Rolle to the New York Giants (five years, $37 million with $15 mil guaranteed, more on that in a bit). It’s true that they replaced Rolle by trading a fourth round pick this year and a seventh next year to the New York Jets for safety Kerry Rhodes and that Rhodes is a good player. But Rolle was on the up and knew this scheme. It will take Rhodes time to learn it. Those moves, combined with Matt “Chubby Girls and Beer Bongs” Leinart now at quarterback, lead me to believe the NFC West is an open race. Well, unless you’re the Rams.

The champs also appear to be losing some steam – The New Orleans Saints were dealt a considerable blow on defense as linebacker Scott Fujita signed a three year, $14 million deal with the Cleveland Browns. Fujita, while not a great player, was a very solid presence, both on and off the field. Things could get even worse if safety Darren Sharper bolts for another team (the Miami Dolphins, perhaps?). Sharper is 34, but is coming off of one of his best seasons yet and could still be a very good player for at least another year or two as he is a great fit in Gregg Williams’ scheme. The Saints seem to be making a push to get Sharper back, but they need to do more. If he leaves, that defense isn’t as good and they could go back to where they were a couple of years ago (i.e., a .500 team that wins eight games 45-41 and loses eight games by that same score). Right now, the Cards are definitely not as good as they were last year and the Saints could be heading that way, opening the door for other NFC teams….like maybe the Packers?
Two contracts shed a light on how much the Packers will have to pay Collins and Pickett – If you thought Nick Collins was going to want big-time dough before, you have to think that tenfold now when you see the deal Rolle got – the richest ever for a safety. In two years of playing free safety – he’d been a corner, previously – Rolle recorded 139 tackles, five interceptions, 13 passes defended and 1.5 sacks (with a Pro Bowl appearance in 2009). Collins, over the past two years – playing in two different schemes – recorded 104 tackles, 13 interceptions, 28 passes defended and one sack (with two Pro Bowl appearances). Collins pretty much crushes Rolle in the key playmaking categories and, as a result, you have to think he will want much more than Rolle got. If Rolle is getting an average of over $7 million per, Collins likely will aim for the $8-$10 million-a-year range and, at this point, it’s hard to blame him. Thanks, New York. As for Ryan Pickett, you can now use the contract given to New England’s Vince Wilfork - five years, $40 million with $25 million in guaranteed money - as a barometer of sorts. Age-wise, the two are fairly similar (Pickett turns 31 in October while Wilfork turns 29 in November). And while Pickett is not in the same class as Wilfork, a truly elite 3-4 nose tackle, he’s not that far off and provides great value to Green Bay’s defense. If Wilfork got an average of $8 million per, it’s likely going to take $5 or $6 million on average to lock up Pickett.
Cromartie deal not a slam dunk for the Jets – Many seem to be applauding the New York Jets for trading a third round pick in next year’s draft to San Diego for cornerback Antonio Cromartie. Those people have said that Cromartie’s pairing with Darrelle Revis (the second best corner in the game) gives the Jets the best corner tandem in football. While I disagree with them on that - Charles Woodson and Al Harris/Tramon Williams, anyone? – I’ll stick to the trade in this post. Here’s what Cromartie is: A guy who had one truly amazing season (2007, in which he recorded 10 picks) and two average ones since (five picks of the past two years combined). He’s also still griping about a new contract – even though he’s only been decent as of late – and has fathered seven children in five different states. I know Rex Ryan has a devil-may-care attitude about players with questionable character, just like his old man, but I also know that you don’t see too many Antonio Cromarties on championship teams. So glad the Packers didn’t pursue this guy.
Bad trends building for Big Ben – Okay, so this one doesn’t have anything to do with free agency. But the accusations of sexual assault against Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia was one of the biggest NFL stories of the weekend. Now I have no idea whether or not the guy is guilty or not. In the end, that’s not up to me to decide, anyways. What I do know, though, is that a nasty trend is forming with him. This is the second time such accusations have been lobbed his way, remember. He beat the criminal charges, stemming from an incident in Nevada awhile back, and he may well beat these. But leaders – true leaders – simply do not put themselves in these spots. Can you ever see Joe Montana allowing himself to be put in such a spot in a million years? Or even a guy like Aaron Rodgers? Not a chance in hell. Sure, he’s won two Super Bowls and he’ll never have to pay for a drink in Pittsburgh again. But if you want to be truly great, Ben, and not be remembered simply as “the guy who kept getting accused of sexual assault”, you must stop allowing yourself to get caught in these situations. Okay, I’ll jump off my soapbox now.

-Chris Lempesis

The updated playoff picture–and plenty of problems

admin — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:40:29 +0000

Before last night, anything I wrote today was going to be in a state of despair. I went for a walk after Mike Wallace caught that touchdown, just to be alone with my thoughts. I got home and called any Packer fan I could think of who would be as negative about this loss as me. But then I watched the Vikings. And then I read this. Now, things don’t seem quite as bad.

Brett Favre’s oh-so-predictable December struggles (his record this month is 1-2, his passer rating in all three games has been in the 70s, and now he’s arguing with his coach) are a lot of fun. They don’t, however, change this basic concern: After watching the Packers’ defense get carved up by the Pittsburgh Steelers yesterday, I don’t see a potential first-round playoff matchup that wouldn’t present plenty of issues for Green Bay.

From a positioning standpoint, yesterday’s 37-36 loss did nothing to change their spot. They’d still be the No. 5 seed, heading to Arizona in the first round. But from a readiness standpoint, it might have changed everything.

This was a chance for the Packers to take on the defending world champs at their place, end the Steelers’ shot at a playoff berth and assert that this five-game winning streak (which has been largely built against inferior offenses) was not a fluke, but the coronation of a championship defense. Instead, they went soft when it counted.

Look at how the Steelers played the Packers yesterday. They made no attempt to run the ball, and from the first play of the game, they targeted the inferior replacements for Al Harris–CB Josh Bell and CB/S/BOME Jarrett Bush (that’s “Bane of My Existence”, for you OBOD newbies). Ben Roethlisberger threw for 503 yards, and on a final drive where his offensive line kept adding more problems to an already-monumental task, Roethlisberger marched the Steelers down the field with a sense of inevitability. The Packers stopped sending extra rushers, content to shoot the same three guys after him again and again, and trusted the game to Bell, Bush and the rest of their coverage personnel executing assignments correctly. They lost–on a play where defensive coordinator Dom Capers gave Roethlisberger time, and then acted surprised when Bell, in his first game, didn’t play far enough underneath Mike Wallace. Uh, Dom–two-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback against rookie defender. Don’t tell me you didn’t see that one turning out exactly how it did.

And here’s how that relates to the Packers’ playoff opponents: Every single one of them has the ability to do the same thing.

Think there’s a mismatch in light of the fact Arizona has no running game? Think again. All they have to do is roll their excellent wide receivers out, force the Packers to probe the depths of their battered secondary, and make sure Kurt Warner gets rid of the ball before the Packers get to him. Now, Roethlisberger must be separated from Warner in an important facet of the game–he’s made a living out of holding the ball too long, dancing away from sacks and exploiting broken plays. Not exactly the best way to make a living, but hey, when you’re 250 pounds and Cullen Jenkins has no chance of ending the game by hitting you high and trying to bring you down, it can work.

Warner won’t do that, but he’s got one of the quickest releases in the game and possibly the most dangerous set of receivers in the league. And especially if the Packers struggle getting to him with their defensive line and have to open the middle of the field by blitzing, Warner can light them up.

You’d prefer the Eagles, you say? Donovan McNabb has almost as many weapons and a Roethlisberger-like penchant for making a living on broken plays. Tony Romo’s shown an ability to do that, too–although he doesn’t have the same number of options, he’ll give you a chance at some interceptions and the Packers proved they can beat Dallas. If they have to go to Cowboys Stadium, though, well…we know what happens with Jerry Jones and his mob refs.

And even as bad as both the Vikings and Saints looked this week, forget beating them. The Vikings could be vulnerable if Percy Harvin’s neck injury is serious and Judas is doing his late-season thing, but they’ve got enough in the tank to expose the Packers’ secondary. And we saw what Drew Brees can do to the Packers last season. He’s been as good, if not better, this year.

So we can talk about wrapping up a wild-card and getting a playoff berth secured. We can root for the Redskins tonight and pore over all the scenarios. But yesterday proved something to me: The Packers are a one-and-done team, despite what this winning streak might have you thinking, and that’s a pretty unsatisfying place to be for a team that, on certain occasions, looks like it’s capable of so much more.

–Gene Bosling

Well Judas, you had us fooled

admin — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:37:39 +0000

By now everyone in the northern half of Siberia knows that Judas has decided to stay retired. (I am really curious what the guys at JudasFavre think of the decision. Like it or a little sad that the Judas saga MAY be over?)

What does this all mean? Well, for starters may be ESPN can cover something else that may be more important in the world of sports. The passing of longtime Eagles coordinator Jim Johnson, MLB trade deadline is near, Romo is kicking Jessica out of the house, and maybe most importantly the non-coverage of the charges surrounding Ben Roethlisberger. Maybe I am off-base a bit, but isn’t this similar to what Kobe Bryant was charged with? It almost destroyed Kobe’s career, while ESPN is basically ignoring Roethlisberger. Now, I am not one to be over-concerned about the media coverage surrounding someone’s personal life, but I have a feeling this has to do with someone’s appearance on Shaq’s new show on ABC (which along with ESPN is owned by Disney). Anyways, I’ll let Gene to handle any further Steeler-related content.

As for on the field, Judas not riding in on his white horse does weaken the defending NFC North Champions. Already having a rock solid defense and one of the league’s best rushing attacks, it seemed like the Vikings were just about a competent quarterback away from taking the next step. They went out and acquired Sage Rosenfels prior to the draft to compete with Tavaris Jackson. Then basically told him that he wasn’t good enough and decided to go after Judas. Well, apparently that wasn’t what Rosenfels expected when he joined Minnesota.

Now you can go on how coaches and players can say “we are behind both Sage and Tavaris 100%” and for some it may be legitimate. But, if they are all behind their two current quarterbacks, why would the coaches even inquire about a 39-year-old quarterback coming off surgery and who has faded down the stretch over the past few years? And why would star players such as Jared Allen, Adrian Peterson and Steve Hutchinson go out of their way to personally contact Judas to come and play in purple? Doesn’t seem to all add up and may draw concern in terms of locker room chemistry.

What would have Judas brought to the table? In my mind, not a whole lot. His greatest asset would be garnering respect from opposing defenses, which would only help Peterson and the running game. Other than that? I can’t think of much. He’s a proven winner, a hall-of-famer, but has really struggled late in the year the last few seasons. He also has a penchant of doing way too much and getting his team in trouble, something that has been magnified as his career has been nearing the end.

Many Vikings fans have told me, “Well, Favre just needs to hand-off the ball and make a couple plays a game and we’re going to win, simple as that.” I have always agreed that is not a bad game plan with how that offense is built and having a pretty good defense, but it’s a better plan for Rosenfels, NOT Judas. Can you ever imagine Judas handing the ball off when the game was in question, instead of trying to win it on his own? Judas as a conservative quarterback? Never was going to happen and I honestly believe the Vikings may be better off without Judas .

That is neither here or there, as Judas is staying in Mississippi. This thing may all blow up in the Vikings’ face and the damage may already be done according Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Let’s just be glad that all the cameras are in Minnesota this summer, not Green Bay.

Does anyone believe that this is over? Is Judas finally going to fade into the delta sunset? I won’t believe he is over until 2014, when he is elected into the Hall of Fame. Even then, he still may want to suit up.

As I write this, Ed Werder reports that Favre really liked his time at Oak Grove High School and would even consider helping out coaching this fall, but unsure because of the time commitment.

Shocking.

-Adam Somers