Down the (Cold) Stretch They Come

[vince]

The Packers play 4 of their last five games in the cold, all against teams vying for playoff spots. Conventional wisdom says you have to be able to run the ball in cold weather. Their final two games – both of which will likely be huge games – come against the Giants and Bears, each of whom are very stout against the run regardless of weather. It's quite possible that the Packers will not be real effective in doing so, particularly in the final two home games.

It goes without saying that having a strong running game to provide balance would be preferable to not having one. The question is how much of a running game MUST the Packers have in order to succeed down the stretch - and will they have it?

In ATL, going Big 5 (and Big 4 plus Quarless) was more effective on early downs than a running game. Rodgers flawlessly executed all game long in those situations and they routinely picked up 5-10 yards on early downs. What hurt the Packers was the short-yardage running game, which suffered a setback when Nance, who was added into the game plan specifically for short yardage situations, was concussed and could not return after just one rushing attempt. That forced the Packers into situations in which they were unprepared. It’s blatantly obvious that Jackson is not a short-yardage back, and they want to get Kuhn back into his role on special teams and fullback.

Nance is ready to return. He showed strong short-yardage running ability early in the game against the Vikes I believe it was, so he could well be just what they need – and missed against the Falcons.

I think the Packers need to be able to convert short yardage situations with reasonable success. If they can’t do that, they can’t ultimately succeed, but that is the key. A completion oriented passing attack in which they spread the field with 4 or 5 wide can offset or complement – and even improve upon – a below-average running attack on early downs.

I'm not sure it's the Packers' year for Super Bowl victory with all the injuries, but this team is achieving more than most of us thought it would a month and a half ago. It can win with great defense, a controlled passing attack and just enough short yardage running.

[vince]

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20101203/PKR07/101203125/Pete-Dougherty-column-Can-Packers-weather-cold-stretch-

Green Bay Packers face cold stretch ahead

If ever there was a year the Green Bay Packers need to play well in cold weather, this is it.

They’re in a highly competitive fight just to get into the playoffs, and four of their last five games will be played outdoors in a cold climate: three at home against San Francisco, the New York Giants and Chicago, and one on the road against New England.

Former coach Mike Holmgren’s Packers of the 1990s proved you don’t have to be a running team to thrive in those conditions. Holmgren’s offense was pass first, and he went 19-2 in December and January, playoffs included, in cold-climate venues. Granted, all but two of those were home games, but that’s the point. If you’re based in Green Bay, you better be able to function well in the cold and on slippery fields.

How well the 2010 Packers are likely to fare is open for debate, mainly because of their problems running the ball. Some cold-weather teams are built primarily to play in this type of climate — think the Pittsburgh Steelers with their power running game dating back to the 1990s, or the Chicago Bears’ approach of playing conservatively on offense and trying to win on the backs of their defense and special teams. Or the defense- and run-oriented New York Giants under coach Tom Coughlin.

Holmgren’s teams showed that running the ball in the cold isn’t everything — he skewed heavily toward the pass, with a yearly pass-to-run ratio ranging anywhere from 55-to-45 to 61-39 in his seven seasons as coach. But it’s worth remembering that in bad weather, his running game wasn’t bad.

That in part was because one of his running backs, current running backs coach Edgar Bennett, though a relatively ordinary runner most of the year, was excellent in winter weather. In 1996, Bennett rushed for a combined 288 yards on 60 carries (4.8 yards per carry) in the Packers’ final home game against Minnesota and the next two games at home in the playoffs against San Francisco on a rain-soaked and torn-up Lambeau Field and Carolina in minus-17 degree wind chill. By the final quarter of that season, Dorsey Levens had emerged as a go-to runner who was one of the better backs in the NFL.

Still, the biggest factor for cold-weather success in those years was Brett Favre. His exceptional record in cold-weather games is well known in these parts — from 1992 through 2004, he was 45-3 in games when the temperature was below 34 degrees. The fact is, when the weather was cold or the field was bad, Favre functioned better than most everyone else.

There were several reasons, including a strong throwing arm that helped passes cut through the wind on bad days. But one of the most important was his hand size, which was exceptionally large at 10¾ inches, as measured from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the pinkie with fingers spread.

That asset was no accident when he became the Packers’ quarterback. Former General Manager Ron Wolf, who grew up as a scout working in the Oakland Raiders’ ultra-particular scouting system and also spent time with the cold-weather New York Jets later in his career, insisted his quarterbacks have large hands.

“I know it sounds strange, but it’s the truth,” said a scout who worked for Wolf. “If you have a quarterback who can hold the football — you can’t be a small guy and play in bad weather. I know people will say, ‘Look at Doug Flutie, he was a great quarterback in the CFL.’ OK, fine, it’s the CFL.

“Big, strong guys play well in cold weather. Look at Ben Roethlisberger, look at Jim Kelly. There’s something to being able to play in cold weather and being able to hold the football and throw the football.”

The current Packers don’t have the run game to suggest they’ll be any better in cold weather than the rest of the season. Could that change? Possibly, but not likely. The left side of their line, especially left tackle Chad Clifton, is subpar on run blocking, and halfback Brandon Jackson has hit his limit. Maybe Dimitri Nance will prove the better player with more carries. Sixth-round draft pick James Starks deserves a shot, too. Why else is he on the roster?

So maybe the Packers will run better, and maybe some bad fields will help. But don’t count on it against the Giants and Bears, who are two of the better defenses in the league. More likely, much will fall on quarterback Aaron Rodgers, who is 4-3 in December and January games in cold climates. Several factors suggest he will function well in the cold.

As far as his hands, they're 10 1/8 inches, only slightly smaller than Favre's.

Rodgers also can run — he’s the No. 3 rusher among quarterbacks this season with 245 yards — which is an advantage on bad fields when defenders can have trouble changing directions to chase a scrambling quarterback.

“(The run game) won’t matter in my opinion because you have some nasty bad-weather players,” the scout said. “That Donald Driver is a nasty cold-weather player. They’ve got receivers that can function and know how to play in that. Maybe that’s the great equalizer for the Packers, because of guys like Driver and (Greg) Jennings and Jordy Nelson, those guys catch the ball in bad weather. And you’ve got a quarterback that’s accurate throwing the ball, so that’s not a problem either. I think they’ll be OK in that weather.”

Pete Dougherty covers the Packers for the Press-Gazette. E-mail him at pdougher@greenbaypressgazette.com.

[packrulz]

Holmgren used to call a lot of screen passes though, something M3 really doesn't do, although he called a couple bubble screens to Jones against Atlanta, with some success. I don't like handing off out of the shotgun formation, it rarely fools a defense, and I don't blame BJack that much either, since the run blocking has been poor. One guy I do blame is Quinn Johnson, the fullback in the west coast offense is supposed to be the lead blocker, and he really hasn't been getting it done. They need to work on it more in practice, and start cracking the whip, they need to pound that rock in December and January.

[Fritz]

I think Quinn Johnson is really not developing as a player, and is contributing, along with the o-line's (lack of) run blocking as the two biggest factors in the failure of the running game. I hope Korey Hall's back is better. And that if Kuhn isn't going to play halfback any more that he be given the chance to play fullback.

Not much was said about Quinn "the eskimo hands" Johnson dropping a touchdown pass early in the game.

[swede]

Not much was said about Quinn "the eskimo hands" Johnson dropping a touchdown pass early in the game.

Did anyone from the team answer the question regarding whether or not he failed to catch a high pass intended for him or tipped a pass intended for the receiver beyond him?

[Travbrew]

Did anyone from the team answer the question regarding whether or not he failed to catch a high pass intended for him or tipped a pass intended for the receiver beyond him?

I haven't heard anything, but I'm pretty sure (positive) it was not intended for him. Aaron appeared pissed at him and the replay showed Quarless open, heading to the left side where the ball was thrown. Pretty sure that was six, and I'm quite surprised you all didn't hear me scream GODDAMMIT Johnson, that's not your ball!!

[gbgary]

if we can't run for four or five yards a play then we'll have to get the mindset that we'll have to pass for those four or five yards. dink and dunk for first downs. the result is the same. run less shotgun. put a little doubt in the opponents minds.

[Patler]

Did anyone from the team answer the question regarding whether or not he failed to catch a high pass intended for him or tipped a pass intended for the receiver beyond him?

I haven't heard anything, but I'm pretty sure (positive) it was not intended for him. Aaron appeared pissed at him and the replay showed Quarless open, heading to the left side where the ball was thrown. Pretty sure that was six, and I'm quite surprised you all didn't hear me scream GODDAMMIT Johnson, that's not your ball!!

I saw one comment, not from the team, that blamed Quarless. They said his route should have been deeper, so Rodgers could have thrown with more loft to a deeper Quarless (more to the back corner of the endzone). With Quarless too shallow, the pass was lower and made it look to Johnson like it was intended for him, but high. It suggested that Johnson was right where he was supposed to be, and was one of the options for Rodgers to throw to. I don't think it was intended for Johnson, but it wasn't his fault that he thought it was.

[pbmax]

Yes, I think that same quote said Quarless got tied up near the LOS with a defender and as a result, was late into his route.

[Fritz]

However, the way I saw the replay, it looked like a catchable ball - a little behind Johnson, and a little high, but catchable. Did anyone else see it that way, or no?

[swede]

However, the way I saw the replay, it looked like a catchable ball - a little behind Johnson, and a little high, but catchable. Did anyone else see it that way, or no?

Well it was a tough catch. He saw it kind of late as I remember and he didn't show any "ups", that's for sure.

But...in the NFL business that non-catch becomes the empty place under the category of "Reasons we should keep you next year:"

[Joemailman]

I've been disappointed in Johnson, but there are very few fullbacks who would have made that catch. They just don't have the hands and body control.