Packers Need to Sharpen Up to Beat Falcons

NFL Network is a grand thing. As if the "Top Ten" shows, follies shows, and other magnificent NFL Films productions weren't enough, the network has been re-airing regular-season games that are being revisited in the playoffs.

One of those is the Week 12 game between Green Bay and Atlanta. In re-watching that game, a few things stood out. For the Packers to pull the upset Saturday night at the Georgia Dome, many of those things will have to change.

(Note: I'm a Packer fan. Don't look here for intricate analysis of what the Falcons have to do to win, because I'm not giving you that. I don't want the Falcons to win.)

That game ended 20-17 in Atlanta's favor after Matt "Matty Ice" Ryan ably and bravely drove the Falcons about 20 yards into field goal range following a long kickoff return and a stupid facemask penalty on the Packers. The game was tied on an Aaron Rodgers dart to Jordy Nelson along the left sideline about six yards deep in the end zone. That fourth-down play was made by Rodgers, who had no one initially, and scrambled to his left to buy time. He then zipped a pass to Nelson and couldn't have thrown it any better.

However, the Packers were beaten by inconsistent execution in all phases, as they were in many of their five other losses this season.

They couldn't run the ball at all in this game, and it hurt them in goal-line and short-yardage situations. Eventually, coach Mike McCarthy just gave up on the run, and that left Rodgers to make plays with his feet and arm, sometimes when those types of plays weren't there to be made.

This makes James Starks a big player in Saturday's game. His ability to run against the Philly front seven Sunday made a huge difference in Green Bay's ability to win the game, even if he was held out of the end zone. It'll be even bigger Saturday, because Rodgers -- despite the nearly-complete lack of a running game -- was able to keep Green Bay in the Week 12 tilt. If he has more help, it greatly benefits McCarthy's play-calling acumen and the Packers offense in general.

Over the course of the season, receivers James Jones, Jordy Nelson, Donald Driver, and Greg Jennings were all guilty of critical drops. Jones' drop in Sunday's game -- a sure touchdown and a 21-3 halftime lead if he catches it -- probably made the difference between the Packers winning going away and having to hold on for dear life. Rodgers has missed a few big plays, and in general, this offense has left way too many points on the field for anyone's liking.

McCarthy gets too conservative at times, not giving his offense a chance to really clamp down and take control of a game. At the same time, his conservatism helped a great deal on Sunday. Between his insistence on calling run plays late and Dom Capers' ability to keep the Eagles from making a big play for a touchdown earlier in the fourth quarter, they held Philly at bay, and made it so the last drive didn't come with too much time on the clock. Instead, the Eagles had to burn their timeouts and run their hurry-up offense on the last series, which contributed to the game-clinching interception by Tramon Williams.

So there's good and bad there, but speaking generally, it would be nice if McCarthy would put his foot on the gas and go for the throat more often when the opponent is reeling. It would also be nice if players like Jones would execute when given the opportunity. That blame goes both ways, as you can see.

On defense, the tackling in Atlanta was as bad as it's been all season. So was the pass rush. Ryan was protected very well, and the quarterback missed only four times all afternoon. Smart money is on Capers finding a way to get heat on him, and if that doesn't work, they'll mix up coverages enough that Ryan will miss many more than just those four passes this week. Capers might not be long for Green Bay, but the Packers and their fans should consider themselves fortunate as long as he is around. Not many guys in the league know how to run a defense better than he does, and his game-planning has been nothing short of brilliant at times this year ... along with it being rarely subpar.

Michael Turner might not have the speed of a gazelle, but he will burn this defense if they don't get in the holes and make good hits on him. Atlanta won't give up on running the ball unless the score or game situation dictate it must, so expect a steady diet of Turner Saturday night.

Atlanta is a rock-solid team. They're not flashy in any area. The Falcons just make first downs, move the chains, get the occasional big play, and play very good defense. This team is easy to pick against because it doesn't have any overwhelming strengths, but at the same time, you're hard-pressed to find serious weaknesses.

That means it's a dangerous team to pick -- and play -- against. The Falcons won't beat themselves, and they're playing a team that has done just that more than once this season.

Green Bay is capable of executing at Atlanta's level, but there can be no letdown in that execution if the Packers are to move into the NFC Championship.

Packers Cut Selves in Another Close Shave

This is becoming like a broken record.

For the fourth time this season, the Green Bay Packers played a game decided by exactly three points. For the fourth time, the Packers lost.

Like earlier defeats at the hands of the Bears, Dolphins, and Redskins, Sunday's 20-17 loss to Atlanta was filled with a large number of critical errors made by people who should know better.

Unlike the Bears game, the Packers didn't single-handedly kill themselves with bad penalties, but the facemask foul on Matt Wilhelm during a late Atlanta kickoff return was hella costly, because it meant Matt "Matty Ice" Ryan only had to move the Falcons around 20 yards to get them in field goal range.

If that wasn't enough, head coach Mike McCarthy (again) completely abandoned the running game in short-yardage situations, leaving Aaron Rodgers to make plays against a defense that knew damn well their opponent would be throwing. That was totally like the Bears loss, a game Green Bay appeared to have well in hand until the offense started self-destructing under the weight of penalties and the lack of any attempt at a run game.

The defense played their guts out despite being short-handed because of injuries, and it was nice to see guys like Frank Zombo get their moment in the sun after all they've given this team this season. However, like the Miami game, the defense couldn't get the critical stops in the second half. It's not a fair criticism, because they played well in many ways, but at the same time, when your offense is struggling, you need the defense to pick things up. These guys didn't do enough of that.

Rodgers was good, especially on the last drive, but he again left too many points on the board. His audible to a keeper play near the goal line late in the second quarter was a bad decision, and his sneak play was terribly executed on all fronts on the next down. Earlier, he missed a first down on the Packers' opening drive when he slid too soon. The lack of a rushing attack puts a lot of pressure on Rodgers, so again this isn't totally fair, but he has to avoid mistakes that leave points on the board.

McCarthy takes a lot of the blame, though. He simply can't abandon the run like he did on Sunday, and while it's okay to go empty once in a while in short-yardage situations because it keeps the defense thinking, it's not acceptable to do it as often as Green Bay did on Sunday.

The head coach also has to absorb blame for not challenging a fourth-down "catch" by Tony Gonzalez that led to Atlanta's first touchdown. It wasn't a catch, and McCarthy -- armed with two timeouts he would end up not using -- chose to let play continue. At the worst, he should have called a timeout to allow his assistants upstairs to get a look at the play. They might not have been able to tell definitively if Gonzalez caught the ball, but they would have set McCarthy up with enough information to make a good decision. If -- even after a timeout -- McCarthy challenges the call and is successful, the Packers get the ball with good field position and a timeout. If he misses, the Falcons keep the ball, and the Packers are out two timeouts that they ended up not using anyway.

No harm.

The most chilling stat is that Green Bay's four losses have all been by exactly three points each. The Packers have won close games against Philadelphia, Detroit, and Minnesota, and they have used both the offense and defense to close them out. But they've also missed a number of opportunities to separate themselves from the pack in the NFC.

Now, instead of coasting to the playoffs, the Packers have to fight just to get in the proverbial tournament.

They only have themselves to blame.

Packers Mum on Brett Favre's Return

Things have changed greatly over the years in Green Bay.

For a long time, all anyone talked about in Packerland was Brett Favre. He was the glue that held the team together through the transition from Mike Holmgren to Ray Rhodes to Mike Sherman (coach) to Mike Sherman (coach and wholly incompetent GM) to Mike McCarthy eras. He was the most popular player for one of the NFL's most popular franchises.

Unquestionably, Brett Favre was the king in Green Bay. Hell, he was the king of Wisconsin.

Two years after his attempt to force himself back on the Packers roster led to some insane scenes at the team's annual Family Night scrimmage and plenty of embarrassment for the organization, Favre's name invokes different reactions in Green Bay now.

In fact, if you talk to Packer players about Favre now, you get the same kind of reaction as if you ask them to break down current events in Mozambique.

Nothing.

Saturday night, even the half-syllable "Bre -- " elicited a glare from friendly Packers receiver Greg Jennings.

"Don't know," Jennings said. "Don't care either."

He wasn't smiling.

Quarterback Aaron Rodgers, supremely talented and at least a decade from joining the Oak Grove Summer High School Football League, launched even more eyeball darts when asked if the Packers are following Favre's latest offseason saga.

"No," he said.

He wasn't smiling.

Rodgers was then asked if the Packers would prefer to see Favre retire and thereby hand over the keys to the NFC North and a clearer path to Super Bowl XLV.

"He has nothing to do with me or our team this year," Rodgers said.

This is tough for many to understand.

After all, it's highly unlikely that the Packers would bristle so much when asked about Jay Cutler or Matthew Stafford.

Of course, they went 4-0 against the Bears and Lions last year, picked Cutler off six times, and lost twice to a nearly flawless Favre.

In reality, the Packers' decision to cold-shoulder the Favre chatter is pretty clear-cut.

They don't want to give the old man any more motivation than the Saints did, or than he already had on his own.

National pundits -- on the air and on the internet -- will say enough bad things about Favre's selfishness, his spotlight addiction, and the way he held the Vikings over a barrel the entire offseason before he finally decided it was worth his time to show up and be a part of the team. The Packers don't need to point at this all and say "These are the scenes we've tried desperately to avoid," because it's so blatantly obvious to even a die-hard Viking fan.

Last year, it wasn't so obvious.

Last year, it could be argued the Packers made a grave mistake in the summer of 2008, when they told Favre they didn't think he should just walk back in the door when he felt like it to take over the team. The message then? Ted Thompson and McCarthy run this team, and it's a 53-man unit, not one held hostage by or under the control of one man.

Last year, Favre showed them. He chopped up the Packers defense like it didn't exist. He danced and jumped around and pointed his index finger at the sky as he soundly beat his former team twice. He acted all folksy and complimentary of Rodgers, the man he mentored without being a full-time mentor.

Watching Rodgers, Favre had to see a bit of himself, only without the out-of-control throws and unconscionable decisions.

You know, like that famous cross-body throw to Tracy Porter? Rodgers so rarely does those things that it's almost shocking when he does.

When Favre does it, we have to put it on a list.

The Packers hope this year is not last year. They hope they can become the 31st NFL team to post a win over Brett Favre (Houston would be the only one to fail, assuming Brett can't be talked into another season so the Texans get one more shot).

And they aren't going to stoke the Favre fire any more than they have to.

When asked yesterday for a reaction to Favre's return, McCarthy said he had none. We haven't heard from Thompson, and probably won't until his next media availability on Tuesday.

I'll save you the time. He won't have a reaction.

Nor should he.

Favre chose not to be a part of this franchise anymore. Don't be fooled into thinking he was forced out, or that Thompson and McCarthy didn't want him around.

Favre chose not to be there.

I refuse to debate the merits of this decision, because it was a personal choice. But for Favre to continually deny the facts is a bit ridiculous. It was his call, and we saw how it all played out. He forced the Packers' hand because he knew what the outcome would be. He played the retirement game that summer because he knew the team would move on without him, and he knew they wouldn't be able to take him back, given all the time, energy, and money already invested in Rodgers.

And it's all okay.

Packer fans are being painted as a bitter bunch. In reality, many of us look forward to the opportunity to salute Favre in Canton, and to cheer loudly for him as he takes his rightful place in Packers history -- with a retired jersey and a week of special events in his honor.

They're just not going to cheer him -- or anyone -- who waltzes into Lambeau Field wearing Vikings colors.

The same was true of Darren Sharper, Ryan Longwell, Robert Ferguson, and a bunch of other players before Favre. The same will be true of any player in the future who moves on from Green Bay to Minnesota.

Or Chicago.

Or Detroit.

It's just the way it is. This doesn't make Packer fans wrong. It makes them fans.

More Heartbreak

Whether it's the Moon Over Lambeau, 4th and 26, or the dumbest interception of Brett Favre's life, we sure can't seem to get these playoff games right anymore.

Now, enter The Fumble.

Ugh.

Pardon the Pessimism

It's not that I don't believe in my team.

It's that I don't believe in my team.

Vikings, 30-20.

Prove me wrong, Packers. Please.

Is Ted Thompson Going After Vick?

The Green Bay Packers started training camp over the weekend. Presumably, practice kicked off Saturday with the three quarterbacks head coach Mike McCarthy will take into the season opener against the Chicago Bears Sept. 13.

Aaron Rodgers, Brian Brohm, and Matt Flynn were McCarthy's choices a year ago, and there are no indications that anything will change at the position. The Packers didn't sign any free agents, didn't draft any quarterbacks, and don't appear to be on the verge of any trades.

Of course, this didn't stop the media from asking Packers general manager Ted Thompson about a quarterback Tuesday.

(Is there any way you guys will sign Michael Vick?)

(sigh) Uh, what is the answer that we give to questions like this? We're always looking to improve our team and we look at all options at all times. I wouldn't care to speculate in terms of the odds or anything like that.

(So you have looked at it to some degree)

We look at everything. Well, not everything. We don't look at stuff from across the ocean or something.

(Have you had any discussions about whether it would be worth pursuing him?)

We have had discussions about a large number of things and we're always talking personnel, different scenarios and things like that.

(This is an unusual guy, not a normal situation)

Yeah but the routine we go through is the same. It doesn't mean anymore that we're more likely or less likely to do it. It's a routine that we go through. It's automatic.

There's nothing wrong with checking up on stories and being watchful of news. It's perfectly legitimate for the media to be asking Thompson about Vick. He's a free agent at a position where it appears the Packers lack quality depth. However, Packers ace reporter Greg Bedard may have fallen a bit too hard for the sensationalistic value of Thompson's non-answer on his Milwaukee Journal Sentinel blog.

Expect the chatter about this to only intensify solely because of Thompson's response. If you have no interest in signing a convicted felon that spent 18 months in federal prison for running a dogfighting ring, then just say so.

Bedard is a great reporter, and Packers fans are lucky to have him around. His opinion is valued because of the time he's put in as an NFL writer. He understands the game, and he certainly gets how the fans would receive such a move.

However, the thought of the Packers signing Vick is totally hypothetical and partially unrealistic.

First off, Vick would be accepting a job on a team where he has exactly a zero percent chance of earning the starting quarterback job by virtue of his own play. To get the nod over Aaron Rodgers, Vick would need the incumbent to fall flat on his face, or get seriously injured. While injuries happen in this sport, Vick is not likely to accept just being someone's backup and praying for an injury.

It's highly doubtful that Thompson would give Vick a significant contract. For starters, Rodgers just got an extension last year, and is very well paid. Also, Vick's past dictates that he accept a low or non-existent signing bonus, but that doesn't mean he will have to do that. Naturally, Thompson understands this, and isn't going to play stupid games with the shareholders' money.

Lastly, the Packers would be taking a huge public relations risk, right at a time where the team is just starting to show signs of full recovery from the Brett Favre fiasco. While it's arguable that this risk is worth taking, the Packers have to be very careful with a guy like Vick, who is as polarizing as any figure in the NFL right now.

For Vick to have any value to the Packers, they would have to design a special package of plays to use him in. Rodgers isn't going to sit, barring injury or completely unforeseen ineffectiveness, so Vick will have to be used in other ways. While McCarthy could certainly see some success with a Wildcat-type formation (Rodgers is a good-enough athlete to put on the field with Vick to cross up defenses), there has been no indication the Packers are interested in moving that way.

In the end, this appears to be much ado about nothing. The media was totally right to ask about Vick, but anyone who has been around Thompson for, say, five minutes should have known what his answer would be. Thompson believes personnel matters are to be kept under wraps until decisions are made, and he will never just randomly let the media in on his thinking.

Overreacting to his lack of insight on the matter is just silly.

RANDOMIZATION: 12/16/08

Me update. Things are good here. As you can see to the right, I've been quite busy at FanHouse. I'm also blogging now at College Hockey News, though I've been dormant there for like a week now. Thanks to all for their kind words and such over the last 15 days. Yes, it's been that long.

I'll effort to give you more updates on this blog as we move forward. Here's a quick couple of thoughts for now.

McHale's team stinks, too. Granted, they've played some pretty tough competition. But the Timberwolves have yet to win for Kevin McHale, and I don't think it's a coincidence. The team just isn't very good. Whether it's free throws, three-pointers, ball protection, or defense, there just seems to be at least one thing at any given time that this team is really bad at. That's what gets you to 4-19.

Well, that and losing by 20-plus points to a wretched team like the Clippers.

Gaborik is coming! It's about damn time. My update on it for FanHouse can be found here.

Honestly, the Wild have looked as bad as ever in the last five games. They're not scoring, and the defense is horrifically leaky. No, they're not giving up a ton of goals, but they are yielding way too many shots. With Gaborik returning to the lineup Wednesday, you can expect to see part-time forward Brent Burns move back to defense. Burns came to the Wild as a forward, and they made a really good defenseman out of him. He played well up front, but I look at it as akin to the Packers moving Charles Woodson to safety.

It filled up one hole, but it created another one. And in both cases, the hole created may have been more significant than the one filled.

Speaking of the Packers ... It just wasn't meant to be, I guess. The Packers won't go to the playoffs, and in the end, it might not be a bad thing. This isn't a veteran team taking their last shot together and experiencing failure. It's a young team that has its best years in front of it. That has to be encouraging for Packer fans.

This fanbase is wonderfully spoiled. The Packers have posted exactly two losing seasons since 1992, by far the best mark in the NFL.

There are two games left, and I hope the Packers are smart enough to at least use some of that time to see what can be done about gaping holes on the offensive line and some underachieving players on defense. There should be no shortage of motivation, with a chance to spoil the Chicago Bears playoff chances Monday night, followed by the currently-winless Detroit Lions. If the Lions show up at Lambeau 0-15, there's no way the Packers can afford a loss. That's the wrong kind of history.

NED YOST vs BRETT FAVRE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DEPARTURES

One man took the high road, wished his old team well, and appeared to mean every word of it.

The other publicly took the high road, talked about wanting them to do well, and proceeded to knife them in the back.

Kevin Hench of FOXSports.com makes the seemingly inconceivable comparison between Ned Yost and Brett Favre.

If Favre needs a road map from Wisconsin to that elusive high road he should take a look at the way Ned Yost handled his firing from the Brewers with 12 games to play despite being tied for the wild card.

"If anybody thinks that I've got sour grapes or I don't want this club to succeed, they're crazy," said Yost. "I'll be rooting them on every inch of the way and I hope they can win that wild card and go deep, deep into the playoffs and win the World Series."

Gee, you mean Yost didn't call up Phillies manager Charlie Manuel and give him the Brewers' signals?

Yost took his separation from the Brewers like a man. Favre has taken his separation from the Packers like a spiteful, petulant child.

Bingo.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ever since FOX's Jay Glazer reported that Favre spilled the beans to the Detroit Lions in a lame attempt at sabotage, I've wrestled with a few feelings on the topic.

For starters, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that this doesn't breach any NFL rules. I'm not sure that alone means anything, but anyone suggesting a Brett Favre fine or suspension are off the mark.

In many ways, this is much more meaningful than a fine or suspension.

This is about image. Legacy. Perception among the classiest, most loyal fans in sports.

When Favre was traded, CBS stations in Wisconsin were inundated with calls from fans who wanted to see the Jets play. Most of them are carrying upwards of eight Jets games this season. Even though he left the Packers, the circumstances of his departure were less than ideal, and the Packers had their own season to play, fans still wanted to watch Brett Favre play for the Jets.

Perhaps Favre has miscalculated the fans' loyalty towards him.

They're not jumping ship in droves. They're still filling Lambeau Field. They're buying Aaron Rodgers jerseys. They're making signs about Aaron Rodgers. They're cheering for Aaron Rodgers. They're smacking his helmet when he does a Lambeau Leap.

Meanwhile, Favre is inexplicably trying to sabotage his former team.

And he's failing.

I mean, if you're going to give the dirt to the Lions, you'd think the Lions could at least stay within three touchdowns, right?

(There has been speculation that he may have also given tips to Seattle, coached by former Packers head coach Mike Holmgren, and Minnesota (duh). So I'll just mention here that the Packers won those games, too. Maybe Favre kinda sucks at this "giving out secrets" thing. Or maybe Mike McCarthy smelled out the plot and changed the questions that Favre was answering.)

Meanwhile, the Brewers lost to the Phillies in the National League Division Series, but it wasn't because of espionage or dirty tactics by Yost. Instead, it was because they weren't good enough.

In reality, that's the reason Yost was fired, even though he didn't help himself by being uptight with the players and media, and not understanding that the media is a vehicle to communicate with the people who actually buy tickets to watch your team play.

Maybe it's killing Favre that we're almost halfway through the season, and Rodgers has better numbers.

Or maybe he's just an immature jerk who can't stand that fact that Ted Thompson is running the show in Green Bay.

NFL FOOTBALL: WEEK ONE PICKS

Things will get back to normal around here, with at least more sporadic posting, at some point. It'll happen when work settles down, whenever that is.

Here are some picks for Sunday and Monday's Week One NFL games. Hard to keep track if I'm not posting them, right?

Home team in CAPS.

EAGLES over Rams
Jets over DOLPHINS
PATRIOTS over Chiefs
Bengals over RAVENS
Jaguars over TITANS
SAINTS over Buccaneers
Texans over STEELERS
Lions over FALCONS
BILLS over Seahawks
CHARGERS over Panthers
BROWNS over Cowboys
Cardinals over 49ERS
COLTS over Bears
PACKERS over Vikings
Broncos over RAIDERS

Random thoughts:

• I'm down with the Aaron Rodgers era, as you know, but I'm still nervous for Monday. The Vikings have a really good pass rush, and the Packers' line has hardly inspired confidence so far.
• The Lions suck, but Matt Ryan is a rookie quarterback.
• The above statement applies to the Bengals and Joe Flacco.
• The Cowboys have "overrated" written all over them, says the guy who picked them to be in the NFC title game.
  

Enjoy Week One.

HE'S BAAAAACK

Unfortunately, this is very real. We'll know more tonight, but it appears that we have a Hall of Famer back on the Packers.

I have no issues with the man changing his mind. I have major issues with the man turning a very important training camp into one of these...


Ack. Good luck, Aaron. You got one Packer fan in your corner.

Of course, I'm human. In the end, I want this team to win. That's the bottom line. If the coaching staff eventually determines Favre is the guy to do that, then count me in.

However, I want the coaching staff to determine that. Not some empty-headed suit at ESPN (I'm looking at you, "everyone at ESPN").

(ESPN should be ashamed of themselves. Two years ago, many of these same people were chastising Favre for holding the Packers hostage when he was washed up and should have retired. Flip-flopping is bad. Just ask John McCain. He'll tell you all about it.)

McCARTHY OBVIOUSLY PISSED

Packers head coach Mike McCarthy held his pre-camp press conference Saturday in Green Bay. The first ten minutes went by without a single question unrelated to that Favre guy.

Obviously, this is the big story surrounding the Packers. However, he's not on the football team, and there's no guarantee he'll ever be again. It's not quite like asking a coach about a player who is holding out, or a guy who is injured and trying to get healthy before camp starts.

Reporters want to know what's going on with Favre. Perhaps they should try asking him. Then again, unless it's a neutered environment with a buddy in the media, Favre's not likely talking.

Not surprisingly, McCarthy seemed a bit perturbed by this. Hard to blame him.

"Well, it has gone on so long for me personally I can't really recall if I was surprised," McCarthy said. "But the way it has gone has been disappointing, I'll say that. You can say that is a surprise."

When asked to expound on that, McCarthy said: "I don't think this is necessary, why we're here today and just the course it has gone."

Also, McCarthy said the June 20th conversation he had with Favre, in which the quarterback said he was told the team was moving on and didn't want him back, wasn't quite as definitive as Favre described.

..."It's not like Brett Favre called me up and I said, 'No way you can't come back.' That wasn't the case."

Surely, no one in the Packers organization wanted this. At the same time, after watching Favre hold them over a barrel for three straight years with this retire-or-not-retire stuff, they can't be terribly surprised.

With Favre apparently threatening to report to camp, the Packers are in an interesting bind.

What do you do?

ESPN's Michael Smith made an idiot of himself on SportsCenter, saying that he didn't think the Packers could trade Favre. Of course, he didn't bother to lay out a way to make "Favre on the roster" work, and only a complete buffoon would think the Packers are going to release Favre knowing he wants to play for the Vikings.

It's really easy to say that the Packers can't trade Favre, but they've committed to Aaron Rodgers, and they're committed to keeping their word. I find it hard to believe anyone could fault the Packers for that with a straight face, but it seems many are setting themselves up to do just that.

HOW MUCH IS SHERMAN TO BLAME?

Longtime readers of this blog know how much a fan I have not been of Mike Sherman.

His reign in Green Bay got off to a promising start, but between Michael Vick, Fourth and 26, Randy Moss, Mike McKenzie, and Javon Walker, there wasn't much that Sherman handled well, either as a coach or a general manager.

I believe we're quickly learning that Sherman also didn't handle the quarterback position very well. Brett Favre should have been in the prime of his career during Sherman's tenure. Instead, his numbers largely plateaued before the big-time regression in 2005 (29 picks and mostly bad decision-making).

What's happened since Mike McCarthy took over? A supposedly aging Favre posted the highest completion percentage and highest average yards per attempt of his career in 2007, while posting his lowest interception percentage since 2000.

Amazing what you can coax out of a guy like Favre when you actually coach him, right?

With that in mind, I've long before come to the conclusion that Sherman didn't bother to coach Favre. We go back to 2005 for this:

You have failed, miserably, to rein in Brett Favre. I know his reputation is that of the "old gunslinger". But Favre is at his best when his coaches are keeping him somewhat under control. The Packers are losing right now, in large part, because Favre has made a bad habit out of throwing uncatchable deep balls that get intercepted. He's back to 1993 form, where he constantly made bad decisions and was often bailed out by butter-fingered defensive backs. It's something he can work himself out of, but he won't do it under this coaching staff. This coaching staff has made it clear that they're not going to try to get Favre under more control. At least, they haven't yet. And it's Week 16. You'd think they would have done it by now.

So, yeah. McCarthy did something that Sherman was either unable or unwilling to do. It's a big part of why Sherman lost his job after this miserable 2005 season, but how much of a role does it play now?

If you believe what I'm saying, that Sherman didn't do his job, could Favre simply be tired of coaching? Is it possible that Brett is done with McCarthy getting in his grill whenever he throws a pick in practice? Did last year take so much out of Favre that he refuses to prepare and study that hard again?

One obvious response that debunks this theory is "Think about where he wants to go". While I don't think a ton of Brad Childress as a head coach just yet, one thing I don't think he's going to do is let Favre play the "WTF? Chuck it deep" offense Sherman had him running in 2005. It doesn't fit the Vikings' personnel or Childress' personality. Same goes for Jon Gruden and Tampa Bay. Gruden would stare a hole right through Favre if he threw picks like the ones he threw in 2005.

So while there might not be much going on here, I still do believe that Sherman's lax style, which runs in direct contrast to what McCarthy and general manager Ted Thompson have been known for, had a terribly negative influence on Favre. And Favre's comfort in that style has led to much angst with Thompson.

And remember one more thing. When the reports of Favre's return began to surface, I was the first one to tell you that Aaron Rodgers was the Packers' starter. You probably thought I was nuts.

Then again, so did I. Sometimes, you get lucky.

BRETT FAVRE SPEAKS, SHOULDN'T HAVE

For the sake of Brett Favre, let's hope he's inhaled some fumes from that tractor of his.

Everyone in Wisconsin appreciates what Favre did for the Green Bay Packers. Even Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy. Favre refuses to understand this, instead evidently choosing to believe that Thompson especially has been trying to push him out the door since 2005.

After requesting his release last week, Favre has given an interview to Packers shareholder Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. In the interview, Favre shows signs of senility, apparently believing the Packers are stupid.

...while Favre said the Packers asked him for a list of teams to which he would accept a trade, he wants to be released to make sure he ends up on a competitive club.

Wait. You want to pick your team, but only on your terms?

Screw that!

The Packers are responsible for one thing here, and that's not Brett Lorenzo Favre. It's the Green Bay Packers.

And in this instance, what's best for Brett isn't what's best for the Packers.

Favre wants a release because he "didn't feel welcome". Typical BS athlete whining.

The truth is that Brett Favre decided he didn't want to play football anymore. He did this on his own, 44 days after a crushing end to the season that was largely his fault (see right). No one pushed him to retire. To the contrary, the Packers made it clear that they wanted him back.

Favre wanted out. He got out. He could have come back in March, but backed out.

Now, it's too late.

Aaron Rodgers is starting. Favre gets to take part in an open competition for the job in a best-case scenario in Green Bay, and he doesn't feel he should have to do that.

Understandable, but it means Favre has to go elsewhere.

With that in mind, does he really think the Packers are going to release him so he can sign with the Vikings or Bears? Instead, his best option is to find teams that are interested in him, narrow down the list to the most competitive franchises, and work out a deal.

It's the most amicable way out of Green Bay, which was what agent Bus Cook said they wanted. Instead, Favre, Cook, and their inner circle seem to have brokered the most acrimonious situation possible. They allowed this to go public, basically forced the Packers to respond in public, and have now seen this issue reel out of control.

This is July. Nothing happens in July. They had to know this would happen.

In the end, Favre thinks he's owed free agency by the Packers. It's insane. Favre signed a ten-year contract seven years ago. He did it because he wanted to finish his career in Green Bay, and the Packers offered him a deal he couldn't pass up. Now, he wants out of that deal for convenience. He thinks the Packers should up and release a contracted player, setting him up to go wherever he wants without compensation.

As bad as we all think Kevin McHale is, at least he didn't release Kevin Garnett.

Meanwhile, Aaron Rodgers continues to do something Favre was apparently allergic to. He's being a teammate and being "one of the guys". Despite the insistence of many Favre loyalists, who assume the veterans want Favre back, this behavior appears to be rubbing off on the other players, and Rodgers is getting some support.

Rodgers said he has received supportive calls and text messages from numerous teammates over the past couple of days, including offensive linemen Mark Tauscher and Chad Clifton and wideout Greg Jennings. He also has shown his leadership skills by actively mentoring Brohm and Flynn, a stark contrast to the chilly reception he got from Favre after joining the team.

“I’ve been trying to be as open as I can possibly be,” Rodgers said. “I told both Brian and Matt from the start that if they have any questions, they should come to me and I’ll help them in any way I can. Because making them better is making our team better.”

Maybe Favre can try this "teammate" thing in his new locale.

IT'S TIME FOR BRETT FAVRE TO GO AWAY

Yes, that headline reads as crass, unemotional, and perhaps vindictive.

Sorry. Deal with it.

Let me start with a disclaimer. The jersey being modeled to the right is still in my closet. I still look at it with pride and nothing but positive memories. The career Brett Favre enjoyed in Green Bay is one to be admired and pursued for years to come. No one does what he did anymore.

Word that Favre is considering a comeback leaked last week. As expected, it's set the internet on fire.

It seems that the Packers are in no hurry to deal with this, as general manager Ted Thompson reportedly blew off a Favre text message during his vacation over the weekend. Naturally, this is a sin punishable by death in some circles. You don't blow off Brett Favre, sir. Not under any circumstances. Even if you are enjoying basically the only time off an NFL executive gets in a calendar year.

Whatever.

This charade has gone on long enough, and it hasn't even been a week. It's time for Brett to go away.

Favre had approximately 45 days to make up his mind about the 2008 season. He deliberated, discussed the decision with his family and head coach Mike McCarthy. On March 6, he tearfully announced his retirement. He cited fatigue, saying he'd given all he could give. He said he didn't think he wanted to play anymore. It sounded sincere, and it sounded like it was happening for the right reasons. After watching much of the question/answer session that followed his announcement, you had to come away thinking Favre was at a degree of peace over his decision.

The Packers sensed this, and they moved on. Aaron Rodgers was groomed through off-season workouts as the starting quarterback, and he appeared to get off to a good start with his coaches and teammates. McCarthy tweaked the offense to benefit Rodgers and his strengths, which are different than Favre's.

We find out now that Favre isn't at peace. Four months later, there are rumblings Favre wants the starting job back in Green Bay, or he wants to go play somewhere else.

Let's be realistic. The Packers aren't going to cut Brett Favre. He will not become a free agent. Ted Thompson isn't a dummy, and he'd be run out of town if Favre showed up as a member of the Vikings September 8, or for the Lions or Bears later in the season. No chance in hell.

However, can the Packers just welcome Favre back?

As much as it kills me, my answer is a quick and emphatic "No". Favre retired, then waited almost four months before indicating that he may have acted rashly. This isn't Dana Altman taking the coaching job at Arkansas before reconsidering and quickly returning to Creighton, or Billy Donovan going to the NBA before backing out and returning to Florida. Altman didn't change his mind months after making the move, and neither did Donovan. Those things happen.

Favre made a deliberate decision, gave the team no indication that he wasn't happy with his decision. His inaction and silence could be taken as nothing but an indication that the Packers needed to move on. They did. They trained his replacement.

For Favre to be handed his old job back now would be simply wrong. Life isn't fair, but it's about time the Packers did something fair for Aaron Rodgers. He's done nothing but be a professional about his awkward and difficult situation since the day he showed up. He's waited three years for his turn, and he's spent four months preparing diligently for his turn.

If the Packers intend to bring Favre back as their starting quarterback, without competition, then they need to trade Rodgers to a team that will give him a chance to start.

I don't think this will happen. I think the Packers will try their best to convince Favre to stay retired. If that fails, I see them either trading Favre or making him compete for the job with Rodgers. If the offense has truly been changed to favor Rodgers' game, it's not a lock Favre would win the job.

If they trade Favre, they control where he goes. They can tell agent James "Bus" Cook to seek a deal with a team that doesn't appear on the Packers' 2008 or 2009 schedules. They can make it clear to Cook and Favre that there won't be a deal done within the division.

While Favre has a ton of power here (simply sending a letter that requests his reinstatement would set wheels in motion for a lot of newsworthy events), but it shouldn't be forgotten that Thompson isn't a weakling, either. The Packers have the cap space to force Favre to ride the pine should they choose, and they have the power to trade him wherever they want (remembe,r there are no "no-trade" clauses in NFL contracts).

Packer fans will always appreciate Favre, but he's not handling this well. If he doesn't figure that out, it's inevitable that Favre's pristine legacy will face the risk of serious damage.

FAVRE TALKING RETURN FOR 2008

Well, that was quick.

ESPN's Chris Mortensen reports that former Packers QB Brett Favre may not be a "former" Packers quarterback for much longer.

Mort says Favre has contacted Packers head coach Mike McCarthy to express an interest in playing this season.

Favre has communicated his potential desire to coach Mike McCarthy but talks have not advanced to a substantive stage, a Packers source said. ...Another source conceded Favre was "getting the itch" to play football in 2008. However, Favre's agent downplayed the likelihood that the quarterback could un-retire or that he was prepared to report to camp July 28. "As far as I know, right now, Brett Favre is retired and until he tells me something different, that's what it is," James "Bus" Cook, Favre's agent, said.

Evidently, Favre has the "itch". He's not the first athlete, and he won't be the last.

What should the Packers do? The answer is obvious.

Aaron Rodgers is the starting quarterback. Move on.

And, yes, I'm serious. Aaron Rodgers is the starting quarterback. Entertain trade talk for Favre if he's serious, and open the bidding only to AFC West and AFC East teams.

(Why those two divisions? Because it will be at least 2010 before the Packers play the AFC East again in the regular season, and 2011 before they see the AFC West, assuming the current rotation continues. They play the AFC South this year, and draw the AFC North next year.)

(Thanks, FanHouse and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel!)

WHAT THE HELL IS LONGWELL TALKING ABOUT?

Judd Zulgad of the Minneapolis Star Tribune did an interesting piece on the Vikings-Packers season-opening game in September.

For those who haven't heard, the Packers will be retiring quarterback Brett Favre's jersey during the Monday Night Football opener, and ESPN is planning a little bit of coverage.

Zulgad wrote about a couple former Packers, Ryan Longwell and Robert Ferguson, who now play for the Vikings. They both had some nice things to say about Favre, and it sounds like they're appreciative of the front-row seat they'll have September 8.

“It’ll be good for the simple fact that they are retiring his jersey, he left the game on his own terms,” Ferguson said. “There are a lot of things that are positive about the way he retired. I’m happy for him and happy to see him go into the second chapter of his life.”

...“Obviously, you’re a football fan before you start playing this game,” Longwell said. “I think in the all the years that I put in with Brett and played with him it’s pretty neat to be there for an event like that. Whether you’re on the opposing team or not, it’s going to be pretty neat. “It will be pretty crazy. I think the fans will be excited about Brett’s situation, I think they’ll be a little uneasy about their quarterback situation, but I think it’s a great opportunity for us at the same time.”

That's all fine and dandy, but I'm left curious about where Longwell was going with this comment about the beginning of the Aaron Rodgers era:

“It’s very tough. I saw so many guys come in and try to replace legends over there,” Longwell said. “He’s (Favre) probably a top three or four legend in the whole organization ever. Aaron’s got the mind to do it, he’s got the tools to do it. The media situation over there is different than anywhere else. He’s just got to withstand that.”

Please don't take this the wrong way. I think the reporters in Green Bay and Milwaukee are very fair and even-handed. They ask the right questions and almost always offer good information to the readers, viewers, and listeners.

I'm not saying the media in southern Wisconsin isn't tough. They're not pansies down there. However, Longwell is intimating here that the "media situation" in Green Bay/Milwaukee is somehow difficult to deal with.

Wuh?

I read this quote, and I'm led to believe Longwell thinks dealing with Bob McGinn is like a guillotine compared to Patrick Reusse and Tom Powers. And I think Longwell's out of his freaking mind if he honestly believes that.

Here is the game story from the Packers' NFC Championship loss to the Giants. If the roles were reversed, and it was an underdog Green Bay team going into Giants Stadium to steal a conference title, the New York media would have never let it go. Tom Coughlin would have been answering questions about his job security at his postgame press conference.

In Green Bay, you get the consoling hand on your shoulder.

Honestly, Aaron Rodgers probably couldn't ask for a better city in which to take over the job of a Hall of Fame player. More than anywhere else, the fans and media will rally behind Rodgers from the get-go, instead of waiting to skewer him the first time he throws a bad interception.

ANOTHER STUPID FAVRE STORY

You know what I find funny?

Brett Favre went away over two months ago. He's gone. Has barely said a peep publicly.

Yet, his name keeps coming up.

The latest in media idiocy comes from, among others, USA Today. And it's a doozy.

Favre's locker still has his nameplate and that the legendary passer's shoulder pads still rest there on a shelf.

Credit Jason White of "OnMilwaukee.com" with "breaking" this Earth-shattering story.

I have to respectfully disagree with coach Mike McCarthy and the team keeping it intact, as it is was during the Packers' organized team activity practices. Even though the Packers legendary quarterback called it a career in March -- albeit with a few public unretirement ruminations afterward -- his nameplate is still above his locker, and his shoulder pads are still on the shelf.

I think that's wrong. It isn't fair to Aaron Rodgers, who has as tough a follow-up gig as anyone has ever had at quarterback in the NFL. Not only is he following a sure-fire first-ballot Hall of Famer, which has been done before, but Rodgers is following a guy who started 275 consecutive games without missing one with an injury, and he's doing it in a town where Favre is a deity.

Words can't describe how stupid this is. If nothing else, it has forced the Packers to blow the doors off what they'd been quietly working on. And it's a nice gesture.

The Packers took away the Favre nameplate from Brett Favre's locker and replaced it with a standard ‘Packers' nameplate. The Packers had initially planned to keep the locker with Favre's name until further plans, but pulled it this week, coincidentally as the locker drew national coverage. Apparently the team is now considering giving the locker to Favre as a gift. "I think it's been totally blown out of proportion. It's frankly an excellent idea that Ted Thompson and the organization had as far as a gift on a personal note to Brett. It's been discussed with Brett, and we can talk about it at a later date. But its really a construction concern, is the reason why the locker hasn't been taken out of there. So there's nothing more to it. A lot has been made of it. ... Ted, at the board of directors meeting yesterday, talked about the Brett locker situation and told them the plans that he had had as far as what he was going to do with the locker and they gave him a standing ovation. It's a classy move and something that definitely reflects how the Green Bay Packers do business and how they appreciate what Brett Favre has done in his career."

All the guy wants to do is retire. And all the Packers want to do is move on.

Why is this such a difficult thing for the media to understand?

Sadly, someone out there in blog/talk radio/column land will spin this as somehow being Favre's fault. As if the tearful press conference wasn't evidence enough. As if the Packers' repeated attempts to move on weren't enough.

The worst part of this story? Some moron with a press pass asked Rodgers about the locker.

"I have a lot of things to worry about besides whether they keep the locker or not," Rodgers said. "I mean, it's not even on my mind. I got to try to figure out a way to lead this team on my mind — workouts, OTAs — so I'm not worried about that at all."

I'm sure Rodgers has experienced a few sleepless nights, racked with worry over when the Packers will finally get rid of that damn locker. Good thing it got settled now, or it would have ruined any shot he has of succeeding in 2008.

AARON RODGERS LOVES BONDING, HATES HAIRCUTS

If Brett Favre had a flaw in the eyes of many Packer fans, it was his general inability to be "one of the boys" toward the end of his career. His relationship with young backup Aaron Rodgers wasn't thought to be all that great. It was understandable to an extent. After all, Favre was the old dog. He has 15 years on Rodgers. When I'm 37, I'm not going to hang with anyone who's just out of college.

But there were some Packer fans who saw that as a bad thing. They thought Favre should have taken Rodgers under his wing. Taught him everything he could. That didn't happen.

And if Rodgers' recent words and actions are to be seen as a trend, it won't happen that way with him.

Rodgers said he's just being himself in respect to the off-season gatherings. But it's easy to see that Rodgers' living room is where Favre's reign ends and the Rodgers era - whatever it will ultimately be - has begun.

"I've always been open, a guy that wants to be involved not only working together but in the lives of these guys," Rodgers said. "That's why I've been having guys over once a week, just because I want us to be a connected team on and off the field."

I'm not a rah-rah guy by any stretch, but I think this is a great first step on his part. In order to succeed in Green Bay, Rodgers can't try to be Favre. Granted, there are fans who want him to be Favre. But he can't. He's Aaron Rodgers, and Aaron Rodgers just wants to be one of the boys.

And while it would be totally understandable if Rodgers shielded himself from rookies Brian Brohm and Matt Flynn, he says that won't happen.

"I'm going to help them as much as they want," Rodgers said. "I know what it was like to be a rookie and I'm sure their heads are swimming a little bit with the stuff we put in. So as much help as they want, they have my phone number. They know where I live - they're coming over tonight to hang out - so I'm going to be there for them."

Rodgers said his rookie experience had no bearing on his outlook toward his underlings.

"It was a different situation," said Rodgers, who has traded voicemails with Favre since his retirement. "(Favre) was 36, I was 21. We were 15 years apart. I'm 24 and these guys are 22 so as far as age goes, there's a little more connection there. But I'm just doing things the way I've always done them."

Say what you want about Rodgers' uneven performances in his first three years, but there are some undeniable statements:

• Rodgers looked really good in that Dallas game last year. He threw the ball well, spread the field, and confidently led this team.
• He's gotten significantly better in his preseason stints since his rookie campaign.
• He needs a freaking haircut.

I've been to Green Bay. I know there are haircut places there. In fact, I have seen them myself. Here's a link to one.

Since we've established they exist, and I'm sure they're not out of Rodgers' price range, I'm not sure why Rodgers is trying to grow his hair longer than Al Harris. Perhaps, he's trying to sell the idea that he's so busy trying to get ready for the season that he doesn't have time to get a haircut.