Friday, November 30, 2007

Oh, boo hoo

Packer fans are pointing to the team's injury situation, claiming a so-called "healthy" Packers would have defeated the Cowboys. Albert Breer at the Dallas Morning News blog commented on this before the game started:

Don't get me wrong -- Losing Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila and Charles Woodson is a big deal for the Packers. I just don't think it's as big a deal as some might think.

Here's why: The Packers are deep on the defensive line and the Cowboys aren't at receiver.Jarrett Bush will likely replace Woodson, and I think he's capable of doing a pretty good job on Patrick Crayton, plus safety Nick Collins is back in the mix. Losing KGB isn't good either, but the real monster on the defensive line is Aaron Kampman, and I think that whoever is playing over Flozell Adams will get shut down just the same as KGB would've.

So there you have it. KGB/Woodson out: Big Deal; Just Not That Big a Deal
Remember, Dallas' #2 receiver (Terry Glenn) was out, the #3 receiver was banged up, as was Terence Newman. Part of measuring the strength of an NFL team is looking at the depth, not just the starters. We can play lots of what-ifs. What if TO holds onto the ball in the end zone? Then it becomes a blow-out. As it was, the Packers were out-coached and out-performed.

Given the decisions made by the starting quartback and the coaching staff, it looks like the Packers were intimidated by the Cowboys. The onside kick? The field goal on fourth and 1? The John Madden-like long bombs? Those are the decisions of an intimidated coaching staff. Maybe they know something.

Packer fans are just going to have to face the truth - the Packers just aren't that good. Maybe next year.

Next week, the Cowboys continue their Sherman-like march through the NFC when they play the Lions.

Find classic movies at