Preview: 49ers at Green Bay Packers

by Brandon on Dec 3, 2010 7:01 AM CST in Green Bay Packers Analysis

Instead of the Green Bay Packers usual green and gold uniforms on Sunday, they'll be wearing an alternate jersey of blue and gold, which is a re-creation of the uniforms worn in 1929. That year was a very good year for the franchise. They played 13 games, won the NFL championship, and outscored their opponents 198 to 22. However it was a rough year for the NFL as the great depression was just beginning. The Dayton Triangles only managed to play 6 games before folding their franchise, but since they had been outscored 136 to 7 in those 6 games, it was probably for the best.

Fast forward 80 years, and the Packers are fielding another very good team that could bring Green Bay another NFL championship. Meanwhile, the 49ers had to win last week to push their record to 4-7, which amazingly leaves them only 1 game back in the pathetic NFC West. Maybe this could have been a trap game, the Packers lone home game sandwiched in between four road games, but I doubt they're taking any game for granted now that they're looking up at the Bears in the standings. The 49ers need to win as they could hope to move into a tie for 1st place with a 5-7 record, but they're a lousy road team that has only won three times on the road, in the United States, in the past two seasons.

More on this game after the jump. And you can read more about the 49ers at Niners Nation.

Rankings from Football Outsiders:

Teams	Run Offense	Pass Offense	Run Defense	Pass Defense
Packers	19	6	18	2
49ers	14	27	5	17

Packers Offense vs. 49ers Defense

While the offense was held to only 17 points last week, it could have easily been more if QB Aaron Rodgers hadn't fumbled at the goal line. And the offense moved the ball well (over 400 yards of offense) but never had starting field position better than their own 32 yard line.

The offensive line gave RB Brandon Jackson nowhere to run last week, and the 49ers run defense is ranked almost the same as the Falcons run defense. I don't see any reason to expect a running game rebirth on Sunday.

And like the Falcons, the 49ers pass defense isn't stellar. There are reports of snow on Sunday, but that might not slow down the pass offense either. QB Brett Favre had a great passing game against the Seahawks during the 2007 playoffs despite the snow. Expect what you've come to expect from Rodgers over the past three games.

49ers Offense vs. Packers Defense

A match-up of the 27th ranked pass offense vs. the 2nd ranked pass defense looks ugly. Now it looks even worse without the 49ers leading rusher and receiver, RB Frank Gore, who's out for the season with a fractured hip.

RB Brian Westbrook (v.2008) came off the bench to run for 136 yards and 1 TD, but the Cardinals defense played as bad as it looked. The 49ers could have some success against the Packers on the ground, but they might not get a chance if they have to play from behind.

While the Cardinals were lousy against the run, they only allowed QB Troy Smith to complete 47.8% of his passes with a QB rating of 61.7. And that performance came after they were shutout at home by a mediocre Buccaneers defense. TE Vernon Davis might have some success (he did in last year's game against the Packers) but he might draw a lot of attention by CB Charles Woodson which would take him out of it.

Hidden Football

The Packers slipped a little last week after they got flagged for 8 penalties last week. However, the 49ers are the 5th most penalized team, so the Packers still have a huge advantage in that area. The 49ers special teams are ranked No. 18 by Football Outsiders, due in large part to their excellent punter, Andy Lee. But they've had a revolving door at kicker the past couple weeks and K Jeff Reed is the latest player signed to fill in for K Joe Nedney. With the Packers having an advantage on one hand, and the 49ers on another, it seems like this category will be a push between the two teams.

Predicition

How exactly are the 49ers going to move the ball? They remind me a little bit of the Bills (back when the Packers played them in September) in that RB Fred Jackson was able to score a touchdown, but they couldn't pass the ball at all. Those Bills ended up with only 7 points. While the 49ers defense reminds me of the Falcons defense, the Packers offense should have a few more chances (and better field position) this week. Packers 24, 49ers 7.

Tweet Comment 58 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I was more nervous about the Bills game...

Not enough offensive firepower to scare me. Plus, we usually do well against them.

Their defense does sometimes keep them in games, like when they lost at Atlanta on a last second FG (sound familiar?). But that offense looks depleted…

Short and sweet from me. Not worried about this one.

by PackFaninFL on Dec 3, 2010 8:00 AM CST reply actions

those are the games it seems which you should be most worried about is when you are not worried.

I am worried about the niners being tired and our coaches, well that are coaches might not have a game plan……

if we have both I think you should be worried and that it will be a close game.

"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin

by HUNGRY HUNTER on Dec 3, 2010 4:23 PM CST up reply actions

westbrook still can be effective

that is what scares me, becuase you have to cover him, and Smith has shown a good deap ball, I hope Shields can cover on the long ball this game, if he can it will be a good game for us.

I think it will be something like 31-14 pack.

By the way, is Vick going to win the MVP, and comeback player in the same year? picking up him and Hillis in week 2 has lead me to the lead in my FF team, also mendenhall and steven jackson

by bugenj222 on Dec 3, 2010 8:42 AM CST reply actions

FF

I got Vick too, and Rivers, Peterson, Stephen Jackson, Megatron, Brandon Lloyd, Stevie Johnson and Tamme at TE! 10-2 in 1st by 2 games…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 3, 2010 11:53 AM CST up reply actions

then play on Yahoo

I have been able to make pretty much any move I want, with no one taking anyone, idk if its just my league or not.

by bugenj222 on Dec 3, 2010 11:58 AM CST up reply actions

Thats what you get w/ a internet league...

In those leagues that are public, not private you get a bunch of people who don’t really care or try. Or a pay league where people have a vested interest in trying to win! Public leagues are a joke!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 3, 2010 12:17 PM CST up reply actions

yeah I know,

I am getting into a privite league for the first time next season, im looking forward to it. I dont remember what it costs but it will be fun.

by bugenj222 on Dec 3, 2010 12:20 PM CST up reply actions

Usually private leagues don't cost anything...

Private leagues are between a group of people that know each other. Like for this website, we have a private league for a group of us and everyone is playing for bragging rights or in this case a packer T-shirt…

A pay league is either private or public, but it costs something to get into and you win $$$ if you win it…

I’m in one of each and both are fairly competitive and everyone keeps trying, for the most part!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 3, 2010 12:37 PM CST up reply actions

flacco, foster, turner, jamaal charles, lance moore, gj85, heap, pack D/st, tynes.

gg. …had jason hanson K who was mad good, and now he’s IR… lousy kicker on IR

by ctxsix on Dec 3, 2010 8:40 PM CST up reply actions

BUT WILL THIS BE THE SINGLETARY SWAN SONG?

hahaha… you know that’s going to be the talk Sunday Morning.

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi

by AdamA on Dec 3, 2010 8:59 AM CST reply actions

Not happening

they have three division games left. Singletary is not going anywhere before the end of the season

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Dec 3, 2010 12:24 PM CST up reply actions

Ill be there!

A buddy and I will be traveling all the way from Sacramento, CA for this game.

Your friendly neighborhood Purple Drank retailer.

by ajd1083 on Dec 3, 2010 9:48 AM CST via mobile reply actions

They’re tailor-made for us, and they’re gonna’ get hurt.

I don’t think I’ve ever been more confident going into a game that the Pack will win.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 3, 2010 10:22 AM CST reply actions

thats when they lose

look at tampa bay last year. I still shudder at that game

by bugenj222 on Dec 3, 2010 10:56 AM CST up reply actions

but they pack will be a little more jacked up this week after the tough loss to the falcons

by supertrooper15 on Dec 3, 2010 11:15 AM CST up reply actions

true

I just dont want to over look any game the rest of the way out, or I feel like we wont make the playoffs if we dont win out.

by bugenj222 on Dec 3, 2010 11:19 AM CST up reply actions

I think the pack will be fine even if they go 4-1 maybe even 4-2… Remember catching the bears is not the only way to get into the playoffs. you should hear some of the crazy situations they are coming u with over at the DN for the Vikings to get into the playoffs, its kind of funny.

by supertrooper15 on Dec 3, 2010 12:53 PM CST up reply actions

for now

Just win this week and next. That puts GB at 9-4 and a better idea of where there at in the playoff picture.

rmlumley.com

by shaftr on Dec 3, 2010 12:56 PM CST up reply actions

Well, that’s certainly always a point to consider. Every win is a tough one, and we’ll lose if we sleep on anybody. …and I’m usually the first to ring the alarm if I think we’re getting complacent.

But I just can’t see it happening this week. The 9ers are in our wheelhouse. We specialize in stopping the only things they do, and in overcoming the things they can stop.

The only chance they have is ST or defensive points. In other words, they’ve got to get lucky.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 3, 2010 5:25 PM CST up reply actions

Packers 27 49ers 10

by Yankees10 on Dec 3, 2010 10:30 AM CST reply actions

Westbrook

I was REALLY hoping the Pack would look into signing him in the off season. What would it have hurt?! It seemed like no one wanted him and I knew Grant wasn’t that special.

And especially now with Grant’s injury!

..But this is coming from the same guy who screamed at the TV during the Amad Carrol draft pick to select Chris Gamble!

I guess what i’m saying is… I would be a pretty damn good GM!

by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 3, 2010 1:03 PM CST reply actions

Westbrook

The Packers did look into him in the offseason. Pretty sure he visited GB and spoke to McCarthy and Thompson. At the least they spoke to him and his agent… I think the Dr’s didn’t give him a clean bill of health based on his recurring concussions and that nixed the idea of signing him!!

I’m guessing I would be a better GM!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 3, 2010 1:11 PM CST up reply actions

Problem with Westbrook is...

…he is one good shot to the chin away from retiring (terrible concussion issues)

I rather have Nance or Starks as our 3rd RB behind Grant and Bjackson (remember, that would have been the situation in August with Westbrook. As a 3rd running back/ possibly deactivated every week and insurance against injury)

And the irony of having a fragile, wrong side of 30, injury prone guy like Westbrook as your “insurance” in case Ryan Grant or Bjack gets hurt (laughs).

That’s the problem with these hypotheticals…who knows what would happen — if we would have overused him, if he would have received a shot to the chin in preseason, etc etc etc… (or a million possibilities/trajectories)

And another thing…why didn’t you bring this up while he was averaging 2 carries per game ALLLL season long? You came out now that he had ONE good game?? grins

by PackFaninFL on Dec 3, 2010 2:22 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

hindsight is always 20/20 right?

by supertrooper15 on Dec 3, 2010 2:40 PM CST up reply actions

Westbrook

I noticed Westbrook was listed as having an injured ankle and did not participate in W/Th practice. Is this new, or is this just like Woodson’s toe :)

by GregR on Dec 3, 2010 2:57 PM CST up reply actions

Most verterans do not do much on wed/th but im not sure if he has ailments or not

by supertrooper15 on Dec 3, 2010 4:14 PM CST up reply actions

Thank you

Rec’d x 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

by mike_o on Dec 3, 2010 4:41 PM CST up reply actions

Did you guys know...

…that every time you ’rec me, an angel gets his/her wings in heaven?

Thanks :)

by PackFaninFL on Dec 3, 2010 4:51 PM CST up reply actions

why didn't I bring him up?

Because we are playing SF THIS week! I guess I didn’t see the risk in signing him, if he gets hurt… let him go! Very low risk with high reward. I would much rather have seen a backfield of Grant-Westbrook-Jackson to start the year (with Starks on PUP).

I guess I ask you… who would you prefer as a backup, Westbrook… or Kuuuuuuuhn?

by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 3, 2010 6:57 PM CST up reply actions

Jesus f***ing christ...

Westbrook has ONE good game against a team with garbage defense in Arizona, and all of a sudden people think he’s good again? They make 3rd-string RBs look like Adrian Peterson! And this BS about Thompson signing Westbrook? Seriously? Did you have a crystal ball telling you Grant was going to get hurt? I know Ted Thompson and the rest of us didn’t.

by mike_o on Dec 3, 2010 4:38 PM CST up reply actions

I think you are misunderstanding

I’m not saying he should have been inserted into the #1 spot coming out of the offseason, I am simply saying he is a low risk backup that would have been a better option than Kuhn(and Jackson for that matter).

And even if he didn’t have a good game last week.. I would still feel that way! It’s not like I went on a f***ing rant about why Westbrook is sooo good and how TT sucks! Comeon MAN!

But what’s done is done. TT can’t make ALL the right choices (and it seems he may be unable to fix our RB position… minus the Grant steal)

by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 3, 2010 7:03 PM CST up reply actions

I agree about how Westbrook still has skills

He would have been a good pickup in that way. But personally, with someone whose head is so damaged, I wouldn’t feel right about sending him out there on the field with the possibility of messing up his brain. Let some other GM / coach deal with the guilt of getting his stubborn ass messed up. If the NFL was really serious about the concussion issue they wouldn’t let him play no matter how well he can run. I don’t think it befits a classy organization to sign someone who’s one hit away from the looney bin.

by Mr. Saturn on Dec 4, 2010 12:01 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

I doubt it.

I guess what i’m saying is… I would be a pretty damn good GM!

Well, based on

I knew Grant wasn’t that special.

I would have to disagree.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 3, 2010 10:27 PM CST up reply actions

And he wouldn't look too good signing Westbrook

All its gonna take is one hit to the head and the Westbrook signing just blew up in his face! LOL

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 3, 2010 10:50 PM CST up reply actions

hey pat

sorry no tix for the hockey

by fn_cold_ak on Dec 4, 2010 1:47 AM CST up reply actions

Grant

I guess you think Grant is special, while I think he is mediocre.. just a matter of opinion!

by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 4, 2010 10:52 PM CST up reply actions

Is he "special" like E. Smith, B. Sanders, etc.?

No.

But, he’s good enough to win a Super Bowl with, especially with our offense, IMO.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 4, 2010 11:48 PM CST up reply actions

With this OLine...

I don’t think anyone would run well and lead us to a Superbowl

by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 5, 2010 11:27 AM CST up reply actions

28 to 3

Look for the Packers to get an early lead and then practice, practice, practice their run game.

by marcopo on Dec 3, 2010 2:07 PM CST reply actions

Running game..

Would Marshawn Lynch have made a big difference for the Packers? Not sure..

I can’t see the Green and Gold losing this one at home. If they do, do they really deserve the playoffs?

Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by White92 on Dec 3, 2010 3:11 PM CST reply actions

The answer is "no"

This is the kind of game you win if you deserve to be in the playoffs.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 3, 2010 5:26 PM CST up reply actions

Definately Not

Evidence A- Both John Kuhn and Brandon Jackson have higher YPC Averages than Marshawn Lynch

Evidence B- You go from Wynn, to Morency, to Grant, to Kuhn, to Jackson, to Dimitri Nance and they are all not good enough. When will the team learn that the OL needs to block? Something’s gotta give, ya know. Especially when our RB’s are usually hit right at the line of scrimmage.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 3, 2010 8:39 PM CST up reply actions

Grant did really well. Nance has got maybe ten carries all year, mostly in a single game and you’re already claiming he can’t be effective? Wynn got good yardage, but he was injury prone and couldn’t pass block. Morency sucks, Kuhn is a fullback, and Jackson will never be more than a good 3rd down back.

Lynch has speed, power, and great receiving skills. The Seahawks have their own problems, so I’m not going to judge him based on his yards per carry. That said, he wasn’t worth a third-round pick which is at least what it would have taken to beat Seattle’s fourth rounder. I think it’s obvious we have running back issues. I’d like to see a real running back in there before I call out our offensive line too harshly. I think a bad running back like Jackson can make a good Oline look bad.

by Mr. Saturn on Dec 4, 2010 12:13 AM CST up reply actions

Agreed, it’s not all on the offensive line. In fact, this seasons offensive line is probably better run blocking then it was in 2008 and 2009 with Sitton more developed and Buluga in there in place of Tauscher. The reason our running game is so poor is because Jackson is NOT an every down running back.

Agreed on Nance. He’s gotten 10 carries, and on top of that, they’ve all been in obvious running situations. I’d love to see him get a carry out of some of our more “normal” formations (Singleback, I-Form, Shotgun).

by packallday555 on Dec 4, 2010 12:44 PM CST up reply actions

Lynch

I think would have been a serviceable RB in the winter months given his time in Buffalo. Nothing great, but serviceable, which is prob why they didn’t trade for him. We already have a serviceable guy in Jackson. 2 mediocre backs would not have been worth the salary and draft picks IMHO

Your friendly neighborhood Purple Drank retailer.

by ajd1083 on Dec 3, 2010 4:16 PM CST via mobile reply actions

The line has to execute or you need Barry Sanders.

by marcopo on Dec 3, 2010 5:18 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

+1

by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 3, 2010 7:04 PM CST up reply actions

don't agree

we have a passing offense. we don’t need a superstar running back. that’s why i said many times that the biggest injury to this team was ryan grant. he had the same line last year and just ran for 1,200 yards and 10 plus td’s. grant is a perfect fit for this offense.

look at it this way. if we had a stud running back, that means he would get more carries and take the ball away from rodgers. this would cut into rodgers stat lines, so some posters wouldn’t be able to tell us every week on how the best fantasy football qb is having a down year. this is sarcasm of course.

next year will be the “the great expectation year” -—- this year enjoy the ride and hopefully we win at least 1 playoff game——-baby steps.

by hermitcrab on Dec 3, 2010 10:17 PM CST up reply actions

I hope we do go out and get a stud running back. Grant hasn’t been the same runner he was in 2007, and I doubt he’ll even be what he was in 2008/2009. Could you imagine how good the offense could be if we actually had a running game as opposed to “the threat” of one?

by packallday555 on Dec 4, 2010 12:41 PM CST up reply actions

Said it before and sayin it again.

Starks is that RB, or at least he was drafted to be that RB. It’s very unlikely the Packers use a high draft pick on a stud RB! Starks would likely have been a 2nd rd pick if not for the injury! He is going to be given every chance to supplant Grant next year or the year after and become the Stud RB your talking about! Whether or not he gets there is up to him and maybe injury!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 4, 2010 12:56 PM CST up reply actions

Stud RB

The true stud running back in/out of the NFL is Travis Henry. He’s got as many kids as Antonio Cromartie! (I’m assuming you mean a stud RB like for breeding, right?)

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Dec 4, 2010 1:52 PM CST up reply actions

LOL

Seriously made me laugh… Maybe Cromartie and Henry should retire to stud!!! They would be rich for a long time, stud fees can be collected alot longer than NFL careers!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 4, 2010 3:04 PM CST up reply actions

Yeah, I just want to see him before I’m ready to think that he’ll be that stud running back. Like you, I do think he looks good from some of his tapes but he hasn’t played in a real game for two years now, and he’s gotta prove he can do so in the NFL.

by packallday555 on Dec 4, 2010 5:15 PM CST up reply actions

Bingo!

Lynch wouldn’t produce any better results if not a little better than what we have. A RB is only as good as the OL allows him to be. It would have been a wasted 3rd round pick.

"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi

by Jabooty on Dec 3, 2010 8:41 PM CST up reply actions

play n.e, ny -g, and the bears again, and beat them with our running game?! plus the lions, and a desperate 9er team?! i’ll have to see it to believe it. but thats probably what we’ll have to do to make the play-offs!!!

by Southern PACKER-backer on Dec 3, 2010 4:28 PM CST reply actions