There are few things worse than getting your clock cleaned by a division arch-rival.  It turns out that regaining the lead late, then giving it up again because your run defense is less effective than a New Orleans levee, then getting a chance to take the lead back with 30 seconds left and having your big leg kicker miss it by mere inches...yeah, that feels much worse. 

So where did we go wrong?  Shoot, where didn't we go wrong?

• Deactivating Brandon Chillar:  I ask, why?  He's our best coverage linebacker and was sorely missed when Nick Barnett got hurt in the second half.  I don't want to get bogged down in conjecture, but I will say this: Chester Taylor's TD reception would not have happened had Chillar been on him instead of the lead-footed Desmond Bishop.
• Derrick Frost's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day: Gave the Vikes great field position all day, where All Day was able to capitalize all day.  Why is he here again?
• Run defense: Yes, Adrian Peterson is an absolute monster, but he had a big day even for him.  30 carries for 192 yards?  That's why they call him "All Day".  And that's why they call the Packers' run D "Swiss Cheese".
• Pass protection: Was there any?  Four sacks in the first half and five overall against a one-armed Jared Allen point to some issues on the O-Line (what else is new?)
• Lack of commitment to the run game:  Ryan grant ended up with 75 yards, but he had less than 10 carries before halftime.  He was achieving moderate success against a tough Vikings run defense, and could have definitely taken some pressure off of the passing game.
• Aaron Rodgers: Yes, he took a beating, but looking at his stat line makes me react in one way and one way only: Ewww.  15/26 for 142 yards?  At least he didn't turn it over, but he certainly didn't play well.
• Challenging Peterson's TD: Having not watched the game, I don't know how bad of a challenge it was, but it cost the team a timeout it may have been able to use in the final drive.

In the end, it was a superb performance by the defense wasted.  Tramon Williams, Charles Woodson, Nick Collins, and Will Blackmon gave us hope.  Even Ryan Grant looked good today.  But even with Gus Frerotte playing just like Gus Frerotte, the Vikings won because of their superior run offense and their stifling defense.  The Packers could not execute basic football, and when you can't do that, there's no way you can win.

Today, the Vikings were superior.  It may have seemed close in the box score, but it was not even close.  They earned their win today.  And we earned our loss.  Blech.

Green Bay Packers at Minnesota Vikings
Sunday, November 9th, 2008
Noon CST, FOX
This is an open thread for the game.

Inactives from NFL.com:

Holy crap! The Packers have not had an injury report this short since at least 2006, and everyone is going to start and/or play:

If the Packers lose on Sunday, it won't be due to injuries. Minnesota's injury list is short, only four players are listed, but it includes one big name, DE Jared Allen. He's got a severe sprain, but all sprains are really tears, just less severe. He's not expected to play, he's listed as doubtful (<75%), but even if he does then it will be like playing with one arm. At the very least, the Pro Bowl version of Jared Allen will not be playing on Sunday. That alone won't tip the game in favor of the Packers, but it doesn't help Minnesota.

So long as the Packers' run defense remains one of the worst in the NFL, I'm going to assume that the Packers can't beat any quality team with a good run offense. Therefore the Packers will play Minnesota close and tough, but lose a close game because Minnesota will be able to run right at the Packers in the 4th quarter on a game winning drive. Because, according to the rankings at NFL.com, Minnesota has a great run offense:

But the official NFL rankings are based just on yardage. The stats at Football Outsiders take several other factors into account, and also give the stats some context based on the strength of schedule:

The Packers stats are basically the same whether it's NFL.com or Football Outsiders, but Minnesota's are completely different. Minnesota's pass offense is average either way, which is actually outstanding considering QB Gus Frerotte is their starting QB. Minnesota's run defense is outstanding either way, but that could be subject to change due to the possible loss of the Williams Wall (doubtful) and the loss of DE Jared Allen (likely). Their pass defense looks a lot better because they've only allowed 8 TDs which is tied for 6th best in the NFL. It's been hard to score against their pass defense.

But how in hell is the Packers' awful run offense better than Minnesota's? RB Adrian Peterson isn't as good this season, he's already lost as many fumbles and his yard/carry average is down from 5.6 to 4.7. The biggest difference is that RB Chester Taylor's stats are way down, and his yard/carry is down from 5.4 to 4.0. But all those stats are still better than RB Ryan Grant. The reason is Minnesota has played against a whole bunch of awful run defenses. Except for games against Chicago and Tennessee, Minnesota has run the ball against 3 of the 4 worst run defenses in the NFL (Houston, Detroit, and the Packers) while taking on a few others that are below average (Carolina, Indianapolis, and New Orleans). 

Minnesota was involved in a close game in week 1 at Lambeau, but Brad Childress is a genius and decided to have QB Tarvaris Jackson throw a ton of passes late in the game, instead of running the ball right down the Packers throat. Minnesota was out of timeouts, so it wasn't all bad play calling by Childress. He did have to throw the ball to stop the clock. Unfortunately for the Packers, Jackson is now sitting on the bench and Childress was more than willing to call twice as many running plays as passing plays last week against Houston's awful, awful run defense. Since the Packers can't stop the run, and Minnesota can run against the Packers, I expect another close Packer defeat as Childress gets his first win in six games against the Packers, 23-20.