Saturday marks a special day in my relationship with my co-worker Anthony Stalter. No, it’s not our anniversary or anything – my favorite team is the Green Bay Packers and he’s an Atlanta Falcons fan, so the fact that the two teams are squaring off in the playoffs is a pretty big deal in our world. In fact, since he lives in St. Louis and I live in Southern California, we’ve both agreed to purchase a 12-pack of Bud Select 55 (not a plug, but it could be!) and pretend that we’re splitting a case while watching the game together.

As I just tweeted, everything that happens today is just a preamble to Saturday’s game, so let’s talk a little trash as we try to run the clock out on the work week.

JP: First of all, let’s see who’s the bigger fan. I was born outside of Milwaukee and grew up loving the Packers, even when players like Lynn Dickey, Eddie Lee Ivory and Paul Ott Carruth were the big names (and an 8-8 record was a successful season). Then came Brett Favre (ironically via a trade with the Falcons) who was my favorite player for 16 freaking years before he retired his way to our arch-rival. Blood had been spilled. My autographed photo of Favre is sitting, face-down, in the garage, waiting for his inevitable “mea culpa” visit to Lambeau in a couple of years. What’s my point? I’m a fan of the Packers, not of any one player. Now, tell us how you became a fan of the Falcons…

AS: I grew up in Chicago so many people assume that I’m a Bears fan (why they would think that, I have no idea). But my folks are from New York so they had no loyalty to the home team. To my family’s disappointment, I didn’t become a Jets fan. When I was real young, I liked certain players instead of teams. But when I was 9, the first playoff game I remember watching from start to finish was the 1991 Wildcard matchup between the Saints and Falcons. When you’re a kid, you usually don’t focus on defensive players, but I was enamored with Deion Sanders. He was the most athletic player I had ever watched. Chris Miller also hit Michael Haynes on a 61-yard touchdown pass late in the fourth quarter, so that particular game was thrilling. I’ve been hooked on the Falcons ever since, even though it hasn’t been easy being a fan of theirs over the years. Up until last year, they never had back-to-back winning seasons so I’ve endured a lot of losing. From Jeff George to Jamal Anderson to Michael Vick (ugh, talk about highs and lows), they’ve put me through a lot. But just like you when it comes to the Packers JP, the Falcons will forever be my team. Since I have never lived in Atlanta, DirecTV’s “Sunday Ticket” is the world’s greatest invention. I never miss a snap of the Falcons’ games, even when I have to watch them again later so I can fulfill my responsibilities to TSR.

JP: Did I mention that the Falcons actually drafted Favre out of college and traded him to the Packers? Ron Wolf got the better end of that deal, though Jerry Glanville now claims that he traded Favre to help sober him up. Seriously.

Anyway, you may be a fractured sports fan, since you like the Giants in baseball and the Spurs in the NBA, but I’ll give you credit, you’ve been a Falcons fan for as long as I’ve known you. Atlanta does hold a special place in my heart though – they were the ones who kept the Vikings out of Super Bowl XXXIII even though you couldn’t beat John Elway, who beat my Packers the year before with “The Dive.” What a jagoff.

So moving on to Saturday’s game. I think it’s going to be a tight one, just like the first meeting this season. I think the Packers have the slight edge in talent, though the Falcons don’t beat themselves, which is something that Green Bay has a tendency to do. If Roddy White’s knee were 100%, I’d take the Falcons, but I don’t think it is and losing that dimension hurts Atlanta’s offense. Green Bay will win if they keep the penalties down and if they can contain Michael Turner. I saw a stat that said that, in the first meeting, he rushed for 5.8 yards per carry against the Packers when GB had eight men in the box. As a Packer fan, that’s scary.

AS: You and I can definitely agree on one thing: John Elway is a jagoff. Every time the NFL Network shows him running down the field with his arms in the air after beating the Falcons in XXIII, I want to punch my TV screen. And Glanville is a lying if he says he traded Favre to help sober him up. Glanville never wanted to draft Favre – that was all Ken Herock. But he forced Herock to trade Favre because he was never going to play him. Ahhhh! What could have been…

Outside of the 2005 Steelers, the Packers are the most dangerous No. 6 seed I think I’ve ever seen in the playoffs. Aaron Rodgers was the NFC’s MVP in my opinion. The guy didn’t have a running game until last week and even though teammates on both sides of the ball were dropping like flies around him due to injuries, he kept the Packers afloat almost single-handedly. (I know he has a great receiving corp, but they do seem to drop a lot of balls.) To me, this game comes down to two things: 1) Michael Turner and 2) Atlanta’s ability to get pressure on Rodgers using only its front four. If the Falcons can run the ball and eat up a lot of clock, then they’ll be able to limit the damage Rodgers can create. And if they can pressure him using only John Abraham, Jonathan Babineaux, Corey Peters and Kroy Biermann, their linebackers will be free to contain new sparkplug James Starks and help out in coverage. But that’s easier said than done. Rodgers is still going to make plays and even if you blitz him, he’s outstanding when it comes to getting the ball out of his hands quickly. What’s your take on Starks and his ability to provide Mike McCarthy with balance?

JP: I like Starks a lot! He has a good combination of strength, speed and wiggle and has a lot more upside than any other RB on the Packer roster, including Ryan Grant, who is a strong runner, but isn’t very elusive. Starks showed the ability to make people miss when he caught a pass out of the backfield against the Eagles and dodged a tackler or two to pick up the first down. His success will be key on Saturday. Atlanta is 10th in the league in rushing yards allowed, but they do give up 4.6 yards per carry (25th), so if Green Bay sticks with the run, Starks could have a nice day. Unfortunately, the Packers are 28th in ypc allowed (4.7) so I’m very worried about Turner going off.

Change of subject – I’ve asked you this before, but I think it’s an interesting question to revisit: If you were running the Falcons and Ted Thompson called you up and offered Aaron Rodgers straight up for Matt Ryan, would you pull the trigger?

AS: Oh, man – bringing out the big guns for this piece! That’s a hard question to answer because I’ve rooted for Ryan since his rookie year (it would be difficult to say that you would trade a player that you’ve become so fond of) and as you know, I’ve been a supporter of Rodgers since Favre “retired” his way out of Green Bay. Rodgers is better than Ryan right now. He also has a stronger arm and people don’t give him enough credit for being a good athlete (which is one of the reasons he dropped in the draft, even though he’s proven that he can run). But he would also be a total waste in Mike Mularkey’s offense. The routes in his offense aren’t designed to test defenses vertically – they’re meant to be zone killers. He’s also loyal to his running game and strives for almost 50-50 balance between pass and run. Ryan is a perfect fit for Mularkey’s system because he’s intelligent, he makes quick reads and he’s incredibly accurate. That’s not to say that Rodgers doesn’t have those intangibles because he does. (And to clarify my thoughts, I think Rodgers could be successful in any system.) But Ryan is two years younger than Rodgers and his arrow is pointing up, too. So based on my offensive coordinator, the system and the age factor, no, I wouldn’t want to trade Ryan for Rodgers.

Give me one Green Bay player to watch for that nobody is talking about right now that you think will make a big impact come Saturday.

JP: Wait, you want to build around an offensive coordinator and not a franchise QB? Well, it’s good that you would say no because the Packers would never offer up that trade. Back to your “player to watch” request – OLB Erik Walden was named NFC Defensive Player of the Week for his Week 17 performance (16 tackles, two sacks) against the Bears. He followed it up with five tackles, another sack and a forced fumble against the Eagles. He was drafted by the Cowboys in the 6th round in the ’08 draft, but Ted Thompson signed the Middle Tennessee State product as a free agent off the street in late October. He’s now a starter in Dom Capers 3-4 defense. If he and Clay Matthews can bring consistent pass rush, it’s going to make things very difficult for Matt Ryan.

Well, we’re almost to the 1700-word mark, which means we better wrap this up. How do you see this game going and who do you predict will win?

AS: It figures that you would ask me a hard question like that and then call me out on my answer! That was dirty. Obviously I wouldn’t want to build around an offensive coordinator. I could have completely copped out and just said that both quarterbacks would be great in any situation but I wanted to give you some thought behind my completely biased answer. So thanks for ruining this, John. I was having fun…

It’s not a stretch to say that the majority of the nation favors the Packers in this game. I watched three different preview shows on NFL Network this week and all of the analysts picked the Packers. My former hero Deion Sanders even went on to say that he “can’t stand” Atlanta’s secondary. So while Vegas has installed the Falcons as a favorite, they’re an underdog in the court of public opinion. To me, what this game comes down to is this: Can the Packers play a near-perfect game? Because the Falcons don’t do things to beat themselves and they’re the ones that are rested and playing at home. The advantages they have don’t show up in the box score, which is why I don’t take a lot of stock in all of statistical evidence that suggests the Falcons shouldn’t even bother showing up on Saturday night. I see this being a surprisingly low-scoring game and the Falcons winning with a late field goal.

JP: Oh, come on. I’m not buying that anyone is trying to sell that the Falcons shouldn’t bother to show up Saturday night. This is the #1 seed playing at home after a week’s rest. Of course they are the favorite. As you mentioned, the Packers are a live dog and are the sexier pick for the pundits, but every time a so-called “expert” picks Green Bay in this game, it’s one more piece of motivation for Mike Smith and the Falcons. They’re going to play the “no respect” card and that’s a good one to have in your corner. I am going to pick the Falcons as well, 24-23. That way it’s a win-win for me – if Green Bay prevails, I can celebrate a Packer victory. If they lose – well, hell, at least I called the game right.

Enjoy those bottles of Bud Select 55 – we’re going to need ‘em.

Adam Schefter is the latest pundit to chime in on the Marshawn Lynch-to-the-Packers rumors.

Green Bay has to do something at running back, and I think the organization recognizes it. It knows it can’t rely on Brandon Jackson as its workhorse from now through the playoffs, assuming it makes them. Green Bay will continue looking for a trade, and Lynch makes as much sense as anybody. But the problem is, teams have been trying to pry away Lynch since the off-season and so far, Buffalo hasn’t budged.

This has been something of a hot topic of late, so I thought I’d enlist the help of our NFL guru, Anthony Stalter, and try to come to some sort of conclusion about whether or not the Packers should trade for Lynch.

JP: Anthony, these rumors have been out there for a while, and given Buffalo’s situation (sucky) and the fact that they have three pretty good running backs, it makes a lot of sense that they would move him for a draft pick to help their rebuilding process. Lynch is 24 years old, has a career 4.0 ypc, decent hands out of the backfield and has had several run-ins (hit and run, misdemeanor gun charge) with the police. Given the fact that the Broncos gave up a 4th rounder for Laurence Maroney, what type of draft pick is Lynch worth in your opinion?

AS: One of our readers recently took the time to compare the career numbers between the two backs and they’re very similar. I would argue that Lynch still has more upside than Maroney, but given his off-field issues I would say no more than a 4th round pick. Keep in mind that every week the Packers or another team doesn’t pick up the phone to call Buffalo GM Buddy Nix is another week Nix loses leverage in a deal for Lynch. The trade deadline is quickly approaching and if the Bills want to move him, the time is now. If Ted Thompson or another GM makes it known that he’s fine with the backs that are currently on his roster, than Nix has no choice but to accept lesser value for Lynch. There’s no doubt that the Packers could use a back of his talent, but Thompson isn’t going to overpay. He never does.

JP: Ryan Grant was effective in the Packers’ running game because he made one cut and hit the hole extremely hard. Usually, he’d gain 2-3 yards, but occasionally he’d break through to the secondary and rattle off a 10- to 15-yard gain. Brandon Jackson doesn’t run the ball downhill, but he’s effective on deceptive runs (draws, inside handoffs, traps, etc.) and has very good hands out of the backfield. Would Lynch’s running style be effective given the Packers’ limitations in the running game?

AS: Lynch’s style is definitely more comparable to Grant’s than Jackson’s. When healthy, Lynch is a north-south runner who gets better as the game wears on. He’s the type of back that needs 20-25 carries a game in order to be completely effective, which may not work for a pass-first team like the Packers. That said, if Green Bay can use its passing game to build leads on opponents, then Lynch would be a perfect back to wear teams down in the second half and chew up the clock. Again, he has to stay healthy and sometimes that can be a problem with his reckless running style, but the short answer is yes, I think he would be a fit for the Packers. I think any back that can potentially wear on opponents would be a good fit for the Packers.

JP: As a Packer fan, I think the team can get by with a combination of Brandon Jackson and John Kuhn, especially if they do most of their running out of passing formations, utilizing Jackson’s ability in deceptive runs. I don’t understand why they bother with the I-formation when Grant isn’t there to hit the hole at 50 MPH. The Colts do enough damage in the running game with Joseph Addai, but they would never be mistaken for a power running team. However, I know it’s important to chew up four-yards a carry in the fourth quarter when you’re nursing a lead, and I don’t see Jackson or Kuhn doing that, so I wouldn’t mind a trade for Lynch, but not for a 2nd or 3rd rounder. The idea of a conditional 4th that could turn into a 3rd if Lynch met certain playing time and productivity requirements sounds like it might be fair.

AS: I agree on all fronts. It was embarrassing to watch Julius Peppers build a small fort in the Packers’ backfield on Monday night and Green Bay do nothing about it. Peppers was rushing up field virtually every snap and the Packers only ran the ball at him a handful of times. The best way to beat a speed rusher is to run the ball directly at them because they create their own running lanes with their aggressiveness. Yet there Peppers was, setting up camp in Rodgers’ backfield all night. Granted, the Bears did a nice job moving him around, but that’s why offenses have audibles – so that they can adjust to what the defense is doing. Some Buffalo fans appear to be delusional about what their team can get for Lynch right now. I agree that a fourth that could turn into a third based on playing time and productivity is more than fair. Because the Bills aren’t going to get more than a 3rd rounder for him and the Packers shouldn’t pay more than that either, especially if he doesn’t produce.

JP: Get Ted Thompson and Buddy Nix on the line! I think we have a deal!

I was reading ESPN The Magazine today, and in their New Year, New Rules issue, Peter Keating suggests a few ways to improve the NFL’s rules for overtime.

I thought I’d pull in our NFL guru, Anthony Stalter, and kick a few of these around. I have a personal favorite that wasn’t on Keating’s list that we’ll discuss at the end.

John Paulsen: All right, Anthony. Keating writes that there are three rules to overtime: 1) it “should preserve the essential character of a sport while moving games toward conclusive results,” 2) it should be fair, and 3) it should be fun. The current overtime system in the NFL isn’t fair, and I’d argue that it isn’t fun either. Although my beloved Packers lost in OT after winning the coin flip, 72% of teams that won the flip last season went on to win the game. That’s not fair. And if it’s not fair, then it’s not fun, either. Keating’s first suggestion is the divide-and-choose method. The winner of the coin toss picks the yard line at which the ball would be placed (say, the 25-yard line) and the other would decide who gets the ball. The first team to score wins the game. What do you think?

Anthony Stalter: I fail to see how this is a major improvement over the system that is currently in place. It still puts too much emphasis on a coin flip and besides, I think we’d see the ball being placed on the 20-yard line more times than not. A team wouldn’t want to start backed up to its own goal line and wouldn’t want another team to start close to midfield. So the ball would likely be placed at the 20 and thus, all you’re really doing is eliminating the kickoff. And if we were just eliminating the kickoff, teams would still want the ball first and therefore, hate winning the coin toss.

JP: While I don’t think it’s ideal, I do think it’s an improvement. If Team A wins the toss and they have a better offense than they do a defense, then they’ll likely pick a yard line inside the 20 to discourage the other team from taking the ball. If Team A has a good defense, they may pick the 30-yard line figuring that they’ll still be able to get the stop if the other team takes the ball. Anyway, let’s move on. The second format Keating discusses is an auction. “Imagine an auction that counts up from the 1-yard line, to the 2, the 3, etc … The team willing to take possession closest to its own goal line gets the ball at that spot, and then the game is decided by sudden death … The auction process wouldn’t take much longer than the coin toss and would be far more interesting.” Thoughts?

AS: I feel that I’m going to get sidetracked with this, but bear with me. I agree that this process won’t take much longer than a coin toss and would be more fun. But this topic unveils an interesting underlying debate between keeping traditions intact and making the NFL the ultimate spectator sport. For example, the Packers-Cardinals Wildcard game was thrilling from a spectator standpoint. But it wasn’t a “great” football game like some are suggesting. High scores and no defense doesn’t mean the game was great. So does holding an auction at midfield before overtime mean a better game or better entertainment? I’d argue the latter and therefore, I’m hesitant to chuck the coin toss in favor of something like this, even though the spectator in me would enjoy watching it play out.

JP: I think Keating’s point is that it would be much more fair than the current system as well as entertaining, and I agree. But it’s still not my favorite. It would take a few minutes to explain the auction format and to conduct it, and I think the game should move on as quickly as possible to overtime. Let’s move on to his third suggestion, which he calls the “simplest fix of all.” It’s from AF2, the surviving cousin of Arena Football. “Each team gets one possession, then the game is played to sudden death. That gives both squads a chance in OT while also giving coaches more strategic decisions to make: Do we try a long field goal and risk giving the other team the ball near mid-field, or do we punt and play for sudden death?” I think this format has the same problem as the current format. Whoever gets the ball first in sudden death has the advantage. Keating doesn’t really address this. What do you think?

AS: I agree. If one of our goals is to make things fair on both sides, then you have to eliminate as much advantage as possible. Besides, why borrow this idea from the Arena League when the college football OT works just as well and is fairer. Both teams get the same amount of offensive possessions to try and score, plus the entertainment value is upgraded from the sudden death format. College overtimes are exciting and the system isn’t hard to explain. I’ll be honest: I don’t like the auction idea because it has little or nothing to do with football. This might sound stupid because it’s all entertainment in the end, but I don’t want a slice of game show with my football. I think the game is exciting enough as it is, which is why I’m fine with the NFL leaving the sudden death rules in place, or adopting the college OT rules. They’re simple, easy and they stick with the tradition of the game.

JP: I have to disagree. While the college football overtime format is entertaining, having alternating possessions from the 25-yard line breaks Keating’s “preserving the essential character of a sport” rule because it leads to outrageous scores and stats. And these scores and stats count in the record books! Can you imagine what this would do to fantasy football? Here’s a suggestion I heard a while back and I think it makes a lot of sense. Hold a quick and painless blind auction. Each coach hands a card to the lead official with the yard line at which he is willing to take the ball. Whoever picks the yard line closest to his own goal line gets the ball. Ties go to the home team. (That’s home field advantage, baby.) Proceed with a sudden death overtime. I like this format because it’s fair (both teams have an equal shot at the ball), it’s strategic (bids will vary depending on the strengths and weaknesses of each team), it preserves the essential character of the sport (a drive will win the game, not the ability to score from the opponent’s 25-yard line), and it’s fun (coaches will be second-guessed for not taking the ball or for taking it too close to their own goal line). Not only should the NFL adopt this format, but college football should as well.

AS: I hadn’t thought about how those stats count against the records – good point. As long as the blind auction is done quickly (which I don’t see why it wouldn’t), then I’m all for it. There’s a little bit of strategy involved, both teams have a fair shot of getting the ball first and as you pointed out – it makes a team drive the length of the field to score, thus earning the points they get. Plus, it doesn’t alter the game too much, which is what my point was above talking about Keating’s auction. Let’s do it!

In the summer of 2008, the Green Bay Packers ended the Brett Favre era by trading him to the New York Jets. While some would argue that Favre ended the era himself by hemming and hawing about his retirement, the Packers ultimately made the decision to move on and hand the keys over to Aaron Rodgers.

With Monday night’s game only a few days away, it begs the question – are the Packers better off with Rodgers under center? To discuss this issue, I’m going to enlist the help of our lead NFL writer, Anthony Stalter.

JP: Anthony, if you’re an NFL GM and you think you have a Super Bowl caliber team, who would you rather have at quarterback this year – Brett Favre or Aaron Rodgers?

AS: Injuries are a major concern with Favre compared to Rodgers, who is younger and can better withstand the rigors of a full season. I realize Favre has never missed a start in his career, but that doesn’t mean he’s always been healthy. Last year he played through biceps injury during the final month and it sunk the Jets’ season. I worry that Favre would suffer some kind of alignment during the season that would affect his play. On the other hand, while I wouldn’t worry about Rodgers’ durability, I know that Favre is a natural winner. I know that when the chips are down, he’s usually going to make a play to win the ball game and while Rodgers has shown flashes of that in his young career, he hasn’t proven that he can win on a consistent basis yet.

JP: You know I’m kind of a numbers guy, and it’s tough to argue with Rodgers’ statistical performance thus far. In 19 starts, Rodgers has averaged 250 passing yards and 1.68 pass TD per game (versus 0.68 INT per game). Conversely, in 274 starts, Favre is averaging 240 passing yards, 1.71 TD and 1.13 INT per game. Rodgers meets or beats Favre in every category and isn’t nearly as inclined to turn the ball over. Rodgers has already made a number of great plays in tough spots in his young career, but last season the Packer defense gave up several game-winning drives to the opposition. This year, Rodgers beat the Bears by hooking up with Greg Jennings for a perfectly thrown 50-yard touchdown (when the Packers were down two and facing a third-and-1 with just 1:18 to play). Favre is known for being clutch, but I think part of that comes from his longevity. When you’re around that long, you’re bound to have some memorable comebacks. Last week’s (amazing) pass to Greg Lewis was the first time that he threw for a game-winning TD with 0:10 or less remaining in the game.

For reasons you mentioned, if I’m heading into a season, I’d take Rodgers because he’s as talented and has a much better chance of staying healthy for a full season. But if I’m heading into the Super Bowl next week and I have my pick of the two, I’d probably go with Favre because he’s been there before and I know he won’t be overwhelmed by the moment.

AS: Right, it all depends on the situation. If we’re talking about the Super Bowl or even a playoff game, I’m going to want Favre (even despite his high number of postseason INTs) because he’s been there before. I know I can count on him not to be overwhelmed or succumb to the pressure and the magnitude of the moment. Rodgers simply doesn’t have enough experience at this point in his career to trust putting under center in a one-and-done game. We just don’t know how he would react because he’s never been there before. Brett has won a Super Bowl and has been to the postseason countless times before. There’s just no substitute for experience.

That said, if we’re at the beginning of the season and I have my choice, I’m going to take Rodgers. He’s more durable than Favre, has all the physical tools to succeed and should only progress as a passer with more experience. Once he learns how to adjust to how defenses are trying to stop him, he’s going to be a very good quarterback in this league for a long time. He has all the potential to succeed.

That’s our opinion…what’s yours? Feel free to vote in our poll to the right.