THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[vince]

Not entirely. Eliminating risk is a winning strategy for the more talented and better team. Its a terrible strategy for lesser teams. For evenly matched opponents, you have to accept risk where you have a tactical advantage to get an edge.

The Packers found that tactical advantage on defense and on Offense (between the 20s).

By changing the strategy, McCarthy was confident he could eliminate risk and not give up a game changing tactical advantage. That turned out not to be true. Yes, five different things had to go wrong, but by surrendering the advantage, he left himself at the mercy of his opponent's strengths. As soon as Burnett was in Cover 2, Wilson and Lynch were a part of the game again.

You have to take risks when you don't have control of the ball, score and clock. The Packers had that. In retrospect, you can say that McCarthy/Rodgers should have taken more risks because he should not have expected his players to execute and maintain control of all three. As it happened it took a historically unique sequence of unbelievably bad execution to lose that control at the very end of the game. If you wanna blame McCarthy for not foreseeing that unbelievable series of events - everyone of which had to occur in the worst possible way in sequence - then that's anyone's prerogative but I don't think that has any basis in realistic expectations. You'd have to have been a psychic to foresee all that shit. I can't blame him for having confidence in his guys to not achieve the worst possible outcome repeatedly in such short succession as what occurred at the end of that game.

[pbmax]

If you wanna blame McCarthy for not foreseeing that unbelievable series of events - everyone of which had to occur in the worst possible way in sequence - then that's anyone's prerogative but I don't think that has any basis in realistic expectations. You'd have to have been a psychic to foresee all that shit. I can't blame him for having confidence in his guys to not achieve the worst possible outcome repeatedly in such short succession as what occurred at the end of that game.

I blame him only for not recognizing that his greatest tactical advantage was removed when he tapped the breaks. Too concerned with the clock, he altered the edge they had the entire game.

[vince]

I blame him only for not recognizing that his greatest tactical advantage was removed when he tapped the breaks. Too concerned with the clock, he altered the edge they had the entire game.

It was their inability to adequately control the clock that ultimately cost them the game. Yes they needed a first down to do that once and for all at that point but the results of passing the ball in that situation are entirely hypothetical. We know the monumental collapse occurred so what they did didn't work. Hindsight is 20/20. It was still the right thing to do. The players just needed to execute 1 time in a series of about 10 plays and they didn't do it.