THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[pbmax]

Seriously? Every bit of yardage has the potential to change the game, especially 25 yds. And maybe he scores. Maybe we kick a field goal after he returns it to the 30. Maybe even if we punt after the pick the extra yards he picks up allows us to pin them deeper.you just don't know. I gauge how stupid something was, based on how I've never seen it before. You don't slide in that spot unless you have enough time to kneel the clock out. Otherwise guys would always just slide after making picks if there was any chance of being tackled on the return and fumbling.

I agree that a return might have been all those things. It could also have resulted in a turnover. But it wasn't catastrophic. Possession was back where it needed to be. It was a net good. You can't call net plus catastrophic. Missed opportunity.

[King Friday]

I agree that a return might have been all those things. It could also have resulted in a turnover. But it wasn't catastrophic. Possession was back where it needed to be. It was a net good. You can't call net plus catastrophic. Missed opportunity.

Playing to simply avoid the "catastrophic" seems like a sure way to always lose big games. Often, games are won because teams take CHANCES that may end up to be catastrophic.

To me, football is like playing the stock market or playing blackjack. You ain't going to win big if you don't risk big. The greatest teams have historically been those who have been able to take advantage of those moments more than other teams. If you seek to avoid those moments, it will be to your detriment over the long term. Football is not a game easily wrapped up in advanced metrics like baseball. This game is violent. This game is emotional. If you try to "avoid the catastrophic", you lose your edge.

That is PRECISELY what happened to Green Bay today. They lost their edge, and the game swung enormously after that.

[vince]

Playing to simply avoid the "catastrophic" seems like a sure way to always lose big games. Often, games are won because teams take CHANCES that may end up to be catastrophic.

To me, football is like playing the stock market or playing blackjack. You ain't going to win big if you don't risk big. The greatest teams have historically been those who have been able to take advantage of those moments more than other teams. If you seek to avoid those moments, it will be to your detriment over the long term. Football is not a game easily wrapped up in advanced metrics like baseball. This game is violent. This game is emotional. If you try to "avoid the catastrophic", you lose your edge.

That is PRECISELY what happened to Green Bay today. They lost their edge, and the game swung enormously after that.

I'm quite sure I'm not going to change your outlook, so the only thing I can suggest if you're looking for some truth is to call up some football coaches and see what they think of your stock market analogy...if they agree that taking risks is the key to winning in football. I bet most would love to share their philosophical perspective of the game.

Since you laid out your philosophy I'll lay out mine and you can see how they compare and contrast.

I think football is about gaining (and keeping) control (of the ball, score, clock) not taking chances and risking giving it up. The better players execute, the more control you'll gain.

Risk taking in football means taking progressively bigger chances because you're otherwise unable to gain and/or running out of opportunity to gain the control you must have to win. You don't leave control to chance if you can help it and unlike the stock market or gambling on card games, bigger risk doesn't equal bigger reward in football, even though bigger risks become progressively necessary for the team lacking control because there are limits to how much control can be acquired. There's only one ball, a touchdown is only worth 7 and there are sixty minutes max before a winner is declared. Greater risks, while necessary as the team with poorer execution becomes increasingly desparate for control, deliver diminishing returns not increasing due to the ceiling on the benefit that can be gained and the likelihood that a bigger cost will be incurred with poor execution.

Therefore, the essence of football is the quest to eliminate risk taking, not do more of it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Therefore, the essence of football is the quest to eliminate risk taking, not do more of it.

This is only true if you correctly evaluate ALL the risks. Playing too conservative - simply playing the odds all the way - can cause your players to lose confidence. Football is about emotions first. Psychology matters, not just odds of decisions on a spreadsheet.

[yetisnowman]

This is only true if you correctly evaluate ALL the risks. Playing too conservative - simply playing the odds all the way - can cause your players to lose confidence. Football is about emotions first. Psychology matters, not just odds of decisions on a spreadsheet.

The decision to take calculated risks in play calling is always up for debate. Especially late in a game. There is no debate about the Burnett play. It wasn't a play that just wasn't executed or a player that made a physical error. He willingly slid down for no good reason with the game still in doubt. How many interceptions result in a fumble loss for the intercepting team on the return? That's like choosing to be not kick field goals because you are afraid of the kick being blocked and run back for a TD.

[mraynrand]

How many interceptions result in a fumble loss for the intercepting team on the return?

It happens not infrequently enough. It's a concern. But the kneel down showed the general mistake in thinking there was less time left than there was (or that the way they were playing was just going to continue so it didn't matter; i.e. they had it sewed up).

That's like choosing to be not kick field goals because you are afraid of the kick being blocked and run back for a TD.

Depending on the distance, block/return can be a real concern.

[yetisnowman]

It happens not infrequently enough. It's a concern. But the kneel down showed the general mistake in thinking there was less time left than there was (or that the way they were playing was just going to continue so it didn't matter; i.e. they had it sewed up).



Depending on the distance, block/return can be a real concern.

Not infrequently enough? No idea what that means. I can tell you that I watch a lot of football and it is extremely rare. There were around 350 interceptions in the NFL this season, and I can only think of one that I remember resulting in a fumble lost by the intercepting team. At most 3 to 5. There are many "concerns" during a game. Being aware of something as a possibility is one thing, but laying down out of fear of a 1% freak thing happening is ridiculous. There is no good reason I have heard for Burnett laying down like that.

[LEWCWA]

This is the big thing to me. I have a feeling when that happened, it woke up a defeated team. They saw this shit and got pissed off! They were on their sideline seething "these fuckers think the game is over"! They left everything on the field the last 5 minutes. You can't play football that way or anything else for that matter....It obviously carried over to the defense as well....totally different team after that!

[Harlan Huckleby]

This is the big thing to me. I have a feeling when that happened, it woke up a defeated team.

yep, changed psychology of both teams. Turning point.

[mraynrand]

yep, changed psychology of both teams. Turning point.

I disagree. The defense of the fake was botched, but it was an act of desperation. The Packers scored again, making it a two TD game. The critical moment was the final INT. Everything changed after that, because the Packers shut it down, beginning with the slide.

[pbmax]

Therefore, the essence of football is the quest to eliminate risk taking, not do more of it.

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.

[mraynrand]

As soon as Burnett was in Cover 2, Wilson and Lynch were a part of the game again.

And ultimately, that didn't matter either, because for whatever insane reason, Wilson made two absolutely perfect throws to end the game

[pbmax]

And ultimately, that didn't matter either, because for whatever insane reason, Wilson made two absolutely perfect throws to end the game

Lynch got about 3 first downs just running. Wilson got one at least.

Sure, balls that were just missed earlier started landing in receivers hands. But without first downs, it doesn't matter if you are more accurate.

[mraynrand]

But without first downs, it doesn't matter if you are more accurate.

[Striker]

And ultimately, that didn't matter either, because for whatever insane reason, Wilson made two absolutely perfect throws to end the game

Hayward got beat pretty badly by Baldwin. It was a good throw, but Hayward was trailing that pretty badly. They're probably lucky that didn't go for six right there.

And then they went cover 0.

[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.

[Maxie the Taxi]

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.

This is truth and the essence of the argument.

By choosing to run out the clock and not pass (or make a serious attempt by other means to make a 1st down and win the game), Stubby not only played into Seattle's strength, but he chose to put the game on the back of our problematic defense rather than on the back of our offense, which has been and is the strength of this team.

Moreover, we had three downs to make a first down, something we would be in total control of. Stubby's change of strategy insured that the fate of the game would be decided by the chance bounce of the football on an onside kick.

This is not 20/20 hindsight. Anyone watching the game knew there was plenty of time to score and that to win, Seattle would have to recover an onsides kick.

This certainly was in the back of my mind at the time.

[vince]

This is truth and the essence of the argument.

By choosing to run out the clock and not pass (or make a serious attempt by other means to make a 1st down and win the game), Stubby not only played into Seattle's strength, but he chose to put the game on the back of our problematic defense rather than on the back of our offense, which has been and is the strength of this team.

Moreover, we had three downs to make a first down, something we would be in total control of. Stubby's change of strategy insured that the fate of the game would be decided by the chance bounce of the football on an onside kick.

This is not 20/20 hindsight. Anyone watching the game knew there was plenty of time to score and that to win, Seattle would have to recover an onsides kick.

This certainly was in the back of my mind at the time.

Maxie let me apologize in advance for this rant. It's not directed at you specifically but I'm gonna use your response here to make it.

The offense was struggling passing the ball all game long. Rodgers' timing and accuracy was off the whole game. Maybe it was due to his injury, or maybe it was due to the best defense in the league, likely both. Two picks on badly thrown balls and/or being out of sync with his receivers. How many balls did he dump off to guys with their back turned to him? Rodgers was 19 of 34 with 2 bad picks, a whopping 171 yards and a 55 passer rating.

All while the defense was dominating the game - not problematic as you characterized. The passing game was a liabilitiy throughout the game, not the strength of the team. What the offense got (not much) the defense gave them.

You look at that game and postpartum rationalize that they should have ignored those facts, along with the inherent punitive consequences that come with a likely continuation of passing it?

You look at that game and postpartum rationalize they they should have ignored those facts - but how could they possibly not see the risks associated with "the chance bounce of the football" on a potentially forthcoming onside kick? Well it "chance bounced" right to our guy, but they should have known that he would ignore his responsibility and fuck up an easy can-of-corn pop-up to single-handedly give the Seahawks one last desperate breath of hope?

You look at that game and postpartum rationalize that some windstorm of emotion swept through the sideline (not sure if it was a lack of confidence or overconfidence - depends on the result of the play I'm pretty sure) and overcame the team to control the players execution on the field?

Are you sure you're not looking at that game and postpartum projecting the windstorm of emotion that swept through YOUR mind as an emotional fan of the team?

Those guys are pros for a reason. They're tough-minded and self-motivated to excel. They live to achieve goals, have achieved them their whole lives and their goal was to win that game. They didn't tighten up or let up or lack killer instinct or whatever meaningless excuse-of-a-state-of-mind you want to project onto them.

Not sure how many have been on a sideline of a football team at a level higher than the wonder years, but those guys were smelling blood. Some foo foo nonsense about being in the wrong emotional state was not the problem. Trash talking wasn't the key to the game. They were confident because they know they're good - at least up until the grade-school fuck-up on the onside kick, which I do think may have thrown some people for a loop.

Momentum is a big thing in football, but equating the loss of it with some non-existent emotional state sprung onto a bunch of tough-minded high-performing athletes by their coach is nonsense. No, trash talking is not the answer.

It was a tough, low-scoring game because BOTH defenses played at a very high level. The Packers didn't NOT pull away because of McCarthy's playcalling. They didn't pull away because Seattle - the top seed in the NFC in on their home field - is really good and teams just don't blow them away - at home particularly.

The momentum swung. It shockingly took as long as it did to happen with the way the offense was stalling - running AND passing. But the defense made it happen up until then.

Green Bay should have been able to get out of the building with a win but the players, including and perhaps especially Rodgers not being able to THROW THE BALL EFFECTIVELY throughout the game - due to a combination of his lack of mobility and just being out of sync with receivers because of the best pass defense in the league.

It's the players who are accountable. They didn't get it done and it's not because they were schemed out of position. The plays were right there.

Take their fucking diapers off - take your fucking diapers off - and recognize that they just didn't get it done for long enough to get the win.

The coach didn't send them into some mind-numbing or hyper-seensitive emotional state. He didn't let up on the gas. They never had any gas.

These childish excuses about not having the right emotional state, not doing enough trash-talking, or whatever else is being dreamed up - are ridiculous. They smelled blood, but the other team was pretty fucking good too and sometimes they win.

Physical mistakes happen - but just do your fucking job and the Packers are in the Super Bowl. It really did come down to that. It's a huge deal because they gave away such a big opportunity but that doesn't make it any more complicated or more emotionally or strategically caused.

And McCarthy is a great coach. You don't make "serious changes" and break down the best fucking team and organization in the league because of a completely freaky 3 minutes of football or because of a failure of your 3rd string TE on the hands team. Suggesting that is a fucking joke too.

Thanks for listening. Now carry on with your binky sucking.