THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[HowardRoark]

Vince, first of all, thanks for the reasoned dialog.

Rehashing this game is getting old fast. The only reason I'm still in the conversation is that I find your point of view fascinating. McCarthy obviously shares your point of view so understanding it is key to my estimation of what the future will bring in Green Bay.

The essence of your argument is that McCarthy did nothing wrong. Players play the game, not coaches. If the players had not made mistakes and had done their jobs properly, the Packers would have won the game and would be in the Super Bowl. The job of the Head Coach is to have "confidence in his guys," and McCarthy did that job well last Sunday.

The problem with that argument is that it is unrealistic and, hence, untrue. Yes, the players play the game, but the Head Coach controls what the players may and may not do in certain, key situations. That was the case Sunday.

For the sake of this discussion, let's agree to forget how the game ended and all that transpired on the field after Burnett's interception. Green Bay has the ball on it's own 43 yard line. There is 5:04 left on the clock. GB has the lead 19-7.

Answer this question: What happens next, i.e., what do the players playing the game do next, RUN or PASS?

If this was a sandlot game, you couldn't answer that question because the players themselves decide what they're going to do. However, in the NFL that is not the case. In the NFL the coach decides what the players will do in that situation and Mike McCarthy decided the players would RUN the ball into the teeth of a stacked defense.

The truth is, that at that moment in the game, Mike McCarthy directly affected play in a way that the players could not. Furthermore, McCarthy decided that the Packers would RUN into the teeth of the Seattle defense on the next two plays and then punt on 4th down.

McCarthy owns those decisions and must explain and defend those decisions to his players and to GB fans. So far, to my knowledge, he has not done so.

Here is how Eric Baranczyk and Pete Dougherty of Packernews.com described McCarthy's series of decisions at that point of the game:



Vince, as you say correctly, deciding on a PASS play does not guarantee first down yardage or a different outcome to the game, but it certainly is a debatable decision, subject to criticism.

Moreover, the importance of that decision cannot be dismissed by tired canards like "players play the game" or by red herrings like head coaches are to be held blameless because they must show "confidence in their guys."

I think at that point in the game if you were to run a Monte Carlo Simulation on either playing conservative (even knowing you would go 3 and out) vs. playing more aggressive, the math would favor what he did. The reason we (as well as all sports fans) are so dumbfounded and fascinated by this game is because of the series of events that happened after that. The odds that all of those things (coin flip included) happening were statistically highly, highly improbable.

My conclusion is that the coach did the right thing, but there is horrible leadership (from a player perspective) on defense.

[denverYooper]

I think at that point in the game if you were to run a Monte Carlo Simulation on either playing conservative (even knowing you would go 3 and out) vs. playing more aggressive, the math would favor what he did. The reason we (as well as all sports fans) are so dumbfounded and fascinated by this game is because of the series of events that happened after that. The odds that all of those things (coin flip included) happening were statistically highly, highly improbable.

My conclusion is that the coach did the right thing, but there is horrible leadership (from a player perspective) on defense.

Repped.

The Packers path to failure resembled that of the drunken sailor's walk.

[hoosier]

I think at that point in the game if you were to run a Monte Carlo Simulation on either playing conservative (even knowing you would go 3 and out) vs. playing more aggressive, the math would favor what he did. The reason we (as well as all sports fans) are so dumbfounded and fascinated by this game is because of the series of events that happened after that. The odds that all of those things (coin flip included) happening were statistically highly, highly improbable.

My conclusion is that the coach did the right thing, but there is horrible leadership (from a player perspective) on defense.

Yeah. I agree. But I would conclude that there was no 100% certain path to victory at the point (duh!) and that a good analysis of the game and MM's decision making cannot be based on results mongering. Just because the result sucked does not mean that he made the wrong decisions.