THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[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.

[hoosier]

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.

Hey. that belongs in the other thread. A perfect name for this god damned game: 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.

[pbmax]

They had to move the ball to get into position where Wilson' accuracy cost them. Lynch's catch and the OT touchdown were both after several running first downs.

Not to mention that even the four man line with Clay was getting pressure that disappeared late in the 4th Q.

[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.