THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[Maxie the Taxi]

If Green Bay would have been up only one score, not two, at the 5 minute mark, I'd agree with the need to open it up to get a first down there. Had they been up by only one score at that same point, I have no doubt McCarthy would have thrown the ball in trying to move it rather than running it, because they would more desperately need a first down to win at that point. Running in that situation showed confidence in his team, not a lack of it.

The only reason to lack confidence at that point, and therefore take more risks, was if you feared your team would fall apart by allowing Seattle to get a quick score, successfully execute an onside kick and then score a second quick TD - all without the benefit of possessing the ball again.

Well, we know what happened. The Bostick Botch single-handedly undermined the faith McCarthy had in his guys, and changed the complexion of all the other plays and calls before it that until that point had contributed to their success. Now they became instrumental in their failure.

The field goals in the first quarter that should have added enough to the final tally for victory (as they did vs. New England) all of a sudden should have been 4th down touchdowns. Burnett's interception to seal the game became a premature celebration. HaHa's inexplicable failure to break up the two point conversion wouldn't even have happened. McCarthy's confidence in his team to finish Seattle off and play as they had for the entire game up to that point (3 for 7 for 32 yards passing isn't exactly lighting it up passing) - and as they had done in numerous wins prior - became "playing not to lose," "tightening up" and more.

Everything that happened before the botch changed, and suddenly, before we could get our heads around it, everything after it actually happened. It wasn't a dream, but at the same time none of it was real either - until one moment - a moment brought on entirely by a mental lapse of reason - changed it all into the opposite of what it was before.

You were right Maxie to fear what to me was an unbelievable series of events. Obviously all that happened was possible and could possibly have been avoided had they passed rather than ran. There is no guarantee that passing the ball would have secured a first down but we know running didn't.

If you want to say he should have had less confidence in his guys and protected the team against themselves, then there's nothing and noone who can deny that's right because they screwed the pooch at every turn from that point on.

I can't blame McCarthy for having confidence in his guys.

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:

On the ensuing series the Packers lost four yards on three runs, and punted. There were execution errors on each run, but the biggest mistake was McCarthy's decision to play it safe, to play not to lose.

The Packers' offensive line might be the best pass blocking group in the NFL. It had a fantastic game protecting Aaron Rodgers on Sunday against one of the best pass-rushing lines in the NFL. Really impressive. But it's middle of the road as a run-blocking unit, and the Seahawks were looking run all the way. Getting a first down on the ground probably was asking too much.

Also, Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman was obviously playing one-armed because of an injured elbow. He was ripe for targeting. The Packers have a booth full of assistant coaches and spotters upstairs. They had to know it.

You have Rodgers, the presumptive league MVP and a guy who protects the ball as well as anyone. Put the game in his hands to keep the clock moving.

On the first play the Seahawks had 10 men in the box and the 11th only seven yards deep. They were selling out against the run. On second down, even against three wide receivers, it was seven in the box, press coverage and a single safety 10 yards deep. Match up Nelson with Sherman and throw him a jump ball. Nelson would have a huge edge.

In fact, on third-and-16, Nelson was matched against Sherman on the outside. You would have had to have liked Nelson's chances of coming down with the catch against a one-armed player. But McCarthy called a run instead.

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."

[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.

[vince]

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 never said that McCarthy did nothing wrong, nor that a coach's only job is to have confidence in his guys. Those are strawman arguments that take my position to its absurd extreme to make them obviously wrong. Of course those positions are unrealistic and untrue but they're not mine or anyone else's that I've seen.

It's easy to argue with the benefit of hindsight that the Packers should have passed in that situation. Any media pundit or fan can say that and it's the "right" response because running didn't work. They BETTER say that or they open themselves up to criticism. How popular do you think those guys would be with their readership if they said they thought McCarthy did the right thing in that situation in spite of their obvious failure? Baranczyk is being criticized for supporting Burnett's decision to protect the ball in that situation because it obviously was the wrong thing to do with the benefit of hindsight. If he then went on to defend McCarthy in the series immediately following, no matter how nuanced his argument might be, he'd really raise the ire of fans who were shocked by the magnitude of the collapse that followed. What a McCarthy nuthugger.

I can't say though, in good conscience, no matter how open to critique and in the face of the outcome it may be, that either one of those two were responsible for what followed because they weren't. Had they acted differently, things would have been different, likely for the better, but they didn't cause results that followed any more than the Seattle kicker caused the onside kick to succeed.

It was the easiest onside kick to recover you can hope to get, and the responsibility for that failure - the most egregious and important failure in the game by many orders of magnitude - lies with Brandon Bostick alone. It sucks for him but that doesn't change it.

Players and coaches make decisions all game long that impact the game to varying degrees. Putting McCarthy's decisions on that series at the top of the list of important transgressions that determined the outcome and attributing the failures that followed to some wave of emotion that overcame the players as a result of them and caused their subsequent failures is completely mis-interpreting the situation in my opinion.

As I said, it's inarguable after the fact to say that McCarthy screwed up. I put that way, way below some of the other failures that significantly impacted the outcome. There were a few of them (Dix, Hayward, Barrington), but one play had by far the biggest impact on the events that changed which team was in control of that game. Even at the point that Seattle scored their first offensive touchdown just before the two-minute warning of the 4th quarter, the Packers had control of the ball, score and clock - until they dropped it a couple moments later.

I'm not sure why for sure (though I have my theories) but many fans have an overwhelming tendency to blame coaching for everything that occurs on the field. When a team loses, it's always the coaches' fault. Bad playcalling, too soft, dumb risk, unsound philosophy, etc., etc.

Coaches play an important role in games, and a bigger role in their level of preparedness throughout the week and all season, but sometimes the guys on the field have an equal or bigger impact on which team actually wins and loses. In this game, my opinion is that their impact was way, way bigger. The o-line was put in a bad position on that series. McCarthy knew that. It was still a very small determinant in the outcome of that game. It only takes on a bigger impact in the minds of fans and media in retrospect, after the other things that actually did determine the outcome happened. Then you can trace the game back and figure out where the coaches screwed up because they're the reason for everything that happened thereafter.

I don't agree with that.