THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[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.

[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.

[ThunderDan]

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.

+1

[HowardRoark]

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.

.....and lack of leadership on the defensive side of the ball. After the pick, Clay puts on the hat and is waiting to leave the building, Peppers tells him to take the slide. Where was the player getting in the faces of the defensive players screaming at them that there are 5 minutes left?? The defense was in the zone for 55 minutes and then was just waiting to get out of there.

Lynch was dancing on teh sidelines and couldn't wait to get out there at that exact same time.

[Maxie the Taxi]

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.

Vince, first of all, no need for an apology. I don't take comments on this board personally. You rant. I rant. We all rant. But I did read your entire lengthy post and I hope you give the same consideration to mine. And please note that nothing I'm about to say is meant as disparaging or derogatory toward you.

That said, I disagree with most of what you said in your rant. Moreover, I disagree completely with your philosophy of football strategy which you explained earlier. ...Now to the specifics of what you said:

"The offense was struggling passing the ball all game long." Maybe in the 1st half, but not in the 3rd and 4th QTR's. From the start of the 3rd quarter until Burnett's interception, Arod was 3 for 7 for 32 yards and 2 first downs. Lacy rushed 4 times for 15 yards and 1 first down. Starks rushed 4 times for 41 yards and 1 first down (one rush alone accounted for 32 yards and his first down).

Now, regarding the series of downs in question, the one immediately after Burnett's interception, there was 5:04 left in the game. I'm thinking it's way to early to run out the clock UNLESS we make a first down or two. I'm also thinking, if we go three and out, the situation gets worse because Seattle has plenty of time to score, recover an onside kick and score again. And my gut tells me Seattle is going to score if they get the ball again.

Why do I think Seattle is going to score? Because, contrary to what you say in your rant, our defense in the 3rd and 4th quarter WAS "problematic." With 10:53 to go in the 3rd quarter, Seattle had a 6 minute drive, moving the ball from their own 22 yard line to the Packers' 19. Moreover, Wilson and Lynch were beginning to come to life (Wilson had a 29 yard completion to Baldwin, and Lynch had solid runs of 11 and 12 yards.

In the 4th quarter, in the Seattle series just before Burnett's interception, Seattle moved the ball from their own 13 yard line to the 50 yard line, with Lynch having two more solid runs of 13 and 11 yards.

So what does McCarthy do after Burnett's interception, giving what was happening above? He runs Lacy on 1st down into the teeth of the stacked defense for a loss of 4 yards. Does that sound like a man trying to make a game winning 1st down? Well, maybe. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

But surely now that it's 2nd and 14, McCarthy will turn his offense loose.

But no, he doesn't even show pass and runs the same play on 2nd down. Lacy loses 2 more yards. Then, on 3rd and 16 McCarthy does it again. Clearly, he was playing Vince football, playing it "safe," hoping Lacy busts one for a first down, but in any event running down the clock and running Seattle out of two time outs.

Well, he did the latter, but only ran a minute and 12 seconds off the clock. And in the process he put the game on the back of his "problematic" defense and took control out of his and his QB's hands.

Surely one can honestly disagree with this "safe" strategy without being a victim of "postpartum" rationalization!

Yes, there are "inherent punitive consequences" of throwing the ball (incompletions, interceptions), but there are also inherent rewards (1st down yardage, touchdowns). I happen to believe that, given this situation, based on what transpired in the second half up to Burnett's interception, that the rewards were more likely than the punitive consequences.

Fair enough?

As far as the rest of your rant, I consider it a "windstorm of emotion" of your own. It certainly has nothing to do with me or my state of mind either during the game or after.

[woodbuck27]

Vince, first of all, no need for an apology. I don't take comments on this board personally. You rant. I rant. We all rant. But I did read your entire lengthy post and I hope you give the same consideration to mine. And please note that nothing I'm about to say is meant as disparaging or derogatory toward you.

That said, I disagree with most of what you said in your rant. Moreover, I disagree completely with your philosophy of football strategy which you explained earlier. ...Now to the specifics of what you said:

SEE POST by Maxi the Taxi above for the rest.

You nailed it in my view 'Maxi the Taxi' because you went with the evidence.

The Play By Play.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201501...yze=playbyplay

It's much easier to see studying the Play By Play of that game.

The thing is Brandon Bostic's over exuberant flub and blown assignment is just another play of so many in the game. That flub didn't determine a loss as the Packers were up five (5) points after that flub.

When Russell Wilson tossed his 4th pick of the game did the Seattle side collapse? Flipping it over. How many in Packer Nation thought that pick by Morgan Burnett was the 'death nell' for the Seahawks? It looked like Morgan Burnett thought so. I've shot deer in the head that didn't drop as fast as he did.

I did the same thing today (studied the Play By Play and worked up a mighty post) but instead of spelling it out. I left the LINK on a post for Vince to see for himself ( Post#104 of An Attempt At Discussing McCarthy's Future ) . vince's a bright man. It's not my place (to teach or argu with) him or any other member; what he can learn for himself 'with an open mind'. The problem here is long term or escalating animosities. That sort of thing among fans supporting a mutual cause is silly.

That play by Bostic bugged me. So did the drop by Andrew Quarless on the right sideline on a perfect pass by Aaron Rodgers to secure a first down.

4th QTR:

3-4-GB 19 (5:26 remains) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers pass incomplete short right to 81-A.Quarless (50-K.Wright).

Why? Because that was followed up by another weak Tim Masthay punt of 37 yards that ended with Seattle getting excellent field position at their own 48.

Not to worry!

Russell Wilson promptly toss's his 4th pick ( Morgan Burnett ).

The thing with me is I'm not blinded by homerism. I'm fortunate to not be plagued with obsession before discovered reason. I predict a result then use analysis to determine why this/that happened.

Somehow I hope that makes me grow as a fan of football, of the NFL and of my beloved Green Bay Packers.