THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[Bretsky]

Watched this several times and I'm not seeing what others do

MB makes a nice pick and slides; it appears 56...Peppers kind of hand motions him to go to ground as he's sliding and jogs to the sideline while he goes down

But there is a player coming up and inscreen...I think a OL....only a few yds away for the tackle

He doesn't have nothing but green ahead. It doesn't appear he's going far

I can't fault him on this

[mraynrand]

I think what bothered me the most is that the mentality of the team went the way of that kneel down. At that point, I think too many Packers thought the game was over.

[Striker]

I can. He should be able to out manuver a linemen.

If there was a minute left in the game, absolutely slide.

Otherwise go for the dagger.

[Bretsky]

I think there were others behind the lineman too
I'd have run.....but he made a great play there and I can't criticize here

[red]

i'm with rand

he gave up instead of trying for more

[pbmax]

There wasn't a reason to go down early. But taking a slide instead of a hit was understandable.

[vince]

I think what bothered me the most is that the mentality of the team went the way of that kneel down. At that point, I think too many Packers thought the game was over.
Had they just recovered the EASY onside, it was over.

[mraynrand]

Had they just recovered the EASY onside, it was over.

Not necessarily. There was the 2 minute warning and a TO. Packers go three and out and Seattle gets the ball back with 1:20 and no TO's. Based on the 5 minute Packer D, that was enough time to score at least three TDs.

[Joemailman]

Hard to say what would have happened. The 2 guys from Seattle I saw between him and the endzone appeared to be linemen. Presumably Russell Wilson would have tried to run him down.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Burnett fetal position was annoying only because it was so symbolic of the attitude of the whole team in the last 8 minutes.

[mraynrand]

The Burnett fetal position was annoying only because it was so symbolic of the attitude of the whole team in the last 8 minutes.


I agree: "I think what bothered me the most is that the mentality of the team went the way of that kneel down. At that point, I think too many Packers thought the game was over."

[hoosier]

Had they just recovered the EASY onside, it was over.

Not quite. They were still going to need to run two plays before the 2:00 warning (Seattle uses its last TO after the first play). And then, assuming they run a safe play, Seattle has the ball at its own 20 with 1:10 or so left. So if Bostick either comes down with the ball or just does his job and blocks, the game still hadn't been won.

The Packers gelled as a team in the second half of the season because they were able to do what they needed to win, especially when it came to closing out games. The 2nd half today, starting with the fake FG where Slocum only dropped one guy back into coverage, and continuing with Quarless's drop, Burnett's early dive, and Bostick pulling a Bill Bucker, and maybe ARod missing an open Cobb, was the total unraveling of that ability to close games. I felt like I was watching Derrick Turnbow out there on the mound in the last four-five minutes.

[King Friday]

Watched this several times and I'm not seeing what others do

MB makes a nice pick and slides; it appears 56...Peppers kind of hand motions him to go to ground as he's sliding and jogs to the sideline while he goes down

But there is a player coming up and inscreen...I think a OL....only a few yds away for the tackle

He doesn't have nothing but green ahead. It doesn't appear he's going far

I can't fault him on this

I don't either...let the $20M franchise QB move the ball down the field.

[vince]

Not necessarily. There was the 2 minute warning and a TO. Packers go three and out and Seattle gets the ball back with 1:20 and no TO's. Based on the 5 minute Packer D, that was enough time to score at least three TDs.
There was just over 2:00 so I'm pretty sure they only need to run one play to the 2:00 warning. They go run - 2:00 warning, run 1:20, run 0:40, punt deep into Seattle territory with almost no time left. with a timeout there's 30 seconds to go the length of the field into the endzone. That's assuming they gain no yardage on any of those plays.

If they PASS the ball, there's a really good possibility of much more time left on the clock AND the possibility of Seattle getting the ball in packer territory.

[HowardRoark]

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-packers-blew-the-seahawks-game-2015-1

[King Friday]

Had they just recovered the EASY onside, it was over.

When are you going to get it through your skull that the game WAS NEVER OVER or WON by the Packers at any point? You keep saying this and that would've won the game...and you are always incorrect.

The game wasn't over...which is why you don't go into prevent defense or "milk the clock" mode and go away from the game plan that put you in position to have a chance to win.

[Striker]

Collins with the pick of Luck.

Up a billion points, still tries to run it back.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree: "I think what bothered me the most is that the mentality of the team went the way of that kneel down. At that point, I think too many Packers thought the game was over."

I miss a lot of your good posts since I put you on my ignore list. Well, lets not go crazy with that "a lot" business.

[Freak Out]

Not necessarily. There was the 2 minute warning and a TO. Packers go three and out and Seattle gets the ball back with 1:20 and no TO's. Based on the 5 minute Packer D, that was enough time to score at least three TDs.

Ha ha....brutal but true.

[King Friday]

5:52 left...up 45-7...Pats are still throwing 30 yard bombs.

[mraynrand]

There was just over 2:00 so I'm pretty sure they only need to run one play to the 2:00 warning. They go run - 2:00 warning, run 1:20, run 0:40, punt deep into Seattle territory with almost no time left. with a timeout there's 30 seconds to go the length of the field into the endzone. That's assuming they gain no yardage on any of those plays.

If they PASS the ball, there's a really good possibility of much more time left on the clock in addition to the possibility of something really bad happening as well.

No - 1st down run - 2 minute warning. 2nd down run - TO. 3rd down run, 1:20. Punt. Seattle gets ball, scores on two plays in 25 seconds, onside recovery, TD in 25 seconds, onside recovery, TD in 25 seconds, onside recovery, victory formation.

[mraynrand]

I miss a lot of your good posts since I put you on my ignore list. Well, lets not go crazy with that "a lot" business.

I took everyone off ignore, because - what's the point. Either I'm gonna see what's here or just leave, even if I hate some fucking posters.

[yetisnowman]

I mentioned this in the other thread. I've never seen a db make a pick and slide immediately with 5 minutes left in the game. It was a 12 point game, the pick alone didn't seal shit(obviously). I don't care if he would have scored or not, you force some fat lineman to make a tackle. Any extra yardage there is incredibly significant, and maybe he scores. Incredibly stupid play.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I took everyone off ignore, because - what's the point. Either I'm gonna see what's here or just leave, even if I hate some fucking posters.

I don't think there is such a thing as an ignore list. Madtown made a potemkin villiage ignore list for you to mess with you.

He also made me a "supreme leader level moderator"

[Cheesehead Craig]

There was just over 2:00 so I'm pretty sure they only need to run one play to the 2:00 warning. They go run - 2:00 warning, run 1:20, run 0:40, punt deep into Seattle territory with almost no time left. with a timeout there's 30 seconds to go the length of the field into the endzone. That's assuming they gain no yardage on any of those plays.

If they PASS the ball, there's a really good possibility of much more time left on the clock AND the possibility of Seattle getting the ball in packer territory.
There was 2:09 left. If we had recovered the onside kick, it would have been another 1 or 2 sec on the clock. One running play would not have taken more than 6 - 7 seconds. Timeout, then the 2 min warming, run play and potentially punting at about the 1:15 mark. They still would have had time, but not much, we still needed a first down to clinch it.

[domey]

"I think what bothered me the most is that the mentality of the team went the way of that kneel down. At that point, I think too many Packers thought the game was over."

Yep!

[gbgary]

sliding was stupid. you take it as far as you can.

[Packgator]

He absolutely needs to try to extend the play and possibly score. If Peppers was motioning to go down....he was wrong as well. He looked to catch in near full stride. No O Lineman or QB going to stop him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

He absolutely needs to try to extend the play and possibly score.

I agree with you, except it is not so obvious. DBs are told that the smart thing to do is get down near end of game. Well, he miscalculated, but it wasn;t a super bonehead error.

[pbmax]

Don't agree it was boneheaded, or even in the Top 5. Boneheaded would have been to keep running and losing the ball, or retreating trying to gain more yardage. There is nothing wrong with possession in that case. It wasn't ideal, but wasn't catastrophic.

[mraynrand]

Don't agree it was boneheaded, or even in the Top 5. Boneheaded would have been to keep running and losing the ball, or retreating trying to gain more yardage. There is nothing wrong with possession in that case. It wasn't ideal, but wasn't catastrophic.

Totally agree. Wish he had run, but who expected what was to come?

[yetisnowman]

Don't agree it was boneheaded, or even in the Top 5. Boneheaded would have been to keep running and losing the ball, or retreating trying to gain more yardage. There is nothing wrong with possession in that case. It wasn't ideal, but wasn't catastrophic.
But when have you ever seen a db slide immediately after a pick with that much time left? We were only up 12 and they had all three timeouts. I would call it pretty boneheaded and extremely vaginal. You can't be THAT afraid of fumbling the ball after an interception

[pbmax]

But when have you ever seen a db slide immediately after a pick with that much time left? We were only up 12 and they had all three timeouts. I would call it pretty boneheaded and extremely vaginal. You can't be THAT afraid of fumbling the ball after an interception

I agree he should have tried to advance it. But even of he gains another 25 yards, does that change the game?

Fumbling it would have. It wasn't good, but it wasn't devastating.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree he should have tried to advance it. But even of he gains another 25 yards, does that change the game?

Fumbling it would have. It wasn't good, but it wasn't devastating.

this is about right

[King Friday]

I agree he should have tried to advance it. But even of he gains another 25 yards, does that change the game?

Um, yeah. We would've easily been in Crosby's FG range.

That said...I don't mind him sliding. It is up to McCarthy and the offense to make sure Seattle doesn't get the ball back with the capacity to win the game. McCarthy apparently felt that meant running the ball and getting blown up repeatedly for losses simply in an effort to eat up clock and avoid a turnover. It was conservative...and it gave Seattle a chance. I don't like the conservative call when you have the best QB in the NFL on your squad and a bunch of beat up Seahawk secondary players. If you are the Bengals...hell, yeah, be conservative. If you have Rodgers, you try whatever you think is necessary to ENSURE you win the game.

run-run-run-punt wasn't it.

[pbmax]

Went down on the Packer 43. 25 yards gets you to the Seahawk 32. That's a 49 yarder.

[woodbuck27]

Watched this several times and I'm not seeing what others do

MB makes a nice pick and slides; it appears 56...Peppers kind of hand motions him to go to ground as he's sliding and jogs to the sideline while he goes down

But there is a player coming up and inscreen...I think a OL....only a few yds away for the tackle

He doesn't have nothing but green ahead. It doesn't appear he's going far

I can't fault him on this

It just looked weird giving the time remaining in the game.

When he went down I was certainly surprized.

[yetisnowman]

I agree he should have tried to advance it. But even of he gains another 25 yards, does that change the game?

Fumbling it would have. It wasn't good, but it wasn't devastating.

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 the fact that 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.

[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]

You don't slide in that spot unless you have enough time to kneel the clock out.

That is the problem...the Packers DID think they only had to take a knee to win the game. It was a tragic and flawed decision to put the result of the game on the shoulders of your prevent defense and error-prone special teams...instead of your $20M QB and vaunted offense.

Herm got it right...you play to WIN the game. Run-run-run-punt with 5 min left in the game and only up 12 on the road is not playing to win, but playing not to lose.

[pbmax]

McCarthy's mistake was not realizing the Seattle offense was coming to life. And the Packer bend but don't break was playing into its hands.

[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.

[Packgator]

Don't agree it was boneheaded, or even in the Top 5. Boneheaded would have been to keep running and losing the ball, or retreating trying to gain more yardage. There is nothing wrong with possession in that case. It wasn't ideal, but wasn't catastrophic.

That all true, but the problem I have is that he wasn't in a dangerous or precarious spot. There were no Seahawks near him. I still haven't seen a good replay that shows a wider view so I can't say for sure, but going down like that seems way to cautious with that much time left. I contend he may have even scored and sealed the game. I believe trying to advance (or even score) was well worth the chance given the situation.

[yetisnowman]

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.

I think we can agree that him fumbling the return was significantly less likely than all the other scenarios I mentioned. You can't play defense afraid of fumbling interception returns. Yes the play was a net good. But you don't just concede a good play for a potential game clinching play. In my opinion

[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.

[pbmax]

That all true, but the problem I have is that he wasn't in a dangerous or precarious spot. There were no Seahawks near him. I still haven't seen a good replay that shows a wider view so I can't say for sure, but going down like that seems way to cautious with that much time left. I contend he may have even scored and sealed the game. I believe trying to advance (or even score) was well worth the chance given the situation.

He could have gotten more yards and it might have made a big difference. But it was't the same leverage point as the other six catastrophic things that happened.

[Deputy Nutz]

It was just another mistake the Packers made at the end of the game. hindsight is 20/20 and I think if the Packers offense actually tried to move the football downfield after the interception I don't think anyone would give a shit about Morgan Burnett taking a knee. It was dumb, to much time left, but nobody would see this as the turning point of the game.

[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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It was just another mistake the Packers made at the end of the game. hindsight is 20/20 and I think if the Packers offense actually tried to move the football downfield after the interception I don't think anyone would give a shit about Morgan Burnett taking a knee. It was dumb, to much time left, but nobody would see this as the turning point of the game.

After a night's sleep, I'm thinking the kneel down was huge, and not just symbolic. With open running lane, they took decisive FG off board. I blame Peppers.

[Deputy Nutz]

You can blame anyone you want to and sure he could have set up another scoring opportunity, but Rodgers and the offense could have done that on their own as well. Everyone sucked and made terrible mistakes.

[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.

[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.

[mraynrand]

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

:crazy:

[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.

[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.

[pbmax]

:crazy:

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.

[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.

[mraynrand]

^^^ relax, I was just kicking around the self- contradictory nature of the phrase - not the sequence of the game. If you're accurate, you get first downs and win - most of the time

[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.

[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.

[Bossman641]

I don't know if he would have scored but he could have gotten at least 15-20 yards.

There was nobody on the left side of the field.

The inside WR had run a drag route and the outside ran a go. Luke Wilson lined up left and ran a deep route. On top of that, Lynch had slipped out of the backfield into the left flat. At the very least Burnett would have had HHCD and Peppers in front of him to go against Wilson and whatever OL could get over there.

Like everything else, it spiraled out of control with a 3 and out and a Masthay shank. Killing myself today with a hundred different what-if's.

http://heavy.com/sports/2015/01/watch-morgan-burnett-intercepts-russel-wislon-vine-video/

[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.

[red]

well at least burnett has also come out and said that if he had to do it all over again, he would slide again

what the fuck is wrong with this team? are they all really this fucking stupid, or do they pick it up from fat mike.

the only people who weren't happy with what happened yesterday or would do things different are rodgers and bostick. seems like all the rest think it was all just bad luck

THIS TEAM NEEDS AN ENIMA!!!!!!!

[Freak Out]

well at least burnett has also come out and said that if he had to do it all over again, he would slide again

what the fuck is wrong with this team? are they all really this fucking stupid, or do they pick it up from fat mike.

the only people who weren't happy with what happened yesterday or would do things different are rodgers and bostick. seems like all the rest think it was all just bad luck

THIS TEAM NEEDS AN ENIMA!!!!!!!

Did he seriously say that? What sense does it make to NOT try and run it back? I agree with Red...this team needs an serious colonic.

[red]

Did he seriously say that? What sense does it make to NOT try and run it back? I agree with Red...this team needs an serious colonic.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/19/morgan-burnett-doesnt-regret-sliding-after-interception/


“There is nothing that I would change or nothing that I would take back,” Burnett said.

[Joemailman]

Did he seriously say that? What sense does it make to NOT try and run it back? I agree with Red...this team needs an serious colonic.

Burnett might have been trying to avoid throwing Peppers under the bus. When he was asked if he would have tried to return it had Peppers not motioned him to go down, he kind of avoided the question.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Morgan-Burnett-Win-as-a-team-lose-as-a-team/9dd1ba33-cdad-4c07-8bd2-7a68ff08f3e5

[KYPack]

You just had the example of the Dallas DLineman who refumbled the ball back to us. MB picks it and sees Pep telling him to do the "no mas". Pep's the man around here now, so Burnett makes the smart play and turns the ball back to the O.

[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

[Patler]

I agree a lot with Vince, except for the apparently singling out of Bostic for fault. There were plenty who failed to do their jobs, Bostic was just the most noticeable because of time and situation. It shouldn't have even come to that. Yes, if Bostic did his job maybe nothing else would have mattered, but there were also opportunities for others to make it so Bostic's error wasn't crucial. Many players have said Bostic was not wrong to go for the ball, they all have the freedom to do it even if their primary responsibility is to block. It was actually a nice bounce to him, he should have caught it. A simple physical error. Besides, even if Bostic "did his job" as some have said, there was no guarantee that Nelson would have fielded the ball cleanly either. It might even ave hit Bostic and bounced who knows where. There is much to be said for the first guy who is convinced he can field the ball cleanly actually attempting to do so.

On the fake field goal, was it really House' job to come off the edge half-heartedly, stop and just look at Ryan bellying away from him? Had he been more alert, he could have blown up the play early. Had he done his job, Bostic's failure likely wouldn't have mattered.

I've seen many DBs slide rather than risk fumbling, and not just late in the game. But I can't say that I remember seeing a single one do it with nothing but wide open spaces in front of him. I've seen plenty run 5, 10, 15, 20 or even more yards and still slide to avoid the risk of fumbling. Many of you have mentioned tactical advantages in football. Most have ignored one of the most obvious - field position. Burnett had a chance to achieve an outstanding tactical advantage. He didn't take it.

I didn't have an issue with run, run, run following the Burnett interception. We saw them close out other games running the ball. Does anything feel better than that? But, can't this vaunted O-line that claimed to have kicked Seattle's butt up and down the field for the whole game (Sitton's interview) do better than -4 and -2 on the first two runs? At that point, with 3rd and 16, you really can't risk an incompletion, so you have to run to keep the clock rolling or force Seattle to take a timeout.

Following that, while trying to kick out of bounds from his own 39. is 30 yards really what we should expect from Masthay? Burnett's failure to take the tactical advantage of improved field position on his interception return was compounded by the lines failure in the following series and Masthay's week punt to end it.

Lot's of blame to go around, not just for Bostic.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I didn't have an issue with run, run, run following the Burnett interception. We saw them close out other games running the ball.

Got to respond to game conditions. Seattle was selling out to jam run and were succeeding.

[pbmax]

Jones was responsible for the man across from him. If Jones does his job, Hawk has pursuit.

If they call off a kick block to be conservative, House has contain. I am not sure about his half-hearted effort, but had he gone stronger for the block (which was the call) he would have been more out of position.

[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.

[Freak Out]

What gets me about the fake FG TD was that it came down to if Brad Jones was on the field or not. They knew he was a key liability from film study.

[Patler]

What gets me about the fake FG TD was that it came down to if Brad Jones was on the field or not. They knew he was a key liability from film study.

Do you really think it was Brad Jones doing whatever he felt like???
I suspect it was knowing what Slocum was asking Brad Jones to do whenever he was in the game.

The fact that Chad Morton who MM fired last year from STs, now is ST assistant for Seattle might have had a lot to do with knowing what players did what in different situations

[Freak Out]

What I'm saying is SEA had a play drawn up just for that situation....whether that's on the player or coach you decide.

[Patler]

What I'm saying is SEA had a play drawn up just for that situation....whether that's on the player or coach you decide.

Sorry. I've seen quite a few posters railing on Jones for doing that, and I suspect Jones is only doing what they want him to do. I think the fake succeeded because GB/Slocum was so predictable, especially because Chad Morton is in Seattle with the inside dope on Slocum from his time in GB.

[mraynrand]

Sorry. I've seen quite a few posters railing on Jones for doing that, and I suspect Jones is only doing what they want him to do. I think the fake succeeded because GB/Slocum was so predictable, especially because Chad Morton is in Seattle with the inside dope on Slocum from his time in GB.

Jones wasn't the guy who let a receiver slip behind him for the TD

[Patler]

Jones wasn't the guy who let a receiver slip behind him for the TD

So you are blaming Hawk?

I think as the play unfolded, Hawk made the right decision, since House was out to lunch on the play and stood there watching Ryan run past him. If Hawk goes with the receiver, Ryan picks up the 1st down easily and probably a lot more. Hawk prevented that and put pressure on Ryan in making the throw. He prevented the run for a first and made the throw more difficult. Therefore he impacted both options Ryan had. At that point, you hope for a bad throw from a punter, a drop by the tackle-elligible receiver, or enough recovery by one of the little, quick guys to get back on the receiver.

House could have done what Hawk did, allowing Hawk to go with the receiver. When he didn't, Hawk tried to make the best out of a quickly deteriorating situation.

[pbmax]

If that is the design, its another in a long line of bad Slocum plans.

[Patler]

If that is the design, its another in a long line of bad Slocum plans.

That's just it. House was on the end, took a few steps at the snap, then stopped standing up as Ryan started to get up. House did nothing until Ryan was well outside of him when he finally turned to follow. Since House clearly was not firing off in an attempt to disrupt the kick, I can only assume he had some responsibility in the event of a fake or botch. Otherwise, he was serving no earthly purpose on the play at all.

MM said he loves Slocum's "creativity". This may be an example of it.

By coming up, Hawk at least forced Ryan to throw. With a punter throwing to a tackle, anything can happen. If Hawk went with the receiver, he was conceding the first down to Ryan by running, because there was no one else close.

[hoosier]

Not to pick at the scab too much, but for those who didn't really seen the open green in front of Burnett I offer you the full-22 image just after the pick.


http://s5.postimg.org/6rlznqbsn/pick.png (http://postimg.org/image/6rlznqbsj/full/)

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Hawk went with the receiver, he was conceding the first down to Ryan by running, because there was no one else close.

I've watched replay several times, what you are saying is not true. Ryan had long way to go for first and two Packers between him and marker. McGinn watched replay closely too

Hawk was stationed behind the FG block front for his experience, not his athleticism. His mistake — running up on fourth and 10 when the punter couldn't hurt the Packers instead of staying back on the man who could — probably was as egregious as Bostick's.http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/rating-the-packers-vs-seahawks-b99428945z1-289108751.html

[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!

[Bossman641]

I'm with HH. I think House might have tracked down Ryan before he reached the marker. It would have been close. And I understand Hawk was just reacting, but it's a hell of a lot better to give up a first down then leave a guy wide open in the end zone.

[LEWCWA]

He coulda scored! fucking dumb.....

[Harlan Huckleby]

And I understand Hawk was just reacting, but it's a hell of a lot better to give up a first down then leave a guy wide open in the end zone.

Hawk's first reaction was to cover the lumbering former TE. You can see it for full second. Then came the Bostick moment and it was, "Run, Forrest, run!" towards Ryan.

[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.

[Fritz]

You can blame anyone you want to and sure he could have set up another scoring opportunity, but Rodgers and the offense could have done that on their own as well. Everyone sucked and made terrible mistakes.


That was a devastating loss. I am heartbroken. It's much like the damn 4th-and-26 loss, except this time it was for a trip to the SB, not to the next round.

But Nutz is right: everyone sucked. Enough blame to go around - the offense had the ball with four minutes left and couldn't get a first down, much less run out the clock. Then they could get downfield later, but couldn't score a winning TD. ST sucked hard, twice: the fake field goal, which every Packer fan was screaming to watch out for BEFORE the snap, and the Bostick Epic Fail. And the defense, of course, letting Seattle score two touchdowns in four minutes and another in OT after playing a great, great game for the 56 minutes before that. And let's not forget the coaching: MM's nut sack shriveling up in the last four minutes of that game.

Sheesh. You have a twelve point lead AND the ball with four minutes left, and you can't close the deal.

I can't even read about the SB or the Packers or anything else right now. I'm sick about this loss. I'm going to be off the board for a while.

[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.

[mraynrand]

Not to pick at the scab too much, but for those who didn't really seen the open green in front of Burnett I offer you the full-22 image just after the pick.

no doubt in my mind he at least gets in FG range with even a reasonable run back. Makes the 35 at least.

[Patler]

I'm with HH. I think House might have tracked down Ryan before he reached the marker. It would have been close. And I understand Hawk was just reacting, but it's a hell of a lot better to give up a first down then leave a guy wide open in the end zone.

House didn't have a chance. He only got even remotely close because Ryan slowed up to collect himself to throw. Had Ryan seen Hawk retreating, he would have kept his head down and run. No way does House catch him if he does that.

I just watched it a couple more times. On the other side, Hayward (I think) was lined up the same as House. Each took only about two steps up field and stopped. The difference was that Hayward kept his feet and shoulders square, House turned his shoulders inward. Hayward was able to turn and run back must faster than House reacted to Ryan right in front of him.

[Freak Out]

Patler's new avatar. :)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPvhf3w6TH1haWcUW0JLu6OeK6sRjBy q5DiXEz3va14U96T79Rtg

[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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv2qKpna3lM

[mraynrand]

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

that's what I proposed. I was trying to make a play on "electric slide" like Elected Slide, but i dunno, it doesn't sound all that good and like Fritz says, we're kicking ourselves in the nutz.

[Bossman641]

House didn't have a chance. He only got even remotely close because Ryan slowed up to collect himself to throw. Had Ryan seen Hawk retreating, he would have kept his head down and run. No way does House catch him if he does that.

I just watched it a couple more times. On the other side, Hayward (I think) was lined up the same as House. Each took only about two steps up field and stopped. The difference was that Hayward kept his feet and shoulders square, House turned his shoulders inward. Hayward was able to turn and run back must faster than House reacted to Ryan right in front of him.

Either House screwed up, or Slocum designed the FG block thinking that teams would only ever roll out right on a fake.

The outside guy on the right (Bush) does a wide rush that would have contained the punter rolling out his way. Richardson (second in line) immediately backs off the LOS at the snap. Compare that to how the other side of the line plays it.
Outside guy on the left (House) makes a hard rush off the edge and then slows up. Jones (second in line) also makes a hard rush off the edge.

I still think House might have caught Ryan. Ryan slows up to gather himself at about the 25, he would have had to run all the way to the 9 to convert.

This link has GIF's from both sides of the field.

http://thebiglead.com/2015/01/18/seattle-scores-on-a-ballsy-fake-field-goal-to-rookie-offensive-tackle/

[Patler]

Not to pick at the scab too much, but for those who didn't really seen the open green in front of Burnett I offer you the full-22 image just after the pick.


http://s5.postimg.org/6rlznqbsn/pick.png (http://postimg.org/image/6rlznqbsj/full/)

Oh my God! Other than the Seahawk lying flat on the ground, is anyone within 20 yards of him?
He had 5 OL and Wilson to beat.

[mraynrand]

House has him dead to rights, even if he runs, at the moment Hawk commits.

[Freak Out]

He has a good shot at picking up some important yards. With a couple of decent blocks on either side of the field he has gained significant yardage. Does he take it all the way? Probably not...but man..try for the short field at least. If he is approaching a wall of defenders fine...slide then.

[Patler]

House has him dead to rights, even if he runs, at the moment Hawk commits.

House has to be significantly faster than Ryan to catch him in a 15 yard race starting flat-footed from well behind. I don't think he is.

[Patler]

He has a good shot at picking up some important yards. With a couple of decent blocks on either side of the field he has gained significant yardage. Does he take it all the way? Probably not...but man..try for the short field at least. If he is approaching a wall of defenders fine...slide then.

Especially if Peppers had escorted him toward and down the sideline, instead of pulling out his white flag.

[hoosier]

that's what I proposed. I was trying to make a play on "electric slide" like Elected Slide, but i dunno, it doesn't sound all that good and like Fritz says, we're kicking ourselves in the nutz.

Made me think of slip sliding away, but someone probably already proposed that too.

[pbmax]

Ryan had to slow up to twist and get ready to throw. He gets caught by House with that motion before the first down.

If Hawk smothers the receiver and Ryan keeps his head of steam, its going to be close. Ryan runs well and has made tough first downs before.

[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/2015011800/2014/POST20/packers@seahawks#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap30 00000460724&tab=analyze&analyze=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.

[Patler]

Ryan had to slow up to twist and get ready to throw. He gets caught by House with that motion before the first down.

If Hawk smothers the receiver and Ryan keeps his head of steam, its going to be close. Ryan runs well and has made tough first downs before.

Ryan said his instructions were to look at the LB, and if the LB dropped, just run without even considering the pass. With that approach, he gets the 1st down easily, I think.

No one has mentioned it, but Ryan really did a good job on that play. To be running as hard as he was, pull up and loft a 20 yard throw as accurately as he did is not easy for a guy not used to that type of thing. If he was short on the throw, Hayward probably makes a play on it. That, and a lot of things to keep in mind, including being aware of the line of scrimmage.

[vince]

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.

[woodbuck27]

Did he seriously say that? What sense does it make to NOT try and run it back? I agree with Red...this team needs an serious colonic.

The shock of the crowds sudden grrroooaaann !

Forced Morgan Burnett down before he looked to see how open it was for him to gain a chunk.

When he responded to the media after that game he hadn't seen any recording of the play.

That was one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in football. A definite :whaa: moment !

[hoosier]

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.

Great points.

[ThunderDan]

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.

+1

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

So I agree there were many fuckups. Does this mean most of the players are taking a paycut to help us sign the freakish TE and ILBers? I mean, now is the time to hit them up since their fuckup is fresh in their mind...

[ThunderDan]

So I agree there were many fuckups. Does this mean most of the players are taking a paycut to help us sign the freakish TE and ILBers? I mean, now is the time to hit them up since their fuckup is fresh in their mind...

This might be the new management style. Of course for every $500,000 you take away from a Bostick or Hawk there would be a Crosby or Cobb demanding $1,000,000.

[woodbuck27]

So I agree there were many fuckups. Does this mean most of the players are taking a paycut to help us sign the freakish TE and ILBers? I mean, now is the time to hit them up since their fuckup is fresh in their mind...

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers would step right up for that?

He delivered a sub Jay Cutler style performance in Seattle.

[mraynrand]

http://s5.postimg.org/6rlznqbsn/pick.png (http://postimg.org/image/6rlznqbsj/full/)

as hard to look at as:

https://packergeeks.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/favres-pick.jpg

[Bossman641]

Let's knock them all out

http://www.sikids.com/sites/default/files/multimedia/photo_gallery/1209/most-controversial-endings-sports-history/images/jerry-rice-fumble-IFB02S.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/2010/images/01/10/aaron.rodgers.jpg

http://media.jrn.com/images/gmti-photoj2004q1m01t12h10412600.jff.jpg

[Freak Out]

Fuck you guys.

[Freak Out]

That Arizona game seems like an eternity ago.

[mraynrand]

Fuck you guys.

point taken

http://media.jrn.com/images/94packlions1.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1997/01/13/levens_450x446.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://www.packershistory.net/files/PACKERS/1996PACKERS-49ersHoward.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://media.jrn.com/images/b9991712z.1_20130910181553_000_g7i2domr.1-0.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/17/20/33/3999481/3/628x471.jpg

[Freak Out]

Thank you.....I feel much better. That catch by Dorsey was one of the greatest I think I've ever seen.

[mraynrand]

http://www.packershistory.net/files/PACKERS/1993PACKERS-RaidersWhite.jpg

[Freak Out]

That Raider game was AWESOME! Ice cold and a complete domination.

[mraynrand]

http://womens.pfcblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Reggie_White.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://www.packershistory.net/files/PACKERS/1992PACKERS-BengalsFavre.jpghttp://www.packershistory.net/files/PACKERS/1992PACKERS-BengalsTaylor.jpg

[mraynrand]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcSFrFgeL3Q

[Freak Out]

By that point in the SB I was wasted and some hippy chick with dreads was trying to take my pants off....with my wife standing right there. Whooops!

[Strange Brew]

In honor of Burnett and Coach Peppers


http://youtu.be/5pteh5hdZlg

[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."

[mraynrand]

Maxi, Stubby blew it too. They all did. Vince makes a compelling argument, but even if Bostick blocks and Nelson recovers, the Packers still have to get a first down so as not to return the ball with about 1:20 on the clock. From The Slide on, the entire team, Stubby included thought it was in the bag. And/or Stubby was being extremely stubby to think that he could go 4 minute offense with run only and get a first down, ESPECIALLY when he knew he couldn't based on his 4th and goal decisions. Did he really think they would do better against 9-10 in the box in the middle of the field versus the goal line. Stubby should accept his share of the blame, and I am betting regardless of the what he says publicly, he knows he cocked it up.

[Strange Brew]

Simple as this...Burnett runs at worst to the Sea Hags 45. Packers play for the FG, Get the FG, none of that other shit takes place, Packers win!

[Maxie the Taxi]

Ayn, I changed my sig in your honor. Immediately after the game, when everybody else was ranting, you concisely put your finger on the reason for the debacle. Football is about emotions as much as it is about anything else. After Burnett's interception our emotional state flat-lined while Seattle's began to ascend.

End of story.

[Patler]

I think as the play unfolded, Hawk made the right decision, since House was out to lunch on the play and stood there watching Ryan run past him.

House could have done what Hawk did, allowing Hawk to go with the receiver.


That's just it. House was on the end, took a few steps at the snap, then stopped standing up as Ryan started to get up. House did nothing until Ryan was well outside of him when he finally turned to follow. Since House clearly was not firing off in an attempt to disrupt the kick, I can only assume he had some responsibility in the event of a fake or botch. Otherwise, he was serving no earthly purpose on the play at all.



I just watched it a couple more times. On the other side, Hayward (I think) was lined up the same as House. Each took only about two steps up field and stopped. The difference was that Hayward kept his feet and shoulders square, House turned his shoulders inward. Hayward was able to turn and run back must faster than House reacted to Ryan right in front of him.




If that is the design, its another in a long line of bad Slocum plans.

Sounds like it was by design, at least according to Daugherty at the Green Bay Press Gazzette. . He saw the same thing I did, House having, and being casual about contain responsibilities on his side, while Bush (I mistakenly said Hayward) played differently and correctly on the opposite side:





House was too casual on Seattle's fake field goal pass for a touchdown. He had outside contain at right end, but he turned the corner and stood. If he'd flared outside after a couple of steps, as Jarrett Bush did on the other side, he would have blown up the fake.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/dougherty%20%20/2015/01/21/blame-packers-loss-slocum-fired/22141019/

[pbmax]

Well I hope this gets mentioned at House's exit interview before they shoot him out of a cannon to Chicago.

[smuggler]

Well I hope this gets mentioned at House's exit interview before they shoot him out of a cannon to Minneapolis.

FIFY

[smuggler]

That Arizona game seems like an eternity ago.

Five years. Time flies.

[Patler]

Well I hope this gets mentioned at House's exit interview before they shoot him out of a cannon to Chicago.

Deleted. (I should have read Smuggler's post more carefully before hitting "Reply"!)

[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.

[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.

[pbmax]

Players get the credit when a team wins and coaches get the blame for a loss, all other things being non-remarkable (single turning point; kick return for TD, Pick 6). The fact that there were six or eight points of failure negates the normal effect that luck would have on fan opinions. Too many things happened for people to pass it off as not probable, but possible.

Normally, with the Seahawks at home and a 7 point favorite, credit would accrue to McCarthy for an inspired and close game. But the Packers weren't just close for 3 Quarters, they were dominant on the road. And the Seahawks were hurting.

The change of gameplan on both sides, but especially offense where he is directly involved, points in his direction as well as long stretches of trouble in the red zone this year. If he were a new coach, and the 4 minute offense wasn't a hallmark of his, the conversation would be different. But that two or three of the pivotal items in the game had his fingerprints on them.

No fan wants to hear that the coach is relying on probabilities to win a game, even though they are in play for every decision. McCarthy was the guy with the dice when they rolled a 12. Over and over again.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I confess I only played one year of organized football in high school, so my interest in the game is purely as a fan. However, I bristle a bit when, as a fan, I'm pigeonholed in a group of fans who all react to the game in a stereotypical way.

I didn't need sports beat reporters to tell me after the fact what to think about the debacle in Seattle. In fact, though you only have my word for it, I didn't need the benefit of hindsight to tell me what went wrong or right in that game.

After halftime I was praying McCarthy and Capers would keep their foot on the gas pedal. Sadly, midway through the second half, I sensed both coaches were beginning to play it safe. At one point Capers rushed only two and Wilson began to have time in the pocket. Plus, there was less penetration on running plays. After Burnett's interception, and Lacy's first dive into the stacked defense, I was screaming for Rodgers to throw the ball, for McCarthy to get creative, put Cobb in the backfield, something to move the ball downfield.

As for Burnett, I was stunned when he slid down after his INT. I asked myself what does he and Peppers know that I don't? There was five minutes left and Seattle had three TO's left!

Yes, by all that's probable, we still should have won playing it safe. But I've watched too many NFL games turn in the last 30 seconds, let alone in the last 4-5 minutes. At the time, I did not want this game -- and our entire season -- to boil down to having to recover an onside kick, which was totally foreseeable at the time. If we were going to blow this game, I wanted us to go out with our boots on, so to speak.

Yes, yes, yes. It was an "easy" onsides kick to recover. Bostick shouldn't have missed it. But then again, a pro golfer shouldn't miss an "easy" five footer for the win on the 72nd hole at the Masters, a five footer that that same pro probably made 10 out of 10 times earlier in the match. (I DO know something about competitive golf.)

Pressure is real. It's palpable at the end of a close football game or a golf tournament. Everyone who plays any kind of sport is familiar with pressure and the choke factor. Players are known to wilt under that pressure, to "react" emotionally rather than to think. In pressure situations, hands turn to iron and "easy" becomes difficult...and one mistake compounds the pressure causing another and another.

As a fan, in the last five minutes of that game, my heart almost beat out of my chest. It had to be the same for coaches and players. The difference, as far as I can tell, is the Seattle players reverted to the familiar, their comfort zone. They got aggressive and physical on both offense and defense. Because they reverted to the familiar, their mind and body handled the pressure.

GB, on the other hand, reverted to the unfamiliar. They played it safe. On offense they stopped trying to push the ball downfield by any means possible. As mraynrand puts it, they knelt down.

On defense, they let up on the pass rush, forsook the reckless abandon they played with in the previous quarters and fell back into a passive "prevent" mode. Consequently, the pressure got to them, they made mistakes and the game slipped away.

I've been there as a golfer. I've done that. I know what choking feels like. So nowadays I try to avoid it by playing like I'm behind right up through the final stroke. If I go out, I go out giving it my best shot.

But that's just me.

[woodbuck27]

By that point in the SB I was wasted and some hippy chick with dreads was trying to take my pants off....with my wife standing right there. Whooops!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5aH8kYC4Xw0UNqNkftkonVSvqIrvRv _HwX8gm5o3hlxhGSB3A

[woodbuck27]

I bristle a bit when, as a fan, I'm pigeonholed in a group of fans who all react to the game in a stereotypical way. I didn't need sports beat reporters to tell me after the fact what to think about the debacle in Seattle. In fact, though you only have my word for it, I didn't need the benefit of hindsight to tell me what went wrong or right in that game.

*** After halftime I was praying McCarthy and Capers would keep their foot on the gas pedal. Sadly, midway through the second half, I sensed both coaches were beginning to play it safe. ...... I was screaming for Rodgers to throw the ball, for McCarthy to get creative, put Cobb in the backfield, something to move the ball downfield.

*** As for Burnett, I was stunned when he slid down after his INT. I asked myself what does he and Peppers know that I don't?

*** I did not want this game -- and our entire season -- to boil down to having to recover an onside kick, which was totally foreseeable at the time.

*** Yes ... Bostick shouldn't have missed it. But then again, a pro golfer shouldn't miss an "easy" five footer for the win on the 72nd hole at the Masters, a five footer that that same pro probably made 10 out of 10 times earlier in the match.

*** Pressure is real. ..... Everyone who plays any kind of sport is familiar with pressure and the choke factor. Players are known to wilt under that pressure, to "react" emotionally rather than to think. In pressure situations, hands turn to iron and "easy" becomes difficult...and one mistake compounds the pressure causing another and another.

*** As a fan, in the last five minutes of that game, my heart almost beat out of my chest. It had to be the same for coaches and players.

*** The difference ... the Seattle players reverted to the familiar, their comfort zone. They got aggressive and physical on both offense and defense. Because they reverted to the familiar, their mind and body handled the pressure.

*** GB, on the other hand, reverted to the unfamiliar. They played it safe. On offense they stopped trying to push the ball downfield by any means possible. As mraynrand puts it, they knelt down.

*** On defense, they let up on the pass rush, forsook the reckless abandon they played with in the previous quarters and fell back into a passive "prevent" mode. Consequently, the pressure got to them, they made mistakes and the game slipped away.

*** ..... as a golfer. I've done that. I know what choking feels like. So nowadays I try to avoid it by playing like I'm behind right up through the final stroke. If I go out, I go out giving it my best shot.

I edited this simply for brevity and the main points.

A fine post Maxi the Taxi.

Repped.

Hopefully we can all relate to what you write above. As another that has played competitively well into my 40's. I do understand your experience. I hated to lose. The runner up is like all the rest...a loser.

I know that running scared loses ! I know that's 'for losers'. When your leading it's like a race and you don't slow down even if you can't speed up. You take that win through mental and physical effort !

This isn't reinventing the wheel. This is a basic tenet of how to win. This is common sense.

[HowardRoark]

I edited this simply for brevity and the main points.

speachless

[ThunderDan]

speachless

And some people think that irony is a dying art.

[Smidgeon]

And some people think that irony is a dying art.

Unintended irony is often the best kind.

[woodbuck27]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQ-hrgQMCG6c7gwg1c_WIFZ8QpmJV8t4Qs_xBGXnZjMhGuUDJp

The best part of Packerrats?

Try this test boys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a4Uxdy9TQY

[woodbuck27]

Here's another one for any 'genius's' here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5-oiIW69RU

[mraynrand]

The runner up is like all the rest...a loser.

http://content5.video.news.com.au/NDM_-_news.com.au/268/612/Kerrigan_648x365_2428081663-hero.jpg

[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]

I confess I only played one year of organized football in high school, so my interest in the game is purely as a fan. However, I bristle a bit when, as a fan, I'm pigeonholed in a group of fans who all react to the game in a stereotypical way.

I didn't need sports beat reporters to tell me after the fact what to think about the debacle in Seattle. In fact, though you only have my word for it, I didn't need the benefit of hindsight to tell me what went wrong or right in that game.

After halftime I was praying McCarthy and Capers would keep their foot on the gas pedal. Sadly, midway through the second half, I sensed both coaches were beginning to play it safe. At one point Capers rushed only two and Wilson began to have time in the pocket. Plus, there was less penetration on running plays. After Burnett's interception, and Lacy's first dive into the stacked defense, I was screaming for Rodgers to throw the ball, for McCarthy to get creative, put Cobb in the backfield, something to move the ball downfield.

As for Burnett, I was stunned when he slid down after his INT. I asked myself what does he and Peppers know that I don't? There was five minutes left and Seattle had three TO's left!

Yes, by all that's probable, we still should have won playing it safe. But I've watched too many NFL games turn in the last 30 seconds, let alone in the last 4-5 minutes. At the time, I did not want this game -- and our entire season -- to boil down to having to recover an onside kick, which was totally foreseeable at the time. If we were going to blow this game, I wanted us to go out with our boots on, so to speak.

Yes, yes, yes. It was an "easy" onsides kick to recover. Bostick shouldn't have missed it. But then again, a pro golfer shouldn't miss an "easy" five footer for the win on the 72nd hole at the Masters, a five footer that that same pro probably made 10 out of 10 times earlier in the match. (I DO know something about competitive golf.)

Pressure is real. It's palpable at the end of a close football game or a golf tournament. Everyone who plays any kind of sport is familiar with pressure and the choke factor. Players are known to wilt under that pressure, to "react" emotionally rather than to think. In pressure situations, hands turn to iron and "easy" becomes difficult...and one mistake compounds the pressure causing another and another.

As a fan, in the last five minutes of that game, my heart almost beat out of my chest. It had to be the same for coaches and players. The difference, as far as I can tell, is the Seattle players reverted to the familiar, their comfort zone. They got aggressive and physical on both offense and defense. Because they reverted to the familiar, their mind and body handled the pressure.

GB, on the other hand, reverted to the unfamiliar. They played it safe. On offense they stopped trying to push the ball downfield by any means possible. As mraynrand puts it, they knelt down.

On defense, they let up on the pass rush, forsook the reckless abandon they played with in the previous quarters and fell back into a passive "prevent" mode. Consequently, the pressure got to them, they made mistakes and the game slipped away.

I've been there as a golfer. I've done that. I know what choking feels like. So nowadays I try to avoid it by playing like I'm behind right up through the final stroke. If I go out, I go out giving it my best shot.

But that's just me.
This debate has gone round and round and is once again at the place it started so I'm gonna end with this.

When the golfer misses the 5-footer on the last hole at the Masters to go into sudden death, you can look back to the 10th hole when he had the three stroke lead and blame his caddy for telling him to lay up instead of trying to fly the creek and reach in two (though I doubt you'd be doing that). Because he desperately needed to play like he's behind and avoid the pressure situation at all costs, right? And laying up just made him tight down the stretch... Not many pros lack that kind of confidence in their ability to finish at that point.

Instead, you say, "Damn. If he just would have made the gimme putt, he'd have won the Masters. Pressure goes with the territory, and sometimes champions have to make easy putts when major championships are on the line."

The rest may have been true, but it's all just bad excuses for missing the putt at the end.

[woodbuck27]

Ayn, I changed my sig in your honor. Immediately after the game, when everybody else was ranting, you concisely put your finger on the reason for the debacle. Football is about emotions as much as it is about anything else. After Burnett's interception our emotional state flat-lined while Seattle's began to ascend.

End of story.

" If your going to play the game boy... you've got to learn to play it right. "


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4

[esoxx]

Does anyone know if Peppers was asked about his "wave down" decision after the game? Or did he just slink out of the locker room with no comment?

[Joemailman]

Does anyone know if Peppers was asked about his "wave down" decision after the game? Or did he just slink out of the locker room with no comment?

To the best of my knowledge, Peppers did not talk to the press.

[woodbuck27]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXsPUiIhiSyUo0HaGXX9PwnKJsbQ_mt kaEQURW6XuuRo7__PRG-A

Julius Peppers thinking ... ' We lost this game. '

Is this the last pic we'll see of Julius Peppers wearing Packers colors? A Packers 'Leader' has nothing to say after the collapse !? He was a part of that loss.

This question should have been asked and answered:

Why would Julius Peppers with all his experience wave Morgan Burnett to the ground after his pic and with so much game left?

[denverYooper]

To the best of my knowledge, Peppers did not talk to the press.

M3 in his presser yesterday mentioned that he understood why Peppers did so and that he "expected the offense would move the ball" (and take time off the clock).

[Maxie the Taxi]

M3 in his presser yesterday mentioned that he understood why Peppers did so and that he "expected the offense would move the ball" (and take time off the clock).

I heard that said, but something does not compute. Stubby's subsequent actions do not square with his expectations.

[pbmax]

I heard that said, but something does not compute. Stubby's subsequent actions do not square with his expectations.

Actually, of everything he said about the team yesterday, this made sense to me. He goes into a 4 minute offense full expecting to be able to run (did it twice this year with big long drives) but willing to live with eating clock and TOs.

In retrospect, I am sure he wished Peppers doesn't do that.

What worries me more is that he notices the backside pursuit is killing his goal line run game earlier in the game. But he doesn't adjust when the Seahawks are sending 8 at the box late in the game. Now normally you play action, and Rodgers was unable to get under center and take that deep drop (or they were unwilling to take that risk) but what was the game plan for this?

Because while no one foresees Bostick's drop or Burnett taking a knee, M3 knew play action would be tough to run. You have to have a counter or something to wrong foot the attacking defense. Normally that is Rodgers on a boot or play action, but there has to be something else.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I was thinking Cobb in the backfield. Or, you've got TO's, how about Arod takes one after he's at the LOS and sees what Seattle is doing?

Plus, they moved the ball down the field for the tying field goal by passing. How'd they do that?

[pbmax]

I was thinking Cobb in the backfield. Or, you've got TO's, how about Arod takes one after he's at the LOS and sees what Seattle is doing?

Plus, they moved the ball down the field for the tying field goal by passing. How'd they do that?

Seattle was playing back in a more conventional D. Until they had the lead, those last two drives they were all on the LOS.

You have to make a choice, you go strength on strength and hope to win or you spread it out. Since he was willing to just eat clock and TOs, he didn't change it up.

[esoxx]

To the best of my knowledge, Peppers did not talk to the press.

Disappointing. Being a playoff captain and a player no doubt the rest of the defense (and team for that matter) looked up to based on his past accomplishments, it would seem fitting he would want to step up and own his mistake. Instead, Burnett is left to twist in the wind and has gotten raked over the coals unmercifully. I have no doubt Burnett would still be running if the respected ol' man of the D had not waved him down.

It's at a time like this I need to keep in mind that he is a former Chicago Bear after all.

[woodbuck27]

I heard that said, but something does not compute. Stubby's subsequent actions do not square with his expectations.

Damage control isn't one of Mike McCarthy's strong points.

[woodbuck27]

Disappointing. Being a playoff captain and a player no doubt the rest of the defense (and team for that matter) looked up to based on his past accomplishments, it would seem fitting he would want to step up and own his mistake. Instead, Burnett is left to twist in the wind and has gotten raked over the coals unmercifully. I have no doubt Burnett would still be running if the respected ol' man of the D had not waved him down.

It's at a time like this I need to keep in mind that he is a former Chicago Bear after all.

That game in Seattle reflected Julius Peppers career in the NFL. That might be summed up by the term 'very good and close but no cigar'.

What's really sad is that Julius Peppers besides 'the chicken shit choke wave' to Morgan Burnett; had a fine performance in the game. Peppers had 5 tackles, 1.5 sacks and put pressure on Russell Wilson throughout the game.

He signed with the Packers feeling that he could help the team get back to the Super Bowl game. He was elected as a leader on his team but leaders are accountable and he failed there miserably. Leaders don't go into sulk mode. Julius Peppers went right there.