THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[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.

[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]

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