THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[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/watc...on-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/...2-7a68ff08f3e5

[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.