THE INTERCEPTION BY BURNETT

[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/spo...ired/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!

[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.