Every game for every team is a collective effort win or lose. We were closer in a couple of years that the difference at the end came down to one play oThe r one decision at the end. Just like we were very close to not making the playoffs the year we won the Super Bowl. The margin for maybe 4-6 teams every year in winning the super bowl is razor thin. The league is that competitive.
Well, it is a game of individual talent, effort and execution. What you're trying to get to is a whole greater than the sum of the parts.
My point is in a typical game where you have some 150 snaps, give or take, on offense, defense and ST as does the opponent of course, to isolate on one mistake on the one hand or a dazzling play on the other, as the single deciding factor is an atomistic, forest-lost-for-the-trees, take on things. If I may borrow a highfalutin term from my German philosphy study days, there's a gestalt to it all.
Some folks like a clear answer on why a game went right or wrong, when that is rarely the case. Even the Montgomery fumble...if doesn't happen do you lose anyway? Perhaps. And if it didn't happen and the Packers didn't win,
then which play or players would be the focus as the cause for losing? Montogomery or not, we could as easily say Hekker vs. Scott was the deciding element, but that would not be the whole story either.
The fact of the matter is the Packers lost (or tied) some games they could have won and won some games they could have lost. So far, this team has been sufficiently and consistently mistake prone to say they've been a 0.500 ballclub. Where they go from here is why we watch the games. At least we can say the first 58 minutes of the Rams game was the cleanest effort so far, and that showed up on the scoreboard.
