The Morgan Burnett INT

[Jdeed]

A. Rodgers 19 / 34 178 1 TD 2 INT there you go.....not good enough to win.

 

[adambr2]

even so, 9 times out of ten, I am sure our offense can get a 1st down and this convo isnt needed

9 times out of 10 when the defense is stacking the box and knows you're just going to run you're NOT going to get a first. Was anyone really surprised we went 3 and out after the INT?

All situations are not created equal. Just because you feel good about your chance of getting a first down midway through the first quarter does not mean your chances are equal trying to grind clock with 5 minutes left.

 

[PackerDNA]

A. Rodgers 19 / 34 178 1 TD 2 INT there you go.....not good enough to win.

Big games, big time opposition, Rodgers comes up small. Seeing and hearing a lot of questioning just how great of a QB he really is, and while I don't want to make a knee jerk reaction on the subject, it gives me pause. Does Rodgers end up being in a debate about all time great QB's , or end up in the debate with Peyton Manning as 'greatest regular season QB of all time' ?
I'll say this; if I just saw the stat line with no name attached, I'd think those numbers belonged to Matt Flynn. But in recent years, against top competition such as the 49ers and Seahawks, that's what they generally look like.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Big games, big time opposition, Rodgers comes up small. Seeing and hearing a lot of questioning just how great of a QB he really is, and while I don't want to make a knee jerk reaction on the subject, it gives me pause. Does Rodgers end up being in a debate about all time great QB's , or end up in the debate with Peyton Manning as 'greatest regular season QB of all time' ?
I'll say this; if I just saw the stat line with no name attached, I'd think those numbers belonged to Matt Flynn. But in recent years, against top competition such as the 49ers and Seahawks, that's what they generally look like.

Only Bart Starr and Kurt Warner have a higher playoff passer rating than Rodgers.

 

[PackerDNA]

All due respect Captain, but I couldn't care less about such stats, and in the context of the discussion, they're meaningless. In watching the games, Rodgers is not the difference maker he's expected to be.

 

[adambr2]

Question for those still trying to defend Burnett. ..who has a greater chance of fumbling? Burnett, with wide open space and only Wilson to beat? Or Lacy against a stacked box against an elite D and he knows what's coming? Were you really worried about Wilson stripping Burnett?

Burnett COULD have fumbled, just like Lacy could have fumbled on the very next play. A fumble can occur on any play.

Yes, if we had won we wouldn't be talking about it. Just like we wouldn't be talking about onside kicks and 2 point conversions if Burnett finishes his job on the play.

 

[Jdeed]

Big games, big time opposition, Rodgers comes up small. Seeing and hearing a lot of questioning just how great of a QB he really is, and while I don't want to make a knee jerk reaction on the subject, it gives me pause. Does Rodgers end up being in a debate about all time great QB's , or end up in the debate with Peyton Manning as 'greatest regular season QB of all time' ?
I'll say this; if I just saw the stat line with no name attached, I'd think those numbers belonged to Matt Flynn. But in recent years, against top competition such as the 49ers and Seahawks, that's what they generally look like.

That second int he threw was huge. The Packers Offense in General failed to Score time and time again when they had many chances to completely take the game over and settled for FG's deep in the RedZone.

 

[Jdeed]

Question for those still trying to defend Burnett. ..who has a greater chance of fumbling? Burnett, with wide open space and only Wilson to beat? Or Lacy against a stacked box against an elite D and he knows what's coming? Were you really worried about Wilson stripping Burnett?

Burnett COULD have fumbled, just like Lacy could have fumbled on the very next play. A fumble can occur on any play.

Yes, if we had won we wouldn't be talking about it. Just like we wouldn't be talking about onside kicks and 2 point conversions if Burnett finishes his job on the play.

When you are leading 19-7 late in the game ( 5 mins to go ) you do not risk the ball and let the offense handle finishing out the game. In this case the Packers Offense could not even get a first down....that speaks Volumes about this game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When you are leading 19-7 late in the game ( 5 mins to go ) you do not risk the ball and let the offense handle finishing out the game. In this case the Packers Offense could not even get a first down....that speaks Volumes about this game.

You don´t risk losing the ball running without any opponent being within 10 yards of you.

 

[PackerDNA]

You don´t risk losing the ball running without any opponent being within 10 yards of you.

Bingo. Look, if you want to question whether to do or not do anything based on the chance something could go wrong, you'd never get anything done.
It's paralysis by analysis.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

All due respect Captain, but I couldn't care less about such stats, and in the context of the discussion, they're meaningless. In watching the games, Rodgers is not the difference maker he's expected to be.

It was only his second postseason game with two interceptions, playing on an injured calf against one of the best defenses of all time. Take a look at Rodgers career postseason games and aside from the NFCCG vs. the Bears in 2010 he has mostly been great.

 

[Jdeed]

Rodgers 2nd INT cost the packers the game more so than someone not running 10 yards after an INT.

It was a Gift INT as well bouncing off the WR hands.

The Defender did the right thing to protect the ball with 5 mins to go and any coach will say so.

 

[PackerDNA]

It was only his second postseason game with two interceptions, playing on an injured calf against one of the best defenses of all time. Take a look at Rodgers career postseason games and aside from the NFCCG vs. the Bears in 2010 he has mostly been great.

Again, nothing to do with Sunday. A compilation of past stats isn't an indicator of what was going to happen or did happen.
It's like when broadcasts pull out inane stats like "the last 7 times the temperature was below 100 degrees and the stock market was under 1000 and the moon was in the 7th house Aaron Rodgers threw 3 or more td's and the Packers won".
Stats are fun. What happened in games from previous years has no bearing on the game going on now.
Just watch the game and play the game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, nothing to do with Sunday. A compilation of past stats isn't an indicator of what was going to happen or did happen.
It's like when broadcasts pull out inane stats like "the last 7 times the temperature was below 100 degrees and the stock market was under 1000 and the moon was in the 7th house Aaron Rodgers threw 3 or more td's and the Packers won".
Stats are fun. What happened in games from previous years has no bearing on the game going on now.
Just watch the game and play the game.

There´s no denying Rodgers didn´t play well on Sunday. Overall he has been a great playoff QB though.

 

[PackerDNA]

There´s no denying Rodgers didn´t play well on Sunday. Overall he has been a great playoff QB though.

I think it's a book that- hopefully- has a few more chapters to be written.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Question for those still trying to defend Burnett. ..who has a greater chance of fumbling? Burnett, with wide open space and only Wilson to beat? Or Lacy against a stacked box against an elite D and he knows what's coming? Were you really worried about Wilson stripping Burnett?

Burnett COULD have fumbled, just like Lacy could have fumbled on the very next play. A fumble can occur on any play.

Yes, if we had won we wouldn't be talking about it. Just like we wouldn't be talking about onside kicks and 2 point conversions if Burnett finishes his job on the play.

Burnett has the greater chance. He's a defensive player that never touches the ball. He doesn't practice how to carry the ball in traffic and he doesn't have the vision that offensive players have in trying to locate guys who might strip the ball.

Burnett could have returned the INT and we could have won the game. On the list of things that cost us the game, Burnett going to the ground is maybe seventh?

What if returned the interception but a defensive player gets called for blocking in the back? There's no guarantee that he's just going to get to waltz into the endzone.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Burnett has the greater chance. He's a defensive player that never touches the ball. He doesn't practice how to carry the ball in traffic and he doesn't have the vision that offensive players have in trying to locate guys who might strip the ball.

Defensive players fumbled on 8 interception returns this season on a total of 450 interceptions losing three of them. I would be fine with a 0.67% chance of losing the ball in that situation.

 

[adambr2]

Burnett has the greater chance. He's a defensive player that never touches the ball. He doesn't practice how to carry the ball in traffic and he doesn't have the vision that offensive players have in trying to locate guys who might strip the ball.

1) It works both ways. Offensive players aren't taught ball stripping techniques, either.
2) Did you watch the video? There WAS no traffic. He had offensive lineman to run around and then a QB to beat! If there were 5 or 6 guys bearing down on him at midfield when he did this ready to tackle him, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Burnett could have returned the INT and we could have won the game. On the list of things that cost us the game, Burnett going to the ground is maybe seventh?

Theres is no 1-7 of what cost us the game in the game in the last 5 minutes. There's about 1A - 1G, because any one of them, if played differently, would have changed the outcome. The reason I'm less forgiving about Burnett is that his mistake was a conscious, voluntary one. Whereas most of the others were physical football mistakes.

What if returned the interception but a defensive player gets called for blocking in the back? There's no guarantee that he's just going to get to waltz into the endzone.

Then we'd be in the exact same position that we were in anyway by him just going down, wouldn't we? At least we wouldn't be wondering if it would have changed the result.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The way Burnett (and Peppers) dealt with the interception, along with the play calling throughout the game by MM further proves the Packer mentality.....play conservative and smart....you will win the majority of your games this way. However, when you are playing on the road, in a big game.....IMO this only gives the home team a better chance at winning with something called "momentum". We saw it on Sunday. Had the game been in GB and going down the same path, I seriously doubt it would have been the same outcome. Credit to Seattle players, they didn't give up, but our conservative play, no killer instinct and a home crowd spurring them on, kept them in the game. One can only hope that the Packer coaching staff will reap the lessons learned in this game moving forward. Play to win, not to loose.

 

[El Guapo]

I'd like to point out that while articles have said there was a "sea of open green space" ahead of Burnett, there were six Seattle players at mid-field starting to charge the sideline. He might have beat them on a cut back but the point is that the green space was closing rapidly and I don't believe Burnett had a slam dunk run into the endzone.

At the point of interception there are no Seattle players outside the upper hash marks:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

As Burnett slides five yards later, there are already two players on the upper half of the field charging towards the sideline.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd like to point out that while articles have said there was a "sea of open green space" ahead of Burnett, there were six Seattle players at mid-field starting to charge the sideline. He might have beat them on a cut back but the point is that the green space was closing rapidly and I don't believe Burnett had a slam dunk run into the endzone.

Of course it would not have been a slam dunk for Burnett to score on the return but if Clinton-Dix and Peppers would have each blocked one guy he would have only had to beat one guy on their own. At least he should have been able to bring us pretty close to FG range.

 

[Mondio]

I think odds are he doesn't make the endzone, but I'd have put money on it that he at least made the 40 before giving himself up

 

[PackerDNA]

I'd like to point out that while articles have said there was a "sea of open green space" ahead of Burnett, there were six Seattle players at mid-field starting to charge the sideline. He might have beat them on a cut back but the point is that the green space was closing rapidly and I don't believe Burnett had a slam dunk run into the endzone.

At the point of interception there are no Seattle players outside the upper hash marks:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

As Burnett slides five yards later, there are already two players on the upper half of the field charging towards the sideline.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

As a counterpoint, had he not hesitated and- most likely- headed towards and up the sideline, he had blockers, and the 2 guys for Seattle that you point out are linemen. Whom he almost certainly would have blown past. Best case for yards gained- touchdown. Worst? Somewhere across midfield and the Seattle 40 yard line.

 

[mongoosev]

Does anyone know if he even had a lot of room to run? How much open field was in front of him on that INT? Does anyone know for SURE? Could he have scored a TD? Gotten us into FG position? Or are we only talking about maybe 10 yards from where he killed it or something?

In other words, if Burnett took off and ran, what would have happened where yardage was concerned?

You know whats funny though? At the time that the INT happened, I was actually yelling at the TV for him to get down too. This was one of those situations that "at the time" it seemed like the smart thing to do. We were up 19-7 with 5 minutes left and had no idea that the mental meltdown was coming.

So either way, its just a hindsight 20/20 thing I guess.

bottom line is his run reflected the conservative playing strategy packers did all throughout the game! this one was not the start of the devastation though. I think the fake fg was what caught packers' off guard and that packers' couldn't recover from the embarrassment. they assumed seattle was going to continue to sulk in their woes and not take any risks.

 

[dbain21]

When you're a member (even leader) of a tight team, a collective sense of group think settles in. This team has embraced MM's values long before Sunday's kickoff. Like a Marine soldier in battle, why would Burnett even think to question such a signal to kneel down?

Because as I said HE'S A CAPTAIN. Leaders have to make tough decisions all the time, even if it goes against what their peers believe.