The Morgan Burnett INT

[GoPGo]

/
So after he had the interception you were not excited?? you werent happy??

thats my point, when he was done, people were upset he intercepted??

dont worry about him not running or running, td or peppers...the simple act of him catching it at the end of the play you were happy..I dont buy that anyone was upset, sad, worried, depressed, he got an int

Show me where I said anyone was upset about getting the INT. They were upset that he slide with 5:00 left in the game. And that's exactly what I said before. Stop changing statements and responding to your contortions (straw men) rather than responding to what people actually say. You do it so often it is completely predictable and adambr2 saw it too.

 

[longtimefan]

Show me where I said anyone was upset about getting the INT. They were upset that he slide with 5:00 left in the game. And that's exactly what I said before. Stop changing statements and responding to your contortions (straw men) rather than responding to what people actually say. You do it so often it is completely predictable and adambr2 saw it too.

not sure why I am being blasted....I say people were exicited he got the int and OF COURSE people were mad he didnt keep running...and some were okay with him slidding down..

but hey, I guess I am just trying to be an *** and full of straw

 

[Bagadeez04]

Not angry with Burnett. Angry with the coaches who signaled him to slide.

I'm not "angry"with him either, I'm angry that the team got complacent with their game plan way too early. It's pretty obvious that with five minutes left, Burnett falling down was a mistake and simply not appropriate for the situation.

Also bothers me that he said the next day that if he could do the same thing over again, he would.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the Packers went for 3/4th and 1/2 55 times against the Seattle Seahawks. In fact, in that first series alone, heck the previous 2 plays, the Packers had just gone 0/2 with only one yard to go. Could be the defense had something to do with it.

No, you're right, the Packers did go for it. Then McCarthy told his offense that he didn't trust them to get a yard, told his defense he didn't trust them to pin the Seahawks in the endzone and told the entire team that they were going to be ultra-conservative. The defense may stop you multiple times but you only have to convert once. I'll take the chance that the Packers will gain a yard over three plays.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

On the first interception Rodgers thought he had a free play as Bennett was offsides but the refs missed it.
QUOTE]

That doesn't change the fact that if the throw had been to the outside it would probably have been a TD. Even on a free play, Rodgers threw that ball to a spot where Adams had no chance to catch it.

 

[Mondio]

No, you're right, the Packers did go for it. Then McCarthy told his offense that he didn't trust them to get a yard, told his defense he didn't trust them to pin the Seahawks in the endzone and told the entire team that they were going to be ultra-conservative. The defense may stop you multiple times but you only have to convert once. I'll take the chance that the Packers will gain a yard over three plays.

and if they don't? and Seattle stones them again and they get nothing and the crowd is now wild and beast mode is just waiting be unleased and his first hand off rips off 30 yards, then what?

Seattle has fed off their defense making big plays and then Lynch coming in and igniting everyone for a few years now. it's not like it wasn't a high probability. The only reason, you're betting is because you can do it from behind a keyboard with zero repercussions.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

and if they don't? and Seattle stones them again and they get nothing and the crowd is now wild and beast mode is just waiting be unleased and his first hand off rips off 30 yards, then what?

Seattle has fed off their defense making big plays and then Lynch coming in and igniting everyone for a few years now. it's not like it wasn't a high probability. The only reason, you're betting is because you can do it from behind a keyboard with zero repercussions.

The Packers have the ball on the one yard line after a turnover and it's fourth-and-one. You're a Seattle fan or defender. Ask yourself this, when the Packers are lining up for the field goal, are you really sad or are you ecstatic? You don't think the crowd was just as happy the Packers settled for a FG as if their offense had been stuck at the six-inch line? How happy would the crowd have been when/if the Seahawks kicked and the Packers offense got the ball back on the 40 and were then STILL ABLE to kick the field goal? Additionally, how wild could the crowd really get without hurting their offense. Remember, Seattle is literally in the endzone, if the crowd is going nuts then Seattle's offense is hurting WAY more than the Packers defense.

Also, the Seattle offense was TERRIBLE in the first three quarters. I'd rather the coach called plays based on the belief his league leading offense could gain a yard rather than calling plays based on being scared Lynch might break off a huge run.

 

[Mondio]

They were terrible, and part of that was because GB was keeping the ball, moving it and getting points. Yeah I was really ecstatic to take 3 over 7, LOL . Considering they stuffed us like 6 plays inside the 2 or 1 yard line on Sunday, you're feeling good about it? Remember when we got the ball near midfield and lost 4 yards on 3 plays because they sold out against the run? Remember that? What if that happens again? What if Lynch busts of a 40 yard run and beast mode starts in the middle of the first quarter instead of with less than 5 minutes left in the game?

Or maybe we should have passed? Like to Jordy? or maybe Cobb? how did those work out?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

and if they don't? and Seattle stones them again and they get nothing and the crowd is now wild and beast mode is just waiting be unleased and his first hand off rips off 30 yards, then what?

Seattle has fed off their defense making big plays and then Lynch coming in and igniting everyone for a few years now. it's not like it wasn't a high probability. The only reason, you're betting is because you can do it from behind a keyboard with zero repercussions.

Nice, you apparently know my mind. Never mind the fact that every actual statistical analysis of that scenario says that you go for it. Nope. I'm only advocating for it because I know the outcome and because I'm on a keyboard. It couldn't possibly be because NFL coaches as a body are some of the most conservative coaches out there. There's a reason why NCAA and highschool are where new ideas come from, NFL coaches don't like to do new things.

Want an example of how conservative NFL coaches are (MM included)? The following is from a CNNSI article written during the week before the Packers-Seahawks game. The writer spent the day on Sunday watching the Packers-Cowboys game with Richard Sherman.

In short, NFL play-callers are boring. Sherman estimates about 26 teams run the same handful of plays on third down. Of the teams he’s played over the last two years, he can think of three that don’t: New England, Denver and New Orleans.

From having played the Packers in Week 1, Sherman recognizes some of Green Bay’s third-down favorites...What helps make the Packers so unique, Sherman says, is Rodgers’ ability to extend plays and take off running
​

I don't see the Packers listed in that group of non-boring teams. On the one freaking yard line you go for it, especially when the other team's offense is literally defecating all over themselves. If you fail, the opponent is stuck in their own endzone and should, at worst, get a couple first downs before having to punt; most likely the opponent gets some room for the punter and ends up punting out of their own endzone.

Now, since I'm only saying these things because I'm behind a keyboard, I think I'll use this keyboard to put a link in this post that does a TERRIFIC job of explaining when a coach should go for it. Maybe next year McCarthy can have this available on one of the Surfaces on the sideline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html?_r=0

As for the "well they stopped us on two downs..." argument, Bill Barnwell has a terrific rejoinder. If you throw a pass incomplete on 1st-and-10 and then another incompletion on second down, should you then punt on third down because, well, what's the point since they already stopped you twice?

 

[Mondio]

yay for stats, LOL You're probably the same guy that *****es when McCarthy plays it safe, but now you want to tell me what the "stats" say to do LOL

anyway. the punt on 3rd down scenario is retarded. In that instance you're not choosing points or nothing. It's not even remotely similar. Bill Barnwell is a moron.

The broncos did awesome this year. coasted in an easy division and left early. The Saints were a p;owerhouse, thank god for their "excitability factor. NE? they're in it again, and we took them to the woodshed earlier. I would have liked a chance to do it again.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

On the one freaking yard line you go for it, especially when the other team's offense is literally defecating all over themselves. If you fail, the opponent is stuck in their own endzone and should, at worst, get a couple first downs before having to punt; most likely the opponent gets some room for the punter and ends up punting out of their own endzone.

On both occasions McCarthy kicked the FG the Seahawks offense had the ball for only a single drive. While that one ended in an interception it´s hardly what I call defecating all over themselves.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

On both occasions McCarthy kicked the FG the Seahawks offense had the ball for only a single drive. While that one ended in an interception it´s hardly what I call defecating all over themselves.

The Seattle offense turned the ball over three times in the first half. That's pretty terrible.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Seattle offense turned the ball over three times in the first half. That's pretty terrible.

Yes, but two of those interceptions came after the Packers took a 6-0 lead.

 

[XPack]

Yes, he could have run with it. FG position is a definite imo. With a bit of luck it could have been a TD. He had some opposition players in front, but of the heavy type. None fast enough to catch him if he got past the line.

1) I don't think we should have gone for a TD. He should have run into FG position and slid down at 10yd line and offence should have a couple of plays from there, ending in a TF/FG.
2) Even if he had not run, Offence should still have at least tried to move the ball when we had possession.

The easiest and safest way to run time is when we have the ball. It really was a dumb rookie mistake to let go of the ball so quickly.

I blame it on complacency. We took it for granted that the game was won. Silly mistakes all over the field when players stop concentrating.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

On both occasions McCarthy kicked the FG the Seahawks offense had the ball for only a single drive. While that one ended in an interception it´s hardly what I call defecating all over themselves.

Actually the Seattle offense only had the ball for 1 drive, which resulted in the first interception and we got the first FG. The special teams (not the offense) fumbled the kickoff for the 2nd FG, so no, you can't say the Seattle offense was defecating all over themselves at that point.

 

[pacmaniac]

I blame it on complacency. We took it for granted that the game was won. Silly mistakes all over the field when players stop concentrating.

This is exactly what happened. I bash Capers a lot, but the defensive collapse at the end wasn't his fault at all. The defensive players thought the game was over - you could see them all hugging each other on the sideline after Burnett's INT.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Many fans of both teams thought the same....Seattle fans poured out of the stadium after the interception. LOL "Hey Bob, how was the most amazing Seattle victory EVER?!" "Ummmmm......I wanted to get home a few minutes early, so I left with 4 minutes to go....wait...we won?".

Let this game show to all coaches, players and fans....it isn't over....until its over!

 

[GoPGo]

I'm not "angry"with him either, I'm angry that the team got complacent with their game plan way too early. It's pretty obvious that with five minutes left, Burnett falling down was a mistake and simply not appropriate for the situation.

Also bothers me that he said the next day that if he could do the same thing over again, he would.

That doesn't bother me at all because if he said otherwise he would be throwing Peppers et al under the bus along with himself. You just don't do that, unless you're Peyton Manning. It's just media talk.

 

[GoPGo]

Actually the Seattle offense only had the ball for 1 drive, which resulted in the first interception and we got the first FG. The special teams (not the offense) fumbled the kickoff for the 2nd FG, so no, you can't say the Seattle offense was defecating all over themselves at that point.

They didn't have a first down until the 3rd quarter.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They didn't have a first down until the 3rd quarter.

The Seahawks had their first 1st down with seven minutes left in the first half. That doesn't matter in this context though as their offense only had the ball once before the Packers kicked the two FGs from the 1.

 

[GoPGo]

The Seahawks had their first 1st down with seven minutes left in the first half.

Okay. You're right on that.

 

[Packerlifer]

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/baranczyk%20/2015/01/19/amid-tragedy-of-errors-burnett-slide-was-correct-play/22031847/

 

[Sky King]

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/baranczyk%20/2015/01/19/amid-tragedy-of-errors-burnett-slide-was-correct-play/22031847/

Fillibuster. http://blog.packers.com/2015/01/21/...tle-read-mikes-season-ending-chat-transcript/

 

[sschind]

Bottom line is this, Burnett going down more than likely did not cause the Packers to lose the game. It may not even be a contributing factor. Because we have know idea what would have happened had he run further down the field. Anything and everything is possible. He could have scored, he could have fumbled, he could have made it to the 35 yards line and on the next play Lacy could have fumbled. So to get worked up over it is just not worth the time.

In that respect the Bostick play on the onside kick and the Clinton-Dix screw up on the 2 point more than likely did not cost the Packers to lose the game and may not have been contributing factors either .

 

[sschind]

It's not subjective. What is the mathematical probability that Burnett would have fumbled on that run back? I'm sure that a statistician could calculate that for us and we would find the probability rate was very small. On the other hand, the probability that Seattle would score on it's next possession is very high, given the history of their offense. Regardless, I'm not referring to that singular play. Few would disagree that without question, there were MANY bad coaching decisions in that game.

Quite a few people are saying it was the right move so apparently it is subjective.