The Morgan Burnett INT

[Daryl Muellenberg]

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 .

That's a pretty simplistic view - you aren't comparing apples to apples. It wasn't Burnett's job to score on the play. He did his job by getting the turnover and then making sure he gave the ball back to the offense. On the other hand, Bostick and Clinton-Dix both failed to do their jobs, so yes, those 2 plays more than likely cost the Packers the game. Burnett giving himself up early is way down on the list of plays that hurt the Packers.

 

[adambr2]

That's a pretty simplistic view - you aren't comparing apples to apples. It wasn't Burnett's job to score on the play. He did his job by getting the turnover and then making sure he gave the ball back to the offense. On the other hand, Bostick and Clinton-Dix both failed to do their jobs, so yes, those 2 plays more than likely cost the Packers the game. Burnett giving himself up early is way down on the list of plays that hurt the Packers.

Personally, I have a hard time putting these plays in order of harm when any of them could have saved the game for us. To me, there is no number. They are 1A to 1E. Do we know that Burnett wouldn't have scored on the play, making it a 3 score game and basically ending it? Do we know that even if Bostick recovers, the Seahawks don't get the ball back with a minute left and pull out the winning score? Do we know that if HaHa knocks down that 2 point try, that Crosby still makes the FG knowing that the W or L now rides solely on him, or that even the same sequence of plays would have got us into FG range? No, we don't know the answers to any of these and never will. All the mistakes we made in the last 5 minutes were equally harmful.

I also resent the idea that just because a player makes a play, he has 'done his job.' No, a player has done his job to completion when the play is over and the whistle blows, regardless of what they did in the play. Would it be okay for Masthay to simply stand in place after a booming 55 yard punt as the return man runs past him since he did his job already? Would it be okay for Matthews to get up and start celebrating a sack before the whistle, while the ball is loose on the sack and he's the closest player to it, just because he already did his job? Of course not. Complete the play. It's not asking a lot.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Personally, I have a hard time putting these plays in order of harm when any of them could have saved the game for us. To me, there is no number. They are 1A to 1E. Do we know that Burnett wouldn't have scored on the play, making it a 3 score game and basically ending it? Do we know that even if Bostick recovers, the Seahawks don't get the ball back with a minute left and pull out the winning score? Do we know that if HaHa knocks down that 2 point try, that Crosby still makes the FG knowing that the W or L now rides solely on him, or that even the same sequence of plays would have got us into FG range? No, we don't know the answers to any of these and never will. All the mistakes we made in the last 5 minutes were equally harmful.

I also resent the idea that just because a player makes a play, he has 'done his job.' No, a player has done his job to completion when the play is over and the whistle blows, regardless of what they did in the play. Would it be okay for Masthay to simply stand in place after a booming 55 yard punt as the return man runs past him since he did his job already? Would it be okay for Matthews to get up and start celebrating a sack before the whistle, while the ball is loose on the sack and he's the closest player to it, just because he already did his job? Of course not. Complete the play. It's not asking a lot.

But I think Burnett thought he had done his job as Peppers (as well as the coaches from what I understand) were telling him to get down . What I think is ridiculous is people who say that the Burnett play cost us the game. He got a turnover and gave the ball back to the offense up by 2 scores. How does that in itself equate to costing us the game? Seattle didn't score any points off that play plus we now have the ball. Yes, it's possible that he may have scored on the play and sealed the game but it is also possible that he might have fumbled, it's all speculation at this point. The defense giving up 2 late tds, the 2 point conversion and allowing Seattle to recover the onside kick are the plays that actually cost us the game.

I also don't think you can say going for the field goals in the 1st quarter instead of touchdowns cost us the game. People just assume that we would have gotten 1 or 2 tds, but we just don't know what would have happened. The mistake that a lot of people make is that they assume the game would then proceed exactly the way it did if we had scored tds instead of field goals. Say we would have scored 2 tds right away, Seattle's selection of plays probably would have been different being down by 2 tds instead of only 6. And maybe we change our defense and go into more of a prevent type defense that backfires. The point is we just don't know how the rest of the game would have went and we will never know.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But I think Burnett thought he had done his job as Peppers (as well as the coaches from what I understand) were telling him to get down . What I think is ridiculous is people who say that the Burnett play cost us the game. He got a turnover and gave the ball back to the offense up by 2 scores. How does that in itself equate to costing us the game? Seattle didn't score any points off that play plus we now have the ball. Yes, it's possible that he may have scored on the play and sealed the game but it is also possible that he might have fumbled, it's all speculation at this point. The defense giving up 2 late tds, the 2 point conversi

Nobody is suggesting Burnett going down cost the Packers the game. But he could have possibly won the game for us in that moment by returning the interception.

 

[adambr2]

But I think Burnett thought he had done his job as Peppers (as well as the coaches from what I understand) were telling him to get down . What I think is ridiculous is people who say that the Burnett play cost us the game. He got a turnover and gave the ball back to the offense up by 2 scores. How does that in itself equate to costing us the game? Seattle didn't score any points off that play plus we now have the ball. Yes, it's possible that he may have scored on the play and sealed the game but it is also possible that he might have fumbled, it's all speculation at this point. The defense giving up 2 late tds, the 2 point conversion and allowing Seattle to recover the onside kick are the plays that actually cost us the game.

You're still trying to say objectively that the Burnett play did not cost us like the Bostick and HaHa plays cost us, and it's still a subjective argument.

Like you said in your last sentence, we have no way of knowing how the rest of the game would have played out. We have no way of knowing if Burnett could have either scored or gotten into FG range (although I can assure you the chances of him doing that were far greater than the strange fear of the miniscule possibility of him fumbling, particularly since he was obviously completely focused on the importance of ball security in that situation). Likewise, we have no way of knowing if Seattle goes on to lose even if Clinton-Dix knocks down the 2 point conversion attempt, and we can't even be absolutely sure that we hold on if Bostick recovers the onside kick, since Seattle still had a timeout and the 2 minute warning left.

My point is, you cannot objectively say 'these cost us the game, Burnett going down did not.' We will never know.

Also, by no means am I blaming Burnett if the decision was not his. If he and Peppers were ordered to by his defense, by all means, that's on Capers. If it was Peppers' call and Burnett knows he should have run but simply doesn't want to throw Peppers under the bus, I get that. I'm not saying with certainty that Burnett is to blame for the decision.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Nobody is suggesting Burnett going down cost the Packers the game. But he could have possibly won the game for us in that moment by returning the interception.

If we're going that route then there a bunch of players who deserve way more blame. Had an olineman blocked better on 3rd-and-goal from the one, then we would have won the game. So the olineman is just as much to blame as Burnett (this is true for a number of olinemen on numerous plays near the goal line). Had McCarthy left his defense on the field for the obvious fake FG in the second half, then we would have won the game (cause really, who cares if Seattle gets three points? It's not like you're really gonne block it anyway). If Nelson make a difficult catch then we would have won the game. If Rodgers doesn't throw a poor pass to Adams which is picked by Sherman, then the Packers win the game. If, if, if...on the list of plays that weren't made, Burnett's is probably less important than olinemen whiffing on blocks at the goal line, but people can't easily single out the one olineman that causes a run play to fail.

 

[adambr2]

The truth is they really underestimated how much time was left on the clock. 5 minutes + 4 opponent clock stoppages is a world of time to get 2 scores.

Especially when you know your opponent is simply trying to grind it and you know you can relatively easily stop them to a 3 and out if you stack the box.

Burnett very much limited the damage that the INT did to the Seahawks with his decision. After the 3 and out and punt, the total price that Seattle paid for the INT was 2 timeouts, 40 seconds of clock, and 20 yards of field position.

It could have, and probably should have, cost them the game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If we're going that route then there a bunch of players who deserve way more blame. Had an olineman blocked better on 3rd-and-goal from the one, then we would have won the game. So the olineman is just as much to blame as Burnett (this is true for a number of olinemen on numerous plays near the goal line). Had McCarthy left his defense on the field for the obvious fake FG in the second half, then we would have won the game (cause really, who cares if Seattle gets three points? It's not like you're really gonne block it anyway). If Nelson make a difficult catch then we would have won the game. If Rodgers doesn't throw a poor pass to Adams which is picked by Sherman, then the Packers win the game. If, if, if...on the list of plays that weren't made, Burnett's is probably less important than olinemen whiffing on blocks at the goal line, but people can't easily single out the one olineman that causes a run play to fail.

Don't get me wrong I'm not blaming Burnett for the loss but him going down contributed to it. While all the other plays you mentioned could have resulted in the Packers winning Burnett returning the interception into FG range (which was highly probable) would have been the dagger.

 

[PackerFanLV]

What about the smartest guy on our defense as some people call him, AJ HAWK blowing his assignment on the fake field goal. He knew the lineman was eligible to run a route and he watched him run right at him and past him. slocum and hawk time needs to be up I'm sorry.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Don't get me wrong I'm not blaming Burnett for the loss but him going down contributed to it. While all the other plays you mentioned could have resulted in the Packers winning Burnett returning the interception into FG range (which was highly probable) would have been the dagger.

Never would have needed a "dagger" if the others had done their jobs. Burnett did his job as well as anyone could expect (unless you routinely expect your safeties to intercept a pass and return it 20 yards); 99% of the time fans would be ecstatic over an interception. However, because a bunch of other guys didn't do their jobs, suddenly it's on Burnett to do more to make up for everyone else's mistakes. Then the guy gets blamed for not papering over the rest of the team's issues.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Never would have needed a "dagger" if the others had done their jobs. Burnett did his job as well as anyone could expect (unless you routinely expect your safeties to intercept a pass and return it 20 yards); 99% of the time fans would be ecstatic over an interception. However, because a bunch of other guys didn't do their jobs, suddenly it's on Burnett to do more to make up for everyone else's mistakes. Then the guy gets blamed for not papering over the rest of the team's issues.

The only time a player should go down after catching a football is if it clinched the win.

So while Burnett did a great job intercepting the ball he made a mistake sliding with no Seahawk within 10+ yards.

I really don't get why anybody would argue that was the right decision.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The only time a player should go down after catching a football is if it clinched the win.

So while Burnett did a great job intercepting the ball he made a mistake sliding with no Seahawk within 10+ yards.

I really don't get why anybody would argue that was the right decision.

Because the Packers had a 99.3% chance to win the game after Burnett's pick. Literally, the only way the Packers should have been able to lose was if Burnett fumbles that pick. The win probability chart link is below:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201501180sea.htm

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Because the Packers had a 99.3% chance to win the game after Burnett's pick. Literally, the only way the Packers should have been able to lose was if Burnett fumbles that pick. The win probability chart link is below:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201501180sea.htm

Why should Burnett have fumbled the ball??? There was no Seahawk with 10+ yards!!! If Peppers blocks the OL Burnett should be able to return the ball into FG range without being touched.

BTW only three players out of 450 (0.67%) lost a fumble returning an interception this season.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Why should Burnett have fumbled the ball??? There was no Seahawk with 10+ yards!!! If Peppers blocks the OL Burnett should be able to return the ball into FG range without being touched.

BTW only three players out of 450 (0.67%) lost a fumble returning an interception this season.

Here we go with the 'ifs' again. Peppers wasn't thinking of blocking on that play - his only concern was signaling Burnett to get down, so you can take Peppers out of the equation as he was running towards Burnett waving at him to get down and ignoring the linemen (it wouldn't have surprised me to see Peppers tackle Burnett if Burnett had decided to keep running). I have also seen defensive players lose the ball without even getting hit because they aren't used to handling the ball. At that point, playing by the percentages, going down was the right thing to do, you can't argue with that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Here we go with the 'ifs' again. Peppers wasn't thinking of blocking on that play - his only concern was signaling Burnett to get down, so you can take Peppers out of the equation as he was running towards Burnett waving at him to get down and ignoring the linemen (it wouldn't have surprised me to see Peppers tackle Burnett if Burnett had decided to keep running). I have also seen defensive players lose the ball without even getting hit because they aren't used to handling the ball. At that point, playing by the percentages, going down was the right thing to do, you can't argue with that.

I'm arguing about that though as it's obvious in my opinion that it was a bad decision.

Let's take a look at the numbers this season: The Packers returned 18 interceptions this season for an average of 22 yards and three TDs without fumbling once.

In the entire league 47 of 450 interceptions were returned for a TD while only three fumbles were lost.

Playing by the percentages it was the wrong decision.

 

[MadCat]

Burnett was pretty clear in the locker room interview that he was doing what he had been instructed to do. So to say he even had a choice is debatable. With even a little aggressiveness on offense, we should have still had an opportunity to push the ball down the field for a field goal, whether he went to the ground or not. I have a hard time understanding how a player doing the job he is instructed to do becomes a mistake on his part.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I'm arguing about that though as it's obvious in my opinion that it was a bad decision.

Let's take a look at the numbers this season: The Packers returned 18 interceptions this season for an average of 22 yards and three TDs without fumbling once.

In the entire league 47 of 450 interceptions were returned for a TD while only three fumbles were lost.

Playing by the percentages it was the wrong decision.

The only reason you believe it was the wrong decision is because of 20/20 hind sight. If the Packers had won, I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining about it. You are also only looking at the percentage of him fumbling, which I'm not talking about. I'm talking about what was pointed out in an earlier post that in that situation, the Packers had a 99.3% chance of winning the game by him going down after the interception. That's the percentage I'm saying you can't argue with.

 

[adambr2]

The only reason you believe it was the wrong decision is because of 20/20 hind sight. If the Packers had won, I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining about it. You are also only looking at the percentage of him fumbling, which I'm not talking about. I'm talking about what was pointed out in an earlier post that in that situation, the Packers had a 99.3% chance of winning the game by him going down after the interception. That's the percentage I'm saying you can't argue with.

Is 99.3% 100%?

No. It is not.

It also does not take into account an enormous momentum shift at one of the most hostile NFL environments possible. It does not take into account that we have an inconsistent defense known for looking great at times and atrocious in spurts. It does not take into account that we had a struggling punter who was unlikely to be much help in the field position battle. It does not take into account that we would not have Clay Matthews on the field for the last 2 drives. All things that worked to Seattle's favor.

You do not dive to the ground after an INT unless you have a 100% chance of winning afterwards (clock expires or victory formation).

Of course nobody would be talking about it if we had won. Nor would we be talking about Hail Mary 2 point conversions or failed onside kick recoveries. We'd be celebrating despite all of it. But it's all up for debate now that it all led to the collapse.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Burnett was pretty clear in the locker room interview that he was doing what he had been instructed to do.

By whom? Peppers who was waving him down instead of blocking? My immediate reaction was, "why did you do that?!" which drew laughter from the other room I might add.

Burnett could have run ten yards and slid at the very least. In their heads, the Packers had won the game at that point. The sideline celebration led by Matthews was indication of possible trouble brewing. The adrenalin crash ensued.

 

[adambr2]

Here we go with the 'ifs' again. Peppers wasn't thinking of blocking on that play - his only concern was signaling Burnett to get down, so you can take Peppers out of the equation as he was running towards Burnett waving at him to get down and ignoring the linemen (it wouldn't have surprised me to see Peppers tackle Burnett if Burnett had decided to keep running). I have also seen defensive players lose the ball without even getting hit because they aren't used to handling the ball. At that point, playing by the percentages, going down was the right thing to do, you can't argue with that.

No, it was not, and it was not the best percentages play. Where was the nearest tackler coming from?

Also, give me a break with this 'defensive players lose the ball without being hit because they aren't used to handling the ball. ' They have all ran with an object in their hands before. They have all held a football before, they know what it feels like. This is just utter nonsense. Show me the stat that shows defensive players tend to just 'drop' the football more since they aren't used to handling it.

As Captain already pointed out the chances of him fumbling were well under 1%. His chances of improving our field position were essentially 100%. I don't know what his chances of scoring were, but they were definitely much better than 1%.

I asked at the beginning of this thread for an example in NFL history before this where a defensive player simply gave himself up immediately after a turnover with over 5 minutes left up less than 2 full scores. So far no one has been able to find one example. If it's such obviously the right statistical move, surely we can find at least one prior incidence of it happening.

 

[adambr2]

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

What is Kam doing here? 14 point lead at that point in the game, isn't the percentage play just to go right down and give himself up? Doesn't he know that, as a defensive player, he might easily just drop the football since he is not used to holding one?

They will never get to the Super Bowl with that kind of foolishness on D.

 

[GoPGo]

Here we go with the 'ifs' again. Peppers wasn't thinking of blocking on that play - his only concern was signaling Burnett to get down, so you can take Peppers out of the equation as he was running towards Burnett waving at him to get down and ignoring the linemen (it wouldn't have surprised me to see Peppers tackle Burnett if Burnett had decided to keep running). I have also seen defensive players lose the ball without even getting hit because they aren't used to handling the ball. At that point, playing by the percentages, going down was the right thing to do, you can't argue with that.

This is utter nonsense. As captainWIMM already pointed out, fumbles on INT returns are so rare as to render them unworthy of consideration. And we already know Peppers wasn't thinking of blocking, but he damn well should have been. If Burnett scores, the game is over. If he doesn't, then he picks up as much yardage as possible to ensure a FG and you can worry about running the clock at that point. Gaining yardage is NEVER a detriment.

 

[GoPGo]

What is Kam doing here?

Going for the kill? Hammering the final nail? Delivering the "dagger?"

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

It also does not take into account an enormous momentum shift at one of the most hostile NFL environments possible.

Are you suggesting that Seattle had an enormous momentum shift because Burnett went to the ground? That's quite a stretch, Green Bay should have had the enormous momentum shift from the turnover.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Also, give me a break with this 'defensive players lose the ball without being hit because they aren't used to handling the ball. ' They have all ran with an object in their hands before. They have all held a football before, they know what it feels like. This is just utter nonsense. Show me the stat that shows defensive players tend to just 'drop' the football more since they aren't used to handling it.

Give me a break - I never said defensive players tend to just drop the ball. I just said that I've seen it happen before, a fact, that's all. By Burnett going to the ground, that eliminated any chance of him turning the ball over. You will never convince me that it was a bad play on his part and obviously I'm never going to convince you otherwise - so I'm done with this conversation.