The Morgan Burnett INT

[adambr2]

He did the right thing. At that point in the game, about the worst thing he could have done was turn the ball over. He's not an offensive player, he could fumble.

I'd say fumbling the ball after an INT is the worst thing a player could do at any point in the game. And generally players catching INT's are defensive players. Should defensive backs always immediately go down after an INT and turn it over to their offensive skill players because they "could fumble"?

I will ask again, please give me one example in NFL history where a healthy player simply dove to the ground after an INT with 5+ minutes left in a game that was 2 scores or less close.

The Packers should have won that game.

Yes, they should have. And had Burnett and Peppers not decided that Burnett's job was completed after he made the interception, they probably would have.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Players get down at the end of the game when they know they can run out the clock and the only scenario that would hurt their chances to win would be a fumble on the return. They don't get down with 5 minutes left. That is crazy stupid. Players are taught to fall on a fumble to secure the ball but to protect an INT with 5 minutes left....no chance.

From the pics I don't think he would have gotten much more than 10 or 15 yards though. Still would have helped.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'd say fumbling the ball after an INT is the worst thing a player could do at any point in the game. And generally players catching INT's are defensive players. Should defensive backs always immediately go down after an INT and turn it over to their offensive skill players because they "could fumble"?

I will ask again, please give me one example in NFL history where a healthy player simply dove to the ground after an INT with 5+ minutes left in a game that was 2 scores or less close.



Yes, they should have. And had Burnett and Peppers not decided that Burnett's job was completed after he made the interception, they probably would have.

I can give you lots of examples of a defensive player fumbling a turnover. Way more examples of that happening than of a team with a top-5 offense having a two score lead with 5 minutes to go and then letting a team with no real big play threat score two touchdowns in a little over 2 minutes while their own offense managed to lose four yards.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There were five minutes left in the game and the Packers were up by two scores with the ball. The Burnett interception should have clinched the game.

Yeah, it should have but there was no guarantee. I don´t want a receiver to go down neither after a catch because he could fumble the football. This was the first play during which the Packers defense played scared and it continued the rest of the way.

 

[BigBayBlues]

I can see both sides of the argument. My only point is that had the Packers not committed even one of those many other mistakes and won, Morgan Burnett would have been hailed as a hero. Morgan Burnett = made the play, didn't do as much as he could have. Quarless no catch = didn't make the play, Ha Ha 2 pt conversion = didn't make the play, Slocum field goal protection scheme = didn't make the correct call, Capers cover zero scheme on RW's OT touchdown pass = didn't make the correct call. Agreed - death by a thousand cuts, it's just some of those cuts were full out gashes.

 

[adambr2]

I can give you lots of examples of a defensive player fumbling a turnover. Way more examples of that happening than of a team with a top-5 offense having a two score lead with 5 minutes to go and then letting a team with no real big play threat score two touchdowns in a little over 2 minutes while their own offense managed to lose four yards.

I didn't ask for an example of a defensive player fumbling a turnover. I realize that this can happen in a football game. I would guess that it probably happens on 1% or so of INT's, but I'm aware it happens. I asked for an example of when a
player simply went down after an INT with 5 + minutes in the game up by 2 scores or less. You can't, because it's not done. Because it's not a smart football play.

This unbelievably passive attitude is what cost us the game in the first place. "Don't play football, you might fumble it." "Just go right down, that will make sure you still have the ball." "Down, down, down."

Look, I was SCREAMING at Sam Shields to get down after his INT in the NFC Championship 4 years ago. Why? Because that was a game-clincher, and there was absolutely nothing possibly to be gained by a return.

This was not the same situation, and it baffles me that some people can't see that. 5 minutes, with 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning remaining (4 clock stoppages preventing 2:40 from running off) is equivalent of having 7:40 left, basically half a quarter with no timeouts left).

Those who don't realize how much can happen in that much time have not been paying much attention to the NFL in this era, and have not been paying attention to how Jekyll and Hyde our defense is, and how quickly they can go from "On" to "Off." They don't remember Peyton Manning rallying for 3 TD's in 4 minutes against the Bucs on MNF. They don't remember the Eagles rattling off 28 points in 7 and a half minutes against the Giants in our Super Bowl year.

A 12 point lead with 5 minutes can disappear in a heartbeat. As we demonstrated. I can't speak for everyone else, but once the momentum shifted and Seattle was driving in our territory, I could see the writing on the wall for the nightmare finish, even when the score was still 19-7. You take nothing for granted against the defending champions with everything on the line. We did.

 

[Mondio]

I was wondering why he didn't at least run to resistance and then go down. He had 20 easy yards in front of him, run to the sideline at least so you can just step out or if you do happen to fumble there's a good chance it goes out of bounds, but you can be aggressive without being overly so and putting your position in jeopardy.

and that lead disappeared in like 45 seconds of game time

 

[adambr2]

I was wondering why he didn't at least run to resistance and then go down. He had 20 easy yards in front of him, run to the sideline at least so you can just step out or if you do happen to fumble there's a good chance it goes out of bounds, but you can be aggressive without being overly so and putting your position in jeopardy.

and that lead disappeared in like 45 seconds of game time

Exactly. I'm not saying he had to lower his shoulder and try to run over guys. But at least try to follow a couple blocks and gain some field position and then run out of bounds if you're imminently going to be tackled. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition.

 

[pacmaniac]

You take nothing for granted against the defending champions with everything on the line. We did.

Amazing how some defending champions just can't be killed. But in 2011 we laid down and let the Giants roll all over us.

 

[Brandon]

Honestly, if we could do it all over again, I would still encourage him to give himself up. With that little time left up by two scores, you're thinking you have the game in the bag- and 99% of the time you would. It was a rainy, windy day and fumbling the ball is that much easier. You have the pick, go down and let the best offense in the league pick up a couple first downs to ice the game.

I blame the offense- we couldn't even muster a single first down on that possession when it counted.

 

[pacmaniac]

I don't know where this idea of fumbling the return comes from. That doesn't happen very often. Plus offensive players are not trained to try to strip the ball. At least he could have run 10-15 yards and when a Seahawk got near him THEN slide.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

One question for all.......Roles reversed, Seahawks up by 12 and Richard Sherman is Burnett. What does Sherman do in this situation? He runs the ball in for a TD or at least another 20-40 yards. There is always the risk of a fumble on any possession, but come on.....this was a mistake by Burnett (and Peppers part) or maybe just the coaching logic of the Packers. Unless you have a clear way to run out the clock without allowing the other team the ball back......damn it......foot to the throat, pedal to the floor and WIN!

But if people want to let Burnett off the hook by saying "he could have fumbled" then anytime a defensive player intercepts or recovers a fumble, should he go down? This is the conservative type of mentality the Packers need to get away from to be a Championship caliber team.

 

[King of Jeans]

I understand going down. But take the yards they give you and then go down when you feel the pressure. He had a good chunk of yardage he could have run before getting pressured and he should have taken them.

 

[CDAPACKFAN]

I read that when Burnett intercepted it he looked up and he said that "Peppers gave him the universal sign to stop" so he did. Did anyone else read that?

 

[pacmaniac]

I read that when Burnett intercepted it he looked up and he said that "Peppers gave him the universal sign to stop" so he did. Did anyone else read that?

That's exactly what happened. Peppers blew it. This is what happens when you are on the Bears for several years - it messes up your judgement.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yes, Peppers gave him the universal sign to go down .......but Burnett made the decision to go down.

Maybe its the pressure on the field, but sometimes the proper thing to do in certain situations seems so clear to all of us sitting at home. Just like when a punt is not fielded, hits the ground and starts bouncing....how many times have we seen the receiving team players not get the heck out of the path of the ball and have it hit them?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I didn't ask for an example of a defensive player fumbling a turnover. I realize that this can happen in a football game. I would guess that it probably happens on 1% or so of INT's, but I'm aware it happens. I asked for an example of when a
player simply went down after an INT with 5 + minutes in the game up by 2 scores or less. You can't, because it's not done. Because it's not a smart football play.

This unbelievably passive attitude is what cost us the game in the first place. "Don't play football, you might fumble it." "Just go right down, that will make sure you still have the ball." "Down, down, down."

Look, I was SCREAMING at Sam Shields to get down after his INT in the NFC Championship 4 years ago. Why? Because that was a game-clincher, and there was absolutely nothing possibly to be gained by a return.

This was not the same situation, and it baffles me that some people can't see that. 5 minutes, with 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning remaining (4 clock stoppages preventing 2:40 from running off) is equivalent of having 7:40 left, basically half a quarter with no timeouts left).

Those who don't realize how much can happen in that much time have not been paying much attention to the NFL in this era, and have not been paying attention to how Jekyll and Hyde our defense is, and how quickly they can go from "On" to "Off." They don't remember Peyton Manning rallying for 3 TD's in 4 minutes against the Bucs on MNF. They don't remember the Eagles rattling off 28 points in 7 and a half minutes against the Giants in our Super Bowl year.

A 12 point lead with 5 minutes can disappear in a heartbeat. As we demonstrated. I can't speak for everyone else, but once the momentum shifted and Seattle was driving in our territory, I could see the writing on the wall for the nightmare finish, even when the score was still 19-7. You take nothing for granted against the defending champions with everything on the line. We did.

It's easy to look at the cameras and know he was wide open to run. However, within the confines of what he can see in his helmet, how does he know a WR isn't coming up behind him? Or from the side?

What's more likely

A) Burnett fumbling or
B) Packers offense (one of the 5 best in the NFL) getting a grand total of -2 yards on the ensuing possession, the defense giving up a 69 yard TD drive in less than two minutes, Seattle recovering an onside kick and then driving 50 yards for the TD in less than a minute and HaHa having NO CLUE where the ball or player were on the 2-point conversion....

Burnett did the right thing, yes, he probably could have gained yards after the INT but that play wasn't even close to being a major factor in the Packeres losing the game. It's just easy to remember and then you can blame the player rather than acknowledge that a whole bunch of players and the coaches p*ssed away a game the Packers should easily have won.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yeah, it should have but there was no guarantee. I don´t want a receiver to go down neither after a catch because he could fumble the football. This was the first play during which the Packers defense played scared and it continued the rest of the way.

Problem was that the coach was scared from the get go. How else do you expect the players to play when the headcoach is doing the same stuff?

 

[melvin dangerr]

Burnett could have run down the side and went out of bounds if he was scared of a turnover he should have went straight to the side lines and out of bounds...

 

[MadCat]

Watch Burnett's locker room interview. He was instructed to go to the ground. In hindsight it's easy to say he shouldn't have, but it doesn't matter because that wasn't the true turning point. The real problems began immediately afterwards. We wasted a good opportunity to sustain a final drive and pick up some first downs after his interception and run down the clock or better yet, score something. Instead, we gave the ball right back to them, in essence negating the interception altogether.

 

[dbain21]

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

Per Rob Domovsky on twitter

This shows burnett and peppers at the point when peppers said "no mas"

Its pretty clear that if peppers just blocks that o-lineman... maybe two people including Russell Wilson have a chance to tackle burnett on that far sideline. You'd have to think packers would have at least gotten the ball to the seattle 40 yard line.

Not to add insult to injury.

 

[King of Jeans]

That is a really good look at it. Maybe not such a great call from one our our "playoff captains"

 

[Vrill]

Please give me one example via article, video, etc. in NFL history, other than Burnett, where a player simply gave himself up with 5+ minutes to play in a game that was still in doubt (2 score or less game). There is an enormous difference between doing that before the result is decided and doing that when you're just going to head straight into victory formation. And that's not hindsight, it's just simply something that is not done.

So why did Raji not just head down right here?

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

Almost identical situation, right? You'd trust Raji's hands over Burnett's? What if he fumbles near the goal line? Heck, we almost blew that game. PLAY THE GAME FOR 60 MINUTES. It's simple.

Again, who could have predicted the way the rest of that game went? When Burnett picked that pass off, I felt like the game was over too. There was 5 minutes left. We were up 19-7. Seahawks offense hasn't done anything ALL game. So I have a bridge to sell you if you didn't feel like the game was in hand at that point. If you say otherwise, all you're doing is arguing for the sake arguing.

Hell, even Seahawk fans started filing out of the stadium after the INT.

Fact is, nobody in a million years could have predicted the events that followed.

This is a woulda coulda shoulda argument.

 

[dbain21]

That is a really good look at it. Maybe not such a great call from one our our "playoff captains"

Yep. only time you should fall to the ground is if the situation absolutely calls for it (other team has no timeouts, there 0 seconds left etc.) or when your in the end zone and a touchback is CLEARLY the best option.

 

[pacmaniac]

Its pretty clear that if peppers just blocks that o-lineman... maybe two people including Russell Wilson have a chance to tackle burnett on that far sideline. You'd have to think packers would have at least gotten the ball to the seattle 40 yard line..

Exactly, Peppers instead of doing his job of blocking, started raising the champagne glass.