Failmary fallout

Poppa San

* Team Owner *
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12,821
Reaction score
2,737
Location
20 miles from Lambeau
About the only difference would have been that by the end of the season, the 9er defense had worn down, shown by the scores put up against them the last 3 weeks. They don't get the week off to recharge and instead have to chase AP or Lynch around may have been to our advantage. Along with the flight and 25 degree gametime temp.
 

LZ13

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 13, 2012
Messages
211
Reaction score
10
Very hard to answer the OP question. If we win, then perhaps we get complacent and lose a game or two that we if fact won. Or maybe we win exactly one more game or even more than one? Or not. We won a lot of close games this year - just a tweaking of the whole team psychology could have changed that.

Ultimately, though, I think the season boils down to what we do with the talent we have (or don't have). I see us as perhaps 3rd best in the NFL behind New England and SF. Not bad, but not good enough to win it all.
 

P-E-Z

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2011
Messages
602
Reaction score
51
Home field makes little difference in that game.

If this game were played at Lambeau Field, would Capers have magically created a scheme where his defense covered the quarterback? Doubt it. 49ers dominated in the first matchup too. Only reason it was close was because Randall Cobb had a PR TD on an obvious penalty.

No but if it was cold enough would have made a difference. Numb fingers abruptly makes a difference.
 

jaybadger82

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
837
Reaction score
83
Hypothetical what-if are factually incorrect, you're right. However pointing to the situation that caused us to lose out on the bye and saying: "man, if we'd have played that differently", is not.

You can't point to a game and reasonably say "if that one call wasn't made...", because then you get into a ***-for-tat mindset. Yes it was a poorely officiated game, if we'd have had different officials it would have been a whole nother game. Who knows, maybe we wouldn't have even been in the position to lose because we wouldn't have gone up on a Jennings TD that he committed Off-Pass Interference on.

Fact remains that we still could have secured a first round bye and a home Divisonal game after that game, and had the chance to do so through week 17. We didn't get it done. The only way your argument holds any water, imo, is if the Packers would have been eliminated from the chance of finishing with the 1st or 2nd overall seed by losing that game; that is not the case.

-Sure. I understand your argument. It's just logically flawed.

Not sure how you can disagree with the logic of my earlier post: if the correct call had been made at the end of the Seahawk game and the remainder of the season played out as it had, we would have had twelve wins heading into week 17, thus locking up the two seed regardless of outcome against the Vikings. (I would love to read your explanation for disagreeing with this reasoning, by the way).

Your argument boils down to the premise that because the Packers had the opportunity to lock up the two seed in week 17 against the Vikings, the mistaken outcome of the Seattle game is moot. Not correct.

Although we could have locked up the two seed in week 17, that does not eliminate the blunder in Seattle or change the fact that the Packers had to expend energy/resources game planning for a critical week 17 game as well as the wild card round playoff game when they could have been resting up.

Though there's no way to know the outcome of such circumstances, if you can't recognize the advantage of a meaningless game followed by a bye v. playing two must-win contests, then you're being obstinate. I know which one NFL coaches and front offices would unanimously select. The Fail Mary had very real consequences on the conclusion of our season.

The NFL season is a marathon, not a sprint, and the games played on Sunday don't exist in a vacuum.
 

NorthWestCheeseHead

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
103
Wow, I'm really pissed right now. Just cleared my entire response that I'd been writing, on and off, for the last hour. It also contained a quote of your original post prior to your edits. I like how you removed the baseless slander; that was nice.

You still continuously say that I'm being illogical and calming that your conclusions are so logical without even bothering to state why you think that my conclusions are not reasonable. I don't know maybe that is an oversight on your part. Or maybe you just think, mistakenly, that "logic" is determined by what you agree with.

I'm done with this discussion though. You seem hell-bent on telling me just how wrong I am; where as, all I'm saying is that I don't look at it from the same perspective. Keep in mind you're the one that came at me, not the other way around. I see no reason to continue this discussion.
If you wanna keep crying about the Seahawks pissing in your Cheerios - have at it. I've better things to do with my time.

Your final sentence is laughable at best in the context of your overall post:
"The NFL season is a marathon, not a sprint, and the games played on Sunday don't exist in a vacuum."
Yet your whole contention is based on the idea that it did happen in a vacuum and that changing its outcome would have affected nothing else in the season.

Good day sir, I shall be avoiding you on the forums henceforth; welcome to my "ignore list" you're an inaugural member. Kudos.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top