That 2nd and 31 play

[pacmaniac]

Where Matthews got the sack, and then they got the personal foul on Seattle, but had to decline it? Shouldn't that have added to it and made it 2nd and 46?

Not like it matters, I'm sure they would have converted on 3rd and 46.

 

[Carl]

Yeah, that was a bad call. Personal foul was after the play was over.

 

[OldSchool101]

Where Matthews got the sack, and then they got the personal foul on Seattle, but had to decline it? Shouldn't that have added to it and made it 2nd and 46?

Not like it matters, I'm sure they would have converted on 3rd and 46.

Well. Don wouldve rushed 3 like he did on 3rd and 19. That was the beginning of the end IMO

 

[PackerXLV]

Well. Don wouldve rushed 3 like he did on 3rd and 19. That was the beginning of the end IMO

I completely agree.

as soon as I saw Matthews split wide to cover pass, that was it... and honestly, it wasn't even a rush, it looked like a 3 man spy with zero pressure from the edge. Just a really bad play and definitely the start of our demise.

 

[HaHa'sRightGlove]

I completely agree.

as soon as I saw Matthews split wide to cover pass, that was it... and honestly, it wasn't even a rush, it looked like a 3 man spy with zero pressure from the edge. Just a really bad play and definitely the start of our demise.

I thought exactly this. There was very little effort until 5 or 6 seconds into the play when they attempted to shed their block. Very poor.

 

[Jeff armstrong]

Well. Don wouldve rushed 3 like he did on 3rd and 19. That was the beginning of the end IMO

Completely agree. The 3 man rush fails over and over and yet coaches continue to use it on 3rd and long. I do not understand how they do not see that it allows the qb too much time . Run your normal rush or even blitz to hurry the throw. That call by Capers started the downward slide.

 

[profile_removed]

How do you not take that penalty even if it remains first down...1st and 46 isn't doable!

 

[Ceodore]

So it should have been 2nd and 46 right?

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

How do you not take that penalty even if it remains first down...1st and 46 isn't doable!

Because it wouldn't have been 1st and 46, it would have been 1st and 25. Taking the penalty would have negated the play and 15 yards would have been marked off from the line of scrimmage, not from the spot of the foul. It made more sense to take the play because then the down counted and they also lost 21 yards on the play. But IMO the penalty happened after the play was over so it should have been a dead ball foul which then they would have marked it off from the spot of the foul an would have made it 2nd and 46. Otherwise it gives the offense incentive to commit personal fouls on a play where they lose a lot of yardage as they know the penalty will be declined anyway. If they don't call it a dead ball foul, then they should at least make it a spot foul and mark off the penalty from the spot of the foul. They need to do something so it doesn't encourage the offense to commit a personal foul on a play like that, like enforcing a personal foul on the kickoff when the defense commits a personal foul on the extra point attempt.

 

[Sky King]

The old axiom is that teams will rush bad QBs and drop into coverage for good QBs. Wilson is normally a good QB but he was having a horrendous day, as in single-digit QB rating horrendous. That low rating did not result from a three-man rush. But when a team gets away from what got them there the pseudo wisdom of such a choice begs to be questioned. Fix what's broke not break what's fixed.

 

[profile_removed]

It WOULD have been 1st and 46. They had a 1st and 15 due to a false start. The sack knocked them back. The foul was dead ball, why you don't take a dead ball foul every time is beyond me.

 

[adambr2]

It WOULD have been 1st and 46. They had a 1st and 15 due to a false start. The sack knocked them back. The foul was dead ball, why you don't take a dead ball foul every time is beyond me.

No, it wasn't. If it's a dead ball foul after a play, the down counts, so it would have been 2nd and 46. So basically you're saying that McCarthy turned down a free 15 yards. Really think that's true?

 

[PackerXLV]

It WOULD have been 1st and 46. They had a 1st and 15 due to a false start. The sack knocked them back. The foul was dead ball, why you don't take a dead ball foul every time is beyond me.

It wasn't a dead ball foul, otherwise they would have taken the penalty. It SHOULD have been a deemed a dead ball foul, do to the running being downed by contact. Just because it was bang-bang doesn't mean it wasn't after the play. It was just as bang-bang as Lang (I think) from the week before who peeled a go from Dallas the pile just as the whistle blew. Pretty poor officiating if you ask me.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It WOULD have been 1st and 46. They had a 1st and 15 due to a false start. The sack knocked them back. The foul was dead ball, why you don't take a dead ball foul every time is beyond me.

If the referees would have assessed it as a dead ball foul the play would have resulted in 2nd-and-46.

It wasn't a dead ball foul, otherwise they would have taken the penalty. It SHOULD have been a deemed a dead ball foul, do to the running being downed by contact. Just because it was bang-bang doesn't mean it wasn't after the play. It was just as bang-bang as Lang (I think) from the week before who peeled a go from Dallas the pile just as the whistle blew. Pretty poor officiating if you ask me.

Just watched the replay and it seems like Sweezy hit Matthews before the refs blew the whistle so I see why they don´t called it a dead ball foul.

 

[PackerXLV]

If the referees would have assessed it as a dead ball foul the play would have resulted in 2nd-and-46.



Just watched the replay and it seems like Sweezy hit Matthews before the refs blew the whistle so I see why they don´t called it a dead ball foul.

I just wished they could gauge that based on when the runner is down, ya know?