The Morgan Burnett INT

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
136
Does anyone know if he even had a lot of room to run? How much open field was in front of him on that INT? Does anyone know for SURE? Could he have scored a TD? Gotten us into FG position? Or are we only talking about maybe 10 yards from where he killed it or something?

In other words, if Burnett took off and ran, what would have happened where yardage was concerned?

You know whats funny though? At the time that the INT happened, I was actually yelling at the TV for him to get down too. This was one of those situations that "at the time" it seemed like the smart thing to do. We were up 19-7 with 5 minutes left and had no idea that the mental meltdown was coming.

So either way, its just a hindsight 20/20 thing I guess.
 

Packman Chant

Lambeau West
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
242
Reaction score
21
Location
California
I watched the replay a couple times and honestly MY opinion is he could have definitely gotten into FG position If not scored. You can see the Hawks lineman in the shot but that's really all. Not sure if Wilson could have chased him down and made he stop but he definitely should took the ball the distance either way. It's just one of those I the moment not a lot of time to think decisions, not to mention big Julius peppers was the one signaling to get down...don't think many people will go against his word. It's unfortunate.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
4,761
Reaction score
445
Does anyone know if he even had a lot of room to run? How much open field was in front of him on that INT? Does anyone know for SURE? Could he have scored a TD? Gotten us into FG position? Or are we only talking about maybe 10 yards from where he killed it or something?

In other words, if Burnett took off and ran, what would have happened where yardage was concerned?

You know whats funny though? At the time that the INT happened, I was actually yelling at the TV for him to get down too. This was one of those situations that "at the time" it seemed like the smart thing to do. We were up 19-7 with 5 minutes left and had no idea that the mental meltdown was coming.

So either way, its just a hindsight 20/20 thing I guess.


This is the thing; what was the situation in front of him? Something I've yet to see mentioned is he would have had the option to go to ground 20 plus yards downfield, also. Or out of bounds.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
The only lineman that might have gotten a hand on him was Sweezy and if Peppers had been blocking, he would have taken care of that. I'm not convinced Wilson can tackle. Just by what you can see, he could have EASILY gotten another 15 yard and probably more and there's certainly a chance he could have taken it to the house.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
At the time that the INT happened, I was actually yelling at the TV for him to get down too. This was one of those situations that "at the time" it seemed like the smart thing to do.

How so? When is it ever smart to turn down free yardage and increase your chances of scoring? To run clock? If nobody stops him he scores 6 and puts the game away. If they do, then you can run clock at that point and be in FG range. If the argument is that he might fumble or something, well hell... why bother returning INTs at all?
 

HaHa'sRightGlove

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
Location
London, UK
Okay, so Image 1 is the field when Russell Wilson releases the ball, and Image 2 is the field as Burnett slides down. Could he have gained more yards? Could he have ran up near the left sideline?

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


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

HaHa'sRightGlove

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
Location
London, UK
On reflection after letting my emotions of Sunday die down a little, I don't think Burnett sliding is a massive deal. If he had returned it and fumbled, we would have been on his back saying he simply has to go down there. I think with 5 minutes left and up two possessions with the ball at our 55, I don't think it's absolutely crucial to try and house it or be too aggressive with it, but it's the ensuing first down in which it started to fall apart for us in terms of bad decision making.
 
OP
OP
Vrill

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
136
How so? When is it ever smart to turn down free yardage and increase your chances of scoring? To run clock? If nobody stops him he scores 6 and puts the game away. If they do, then you can run clock at that point and be in FG range. If the argument is that he might fumble or something, well hell... why bother returning INTs at all?

You see it a lot. What Burnett did is not some isolated incident. You see INT's happen toward the end of games and players getting down. What Burnett did wasn't anything new. It happens a lot in Football at all levels. So I wasn't surprised in what he did at all. I was just curious if he had a lot of room to run is all.

Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody in a million years could have predicted the way that the game went from there.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,551
Reaction score
2,325
On reflection after letting my emotions of Sunday die down a little, I don't think Burnett sliding is a massive deal. If he had returned it and fumbled, we would have been on his back saying he simply has to go down there. I think with 5 minutes left and up two possessions with the ball at our 55, I don't think it's absolutely crucial to try and house it or be too aggressive with it, but it's the ensuing first down in which it started to fall apart for us in terms of bad decision making.

Burnett should have returned the interception, it wasn´t a game clinching INT like Shields´ one in the 2010 NFCCG against the Bears which he actually inexplicably returned for 32 yards instead of immediately going down. The NFL hasn´t released the All-22 film of the game but I´m curious to see how much space Burnett actually had to run.
 
OP
OP
Vrill

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
136
I'll change my mind if it shows that Burnett had a clear path to the end zone. You always take the pick six if its a clear path with no resistance in situations like that. Even when your up big.

Hell, even getting on Seattle's side of the field would have been big. At least in FG range.

And looking at those pictures above, it looks like Burnett could have made it to the Seattle 20-25 yard line AT LEAST without much effort...he may even of scored a TD if he breaks Wilson's tackle or avoids him. All that was ahead of him were OL and Wilson.
 
Last edited:

HaHa'sRightGlove

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
Location
London, UK
Burnett should have returned the interception, it wasn´t a game clinching INT like Shields´ one in the 2010 NFCCG against the Bears which he actually inexplicably returned for 32 yards instead of immediately going down. The NFL hasn´t released the All-22 film of the game but I´m curious to see how much space Burnett actually had to run.
I took the best screenshot I could of the best two angles of the play just above my first post. First 8 minutes of the All-22 are available, the rest should be up pretty soon.
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
Im confident that he was taking direction from the coaching staff. i dont blame him, but its one of several key plays that ruined it for us
 
OP
OP
Vrill

Vrill

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
136
On reflection after letting my emotions of Sunday die down a little, I don't think Burnett sliding is a massive deal. If he had returned it and fumbled, we would have been on his back saying he simply has to go down there. I think with 5 minutes left and up two possessions with the ball at our 55, I don't think it's absolutely crucial to try and house it or be too aggressive with it, but it's the ensuing first down in which it started to fall apart for us in terms of bad decision making.

I agree with you. Its the play calling after the INT that sucked more than the INT situation itself. I wish we were a lot more aggressive.

Jimmy Johnson says you pass on 1st down and run on 2nd down against Seattle due to how they substitute their DL. Big run stuffers on 1st down and smaller pass rushers on 2nd down. I bet Old Bill and Tom took note of that for the SB.

I was honestly halfway expecting a play action pass on the following 1st down. I know its a lot coming from coach MM, but some reason, I expected more at that point and time and it didn't come.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
379
You see it a lot. What Burnett did is not some isolated incident. You see INT's happen toward the end of games and players getting down. What Burnett did wasn't anything new. It happens a lot in Football at all levels. So I wasn't surprised in what he did at all. I was just curious if he had a lot of room to run is all.

Hindsight is 20/20. Nobody in a million years could have predicted the way that the game went from there.

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.
 

BigBayBlues

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
98
Reaction score
28
Location
Chicago, IL
This is one play that I don't understand why people are upset. He is a defensive player who made a pick in a clutch situation. He executed. Then the offense came in and crapped the bed. What more could you ask for from your safety with 5 minutes left in a championship game? People are really being way too critical on this play with the benefit of hindsight. Way more instances of people NOT executing in this game that cost us the win.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
379
This is one play that I don't understand why people are upset. He is a defensive player who made a pick in a clutch situation. He executed. Then the offense came in and crapped the bed. What more could you ask for from your safety with 5 minutes left in a championship game? People are really being way too critical on this play with the benefit of hindsight. Way more instances of people NOT executing in this game that cost us the win.

Because he had a chance to seal the game, and he wasn't willing to go for that prize because of the extremely marginal risk of fumbling the football at a time that he was clearly aware of the importance of ball security.

A kickoff returner who returns a kickoff to midfield has made a good play. That doesn't mean that he didn't screw up if he then runs out of bounds at midfield with 1 man to beat.
 

BigBayBlues

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
98
Reaction score
28
Location
Chicago, IL
Because he had a chance to seal the game, and he wasn't willing to go for that prize because of the extremely marginal risk of fumbling the football at a time that he was clearly aware of the importance of ball security.

A kickoff returner who returns a kickoff to midfield has made a good play. That doesn't mean that he didn't screw up if he then runs out of bounds at midfield with 1 man to beat.

I'm not saying what he did was perfect. I just feel like there has been way too much talk about an interception in our favor when there were much more glaring issues that cost us the games.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
379
I'm not saying what he did was perfect. I just feel like there has been way too much talk about an interception in our favor when there were much more glaring issues that cost us the games.

Bostick's play was no doubt far more costly but I can respect the fact that he at least admitted he made a mistake.

Really there are 5-7 plays in that second half that, if just one of them goes differently, we're going to the Super Bowl. It's heartbreaking.
 

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
329
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
There is a long list of failures to win this game. None of them are trivial and both collectively and individually they represent a lost opportunity to advance to the SB. Is there any doubt that the passivity shown by Burnett represented how timidly the game was played from that point forward? The only exception was Bostick's stupid aggressive move that he failed miserably to execute. In all cases they performed as though the game had already been won and running off the clock was a mere formality.

The Packers played well enough to win for over 55 minutes, then abandoned what had been working all along in favor of a very meek approach to running out the clock. Except that there was way more time on the clock than MM had calculated for that to work. Clever.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,158
Reaction score
475
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. The Packers should have won that game. How could Burnett know that McCarthy was gonna throw the game away?
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,551
Reaction score
2,325
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. The Packers should have won that game. How could Burnett know that McCarthy was gonna throw the game away?

There was no Seahawks player within 10+ yards of Burnett at the time he slid. He´s a pretty fast player and Wilson was the only player on the Seahawks other than offensive tackles between him and the end zone. I would have liked him to at least try to return the pick.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,158
Reaction score
475
There was no Seahawks player within 10+ yards of Burnett at the time he slid. He´s a pretty fast player and Wilson was the only player on the Seahawks other than offensive tackles between him and the end zone. I would have liked him to at least try to return the pick.

The only way the Packers should have lost that game is if Burnett turns that ball over. There's zero chance he turns it over by going to the ground, there's a possiblity that he fumbles it without contact if he tries to run. The only reason people are upset at him going down is because the coaches and other players screwed up. Burnett couldn't have seen that coming.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
27,551
Reaction score
2,325
The only way the Packers should have lost that game is if Burnett turns that ball over. There's zero chance he turns it over by going to the ground, there's a possiblity that he fumbles it without contact if he tries to run. The only reason people are upset at him going down is because the coaches and other players screwed up. Burnett couldn't have seen that coming.

There was absolutely no reason for him to go down because the interception didn´t clinch the win. Just my two cents.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,158
Reaction score
475
There was absolutely no reason for him to go down because the interception didn´t clinch the win. Just my two cents.

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.

The scenario that ended up playing out was almost impossible (I say almost only because it happened). Nobody thought the Packers would lose four yards on their next three plays. That the Seahawks (with ZERO big play receiver threat) would go 69 yards for a TD in 1:43 and then the Packers would fumble the onside kick and then Seattle's offense would go 50 yards in 44 seconds!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Top