The Morgan Burnett INT

Status
Not open for further replies.

MadCat

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
546
Reaction score
310
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.
He said he saw the signal to go down and that the objective was to secure the ball and to give it back our offense, which is correct. What people refuse to see is that after we got the ball back, our play caller also decided we didn't need any more yards! At least Burnett did his job to take the ball away from Seattle. At that point it became the job of the coach and offense to continue to control possession of the ball for as long as they could in the remaining minutes and they made the lamest attempt ever to do that. Let's say Burnett runs it back another ten yards. With the game plan they had going (rushes for losses) there's no guarantee we would have even gotten into field goal range anyway. Meanwhile, the guys on D were probably celebrating because they weren't expecting to have to go back out on the field. I fully expected our offense to try to either score or run out most, if not all, of the clock.
 
Last edited:

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
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.

As I said before I don't necessarily blame Burnett himself, I can't criticize him for not going directly against coaches orders if those were indeed the orders and instructions for that drive. I criticize the strategy itself, whether it was from the coaches, Burnett, Peppers, whoever.

Also, it kind of blows my mind that the same folks that are okay with seeing one of our defensive players immediately kill a play by going straight to the ground despite having wide open field all around him out of fear that he will somehow just drop the ball with no contact, are also critical of MM for not trying to throw passes downfield to close out the game against the #1 D in the loudest, hardest place to play in the NFL.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
Also, it kind of blows my mind that the same folks that are okay with seeing one of our defensive players immediately kill a play by going straight to the ground despite having wide open field all around him out of fear that he will somehow just drop the ball with no contact, are also critical of MM for not trying to throw passes downfield to close out the game against the #1 D in the loudest, hardest place to play in the NFL.

Imagine the logic: "Forget returning the ball into FG range. Let's see if our offense can get us there instead!"
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
He said he saw the signal to go down and that the objective was to secure the ball and to give it back our offense, which is correct. What people refuse to see is that after we got the ball back, our play caller also decided we didn't need any more yards!

Which is it? Did we need more yards or not? If we did, why not let Burnett get the easy pickings instead of going against Seattle's defense for the same thing? It makes NO SENSE.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
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.
Yeah, and they could have. But they forfeited it by giving up on the play. They took a play that could have been the back-breaker and turned it into a glimmer of hope for the home team.
 

MadCat

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
546
Reaction score
310
Which is it? Did we need more yards or not? If we did, why not let Burnett get the easy pickings instead of going against Seattle's defense for the same thing? It makes NO SENSE.
Don't ask me, ask the coaching staff. I didn't signal for him to go to the ground. I am also not the one who called for three running plays afterwards as if it didn't matter whether we advanced. There's no question it would have been easier for him to pick up the yardage, and I would personally have liked to see him run the ball back. But he stated that he was instructed not to advance the ball, and if that instruction came from the coaching staff, he had no choice. I can't explain that, any more than I can explain the lack of aggression after the INT, the backing off the pass rush down the stretch, the coach's mistrust in the players from start to finish, or Clay hanging out on the sidelines; those things all cost us a lot more than a 10 or 15 yard pick up.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
or Clay hanging out on the sidelines; those things all cost us a lot more than a 10 or 15 yard pick up.

Again with the false pretense. He had a LOT more space ahead of him than 10-15 yards.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
He said he saw the signal to go down and that the objective was to secure the ball and to give it back our offense, which is correct. What people refuse to see is that after we got the ball back, our play caller also decided we didn't need any more yards!
I don't refuse to see that. I see a complete constellation of mistakes, mental and physical. As with most problems that resist a ready answer, whether in football or elsewhere, there are likely multiple causes.
 

Daryl Muellenberg

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
207
Reaction score
7
He could have picked up another 15 or 20 yards and ran out of bounds to accomplish the same thing!

Obviously you weren't following the conversation. I said that I have seen a defensive player lose the ball without being hit before, not that it's a common thing but I have seen it happen before. I said by him going down, it removes any possibility of him turning the ball over. Running another 15-20 yards doesn't completely eliminate that possibility.
 

GoPGo

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
150
Obviously you weren't following the conversation. I said that I have seen a defensive player lose the ball without being hit before, not that it's a common thing but I have seen it happen before. I said by him going down, it removes any possibility of him turning the ball over. Running another 15-20 yards doesn't completely eliminate that possibility.
Usually guys who drop the ball for no reason are defensive linemen. If you think it's worth throwing away 15-20 yards over the extremely remote chance that a former punt returner would fumble the ball for no reason, then I assume you also advocate TEs and WRs sliding immediately after the catch to prevent the equally remote chance that they, too, might fumble. Do you see how ludicrous the entire "he might fumble" line of reasoning is? This is playoff football and Burnett isn't Letroy Guion in the hands department.

And since fumbles are universally bad no matter when they occur in a game, maybe all defensive players should be instructed to immediately hit the dirt as soon as they pick off a pass. No more INT returns ever, right?
 

MadCat

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
546
Reaction score
310
Again with the false pretense. He had a LOT more space ahead of him than 10-15 yards.
Do you think his mistake could be overcome by our offense, that is, if they had not quit?
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,382
Reaction score
4,105
Location
Milwaukee
Usually guys who drop the ball for no reason are defensive linemen. If you think it's worth throwing away 15-20 yards over the extremely remote chance that a former punt returner would fumble the ball for no reason, then I assume you also advocate TEs and WRs sliding immediately after the catch to prevent the equally remote chance that they, too, might fumble. Do you see how ludicrous the entire "he might fumble" line of reasoning is? This is playoff football and Burnett isn't Letroy Guion in the hands department.

And since fumbles are universally bad no matter when they occur in a game, maybe all defensive players should be instructed to immediately hit the dirt as soon as they pick off a pass. No more INT returns ever, right?

time to end this thread when posters are doing this to debates
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Top