Instant Classic

[familytoad]

Seahawks !

Had it all the way.

Going to the Super Bowl, they will need to play better, but this was a truly amazing finish!

Congratulations to the 2-time defending NFC Champions!

[the 'stache]

Ya, they had it all the way.

You got really lucky. I'm not going to say anymore because, really, what does it matter?

[familytoad]

Hey Bill,

I don't know how much luck was involved in this game above any other game.
It always takes some luck, but in this game, I'd say determination had a lot to do with the outcome. As bad as it was going for Seattle, you'd think it would have been easy for them to concede.

And I really like that there were no major officiating controversies in the game
Lately, that itself is newsworthy!

Let's see a fake field goal, an onside kick, and a desperate heave for a 2 point conversion, I'd say luck had a LOT to do with it. I thought I was watching a Boise State game all of a sudden, the only thing missing was the statue of liberty, or the fumble-rooski.

While the Seahawks should be credited for playing to the final whistle, the Packers could not have done more to lose that game. I'm a huge Hawks fan, but still cannot wrap my mind around that victory.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pariah1107

Let's see a fake field goal, an onside kick, and a desperate heave for a 2 point conversion, I'd say luck had a LOT to do with it.

Don't forget the coin toss too. All the lucky breaks went Seattle's way in the last 3 minutes - onside kick that should have been recovered by GB, what should have been a botched 2 point conversion, and then the coin toss.

If Seattle plays that way against NE, it will be a beatdown!!!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Ya, they had it all the way.

You got really lucky. I'm not going to say anymore because, really, what does it matter?

That's a really interesting take on things, given that Green Bay was the recipient of two lucky interceptions off the fingers of Seattle players. Given that Bostick did not do his blocking job on the on-side kick. Given that Green Bay tried to run the clock out with four minutes left, not even vaguely trying for a single first down. Given that Rodgers went to Sherman on basically the same play Sherman made against Crabtree in last year's final play, and Rodgers had avoided Sherman for the ENTIRE game earlier this year. Given that Green Bay changed their defensive coverage in overtime after being successful the entire game.

Yep, "really lucky". Say more - I'm curious to hear more about the "luck". To me it looked like perfect execution by Seattle at the end of the game. To me it looked like something that was statistically improbable, but "lucky"?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Don't forget the coin toss too. All the lucky breaks went Seattle's way in the last 3 minutes - onside kick that should have been recovered by GB, what should have been a botched 2 point conversion, and then the coin toss.

If Seattle plays that way against NE, it will be a beatdown!!!

You are right - by definition, coin tosses DO involve luck; however, given that Green Bay had stopped Seattle for 57:51 of regulation, you would think that Seattle's decision to receive was stupid. You would think that Green Bay could easily stop them and then their star, Aaron Rodgers, could easily drive for at least a field goal - game over. Luck?

The only Luck I know of was in New England yesterday, not in Seattle.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by pariah1107

...but still cannot wrap my mind around that victory.

I'm with you on that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are right - by definition, coin tosses DO involve luck; however, given that Green Bay had stopped Seattle for 57:51 of regulation, you would think that Seattle's decision to receive was stupid. You would think that Green Bay could easily stop them and then their star, Aaron Rodgers, could easily drive for at least a field goal - game over. Luck?

The only Luck I know of was in New England yesterday, not in Seattle.

No luck? So you're saying that 2 point conversion happened exactly as it was designed?

Come one, Scott. The onsides kick and 2 point conversion were luck. If either of those goes GBs way, then we're not even having this discussion.

Let me repeat, if Seattle plays the way they did yesterday against NE, they will get a beatdown!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

No luck? So you're saying that 2 point conversion happened exactly as it was designed?

Come one, Scott. The onsides kick and 2 point conversion were luck. If either of those goes GBs way, then we're not even having this discussion.

Let me repeat, if Seattle plays the way they did yesterday against NE, they will get a beatdown!

The fact that it didn't go exactly as planned is far different from "luck". Wilson scrambled, eluded the defense, the receive got open, Wilson hit him. That's football. Same for the onside kick - 16% chance of success, but not luck. The kick was executed perfectly, and as I stated earlier, Bostick did not block, but instead attempted to catch a ball when it wasn't his assignment to do so. No luck there, just perfect execution by one team and poor execution by the other.

The only luck was the coin toss, which I've already discussed.

So many things had to go right for Seattle and wrong for Green Bay, in order for things to turn out the way they did. And it all happened - statistically improbable, but not luck. I'm as amazed as anyone, but I would never say "we got lucky".

[Runscott]

David, you and Bill have gotten me thinking about 'luck' a bit more. Trying to think of times when I felt like my team got gyp'd because of 'bad luck', I really can't come up with anything. But here are some sports plays that I really do think involved luck:

• the immaculate reception
• Doug Flutie's hail mary pass
• Moises Alou getting robbed by a fan
• any play involving instant replay that was ruled incorrectly after review (or correctly) - the luck being the official drawn for the game to make such decisions
• all coin tosses
• Mickey Mantle twisting his ankle on a sprinkler head
• I would almost say the Christian Laetner's bucket, but he did have to throw it in the correct direction.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The fact that it didn't go exactly as planned is far different from "luck". Wilson scrambled, eluded the defense, the receive got open, Wilson hit him. That's football.

"It didn't go exactly as planned"

Scott, that is the VERY definition of luck.

Luck: noun - \ˈlək\ - the accidental way things happen without being planned.

Merriam-Webster's online Dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luck

[vintagetoppsguy]

Here's another definiton of luck accroding to the same source...

Luck: "success in doing or getting something"

Sounds like that onside kick, huh? Was that skill? No, it was luck.

Fate, Luck, let's forego the metaphysical debate;

Forget Smells Like Teen Spirit, Seattle Smelled Like Hot Garbage for three and a half quarters. I did not recognize that team at all.

The Pats/Hawks Super Bowl will be very competitive, GO HAWKS!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Here's another definiton of luck accroding to the same source...

Luck: "success in doing or getting something"

Sounds like that onside kick, huh? Was that skill? No, it was luck.

According to that definition, every properly executed play during any game is 'luck'

(I don't like that definition); however, I've been re-watching the highlites all morning, and I am inclined to now agree with you that the 2-point conversion had a lot of luck to it - it just looked lucky. The problem with calling it 'luck' is that it was perfectly thrown to the intended receiver, and the defense let him get open. Same for the onside kick - it was kind of lucky that Bostick abandoned his blocking role, as the guy who was intended to catch the ball was standing there with his hands ready to make the play. And of course, the lucky bounce off Bostick and to the Seattle player - that is definitely luck, but it's what has to happen on any on-side kick.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Runscott

[*]Moises Alou getting robbed by a fan

Moises Alou has admitted in the past that he couldn't have caught the ball anyway:

http://m.cubs.mlb.com/news/article/2484828/


Of course, once he got static for that admission, he recanted. Deep down inside, I think he knows he wouldn't have caught it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Moises Alou has admitted in the past that he couldn't have caught the ball anyway:

http://m.cubs.mlb.com/news/article/2484828/


Of course, once he got static for that admission, he recanted. Deep down inside, I think he knows he wouldn't have caught it.

That is well-known. The point is that at the time the Cubs thought he could have, which resulted in them falling to pieces.

[clydepepper]

Are we sure that Moises didn't just say that to get Bartman would relax and come out of hiding so he could take a shot at him?

[Runscott]

You could tell by watching the replays - very difficult if even possible.

[familytoad]

My earlier post admitted that this game took some luck.
I think *every* close game involves some...but I still contend that this game was won because of the determination of Seattle.

You gotta make your own luck sometimes.

The Super Bowl should be great, and I think they are the two best teams. That's what you want in the final game.

Some might think the luckiest team will win, but I think the team with the greatest amount of determination will win. I cannot say who that team will be, but if it only took luck, they should just flip a coin or pull a name from a basket of spinning ping pong balls.

Go Seahawks !

[itjclarke]

I don't wanna get too involved on definition of the word luck. That being said, I think Seattle got some lucky breaks late, which created opportunities for them. However, I give them full credit for executing and taking full advantage of each opportunity.

I see things like the onside kick, the GB DB who slid right after Wilson's 4th pick (blame Julius Peppers), HaHa not making a better play on the ball, as being lucky from Seattle's perspective because each relied on a GB player making errors that were outside Seattle's control. That said, Seattle did very well executing the onside kick (high bounce and look how quick Kam and company get 10 yards), and the 2pt play was an amazing play by Russell Wilson.

I think Wilson plays with incredible awareness, within the pocket, within each play, and within the overall game situation (wish Kaep had these traits). Just see the way Wilson always quickly reaches forward with the ball just before stepping out of bounds (takes a free yard), or how well he picks up receivers immediately after eluding rushers (he knows where they are and where they'll be, even while evading defenders), or when if throwing on 4th down he always puts it up and gives his guy a shot (see TD pass to Kearse in NFC championship game last year). Yesterday's 2 point play is basically a 4th down, but one in which the defense can't intercept and return it for points. I assure Wilson is aware of this rule pre-snap, so when the play breaks down, rather than take a sack or throw it away, he throws a cross body rainbow to the opposite hash... a pass what would be unacceptably dangerous in just about ANY OTHER down/distance/game situation except this one. He puts it on money, Wilson makes a play on the ball and Clinton Dix doesn't.

Seattle definitely got lucky breaks, but it took some pretty special plays by special players to capitalize. This hurts me to say since I was definitely rooting for the Packers (errr, against the Seahawks), and think GB at 5 min left in the 4th closes that one out 9 of 10 times... just not yesterday.

[Runscott]

nevermind...long, windbag response deleted.


I just got lucky and took a shower. About to get lucky and brush my teeth, then plan to get lucky and go out for coffee.

Luckily, I will not bring my computer

Scott, Just calculate the odds, 4th down conversion percentage in the NFL (45%, 98/216 probably lower with a fake field goal/punt), two point conversions (47%, 28/59 in 2014), and on side kicks (16%, 9/56 in 2014). All of these events combined 45% X 47% X 16% = a 3.4% chance of success. That's 1 in 33, a longshot in horse racing/boxing circles. I'd say that's luck, not to factor in the coin toss, or to mention Hauschka had not attempted an on side kick since 2012.

Did you really have a 3% chance to brush your teeth this morning?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by pariah1107

Scott, Just calculate the odds

Well, we thought with me getting coffee, it was 100% Guess what? I screwed around and remembered I had a package arriving before 10:00. I'm making my coffee at home instead - 1st time in a week. A conscious human decision.

With a coin it's 50/50 - luck. With football plays there are also conscious decisions to be made.

I guess the problem with the word 'luck' is that I took several statistics classes - they made you do that to get an MBA - and you CAN calculate the odds of a coin being a head or a tail. You have no say whatsoever in the matter - it is pure luck. But then there is a decision to make - take the ball or let the other team have it. Conscious decisions and physical ability to execute those decisions isn't luck.

While you can also calculate the odds of any football play outcome, you DO have a say in the matter of almost every one of them. I don't think anyone participating in this thread is taking 'consciousness' into account here. Coins don't have it - football players do. Coaches do. If you wanted to create a board game for football, and have a die you roll that 15% of the time would give you a successful onside kick, then that would be luck. But you would also have to create a die that helps you make the decision as to whether or not to kickoff and rely on your defense to hold the other team so that you could get the ball back. What kind of die would you create for that? How about the odds of Seattle, in that particular situation, with those particular players, on their home field? Can you still just roll a die and get a lucky outcome?

You guys call it whatever you want. It's a good discussion and, if you like, I have no problem with you declaring yourselves correct - David's definition of 'luck' would certainly indicate as much.

Edited to add: just read in today's paper that if this had actually been a board game, there would have been a 1% chance of Seattle winning when there were four minutes remaining - I assume they mean just after the Green Bay interception.

[itjclarke]

Scott, I think I definitely was factoring player "consciousness" when referring to Russell Wilson's game/situation awareness.

Separately with respect to the decision on an OT coin toss, every team will take the ball in OT. It's as close to a no brainer as I can imagine, so no credit for a decision there. The only reason I could ever see not doing so is if wind/weather conditions are so severe... Check that, all teams will take the ball. (an aside- I gotta think with practice a coin toss can be manipulated.. But that isn't relevant). I think many of the decisions in the final 3 minutes were already made and dictated by situation-- decision to onside kick, decision to go for 2, or to take the ball in OT. The fake FG on the other hand is a gutsy decision.

I see the Seahawks' "luck" as pertaining to anything that was outside their control (other team drops a ball, muffs a punt, makes a very poor decision, etc)... Of course the Seahawks' decisions and execution can play a big factor in increasing their odds, but no one on the Seahawks influenced GB's DB to slide after that INT. Take that example alone-- he doesn't slide, maybe he ends up in FG range.. Or at the very least, he burns a few more seconds off, so it's likely Seattle begins their last drive just after the 2 min warning, as opposed to just prior... In which case I doubt they start that drive with back to back runs.. Which maybe yields a 3rd and long... And on and on.

From the Seahawks perspective, it's lucky the Packers made a series of untimely mistakes. Again however, I fully give Seattle credit for taking full advantage through their execution. Seattle is undoubtedly a SB worthy team.

[Runscott]

You guys keep saying that something is 'luck' because it could have gone a different way. That's true of everything in life. I'm lucky I'm not breaking a finger every time I touch one to the keyboard.

Let's flip things around. I could say that the Packers were lucky that Seattle put them in a position to win (I don't believe that, but I could say it). The Packers then removed their good luck through a series of bad decisions and poor execution: Was it bad luck for the Packers that they decided not to return the interception that could have iced the game? Was it bad luck that McCarthy decided to run three straight plays when a first down and a field goal would have won it? Was it bad luck that McCarthy apparently failed to emphasize that blockers had to block on onside kicks and that there was a player behind them ready to catch it? Was it bad luck that they somehow allowed Wilson to through a helium ball up in the air and complete the 2-point conversion, or was it just poor execution by the two players who were standing around while the ball was clearly floating through the air in their direction? Were any of McCarthy's decisions bad luck?

[Runscott]

I can see how people feel the Hawks got lucky. I'm even beginning to doubt my own logic, as no one agrees with me.

I wonder if it isn't just the fact that I was at the game, watching all of these plays as they unfolded, entirely from the perspective of a Seahawks fan who wanted a miracle. Just prior to the last Wilson interception, I was thinking: "You have to execute perfectly to win this game." When he threw that interception I DID think it was over, but I still kept thinking "What do they now have to do?"

I always think that way - as long as there is a path to winning, that's what I'm thinking about. So even after the interception, I'm thinking we have to get 3-and-out and then score quick. That's what happened. Now, it was fortunate that McCarthy didn't try for a first down, but not lucky. At that point we had 2:09 left, and a time-out. I'm thinking "Kick it out of the end-zone, get a 3-and-out, then you have about 35 seconds left." It's happened before, and it's do-able. So the onside-kick was NOT a no-brainer. And apparently, Carroll thought it gave Seattle a better chance. A 15% play gives them a better chance? Perhaps he was taking his team's state of mind and physical abilities into consideration, and not thinking about the odds. Perhaps he had run the onside-kick in practice and felt very confident about it? Who knows. But it worked. No one would argue that the following touchdown was lucky, but I get it concerning the 2-point conversion. It was a wild heave toward his receivers in the end-zone;however, he probably was just hoping to get it in the area and his receiver would out-jump/out-fight the defense. Turned out he didn't need to.

Anyway, very interesting discussion - thanks.

[Runscott]

A few minutes ago I finally got around to re-watching (as in, on t.v., not from my nosebleed seats) the game, and there were three things that had to go right, that involved a bit of .....hmmmmm....'luck' - Bostick not catching the onside kick, Clinton-Dix not covering Willson on the 2-point conversion and Burnett 'downing' an interception: poor execution, stupidity and ill-advised caution.

I realize this topic is stale to most, but I probably won't get tired of it until next year's game.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

and Burnett 'downing' an interception: poor execution, stupidity and ill-advised caution.

I think Burnett made a smart decision. Look at the play again. How much additional yardage would he have gained? Maybe 5 yards? I've seen too many players try and be a hero by turning a reception into a big play and then end up turning the ball right back over.

What I didn't like was the play calls after the interception. GB should have gone for the jugular at that point. Instead, they played it conservatively and were playing not to lose instead of playing to win - run, run, run, punt - meanwhile Seattle calling timeouts between each run. GB should have shoved the ball down their throat after that interception and they failed to do so.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I think Burnett made a smart decision. Look at the play again. How much additional yardage would he have gained? Maybe 5 yards? I've seen too many players try and be a hero by turning a reception into a big play and then end up turning the ball right back over.

What I didn't like was the play calls after the interception. GB should have gone for the jugular at that point. Instead, they played it conservatively and were playing not to lose instead of playing to win - run, run, run, punt - meanwhile Seattle calling timeouts between each run. GB should have shoved the ball down their throat after that interception and they failed to do so.

The t.v. pundits always have wonderful hind-sight on this sort of thing. When the Cowboys player recovered a fumble against Detroit and then fumbled while running it, they were quick to say that Dallas could have iced the game if he had simply gone to the ground. The Burnett decision is a little different, in that another 3 points really would have iced the game. I think he could have gotten a lot more than 5 yards, but I totally understand his (and Culpepper's) decision to down it - if McCarthy had handled the rest of the game, Burnett's decision would have been wise...in hindsight.

I sure loved re-watching the game, and I was grinning ear-to-ear watching each amazing play that had to occur in order for the miracle to occur. It's weird knowing I've seen the greatest sporting event I'll ever witness in my life, but I said the same thing after Ryan's 7th no-hitter, so maybe there's more.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I think Burnett made a smart decision. Look at the play again. How much additional yardage would he have gained? Maybe 5 yards? I've seen too many players try and be a hero by turning a reception into a big play and then end up turning the ball right back over.

Here's the field. Burnett could have returned the ball, maybe gotten into field goal range. He certainly would have improved the Packer field position. With the offense struggling, and an opposing quarterback handing out turnovers, why not try?



I agree that the Packers didn't put them away when they should have. They didn't go for the jugular. But I don't know how anybody can think the more talented of the two teams is going to the Super Bowl. The Packers have played two other games in Seattle recently. The first one, Seattle was gifted a win with a botched replacement ref call. Refs who were fired by the league after the game. The next game, Seattle won by a few scores. But considering three fifths of the offensive line was new, and our defensive line was patchwork (look at the yards allowed in the first half of the season when they were trying to find a replacement for Raji vs running yards allowed in the second half of the season. Night and day), the defending champs playing at home after winning the Super Bowl should have won.

The Packers gave New England a blueprint on how to beat them. Only Hoodie won't wuss out and just run the ball into the middle of the line six times. And he won't hand the ball to the fullback on first and goal at the 1 yard line, either.

The Packers beat themselves. Anybody who feels differently is a homer, or lying to themselves.

[Runscott]

.......

[arc2q]

I'm way late on joining this thread. Not sure how I missed it. I agree with Scott. Luck is a factor on every play - maybe multiple times a play. Success in sports can never be attributed simply to luck. Sure there were a couple of plays that were pivotal and could have changed the course of the outcome. But those kind of plays go both direction. By the same argument that the Packers "gave the game away" one could easy argue the Seahawks poor play in the first half gave the lead to the Packers in the first place.

The Seahawks won because they were the better team. When it mattered most they made the plays. The final score shows they were the better team that deserved to win.

I've rewatched the game now several times. Why did Buck and Aikman (not to mention most of the media afterwards) not even mention that Clay Matthews sat out the entire 4th quarter? Their best defensive player was on the sideline when it mattered most. If that had been a player like Jay Cutler he would have been eviscerated by the media. The cameramen were even trying to prompt the announcers to say something about Matthews watching as Marshawn Lynch ran all over the Packers defense.

Seahawks 24 - Patriots 12

[the 'stache]

The Seahawks won because their defense was healthy, and Aaron Rodgers was not. That's what it boils down to.

A big part of what makes Rodgers so dangerous is that he's a great pocket passer, AND he's the best quarterback in the NFL at creating when the play breaks down. He can go off script, and his receivers are outstanding at doing that with him. He couldn't do that at all on that Sunday. Almost half of his game as a quarterback was taken away, so all the secondary had to do was sit back in pass coverage. They weren't forced to chase the Packer receivers around like they would have been because Rodgers couldn't get outside the pocket . They never had to worry about Rodgers taking off. A healthy Rodgers forces those corner backs and safeties to make decisions--to I stay in coverage, and let Rodgers run for 20 yards, or do I come up on him, and hope he crosses the line of scrimmage, so he can't stop, and throw the ball over my head.

If Rodgers is healthy, he doesn't force a throw into the back of the endzone for a pick. That throw was made out of frustration, not because Seattle was doing anything exceptional, but because his body couldn't do what he wanted to do. Tell Russell Wilson "you can't run today", and how do you think he does? He had his legs for that game, and was playing against a defense that everybody else said was so vastly inferior to Seattle's defense. And he got smacked down.

And I love Russell Wilson to death, but all the fawning over him needs to stop. He showed in that game that he is very mortal, that he can be rattled. A healthy Rodgers hits Randall Cobb in stride on that pass play over the middle of the field, and Cobb would have been gone. Nobody in the Seahawk secondary was going to catch him at full speed. And that would have put Seattle away, because their offense was not only doing nothing, but they were dejected.

[Runscott]

Yeah, Rodgers is flawless when perfectly healthy :roll eyes:

I think most people realize that a defense adjusts to what they are up against. This game they were up against a throwing Rodgers and Rodgers still threw great - he had several receivers drop balls that hit them right in the hands. In addition, Rodgers was able to pick up good yardage on runs, especially a critical one that got them into position for the tying field goal, possibly because Seattle didn't show his legs enough respect.

Rodgers did fine. Seattle did better and beat him and the Packers. If Wilson had been playing at anything above the +10 passer rating he took into the last 5 minutes, Seattle would have slaughtered Green Bay.

But go ahead and continue your fantasy.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

nevermind...long, windbag response deleted.


I just got lucky and took a shower. About to get lucky and brush my teeth, then plan to get lucky and go out for coffee.

Luckily, I will not bring my computer

This response is why Scott is my 2nd favorite net54er...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[freakhappy]

Rodgers was not 100%, but that's not why they lost. I'm assuming everyone watched the ending to that game? Some crazy stuff happened and some bad coaching decisions throughout the game really crippled the packers. No doubt they probably lost the game more than the Seahawks won it, but I think the Seahawks are the better team overall and I'm glad we get to see this upcoming matchup.

Oh yeah...although i loved Scott's luck argument, I think anything that is determined improbable and then successfully occurs, would be deemed lucky. An onside kick would definitely be lucky if recovered. I think the Seahawks had bad luck when those two picks hit the receivers hands and landed right in the packer's hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clydepepper]

My Two Cents: I have not taken the time to read all the previous posts. My thoughts on the game were in place when the game ended.

I love my Packers. They played okay, which was good enough for most of the game. NOBODY saw the fake field goal coming- so give Seattle a bunch of credit for that! The momentum definitely shifted on that one play.

The Packer defense was great until almost overtime. They kept Wilson controlled until the two-point play that he made happen.

I believe Matthews was legitimately injured, but I can understand the 'Cutler comments'. Sherman, on the other hand, was out there with one arm.

Lynch's second half production was also very big.

Rogers brought them back enough to tie the game, but I think the momentum was still with the Seahawks.

In overtime, Seattle just made the plays and the Pack did not. No excuses, they just beat us. And, yes, they are, and were always, the better team. IMHO the Pack was playing somewhat over their heads.

I think Dez Bryant's catch was a catch and Dallas should have been there...They were also a better team.

I hope I'm not going to force another response from Scott by saying so, but I sure wish the better team had NOT won.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by freakhappy

Oh yeah...although i loved Scott's luck argument, I think anything that is determined improbable and then successfully occurs, would be deemed lucky.

Agreed. The Packers were lucky to be ahead when Seattle made their comeback.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

and Burnett 'downing' an interception: poor execution, stupidity and ill-advised caution.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I think Burnett made a smart decision. Look at the play again. How much additional yardage would he have gained? Maybe 5 yards? I've seen too many players try and be a hero by turning a reception into a big play and then end up turning the ball right back over.

What I didn't like was the play calls after the interception. GB should have gone for the jugular at that point. Instead, they played it conservatively and were playing not to lose instead of playing to win - run, run, run, punt - meanwhile Seattle calling timeouts between each run. GB should have shoved the ball down their throat after that interception and they failed to do so.

I'll repeat it again. Downing the ball is the smart thing to do. If you don't belive me, ask Jeremy Lane this morning.

[Runscott]

Is 'Jeremy Lane' a pseudonym for God?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Lane intercepted the ball in the end zone. He should have downed the ball right then and given his offense possession at the 20 yard line. Did he seriously think he was going to return the ball 100+ yards for a TD? Why be a hero? Instead he runs it out to about the 11 yard line and breaks his arm. Real smart play there.

You make the call - Possession at the 20 and remains in the game, or possession at the 11 with a broken arm? My previous point was it's better to down an interception (assuming you have no running room) than to try and be a hero.

Burnett made the right call. Lane did not. Spin it any way you want.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Lane intercepted the ball in the end zone. He should have downed the ball right then and given his offense possession at the 20 yard line. Did he seriously think he was going to return the ball 100+ yards for a TD? Why be a hero? Instead he runs it out to about the 11 yard line and breaks his arm. Real smart play there.

You make the call - Possession at the 20 and remains in the game, or possession at the 11 with a broken arm? My previous point was it's better to down an interception (assuming you have no running room) than to try and be a hero.

Burnett made the right call. Lane did not. Spin it any way you want.

David, what you just did is the definition of 'spin'. Two totally different situations, yet you have spun them to be the same. Downing a ball in the end-zone and getting it at the twenty is quite a bit different from returning an interception 10-15 yards so that your team can get a field goal and ice the game. I've seen footage of the Green Bay interception and the field, from above, as oppose to the typical view we've been getting that keys on the receiver and his immediate area. He had plenty of room to run.

[nolemmings]

David, what you just did is the definition of 'spin'. Two totally different situations, yet you have spun them to be the same. Downing a ball in the end-zone and getting it at the twenty is quite a bit different from returning an interception 10-15 yards so that your team can get a field goal and ice the game. I've seen footage of the Green Bay interception and the field, from above, as oppose to the typical view we've been getting that keys on the receiver and his immediate area. He had plenty of room to run.

Of course you're right. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with Lane's decision in any event. I am not convinced he was in the endzone for purposes of taking a touchback--it's where the ball and not the feet are and it looked like one foot landed on the goal line anyway--and it was certainly close enough that he is not going to take the chance that the ball will be spotted inside his own one when he knew he had at least five yards or so of space. Heads up play, not being a hero.

[vintagetoppsguy]

He was clearly in the endzone - a yard deep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAfy1YUO78

And it wasn't Burnett's responsibility to get his team into FG position. He did his job, the rest was up to the GB offense. Run, run, run, punt definitely didn't get it done.

I just don't see how you can say Burnett's decision to down the ball and put it back in the hand of the offense is "poor execution, stupidity and ill-advised caution" without criticizing Lane's decision not to down it in the endzone and put his team on the 20?

[nolemmings]

Right foot lands on goal line, and as I said, no way when it's that close do you take a knee.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Perhaps it was and, if so, then there's no validity in my argument.

I just don't think it's fair for Scott to criticize Burnett for downing it instead of trying to be a hero and risk truning it right back over. Again, he did his job, the rest was up to the GB offense who clearly didn't do theirs.

[Runscott]

Damn David - it is just my opinion. When it becomes unfair for someone to have an opinion because it differs from yours, you no longer have a 'discussion' forum.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Well my opinion is that you must be just looking for a reason to complain about something if it took you 30 hours to reply to my post.

Sorry your Seahawks lost. Get over it.