NFC Championship Post-Game

[paulpressey25]

He missed the last couple drives in regulation but was apparently back out there in OT.

The two drives they scored on at the end of regulation?

I'm really surprised it took 48 hours for this story to emerge. I can't blame the guy if he physically can't go. But then again he's paid a ton. How does your defensive stud sit out the last two drives, either of which you shut the door on Seattle and the Packers win the game. This is sort of unheard of, unless he only missed one or two plays.

[ReasonablySober]

If you want to count only short yardage situations going into the end-zone, the numbers are 10/18 so 55.5%. 18 downs, 10 touchdowns.

Are you counting the three times they stuffed us during our game before the attempt?

In addition it seems like perhaps we just got unlucky going 0/3 in that situation. Maybe the next two they would have just stopped dominating our offense and we would have scored. I'm still going to guess not and I still think our inability to move the ball in the game against them in those situations and in general shows my point.

I also think that it's odd that you guys think it remains at an additional 1.3 points, as if there is no variance. Do you honestly think it's as easy to score on the Seahawks in the red zone as someone like the Browns? Do you think there is only very little difference?

I don't know, man. I'm only providing the facts here. Do your research if you want to know how the Browns did in those situations.

You seemed to think that we'd see some kind of huge drop-off because Seattle is a record breaking defense. Their defense is better than our offense or something. But during that stretch where they were beating the pants off people to close out the year they were playing against Stanton, Kaepernick, Sanchez, Kaepernick, Lindley and Hill. They weren't playing anyone. Before that they were a 6-4 team, hardly unbeatable.

[ReasonablySober]

He missed the last couple drives in regulation but was apparently back out there in OT.

The two drives they scored on at the end of regulation?

I'm really surprised it took 48 hours for this story to emerge. I can't blame the guy if he physically can't go. But then again he's paid a ton. How does your defensive stud sit out the last two drives, either of which you shut the door on Seattle and the Packers win the game. This is sort of unheard of, unless he only missed one or two plays.

Correct. The Packers were without their best defensive player when Seattle made their comeback.

[paulpressey25]

Correct. The Packers were without their best defensive player when Seattle made their comeback.

To me that's the story of the game then. And amazed that it went unreported/underreported for 24-48 hours. Greater than Bostick, the 4th and 1's. etc.

Sherman is out there with one arm immobilized for the SeaHawks and Fabio (sorry I'm going there now) needs a rest at the most critical time? With EVERYTHING on the line?

Unless it comes out that Clay had a torn something or another that they are trying to hide, I think he owes A-Rod and his teammates an apology. Or a refund on a portion of his contract. Even if he's gassed, he needs to be out there simply to force Seattle to account for him with multiple blockers like most teams do.

[Siefer]

If it is insanity to suggest it then why did we get to fourth down situations two times? If we are going to convert 60% of the time like DB suggests... then why did we convert 0% of the time as opposed to 60% of the time?

How do we get any 4th down situations? Clearly because the team didn't succeed on the first three. You're being really intellectually dishonest here.

4. Because of this I don't think it's insane to think that the Seahawks make a huge statistical swing in the +1.3 points category. You guys don't really provide any argument, you don't really debate anything I'm saying. You just say "Hey, 1.3 points, you are crazy for saying anything different". Then when I bring up other statistics like "Using McCarthy's approach we had a 95%-99% chance to win the game"... the argument shifts to "Yeah?! Well if we would have went for it we would have converted and the lead would have been twice as big" or saying absurd things like "Just run play action and Quarless would be wide open in the end zone".

You act like it's easy to get into the end zone against them even though we were 0-7 on those drives inside of the 10, we had the ball several times in their territory and we still couldn't get into the end zone... we still couldn't muster a ton of points... we still couldn't move the ball against them. Because they are really **** good on defense. You act like it's easy to score against them even though they are setting records... you act like it is crazy to think that they provide a major statistical swing even though they are literally grading out as one of the best defenses ever.

Jacob, I guess I don't see how any of that is intellectually dishonest. If you think it is, I'm not sure what to tell you. Everything that I laid out seems perfectly logical to me. If you want to point out what is dishonest and where I'm wrong... go ahead. But if you just want to keep repeating things like "It's crazy to think that their defense doesn't move the needle on the +1.3 number that much"... then I guess that's your opinion. I just disagree with you... and I don't think it's intellectually dishonest at all.

I'm just going to highlight a few places where you wrote things like "you just say" then put into quotes words that were not said.

That's what I mean about being intellectually dishonest.

I also think that it's odd that you guys think it remains at an additional 1.3 points, as if there is no variance. Do you honestly think it's as easy to score on the Seahawks in the red zone as someone like the Browns? Do you think there is only very little difference?

Sure, what if the number is 0.8 in this particular match-up? What about 0.7? At what point is it correct to shrug off what the data is telling you to do? Others have provided the numbers, so we're in the ballpark even if we don't have every last variable covered.

[ReasonablySober]

I certainly think the play was to go for it on 4th. The numbers back it up across the league and against this particular team. It isn't even worth a discussion in my opinion, the jury is out on this one.

That said, there is absolutely a discussion to be had about the specific play calls, which seems to be Twirly's issue. Were the Packers better off going with a Kuhn handoff instead of a sneak? Condensing the field by not spreading a WR out on one play? Going single back?

I was yelling for a sneak, but had the Packers run Lacy three consecutive downs and not gotten it, I wouldn't be here complaining.

[InsideOut]

When a choice needed to be made it seems the Packers take the conservative / safe option.

With the 4th and 1's they kick the FGs.

In the last 5 minutes they run into the center of a 7/8 man front and lose yardage play after play.

Pick the ball off and fall down when nobody is within 12 yards of you.

When the Hail Mary 2pt conversion pass goes up instead of being aggressive and making a play on the ball he hangs back and watches him catch it.

On 3rd and 19 you rush 3 guys and give Wilson all day long.

Up late in regulation you go with the prevent instead of staying with what was working.

Everything about this games smells of a play it safe and a team playing scared. I feel that comes from the top down. My 2 cents anyway.

[Newz]

I don't know, man. I'm only providing the facts here. Do your research if you want to know how the Browns did in those situations.

You seemed to think that we'd see some kind of huge drop-off because Seattle is a record breaking defense. Their defense is better than our offense or something. But during that stretch where they were beating the pants off people to close out the year they were playing against Stanton, Kaepernick, Sanchez, Kaepernick, Lindley and Hill. They weren't playing anyone. Before that they were a 6-4 team, hardly unbeatable.

When did I say that they were unbeatable? We should have beat that. I've said that multiple times... if we make any number of basic plays we win that game with the field goals that we kicked.

[ReasonablySober]

Do you honestly believe that the game should have been that close? If you do, then we can just stop discussing this.

[Newz]

I'm just going to highlight a few places where you wrote things like "you just say" then put into quotes words that were not said.

That's what I mean about being intellectually dishonest.

I also think that it's odd that you guys think it remains at an additional 1.3 points, as if there is no variance. Do you honestly think it's as easy to score on the Seahawks in the red zone as someone like the Browns? Do you think there is only very little difference?

Sure, what if the number is 0.8 in this particular match-up? What about 0.7? At what point is it correct to shrug off what the data is telling you to do? Others have provided the numbers, so we're in the ballpark even if we don't have every last variable covered.

Obviously I can't give you an exact number because we don't have a ton of data of our offense vs. their defense. So obviously I can't give you an exact calculation, can I? Can you give me an exact calculation, can you give me the exact numbers and chance that we have against them?

I do know we went 0/3 at the one yard line in that game. We went 0/7 on scoring TDs inside the ten on the two possessions in question. We had the ball inside of their 40 I believe six times during the game and we came away with one touchdown. We had trouble moving the ball against them. We had trouble scoring. A lot of teams do against them, especially when their quarterback is having an off game.

So based off of that game we have a 0% chance to score a touchdown inside of the ten yard line out of 7 attempts.

I'm not sure what other stats you need me to provide other than the ones listed above and pointing out that we started with incredibly good field possession several times and we couldn't put the ball in the end zone... and in the situations you want to bring up (one yard away on the goal line) we got stuffed three times.

That being said we kicked the field goals and we were still in an incredibly good position to win the game. I believe the statistics have shown in that situation most of the time you have well above a 90% chance to win the game with four minutes left. You want to keep pointing those two situations out and acting like they are what cost us the game because you are assuming that we would have converted. I'm saying what we did put us in an incredibly good position... and we blew it.

I have also said that if this was a different team, if we weren't playing against this defense I'd agree with you.

I guess I see your argument as "Well, this website tells me it's 1.3 points. So give me something to disprove it.". I guess I believe I'm doing that and apparently you don't because you need an exact calculation based off of a sample that can't give us an exact calculation.

[Newz]

Do you honestly believe that the game should have been that close? If you do, then we can just stop discussing this.

I don't think it should have been that close, but I don't think it was because of the field goals.

Things that I think are significantly more important than that?

1. Burnett sliding.
2. Ha Ha not knocking the ball down.
3. Bostick botching the onside kick.
4. Us not playing safe on a field goal where it was obvious they could fake.
5. Our QB throwing two INTs he normally doesn't throw.
6. Our offense being unable to put more points on the board with insanely good field position without using fourth downs (like they normally do).
7. Randomly going into the prevent for no reason when your base defense is completely shutting them down.

If we do any of those seven things it's basically meaningless and we win the game with the field goals that we kicked.

We were the number one ranked offense who had insane field position for basically the entire game and we were able to put the ball into the end zone one time. If we had such a great chance to move the ball against them and score... if the odds were so high in our favor I'd like to think we could have mustered more than one touchdown when starting inside of their 40 yard line without having to go for it on fourth downs.

No one wants to blame Aaron Rodgers for playing like **** though. No one wants to rip Bostick. No one wants to say Burnett should have just stayed up and ran. No one wants to ask Ha Ha WTF he was doing while that ball was hanging in the air.

I mean people are pointing those things out... but you guys think it's Mike McCarthy, for some reason. I not only think that kicking the field goals was right... I honestly think that even if you do believe that is the wrong decision that you are insane for thinking that decision is even remotely close to one of the primary reasons we lost the game.

[ReasonablySober]

Do you honestly believe that the game should have been that close? If you do, then we can just stop discussing this.

I don't think it should have been that close, but I don't think it was because of the field goals.

Things that I think are significantly more important than that?

1. Burnett sliding.
2. Ha Ha not knocking the ball down.
3. Bostick botching the onside kick.
4. Us not playing safe on a field goal where it was obvious they could fake.
5. Our QB throwing two INTs he normally doesn't throw.
6. Our offense being unable to put more points on the board with insanely good field position without using fourth downs (like they normally do).
7. Randomly going into the prevent for no reason when your base defense is completely shutting them down.

If we do any of those seven things it's basically meaningless and we win the game with the field goals that we kicked.

We were the number one ranked offense who had insane field position for basically the entire game and we were able to put the ball into the end zone one time. If we had such a great chance to move the ball against them and score... if the odds were so high in our favor I'd like to think we could have mustered more than one touchdown when starting inside of their 40 yard line without having to go for it on fourth downs.

No one wants to blame Aaron Rodgers for playing like **** though. No one wants to rip Bostick. No one wants to say Burnett should have just stayed up and ran. No one wants to ask Ha Ha WTF he was doing while that ball was hanging in the air.

I mean people are pointing those things out... but you guys think it's Mike McCarthy, for some reason. I not only think that kicking the field goals was right... I honestly think that even if you do believe that is the wrong decision that you are insane for thinking that decision is even remotely close to one of the primary reasons we lost the game.

Okay. You can side with the folks who are sending death threats to Packer players, I'll side with guys like Barnwell.

[Newz]

Okay. You can side with the folks who are sending death threats to Packer players, I'll side with guys like Barnwell.

Honestly not quite sure what to say about this post. I enjoy reading your posts and you are one of my favorite posters. But when you try to compare me with a group of psychopaths that is sending death threats to players then I'm going to have to consider putting you on ignore. Not a big fan of people lumping me in with groups of people who send death threats to players.

[RRyder823]

Do you honestly believe that the game should have been that close? If you do, then we can just stop discussing this.

I don't think it should have been that close, but I don't think it was because of the field goals.

Things that I think are significantly more important than that?

1. Burnett sliding.
2. Ha Ha not knocking the ball down.
3. Bostick botching the onside kick.
4. Us not playing safe on a field goal where it was obvious they could fake.
5. Our QB throwing two INTs he normally doesn't throw.
6. Our offense being unable to put more points on the board with insanely good field position without using fourth downs (like they normally do).
7. Randomly going into the prevent for no reason when your base defense is completely shutting them down.

If we do any of those seven things it's basically meaningless and we win the game with the field goals that we kicked.

We were the number one ranked offense who had insane field position for basically the entire game and we were able to put the ball into the end zone one time. If we had such a great chance to move the ball against them and score... if the odds were so high in our favor I'd like to think we could have mustered more than one touchdown when starting inside of their 40 yard line without having to go for it on fourth downs.

No one wants to blame Aaron Rodgers for playing like **** though. No one wants to rip Bostick. No one wants to say Burnett should have just stayed up and ran. No one wants to ask Ha Ha WTF he was doing while that ball was hanging in the air.

I mean people are pointing those things out... but you guys think it's Mike McCarthy, for some reason. I not only think that kicking the field goals was right... I honestly think that even if you do believe that is the wrong decision that you are insane for thinking that decision is even remotely close to one of the primary reasons we lost the game.

Okay. You can side with the folks who are sending death threats to Packer players, I'll side with guys like Barnwell.

Reaching with that one just a lil bit Sober huh? Lol

[Newz]

Reaching with that one just a lil bit Sober huh? Lol

Pretty sure that's what happens when you have no logical reply. Not even sure what to make of it, to be honest.

[ReasonablySober]

**** happens. I expect plays like the ones Bostic (didn't?) make. Same with Jones crashing hard on the field goal instead of defending the tackle eligible. Sean Richardson bit hard and was out of position on the final play of the game.

Things happen in a split second and on Sunday a lot of plays went the Seahawks way. It sucks but **** like that happens. If there isn't an overwhelming amount of blame being placed at the feet of guys like Richardson it's because sometimes the opposition just makes good plays.

But there are absolutely no excuses for situational coaching. McCarthy should know, on every play, what the percentages are. He should know what the rules are when it comes to replay or how much time is left and how many snaps he has to run. This is the stuff you should expect out of a coaching staff. And the amazing thing is going for it when you're a foot away from the end zone isn't even a tough decision. Not when you have the 30th ranked offense, and especially not when you're the #1 ranked offense.

And hell, Bostic flat out admitted he was allowed to go for the ball if he felt he could handle it. Brad Jones crashed hard enough that the Seahawks identified it on tape. That's coaching.

Players are going to have drops, blow assignments and miss open guys. You have to expect that. What you shouldn't have to expect are coaches screwing up when they have all the time in the world to figure it out.

[ReasonablySober]

Just to reiterate, I'm firmly in the camp that sometimes players just screw up. Drops happen, dudes fumble the ball, guys miss a tackle.

Dix had an interception go right through his hands, it probably ends the game, and that's maybe the 5th or 6th worst play of the game. Rodgers misses someone in the endzone and Cobb (or was it Adams?) doesn't come up with a relatively tough 3rd down catch.

But it happens. Guys don't make 100% of the plays.

But again, there is absolutely no excuse to blow the situational stuff. This wasn't even one of those radical things like not punting unless you're backed up deep in your own end-zone. This was easy. The numbers against Seattle said go for it, the numbers across the league said go for it, history says go for it. Line up with your massive runningback and pound it in. Or get a sneak because you only need a foot. Just attempt it. If it fails, it fails. But at least McCarthy couldn't say he went against logic.

[th87]

Reaching with that one just a lil bit Sober huh? Lol

Pretty sure that's what happens when you have no logical reply. Not even sure what to make of it, to be honest.

Oh because you don't pull strawman arguments all the time.

[Newz]

Reaching with that one just a lil bit Sober huh? Lol

Pretty sure that's what happens when you have no logical reply. Not even sure what to make of it, to be honest.

Oh because you don't pull strawman arguments all the time.

Comparing me to people who are threatening to kill someone and making absurd racist comments is a strawman argument?

I personally just think that's being an ****.

Haters gonna hate though, I guess.

[Profound23]

One play that is being overlooked. When McCarthy intelligently calls a screen pass to Lacy late in the game. Rodgers ankle/calf tweaks and the throw is way off. If Rodgers' leg is fine, that throw hits the mark, and Lacy at least gets 20-30 yards with no Seahawks in front of him and all Packers lineman. That play hurts because it was great coaching, great execution, bad luck.