What is probably the most controversial ending to an NFL game in recent memory causes me to finally come out of the hibernation affecting this blog with a few thoughts about the game, the Packers, and the NFL.
Before addressing the game end controversy, a few thoughts about the Packers. The first half performance by the Packers was atrocious. The offensive line has been (appropriately) castigated for its part in allowing Aaron Rodgers to be sacked 8 times in the first half. However, I don't think the line bears complete responsibility for the problem.
On numerous occasions, it appeared to me Rodgers had sufficient time to make his initial reads and make a throw, but instead of launching a pass, attempted to hold the ball, move in the pocket, and wait for things to develop downfield. Unfortunately, all to frequently his receivers did not come open and Rodgers was sacked. So I think some of the responsibility for the sacks has to lie with Rodgers for holding the ball too long and failing to throw the ball away when his receivers did not come open. Furthermore, Green Bay receivers bear some responsibility for not getting open and beating the tight bump coverage off the line.
Moreover, all the responsibility does not lie with Green Bay players. Mike McCarthy has to shoulder some of the blame for not slowing down the pass rush with more running plays. When the Packers added more running plays in the second half, the offense became much more effective.
It is worth noting Rodgers was not sacked once in the second half. Why? It appeared to me to be a combination of factors. When passing in the second half, the Packers shifted from deep routes to more quick hitting passes. They also rushed more which slowed down the pass rush. These factors allowed the Pack to maintain possession longer on their drives which increased offensive efficiency by tiring out the Seattle defense.
Finally, it is unfair to analyize the Packer performance without noting that Seattle played well. The Seattle defense was particularly impressive. I suspect that by the end of the year, we will see Seattle has a top 10 defense.
Let's now shift to the end game debacle. By this time, it is clear to almost every sentient football observer except Golden Tate and Pete Carroll, that the Packers were robbed of a win by the officials.
The official who ended up signaling the touchdown had an absolutely clear, unobstructed view from less than 10 yrds away of Tate shoving Sam Shields in the back for blatant pass interference before Tate ever went up to try to catch the pass. According to NFL rules, this act of offensive pass interference on a play when time expired ends the game. But pass interference was not called and the non-call of pass interference cannot be reversed on instant replay. It was a horrible, and obvious, officiating error, but one the rules say cannot be fixed by replay.
That leaves us with the catch. Whether the ball was caught, and who caught it, is a call that can be reviewed on replay only if, as here, the catch was in the end zone. In the field of play, even that call would have been unreviewable. No reasonable person viewing the video of that pass can dispute Packer DB M.D. Jennings caught the ball.
While it seems clear to me and most everyone else who watched that Golden Tate never had possession of the ball, if he ever got possession of it his posssession was clearly after Jennings possessed it, not simultaneous. If possession ever changed (and I don't think the video indicates possession ever did change) it was not until after Jennings was on the ground. Of course, once Jennings is on the ground with possession in the end zone, the play is over. It was in interception.
Before leaving the game, let's consider for a moment how the game might have ended differently if the Packers had adopted a different end game strategy. When the Packer offense got the ball on the 1 yd line, the offense was unsuccessful in advancing the ball for a first down to maintain possession, failed to burn much time off the clock, and damn near gave the ball back to the Seahawks with a fumble. The Pack then punted. But should they have punted?
At the time, not just now in hindsight, I called for a different strategy. I would have had Aaron Rodgers take the snap in shotgun formation, and then run around toward the back of the end zone before stepping out to allow a safety. That would have burned about as much time off the clock as expired with the punt, and would have given the Seahawks 2 pts leaving Green Bay with only a 3 point lead.
A 3 point lead is clearly not as good as a 5 point lead, because the Seahawks could tie with a field goal which would have been useless with a 5 point lead. On the other hand, when Green Bay punted, the Seahawks took possession on their final drive at about the Green Bay 46 yrd line since the Pack punted from deep in its own end zone.
By giving up a safety, the Packers would have executed a free kick from its 20 yd line (almost 30 yds further up field than the punt). That kick would have been without any rush by the Seahawks, creating the probability of a longer, better covered kick that could have been directionally angled for maximum coverage. While we will never know for sure, I suspect the Seahawks would have got the ball at about their own 20 yd line (instead of the Packer 46) with about 5 seconds less on the clock than was available after the punt.
Sure, doing that would increase the possibility of a tie slightly since Seattle would only have to get into field goal range (and kick successfully) to tie instead of having to score a touchdown. But the trade off is Seattle would have had further to travel to get into field goal range than they had to travel for a touchdown after the punt and even a successful field goal would have only resulted in a tie rather than a loss. My strategy would have actually decreased the odds of a touchdown which would have, and did, result in a loss.
A final suggestion. If the players are so disgusted with the performance of the replacement officials there seems to me to be an easy solution. All it would take is for the regular officials to announce they plan to picket the stadiums and for the union member players to announce they will not cross those picket lines to enter the stadiums. Without players crossing the picket line, games could not be held. If the games are not held, television money and gate receipts dry up for the owners. The strike would settle in a matter of hours.
No comments:
Post a Comment