Green Bay didn’t hand the game to Seattle. Seattle almost handed it to Green Bay.
Seattle controlled the whole game. The first 3/4 by playing so terrible that Green Bay had a chance. The last few minutes, by playing as they know how and dominating. Green Bay is a fine team, but they didn’t do anything extraordinary yesterday. They were handed the ball 5 times by the Seattle offense and didn’t do that much with all their opportunities.
Green Bay took the game from Seattle with great defensive play for a majority of the game, and then handed it right back by having an immobile QB, settling for FG’s, and dumbass mistakes on special teams. Seattle got lucky, which is fine, you have to be lucky to get to and win the Super Bowl, but they didn’t control that game until OT.
Five turnovers to the Packers, and they got six points total from all that. Way to capitalize.
Yep, they did not take advantage at all. They played poorly on offense, Rodgers was especially poor, and didn’t take full advantage of their fine defensive play. But they still should have won that game. But for bad special teams play and bad hands on the part of their 3rd string TE, they would have won. But they choked the game away.
Mike McCarthy is pretty much Andy Reid with a ring. He is a woeful game manager.
Watching the game was like telling the tale of the Tortoise and the Hare, in the “no bullshit how-it-works-in-real-life” version: The hare sleeps through 97% of the race, wakes up, stretches and yawns, and sprints to victory just ahead of the trudging and steady tortoise.
Both defenses played balls-to-the-walls. For the first 58 minutes, the Pack defense was comfortably in charge of their half of the game; the Hawks defense was in desperate damage-control mode but amazingly effective.
That was made feasible by Green Bay’s chronic red-zone issues and curious lack of offensive aggressiveness. 5 field goals: pretty much tells the story. Two of them on fourth-and-goal from very short: even more telling.
The offensive story of the game (arguably) is that Seattle’s offense tried harder in the last 300 seconds of the game than Green Bay’s offense was trying all day.
Given how things turned out, that failure to run back the final interception looks really big.
I love these types of comments, hilarious.
When your team is winning it’s because of how good your team is.
When your team is losing it’s because of mistakes your team made, nothing to do with the other team.
gnoitall had a good recap. GB defense played great and absolutely shut down Seattle for most of the game (not because Wilson just sucked, great defensive play causes suckage). Seattle defense played really well also to give up so few points on that many trips to the red zone.
Seahawk offense made some plays in the end. When a team makes a good play, it doesn’t mean the other team just sucked in that case, the other team may have played really well but still got beat, it happens. For example, the last play of the game, was it because GB screwed up? Nope, it’s because Seattle called a play that was advantageous to GB’s defensive alignment and happened to come out ahead, it doesn’t mean GB just utterly failed on that play and just handed it to Seattle.
I wrote that the offense was playing poorly for most of the game. How you take that to mean that they were good, is beyond me. I’ll assume you had some kind of point you wanted to make and just kinda ignored what I actually said.
Again, Seattle’s defense played very well. As did the Packers defense. But both teams offenses were not very good that game, except in spurts.
When you quote me, please try to make sure you understand what I’m saying. It makes you look less like an ass.
Not sure why this is confusing.
You attributed the Seahawk win to GB’s poor offensive play and luck, instead of giving any credit to the other Seahawk’s defense.
Good defense makes offenses play poorly, same way GB’s defense was stuffing Seattle’s offense.
Mostly because you reached conclusions based on things I didn’t say.
That’s not what I said. I said Seattle got lucky, which they did when Bostick muffs the onside kick and Rodgers gimps around. I also said that GB’s offense played poorly, which, you seemingly agree with, yet you also concluded that somehow that means that I was saying that Green Bay played well. Seattle’s defense did play very well, especially given the holes that their offense put them in. But both teams offenses didn’t play well for most of the game.
You still seem to have reached conclusions based on things I didn’t say. I can’t really help you with that shortcoming.
Let’s reserve any name calling for the Pit only.
Again, you attribute what happened to “GB offense playing poorly” and I disagree, I believe both offenses had a tough time against defenses that were playing well.
I don’t believe GB’s offense played poorly.
That was a huge mistake, much more than poor Brandon Bostick’s muff during the onside kick. If Morgan Burnett had ran right instead of intentionally falling to the ground, it was clear sailing to the endzone, or 10 yards at least.
Guys, go easy on Hamlet. He clearly jinxed his team by posting this last week:
[Quote=Hamlet]
The thing with Wilson is that I think he’s much more of a “win with” QB than a “win because” of QB. Seattle has had a great deal of success, not because Wilson is an elite QB, but because they have an incredible defense, a great running game, and a QB who doesn’t make mistakes. As long as Wilson doesn’t help Seattle beat themselves, ala Newton last night, the Seahawks can win.
But it’s not because of Russell Wilson. Wilson throws for 217 yards per game, good for 26th in the NFL, and behind guys like Case Keenum, Brian Hoyer, and Mike Glennon. The Seahawks don’t need Russell Wilson to win games. He is very good at what they ask him to do though. I’m just not sure that’s worth being the highest paid player in the NFL.
Maybe, if Seattle takes the regulator off him, Wilson could be a difference maker, “win because of” type QB. But that’s not proven at all.
[/QUOTE]
It must have been utterly heartbreaking to watch Wilson prove **Hamlet **right (and then some) for 55 minutes, then lead the most improbable comeback victory in playoff history against his very own elite QB. (I still think he’s right about Wilson, but damn…)
Sorry but what about a 32 point deficit in the 3rd quarter? Buffalo beating the Oilers in January 1993 with a backup QB.
Yes, I was there. 
So the Pats get caught again, this time by deflating the balls. But seriously, why do football teams get to provide the balls that they use on offense? In every other sport, the league provides the balls and has them in their control. Why doesn’t the NFL just provide the refs with a couple dozen balls for each game, keep them in their control, and have one guy check the balls for pressure every time they get rotated out of the game? Or check the balls after every score. Is there a reason why teams get to provide their own balls?
Well now, we don’t know for sure that the Patriots did it. Perhaps a rodent of some sort got loose in the closet where they keep the balls.Deflater mouse.
Unsubstantiated speculation. Sour grapes much?
Big Pats fan here (although I will be sorely disappointed if it turns out these allegations are true) and that was funny.