The up front points to be made re this game are pretty simple. The defense stopped an incompetently-quarterbacked and coached team, keeping intact their standing as a very good-but-not-elite defense. They even grabbed a turnover. We got confirmation that our special teams are likewise badly coached. The offense showed, against nearly alol expectations, and behind a surprisingly good qb play (for a time) actual competence, a little fire, scored some damn points for a change. I am painfully aware we have likely damaged our chances of having the highest possible draft pick, but So It Goes. That's about it.
You can't say what the game means without considering it in context:
1) Zappe: If you look at the whole span of Zappe's interestingly chaotic time here - like one of those intermittently extended figures in an old ****oo clock - this game means a lot. The question going in was, "Can Zappe establish himself as worthy of consideration as a solid backup here or elsewhere." I think only the most perfervid Zappeites will claim his worth as a starter is not still in the realm of hope. It turns out, though, that he is capable of playing competent NFL football in a starting role. It is even, given his steady approach and demeanor (At times he's almost weirdly inert), that whatever he can do on a particular occasion, he can likely do consistently going forward. So congratulations to our wandering boy.
2) Mac. I feel sorry for the guy. I think he has been ill-served by incompetent GM/HC work for three years. We may never know what he could have become when properly-handled. That said, he did not respond well to the stresses of the situation. He could be given a try as competition/mentor for a prospective, as some have suggested: He's reasonably cheap, and there MAY be a far better version of himself somewhere in there, but it's probably time to get what you can for him and move on, whenever that may make the most sense. Mac's story is a sad one.
3) The Future: The question most bandied-about will likely be, "Does this mean we keep Bill?" Change-shy types and breathless in-Bill-we-trust fanboys will say yes...of course. I say no. He is an abysmally failed GM and an obviously failing HC. This game alters in no respect the fact that he has to go. He had literally nothing to do with this win: a remarkably resilient bunch of players accomplished that. I shall expect to be insulted for stating again the inconveniently obvious, but the truth as always, bears repeating. I welcome disagareement, of course - this is a discussion site, after all - but for those who feel that that disgareement must take the form of insult, let me offer a firm preemptive Go **** Yourself.