Jump to content



 
Photo

Broncos shouldn't pursue a first round bye


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
22 replies to this topic

#1 tonychen

tonychen
  • Member
  • 912 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:20 PM

2007 Colts held the 2nd seed in AFC and lost to the Chargers in the divisional round.

2005 Colts had the top seed and run flat in the game against Steelers.

2009 Colts gave up a perfect season but went to the Superbowl as the top seed and benefited from resting the injured starters.

 

My thought is a bye week is only useful for a veteran team knowing how to take advantage of the one week off. For a red-hot team it could become a disruption to the winning rythm can backfire. Also when the team is older they would generally have more key veteran players needing the bye week for healing and resting. This year's Broncos team is a young and healthy team. What they need are more reps and big-game experience. If they play Colts or Bengals in the 1st round they could use it to tune into the playoff mode and learn how to deal with pressure. They just haven't played any game with pressure in over 2 months, which could be a bad thing. Plus the weather in Denver may not make their homefield an advantage when it comes to passing.



Preseason Live: Indianapolis ColtsColts Football Starts Now. Don't Miss a Moment!

#2 MAC

MAC

    "It was a dark and stormy night"

  • Member
  • 4767 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:42 PM

Their best guard, running back, and inside linebacker are out with injury. Some of the players are pretty darn old. I hope they get the bye.

 

When the Colts had a bye they were coasting for the last couple of games, THEN got the bye. A full month without a meaningful game will take the starch out of your shirt no matter how you practice. This year they have to win the final two, at which point they will probably welcome a break. Perhaps the offense will be a little sluggish in the first quarter, but they've been so regardless in most games. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

More importantly, the second seed puts them at home in the first round, with a path to a dome in the second round (and don't forget the dome in the super bowl). I'm dreaming of second shots at the Pats, Texans and Falcons in quick succession. That's darn near a perfect season in my opinion. If they get the third seed, they will be AT New England. No thanks.



#3 chad72

chad72
  • Member
  • 8892 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

I disagree.

 

Teams like the Eagles under Andy Reid and Patriots under Belichick always came out firing in the divisional round. Very rarely did they lose in the divisional round when they had a bye week. Look at last year. The 49ers were ready for the Saints. No matter how many punches the Saints pulled, Alex Smith and the 49ers had the answers and a fresher team's legs shows up more in the 4th qtr. Besides, if you are the No.3 seed, there is going to be some physical AFC North team out there to beat you up in all likelihood even if you win.

 

The reason it happened with the Colts has enough to do with coaching and matchups.

 

2005 - the month long layoff, self explanatory since it took them 3 quarters just to start any kind of rhythm and they were down 0-14 before you knew it

 

2007 - we started real well but did not finish well because we could not stop Michael Turner and Billy Volek, and could not run in the red zone. We had lost Freeney for the season, we could get by the weaker teams but not the good ones that had some passing game in their arsenal.

 

2009 - Caldwell had the first practice in pads that I heard of for the Colts during the bye week, and it paid off for these guys

 

 

When 9 out of 11 AFC teams that made the SB in the last 11 years had a top 2 seeding, you have to pursue the bye week. One less game to get to the SB. Besides, guys like Champ and Peyton are up there in age, it would actually help them more, IMO, if the coaches get their preparation right. Besides, if you have noticed, the Broncos seemed to run well enough recently. :)



#4 tonychen

tonychen
  • Member
  • 912 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:46 PM

I disagree.

 

Teams like the Eagles under Andy Reid and Patriots under Belichick always came out firing in the divisional round. Very rarely did they lose in the divisional round when they had a bye week.

 

The reason it happened with the Colts has enough to do with coaching and matchups.

 

2005 - the month long layoff, self explanatory since it took them 3 quarters just to start any kind of rhythm and they were down 0-14 before you knew it

 

2007 - we started well but did not finish well because we could not stop Michael Turner and Billy Volek, and could not run in the red zone. We had lost Freeney for the season, we could get by the weaker teams but not the good ones that had some passing game in their arsenal.

 

2009 - Caldwell had the first practice in pads that I heard of for the Colts during the bye week, and it paid off for these guys

 

 

When 9 out of 11 AFC teams that made the SB in the last 11 years had a top 2 seeding, you have to pursue the bye week. One less game to get to the SB. Besides, guys like Champ and Peyton are up there in age, it would actually help them more, IMO, if the coaches get their preparation right.

 

Good coaching should really help the young plays keep focused. I just don't know how good John Fox is. Any idea?



#5 bayone

bayone

    bayone

  • Member
  • 7005 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:57 PM

I disagree.

 

Teams like the Eagles under Andy Reid and Patriots under Belichick always came out firing in the divisional round. Very rarely did they lose in the divisional round when they had a bye week. Look at last year. The 49ers were ready for the Saints. No matter how many punches the Saints pulled, Alex Smith and the 49ers had the answers and a fresher team's legs shows up more in the 4th qtr. Besides, if you are the No.3 seed, there is going to be some physical AFC North team out there to beat you up in all likelihood even if you win.

 

The reason it happened with the Colts has enough to do with coaching and matchups.

 

2005 - the month long layoff, self explanatory since it took them 3 quarters just to start any kind of rhythm and they were down 0-14 before you knew it

 

2007 - we started real well but did not finish well because we could not stop Michael Turner and Billy Volek, and could not run in the red zone. We had lost Freeney for the season, we could get by the weaker teams but not the good ones that had some passing game in their arsenal.

 

2009 - Caldwell had the first practice in pads that I heard of for the Colts during the bye week, and it paid off for these guys

 

 

When 9 out of 11 AFC teams that made the SB in the last 11 years had a top 2 seeding, you have to pursue the bye week. One less game to get to the SB. Besides, guys like Champ and Peyton are up there in age, it would actually help them more, IMO, if the coaches get their preparation right. Besides, if you have noticed, the Broncos seemed to run well enough recently. :)

 

 

lets not forget beside the bye peyton only played a series or 2, in 20904 did it the last 2 games

 

most starters took of most reps in last games with colts when had a bye, how else could sorgi play


Forgive any typos, try to catch, but have multiple progressive disabilities

#6 chad72

chad72
  • Member
  • 8892 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:58 PM

Good coaching should really help the young plays keep focused. I just don't know how good John Fox is. Any idea?

 

It is hard to say because the whole set up is new though.

 

John Fox did make a SB and the playoffs less than a handful of times with Jake Delhomme as QB, so it is hard to extrapolate. Different QB, different coaches around him.

 

Here is his playoff record (6-4):

 

  1. Went to SB in 2003 as a wild card, lost to Belichick (3-1)
  2. Went to NFCCG in 2005 as a wild card, lost to Holmgren and Seahawks (2-1)
  3. Lost in divisional round with a bye week in 2008 to Cardinals and Kurt Warner at home (0-1)
  4. Went to divisional round as a wild card with Tebow in 2011, lost to Belichick and the Pats (1-1)

So, he knows how to win on the road. He won 2 road games to get to the SB in 2003 and 2 road games in 2005 but he has had the bye week only once and lost to a hot Cardinals team with Warner and Fitzgerald.



#7 -JJ-

-JJ-
  • Forum Moderator
  • 2630 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:00 PM

umm..you play one less game with a bye.

#8 FireJimCaldwell

FireJimCaldwell
  • Member
  • 6076 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:04 PM

A lot of times the biggest part of the problem with a bye week was using either weeks 16 & 17 and sometimes both as partial bye weeks.

 

I can see the benefits to some players, but I think in Manning's case he's wanting as many opportunities as he can get to play with his new 88&87. The more time they have together the better off they will be.

 

I don't think they will try to avoid the bye week, because they do have some players that are banged up a little bit, so I can see it doing some good, but I do believe it is good that they will have to continue to fight for the #2 seed. 



#9 tonychen

tonychen
  • Member
  • 912 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:07 PM

A lot of times the biggest part of the problem with a bye week was using either weeks 16 & 17 and sometimes both as partial bye weeks.

 

I can see the benefits to some players, but I think in Manning's case he's wanting as many opportunities as he can get to play with his new 88&87. The more time they have together the better off they will be.

 

I don't think they will try to avoid the bye week, because they do have some players that are banged up a little bit, so I can see it doing some good, but I do believe it is good that they will have to continue to fight for the #2 seed. 

 

Good thing they need to keep playing for the 2nd seed but that kind of pressure is different from the pressure of elimination against a quality opponent. They just haven't had any quality opponent for a long time and their passing game and redzone offense look kinda rusty.



#10 tonychen

tonychen
  • Member
  • 912 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

It is hard to say because the whole set up is new though.

 

John Fox did make a SB and the playoffs less than a handful of times with Jake Delhomme as QB, so it is hard to extrapolate. Different QB, different coaches around him.

 

Here is his playoff record (6-4):

 

  1. Went to SB in 2003 as a wild card, lost to Belichick (3-1)
  2. Went to NFCCG in 2005 as a wild card, lost to Holmgren and Seahawks (2-1)
  3. Lost in divisional round with a bye week in 2008 to Cardinals and Kurt Warner at home (0-1)
  4. Went to divisional round as a wild card with Tebow in 2011, lost to Belichick and the Pats (1-1)

So, he knows how to win on the road. He won 2 road games to get to the SB in 2003 and 2 road games in 2005 but he has had the bye week only once and lost to a hot Cardinals team with Warner and Fitzgerald.

 

Kinda remember that game and their team did look very flat and unprepared. Never was a game from the beginning to the end.



#11 chad72

chad72
  • Member
  • 8892 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:09 PM

A lot of times the biggest part of the problem with a bye week was using either weeks 16 & 17 and sometimes both as partial bye weeks.

 

I can see the benefits to some players, but I think in Manning's case he's wanting as many opportunities as he can get to play with his new 88&87. The more time they have together the better off they will be.

 

I don't think they will try to avoid the bye week, because they do have some players that are banged up a little bit, so I can see it doing some good, but I do believe it is good that they will have to continue to fight for the #2 seed. 

 

Yep, that is exactly why playing the entire games 16 and 17 would help a team that is getting its bye week as a No.2 seed.

 

I remember Big Ben playing in that last game vs Cleveland Browns in 2008 and he got lit up and had to leave the game. Steelers had clinched the No.2 seeding and fans questioned Mike Tomlin. But the Steelers were sharp as they could be in their divisional round game to beat the Chargers and beat the Ravens in the AFCCG, and then the Cardinals in the SB.



#12 FireJimCaldwell

FireJimCaldwell
  • Member
  • 6076 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:21 PM

Yep, that is exactly why playing the entire games 16 and 17 would help a team that is getting its bye week as a No.2 seed.

 

I remember Big Ben playing in that last game vs Cleveland Browns in 2008 and he got lit up and had to leave the game. Steelers had clinched the No.2 seeding and fans questioned Mike Tomlin. But the Steelers were sharp as they could be in their divisional round game to beat the Chargers and beat the Ravens in the AFCCG, and then the Cardinals in the SB.

The thing with the playoffs is each game writes its own story. One can argue for/against sitting/resting players, and each side can have valid points. There  have been examples of the Colts winning after resting and winning after playing. So in the end, and i hate the cliche, but on any given sunday you never know how the story is to be told until the clock ticks zero.

 

If they had their seeding locked, up, I would vote to play game 17 whether they were 2 or 3.. or 1 for that matter. Too much time off can be a negative thing, just like I think it would be a mistake for the Colts to have wholesale substitutions if the seeding is locked up entering week 17. Some teams need every down they can have available to them to work.   I think the Colts & Broncos both fit that bill this year. 



#13 FireJimCaldwell

FireJimCaldwell
  • Member
  • 6076 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:25 PM

Good thing they need to keep playing for the 2nd seed but that kind of pressure is different from the pressure of elimination against a quality opponent. They just haven't had any quality opponent for a long time and their passing game and redzone offense look kinda rusty.

Oh it is a different type of pressure and I'm sure there are wrinkles that haven't been shown yet.

 

 

Dungy said Manning would come to him on a Tuesday with dozens of new plays he would want to install in the offense, and Dungy would have to tell Manning to ease off because it wasn’t realistic to think that everyone on the Colts would be able to learn all those new plays by Sunday.

“He’s got 25 things we can run and he knows they’ll be touchdown plays,” Dungy said. “You have to say, ‘Peyton, they are great plays — they probably would be touchdowns. You could put them in just like that. Everybody can’t. The other 10 guys can’t handle those 25 new plays.’”

Maybe he finally has a coaching staff willing to test the waters...

 

 

http://profootballta...ver-be-a-coach/



#14 tonychen

tonychen
  • Member
  • 912 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:31 PM

The thing with the playoffs is each game writes its own story. One can argue for/against sitting/resting players, and each side can have valid points. There  have been examples of the Colts winning after resting and winning after playing. So in the end, and i hate the cliche, but on any given sunday you never know how the story is to be told until the clock ticks zero.

 

If they had their seeding locked, up, I would vote to play game 17 whether they were 2 or 3.. or 1 for that matter. Too much time off can be a negative thing, just like I think it would be a mistake for the Colts to have wholesale substitutions if the seeding is locked up entering week 17. Some teams need every down they can have available to them to work.   I think the Colts & Broncos both fit that bill this year. 

 

Totally agree. My thought is as far as the teams are mostly healthy they should keep playing on a weekly basis and try not to interupt the good rythm, especially when they have young players that are still confused when the QB audibles.



#15 FireJimCaldwell

FireJimCaldwell
  • Member
  • 6076 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:36 PM

Totally agree. My thought is as far as the teams are mostly healthy they should keep playing on a weekly basis and try not to interupt the good rythm, especially when they have young players that are still confused when the QB audibles.

 

 

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

 

 

Same here.. If some one is nicked/dinged up then get them a bit of work and then get them some rest. If the game becomes one-sided, then you might make substitutions sooner than you normally would. 

 

That was one of my biggest arguments about how Irsay/Polian/Caldwell handled the Jets game at 14-0.  They could have taken a safer approach with Manning and the gang still on the field. Give them instructions to not take any unnecessary chances and I believe they could have milked that game and came out of it with a W.  The next week in Buffalo, throwing to Clark & Wayne just to get 100 catches added insult to the situation. If the game is so unimportant why are #'s like that.  It reeked of hypocrisy. 



#16 tonychen

tonychen
  • Member
  • 912 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:42 PM

The next week in Buffalo, throwing to Clark & Wayne just to get 100 catches added insult to the situation. If the game is so unimportant why are #'s like that.  It reeked of hypocrisy. 

 

These are personal stats that also have impact on their compensations. Teams generally should give them as far as there is no major risk.



#17 bayone

bayone

    bayone

  • Member
  • 7005 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:44 PM

Same here.. If some one is nicked/dinged up then get them a bit of work and then get them some rest. If the game becomes one-sided, then you might make substitutions sooner than you normally would. 

 

That was one of my biggest arguments about how Irsay/Polian/Caldwell handled the Jets game at 14-0.  They could have taken a safer approach with Manning and the gang still on the field. Give them instructions to not take any unnecessary chances and I believe they could have milked that game and came out of it with a W.  The next week in Buffalo, throwing to Clark & Wayne just to get 100 catches added insult to the situation. If the game is so unimportant why are #'s like that.  It reeked of hypocrisy. 

not just that , if health was the issue, in playoffs beating jets  in champ game on way to SB 44, and winning handily at the 2 minute mark, why dont u take out Freeney instead of letting him get hurt knowing only once , 2006 was our team healthy in playoffs & we won it all , Result freeney hurt late in the game & totally a non factor after ankle blew up at halftime of superbowl  hypocrisy QUITE. 


Forgive any typos, try to catch, but have multiple progressive disabilities

#18 FireJimCaldwell

FireJimCaldwell
  • Member
  • 6076 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:45 PM

These are personal stats that also have impact on their compensations. Teams generally should give them as far as there is no major risk.

Some have triggers built into their contracts.. some don't. One would have to look at the actual language of the contract to determine whether or not that was the case.



#19 tonychen

tonychen
  • Member
  • 912 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:48 PM

I guess Caldwell and Polians are regretting for not pulling Freeney out of the AFCCG in 09.



#20 oldunclemark

oldunclemark
  • Member
  • 15654 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:42 PM

umm..you play one less game with a bye.

umm..you play one less game with a bye.


tell 'em again, JJ..

The idea that you would EVER want to play 3 must-win games to qualify for the Super Bowl instead of two is very crazy


#21 oldunclemark

oldunclemark
  • Member
  • 15654 posts

Posted 21 December 2012 - 02:44 PM

It is hard to say because the whole set up is new though.
 
John Fox did make a SB and the playoffs less than a handful of times with Jake Delhomme as QB, so it is hard to extrapolate. Different QB, different coaches around him.
 
Here is his playoff record (6-4):


  • Went to SB in 2003 as a wild card, lost to Belichick (3-1)
  • Went to NFCCG in 2005 as a wild card, lost to Holmgren and Seahawks (2-1)
  • Lost in divisional round with a bye week in 2008 to Cardinals and Kurt Warner at home (0-1)
  • Went to divisional round as a wild card with Tebow in 2011, lost to Belichick and the Pats (1-1)
So, he knows how to win on the road. He won 2 road games to get to the SB in 2003 and 2 road games in 2005 but he has had the bye week only once and lost to a hot Cardinals team with Warner and Fitzgerald.


It is hard to say because the whole set up is new though.
 
John Fox did make a SB and the playoffs less than a handful of times with Jake Delhomme as QB, so it is hard to extrapolate. Different QB, different coaches around him.
 
Here is his playoff record (6-4):


  • Went to SB in 2003 as a wild card, lost to Belichick (3-1)
  • Went to NFCCG in 2005 as a wild card, lost to Holmgren and Seahawks (2-1)
  • Lost in divisional round with a bye week in 2008 to Cardinals and Kurt Warner at home (0-1)
  • Went to divisional round as a wild card with Tebow in 2011, lost to Belichick and the Pats (1-1)
So, he knows how to win on the road. He won 2 road games to get to the SB in 2003 and 2 road games in 2005 but he has had the bye week only once and lost to a hot Cardinals team with Warner and Fitzgerald.


Do
It is hard to say because the whole set up is new though.
 
John Fox did make a SB and the playoffs less than a handful of times with Jake Delhomme as QB, so it is hard to extrapolate. Different QB, different coaches around him.
 
Here is his playoff record (6-4):


  • Went to SB in 2003 as a wild card, lost to Belichick (3-1)
  • Went to NFCCG in 2005 as a wild card, lost to Holmgren and Seahawks (2-1)
  • Lost in divisional round with a bye week in 2008 to Cardinals and Kurt Warner at home (0-1)
  • Went to divisional round as a wild card with Tebow in 2011, lost to Belichick and the Pats (1-1)
So, he knows how to win on the road. He won 2 road games to get to the SB in 2003 and 2 road games in 2005 but he has had the bye week only once and lost to a hot Cardinals team with Warner and Fitzgerald.



Do you think some coaches are better in road games than others? Why would that be?

#22 chad72

chad72
  • Member
  • 8892 posts

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:32 PM

Do you think some coaches are better in road games than others? Why would that be?

 

It was the Panthers' D. Panthers' D was a good D those years and good D travels well on the road. Winning road games normally is a function of the road team's D playing well or in rare cases, the home team's D stinking it up (like no punts in a shootout like the 38-31 Peyton win over the Chiefs :) or the 37-20 shellacking the Giants gave the Packers last year). Eli, with all the road game record that he has in the playoffs, none of those games in his SB winning years did his D give up more than 20 points in any game. The D playing well (in general, and even more on the road) keeps the games close and gives your QB a chance to win.

 

Ravens, Jets and Steelers also have a decent road playoff record because of their D traveling well.



#23 No 1 Manning Fan

No 1 Manning Fan
  • Member
  • 806 posts

Posted 24 December 2012 - 12:52 PM

Go for the bye. The Broncos need to heal up. Also, Denver has always been a hard place to play in for the away team. And it's not like the Colts team of old that would rest the last two weeks of the regular season AND get the bye week, effectively going aLMost a month without real game competition. In the case of the Broncos this year, I see no benefit from dropping a game just to have to play in the wildcars game and losing homefield in the divisional round and possibly the AFCCG if cards fall right.






COLTS TICKETS!

Single Game Tickets Available!

BUY THEM TODAY!
Join the Stampede!

Recent Status Updates

  • Photo
      30 Jul
    T Y Goodbye

    I hate the media. The headline is Oregon QB Marcus Mariota only taking 2 classes..Golf and Yoga. What they left out is that he already graduated in 3 years, with over a 3.0 GPA in General Science, and STILL has 2 years of eligibility left.

    Show comments (3)
View All Updates