The Offseason Reading Series #13: Do playoff byes matter?

[21isSuperman]

With training camp coming up, let's keep ourselves entertained in the meanwhile with the last few installments of the ORS

 

Previous ORS installments

ORS1: The best Indianapolis Colts team ever

ORS2: Which Indianapolis Colt are you?

ORS3: Dissecting the 15th overall pick

ORS4: Choose your contract

ORS5: Which Simpsons characters are the Indianapolis Colts?

ORS6: The best trash-talking moments of Peyton Manning's career

ORS7: My favourite Andrew Luck throws

ORS8: Changes the NFL needs right now

ORS9: Projecting Moncrief's contract

ORS10: The NFL's MVP award

ORS11: So you want to draft a running back

ORS12: My case for Peyton Manning as the GOAT

 

In today's installment, we're talking playoff byes.

 

In the 2009 NFL season, the Indianapolis Colts had a first round playoff bye clinched thanks to a 14-0 record.  Many fans and players wanted to go for a 16-0 season, but Bill Polian famously (or infamously) decided that rest was more important.  But is that really the case?  Was Polian right in placing so much emphasis on a playoff bye/rest?

 

Football is an extremely physical sport.  Over the course of 17 weeks, massive players run into each other at full speed.  This inevitably results in injuries.  Thus, bye weeks are seen as a godsend.  They help teams heal physically and rest mentally for the remainder of the season.  Not only that, but teams that clinch playoff spots early on in the season might rest their starters in weeks 16 and/or 17 to keep them fresh for the playoffs, as I alluded to earlier.  The opportunity to rest and recover is valued by all.  But some claim that too much rest is bad too.  It can make you rusty and unprepared since you don’t see live game action for so long.  This leads us to the question, is the playoff bye really worth it?  Since it is given to the #1 and #2 seeds, those teams could have the playoffs locked up by week 15, meaning weeks 16 and 17 aren’t as significant for them.  Does it really help to take off that one week (possibly in addition to resting your starters in previous weeks), or is it better to keep playing so you stay in the habit of playing each week and there is no drop off in how you prepare?  Let’s take a look at the last 10 years to see how teams have done with the bye.

 

2007:

A1 – New England Patriots, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to New York

A2 – Indianapolis, 0-1, lost in divisional round to San Diego

N1 – Dallas Cowboys, 0-1, lost in divisional round to New York

N2 – Green Bay Packers, 1-1, lost in conference championship to New York

Overall record of teams with a bye: 3-4

 

2008:

A1 – Tennessee Titans, 0-1, lost in divisional round to Baltimore

A2 – Pittsburgh Steelers, 3-0, won Super Bowl

N1 – New York Giants, 0-1, lost in divisional round to Philadelphia

N2 – Carolina Panthers, 0-1, lost in divisional round to Arizona

Overall record of teams with a bye: 3-3

 

2009:

A1 – Indianapolis Colts, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to New Orleans

A2 – San Diego, 0-1, lost in divisional round to New York

N1 – New Orleans, 3-0, won Super Bowl

N2 – Minnesota Vikings, 1-1, lost in conference championship to New Orleans

Overall record of teams with a bye: 6-3

 

2010:

A1 – New England Patriots, 0-1, lost in divisional round to New York

A2 – Pittsburgh Steelers, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to Green Bay

N1 – Atlanta Falcons, 0-1, lost in divisional round to Green Bay

N2 – Chicago Bears, 1-1, lost in conference championship to Green Bay

Overall record of teams with a bye: 3-4

 

2011:

A1 – New England Patriots, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to New York

A2 – Baltimore Ravens, 1-1, lost in conference championship to New England

N1 – Green Bay Packers, 0-1, lost in divisional round to New York

N2 – San Francisco 49ers, 1-1, lost in conference championship to New York

Overall record of teams with a bye: 4-4

 

2012:

A1 – Denver Broncos, 0-1, lost in divisional round to Baltimore

A2 – New England, 1-1, lost in conference championship to Baltimore

N1 – Atlanta Falcons, 1-1, lost in conference championship to San Francisco

N2 – San Francisco 49ers, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to Baltimore

Overall record of teams with a bye: 4-5

 

2013:

A1 – Denver Broncos, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to Seattle

A2 – New England Patriots, 1-1, lost in conference championship to Denver

N1 – Seattle Seahawks, 3-0, won Super Bowl

N2 – Carolina Panthers, 0-1, lost in divisional round to San Francisco

Overall record of teams with a bye: 6-3

 

2014:

A1 – New England Patriots, 3-0, won Super Bowl

A2 – Denver Broncos, 0-1, lost in divisional round to Indianapolis

N1 – Seattle Seahawks, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to New England

N2 – Green Bay Packers, 1-1, lost in conference championship to Seattle

Overall record of teams with a bye: 6-3

 

2015:

A1 – Denver Broncos, 3-0, won Super Bowl

A2 – New England Patriots, 1-1, lost in conference championship to Denver

N1 – Carolina Panthers, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to Denver

N2 – Arizona Cardinals, 1-1, lost in conference championship to Carolina

Overall record of teams with a bye: 7-3

 

 

2016:

A1 – New England Patriots, 3-0, won Super Bowl

A2 – Kansas City Chiefs, 0-1, lost in divisional round to Pittsburgh

N1 – Dallas Cowboys, 0-1, lost in divisional round to Green Bay

N2 – Atlanta Falcons, 2-1, lost Super Bowl to New England

Overall record of teams with a bye: 5-3

 

Now let’s look at some of the trends and statistics we can get from this data.

 

Overall record of all teams with a playoff bye since 2006: 47-35, 0.573 winning pct.

This winning percentage corresponds to a regular season record of 9-7.

 

Number of teams that made it to the Super Bowl with a first round bye: 15/40

In the last 10 years, 40 teams have had a first round playoff bye.  Of those 40, 15 (37.5%) have made it to the Super Bowl.

 

In every year since 2007, at least one of the Super Bowl participants has had a playoff bye.

I thought this was pretty interesting trend.  It provides support to the argument that the playoff bye is useful.

 

In every year since 2013, both Super Bowl participants have had a first round bye.

This year’s teams with a first round bye were New England and Atlanta

 

Out of 40 teams, 14 (40%) have lost in the first round.

That’s nearly as many as teams making it to the Super Bowl.

 

The complete breakdown of how teams did is as follows:

Lost in the divisional round: 14/40 (35%)

Lost in conference round: 11/40 (27.5%)

Lost in Super Bowl: 9/40 (22.5%)

Won Super Bowl: 6/40 (15%)

 

The conference breakdown:

 

AFC:

Lost in the divisional round: 7/20 (35%)

Lost in conference round: 4/20 (20%)

Lost in Super Bowl: 5/20 (25%)

Won Super Bowl: 4/20 (20%)

 

NFC:

Lost in the divisional round: 7/20 (35%)

Lost in conference round: 7/20 (35%)

Lost in Super Bowl: 4/20 (20%)

Won Super Bowl: 2/20 (10%)

 

Analyzing the Super Bowl winners:

 

2007: N5 New York Giants

2008: A2 Pittsburgh Steelers

2009: N1 New Orleans Saints

2010: N6 Green Bay Packers

2011: N4 New York Giants

2012: A4 Baltimore Ravens

2013: N1 Seattle Seahawks

2014: A1 New England Patriots

2015: A1 Denver Broncos

2016: A1 New England Patriots

 

Using the data from the last 10 years, teams with a bye are almost as likely to get knocked out in the divisional round as they are to make it to the Super Bowl.  The Super Bowl winners of the last 10 years have had an average conference ranking of 2.6.  In the last ten years, the pattern of winners has been NANNNANAAA.  The conferences alternate wins (NA or AN), then the conference that won the first of the alternating championships wins three in a row (NANNN or ANAAA).  Then the pattern repeats with the opposite conference winning.  If the historical trend of the last 10 years continues, next year’s winner will be the 2nd or 3rd ranked team in the NFC, as the trend would be NANNNANAAANANNN.  Of the NFC teams winning the Super Bowl, they have an average ranking of 3.4.  This suggests next year’s Super Bowl winner will be the team ranked 3rd in the NFC.

 

Of the last 10 Super Bowl winners, 6/10 had a first round bye (4 AFC teams, 2 NFC teams) while 4/10 have not (1 AFC team, 3 NFC teams).  Of the last 20 Super Bowl participants, 15 have had a bye week (75%), consisting of 9/10 AFC participants and 6/10 NFC participants.  The bye appears to be much more valuable to AFC teams than NFC teams.

 

Zooming in on recent history

 

In the last 5 years, the trends differ…

 

Overall record of all teams with a playoff bye since 2012: 28-17, 0.622 winning pct.

This winning percentage corresponds to a regular season record of 10-6.  In the last 4 years, it’s even more skewed; teams with a playoff bye since 2013 have a combined playoff record of 24-12 (0.667 winning pct).

 

Number of teams that made it to the Super Bowl with a first round bye: 9/20

In the last 10 years, 37.5% of teams with a bye have made the Super Bowl.  In the last 5 years, this number increases fairly dramatically to 9/20 (45%).

 

The complete breakdown of how teams did is as follows:

Lost in the divisional round: 5/20 (25%)

Lost in conference round: 6/20 (30%)

Lost in Super Bowl: 5/20 (25%)

Won Super Bowl: 4/20 (20%)

 

Analyzing the Super Bowl winners:

2012: A4 Baltimore Ravens

2013: N1 Seattle Seahawks

2014: A1 New England Patriots

2015: A1 Denver Broncos

2016: A1 New England Patriots

 

Every Super Bowl participant of the last 5 years has had a bye week with the exception of the 2012 Baltimore Ravens.  It’s also interesting to note that the last four consecutive Super Bowl winners have all been ranked number one in their conference.  Of these teams, the average ranking of a Super Bowl winner is 1.6.  This sample does not present any discernible pattern of conferences.  Using this data, next year’s Super Bowl winner will be ranked 1^st or 2^nd in their conference.  If we combine this data with the all-time Super Bowl record of the two conferences (NFC: 26-25, AFC: 25-26), it suggests that next year’s Super Bowl winner will be from the NFC.

 

The bottom line:

 

What does it all mean?  Going off of the 10 year trend, since it has more data, if you’re an AFC team, history suggests getting the bye week is important in making it to the Super Bowl.  If you’re an NFC team, it’s not as important.  Recent history suggests you must secure a playoff bye to make it to the Super Bowl, but the sample size is too small to draw a solid conclusion.  An interesting question that I did not look into would be to examine which of the teams with a bye also rested their starters in weeks 16 and/or 17 and how that correlates with playoff success. 

 

Does the bye week help?  Yes.  Not only do those teams play one fewer game, giving them an easier path to the Super Bowl, but they can use that off week to gameplan, rest, and recover.  Not only that, but you get at least one home playoff game, making travel and accommodations another factor your team doesn’t have to worry about.  The five year trend also suggests that teams with the bye week have become really adept at taking full advantage of it, as they are far more successful in the last 5 years than teams from 2007-2011.

 

Keep this in mind:

 

This data suggests next year’s Super Bowl will be between the 2nd or 3rd ranked NFC team and the 1st or 2nd ranked AFC team, with the NFC team winning.

 

[NannyMcafee]

I believe that not having as many padded practices it has effected players toughness, so resting them when you also having a bye would have much the same effect in my opinion. But I know that's not entirely what your point is. 

[NorthernBlue]

I think the reason for it mattering more in the AFC and less in the NFC is that recently, the AFC is more top heavy than the NFC, with a few elite good teams that are way ahead of the pack.

 

Like for example, next year, the AFC has 3 really great teams in New England, Pittsburgh, and Oakland (and maybe KC).

 

Meanwhile in the NFC, it's a lot more open with teams like Seattle, Green Bay, Atlanta, Dallas, Carolina, Minnesota, and others who have had good success recently and have good rosters who have a legit shot at making it to the dance.

 

The last 5 years it's been a lot of the same teams with byes in the AFC.

 

2012 NE, DEN

2013 NE, DEN

2014 NE, DEN

2015, NE DEN

2016 NE KC

 

Meanwhile in the NFC it's been

2012 ATL SF

2013 SEA CAR

2014 SEA GB

2015 CAR AZ

2016 DAL ATL

 

Pretty much Brady and Peyton just owned the AFC their entire careers. There's some great teams in the NFC but no player of their calibre on any of those teams, resulting in a little more parity, I think.

[2006Coltsbestever]

It depends on the team. The Patriots have benefitted from the Bye a lot. They have had a Bye every time when they got to the SB except in 2001.

 

EDIT:

Actually they had a Bye in 2001 as well. I forgot they did, they just didn't have HFA. They were a 2 Seed. Everytime the Pats have made the SB they have had a Bye.

[21isSuperman]

What I found really interesting was the recent history.  It seems that even with the parity in the NFC that @NorthernBlue mentioned, it comes down to whoever can get the top 2 seeds.  Every Super Bowl participant in the last 5 years has had a bye week, with the exception of the 2012 Ravens.

[Superman]

2 hours ago, 21isSuperman said:

In the 2009 NFL season, the Indianapolis Colts had a first round playoff bye clinched thanks to a 14-0 record.  Many fans and players wanted to go for a 16-0 season, but Bill Polian famously (or infamously) decided that rest was more important.  But is that really the case?  Was Polian right in placing so much emphasis on a playoff bye/rest?

 

I think your breakdown of info suggests pretty dramatically that, statistically speaking, having a bye doesn't hurt your team's chances in the playoffs.

 

But three things I think: 

1) Specific to the portion I quoted above, we should be careful not to conflate the Polian era "rest" with having a first round bye. Just because a team has a first round bye doesn't mean they're resting or even pulling starters in Week 16, like the 2009 Colts did. I think that was pretty rare.

 

2) We always talk about teams getting hot at the right time, and about the "any given Sunday" effect in the NFL. And there are multiple other factors that go into the outcome of a football game -- injury, coaching, weather, etc. Just because a team with a playoff bye loses their first game doesn't mean the loss should be attributed to the bye. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

3) I think a big part of the reason why teams with a first round bye so consistently make it to the SB is because those are the best teams, bottom line. The Patriots have consistently been on that list, and then there are three really good Peyton Manning teams on that list, all with first round byes, which accounts for 7 out of 10 years since 2007. Good teams have good records and earn first round byes, then they win playoff games. It's not really surprising that majority of the time, at least one of the four teams with the best records in the league wind up going to the SB. 

[21isSuperman]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I think your breakdown of info suggests pretty dramatically that, statistically speaking, having a bye doesn't hurt your team's chances in the playoffs.

 

But three things I think: 

1) Specific to the portion I quoted above, we should be careful not to conflate the Polian era "rest" with having a first round bye. Just because a team has a first round bye doesn't mean they're resting or even pulling starters in Week 16, like the 2009 Colts did. I think that was pretty rare.

 

2) We always talk about teams getting hot at the right time, and about the "any given Sunday" effect in the NFL. And there are multiple other factors that go into the outcome of a football game -- injury, coaching, weather, etc. Just because a team with a playoff bye loses their first game doesn't mean the loss should be attributed to the bye. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

3) I think a big part of the reason why teams with a first round bye so consistently make it to the SB is because those are the best teams, bottom line. The Patriots have consistently been on that list, and then there are three really good Peyton Manning teams on that list, all with first round byes, which accounts for 7 out of 10 years since 2007. Good teams have good records and earn first round byes, then they win playoff games. It's not really surprising that majority of the time, at least one of the four teams with the best records in the league wind up going to the SB. 

Good points.  Apologies if I wasn't clear.  Correlation doesn't equal causation, as you said.  Having the bye on its own might not be as significant, but it's the other factors that go into it, like those teams are usually better coached, more talented, etc.

[GoPats]

 

More important than the bye, I think, is getting the top seed and ensuring that the road to the Super Bowl goes through your stadium, at least in your conference (and this seems particularly true in the AFC, where the home team has won 10 of the past 11 conference title games). 

 

 

[chad72]

19 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It depends on the team. The Patriots have benefitted from the Bye a lot. They have had a Bye every time when they got to the SB except in 2001.

 

EDIT:

Actually they had a Bye in 2001 as well. I forgot they did, they just didn't have HFA. They were a 2 Seed. Everytime the Pats have made the SB they have had a Bye.

 

They have not won as a #2 seed since 2004, so the #1 seed is more important now for the Pats than anything else. That is why Rex Ryan's Jets playoff win in Foxboro in 2010 playoffs has to rank amongst the biggest upsets, EVER, considering the Pats' playoff history. They had never gone 1-and-done as a #1 seed till then.

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

49 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

They have not won as a #2 seed since 2004, so the #1 seed is more important now for the Pats than anything else. That is why Rex Ryan's Jets playoff win in Foxboro in 2010 playoffs has to rank amongst the biggest upsets, EVER, considering the Pats' playoff history. They had never gone 1-and-done as a #1 seed till then.

 

 

That was a gigantic upset. I couldn't believe it, it was lovely  

[bleevit]

The winning record for the teams having a bye is no doubt the result of them being the better teams with the better records. Whether the bye is of benefit is far more clouded. For "skill" teams the bye seems to be of no value or maybe even harmful as their timing suffers from a layoff. For the more physical teams the healing properties of rest may make a rest valuable. I believe the value of an off week varies individually by specific team makeup.

[21isSuperman]

1 hour ago, bleevit said:

The winning record for the teams having a bye is no doubt the result of them being the better teams with the better records. Whether the bye is of benefit is far more clouded. For "skill" teams the bye seems to be of no value or maybe even harmful as their timing suffers from a layoff. For the more physical teams the healing properties of rest may make a rest valuable. I believe the value of an off week varies individually by specific team makeup.

Very well said.  It would be interesting to see how the results vary for teams that play for physically than those with finesse, but I imagine it would be too difficult to calculate

[TonyBungee]

Obviously the bye is no guarantee.  We've all seen that.  But a bye means you were one of the two best teams in your conference that season.  It means you win one home game & you're in the conference championship game.  I'd say it's kind of a big deal. 

[chad72]

Let us do a stat on the #1 seed with HFA vs the #2 seed with a bye.

 

I think the stats will be in favor of the #1 seed making it to the SB, maybe not winning it all but making it to the SB.

[lollygagger8]

Good post......meanwhile I'm over here like: 

[jskinnz]

Nice thread and research.  Well done.

 

I think a simple way to look at is this.  Would you rather have to win 2 games to get to the Super Bowl or 3?  The obvious answer is two.  

[That Guy]

On 7/17/2017 at 5:40 PM, 21isSuperman said:

Number of teams that made it to the Super Bowl with a first round bye: 15/40

In the last 10 years, 40 teams have had a first round playoff bye.  Of those 40, 15 (37.5%) have made it to the Super Bowl.

 

Number of teams that made it to the Super Bowl with a first round bye: 9/20

In the last 10 years, 37.5% of teams with a bye have made the Super Bowl.  In the last 5 years, this number increases fairly dramatically to 9/20 (45%).

 

 

I think this may be a little misleading.  Yes, 40 teams have had first round byes; but there are two teams with a bye every year for each conference.  It is only possible for 20 teams to make the Super Bowl within that time span, and a whopping 15 had first round byes.

 

These stats show me that 75% of all Super Bowl participants in the last ten years (and 90% in the last five years) have come from teams with a first round bye!  That's huge!

[21isSuperman]

3 hours ago, jskinnz said:

Nice thread and research.  Well done.

 

I think a simple way to look at is this.  Would you rather have to win 2 games to get to the Super Bowl or 3?  The obvious answer is two.  

I agree.  However, there are other factors to consider.  For example, do you want to continue playing every week, keeping the same routine, or do you want to change that routine in the most important part of the year?

 

I've heard Warren Sapp say that NFL players are creatures of habit.  When you change that routine, whether it be a bye week or a Monday game or whatever, things simply don't feel right.  And if you have the bye and rest your starters like the Colts did in 2009, it can lead to rust.  You could go 3 weeks only seeing 30 mins of real football action at full game speed. 

 

I can't remember who the exact player was (I want to say Jeff Saturday?), but a Colts player said a big reason they won it all in 2006 was because they had to play in weeks 16 and 17 during the regular season.  This forced them to keep the same routine and still continue to give it their all every week, so when the playoffs came around, it was like nothing had changed.

 

While I agree that it's easier to go on a 3-game winning streak to win the Super Bowl rather than a 4-game winning streak, I think there's something to be said about continuity.

 

3 hours ago, That Guy said:

I think this may be a little misleading.  Yes, 40 teams have had first round byes; but there are two teams with a bye every year for each conference.  It is only possible for 20 teams to make the Super Bowl within that time span, and a whopping 15 had first round byes.

 

These stats show me that 75% of all Super Bowl participants in the last ten years (and 90% in the last five years) have come from teams with a first round bye!  That's huge!

I see what you're saying.  That's a good point.  I suppose the breakdowns of losses per round would help clarify that.

[dgambill]

I want a bye no matter what. Reason being is it means you get the game at home. You get to rest and prepare for either team and suffer fewer injuries. I don't care what the number says....option of playing at home or playing on the road in the playoffs I think any team will take at home 100% of the time...no matter the layoff. Every game is about matchups and preparation and execution. I think if you give an elite coach like Belicheck a bye he is going to win most of the time. Same thing with other elite qbs and coaches. You let them watch tape for an extra week to prepare for just a couple teams they are going to figure some things out. Fact is usually the best teams have the byes...I would rather be one of those teams. Things happen at the end of the year sometimes and teams get hot or teams get hurt and the bye may not make a difference in that. You look at NE and Wes Welker gets hurt or Gronk gets hurt and a bye won't matter...or you see a team like the Giants that were building and getting better sometimes that bye doesn't matter...but overall....let me play at home no matter the cost. Having a week off won't cause you to play bad....that's a poor excuse. A better game plan or a better team might. We've all seen bad matchups for the team with the bye because say a really really good team got healthy late in the year and snuck into the playoffs and really they were the superior team and made a run. Still it comes down to home field advantage and nobody would pass that up considering the crowd noise, familiarity of environment, and extra preparation time....and usually the homer calls one gets.

[WoolMagnet]

All that and i dont see perhaps the most important factor (in last 10 years anyhow.

the NFC has had MUCH more parity.  The AFC has been primarily dominated by 2 teams... NE and Pitt. Pitt had a more difficult division than NE which explains the bye theory in the AFC.  Which is, the #1 seed is much better than the others.  In the NFC , its a more level playing field so the team that gets the bye isnt far better than the others.  

For me, i'll take the bye.  It not only guarantees a win in first round, but all other games are at home which is where the REAL advantage is..: all other things being equal.

pretty simple in my view.

[WoolMagnet]

On 7/18/2017 at 3:47 PM, GoPats said:

 

More important than the bye, I think, is getting the top seed and ensuring that the road to the Super Bowl goes through your stadium, at least in your conference (and this seems particularly true in the AFC, where the home team has won 10 of the past 11 conference title games). 

 

 

More places to hide cameras and needles in you own stadium i guess.

 

[Chrisaaron1023]

There really is no winning.. I think of the bye as not really rest time. but 60 mins where you really have no shot at getting injured.. (unless your wife stabs you in the leg) But if you lose one game. You're rusty. If you play throughout and someone gets hurt (Derrek Carr) you're doomed. It's all just dumb Luck. We could've gone at least 15-1 in 2009 (who knows in buffalo with the snow if we would've won) but we could've finished off the jets at least. But then we would've looked just as stupid as the Pats losing the one game you WANT to win all season. 

[Superman]

11 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

But then we would've looked just as stupid as the Pats losing the one game you WANT to win all season. 

 

1) I think that playing through and going into the SB 18-0 may have produced a different result in that game. There were already enough wacky things that happened, that I think you could play that game 10 times and get a 5/5 split. I don't believe the Saints were better than the Colts that year.

 

2) I don't think that Pats looked stupid for losing that SB and going 18-1. The Giants played a whale of a game defensively. Sometimes, it's not your day. The only think that kind of goes as a strike against the Pats is Brady acting like it was insane of anyone to think the Giants could slow down their offense. He was jokingly offended that someone said they'd only score 17 points, then they got held to 14. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

1) I think that playing through and going into the SB 18-0 may have produced a different result in that game. There were already enough wacky things that happened, that I think you could play that game 10 times and get a 5/5 split. I don't believe the Saints were better than the Colts that year.

 

2) I don't think that Pats looked stupid for losing that SB and going 18-1. The Giants played a whale of a game defensively. Sometimes, it's not your day. The only think that kind of goes as a strike against the Pats is Brady acting like it was insane of anyone to think the Giants could slow down their offense. He was jokingly offended that someone said they'd only score 17 points, then they got held to 14. 

I agree. I often tell people had the Colts been 18-0 they may have won and played differently, yes it is all opinion but with 19-0 on the line maybe Freeney even toughs it out and plays the 2nd Half. We don't know? I have been a Colts fan since 1984 and our decision not to try for 16-0 was the worst one I have ever seen IMO. Polian making excuses for it was even worse. We had a chance to do something that has never been done before, go 19-0 and Bill Polian pulled the plug on it and Irsay let it happen. Caldwell let it happen too. Peyton was pee'd off about it. Peyton is such a great guy but you could tell he wanted to stay in vs NY.

[GoColts8818]

Yes even though team can lose it guarties them a home game and more importantly it means one less chance to lose.  

[Jules]

You want the bye if you can get it. Absolutely.

 

But who you play in the playoffs is often absolutely just the luck of the draw. I mean in 2005, I am sure we win the SB if we get by the Steelers. We just had the misfortune of drawing the Cowher led veteran Steelers who had been 15-1 the year before and were the hot 6th seed. And sometimes you get those cases with say the Steelers or the Giants a few times or the Packers of 2010. You can't predict or plan for those usually.

 

And then in 2009 Freeney getting hurt in the AFCCG was another thing you can't anticipate and we had homefield. So..........crap happens. Chargers lost to the Jets in 2009 and IMO SD might have even beaten us in the AFCCG or at least given us a better preview of how to prepare for Drew Brees.

 

In 2006 no bye but the Colts at the time became the "hot playoff team" finally somehow with a run defense that went from dead last to "oh hell yeah." We were finally due.

 

It's all a crap shoot with what happens in the playoffs but you want a week off if you can get it.

 

Just those fluke injuries or tough teams you host can be unpredictable IMO.

 

I know some say the better defensive teams can play better on the road and travel and take more chances without a bye. And some claim too that pass heavy offenses don't always do as well sometimes if they have too much time off. 

[IinD]

I think HFA is more of an advantage if you're a cold weather team, especially in January. If the second/third best teams are warm weather or dome teams, you have actual HFA. Even if it's a 1% difference, I think traveling teams have trouble in cold weather.

 

Ne has had many sloppy games over the years. Imagine if Buffalo got its act together what an advantage it would be? Just like they had in the 90's.

 

Long answer made longer..I don't think LOS is much of an advantage for us like RCA was. Not many teams really have an advantage at home anymore except for weather.

 

Places where I think HFO is actually a bit more of an advantage then just crowd noise...NE,BUFFALO/BALT/PITT/KC/NY/CLE. Probably missing a few other cold weather teams.

 

Wasn't taking into account the teams actually have to be good, but I hope my point is in there somewhere.

 

Hopefully not tldr, my apologies.