Well, it's that time. The Super Bowl is around the corner and everyone is making their predictions. So here are some thoughts and predictions on the upcoming Super Bowl, both in terms of the actual game and its implications. Here are some of the stories going into it:
Peyton Manning's Legacy:
Would winning this second Super Bowl automatically make him the greatest quarterback of all-time? What does it do to his legacy if he loses? Does just making it to three Super Bowls already make him the greatest? And more importantly, as a Patriots fan, but Richard Sherman hater, do I even want either of these teams to win?
Here's the thing about Manning's legacy: it's pretty much set in stone at this point. Win or lose, he's always going to be considered a top five quarterback all-time. And, of course, the greatest of all time debate is never going to have a clear cut winner. It's entirely subjective. If the reason people still don't rank Tom Brady over Joe Montana is that Brady has lost two of his five Super Bowls while Montana won all four of his, then how can Manning be placed above Montana going two for three himself? He's still lost a Super Bowl, and didn't even appear in as many as Montana (and only appeared in about half as many as Brady).
Sports fans tend to be all about the "now," but I'm not sure you can really erase the past, especially in regards to a player's "legacy." What about the fact that Peyton Manning didn't even make the Super Bowl until almost a full decade into his career? Three Super Bowl appearances will always be impressive. It's less impressive when considering this is three in the span of sixteen years (fifteen years as a starter, minus the injured year). That's 20% of his seasons as a starter in the NFL. If Brett Favre has taught us anything, it's just how difficult it is to even get to the Super Bowl, going to two Super Bowls early in his career, then only even sniffing the NFC Championship a couple of times for the remainder of his career. (By comparison, Tom Brady has been to five Super Bowls in the span of twelve years as a starter - minus the injured year- meaning he's been to 41% of the Super Bowls available to him as a starter. Just saying.)
I'm also one of these weird sports fans who doesn't feel that championships mean everything. When looking at a player's legacy, you have to also use the regular season. You can't just ignore certain aspects of his career. Shoot, even as a Patriots fan and as someone who thinks Tom Brady is arguably the greatest ever, you can't just ignore his history of shaky play in the post season. With Brett Favre, you can't just ignore the entire second half of his career. And similarly, you can't just ignore Peyton Manning's first decade in the league. Manning has steadily gotten better in the post season as the years went by, but he's still someone that has traditionally looked much better in the regular season than in the post season.
Yes, Manning is having perhaps his best post season to date. And that bears keeping in mind too! But does one good post season suddenly override years and years and years of underperforming in the post season? If we're talking about his overall legacy, it can't. The legacy isn't just "what you did last." It's everything.
Win or lose, to my mind Peyton Manning is clearly a top five quarterback in the history of the league. I wouldn't put him above Tom Brady or Joe Montana just because he wins a second ring. It helps his case, especially against a stout defense like the Seahawks. I don't see this really changing his legacy that much though unless he comes out flat, throws two or three interceptions, and loses big time as a result. If he plays horribly in the Super Bowl and loses his second, it'll be hard to shake the idea of Manning being a great regular season quarterback who just couldn't keep it going into the post season.
I would just address this argument pre-emptively: "Well, Peyton Manning has taken two different teams to the Super Bowl! That's far more impressive than taking the same team over and over again." This is an argument many have been making to put Manning in his "rightful" spot above Tom Brady. I think this argument is extremely flawed and is a disservice to both the Patriots and this year's Broncos team. First of all, the "two teams" argument is almost entirely arbitrary. When you really look at the make-up of this Broncos team, does it really look that different from the make-up of his Colts teams in years past? Prolific offense? Check. At least one really, really good wide out? Check. A great slot receiver? Check. An amazing offensive line? Check. A somewhat pedestrian defense? Check. Honestly, the Denver Broncos could very well be the Indianapolis Colts. It's built almost exactly the same way as Manning's Colts were. There is definitely something to be said about Manning going to three Super Bowls under three different head coaches! That's definitely something people can use to knock Brady a bit. For all of the different offensive coordinators Brady's had, he's only ever had Bill Belichick.
Still, the Patriots team is built entirely differently from years past. Almost every year is dramatically different in terms of offensive schemes and personnel. The Patriots teams that Tom Brady has taken to the post season since 2004 have been extremely different. By all means, the 2011 Super Bowl run as well was an entirely different team on both sides of the ball. Just because it's the same uniform doesn't mean it's the same team. When these guys like Brady and Manning start pushing 15, 20 years in their career? Any Super Bowl they make is going to be with a very different team.
Let's also not forget that the Broncos team Manning inherited was not a bad team. They went 8-8 and made the playoffs the year before Manning's arrival. They already had a number of offensive weapons in place. The defense was a little better before Manning, but that team's only missing ingredient was a quarterback. Of course the Broncos are going to look much, much better with Peyton Manning under center than Tim Tebow. It's not like Manning went to the Oakland Raiders or the Dallas Cowboys. He went to a good team that had a good system in place and just needed that one part. Manning's greatness is that he elevated that team, but he didn't make it himself and himself alone.
Of course, I might be rooting for Manning here, if only because I do want to see Wes Welker get a ring. Patriots fans really lay down their hate of Welker these days, but he's been a solid receiver and a fun guy to follow. He deserves a ring (even though I would prefer it have been with the Pats). And frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing Peyton Manning get another ring too, if only so people shut up about Eli being better. (One more ring doesn't remove ten years of mediocre - at best - play.)
Richard Sherman:
What's easy to forget coming into this Super Bowl is that Richard Sherman might not even be Seattle's best defensive back! Free safety Earl Thomas has very quietly been performing at a very high level. Thomas is every bit as critical to the Legion of Boom as Sherman, and yet no one is talking about him (perhaps because Thomas doesn't talk about himself in the same way as Sherman does).
Let's not get the wrong idea here: Richard Sherman is certainly one of the best cornerbacks in the league. The (unfortunate) reality is that he can say anything he wants because he more often than not, backs it up. This, of course, doesn't suggest that you can't beat Sherman. He got torched on a number of plays in last year's playoff games (something no one has ever addressed...) But the guy more or less always backs up the talk (even if he only talks when they're ahead, or when he wants to come up with an excuse as to why he got beat or they lost).
Now, I'll just touch a little bit on this: I initially hated Richard Sherman. And I still do, but not as much as I did before. I'm all for trash talking. In fact, I actually have been enjoying a number of the things he's been saying in the lead up to the Super Bowl. He's got a little back and forth going with the Broncos players (including Manning). It seems like it's in good fun. That's the key to what I perceive as acceptable trash talking. I'm all for this kind of stuff. I'm all for trash talking on the field to try and get in your opponent's head. And certainly, Sherman carries a level of honesty that is actually kind of refreshing from the tight-lipped Patriot Way many fans are accustomed to. Still, I do believe in sportsmanship. When you make a play, celebrate with your team. Don't go and taunt the other team. Don't go on television and freak out about how great you are and how crappy another player is (especially when it was another player - Colin Kaepernick - who cost them the game, not Michael Crabtree).
Richard Sherman has proven to be just as sore a winner as he is a loser. If this is what sports allows as perfectly acceptable, I have to wonder what we're doing here. If it's all ok because the only thing that matters is winning, then how is sports not the most self-serving and self-important institution in the history of mankind? And like it or not, every single one of these professional athletes is a role model. That's why it's so frustrating that the league just gives their players a slap on the wrist. (See Marshawn Lynch - who I really like - but has been arrested for a DUI and had virtually no consequences from the league.)
And of course, let's not forget that Richard Sherman was caught for using performance-enhancing drugs a few years ago and got off - not because it was proven he didn't use them, but because of a legal technicality saying the sample wasn't entirely handled correctly. By all means, Sherman tested positive for PEDs and somehow no one cares because of a technicality. (Meanwhile, Spygate remains the most blown out of proportion "cheating" scandal in the history of sports...)
Sherman has been classless on the field. It's frustrating to hear him speak later in the week, when he's more collected and obviously very intelligent. In the aftermath of his strange and absurd rant post-game against San Francisco, he later apologized and told kids that they shouldn't taunt other players and he regretted his actions. I mean, I get that whole "heat of the moment" argument, but why is Richard Sherman the only player in the league who has done that? You don't think all those New England players are competitors too? Shoot. Tom Brady's post-game conferences this year have shown how pissed he gets when he loses, but you still never ever see him make any comments putting down other players (or even the other team!)
He seems very much that guy that you totally love when he's on your team, but when he's not, you totally hate him. I certainly appreciate the freshness he's brought to this week's media blitz. It's more interesting than a Patriots/Giants Super Bowl where everyone is showing too much respect to each other to the point where it seems borderline fake. Still, if I were a Seattle fan, I'd be a little bit worried. We've seen this before: players who are so cocky to the point where they seem to care more about themselves than the team. At first it seems fine, but over time those players start to pick the team apart.
Offense vs. Defense
And of course, we have another instance of a prolific offense facing off against a stout defense. Peyton Manning and company shattered records and presumably go into the Super Bowl as favorites (probably in the same way that the Patriots were favorites in 2011, actually - in that Vegas put them as favorites, but most football analysts picked the Giants). I suspect it's the same deal. Already, I've seen most analysts pick the Seahawks. Still, Denver seems to be the favorites.
My thought is just that we've seen this before. In 2001, we saw the defensive minded Patriots take on the Greatest Show on Turf and hold the best offense in the league to 17 points. We saw it again in 2002 with the defensively focused Buccaneers beating the last great Raiders offense. We saw it with the team that was previously the most prolific offense in NFL history! The New York Giants held the record breaking Patriots offense to just 14 points! They did it again in 2011, holding one of the best offenses in the league to just 17 points. You could even argue that the Saints did it to the Colts in 2009. Though not a great defense, the Saints ballhawking defense peaked just in time for the playoffs. They held Arizona to just 14 points in the Divisional Round, then held the vaunted Manning offense to just 17 points in the Super Bowl.
When it comes to offense versus defense Super Bowls, the stats heavily favor the defense.
Cold Weather
It sounds like this cold weather Super Bowl won't be so terrible after all. The forecast shows no inclement weather and the temperatures to be around 30 degrees. Fans and analysts (and presumably players) have sighed a little relief. I still don't get it. Apparently, our high school and college football teams can play in 4 degree weather, but not professional athletes?
And don't give me that nonsense about "it impacts the game." While that's true, does it not impact both teams? It's not like it affects just one team - like bad officiating impacted Carolina. (For the record, I think San Fran wins that game regardless, but that was one of the most lopsided officiating jobs I've seen in years, with a number of terrible, terrible calls and noncalls blatantly aided the 49ers.) Maybe I'm the only person who doesn't want to just always watch football played in these stale, safe, and artificial environments. Weather should be a factor!
If anything, this couldn't be more well set up for Peyton Manning to further pad his legacy. An outdoor playoff game (where he's traditionally struggled), in the cold (when he's traditionally struggled)? He wins now, no one would ever make that argument again. Further, are the Broncos or Seahawks really that great if they need warm weather and artificial conditions to win a Super Bowl? Everyone talks about how unfair a cold weather Super Bowl would be for a team built in warm weather, but why does the opposite never apply? What about warm weather Super Bowls that feature teams built for colder climates?
Listen, I'm not saying we always play Super Bowls in cold weather, but c'mon. It can't just be in Texas, Florida, California, and Louisiana every year. Bring some diversity to it! OH NO! THEY MIGHT HAVE TO PLAY IN SNOW!??!? Bologna. This is football.
Predictions:
I might be rooting a bit for the Broncos, but otherwise I have no real investment in this game. I do see it going to the Seattle Seahawks with a bit of a lopsided score. I see it being 31-16 with Marshawn Lynch the MVP. I think Manning throws two interceptions, with Lynch slowly getting stronger over time. I know, I know. "The most prolific offense only scores one, maybe two touchdowns? Really?" Yeah. I do think that. And I think that because that's exactly what happened last time the most prolific offense went up against a great defense. Of course, the Broncos offensive line is better than the '07 Patriots line. And the Seahawks pass rush isn't as good as the '07 Giants rush. But I don't see Manning being able to rely on the running game. He'll only be able to do so much with short ins and outs.
I see Manning's stats being something like 24-40 for 290 yards with 1 TD and 2 INTs. One of the backs might fumble as well.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Brady and the Conference Championship.
Stop me if you've heard this one: the New England Patriots won the AFC East title, then won their home game in the divisional round to advance to the conference championship. Sound familiar? It should. It's been the norm for the past 13 years.I mean, this marks only the eight time the Patriots have advanced to the AFC Championship game. (That's literally more than half of the seasons with Brady and Belichick!) It's the third straight year they've made it as well.
But let's be honest: Tom Brady hasn't looked particularly hot this year. In fact, he hasn't looked particularly good in the playoffs overall since their Super Bowl wins. Yes, we remember his great game against the Houston Texans in the 2012 Divisional Round, where he completed 62.5% of his passes for 344 yards and three touchdowns to no interceptions. Then there was the ridiculous Divisional Round game in 2011 when Brady completed 76% of his passes for 363 yards and six touchdowns to one interception - most of it in the first half. Those numbers are always impressive, but one must take that with a grain of salt as it was against the hapless 8-8, Tebow-led Broncos who backed into the playoffs. Still, you can't argue those performances were anything other than great - the kind you expect from a Hall of Fame, classically considered clutch quarterback.
He followed up his 2012 game with a performance in the AFC Championship that saw him complete just 53% of his passes for (a deceptive) 320 yards. He threw for just one touchdown while throwing two interceptions. In the follow-up of his video game performance in 2011, he completed a more reasonable 61% of his passes for 239 yards while throwing for zero touchdowns to two interceptions. Granted, he QB-sneaked a touchdown, but otherwise, he wasn't particularly impressive.
In fact, Tom Brady's career conference championship numbers aren't particularly impressive even dating back to the successful Super Bowl runs! Of course, there's something itself tremendously impressive about having nearly half a season's worth of football games under one's belt of just conference championships. There is no other active quarterback in the league who has played in large enough pool of conference championships to do this kind of analysis for!
Still, let's just look at those numbers. In his seven AFC Championship games, he has completed 142 passes on 233 attempts (60% of his passes completed). He's thrown for a total of 1559 yards. So far, this doesn't sound too bad. It's fairly average actually - completing an average of 20 passes per conference championship for 222 yards a game. Nothing amazing, but it's not nothing. However, Brady has thrown just 7 touchdowns to 9 interceptions in AFC title games! The thing that makes Brady so great is that he makes smart reads and takes care of the football. He's got one of the best TD to INT percentages in the history of the NFL, yet when it comes down to the conference title game, he turns it over more frequently. In fact, Tom Brady has only thrown for more touchdowns than interceptions in a conference title game once (2004).
Of course, to be fair, Brady only played about half of the title game in 2001 before he was injured and replaced with Bledsoe. Perhaps his second half performance would have created more of a balance. There's no getting around it though. His passer rating in AFC title games is 74.7. Even if you account for quarterback sneaks for touchdowns, Brady still accounts for more turnovers than touchdowns.
This is not to downplay Brady's accomplishments. He is obviously one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time (I tend to agree he is the best too!) However, if Brady fans' big knock on Peyton Manning is that the world sees him through rose tinted glasses (which they do), the fact appears that Brady lovers do the same thing with Brady. Of course, the ultimate statistic that matters is what separates the two in the first place: Brady is 5-2 in conference championships. It's the only genuinely impressive statistic related to Brady and conference title games. And really, it's the only one that matters.
But let's be honest: Tom Brady hasn't looked particularly hot this year. In fact, he hasn't looked particularly good in the playoffs overall since their Super Bowl wins. Yes, we remember his great game against the Houston Texans in the 2012 Divisional Round, where he completed 62.5% of his passes for 344 yards and three touchdowns to no interceptions. Then there was the ridiculous Divisional Round game in 2011 when Brady completed 76% of his passes for 363 yards and six touchdowns to one interception - most of it in the first half. Those numbers are always impressive, but one must take that with a grain of salt as it was against the hapless 8-8, Tebow-led Broncos who backed into the playoffs. Still, you can't argue those performances were anything other than great - the kind you expect from a Hall of Fame, classically considered clutch quarterback.
He followed up his 2012 game with a performance in the AFC Championship that saw him complete just 53% of his passes for (a deceptive) 320 yards. He threw for just one touchdown while throwing two interceptions. In the follow-up of his video game performance in 2011, he completed a more reasonable 61% of his passes for 239 yards while throwing for zero touchdowns to two interceptions. Granted, he QB-sneaked a touchdown, but otherwise, he wasn't particularly impressive.
In fact, Tom Brady's career conference championship numbers aren't particularly impressive even dating back to the successful Super Bowl runs! Of course, there's something itself tremendously impressive about having nearly half a season's worth of football games under one's belt of just conference championships. There is no other active quarterback in the league who has played in large enough pool of conference championships to do this kind of analysis for!
Still, let's just look at those numbers. In his seven AFC Championship games, he has completed 142 passes on 233 attempts (60% of his passes completed). He's thrown for a total of 1559 yards. So far, this doesn't sound too bad. It's fairly average actually - completing an average of 20 passes per conference championship for 222 yards a game. Nothing amazing, but it's not nothing. However, Brady has thrown just 7 touchdowns to 9 interceptions in AFC title games! The thing that makes Brady so great is that he makes smart reads and takes care of the football. He's got one of the best TD to INT percentages in the history of the NFL, yet when it comes down to the conference title game, he turns it over more frequently. In fact, Tom Brady has only thrown for more touchdowns than interceptions in a conference title game once (2004).
Of course, to be fair, Brady only played about half of the title game in 2001 before he was injured and replaced with Bledsoe. Perhaps his second half performance would have created more of a balance. There's no getting around it though. His passer rating in AFC title games is 74.7. Even if you account for quarterback sneaks for touchdowns, Brady still accounts for more turnovers than touchdowns.
This is not to downplay Brady's accomplishments. He is obviously one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time (I tend to agree he is the best too!) However, if Brady fans' big knock on Peyton Manning is that the world sees him through rose tinted glasses (which they do), the fact appears that Brady lovers do the same thing with Brady. Of course, the ultimate statistic that matters is what separates the two in the first place: Brady is 5-2 in conference championships. It's the only genuinely impressive statistic related to Brady and conference title games. And really, it's the only one that matters.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
The Bigg Question: How Much of an Advantage is Home Field?
The second of three things that seem to become less significant in today's NFL is home field advantage in the post season. Everyone wants it. It is still an advantage. And certainly your fans want to be able to go to your playoff games. Still, there has been a noticeable trend of road teams being much more successful in the playoffs than ever before.
We've already seen that the Bye Week doesn't translate into Super Bowl wins the way that it used to - eight Super Bowl titles from 1993 to 2002 against just four Super Bowl wins from 2003 to 2012. The advantage of home field appears to have been substantially more important going back.
Here are some numbers for you. From 1993 to 2002, home teams were a combined 75-25 in the post season! The worst record for home teams in a year was 6-4. In five of those years, home teams went 8-2. This .750 winning percentage is the equivalent of a 12-4 record.
Compare that to the numbers from the past ten years. From 2003 to 2012, home teams were a combined 58-42! The worst record for home teams in a year was 3-7. Home teams finished below .500 in the playoffs twice. They finished 5-5 in two consecutive years . And they finished with a combined 8-2 record just twice in those ten years. (And so far, home teams are 1-3 in this year's post season!) This winning percentage of .580 is almost the equivalent of a 9-7 record.
What if we go back further though. What about the ten seasons before 1993? Of course, the playoffs of the '80s were a bit different. There were fewer games each year with only one wild card game per conference. The two and three seeds were scheduled to play in the Divisional Round while the one seed was supposed to play the wild card winner - provided the wild card winner wasn't from their division (divisional rivals were not allowed to meet in the Divisional Round). The change to the format that we currently know (two wild card weekend games, one and two seeds get byes with the one seed playing the lowest remaining seed) occurred for the 1990 season. Still, we can find the total winning percentage just the same. Home teams in the playoffs from 1983 to 1992 were a combined 59-27. This .686 winning percentage is almost the equivalent of a 10-6 season. Only once did home teams finish at .500 (1992 saw a 5-5 record from home teams). The two years before that both saw home teams go 8-2. Thus, never from 1983 to 2002 have playoff teams gone worse than .500. It's happened twice in the past ten years.
In fact, going back to the very beginning you can see a much different home field advantage. If you go back to the very beginning of the Super Bowl era, home teams from 1966 to 1982 were 63-36. Of course, the playoffs had changed dramatically in this 17 year period of time. For the first couple of Super Bowls, the playoffs were literally just the top two teams in each conference playing each other. Winner went to the Super Bowl. So there were really only two playoff games prior to the championship.
What does this mean, exactly? The winning percentages of teams spiked in the '90s. It is perhaps arguable that the best teams of the '90s dominated the league in a way that no other time period saw. It's been fairly consistent before that though, hovering in the mid .600s winning percentage. The total combined record for home teams in the Super Bowl era - prior to this past decade of NFL seasons - 197-88. That's a .691 winning percentage! Compare that to the modern NFL's 58-42 record and .580 winning percentage.
There are a number of reasons home field advantage doesn't have the same luster it once did. The league has done more to provide an environment of parody and competitive equality than before. Things like the salary cap and draft order help to create an NFL in which it truly is possible for any team to beat any other team on any given Sunday - even if it were unlikely. Still, it's not like the NFL was bad in the '90s and there were only five or six teams that were good. At the end of the day though, home field advantage doesn't mean as much as it used to.
We've already seen that the Bye Week doesn't translate into Super Bowl wins the way that it used to - eight Super Bowl titles from 1993 to 2002 against just four Super Bowl wins from 2003 to 2012. The advantage of home field appears to have been substantially more important going back.
Here are some numbers for you. From 1993 to 2002, home teams were a combined 75-25 in the post season! The worst record for home teams in a year was 6-4. In five of those years, home teams went 8-2. This .750 winning percentage is the equivalent of a 12-4 record.
Compare that to the numbers from the past ten years. From 2003 to 2012, home teams were a combined 58-42! The worst record for home teams in a year was 3-7. Home teams finished below .500 in the playoffs twice. They finished 5-5 in two consecutive years . And they finished with a combined 8-2 record just twice in those ten years. (And so far, home teams are 1-3 in this year's post season!) This winning percentage of .580 is almost the equivalent of a 9-7 record.
What if we go back further though. What about the ten seasons before 1993? Of course, the playoffs of the '80s were a bit different. There were fewer games each year with only one wild card game per conference. The two and three seeds were scheduled to play in the Divisional Round while the one seed was supposed to play the wild card winner - provided the wild card winner wasn't from their division (divisional rivals were not allowed to meet in the Divisional Round). The change to the format that we currently know (two wild card weekend games, one and two seeds get byes with the one seed playing the lowest remaining seed) occurred for the 1990 season. Still, we can find the total winning percentage just the same. Home teams in the playoffs from 1983 to 1992 were a combined 59-27. This .686 winning percentage is almost the equivalent of a 10-6 season. Only once did home teams finish at .500 (1992 saw a 5-5 record from home teams). The two years before that both saw home teams go 8-2. Thus, never from 1983 to 2002 have playoff teams gone worse than .500. It's happened twice in the past ten years.
In fact, going back to the very beginning you can see a much different home field advantage. If you go back to the very beginning of the Super Bowl era, home teams from 1966 to 1982 were 63-36. Of course, the playoffs had changed dramatically in this 17 year period of time. For the first couple of Super Bowls, the playoffs were literally just the top two teams in each conference playing each other. Winner went to the Super Bowl. So there were really only two playoff games prior to the championship.
What does this mean, exactly? The winning percentages of teams spiked in the '90s. It is perhaps arguable that the best teams of the '90s dominated the league in a way that no other time period saw. It's been fairly consistent before that though, hovering in the mid .600s winning percentage. The total combined record for home teams in the Super Bowl era - prior to this past decade of NFL seasons - 197-88. That's a .691 winning percentage! Compare that to the modern NFL's 58-42 record and .580 winning percentage.
There are a number of reasons home field advantage doesn't have the same luster it once did. The league has done more to provide an environment of parody and competitive equality than before. Things like the salary cap and draft order help to create an NFL in which it truly is possible for any team to beat any other team on any given Sunday - even if it were unlikely. Still, it's not like the NFL was bad in the '90s and there were only five or six teams that were good. At the end of the day though, home field advantage doesn't mean as much as it used to.
CORRECTION:
I have to issue a correction to my previous post. When counting "Wild Card teams" winning the Super Bowl from 1993 to 2002, I forgot to account for the difference in league alignment. From that period, there were only three divisions in each conference with three wild card teams in each conference. I had mistakenly accounted the 1997 Denver Broncos and the 2001 Baltimore Ravens - both 4 seeds - as division winners instead of as wild card teams. Thus, there were two occasions in which a wild card team won the Super Bowl in that ten year span, ultimately not that big of a difference from the three that have won this past decade.
Still, the point about the Bye Week remains the same. Teams with the bye week have been noticeably less successful this past decade than the previous decade of NFL seasons.
Still, the point about the Bye Week remains the same. Teams with the bye week have been noticeably less successful this past decade than the previous decade of NFL seasons.
Monday, January 6, 2014
The Bigg Question: Does the Bye Week Help?
It used to be so simple in the NFL. You won games by winning the turnover battle. You won playoff games with home field advantage. And you got to the Super Bowl by earning the Bye. It seems more and more in today's offense-friendly NFL, getting any or all of these things is no sure guarantee anymore. The first one to look at - with the divisional round coming up - is the significance of the Bye Week.
How important is the Bye? People seem increasingly split on this. It used to be seen as a huge advantage. Your players could rest and heal up and be in better condition than the other teams. Yet the past decade has seen a ridiculous number of wild card teams come in and win (on the road) against the teams with the Bye. An ever-growing number of people believe now that playing the wild card weekend actually boosts your team's chances as it gives them more "momentum." You get into a stronger rhythm playing that extra game.
In the past ten years, the teams coming off the bye week are a combined 24-16. The chances of coming away with a post season win having the bye are pretty good. Those teams have a combined winning percentage of .600. Most teams would take those odds. Interestingly, only once in the past ten years have all four teams with the bye week won (2004). The last three years straight saw three of the four bye teams win!
What's strange is that those numbers haven't translated to Super Bowl wins. In the past ten years, only four teams have won a Super Bowl after having earned the bye week. It's one thing to get out of the Divisional Round. How do teams earning the Bye stack up on the Conference Title front? Well, it's a smaller pool of games, but it shows just how hard winning the post season is. Teams with the Bye week are actually 12-12 in Conference title games. This number can be deceptive, of course, as five times in the past ten years, at least one conference title game featured both bye teams from the conference. Only once have all four teams made it (2004).
So it seems having the Bye Week increases your chances of winning at least one playoff game. They have won 60% of the Divisional Round games in the past decade! But if your team can get past that? The Bye Week seems to have no real bearing. Granted, you need to strip half the games away, but if you do look at just the Conference Title games that feature a Bye week team vs. the 4 or lower seed? Well, those teams with the Bye are just 5-4. It's pretty much split. It's not really a big enough jump in the Conference Championship round to really suggest the Bye helps there. Still, you need to at least get there to have a shot at the Super Bowl, right?
Of course, the Bye matters even less once you get there. If teams with the Bye have a slight, statistical edge in the Conference Title games, teams without have a slight edge in the Super Bowl. Teams that made the Super Bowl that also played in the Wild Card weekend are an incredible 6-2 against teams that earned the Bye in the last ten years. Only in 2004 and 2009 did we see both teams in the Super Bowl win out with the Bye (the Patriots and Eagles in '04 and then the Saints and Colts in '09).
Even more astounding is the fact that straight up wild card teams have won the Super Bowl three times while the one-seed has only won twice (Pats in '03 and the Saints in '09).
It's hard to really make anything of these numbers. The Bye week seems to increase your chances of making the Conference Championship, and even the Super Bowl! But it ultimately doesn't do anything to your odds of winning the Super Bowl. What's strange is if you go back further than ten years ago, you start to see the Bye Week mattering a lot more. Starting at 2002, you have to go eight years to find a time when only half of the Bye Week teams made it. In the seven NFL years from 1996 to 2002, three of the four teams made it beyond the Divisional Round. Additionally, teams with the bye week won the Super Bowl five of those seven times! (No wildcard team won in that span. In fact, only once did a wild card team even make the Conference Championship in that span - the Jacksonville Jaguars in 1996.) It is interesting to note that the Bye week used to make a big difference - or at least, it seemed to. Nowadays, it doesn't.
With the Divisional Round coming up, it seems like everyone is already picking the Bye teams to win. It makes sense. Seattle is nearly invincible at home. Denver is a literal video game offense right now. New England has history (even if most of that history is reaching the 10 year mark in age). The only team people are picking to win is San Francisco. Whether or not the Bye Week really does help, there is certainly one thing for sure: nothing is guaranteed. And this is exactly what the NFL wants. But for once, this is also what the fans want too.
My picks for the Divisional Round:
SEATTLE 38 - New Orleans 17
A repeat of the most unfair consequence of the current playoff format from a few years ago, the difference here is that Seattle actually does deserve to be in the playoffs and to host a game this time! Drew Brees and the Saints conquered some demons in Philly; then again, the Eagles didn't exactly have a terrifying defense. Though a big win, it really seems unlikely to think this Saints team - which has been pretty bad on the road - can go into three straight playoff games on the road and win them all.
INDIANAPOLIS 31 - New England 20
The Pats and Colts didn't play this year, oddly, so we don't have much to go on. The Pats have not been able to catch a break this season with injuries. They've been falling apart at the seems defensively. And now they're going up against one of the best young quarterbacks in the league. Meanwhile, Brady and the offense have not looked particularly good. The have a good shot here, as teams that run the ball well have been succeeding so far in the post season. Still, their red zone woes are going to really bite them. If the Pats do win, it will be due to clock management and field position.
SAN FRANCISCO 27 - Carolina 20
Riverboat Ron's incredible year should come to an end against arguably the best team in football in the last quarter of the season. Still, Carolina held off San Fran before. They certainly possess the means to do it again. Ultimately, it will depend on whether Carolina's front seven can contain Kaepernick the way Green Bay's never can. The Panthers do have an extremely talented and fun to watch front seven though. They certainly can do it. Both quarterbacks can be streaky with their accuracy, but when you look at their respective receiving talent, San Fran has the clear advantage.
DENVER 36 - San Diego 24
San Diego had a huge upset win to keep their playoff hopes alive earlier in Denver. Certainly, if their defense can pressure Peyton Manning the way they pressured Andy Dalton? It won't be easy. However, it's important to note that Manning is not Dalton. He makes faster reads and gets rid of the ball quicker (and he generally lacks the arm to take only deep shots.) I don't think Denver is as clear cut a favorite to win the AFC as everyone else, but they should win here. I mean, everyone keeps suggesting there's no one in the AFC that can beat Denver, but the Broncos three losses came against three of these AFC playoff teams (Indianapolis, New England, and San Diego - all of whom are still alive). Plus, we've seen this before when completely one dimensional teams - especially those led by Peyton Manning - have come crashing to earth in the post season.
How important is the Bye? People seem increasingly split on this. It used to be seen as a huge advantage. Your players could rest and heal up and be in better condition than the other teams. Yet the past decade has seen a ridiculous number of wild card teams come in and win (on the road) against the teams with the Bye. An ever-growing number of people believe now that playing the wild card weekend actually boosts your team's chances as it gives them more "momentum." You get into a stronger rhythm playing that extra game.
In the past ten years, the teams coming off the bye week are a combined 24-16. The chances of coming away with a post season win having the bye are pretty good. Those teams have a combined winning percentage of .600. Most teams would take those odds. Interestingly, only once in the past ten years have all four teams with the bye week won (2004). The last three years straight saw three of the four bye teams win!
What's strange is that those numbers haven't translated to Super Bowl wins. In the past ten years, only four teams have won a Super Bowl after having earned the bye week. It's one thing to get out of the Divisional Round. How do teams earning the Bye stack up on the Conference Title front? Well, it's a smaller pool of games, but it shows just how hard winning the post season is. Teams with the Bye week are actually 12-12 in Conference title games. This number can be deceptive, of course, as five times in the past ten years, at least one conference title game featured both bye teams from the conference. Only once have all four teams made it (2004).
So it seems having the Bye Week increases your chances of winning at least one playoff game. They have won 60% of the Divisional Round games in the past decade! But if your team can get past that? The Bye Week seems to have no real bearing. Granted, you need to strip half the games away, but if you do look at just the Conference Title games that feature a Bye week team vs. the 4 or lower seed? Well, those teams with the Bye are just 5-4. It's pretty much split. It's not really a big enough jump in the Conference Championship round to really suggest the Bye helps there. Still, you need to at least get there to have a shot at the Super Bowl, right?
Of course, the Bye matters even less once you get there. If teams with the Bye have a slight, statistical edge in the Conference Title games, teams without have a slight edge in the Super Bowl. Teams that made the Super Bowl that also played in the Wild Card weekend are an incredible 6-2 against teams that earned the Bye in the last ten years. Only in 2004 and 2009 did we see both teams in the Super Bowl win out with the Bye (the Patriots and Eagles in '04 and then the Saints and Colts in '09).
Even more astounding is the fact that straight up wild card teams have won the Super Bowl three times while the one-seed has only won twice (Pats in '03 and the Saints in '09).
It's hard to really make anything of these numbers. The Bye week seems to increase your chances of making the Conference Championship, and even the Super Bowl! But it ultimately doesn't do anything to your odds of winning the Super Bowl. What's strange is if you go back further than ten years ago, you start to see the Bye Week mattering a lot more. Starting at 2002, you have to go eight years to find a time when only half of the Bye Week teams made it. In the seven NFL years from 1996 to 2002, three of the four teams made it beyond the Divisional Round. Additionally, teams with the bye week won the Super Bowl five of those seven times! (No wildcard team won in that span. In fact, only once did a wild card team even make the Conference Championship in that span - the Jacksonville Jaguars in 1996.) It is interesting to note that the Bye week used to make a big difference - or at least, it seemed to. Nowadays, it doesn't.
With the Divisional Round coming up, it seems like everyone is already picking the Bye teams to win. It makes sense. Seattle is nearly invincible at home. Denver is a literal video game offense right now. New England has history (even if most of that history is reaching the 10 year mark in age). The only team people are picking to win is San Francisco. Whether or not the Bye Week really does help, there is certainly one thing for sure: nothing is guaranteed. And this is exactly what the NFL wants. But for once, this is also what the fans want too.
My picks for the Divisional Round:
SEATTLE 38 - New Orleans 17
A repeat of the most unfair consequence of the current playoff format from a few years ago, the difference here is that Seattle actually does deserve to be in the playoffs and to host a game this time! Drew Brees and the Saints conquered some demons in Philly; then again, the Eagles didn't exactly have a terrifying defense. Though a big win, it really seems unlikely to think this Saints team - which has been pretty bad on the road - can go into three straight playoff games on the road and win them all.
INDIANAPOLIS 31 - New England 20
The Pats and Colts didn't play this year, oddly, so we don't have much to go on. The Pats have not been able to catch a break this season with injuries. They've been falling apart at the seems defensively. And now they're going up against one of the best young quarterbacks in the league. Meanwhile, Brady and the offense have not looked particularly good. The have a good shot here, as teams that run the ball well have been succeeding so far in the post season. Still, their red zone woes are going to really bite them. If the Pats do win, it will be due to clock management and field position.
SAN FRANCISCO 27 - Carolina 20
Riverboat Ron's incredible year should come to an end against arguably the best team in football in the last quarter of the season. Still, Carolina held off San Fran before. They certainly possess the means to do it again. Ultimately, it will depend on whether Carolina's front seven can contain Kaepernick the way Green Bay's never can. The Panthers do have an extremely talented and fun to watch front seven though. They certainly can do it. Both quarterbacks can be streaky with their accuracy, but when you look at their respective receiving talent, San Fran has the clear advantage.
DENVER 36 - San Diego 24
San Diego had a huge upset win to keep their playoff hopes alive earlier in Denver. Certainly, if their defense can pressure Peyton Manning the way they pressured Andy Dalton? It won't be easy. However, it's important to note that Manning is not Dalton. He makes faster reads and gets rid of the ball quicker (and he generally lacks the arm to take only deep shots.) I don't think Denver is as clear cut a favorite to win the AFC as everyone else, but they should win here. I mean, everyone keeps suggesting there's no one in the AFC that can beat Denver, but the Broncos three losses came against three of these AFC playoff teams (Indianapolis, New England, and San Diego - all of whom are still alive). Plus, we've seen this before when completely one dimensional teams - especially those led by Peyton Manning - have come crashing to earth in the post season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)