How Effective Is The First Round Bye?
In a nutshell - first round byes can propell teams to a Super Bowl victory, but if they're not ready, they'll get knocked out of the playoffs early. As we know, the New Orleans Saints are coming off the bye week, and haven't won a game in a month. There are arguments on whether or not it's good for a team, but in the end, it's landed several teams in a championship game. Here are some stats since 2002:
- Teams that have had the first round bye have a combined record of 17-11. That's 60% of the teams with first round byes that have advanced to the next round.
- More specifically, teams in the NFC with first round byes have a combined record of 9-5, but in the last two years NFC teams with first round byes are 1-3.
- In 2006, the Chicago Bears and New Orleans Saints were the last NFC teams to win with a first round bye, advancing to the NFC Championship game where the Bears won 39-14.
- Of the 17 teams that made it to the Championship game, 9 moved on to the Super Bowl. Of the 9, 4 won it all. The only NFC team to win the Super Bowl was the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Most will tell you that a first round bye is benefitial to any team. You get an added week of rest, and you get the advantage of automatically moving on to the divisional round of the playoffs. Then you could make the case that teams who get the added week of rest lose chemistry and aren't in sync upon returning to the field.
The case can be made for both sides.
So I ask you - how effective is the first round bye?
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
toss-up
it can, and does, go either way. You never really know until after the game is played IMO. Just like people were drawing conclusions about the Packers and Cardinals different tactics in Week 17 and whether it would help or hinder (with most saying the Packers gained an advantage), we didn’t really know for sure until after the Wild Card game.
http://undrafteds.com/
does not matter
having to play in 2 playoff games before reaching the super bowl would be the only advantage in my opinion. Lets face it, the Cardinals have played excellent on the road this year, at 6-2 (almost 7-1 thx vince). They have proven they can win anywhere this year. We need to strike first, we cannot afford to fall too far behind or else noise will became a factor. GO CARDS!!!!!!
I think in this case
The bye is great for the Saints, given the massive number of injuries that they’ll be getting back this week that they had the luxury of getting an extra week of rest. We all here know that the Cards were beat up a bit last week, but if this game were played last weekend the Saints would have been substantially undermanned. Playing the game this week means both teams can essentially play almost all their starters and key backups.
Too much time is spent by analysts on this and a number of other unproveable statistics.
If you flip a coin, it can only come up either heads or tails. When a team is in a playoff game, they can only either win or lose. I don’t think any team would elect to not have a bye week if given a choice. When a team claims to prefer not having a bye week, it’s only because they don’t have one.
The Cardinals won in OT without their offense ever being on the field. But, had they won the coin toss, they wouldn’t have chosen that option as a way to ensure victory.
Exactly right
You can only win or lose. Your team either makes enough plays to win or goes home. The analysis of bye week advantage is just more blathering. Is having one less game to play advantageous? Hell yes. It’s one less chance at elimination. Does it mean your going to win against a team that has had to play one more game than you? Hell no. The game is decided by the plays on the field.
The
Saints have had to sit starters for three weeks now. They struggled to win against teams like the Rams and Redskins and lost the last three straight games. They seemed to lose their drive halfway through the season. Their defense is back but overall the Saints have only had about 5 days to truly prepare after seeing the Cardinals win. I don’t like Brees in the playoffs, Warner will be prepared, Wells should get some good runs in to control the game, and the Cardinals defense and special teams are stronger. I don’t think the bye week will help the Saints have any advantage in the game.
The question was "How Effective is the First Round Bye"
Does your biased critique of the Saints season translate to saying a bye week, in and of itself, puts them at a disadvantage?
As a Saints fan, I can assure you a bye week was good for our team
Will it translate to a win? Maybe not, but it definitely gives this team it’s best shot at winning.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Jan 14, 2010 7:43 PM MST up reply actions
i think either one of us could pull up stats to prove that we are going to win
i think its all bulls—-. yall were the team i least wanted to play, because i thought that yall have the best team (when your hot). anyway, good luck and for those of you going to the game, im sure you will have a blast in the quarter.
got massag!!!e now a bit to eat then bed!!!! have to beat brees to work tomm.. waking up at 4am....
- Jeremy Shockey (via Twitter)
by DrewBreesManCrush on Jan 14, 2010 4:39 PM MST reply actions
I agree all this analyzing stats stuff and making predictions from them is just silly. If you paid any attention to what Packers fans were writing on their boards before the wild card game they all thought their top ranked defense would completely shut down the run and the pass even more so with boldin out. But what happened? They got blown out on the run and on the pass. All that matters is what happens on Saturday, it can go either way.
I didn't pull up any thats
That would prove the Cardinals would win. I asked a question and put out some interesting stats that some may not know. I think if anything, after looking at the stats, it may put the Saints in a better position to have success.
What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds
I think it is always an advantage
Consider the playoffs to be exams you need to pass to earn your degree.
Would you want to take 3 exams or 4?
Whats up doc?
Yes to bye
Lemme think. A free pass to the Superbowl quarterfinals, or another game in order to make it there. Such an absurd argument. Of course anyone would choose the free pass. A bye means you need to win one less game to win the Vince Lombardi trophy. It improves your odds.
In the Saints case
It was extremely benificial we needed the time to heal we have had lots of injuries and with the extra week they got to rest when they need to
If tou look at our injury report our players are back to practise and thats the most important thing healthy well rested team with time to practise
by mississippisaintsfan on Jan 14, 2010 7:22 PM MST reply actions
First round bye
I think all teams want the bye week to help with the bumps and bruises. I think the more important reason is being at home and the energy and the noise the crowd brings. I think too much is being said about the Saints having not won in a month. Down the stretch, they beat NE at home, WASH in Wash, ATL in Atl. They lost to a good Cowboys team who were playing for their playoff lives. Lost at Carolina and I don’t care who you are, it’s tough to win there. The only head stratcher was the TB game at home. I think the game against the Cards, the Saints will score at least 35. I think Warner is good for 3 TDs which leave the running game with 2 TDs. So it may come down to a field goal again. Rackers better not miss this time.
Two words: Indianapolis Colts
Great team, but they always wrap up the first round bye and rest their starters.
Then they wind up losing in the playoffs, besides when the beat the Bears in the Super Bowl I don’t think they ever played all out throughout the season, and if I recall correctly, they were the #3 seed that year so they didn’t even get a first round bye.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan.
I can't stand band-wagoner fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad.
In this case
Very effective, looking at the Cards overall scoring performance , the Cards scored 375 points to opponents 350 points which is about a net 3 points advantage per game and that surfaced last week winning in overtime by 6 points.
Where as the Saints have out scored there opponents by 11 points per game on advantage .
The Saints have rested there players that were injured and the defense should play as usual allowing about 23 points and the offense scoring about 32 points
Everyone has the Saints as falling apart in the end again, but really the Saints have the momentum here. Sure the Cards won a great game last week but know they can not come to New Orleans with the game plan they had with Green Bay. The Cards know a healthy Saints defense will allow you to move the ball up and down the field and then shut down in the red zone and we all know what Drew Brees and the offense does after that.
GOOOOOOOOOOO SAINTSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
How is the Saints red zone defense ranked?
Just curious. I know they finished the season ranked 10th in scoring defense but NFL.com doesn’t put up red zone stats.
The Cardinals have the top ranked offense in the red zone. I wouldn’t be too confident about keeping them out of the end zone once you let them inside the 20. The Saints will have to stop them before getting there. “Bend don’t break” won’t get the job done.
actually i cant quote stats
But all year i have heard about our great red zone defense from the " experts" so take that with a grain of salt
But with all our starters back you will see a very aggresive defense
I dont believe we have really had all our starters on the same field since the Pats game
Over about the last 4-5 games every time someone even tweeked one little thing Sean Payton kept him out of games that they would have played in if we were fighting for a playoff spot
by mississippisaintsfan on Jan 15, 2010 3:52 PM MST up reply actions
Never got a chance to see the Saints play.
Games always seemed to be at the same time as the Cardinals or otherwise just not televised here. Hoping for an Epic clash saturday afternoon.
Buckle-up
and have some nitroglycerin available. With these two offenses it could be a heart-stopper
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Jan 16, 2010 12:55 AM MST up reply actions
First Round Byes and Resting Starters are two different issues and two different debates
The benefits of having a bye week are so obvious, it’s really not worth much discussion. Andrew602’s numbers in this post pretty much tell the story. Over the past 7 years under the present playoff structure, the Super Bowl has been won by a team having a bye week 57% of the time. 43% of the time it has been won by a team not having a bye week. On surface, this appears to be the same results you would probably get flipping a coin 7 times.
However, the more telling statistic is that 14.3% of the teams having bye weeks over the past 7 years have won a Super Bowl (4 out of 28 teams). Only 5.4% of the playoff teams not having byes over the past seven years have won a Super Bowl (3 out of 56 teams). Simple math shows that over this period, teams with a bye week had more than a two and a half times better chance of winning the Super Bowl, all other factors being equal. This is certainly no guarantee that the Chargers, Colts, Saints or Vikings will win the Lombardi Trophy this year. But the odds would indicate that one of them winning it is more likely than the Cardinals, Cowboys, Jets or Ravens doing so.
The idea of resting or not resting starters is a separate issue. Rest starters to let them get healthier and avoid an injury that could cause a player to miss the playoffs? Or, keep the pedal to the metal and avoid the possibilty of losing momentum and rhythm? While it’s true the Colts lost twice after resting players, it’s also true the Patriots didn’t win the Super Bowl after having won 18 games in a row playing starters to get there. This year, the Saints and Colts fully committed to resting starters for the last game of the regular season. The Bengals and the Cardinals rested players to varying lesser degrees. The Bengals lost and the Cardinals won.
None of the other teams involved in first round playoff games rested starters. The Cowboys, Eagles, Ravens and Jets couldn’t because winning their last game was critical to either making the playoffs or playoff seeding. Three teams could have rested starters and chose not to – the Vikings, Packers and Patriots. The two teams of these three that have played thus far both lost in the first round. An injury to Welker in the Patriots final game of the season no doubt contributed to their playoff loss. I would guess if they had it to do all over again, the Patriots would probably opt for resting starters.
One of the reasons the NFL initiated the bye week during the regular season was due to the wear and tear and increased injuries that come with playing 16 games week after week. The other reason was of course the increased revenue that comes with having an extra week in the regular season, but thats another story. Regardless of the greed motivation aspect of the decision, teams definately look forward to their bye week. For obvious reasons, they prefer it to be toward the latter part of the season and feel they got the short straw when it falls on the fifth week of the season, as it did for the Saints this year.
Since the 16 game season came about, there has been a steady increase in the number of teams that elect to rest players when afforded the option to do so. As it’s more likely that the number of injuries will increase rather than decrease in the forseeable future, I think it’s safe to say this trend will continue.
Good points
Also, just to add I think resting your starters when you know they really don’t have the motivation to play hard is when injuries are most likely to happen. I am sure there is no stat on this and so it is purely speculation, but in my experience coaching HS kids we tend to have more injuries during games in which the kids are just “going through the motions.” This may or may not be part of a coaches logic to rest his starters when everything is already clinched but I feel it plays a factor.
Taking into account what happened during our last regular season game this year I feel my belief is a bit vindicated. I am being selective in my perceptions though.
I think the bye week is an advantage no matter how you spin it. If my players are out of sync and lack motivation or need to have momentum going into the playoffs than I have failed them as a coach. Especially since we as a team would have an extra week to prepare.
They are who we thought they were!
by Jesse Reynolds on Jan 15, 2010 7:08 AM MST up reply actions
Did'nt the cards rest players
the last regular season game? Does that count?
I'll be your huckleberry- Doc Holliday to Ringo
Yeah, kind of, but resting starters is not the same as a bye
We treated the GB regular season game a little like a bye, but it still cost us boldin and some more minor injuries, so its not quite the same thing.
by Drullin'OverDaCards on Jan 15, 2010 10:36 AM MST up reply actions
Personally, I don’t buy into the rest=rust argument. If that were true, you’d see more of a disparity in the stats following bye-weeks with more teams losing coming off a bye. Not only that, but look at the preseason. Even though everyone rests a lot of starters during that time, you would expect that the first games of the season would be typically low-scoring affairs which, at least for the Saints this year, they clearly were not.
The only thing worse than losing is not winning.
by Tigernut on Jan 15, 2010 1:57 PM MST reply actions
They also started against the Lions
Good stepping stone.
What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds
It’s always nice to beat the Lions. It’s revenge for the old Roman Coliseum days.
The only thing worse than losing is not winning.
by Tigernut on Jan 16, 2010 6:59 AM MST up reply actions
Have to jump in with a correction
The article stated:
More specifically, teams in the NFC with first round byes have a combined record of 8-6, but in the last two years NFC teams with first round byes are 0-4.
That’s not true. NFC teams have a combined record of 9-5 and in the last two years they are 1-3. Last year, the bye teams both lost (the Giants lost to the Eagles and the Panthers lost to the Cardinals), but the year before, the Seahawks suffered a 42-20 drubbing at the hands of the Packers who had a bye. (The other bye team that year was the Cowboys who lost to the Giants.)
Year Record of NFC teams coming off a bye
2008-9 0-2
2007-8 1-1
2006-7 2-0
2005-6 1-1
2004-5 2-0
2003-4 1-1
2002-3 2-0
Good one, missed that.
What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds
Enjoyed chatting with Cardinal fans the last couple of days
It’s nice to have interaction with an opposing teams fans without things digressing to the “your team sucks!” bickering. You’ve got some intelligent, classy fans over here. The same is true for the great majority of you that have posted on CSC.
I can’t in good faith wish your team good luck tomorrow, but I will say that I’ll support the team that wins to go to the Super Bowl.
by Drew-Dat on Jan 15, 2010 3:05 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
One stat correct/addition...
“Teams that have had the first round bye have a combined record of 17-11. "
“Teams that have the number one seed have a combined record of 17-2.”
Saints fan in DFW. Saints go all the way... I BELIEVE!





















