PDA

View Full Version : How do these "bye" playoff teams keep blowing games?


BrandonCarr39
01-16-2011, 10:28 PM
When my Cowboys blew it against the Giants 3 years ago as the NFC #1 seed, everyone said how it was all Wade Phillips' fault because he's too laxed as a HC, has no discipline, let players run roughshot during the bye, etc, etc.

But look at alot of these other teams blowing games coming off the bye in the playoffs...

Patriots

Falcons

Panthers(2008)

Indy(2007 against SD)

San Diego last year

Now come on...these particular teams are well-coached, and well-disciplined. How the heck did they find a way to blow these games?

Fire Arians
01-16-2011, 10:40 PM
patriots - not allowed to cheat anymore
falcons - not that good. green bay got hot at the right time, and since finding a running game are downright scary
panthers - jake delhomme
indy - peyton manning was a choker since being a high school qb
san diego - sucks and phillip cry me a rivers is almost as big a douche bag as brady

in all honesty, there isn't much of a difference between many of the playoff bound teams. whether you are the 1st seed or 6th seed, all teams in the playoffs are generally good teams that are dangerous when they're playing well.

in 2005 we were the 6th seed, but probably would have been a 1st-3rd seed if not for roethlisberger being out a few games due to injury.

OX1947
01-17-2011, 02:12 AM
patriots - not allowed to cheat anymore
falcons - not that good. green bay got hot at the right time, and since finding a running game are downright scary
panthers - jake delhomme
indy - peyton manning was a choker since being a high school qb
san diego - sucks and phillip cry me a rivers is almost as big a douche bag as brady

in all honesty, there isn't much of a difference between many of the playoff bound teams. whether you are the 1st seed or 6th seed, all teams in the playoffs are generally good teams that are dangerous when they're playing well.

in 2005 we were the 6th seed, but probably would have been a 1st-3rd seed if not for roethlisberger being out a few games due to injury.

Come on, Manning isnt a choker, the man is a Super Bowl winner and MVP.

lionslicer
01-17-2011, 03:29 AM
Come on, Manning isnt a choker, the man is a Super Bowl winner and MVP.

And if you look at some of the playoff loses, they aren't even his fault...
Look at the one this year, recievers dropping balls, defense letting sanchez, of all people, drive down the field. His head coach calling the most stupid timeout ever.

Out of his 10 or 11 playoff loses, I say 4 are his fault, but the rest shouldn't be blamed on him. Remember the Steeler game, perfect kicker missing a field goal.

Also, on topic, you can go back years to see bye teams losing. Being the 1st and 2nd team isn't always the best option. The teams that did lose didn't even rest their starters, so its not like they were rusty or anything. Teams just come out flat after the Bye. The steelers did, but after the first half they kicked it into overdrive.

Fire Arians
01-17-2011, 03:35 AM
okay maybe i was a little harsh on manning, even winning 1 super bowl is a feat most good or even great qb's don't do, and he got that done.

teams out of the bye do sometimes come out flat, but in our case I think it benefit us more than hurt us. We were a banged up team later in the season and I feel a championship run would be greatly helped if key players like troy were given an extra week to heal.

besides, i don't think we came out flat per se. the team came out strong and scored against a tough ravens defense on the opening drive (something that is usually never done), but just made a few costly mistakes that were fortunately overcome.

steelers2685
01-17-2011, 11:20 AM
The Patriots were in rhythm since before Thanksgiving, and I told my close friends two weeks ago that this bye week was going to hurt the Patriots. As you can see though, it did not hurt the Steelers, therefore showing the leadership on our team from the vets who have been in the bye week scenario in the past as well as the leadership of Coach T to keep our guys' heads on straight.

Atlanta Dan
01-17-2011, 11:34 AM
Come on, Manning isnt a choker, the man is a Super Bowl winner and MVP.

The Indianapolis Star is not showing a lot of love for Manning after the latest early exit from the playoffs

The truth? Manning pales in the postseason

Peyton Manning is not a good playoff quarterback.

Period.

You can talk all you want about the Colts' wobbly run defense, their eternal special teams woes and the fact Manning doesn't get a lot of possessions. Fact is, he's hamstrung by all the same factors during the regular season and still continues to put up monster numbers and score points.

But after a sample size of 19 games, it's pretty clear: He's a different quarterback in the playoffs. He's a lesser quarterback in the playoffs. I don't know if it's paralysis by overanalysis or what, but after all these years, I still don't trust him in a playoff game.

The stats don't lie: His teams are 9-10 in the postseason. His teams have been one-and-done seven times. His quarterback rating, 94.9 during the regular season, is 88.4 in the postseason. In those 10 playoff losses, the Colts have averaged a touch more than 14 points per game.

Fourteen.

Still want to blame it all on the defense? Or the special teams? Or coaching mistakes? Or Mike Vanderjagt?

He is one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play this game. But he is not at his best when it counts the most -- which is why my brain bleeds every time someone tries to argue Manning is superior to Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.

Go back and think about the Super Bowl run: He was ordinary against Kansas City. Managed a terrific but touchdown-less game against Baltimore. Had the great second half against New England after throwing the first-half pick-six. Good enough against Chicago on a day when Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes should have shared the MVP.

His QB rating for that postseason was 70.5.

After every playoff loss, some more inexplicable than others, the finger of culpability gets pointed at just about everybody except Peyton Manning. For some reason, he's Teflon, especially around here.

He shouldn't be.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110116/SPORTS15/101160375/1034/SPORTS15/Kravitz-truth-Manning-pales-postseason

Wallace108
01-17-2011, 11:37 AM
In my opinion, there are two reasons for this:

1. There's more parity in the NFL now than ever before. Go back 10 or 15 years ago, there was a wide gap between the No.1 seeds and the wildcard teams. Look at this year: No 1. Atlanta vs. No. 6 Green Bay ... No. 1 New England vs. No. 6 New York. ... Not much gap (if any) there between the teams.

2. In years past, teams (especially the Colts) have wrapped up the No. 1 seed fairly early and have coasted the last few weeks of the regular season. Then they get the bye. So they have gone 3 or 4 weeks of not playing any meaningful football. Then they have to play their first playoff game against a team on a roll, a team that has been playing win-or-go-home football for the past month, a team that is likely just as good as they are (because of parity).

BrandonCarr39
01-17-2011, 05:04 PM
Not trying to take anything away from you guys back in 2005, but the fact is that for the most part, the bye teams win 80% of the time in the divisional round. EIGHTY PERCENT!

When I grew up as a kid in the 80's(and college in the 90's), teams that had the bye would usually win by at least 10 pts, unless the HC would screw up somehow(ie-Mike Shanahan admitted it after losing to Jacksonville in '97).

But now? I know Atlanta isn't great, but they are solid, and very well coached. Mike Smith's staff is arguably one of the best. There's no excuse for that pathetic performance Sat night. I know the Packers are playing outstanding ball, but it's not like the Packers are world beaters either.

At least Wade Phillips' team in 2008(when they lost to the Giants) had them competitive(2 Crayton drops was the difference, pretty much). Otherwise, I'm shocked to see how flat alot of these teams are.

Fire Arians
01-17-2011, 05:41 PM
I know the Packers are playing outstanding ball, but it's not like the Packers are world beaters either.

uh are you sure about that? if i had my choice of what team i'd least like to play aganist right now, it would be green bay.

solid defense, strong running game, dangerous passing game, special teams are also good. they are as complete a team as anyone with no real weaknesses.

BrandonCarr39
01-17-2011, 07:50 PM
uh are you sure about that? if i had my choice of what team i'd least like to play aganist right now, it would be green bay.

solid defense, strong running game, dangerous passing game, special teams are also good. they are as complete a team as anyone with no real weaknesses.

What I meant is that the Packers aren't immortal - look at the Patriots, I sure thought they were going to breeze all the way to the Super Bowl because they haven't looked this good since 2007.

I agree with you the Packers are pretty dangerous right now, but to say we should give them the Lombardi already? Chicago is pretty darn good too - ever since Martz started running a balanced offense, they've played much, much better. And their DC is pretty darn good too.

lionslicer
01-17-2011, 08:03 PM
The Indianapolis Star is not showing a lot of love for Manning after the latest early exit from the playoffs

The truth? Manning pales in the postseason

Peyton Manning is not a good playoff quarterback.

Period.

You can talk all you want about the Colts' wobbly run defense, their eternal special teams woes and the fact Manning doesn't get a lot of possessions. Fact is, he's hamstrung by all the same factors during the regular season and still continues to put up monster numbers and score points.

But after a sample size of 19 games, it's pretty clear: He's a different quarterback in the playoffs. He's a lesser quarterback in the playoffs. I don't know if it's paralysis by overanalysis or what, but after all these years, I still don't trust him in a playoff game.

The stats don't lie: His teams are 9-10 in the postseason. His teams have been one-and-done seven times. His quarterback rating, 94.9 during the regular season, is 88.4 in the postseason. In those 10 playoff losses, the Colts have averaged a touch more than 14 points per game.

Fourteen.

Still want to blame it all on the defense? Or the special teams? Or coaching mistakes? Or Mike Vanderjagt?

He is one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play this game. But he is not at his best when it counts the most -- which is why my brain bleeds every time someone tries to argue Manning is superior to Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.

Go back and think about the Super Bowl run: He was ordinary against Kansas City. Managed a terrific but touchdown-less game against Baltimore. Had the great second half against New England after throwing the first-half pick-six. Good enough against Chicago on a day when Joseph Addai and Dominic Rhodes should have shared the MVP.

His QB rating for that postseason was 70.5.

After every playoff loss, some more inexplicable than others, the finger of culpability gets pointed at just about everybody except Peyton Manning. For some reason, he's Teflon, especially around here.

He shouldn't be.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110116/SPORTS15/101160375/1034/SPORTS15/Kravitz-truth-Manning-pales-postseason

Since his 3 game slump, like 80% of Colts fans have been calling for his release... The colts were one of the worst teams in the NFL for over a decade until Manning got there, so he can't win every game in the playoffs, he still one a superbowl, gave that city something to like.

If he won another superbowl, I bet they'd still call him a choker. It seems "3" is some magic numbers that allows quarterbacks to never be critisized again. Brady has been a choker since 2005, and no one (analysts or new england press) will say anything because he's protected by 3 superbowls.

BrandonCarr39
01-18-2011, 06:35 PM
Beh-Jim Caldwell should hire a Dom Capers like DC, who can do alot with very little.

The Colts D's biggest weakness has been their lack of ability in stopping the run. They're too small up front - more rushing yards given up means more Manning and co have to sit on the bench and lose their rhythm.

At least the Pats D have been very good at stopping the run, even though they were never great.