Do Pats need 1 or 2 seed to make it to the SB?

[BradysBunch12]

Something interesting: The Pats are 8-1 at home in the playoffs during the Brady era and 3-2 on the road (not including SB games.) When you take into account that those 3 road wins were from Pittsburgh and San Diego, two teams we own, that isn't very impressive.

Also take into account that even though we beat the Chargers in the 2006 playoffs, we had to travel to San Diego, then play a grueling come from behind game, then go to Indy. The team, the defense in particular, was out of gas. Also, the wildcard weekend game may not seem like much...but playing a playoff-worthy, even if 5th or 6th seed, opponent, is more energy-consuming than having time off and prepping for the division round would be.

I found myself last night deeply involved in caring about the outcome of the San Diego-Kansas City game. Having a better record than San Diego at the end of the year is one less game on the road.

 

[patsfaninpa]

One game at a time my man. Please report to Belichick's office he'd like to speak to you.

 

[Sicilian]

Pittsburgh and San Diego, two teams we own, that isn't very impressive.

Stopped reading.

Posters here never give any credit to anyone we play.

 

[Garbanza]

I think the Pats need to take it one game at a time. Never, ever count your chickens before they hatch.

 

[Reckedtrek]

Way, way, WAY too early for a thread like this.

Start talking about this type of stuff while you're digesting your Thanksgiving turkey.

 

[QB12]

To the OP: Yes, probably. Hint: And they WILL be.

 

[Synovia]

Could it simply be that the teams that had homefield advantage were better than the ones that didnt?

yeah.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Every team in the NFL has a homefield advantage. Now, looking at the last twenty Super Bowls contestants, here is the breakdown:

Since year 2000, the breakdown is as follows:

Conference Champions

1-2 seeds- 13 (65%)
3-6 seeds- 7 (35%)

When you consider that there are only half as many teams gaining the 1-2 seed, as opposed to 3-6, the numbers show a greater advantage.

1-2 seeds in the playoffs

40 (13 conference champions)-

1-2 seeds have a 33% chance of making the Super Bowl

3-6 teams in the playoffs

80 (7 conference champions)-

3-6 teams have a 9% chance of making the Super Bowl

I see a big advantage here, one that gives you 4.5x better odds of making it. Obvious factors:

-Needing to win 3 playoff games instead of 2 decreases any team's chances dramatically.
-Being a lower seed than #1 or #2 suggests you are already at a competitive disadvantage based on your record.
-Playing on the road vs. home decreases any team's chances, although not as dramatically.
-1-2 teams get a week off to game plan and rest their players (maybe debatable, as some claim the week off disrupts momentum.)
-Psychological disadvantage of being a lower seed, and the emotional pressure and drain of the playoff run (debatable.)

Meanwhile, the only factors, which are definitely debatable, to having a 3-6 seed:

-"Nothing to lose mentality"
-Continuity of play (no off week for a bye)


You hear a lot of talk about the '07 Giants, '08 Cardinals, etc. but also remember that there are eight teams without a bye every season, and over 90% of them are eliminated before the SB.

 

[Synovia]

Every team in the NFL has a homefield advantage. Now, looking at the last twenty Super Bowls contestants, here is the breakdown:

Since year 2000, the breakdown is as follows:

Conference Champions

1-2 seeds- 13 (65%)
3-6 seeds- 7 (35%)

When you consider that there are only half as many teams gaining the 1-2 seed, as opposed to 3-6, the numbers show a greater advantage.

1-2 seeds in the playoffs

40 (13 conference champions)-

1-2 seeds have a 33% chance of making the Super Bowl

3-6 teams in the playoffs

80 (7 conference champions)-

3-6 teams have a 9% chance of making the Super Bowl

I see a big advantage here, one that gives you 4.5x better odds of making it. Of course, just being one of those top teams suggests you already have a competitive advantage, so that also factors into it.

Only a small part of that is "competitive advantage". Most of it is the fact that the 1 and 2 seeds are just BETTER TEAMS than the rest of them.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Way, way, WAY too early for a thread like this.

Start talking about this type of stuff while you're digesting your Christmas Dinner.

Still too early to talk seedings,changed it for U

With this young defensive team I would just be happy to see them IN POSITION for at least a 6th seed by Thanksgiving

 

[tajapandu]

the fact that we "own[ed]" teams like the Steelers and Chargers is impressive in itself.

 

[BradysBunch12]

It's perfectly fine for fans to think this way, even in week 2 of the season. If it were a player or coach on the Pats, it'd be a different story.

I'm personally sick of having the best QB and coach in the league, and maybe a top 3 QB and coach of all time, and not winning the whole thing.

Spoiled? Of course. But I'd pass up sex with any woman of my choice for a Pats SB win. Not too often you have an all-time great QB in his prime.

 

[mesoslo]

The last time we gave tom brady some hands he did amazing things with it in 2007. Now if Gronk and Hernandez are reliable through the season, and the patriots running game is improved, then this patriots offense will be very good at moving the ball.


If tom brady can give the patriots about 24-31 points on the score board by halftime, tate will take it to the house some time in the 2nd half, and the patriots will average 37 points per game on offense, then it will make it a lot easier for the young defense.


The patriots can take the number 2 seed and still make it to the superbowl because the colts lost on sunday. AFC championship game in Indy is the one place I dont want to play for the AFC championship, any other city will be fine, but definitely not in Indy.

 

[Kontradiction]

I think the Pats need to take it one game at a time. Never, ever count your chickens before they hatch.

Yes, the Pats need to. But we don't. We're fans and discussions like this are fair game.

For the question in the OP, I don't think we NEED a one or a two seed, but it would help (assuming we get into the playoffs). Looking at all of our Super Bowl seasons (even 2007) from the last decade or so, we were the top seed.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It's perfectly fine for fans to think this way, even in week 2 of the season. If it were a player or coach on the Pats, it'd be a different story.

I'm personally sick of having the best QB and coach in the league, and maybe a top 3 QB and coach of all time, and not winning the whole thing.

Spoiled? Of course. But I'd pass up sex with any woman of my choice for a Pats SB win. Not too often you have an all-time great QB in his prime.

Your OP didn't make any sense (kind of lost me with the whole owning thing regarding the Steelers).

But, this is an interesting perspective. If you look at it from the point of view that we have one of the greatest QB's of all time going into his final productive (at a very high level) years with one of the greatest HC's of all time, you can really make the case that these next three or four seasons should not be treated like "business as usual." The SB-era QB's in Canton have retired at the average age of 37 and only Elway has won a Super Bowl after the age of 35. Every year is precious.

 

[patsfan-1982]

i would just like to see them make the playoffs

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

The 2005 and 2006 playoff runs were effectively ended by Polian's officials.

What we need is to play the season out and not worry about hypotheticals and hope the friggin refs don't ruin another season for us.

 

[Brady2Welker]

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Every team in the NFL has a homefield advantage. Now, looking at the last twenty Super Bowls contestants, here is the breakdown:

Since year 2000, the breakdown is as follows:

Conference Champions

1-2 seeds- 13 (65%)
3-6 seeds- 7 (35%)

When you consider that there are only half as many teams gaining the 1-2 seed, as opposed to 3-6, the numbers show a greater advantage.

Actually no they don't. You fail to take into consideration the bye for seeds #1,2 and the fact that #3 plays #6 and #4 plays #5 in the first round. Once they get to the second round the upper seeds get to the Super Bowl 65% of the time when they would get there 50% if it was a coin toss, an advantage but not great.

1-2 seeds in the playoffs

40 (13 conference champions)-

1-2 seeds have a 33% chance of making the Super Bowl

3-6 teams in the playoffs

80 (7 conference champions)-

3-6 teams have a 9% chance of making the Super Bowl

33% and 9% is a total of 42%. So the remaining 58% of the time, nobody makes the Super Bowl? Obviously when you have a #1 and a #2, only one of them can make the Super Bowl in a given year and the same is true for the #3-6 seeds, only one can at most make the Super Bowl.

I see a big advantage here, one that gives you 4.5x better odds of making it. Obvious factors:
Your numbering is off but we already know that.

-Needing to win 3 playoff games instead of 2 decreases any team's chances dramatically.
True
-Being a lower seed than #1 or #2 suggests you are already at a competitive disadvantage based on your record.
-Playing on the road vs. home decreases any team's chances, although not as dramatically.
-1-2 teams get a week off to game plan and rest their players (maybe debatable, as some claim the week off disrupts momentum.)
-Psychological disadvantage of being a lower seed, and the emotional pressure and drain of the playoff run (debatable.)

Meanwhile, the only factors, which are definitely debatable, to having a 3-6 seed:

-"Nothing to lose mentality"
-Continuity of play (no off week for a bye)


You hear a lot of talk about the '07 Giants, '08 Cardinals, etc. but also remember that there are eight teams without a bye every season, and over 90% of them are eliminated before the SB.

Using that logic, there would always be at a minimum 3 of the 4 non- bye teams would be eliminated before the Super Bowl, 75%.

 

[RayClay]

Something interesting: The Pats are 8-1 at home in the playoffs during the Brady era and 3-2 on the road (not including SB games.) When you take into account that those 3 road wins were from Pittsburgh and San Diego, two teams we own, that isn't very impressive.

Also take into account that even though we beat the Chargers in the 2006 playoffs, we had to travel to San Diego, then play a grueling come from behind game, then go to Indy. The team, the defense in particular, was out of gas. Also, the wildcard weekend game may not seem like much...but playing a playoff-worthy, even if 5th or 6th seed, opponent, is more energy-consuming than having time off and prepping for the division round would be.

I found myself last night deeply involved in caring about the outcome of the San Diego-Kansas City game. Having a better record than San Diego at the end of the year is one less game on the road.

All they need to do is make the playoffs. all they can control now is winning their next game.