3rd seed is a lot better than 4th this year

[Fencer]

Agreed that a top-2 seed is highly realistic.

E.g., if we beat Denver and Denver sweeps KC, we'd putatively be in a tiebreak with Indy for #1-2. (The math is that NE, Indy, Denver all have 2 losses, and Denver loses on head-to-head tiebreak, which however doesn't select between NE and Indy.)

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Not meaning to sound as sarcastic as it will sound, but "you THINK you'd take the 2 seed this year?"

Of course you'd take the #2 seed...every year.

Who could make a reasonable argument that they'd rather play 3 games vs 2 to get to the Super Bowl, which would include going on the road to boot?

The 2 seed means that we'd get to win ONE game at home to be in the AFCCG....I think it's kind of a no-brainer, especially with this year's specific 2013 team. They would probably need to get a first round bye to have a realistic shot in my opinion. They are very young, beat up, missing many key guys etc. Let's not let one game vs the 2-6 Steelers get our heads big.

There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for wanting to play an extra playoff game, which dramatically reduces one's chances for making the Super Bowl; yet every single year we have to go through this for whatever reasoning?

You want to have a bye week to allow key players to rest and build a very good gameplan + practicing, then have a home game to make the AFCCG. It's that simple.

Ok, um thanks for the feedback. Every year we do go through this and every year the fans who don't want or care for the bye week in the playoffs get lectured from the fans who want the bye week about how the extra week will let everyone heal up, etc.

This league is all about matchups. Here's some food for thought:

2012- Ravens #4 seed

2011 Giants #4 seed

2010 Packers #6 seed

2009 Saints #1 seed

2008 Steelers #2 seed

2007 Giants #5 seed

2006 Colts #3 seed

2005 Steelers #5 seed

The overwhelming trend over the past 8 years has been for teams who play on wild card weekend to get hot and go on a run. I'm not advocating that the patriots go for the 5 or 6 seed by any means. However, the notion that an extra week of rest is going to do wonders to our super bowl run is ridiculous. Is there a greater chance of injury by playing an extra playoff game? Sure, but it really hasn't affected the winners of the past few super bowls. Get in, and anything could happen. I would much rather face a team we match up well against like the Texans on the road than face a team at home that has a superior D line that is going to give Brady fits.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

This league is all about matchups. Here's some food for thought:

2012- Ravens #4 seed

2011 Giants #4 seed

2010 Packers #6 seed

2009 Saints #1 seed

2008 Steelers #2 seed

2007 Giants #5 seed

2006 Colts #3 seed

2005 Steelers #5 seed

.

That's true for the league as a whole but in the Pats case until recently, in the Belichick era, if they got a bye, they made it to the Super Bowl. The three times (2005,2006,2009) that they did not get a bye, they did not make the Super Bowl.
Of the 7 times they finished as the #1 or #2 seed, they made it to the Super Bowl 5 times (2001, 2003,2004,2007,2011,)but not 2010 and 2012.

 

[scout]

I would not be too thrilled going to Cincinnati.

 

[50-yard-line]

KC and Denver...neither has played any good teams yet, except Denver playing Indy. How'd that wind up?

They have to play each other twice, they both have to play San Diego twice.

I'm not sure both of them make the playoffs.

 

[Galeb]

I would be pleased with #2.

#2 is ****.

Literally.

 

[dhamz]

Peter King makes a good point -- the fourth seed gets a visit from either Denver or KC.

Peter King makes a good point - things that should never be typed. While it is most important to be healthy and playing well, it is ALWAYS better to be the 3 seed vs the 4th, not just this year. It gives you a better chance to get 2 home games and teams always want to play at home in the playoffs. One only needs to look at 2006. If the Pats are the 3 and Indy the 4 the Pats are very likely Super Bowl champions.

This reminds me of last year when King was on twitter saying something like the whole AFC is hoping Houston doesn't let Denver get homefield advantage. This was at a time where Denver had locked up the #2 seed. He had no concept when he got responses that whether or not Denver got HFA was actually only relevant to a Denver/Houston game since anyone else beating Denver in the playoffs would already need to do so on the road.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

This league is all about matchups. Here's some food for thought:

2012- Ravens #4 seed

2011 Giants #4 seed

2010 Packers #6 seed

2009 Saints #1 seed

2008 Steelers #2 seed

2007 Giants #5 seed

2006 Colts #3 seed

2005 Steelers #5 seed

The overwhelming trend over the past 8 years has been for teams who play on wild card weekend to get hot and go on a run. I'm not advocating that the patriots go for the 5 or 6 seed by any means. However, the notion that an extra week of rest is going to do wonders to our super bowl run is ridiculous. Is there a greater chance of injury by playing an extra playoff game? Sure, but it really hasn't affected the winners of the past few super bowls. Get in, and anything could happen. I would much rather face a team we match up well against like the Texans on the road than face a team at home that has a superior D line that is going to give Brady fits.

Well, just because something happens to not work out doesn't necessarily mean the alternative is a better or equal approach. For example in SB42 the Giants beat us. Does that mean that going into next season you wouldn't much much rather have the 2007 Patriot roster than the 2007 Giants roster? The part of Supafly's post you quoted is 100% correct. There is no logical reasoning to prefer playing an extra game in January. While your post does effectively point out that playing on WC weekend isn't the end of the world, you still want to put your team in it's best position to succeed and that means getting a bye.

The other part I agree with you is matchups, but again if you are playing 4 games vs. 3 that's a 33% increase in the odds that you draw a team you match up poorly against.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Or in KC's case... anyone yet.

You don't go 9-0 by luck. But I will hold judgment on who is the best team in the AFCW until they play the Broncos. If KC can shut down Peyton Manning and that offense, they are the real McCoy.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

SMH over the ignorance in here regarding Cincy as an afterthought....hello,this is not yesterday's Bungles...this is a team with a bonafide top front 7 and a QB that is playing well and beat NE already.

KC is a joke IMO...they have played no one and are almost certainly destined for the #5 seed 8 weeks from now.

Denver and Cincy are the two teams we should all be concerned about because one team has a good defense and the other has a scoring machine offense,I really don't see any other threat besides those two teams.....I would be more worried about the Ravens sneaking in as a 6th seed and a great young QB in Luck in Indy then I would be about KC.

Unless injuries become a serious problem to an AFC contender,I would say its all but certain that it's going to be Denver,Cincinnati,New England and Indianapolis as the top 4 seeds with KC and Baltimore bringing up the rear.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

You don't go 9-0 by luck. But I will hold judgment on who is the best team in the AFCW until they play the Broncos. If KC can shut down Peyton Manning and that offense, they are the real McCoy.

That game is certainly going to be the measuring stick of the Chiefs,if they even play within 3 points of Denver,I will be impressed.

But at this point until proven otherwise,this 9-0 team may be the most disrespected undefeated 9-0 team in NFL history and they have much to prove yet to prove the naysayers wrong..like myself.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I would not be too thrilled going to Cincinnati.

I dont think their Dline is the same without atkins. Plus we will have a gronk who won't be rusty this time and talib, vereen.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

As a counterpoint that 3 isn't ALWAYS better than 4:

Back in 2005, Cincinnati and New England were battling for the 3 and 4 seeds. A NE win and a CIN loss gave NE the 3, while a NE loss gave CIN the 4 seed.

CIN decided to go in the tank, and basically "said" to BB, "You want the 3 seed? Here, have it."

BB said "F*** that," and put Matt Cassel in. Net result: Pats come up just short, and CIN gets the 3 seed.

Why did that matter?

JAX had the 5 seed, while PIT had the 6 seed.

 

[supafly]

As a counterpoint that 3 isn't ALWAYS better than 4:

Back in 2005, Cincinnati and New England were battling for the 3 and 4 seeds. A NE win and a CIN loss gave NE the 3, while a NE loss gave CIN the 4 seed.

CIN decided to go in the tank, and basically "said" to BB, "You want the 3 seed? Here, have it."

BB said "F*** that," and put Matt Cassel in. Net result: Pats come up just short, and CIN gets the 3 seed.

Why did that matter?

JAX had the 5 seed, while PIT had the 6 seed.

Sure, there are decisions that can be made during that last week if it needs to come down to it. We also saw the instance where Flutie was brought in to punt the ball out of bounds back in whatever year it was too.

I agree that matchups can be part of the equation for sure, but there are a lot of things that have to set up properly to "throw the game" in week 17.

 

[supafly]

Ok, um thanks for the feedback. Every year we do go through this and every year the fans who don't want or care for the bye week in the playoffs get lectured from the fans who want the bye week about how the extra week will let everyone heal up, etc.

It's not just about the extra week to rest and gameplan, it's about having to play TWO games instead of THREE.

Obviously, the chances of going to the Super Bowl are going to increase dramatically by not having to play an extra game.

That isn't even bringing in the 35 straight wins with Brady at home in the regular season as our starting QB. We obviously have one hell of an advantage by playing at home, and not having to fly across the country, fly back--play another game, etc.

It's really a no-brainer. This specific team is way too young, way too banged up/missing too many key players etc to be able to do what you are suggesting (in my opinion, maybe you feel differently). They could use a bit of luck too, that often helps.

That's true for the league as a whole but in the Pats case until recently, in the Belichick era, if they got a bye, they made it to the Super Bowl. The three times (2005,2006,2009) that they did not get a bye, they did not make the Super Bowl.
Of the 7 times they finished as the #1 or #2 seed, they made it to the Super Bowl 5 times (2001, 2003,2004,2007,2011,)but not 2010 and 2012.

I'm not sure why so many suddenly forget about this?

The bye week was created for a reason. It allows you to have many more days of gameplanning, where the players can sleep at home--allow injured players to heal properly and win ONE home game to be in the AFCCG.

I really have no idea what the debate is about. Just because some teams with good defenses (and LOTS of luck) have managed to pull it off lately does not mean that it's now suddenly the standard that everyone is shooting for.

To each his own, I suppose. Everyone will have their own opinions, but statistically speaking--playing one less game at home increases your odds tremendously. We somehow keep having this discussion every year regardless though.

 

[A man named Brady]

I just want to be healthy.

 

[Froob]

That's true for the league as a whole but in the Pats case until recently, in the Belichick era, if they got a bye, they made it to the Super Bowl. The three times (2005,2006,2009) that they did not get a bye, they did not make the Super Bowl.
Of the 7 times they finished as the #1 or #2 seed, they made it to the Super Bowl 5 times (2001, 2003,2004,2007,2011,)but not 2010 and 2012.

the teams that didn't make it also didn't make the sb or the bye because they weren't as good. 06 SHOULD have won the sb but we all know why they didnt happen...

 

[supafly]

I just want to be healthy.

Agreed. Being able to take 2 weeks off between the long regular season of week #17 and the home divisional game can often help with that, of course.

As will being able to avoid traveling, sometimes across the country (2005 at DEN, 2006 at SD). Being able to have the players stay home and sleep in their own beds without jet lag is not something to overlook.

I think the popular thought has been breaking any momentum that the team may have, so that is likely the reasoning why some believe it's better to not have the bye and play an extra game or two on the road. It's not a tradeoff that I would ever want to make, but apparently some would. I'd be interested in hearing Belichick's opinion on it, but I already have a strong feeling as to what he'd say.

 

[supafly]

06 SHOULD have won the sb but we all know why they didnt happen...

That's actually my 3rd worst loss as a fan, behind the 2 NYG losses. That game was a killer.

One thing that I do remember is that we were very, very lucky to make it out of San Diego alive though. Had it not been for their horrible decision NOT to just fall on the Brady pick (his 3rd of the game) and decide to run it out, we never would have had the opportunity to make a crazy strip of the fumble and somehow re-gain possession.

It's also a prime example of why it's difficult to play 3 games in a row with no break, 2 coming on the road. By the AFCCG in Indy there were tons of guys who were not only sick, but also extremely tired and out of gas. Whether or not the flying back and forth without a week off had anything to do with that or not is anyone's guess, but I think we'd all agree that it certainly didn't help at all.

 

[Whitt25]

06 SHOULD have won the sb but we all know why they didnt happen...

Oh, boy... I remember that night vividly when we lost — the falling snow, the darker than dark sky, that awful, crushing feeling as I drove home in silence, no music... Not good for the heart, and I'm only 25. lol.