Patriots After A Bye In BB Era Since 2010

[RobertWeathers]

I decided to start a thread on this and see if there is anything to the growing narrative that the Pats don't play their best after byes.

2016
SEA- L- D was sketchy. Still trying to find their way with Collins out. O was ok vs a full strength SEA D.
HOU- W- Seemed erratic on O but HOU has good D. D was pretty good

2015
@DAL- W. No glaring trend. They killed them. Solder went out and Cannon was hobbled
KC- W. They were so banged up. No glaring trend

2014
Indy- W -A little flat at the start but rolled.
BAL- W- Flat at the start but got going
SEA- W- Flat at the start but got going. Avril and Lane going out helped but TB12 validated GOAT status

2013
@CAR- L- Luke holding Gronk was BS. CAR had a great D that year. Not sure B was the culprit.
Indy- W- Crap weather but Pats rolled.

2012
BUF- W- I don't remember this game very well but they won but the D got gashed. Talib was not with the team yet.
HOU- W- Pats rolled. Bye was not an issue

2011
@Pitt- L- I remember this game. SO frustrating. Roeth shredded us.
DEN- W- Tebow. Pats rolled.

2010
BAL- W- Hard fought game. Don't think bye had anything to do with only 23 points.
NYJ L- Not getting into this. The bye MIGHT have played a factor. No question they were off.

So since 2010 the team is 11-4 after a week off.

Personally I think its a tough to balance the need for rest and staying sharp but at 11-4 and examples of them kicking absolute ass after a bye I'm not sure there is clear and compelling evidence that says the team doesn't play their best because they are "less sharp" because they had an xtra week off. Seems to me the matchups are more the determining factor for games being close or the team losing altogether.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

73% win average (11-4) seems about average for the Patriots.

Though with the Playoffs seems they've been flat to start (2016, 2014 x2)

 

[Uptown]

Yeah, that 2011 PIT game was pretty frustrating. LeBeau switched his DEF scheme to a more man-heavy. Our WRs couldn't create any separation & no running game. Only Gronk was effective. Especially considering PIT possessed the ball for 40 min!

 

[RobertWeathers]

73% win average (11-4) seems about average for the Patriots.

Though with the Playoffs seems they've been flat to start (2016, 2014 x2)

I do agree that they haven't played their best to start. I just can't say it's because of the bye as there have been other factors at play.

Now this might be a reach but going back to 01, 03, 04 and 07 playoff games after a bye they also did not play great in the 1st 1/2 but eventually won the games in the 2nd 1/2.

 

[The Gr8est]

I decided to start a thread on this and see if there is anything to the growing narrative that the Pats don't play their best after byes.

2016
SEA- L- D was sketchy. Still trying to find their way with Collins out. O was ok vs a full strength SEA D.
HOU- W- Seemed erratic on O but HOU has good D. D was pretty good

2015
@DAL- W. No glaring trend. They killed them. Solder went out and Cannon was hobbled
KC- W. They were so banged up. No glaring trend

2014
Indy- W -A little flat at the start but rolled.
BAL- W- Flat at the start but got going
SEA- W- Flat at the start but got going. Avril and Lane going out helped but TB12 validated GOAT status

2013
@CAR- L- Luke holding Gronk was BS. CAR had a great D that year. Not sure B was the culprit.
Indy- W- Crap weather but Pats rolled.

2012
BUF- W- I don't remember this game very well but they won but the D got gashed. Talib was not with the team yet.
HOU- W- Pats rolled. Bye was not an issue

2011
@Pitt- L- I remember this game. SO frustrating. Roeth shredded us.
DEN- W- Tebow. Pats rolled.

2010
BAL- W- Hard fought game. Don't think bye had anything to do with only 23 points.
NYJ L- Not getting into this. The bye MIGHT have played a factor. No question they were off.

So since 2010 the team is 11-4 after a week off.

Personally I think its a tough to balance the need for rest and staying sharp but at 11-4 and examples of them kicking absolute ass after a bye I'm not sure there is clear and compelling evidence that says the team doesn't play their best because they are "less sharp" because they had an xtra week off. Seems to me the matchups are more the determining factor for games being close or the team losing altogether.

It also doesn't help when both of your coordinators are out interviewing for HC jobs, rather than being focused on the job at hand.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It also doesn't help when both of your coordinators are out interviewing for HC jobs, rather than being focused on the job at hand.

I'm not sure you can confirm your suspicion.

 

[Joey007]

It also doesn't help when both of your coordinators are out interviewing for HC jobs, rather than being focused on the job at hand.

2004 says hello. Weis and RAC were both on the cusp of leaving.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I don't think it's a coincidence that our two worst games of the season both came after a bye

I can't speculate why that's the case, but preparation and the disruption in routine may be one reason. When you're away from the field longer than usual, it might affect your preparation or discipline. Hence, the careless fumbles, turnovers, and stupid penalties we saw on Saturday.

Wouldnt be surprise if coaches are susceptible to the sams thing...

 

[TinhWoodhead]

It also doesn't help when both of your coordinators are out interviewing for HC jobs, rather than being focused on the job at hand.

people keep saying its not a distraction. i think it is even if its planned/expected. remember the tuna?

 

[luuked]

People seeing a pattern post-BYE because we lost against Seattle and only won by 18 against Houston this year are the reason we have to endure Skip, Felger & co.

Lazy narratives over everything.. if it sounds nice on the surface why go any deeper..

 

[SVN]

Regardless of stats, you want the bye in the post season. 1 game less to play.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don't think it's a coincidence that our two worst games of the season both came after a bye

I can't speculate why that's the case, but preparation and the disruption in routine may be one reason. When you're away from the field longer than usual, it might affect your preparation or discipline. Hence, the careless fumbles, turnovers, and stupid penalties we saw on Saturday.

Wouldnt be surprise if coaches are susceptible to the sams thing...

You are speculating and that is the whole point of the thread.

If you wanna really stretch this story out since 2010 the Pats are 6-5 in games that come after games in which were played after the bye.

 

[VrabelJr]

Our defense looked just fine to me. The offense started good but I think sitting for almost 30 real minutes due to the KO return and KO fumble caused in game rust, not bye week rust.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Our defense looked just fine to me. The offense started good but I think sitting for almost 30 real minutes due to the KO return and KO fumble caused in game rust, not bye week rust.

Yep. They only ran what, 9 plays in the first quarter of the game?

Tough to gain offensive momentum and rhythm sitting on the bench

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I decided to start a thread on this and see if there is anything to the growing narrative that the Pats don't play their best after byes.

2016
SEA- L- D was sketchy. Still trying to find their way with Collins out. O was ok vs a full strength SEA D.
HOU- W- Seemed erratic on O but HOU has good D. D was pretty good

2015
@DAL- W. No glaring trend. They killed them. Solder went out and Cannon was hobbled
KC- W. They were so banged up. No glaring trend

2014
Indy- W -A little flat at the start but rolled.
BAL- W- Flat at the start but got going
SEA- W- Flat at the start but got going. Avril and Lane going out helped but TB12 validated GOAT status

2013
@CAR- L- Luke holding Gronk was BS. CAR had a great D that year. Not sure B was the culprit.
Indy- W- Crap weather but Pats rolled.

2012
BUF- W- I don't remember this game very well but they won but the D got gashed. Talib was not with the team yet.
HOU- W- Pats rolled. Bye was not an issue

2011
@Pitt- L- I remember this game. SO frustrating. Roeth shredded us.
DEN- W- Tebow. Pats rolled.

2010
BAL- W- Hard fought game. Don't think bye had anything to do with only 23 points.
NYJ L- Not getting into this. The bye MIGHT have played a factor. No question they were off.

So since 2010 the team is 11-4 after a week off.

Personally I think its a tough to balance the need for rest and staying sharp but at 11-4 and examples of them kicking absolute ass after a bye I'm not sure there is clear and compelling evidence that says the team doesn't play their best because they are "less sharp" because they had an xtra week off. Seems to me the matchups are more the determining factor for games being close or the team losing altogether.

RW, I was just listening to Rich Hill's podcast. He says that during their 6-game winning streak in the divisional round since 2011, the Patriots have only led by double-digit at halftime once, and that was against a Tim Tebow-led Broncos team that went 8-8 in 2011. For the majority of these games, the Patriots were a "third-quarter team" that started out sluggish and rusty, but then pulled ahead decisively in the second half.

When you look at the games themselves and how relatively close they remained (before making adjustments at halftime) you see a pattern of a team shaking off rust, correcting its mistakes, and getting re-focused on doing what it takes to win and advance.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Wouldnt say its rust. The first drive against seattle - offwnse looked flawless. How do you do that rusty.

'11, '12, '13 and '14divisional round games are among our best offensive outings in the postseason.

The times we played poor/ lost probably had very little to do with a bye, just happened to be post bye. Just like the lossrs occuring when there was a game the week before.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

People seeing a pattern post-BYE because we lost against Seattle and only won by 18 against Houston this year are the reason we have to endure Skip, Felger & co.

Lazy narratives over everything.. if it sounds nice on the surface why go any deeper..

I still think the Seattle game is an anomaly. Our defense was still shell shocked over the loss of Collins and the coaching staff was still figuring out how the new assignments would work,

No way Seattle puts a 30 burger on our current defense.

 

[Danger Zone]

I honestly understand why people say we played flat )and even the players seemed quite upset with their performance).

That said, how terrible of a game was it really?!

We scored 34 points against the "best" defense (a great) in the League...

Since when is 34 points a terrible game? Did people accidentally march down the field and fall (accidentally) into the inzone?

How many points on the board would have indicated a "good" game? 41, 48? 55?

 

[RobertWeathers]

RW, I was just listening to Rich Hill's podcast. He says that during their 6-game winning streak in the divisional round since 2011, the Patriots have only led by double-digit at halftime once, and that was against a Tim Tebow-led Broncos team that went 8-8 in 2011. For the majority of these games, the Patriots were a "third-quarter team" that started out sluggish and rusty, but then pulled ahead decisively in the second half.

When you look at the games themselves and how relatively close they remained (before making adjustments at halftime) you see a pattern of a team shaking off rust, correcting its mistakes, and getting re-focused on doing what it takes to win and advance.

Could very well be but I'm just not all in on the "rust" argument. With that said I wonder what the 1/2 time lead is on average for the team of byes during the reg season vs non bye games.

 

[jah]

If you counted the 2014 SB you have to count the 2011 one in which we lost.