Patriots have only won/reached the SB with a bye Narrative

[captain stone]

1985 says Hi.

I was referring to the Billy & Brady years, but you already knew that...

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

(yawn)
In the 50 years the wildcard has been around it has produced all of 10 Super Bowl teams, 6 of them were winners. Yet somehow it diminishes the Pats of this century that they have played well enough not to be among them?

GTFO with that lame azz sh!t, you gonna come at the King you gotta bring something better than that.

It's really odd isn't it? If you play well enough to qualify for a free win(get a bye) then host the next game at home, that equates to making it to the SB most frequently. Wow, that is eerily weird!

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I was referring to the Billy & Brady years, but you already knew that...

That's like saying there were humans prior to recorded history. Seriously, who cares about those humans and their bearskins.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

My go to comeback vs. the "Montana is 4-0 in SBs" narrative is that he was 4-3 in conference title games in an era where the NFC title game was the real SB.

He's 4-2 in Conference title games. His last game as a Niner was the 1990 Conf. Championship where he got knocked out.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

That's like saying there were humans prior to recorded history. Seriously, who cares about those humans and their bearskins.

Patriots among the very first teams to earn the Bye when it was first introduced in 1978.

Did not go well; Steve Grogan injured his knee in the Orange Bowl in the meaningless last game where Chuck Fairbanks was suspended. Useless vs. the Oilers. Ernie Adams went to the Giants afterward. Fairbanks to Colorado. Leon Gray traded. And we started wearing those ridiculous red pajama pants.

Things went much better in '96, BB's first year here.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Bye: 13 (14 if they beat Miami)
Played WC weekend: 3
Missed playoffs: 2

It's comical what the media tries to hang their hats on without giving context. Sure it's true but when you have a bye nearly every year.....

Also for context as we all know the two years they missed the playoffs they missed on tie breakers and one without Brady (granted an epically easy schedule that year).

Of the three times they had to play WC weekend. The 2009 team just wasn't good. The 2005 team had a ton of injuries to land them in the WC round and then they ran into a Denver team that they simply didn't matchup well with. The 2006 team if not for the flu, Bobby Wade taking out Rodney Harrison and the refs they could quite easily have won the title that year.

The other narrative is being 4-4 on the road in the playoffs. Three losses to Denver and one in Indy. Two of the losses to Denver they were simply outmatched and lucky to make it that far in a lot of ways. The other two games there were a lot of suspect calls that went against them and they still had chances to win. Ghost missing an XP, etc.

Kinda reminds me of that 'telling' stat about how the Pats' home record in the playoffs is way better than their road record. These folks really don't understand the whole "correlation does not imply causation" thing. Like, by definition in the playoffs the home team is higher seed, which means they're usually the better team. So the big takeaway here is that the Patriots usually win when they're the better team, and win less often when they're the worse team.

 

[Kasmir]

Patriots among the very first teams to earn the Bye when it was first introduced in 1978.

Did not go well; Steve Grogan injured his knee in the Orange Bowl in the meaningless last game where Chuck Fairbanks was suspended. Useless vs. the Oilers. Ernie Adams went to the Giants afterward. Fairbanks to Colorado. Leon Gray traded. And we started wearing those ridiculous red pajama pants.

Things went much better in '96, BB's first year here.

The last Patriots game I attended was that 1978 1st round playoff loss to Houston. I remember the disappointment, the shock of Fairbanks departure, and the very cold aluminum bench seats in Schaefer Stadium.

 

[The Brandon Five]

 

[Patjew]

View attachment 25650

Wow. I love the number two! Seed!

 

[Jangles]

Who cares

the things some of you choose to be offended by

 

[PatsGirl2011]

Who cares? Why must we struggle to get to the SB if we don’t have to.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

"Pat's need a bye to reach the Super Bowl. Ha ha."

"How many times did your team reach the Super Bowl with or without a bye?"

(Long pause) "Shut up."

Regards,
Chris

 

[203Pat]

I don’t know why everyone gets so worked up about what other people have to say. Someone will always find something no matter what so why get all fired up about it?

 

[patsfanincleveland]

My go to comeback vs. the "Montana is 4-0 in SBs" narrative is that he was 4-3 in conference title games in an era where the NFC title game was the real SB.

I go with, " 6 is better than 4". Get back to me when you know how to count.

What really gets under these types skin is telling them that Montana would never have the physical skill set to play in today's NFL and that getting hit any which way by 220 lb linemen was not that big of a deal.

Just think, TB won more conference games than Montana played in.

 

[everlong]

The thing I remember most about that Houston game was the press talking ad nasium about Pasterini wearing the flack jacket which certainly did help him and the Oilers.

 

[jah]

Kinda reminds me of that 'telling' stat about how the Pats' home record in the playoffs is way better than their road record. These folks really don't understand the whole "correlation does not imply causation" thing. Like, by definition in the playoffs the home team is higher seed, which means they're usually the better team. So the big takeaway here is that the Patriots usually win when they're the better team, and win less often when they're the worse team.

The complete suite of logic I see used is: "The Patriots get 6 free wins every year, therefore they get a free home playoff game, therefore they have an easier path to the Super Bowl than all 31 other teams."

The part about the Patriots playing better at home than the road is true but not the crux of anyone's argument, and you can't really prove them wrong by focusing on just that part. Instead, it's always part of the "easy schedule" argument rather than its own thing, and the flaw there is the dual assumption that the Patriots get 6 free wins every year when no one else does.

 

[brdmaverick]

I’m mystified how being 4-4 on the road in the playoffs is somehow bad.

Do these nitwits have any idea how hard it is to win on the road in the playoffs?

Its called home field advantage for a reason.

Right, without actually looking at stats I imagine only Joe Flacco and Eli Manning have good road records in the playoffs.

Typically when you are on the road that means that you are NOT the better team and therefore should NOT be expected to win. (I know, I know, the 4/5 game in the wild card round can be the exception to the rule. Sometimes there will be a division winner hosting a better team due to bad format)

Also, another way to look at it would be........why are Flacco and Manning playing so many road games in the first place? Oh, that's right, b/c they weren't good enough to get home field.

It's a double edged sword.

 

[brdmaverick]

Right, the Pats have had a bye so many times that of course their Super Bowl appearances are going to show that they make it more often when they have a bye.

That doesn't change the other obvious facts that having a bye does SIGNIFICANTLY increase your chances.

First, having to win only two games instead of three IS ENORMOUS. Think of all the prep work the wild card weekend teams will have to put into next week (and the potential injuries resulting). To not even have to think about that is great.

And, when you are one of those teams having to win three games guess what, at least one of them (but most likely two) will be against a team that had a better record than you (and thus should be expected to beat you).

Not too mention the significance of the players being able to let their bodies and injuries recover for an extra week.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Right, the Pats have had a bye so many times that of course their Super Bowl appearances are going to show that they make it more often when they have a bye.

That doesn't change the other obvious facts that having a bye does SIGNIFICANTLY increase your chances.

First, having to win only two games instead of three IS ENORMOUS. Think of all the prep work the wild card weekend teams will have to put into next week (and the potential injuries resulting). To not even have to think about that is great.

And, when you are one of those teams having to win three games guess what, at least one of them (but most likely two) will be against a team that had a better record than you (and thus should be expected to beat you).

Not too mention the significance of the players being able to let their bodies and injuries recover for an extra week.

The Patriots, by virtue of their success, have played literally an entire season's worth more games over the last two decades than other teams. That they have not been worn down mentally and physically is a major testament to the team's work ethic, focus, character and attention to detail.

Belichick focuses on the game at hand. Period. Not dwelling on the past. Not distracted by the future.

It's no accident they usually earn a first round bye. It's the goal at the start of the season.

Advancing a whole round without even having to play

IS ENORMOUS.

 

[libra957]

Time to drop the miami game to prove a point.