Is Playoff Bye A Must For Packers?
By jasonperone
In looking at the 2016 schedule for the Green Bay Packers, one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the way-too-early bye week in week four. The Packers dealt with that back in 2013 and, as a team that have consistently dealt with more injuries that most teams, they weren't happy about it. Head coach Mike McCarthy loathes the early bye and the players surely had to be disappointed, knowing what they'll have to endure over the final 13 weeks of the season.
Last season, the Packers ironically suffered their worst injury of the entire year before the real games even started when receiver Jordy Nelson was lost to an ACL injury in the preseason. They dealt with a few bumps and bruises throughout and benefited from having a bye week more in the middle of the season. The year prior, the Packers were relatively healthy and that was surely a factor in their ability to play their way into the NFC championship game. But prior to that, injuries and the Packers were almost synonymous.
So back to this year's early bye week. Not only is the off week early, but the Packers have bunches of road games and some back-to-back night games that will challenge the routine that McCarthy and the team like to keep during the season. So this discussion is simple and it's based on the assumption that the Packers are not only making the postseason again, but are in contention for one of the NFC's top seeds: do they need the bye week heading into the playoffs?
In 2010, they won a championship as the sixth seed and having to play through the postseason with no rest. Their bye week was in the middle of the season. In 2011, the Packers had a mid-season bye and earned a playoff bye and were promptly dismissed from the postseason in their first game. In 2013, they had the early bye and lost quarterback Aaron Rodgers for half of the season and nearly won their first playoff game so it's, of course, not impossible that they can still find late-season success having to grind through the last two thirds of the schedule.
With the offensive line having some historic injury issues and getting a year older, in the cases of Josh Sitton and T.J. Lang, the extra week off would seem almost vital to keep those big guys fresh for a Super Bowl push. Every guy has an entire season of wear and tear on their legs and as Rodgers has said before, there's a 100% injury rate in the league.
It's too early to really know what the identity of this year's team is and whether they can handle the cards dealt to them, but it would seem that getting one of those top playoff seeds is a huge priority for the Packers in 2016.
-------------------
Jason is a freelance writer on staff since 2012 and also co-hosts Cheesehead TV Live, Pulse of the Pack and Pack A Day podcasts. You can follow him on Twitter here
Comments (16)
gr7070
April 18, 2016 at 06:04 am
The bye week is most important because it's impossible to lose a game you don't play.
The rest sure would be nice, but only playing two games vs. three to get to the Superbowl is enormous statistically.
Bearmeat
April 18, 2016 at 06:16 am
They don't NEED a bye to win it all. They just need to be playing with consistent run fits and have a fair amount of QB pressure in the front 7 on D. Hopefully the draft can shore that up and those rooks will be playing well by January.
Barring a run of injuries - that seriously is my only concern on this team. It is a super bowl roster in every other way already.
marpag1
April 18, 2016 at 06:51 am
Is a playoff bye a must for the Packers? Clearly, no.
Since the NFL expanded the playoffs (1990), there have been 26 Superbowl winners. Eight of those 26 NFL champions did not have a first round bye.
Number of Superbowl winners by seed (since 1990)
1 - 12
2 - 6
3 - 1
4 - 4
5 - 1
6 - 2
dobber
April 18, 2016 at 09:46 am
YAY, DATA!! No offense to Jason who I think writes good pieces for CHTV, but this is something--combined with bye weeks of SB winners--that would have been necessary supporting data for this article.
The fallout is that even though 8 teams have won SB without a bye, 18 have done so WITH a bye. We need to keep in mind that the bye teams put together the best regular season performances, so one would expect that the majority of winners would come from the bye group.
I would be curious to find out how often a bye team loses its first playoff game. How often does it break their momentum and leave them flat and vulnerable to a hot opponent?
porupack
April 18, 2016 at 10:36 am
now that dobber are some good analytics....cheers.
jasonperone
April 18, 2016 at 10:39 am
My angle is whether this Packers team is more in need of a playoff bye week, not does ANY team need a bye. Data is always nice to have but I'm not trying to compare the Packers to the averages around the league. Way too scientific for me. That's more Hobbes territory;) My goal was to get the discussion going surrounding the Packers and knowing their choppy history with having/not having the wild card round off.
marpag1
April 18, 2016 at 11:07 am
I thought about that too, dobber, but it's a pretty large amount of data and I don't have the time to sort through it. Here is something that I found online. This information applies ONLY to #1 seeds (not all "bye teams") from 1975 to 2012:
• 20 of the 74 No. 1 seeds won the Super Bowl -- 14 from the NFC, 6 from the AFC
• 20 No. 1 seeds lost the Super Bowl -- 7 NFC, 13 AFC
• 14 No. 1 seeds lost the conference championship game -- 8 NFC, 6 AFC
• 20 No. 1 seeds lost their first playoff game -- 8 NFC, 12 AFC
Something else occurred to me. People often say that the team that will win it all is the one that "gets hot" or "peaks at the right time." The data, however, does not seem to support this idea very strongly at all. Instead, it seems that the total number of games won throughout the whole season is much more likely to indicate the winner.
Based on the numbers I showed in my first post, only 8 "non-bye teams" have won the SB. That's not a huge percentage, and it doesn't leave a lot of room for teams who "got hot at the end and ran the table."
dobber
April 18, 2016 at 10:48 am
To follow your lead, since 1990, 1&2 seeds (teams that have received first round byes) are 77-27 in their first playoff game for a win percentage of 0.74. Since 2005-2006 (I picked that year because that's how my columns aligned...so 11 years ago), that gap narrows to 28-16 or 0.64. Prior to the 2005-06 season, bye teams won almost 82% (49-11) of their first playoff games.
What I think this shows is that bye teams have been less successful in their first games as we moved out of the pre-free-agency (plan B was not free agency) period and into the modern free agency period. Of the 8 teams that were NOT 1 or 2 seeds that have won SBs since 1990, 6 have done so since 2005-06 (although a 1 seed has won the last 3 SBs).
I think the argument is that a bye is still a better predictor for success, but that it's less necessary than it used to be.
RCPackerFan
April 18, 2016 at 06:54 am
The only real reason why they would need a bye is if there were a number of lingering injuries that need to be rested. That won't be known until later in the year.
I would like to see them get a bye, because that would mean they are one of the top 2 seeds in the NFC.
Since'61
April 18, 2016 at 08:05 am
A first round bye is nice to have but it is not a must have. Injuries are a matter of when they occur and how serious they are. It's most important for the Packers to be healthy and playing consistently for the post-season run. We learned last season that depth, especially on offense, is a concern for this team. It was not addressed during FA so we will need to wait until the draft to see where we are at. Thanks, Since '61
Tundraboy
April 18, 2016 at 08:46 pm
Spot on Since 61. Each season is different and there are so many variables. Health as we have learned and lack of depth have played a much larger role.
croatpackfan
April 18, 2016 at 08:58 am
I think it is better to have continuity in week in week out procedures that keeps you concentrated to the job, than to have one week bye (players mostly flies to the home), when team will relax. It is hard to achieve full consistency after relaxation - and you have to play against top teams all the way to win SB!
I respect hunger for trophy, but, baring injuries, I think it is better to have continuity until you bring the job to the end!
TarynsEyes
April 18, 2016 at 10:25 am
Bye week or not, the Packers have to some extent adopted the ' it does' t matter ' the last 5 years by being told goodbye before even saying a proper hello.
The bye week ( regular season or playoff ) is moot if you have the depth to defeat the injury bug and allow the needed rotation for rest without nose diving.
The Draft & Develop ideology that the Packers believe in and use, which is not the same as other teams because of their lesser use of FA, depth should actually be the strong suit or trump card. Consider the card game of Pinnacle, having good meld to put on the table gives you points but your hand needs depth to win/keep that meld or you lose all. The Packers have been a good to great meld team mostly but the strength of the hand play has been weak because of too many low level losing cards or depth in regard to players, which prohibits one from making their bid.
porupack
April 18, 2016 at 10:41 am
Good question Jason, and its related I guess to the early bye. I want to comment actually on the early bye...since that is what seems to precipitate the rankle.
I could submit that an early bye is a good thing; players not quite in full season conditioning, and pulled muscles, can get an early rest before the long onslaught. Just a possibility to think about the silver lining.
Samson
April 18, 2016 at 11:54 am
All teams want a bye. -- You can rest and get healthy. Your coaching staff can then put together a better game plan for your 1st match-up.
Looks to me like many here are already creating that list of excuses on why the Pack won't be in SB 51.
If GB doesn't go deep into the playoffs, it'll be because they lack depth and impact players. -- This season is all about if TT is doing his job.
4EVER
April 18, 2016 at 10:08 pm
Bingo...