Despite last year's playoffs, why we want a Bye

I agree with the article.

The Packers lost last year because the Giants played better than they did, not because of the bye week.

Not playing Jennings and Rodgers in week 17 was far more of a problem than the bye. Giving those guys a two week bye undoubtedly made the margin of defeat wider than it otherwise would have been. I'm not saying they would have won if McCarthy didn't try to treat that game against the Lions as a preseason game, but they sure as hell wouldn't have lost by 17 points. I really hope he doesn't try anything like that again in Minnesota if the team is in a similar position.

I'll never discount the effect of the death of Joe Philbin's son on the team and staff for the Giants game.

I think it wasn't so much the bye week as it was the fact that Rodgers and several other starters sat out the final regular season game. By the time he stepped onto the field against the Giants, Aaron hadn't played in 3 weeks, and he looked it. He was tight, out of synch, off his rhythm... I'll take the bye this year if we get it because we need it, but I don't want to see our starters sitting out Week 17. I doubt it would come to that anyway, though, considering we'll probably need to win every game the rest of the year for the best possible seed.

Exactly Salmon!

Yep, Roch. If that was McCarthy's son, people would be amazed the game was even played. Philbin meant as much to that offense as anyone, and that had to take a toll from a personal and preparation standpoint.

That obviously wasn't the sole factor. The Giants have proven to be a tough matchup for the Pack and were by far the better team that day.

I just have never bought the "rust" argument. Not being on the field for an hour of game time two weeks prior caused the season to crumble? They seemed to manage "not having a meaningful game" for two weeks before the Super Bowl, as has every champion that's dealt with a bye.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeSafety:
I agree with the article.

The Packers lost last year because the Giants played better than they did, not because of the bye week.

What? Seriously, it is clear the Packers lost in the playoffs, because they had a bye week and the Giants didn't. BTW, the Packers lost this year, because the Packers did not have a bye week and the Giants did. The NFL has it out for us.

quote:

Originally posted by RochNyFan:
I'll never discount the effect of the death of Joe Philbin's son on the team and staff for the Giants game.

Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by RochNyFan:
I'll never discount the effect of the death of Joe Philbin's son on the team and staff for the Giants game.

This.

Aaron Rodgers' first funeral he's ever attended.

I agree that the death of Philbin's son was probably the biggest reason their mental preparation was off center. It's the mental prep that wins in the playoffs.

I agree with article. Get that Bye week and make them come to Lambeau tired.

quote:

R

I could be wrong, but it seemed like the death of Philbin's son created a mood, which make have taken away the ability to overcome a scoring deficit.

This is from McCarthy's post game presser after the Giants playoff loss last January.


Q-Jason Wilde: When you see a team like yours that doesn’t play to its identity, fumble 3 times on offense, { inaudible }, what goes through your mind on that though, because that’s not the team you’re used to, is there sometimes days that just don’t make any sense? How do you view it when that happens and it just doesn’t fit the profile?

A-McCarthy: Well, we had a week of things that probably didn’t make a whole lot of sense.



Of course McCarthy went on the talk about it being a game of football, etc... but did he give a bit of an answer that the Philbin tragedy affected the team somehow? In the weekly prep, on the field?

The Philbin tragedy is a very valid reason why they may have struggled. Who are we to say? What I don't understand is when do situations like this become a distraction and when do they become a rallying opportunity? We've seen many times in sports where teams use adversity as an inspiration and have excelled.

I don't think the time off hurt as much as everyone thinks. It's not like Rodgers and the team forgot how to play football. They still practice each day and I would be shocked if the majority of this team just slacked off b/c they didn't have games for 2 weeks.

I just think they just had a bad day. Sometimes that happens (like in KC). In most games against a playoff opponent, if you fumble multiple times, drop multiple passes, miss multiple tackles and give up a hail mary before halftime, you're going to lose. Despite the lack of pass protection and lack of a pass rush, they could have won that game if it wasn't for the Kuhn/Grant fumbles (which were in the open field), the hail mary (which was just awful), and the missed tackles (Peprah's on Nicks 60+ yard TD comes to mind).

We'll never know definitively why they lost, but I chalk it up to an off day on offense (could be due to the Philbin tragedy), and a lack of talent on defense (which seems improved this year).

I think you always want a bye. One less game to have to win, one less game to risk losing players to injury, one more week to let those injured heal, etc. We were fortunate in our run two years ago but the odds are more in your favor with a bye.

I hate resting players week 17. You need to constantly improve in this league and there's no more important time for that than at the end of the season. There's barely any padded practices and the game reps become more valuable.

I understand the opposite side of the argument with regards to injuries and keeping players fresh, but imo, I'd rather they keep/build momentum and play with a sense of urgency. There's valid reasons for both ways of doing it. Playing it out would be my preference. If someone gets hurt so be it.

edit to add: If the Packers make it to 12-4 this year I'll be more impressed with this season than last year's 15-1 record given all the circumstances surrounding this year

They didn't look too great coming off the bye in DET this year so that's not a great precedent. We could surely use the time to heal up some more and IF we DO get a bye, I think MM and the staff would do everything in their powers to avoid any kind of lag or rust.

But I don't think they get the #2 seed so it won't matter anyway.

Well stated Titmfatied!!!!

The Packer just weren't in the playoff game mentally. Watching them play you could just tell the fire from the regular season games was not there. This is the same thing I see in the team when they are sluggish this year which has me concerned whether we have the bye week or not. Some one has to figure out how to get this team pumped and keep them pumped for a full 60 minutes.

One thing that bothers me the most this year is seeing the defense lollygagging around instead of getting set and looking ready to expolde on someone.

Tim, I think your point may be valid for the Defense, but resting the offense on the 17th week with a bye in the POs just screws with the offense's rhythm - especially the QB and his receivers.

Love this! Let's make it our MANTRA from here on:

just making the playoffs and winning the NFC North for a second year in a row would not be enough. I want more.

quote:

but resting the offense on the 17th week with a bye in the POs just screws with the offense's rhythm

What rhythm? The offense has been herky jerky all season but for a couple games. Unless they get into rhythm... But the extra week might give all of the returning injured players more time to re-integrate.

Ahhhh...well...ahhhh...

quote:

Originally posted by DH13:
But the extra week might give all of the returning injured players more time to re-integrate.

Like integration is a good thing?

I just assumed everyone who said they rather we didn't get a bye were joking, because otherwise they're idiots...

quote:

Like integration is a good thing?

They do have a quota to meet.

The bye is a good thing. My concern has more to do with whether or not we should keep playing all the starters on week 17, if we earn the bye and the last regular season game has no importance.

quote:

Originally posted by Esox:
The bye is a good thing. My concern has more to do with whether or not we should keep playing all the starters on week 17, if we earn the bye and the last regular season game has no importance.

I think the only way this could happen is for:

GB has to win their next 2 and
San Fran has to lose their next 2 and
NYG has to lose at least one of the next 2

While it's possible, since San Fran and Giants both 2 really tough road games ahead, it's still pretty unlikely.

I would prefer us playing full bore in week 17 with something on the line like a better playoff seeding with a win to keep the teams focus intact. Then have the bye week to rest,heal and prepare. Playing in the wildcard game just gives us another chance to lose no matter who or where we play. Playing in 3 post season games to win it all is better than having to play 4 any year. 2010's playoff run was an anomaly.

Didn't 3 of the last 4 SB winners have to win 4 playoff games?

I probably still agree it's an anomoly but it's trending the other way.

quote:

Originally posted by DH13:
But I don't think they get the #2 seed so it won't matter anyway.

Niners play at NE. They are steamrolling everyone. They also have a tough game in Seattle. The Packers might only have to go 2-1 to get the #2 seed.

Resting all those guys for the Lions game was a big mistake. I said that last year, I will stick to it. They should have played in that game even if it is just for two quarters. It is like running a race, you build into a strong rhythm and get a comfortable lead, then you ease up just a little. But when it comes time to kick back up a notch, then sometimes you just cant get back strong stride again .

quote:

Originally posted by The GBP Rules:

quote:

Originally posted by Esox:
The bye is a good thing. My concern has more to do with whether or not we should keep playing all the starters on week 17, if we earn the bye and the last regular season game has no importance.

I think the only way this could happen is for:

GB has to win their next 2 and
San Fran has to lose their next 2 and
NYG has to lose at least one of the next 2

While it's possible, since San Fran and Giants both 2 really tough road games ahead, it's still pretty unlikely.

I think these are the scenarios for the Packers to get to the...
... #2 seed
- GBP wins out and SFO loses 1.
- GBP wins 2 and SFO loses 2 and NYG lose 1

... #1 seed
- GBP wins out and ATL loses 2 and SFO loses 1.

GBP: @CHI, TEN, @MIN
SFO: @NEP, @SEA, ARI
NYG: @ATL, @BAL, PHI
ATL: NYG, @DET, TAM

Just stumbled upon a pretty interesting stat: teams playing in the Wild Card round only have a .500 record in the history of the Wild Card round.

And Pack are one game up on NYG, so doesn't matter what they do if GB wins out.

Sorry, I used to believe that malarkey about Michael Philbin's death and its affect on the team. The Giants would have beaten the Packers that day even if Michael Philbin was safe and sound. Let's give the champs a little credit.

I don't think anyone suggests it would be a slam dunk victory without the tragedy, just not the sloppiest played game of the last 3 years.

Maybe Chronic... but I think some people underestimate the importance of a consistent/repeatable process the NFL is and a positive week of preparation for a game. I've seen people refer to/counter with the Favre MNF game after his dads death and how the team rose above that tragedy. The difference to me is Michael Philbin died the week before the game, the players had time to get past shock and into grief, they attended a funeral. McCarthy's comment I hi-lighted in my post on page 1 states the disruption the team was dealing with. With Irv Favre, he died the day before the MNF game, BF and the team were still in a state of shock and were already in LA for the game when they found out about the death.

Maybe the Giants would have won that day, I just don't completely discount the impact of the Philbin death on their readiness to perform at their best.