Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Something I haven't seen discussed much:

 

Obviously, after the Cards game, the Bills crushed through the regular season. But, at 13-3, we had no playoff bye week to rest up. Instead, we had to go right into a tough game with a very well-coached, well-balanced Colts game, and then a very intense game against Baltimore. By the time we got to the AFC championship, we didn't have much gas.

 

Meanwhile, the Chiefs had TWO weeks off: first they rested their starters in week 17, then they got the only bye. It's an underappreciated reason for how much fresher they looked than us. 

 

If we had rested the starters against the Dolphins and they had won, we'd have played them again the next week and probably won easily. That could have made a big difference against the Chiefs. If we're in a similar position next year, maybe McDermott will give our starters that week off, to rest and get ready for more intense postseason football.

  • Vomit 1
  • Disagree 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Ray Stonada said:

Something I haven't seen discussed much:

 

Obviously, after the Cards game, the Bills crushed through the regular season. But, at 13-3, we had no playoff bye week to rest up. Instead, we had to go right into a tough game with a very well-coached, well-balanced Colts game, and then a very intense game against Baltimore. By the time we got to the AFC championship, we didn't have much gas.

 

Meanwhile, the Chiefs had TWO weeks off: first they rested their starters in week 17, then they got the only bye. It's an underappreciated reason for how much fresher they looked than us. 

 

If we had rested the starters against the Dolphins and they had won, we'd have played them again the next week and probably won easily. That could have made a big difference against the Chiefs. If we're in a similar position next year, maybe McDermott will give our starters that week off, to rest and get ready for more intense postseason football.

 

 

Great idea Coach Dungy!

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)

While having two weeks rest does give a distinct advantage, that's really not the issue. The issue is the added team to the playoffs which prevents the 2nd seed team from having a bye as well. Some VERY weak teams made it to the playoffs this year because of it. 

Edited by BigPappy
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
5 hours ago, ALLEN1QB said:

We could of had 3 weeks rest KC would still destroy us just like week 6. Horrible game plan.

Rest would've helped but a month off wouldn't have changed how terrible our offensive and defensive plans were. 

  • Haha (+1) 3
Posted

The Chiefs put to bed the notion that the team will get rusty if they tank it in week #17 and bench all their important players.

 

They got some rest, got their minds right and came back rejuvenated and Better.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

I’m Not sure that it would’ve made a difference but it does make you realize how big that bye week might end up being for the #1 seed.  We’ll see what TB does next week

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Ray Stonada said:

Something I haven't seen discussed much:

 

Obviously, after the Cards game, the Bills crushed through the regular season. But, at 13-3, we had no playoff bye week to rest up. Instead, we had to go right into a tough game with a very well-coached, well-balanced Colts game, and then a very intense game against Baltimore. By the time we got to the AFC championship, we didn't have much gas.

 

Meanwhile, the Chiefs had TWO weeks off: first they rested their starters in week 17, then they got the only bye. It's an underappreciated reason for how much fresher they looked than us. 

 

If we had rested the starters against the Dolphins and they had won, we'd have played them again the next week and probably won easily. That could have made a big difference against the Chiefs. If we're in a similar position next year, maybe McDermott will give our starters that week off, to rest and get ready for more intense postseason football.

The Packers had a bye and still lost. The Giants in 2007 as a 3 week traveling WC team knocked off the undefeated Pats after all that...the Steelers throughout the years have uncomfortably lost a number of AFC Championships at home following bye weeks to start their playoffs too. My point is, the science behind what's better, bye or no bye, is muddled at best. The point where I will agree with you on, is that it could have allowed our WRs to maybe be less banged up going into this game, but who knows.  

Edited by NoHuddleKelly12
Posted
1 hour ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

The Packers had a bye and still lost. The Giants in 2007 as a 3 week traveling WC team knocked off the undefeated Pats after all that...the Steelers throughout the years have uncomfortably lost a number of AFC Championships at home following bye weeks to start their playoffs too. My point is, the science behind what's better, bye or no bye, is muddled at best. The point where I will agree with you on, is that it could have allowed our WRs to maybe be less banged up going into this game, but who knows.  

 

Yes, agree with that about the WRs (though Beasley had already broken his fibula). I also feel like we could have just used a minute to catch our breath after an intense regular season. But I take your point: the jury is out on playoff byes. Somehow I feel like this year's Bills team would have benefited. Maybe I'm looking for reasons to feel we aren't that far away from the Chiefs.

 

×
×
  • Create New...