What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is the bye week killing the Super Bowl? (1 Viewer)

As they all complained the few times the NFL dropped the bye week, going from the conference championship game directly to the Super Bowl the next weekend can be murder on coaches and players involved. There's the media day bonanza, getting tickets for everyone, trying to gameplan despite all the distractions, etc. -- I get it. But does anyone else think the layoff does major damage to the quality of the game?

Players on both teams spend two weeks in a media and partygoing maelstrom, distracted from what matters most (once they retire, many players admit to this). The coaches have two weeks to fully disassemble the other team and create maximum disruption (which can make both offenses look inept). And every day Madden gets older, the less coherent he becomes.

Then again, did any of that have to do with Big Ben looking as scared as he did against NE last year? Or Stevens dropping all those balls? Or Hasselbeck crapping the bed at the end of both halves? Or Hines Ward, your MVP, dropping a wide-open TD in the first half? Maybe they were both just terrified and one was going to fall into a win by default. As a very disappointed football fan, that's how it looked to me...

 
I've always said that the two week break is a bad thing and throws off timing a little. The offenses always seem to start very slow in these.

There is no reason to have the extra week other than media hype.

 
Both teams were new to that situation. I think one of the announcers said that wasn't a player on Pittsburgh (or was it Seattle) who owned a superbowl ring. I'd chalk it up to being nervous more than anything.

But I hate the bye week.

 
I've always advocated having the Championship games on Saturday followed by the Superbowl on Monday the week following. That would give the teams two extra days to deal with collateral issues, but would not allow the hype to get out of hand. Also fans , true fans would find ways to take the afternoon off to watch the game, but chicks and dilettantes would not, unless of course the Superbowl were made into a national holiday.

 
I think both teams had very good defensive gameplans, which largely neutralized the effective play of the offenses. Stevens was dropping balls.

IF the week off is such a bad thing, why are the 1-2 teams coming off the bye week about 80% likely to win?

I think they bye week allows each team to play up their strength. This year it was D. Both QB's had poor passing games, because the D was good, leaving difficult completions the only way to move the ball. I do think the 'Hawks could have been more effective on the run. The big plays came on a great reverse/option pass, where the defense went w/ the fake, corner and safety included, leaving Ward wide open, a perfectly blocked run, and a broken play/hail mary. That's it. I don't think the week between detracted from the game at all. It makes for a better game, because teams get an extra week to heal.

Did the 4 weeks off detract from the Rose Bowl?

The SuperBowl isn't going to be an offensive showcase every year. Especially when you have a team that had shut down the 1, 4 and 7 offenses in the NFL, as Pitt was and had done. Seattle continued their impressive defensive play.

I liked the game. It's just that the defenses got the better of the offenses for both teams. That may be boring to some, but I like it.

 
There is no reason to have the extra week other than media hype.
I think it gives teams time to get healthy if they have banged up players. The Steelers didn't have a two week break since their bye week, and I'm sure they appreciated the chance to catch their breath and heal.
 
I think both teams had very good defensive gameplans, which largely neutralized the effective play of the offenses. Stevens was dropping balls.

IF the week off is such a bad thing, why are the 1-2 teams coming off the bye week about 80% likely to win?

I think they bye week allows each team to play up their strength. This year it was D. Both QB's had poor passing games, because the D was good, leaving difficult completions the only way to move the ball. I do think the 'Hawks could have been more effective on the run. The big plays came on a great reverse/option pass, where the defense went w/ the fake, corner and safety included, leaving Ward wide open, a perfectly blocked run, and a broken play/hail mary. That's it. I don't think the week between detracted from the game at all. It makes for a better game, because teams get an extra week to heal.

Did the 4 weeks off detract from the Rose Bowl?

The SuperBowl isn't going to be an offensive showcase every year. Especially when you have a team that had shut down the 1, 4 and 7 offenses in the NFL, as Pitt was and had done. Seattle continued their impressive defensive play.

I liked the game. It's just that the defenses got the better of the offenses for both teams. That may be boring to some, but I like it.
:goodposting: I agree completely.
 
I think both teams had very good defensive gameplans, which largely neutralized the effective play of the offenses. Stevens was dropping balls.

IF the week off is such a bad thing, why are the 1-2 teams coming off the bye week about 80% likely to win?

I think they bye week allows each team to play up their strength. This year it was D. Both QB's had poor passing games, because the D was good, leaving difficult completions the only way to move the ball. I do think the 'Hawks could have been more effective on the run. The big plays came on a great reverse/option pass, where the defense went w/ the fake, corner and safety included, leaving Ward wide open, a perfectly blocked run, and a broken play/hail mary. That's it. I don't think the week between detracted from the game at all. It makes for a better game, because teams get an extra week to heal.

Did the 4 weeks off detract from the Rose Bowl?

The SuperBowl isn't going to be an offensive showcase every year. Especially when you have a team that had shut down the 1, 4 and 7 offenses in the NFL, as Pitt was and had done. Seattle continued their impressive defensive play.

I liked the game. It's just that the defenses got the better of the offenses for both teams. That may be boring to some, but I like it.
That question is pretty easy to answer as the teams with the bye week are the two teams in the conference with the best record, so chances are they are the better teams, and they play at home.
 
I think both teams had very good defensive gameplans, which largely neutralized the effective play of the offenses. Stevens was dropping balls.

IF the week off is such a bad thing, why are the 1-2 teams coming off the bye week about 80% likely to win?

I think they bye week allows each team to play up their strength. This year it was D. Both QB's had poor passing games, because the D was good, leaving difficult completions the only way to move the ball. I do think the 'Hawks could have been more effective on the run. The big plays came on a great reverse/option pass, where the defense went w/ the fake, corner and safety included, leaving Ward wide open, a perfectly blocked run, and a broken play/hail mary. That's it. I don't think the week between detracted from the game at all. It makes for a better game, because teams get an extra week to heal.

Did the 4 weeks off detract from the Rose Bowl?

The SuperBowl isn't going to be an offensive showcase every year. Especially when you have a team that had shut down the 1, 4 and 7 offenses in the NFL, as Pitt was and had done. Seattle continued their impressive defensive play.

I liked the game. It's just that the defenses got the better of the offenses for both teams. That may be boring to some, but I like it.
That question is pretty easy to answer as the teams with the bye week are the two teams in the conference with the best record, so chances are they are the better teams, and they play at home.
And, Seattle was a 1 seed, playing a 6. Should have dominated them, right? The argument is that the bye week makes teams sluggish. If that's true, it would give the road team, that plays the week before the advantage here, nullifying the better team. I don't believe this, or course, but am pointing out the foolishness that teams practicing for two weeks has an effect on their performance.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top