How much of an Advantage is Experience?

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,177
Maine
The Patriots obviously know this time of the year. Not just the players but the coaches.
It occurred to me while watching the games yesterday that the Pats and BB must have a preparation plan in place for playoffs/by weeks etc.
For instance would it surprise any of us that BB an the coaches Devote time Last week to breaking down the likely winners of the AFC Wild Card Weekend Games? Granted some of that might be wasted, but doing nothing and waiting on the final scores also do nothing. IOW if I could devote 2 days each to The Ravens, Chargers and Texans (you know your not playing the 6th Seed no matter what) then isnt that good prep?

Then when you know your playing LAC you are 2 days ahead of the curve (albeit with an the most recent game to break down).

Has anyone ever heard of the Prep that they do in situations like this? Am I off base?

What other things can you think of as advantages based on experience?
For instance...Seems like BB and the Front office would have already had Practice and living arrangements in place had they been in a similar situation to LAC. (Assume on Sat they knew they would be playing a 2nd game in a row on the west coast.)

Its these little details that equate to .06 of a point in the grand scheme of things that fascinate me. Especially when we have had a front row seat for 19 years to a coach whose life revolves around attention to these details.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
5,054
Needham, MA
BB and staff have been through it so many times that I'm sure there are probably some preparation advantages that they have come playoff time over less experienced staffs. But, preparing for multiple teams during the bye week doesn't seem like one of them to me. I think any coaching staff on a bye week would get a head start on their possible opponents and then chuck the irrelevant game plan(s) when the results of the wild card games come in.

And as the argument in the other thread shows, it is hardly cut and dried that the better option would have been for the Chargers to plan to be away from home this week. For one thing, you would have had to tell the players that was the plan, you couldn't just spring it on them after they won in Baltimore. Once you do that you risk it becoming a distraction for your own team or bulletin board material for the Ravens if it got out. I can see it both ways, but I'm not convinced the Pats would have stayed out west if the roles were reversed. I know they've done that during the regular season, but that's totally different because you know the location of both games beforehand and that both games will be played regardless of the outcome of the first game.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
1,462
In the simulacrum
I was under the impression that BB was on record as repeatedly saying that a two week spread (in the playoffs or not) allowed the team to use week one to focus on health and getting their own house in order -- tuning foundational things applicable to any match-up. Then they go to the match-up in week two.

This model does not preclude the coaches from getting a head start on the three possible opponents, with a more-probable-than-not emphasis on who they think will be the match-up, but it seems like there is plenty that translates to any team to keep them busy on the Wed-Sat of week one with the players in the building.
 

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,394
Maine
Bill has said in the past that some of the video and scout team get a jump when they have the possibility of 2 or 3 teams to face. So, a small benefit, but benefit nonetheless.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
30,186
I think weather conditions are more of an advantage. Early forecast is for temps in the mid 20s, and SoCal teams normally aren't all that good in cold temps
Somebody else finally talking about the weather. I think the weather means as much to the success of certain teams, or lack thereof for other teams, as almost any variable in football, and it's so routinely ignored. Brady talks about how he knows exactly what he needs to wear to stay warm, that won't also affect his ability to move around, throw, etc. A team from LA can't simulate playing in 25 degree weather. They can't simulate what it's like to wear a scuba wet suit under their uniform like Brady does. They can't simulate what the cold does to their muscles after sitting on the bench for 10-15 minutes while the other unit is on the field. Just look at numbers for guys like Brees indoors versus outside.

Brady and Rodgers are the only two quarterbacks I can think of that have been truly successful playing their careers in crappy weather stadiums. I'm convinced one of the main reasons Buffalo and the Jets can't find a quarterback is because they can't find a guy who's capable of playing in the shitty weather this division requires them to play in when the calendar starts rolling into November. Chicago hasn't had a truly great QB in the past what, 30 years?

I'm so confident about this game because it's being played here. The fact that the Pats are 19-3 at home in the playoffs should make most everyone confident.
 

mwonow

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
4,920
Somebody else finally talking about the weather. I think the weather means as much to the success of certain teams, or lack thereof for other teams, as almost any variable in football, and it's so routinely ignored. Brady talks about how he knows exactly what he needs to wear to stay warm, that won't also affect his ability to move around, throw, etc. A team from LA can't simulate playing in 25 degree weather. They can't simulate what it's like to wear a scuba wet suit under their uniform like Brady does. They can't simulate what the cold does to their muscles after sitting on the bench for 10-15 minutes while the other unit is on the field. Just look at numbers for guys like Brees indoors versus outside.

Brady and Rodgers are the only two quarterbacks I can think of that have been truly successful playing their careers in crappy weather stadiums. I'm convinced one of the main reasons Buffalo and the Jets can't find a quarterback is because they can't find a guy who's capable of playing in the shitty weather this division requires them to play in when the calendar starts rolling into November. Chicago hasn't had a truly great QB in the past what, 30 years?

I'm so confident about this game because it's being played here. The fact that the Pats are 19-3 at home in the playoffs should make most everyone confident.
FWIW, and much as I'm not a fan of the man, Brett Favre was 115-36 at home for his career. Jim Kelly was 58-19 at home, and Bart Starr was 52-33. Brady is in his own league, and Rodgers is really good, but they definitely aren't the only guys who played well in cold weather.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,386
The cradle of the game.
If it's not hard to believe that BB/Josh hold back running specialty plays during the regular season that they think could be useful in the playoffs, I think it's equally plausible they hold back on things like strategy, gameplan and adjustment tendencies.

For example, with all the success running late in the season - it seemed to improve game after game - the whole world thinks the Pats will start the game attempting to ride that wave. But would it be a complete shock if Brady comes out slinging it: a passing game that sets up bigger runs? A deep cross to Patterson, up and outs to Dorsett, maybe there's more tricks up Hogan's sleeve... all to set up big draws Michel.

Obviously, protecting the QB is a prerequisite, but with an insane playoff experience advantage over SD/LA, I think they'd be more than comfortable debuting an opposite tack in a playoff game and make the opponent have to adjust on the fly (on the road, in the cold). During this run, the Pats have been very successful first discovering and then exploiting advantages, and I think BB sandbags on a number of different levels late in regular seasons: The Pats are about to change things up big time. #pinkstripes
 

TFisNEXT

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
10,803
FWIW, and much as I'm not a fan of the man, Brett Favre was 115-36 at home for his career. Jim Kelly was 58-19 at home, and Bart Starr was 52-33. Brady is in his own league, and Rodgers is really good, but they definitely aren't the only guys who played well in cold weather.
I immediately thought of Jim Kelly when I read that post. There might not be a shittier weather stadium than Buffalo.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
30,186
FWIW, and much as I'm not a fan of the man, Brett Favre was 115-36 at home for his career. Jim Kelly was 58-19 at home, and Bart Starr was 52-33. Brady is in his own league, and Rodgers is really good, but they definitely aren't the only guys who played well in cold weather.
I probably wasn't clear enough, I was trying to talk more about the modern pass-heavy offense of today's NFL. Jim Kelly retired 20+ years ago, and obviously Starr is way before any of that. It's just so hard to compare QB's of earlier era's to the past 15+ years.

Favre comes up a lot, and I guess it's really how you view Favre as an all time great. Favre had a lifetime passer rating of 86.0 and it drops to 85.0 if you only include games he played outdoors. You could get away with that when he was playing, but if you put up a QB rating like that in today's NFL, you and your team are done. 86.0 this season would have placed him 27th between Andy Dalton and Alex Smith. Eli Manning had a 92.4 passer rating this year, and everyone thinks he's all done. Trubisky was a 95.4. It didn't surprise me in the slightest that Favre's greatest season, when had a rating of over 107.00, came when he was 40 years old, because it came in Minnesota, in a dome.

Now compare those numbers to Brady and Rodgers. They each have better numbers indoors, with a duplicate 109.0 passer rating in games they play in domes, but Brady has a 96.9 outdoors and Rodgers is 101.6 outdoors. They are true all time greats, who've played incredible in terrible conditions and in perfect conditions, and very, very few quarterbacks can say that over the course of NFL history, and even less can say that in today's world of crazy passing.

The biggest mistake Denver made this season with the Case Keenum signing wasn't that they were wrong about his talent, they didn't recognize how much easier it is to play in a dome. Keenum has a 107.2 QB rating indoors and a 79.0 outdoors, but if the Broncos had just looked at his 2017 season in Minnesota which was the reason they signed him in the first place, they would have seen he had a 105.1 indoors in 9 games and an 88.7 indoors in 6 games. The guy just doesn't play as well in the elements as he does on an indoor track, and well, the AFC West doesn't have any indoor tracks.

I just don't think enough folks emphasize just how important the ability to play in cold (or any kind of weather) weather affects players and teams. When you go to these games and sit in the stands and look at the visitor's sideline and you see guys blowing into their hands, their eyes are tearing up, they've got short sleeves on under their pads, and all in all, they just look uncomfortable, and you look over to the other sideline and you see a team that looks like they are taking a stroll in the park, you see the difference. That experience, to bring this back to the thread topic, matters a lot.
 
Feb 19, 2015
2,362
I was under the impression that BB was on record as repeatedly saying that a two week spread (in the playoffs or not) allowed the team to use week one to focus on health and getting their own house in order -- tuning foundational things applicable to any match-up. Then they go to the match-up in week two.

This model does not preclude the coaches from getting a head start on the three possible opponents, with a more-probable-than-not emphasis on who they think will be the match-up, but it seems like there is plenty that translates to any team to keep them busy on the Wed-Sat of week one with the players in the building.
He said exactly this, including coaches getting a jump game planning against possible opponents, just last week on his radio interview.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
11,916
Mansfield MA
If it's not hard to believe that BB/Josh hold back running specialty plays during the regular season that they think could be useful in the playoffs, I think it's equally plausible they hold back on things like strategy, gameplan and adjustment tendencies.

For example, with all the success running late in the season - it seemed to improve game after game - the whole world thinks the Pats will start the game attempting to ride that wave. But would it be a complete shock if Brady comes out slinging it: a passing game that sets up bigger runs? A deep cross to Patterson, up and outs to Dorsett, maybe there's more tricks up Hogan's sleeve... all to set up big draws Michel.

Obviously, protecting the QB is a prerequisite, but with an insane playoff experience advantage over SD/LA, I think they'd be more than comfortable debuting an opposite tack in a playoff game and make the opponent have to adjust on the fly (on the road, in the cold). During this run, the Pats have been very successful first discovering and then exploiting advantages, and I think BB sandbags on a number of different levels late in regular seasons: The Pats are about to change things up big time. #pinkstripes
I put zero stock into this line of thinking. Especially this year. I mean, they lost 2 of their last 4 and 3 of their last 7. If they were sandbagging, it cost them the 1 seed.

I don't agree the run game improved week after week, either; it was up-and-down much of the year. They had their best running game of the season against Buffalo Week 16, but were lousy in the Miami / Pitt losses and they weren't as good Week 17 as they were in the other Jets game.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,177
Maine
The guy just doesn't play as well in the elements as he does on an indoor track, and well, the AFC West doesn't have any indoor tracks.
Actually they do (or did) ok they dont...But SD (and now probably LA) is about as close to an Outdoor "Dome Team" as you can get. They need to deal with heat and Wind I guess.
But your point remains. Both the the Colts (you know an actual dome team) and LAC are in pretty big trouble going into any outside playoff game north of the Mason dixon line.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,629
Portsmouth, NH
I probably wasn't clear enough, I was trying to talk more about the modern pass-heavy offense of today's NFL. Jim Kelly retired 20+ years ago, and obviously Starr is way before any of that. It's just so hard to compare QB's of earlier era's to the past 15+ years.

Favre comes up a lot, and I guess it's really how you view Favre as an all time great. Favre had a lifetime passer rating of 86.0 and it drops to 85.0 if you only include games he played outdoors. You could get away with that when he was playing, but if you put up a QB rating like that in today's NFL, you and your team are done. 86.0 this season would have placed him 27th between Andy Dalton and Alex Smith. Eli Manning had a 92.4 passer rating this year, and everyone thinks he's all done. Trubisky was a 95.4. It didn't surprise me in the slightest that Favre's greatest season, when had a rating of over 107.00, came when he was 40 years old, because it came in Minnesota, in a dome.

Now compare those numbers to Brady and Rodgers. They each have better numbers indoors, with a duplicate 109.0 passer rating in games they play in domes, but Brady has a 96.9 outdoors and Rodgers is 101.6 outdoors. They are true all time greats, who've played incredible in terrible conditions and in perfect conditions, and very, very few quarterbacks can say that over the course of NFL history, and even less can say that in today's world of crazy passing.

The biggest mistake Denver made this season with the Case Keenum signing wasn't that they were wrong about his talent, they didn't recognize how much easier it is to play in a dome. Keenum has a 107.2 QB rating indoors and a 79.0 outdoors, but if the Broncos had just looked at his 2017 season in Minnesota which was the reason they signed him in the first place, they would have seen he had a 105.1 indoors in 9 games and an 88.7 indoors in 6 games. The guy just doesn't play as well in the elements as he does on an indoor track, and well, the AFC West doesn't have any indoor tracks.

I just don't think enough folks emphasize just how important the ability to play in cold (or any kind of weather) weather affects players and teams. When you go to these games and sit in the stands and look at the visitor's sideline and you see guys blowing into their hands, their eyes are tearing up, they've got short sleeves on under their pads, and all in all, they just look uncomfortable, and you look over to the other sideline and you see a team that looks like they are taking a stroll in the park, you see the difference. That experience, to bring this back to the thread topic, matters a lot.
Well, with current rules and officiating, I don't think Favre puts up a 86 over his career, so...

I agree he was probably overrated a bit but there's a curve, just like you mention with Starr.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
12,981
Well, with current rules and officiating, I don't think Favre puts up a 86 over his career, so...

I agree he was probably overrated a bit but there's a curve, just like you mention with Starr.
I'd generally agree but he threw 336 INT's. Half of his career overlaps with Brady's. His INT's per season is disgusting. His INT % are awful. In terms of QB rating, his INT are a huge factor.

If you look at the overlap between 2001-2010 Favre threw about 70 more interceptions. Even if you take out 2008 where Brady was dead, that's a lot.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,629
Portsmouth, NH
Which is fair - he was king of forced INTs - but I think the rule changes would make that look different. I’m not trying to say he was better as he clearly wasn’t, I’m just saying comparing ratings over different eras is kinda tough. Shit, Montana only had a career 92.3.