Home Field Advantage: Do The Packers Need It?

The Green Bay Packers are 4-3 at home in the playoffs under head coach Mike McCarthy.  They're 6-5 on the road if you include Super Bowl XLV.  Green Bay has had a home playoff game in six of his 11 seasons.  With Aaron Rodgers at quarterback, the Packers are 3-2 at home in the postseason.  

It's not easy to win playoff games so that the overall mark is over .500 could be deemed a success by some.  To some others, that's nowhere near good enough for a team that has had the regular season success Green Bay has had and with a Hall of Fame quarterback for so long.  

That quarterback has said a few times that the team's goal is to get home playoff games.  The Packers have won their last two home playoff games after going 1-2 in the previous three so it's hard to argue that the Packers are still having a hard time at home in the postseason.

Since 2010, only around half of the home teams have won the conference championship.  Visiting teams are winning around 40% of playoff games in the past six seasons.  Home teams are still winning more but road teams are faring better as time goes on.

But it's still hard to argue against having home field advantage in the season's most important games, isn't it?

If you're like me, you were dumbfounded when the Packers lost their first playoff game ever at Lambeau Field to the Michael Vick-led Atlanta Falcons following the 2002 season.  What used to be nearly a guaranteed win and a huge advantage for Green Bay has now long been relegated to a footnote to any potential game at Lambeau.  

So how important is playing at home in the postseason for these Packers?  Does the addition of more veteran players change your answer?  With so many young players learning in recent years past, the home field advantage has been somewhat nullified by some of the inexperience on the field.  

As the NFL evolves, we continue to see teams take advantage of favorable match ups.  The opponent plays a large role in whether being at home or on the road matters.  One glaring example was the Falcons against the Packers in the NFC Championship game.  On the fast Georgia Dome turf surface, Atlanta's passing attack obliterated Green Bay's secondary.  That's one scenario where a home game would seemingly benefit the Packers quite a bit.

Another factor is weather.  Some teams that are built to play fast thrive in indoor conditions or warmer weather.  Some opine that the Packers were an example of such a team when they won a Super Bowl in 2010.  That they actually benefited from playing on the road versus in front of their home crowd.  It has come to the point where some now prefer to see the Packers on the road in a more favorable environment come playoff time.

Undoubtedly the Packers want to be playing at home following this season.  Is that one of the keys to their chances of hoisting the George Halas Trophy when all is said and done?  Is this team finally ready to seize the moment and turn Lambeau Field into a huge Packers Super Bowl party in 2017?

-------------------

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

NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (26)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
NickPerry's picture

April 07, 2017 at 07:19 am

Green Bay won the SB in 2010 because they had a defense as good as their offense. Not to mention they won in Philly and Chicago so weather didn't really factor into it either. No it was a ballhawking defense who could keep the opposing offense from scoring at the end of the game. In 3 of the 4 games including the SB the defense either intercepted the ball at the end of the game (Philly & Chicago) or just shut them down! (SB) Defense travels no matter where you play in most cases.

We just haven't been able to duplicate that for the last 7 years no matter how many defensive players we draft.

0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

April 07, 2017 at 10:01 am

Defense travels no matter where you play in most cases.

NP, that is a quality post. I'll hang that up on my wall.

0 points
0
0
JerseyAl's picture

April 07, 2017 at 10:50 am

The 2010 defense was not a great defense. The Packers had their Super Bowl run because they happened to come up with a turnover at the most crucial time one was needed. How do you "duplicate" that? You can't of course, so the solution is just to have a better overall defense that plays well at all times. That is where the Packers have failed. despite all of the high draft picks spent on defense.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 07, 2017 at 11:18 am

I agree Al, they weren't "Great" but they were really good, especially creating TO's. They had 33 takeaways in 2010 including 24 interceptions. In 2009 they had 30 Interceptions and 31 in 2011which is pretty amazing considering Collins went down in week 2.

In 2010 Shields was huge reason for the Packers success IMO. He was a great find by TT.

0 points
0
0
vj_ostrowski's picture

April 07, 2017 at 04:56 pm

C'mon. They were the #2 ranked scoring defense for "points against" that season. #5 in yards, if that stat does anything for you. Personally, I prefer scoring defense.

They won't be remembered as "all-time great", but let's not pretend they weren't great in the context of the single season and post-season.

Only one team was tougher to score on than GB that year and GB beat them in the Super Bowl.

0 points
0
0
JerseyAl's picture

April 07, 2017 at 05:10 pm

The stats are better than I remember them, but a lot of those big INTs were in their own endzone or very close to it after they had let teams drive down the field late in games. I guess that's the impression that has stuck with me.

0 points
0
0
PortlandMark's picture

April 08, 2017 at 10:32 am

Consider this: in the Super Bowl the Steeler offense outscored the Packer offense 25 to 24. In the NFC Title game the Bears offense tied the Packer Offense at 14. The Packer defense was the difference. In fact, if you look at offensive scoring, the 2010 Packer offense was the lowest in the MM era. I don't see how anyone can argue that the 2010 defense wasn't great. If Nick Collins stayed healthy they may well have gone back to back. When Seattle lost their best safety last year the defense started to look ordinary.

0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

April 07, 2017 at 06:59 am

Most teams benefit from home field , not all but most although we did lose those home games to the Giants and that game against the Falcons with Vick and a few others but I would still be more comfortable with playing at Lambeau in the post season.

0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

April 07, 2017 at 07:20 am

It is not surprising that statistics says how visiting teams won 40% games in post season. I think that high percentage of winning for visiting teams is due to the system of forming playoff schedule.
You have WC game in which very often 5th and 6th seed is better than 3rd and 4th seed, so they just win and forward. Also, it depends on strenght of division. Some teams have tough divisions (NFC North and NFC West for example - AFC North and AFC West) so it is no uncommon that 2nd seed is much weaker than 3rd seed coming to divisional round.
If you'll remove WC games from equation, I think result will be little bit more accurate.

0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

April 07, 2017 at 07:28 am

You heard Aaron Rodgers say it after the Atlanta loss -- playing at home would've helped.

It is no guarantee of course that playing at home means a victory, but it's still harder to win on the road in the NFL. That's just a fact of life.

I'd rather be at Lambeau in January than go to Atlanta, Seattle or Arizona. One can also argue that the Packers home record isn't anything stellar either: between losing all of our divisional games in 2015 at home to the dreadful 4 game losing streak in 2016, teams aren't necessarily scared to travel to Green Bay either.

At the end of the day what counts is how hot the team is and if our defense can get a stop. If those two things are in place, they'll win no matter where they play. Unfortunately the defense has been close, but not good enough.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

April 07, 2017 at 07:27 am

While home field advantage is great, I think the most important thing for this team is to be healthy at the right time.
This team when healthy can play against anyone anywhere. The problem is the last 2 years they simply have ran out of players. Namely WR's.
That is what really has made 2014 more painful. They were healthy and should have been their time.

0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

April 07, 2017 at 07:30 am

Great point. The only two years I can remember the team was healthy was 2011 and 2014. All of the other years we were decimated with injuries. Seems to be a common theme each year. McCarthy needs to stop the Saturday practices.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 07, 2017 at 07:44 am

"You heard Aaron Rodgers say it after the Atlanta loss -- playing at home would've helped."

The common theme in the Playoff losses since the Packers won SB 45 has been the defense.

2011..Blowout
2012..Blowout
2013..6 minute drive to end game by 49ers
2014...meltdown of all meltdowns..(Not on Defense IMO though)
2015..2 plays and a loss in OT but defense was solid for 60 minutes
2016..Blowout

Playing at home would have helped in 2014 & 2015 but that's about it. For 54 minutes and 47 seconds in 2014 the Packers defense was as perfect as perfect could be. THAT loss can't be put on Defense.

0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

April 07, 2017 at 08:40 am

I'll quibble with that - you don't give up over 150 yards rushing - most of it in the 4th quarter - and call it a defensive success.

They weren't awful all game, but they weren't great either.

That was entire TEAM melt down. UGH.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 07, 2017 at 09:48 am

I understand your point but with all the turnovers the defense created it shouldn't have been close. McCarthy played it extremely safe when the Packers had goal to goal situations in the first quarter and managed just 6 points. Yes they gave up some rushing yards, but they always gave up rushing yards.

Up 16 points GB doesn't even defend the possibility of a the fake FG. Gladly give up the 3 points and guard against the fake at all costs. THAT play totally brought that crowd back in the game. 3 points wouldn't have done it, but 7 points THAT way? UGH!

Bostick...Double UGH!!!! Outside of one catch he made in 2013, I never saw the appeal. He was a lousy blocker and clearly wasn't much of a pass catcher considering the Packers TE's on the roster. at the time. Now he's on the field for the Packers in what amounted to the most critical play of the game. DO YOUR JOB and the Packers are in the SB.

...I'm sure i'm being a bit unreasonable about the onside kick and Bostick. But I NEVER saw the anything other than the one play that made me feel he deserved a spot on the roster.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

April 07, 2017 at 10:10 am

Nick - I agree with you on the fake FG and Bostick's disastrous play. But in the end the defense was on the field for both of Seattle's late TD's including the 2 point conversion which should have been defended. Also on the field for the Seattle's winning OT score. Going back to the fake FG, that was made possible by Capers rushing only DLs on 3rd and 19 after 2 successive sacks and enabling Wilson to find an open WR for a first down, followed by the fake FG. If Capers puts pressure on Wilson he may never get that 3rd down throw off and maybe even sacked again and out of FG range. Let's not forget the premature kneel down by Burnett on his pick when he could have made another 10-15 yards and the impact that field position would have had on Seattle's late comeback. The final score of that game probably should have been 19-3 or 19-0. Still hard to accept that so much went so wrong in such a short period of time. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 07, 2017 at 10:33 am

All good and valid points Since '61. Reading your post and Bearmeats make you remember just how much went wrong in a very short period of time in that game, especially defensively. I stand corrected!

0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

April 07, 2017 at 03:01 pm

Since '61 agree with your post for the most part; it was SPECIAL TEAMS that derailed that game. MM should have fired his buddy years earlier. However, one thing that everyone seems to overlook is that with a HEALTHY Rodgers the Packers would not have needed to settle for field goals and the game would have never been down to the wire. I, personally, think this was one of Aaron's most gutty performances, which makes it all the more sad. There were multiple moments in that game where Rodgers, with a healthy leg, would have just blown that game open!! Lots of plays where Aaron would have scrambled for first downs (or more). Unfortunately, we can't set the "reset" button. What a bummer of a game.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

April 07, 2017 at 04:38 pm

Spock - agree that ST derailed the game, however, the defense was the unit on the field which allowed the Seattle TD's. It's not just about the defense making stops it's about making stops at key points in the game. The Packers defense did not come up big and make a stop when they needed it the most. I agree with you 100% about Rodgers injury. I posted many times after the game that Rodgers leg injury was a deciding factor in the game. There were at least 3 times in that game when a healthy Rodgers would have run for a first down and kept drives alive. That alone would have ate up at least some of the time Seattle had to come back. Also, if any of those drives resulted in even another 3 points it's probably game over. That game and the loss to Denver in the SB in 1997 are the hardest Packer defeats for me. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

April 07, 2017 at 05:34 pm

Spot on as usual Since 61. 97 still stings too.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

April 07, 2017 at 12:02 pm

Ugh is right. TTMD. Total team melt down . Fake field goal was huge swing.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

April 07, 2017 at 09:07 am

Jason - this article is actually hitting on TTs draft and develop philosophy. If over the years, especially since 2011 we had signed one or two veteran FAs, particularly on defense we may have won one or two more regular season games per season which would have given the Packers a #1 or #2 seed. To me the wise use of FAs, which TT is finally, apparently trying this season, may have given us home field advantage as well as a first round bye for some of the past playoff seasons. I don't believe home field would necessarily help our offense but it would be of more benefit for our defense. Maybe playing at home our defense makes a stop against Seattle at the end of the game in 2014, rather than completely collapsing and blowing a 12 point lead in less than 4 minutes. Or against Arizona in OT in 2015. We'll never know. First we need to get 12-13 regular season wins and get the #1 or #2 seed. Winning those additional 1-3 regular season games requires better defense than we have had since the 2010 season and certainly better than the 2016 defense. If our defense can make some stops and hold a lead late in a game we just might win those games that the offense doesn't carry us through. I would always prefer to play at home in the playoffs regardless of what the numbers say. It may not matter as much as in the past, but I prefer not to worry about silencing the opposition crowd on the road. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
JRome Coaxum's picture

April 07, 2017 at 10:42 am

We need Defense. That is the answer. TT has consistently failed to put quality defenders on that side of the ball. Gunter ran a 4.6, cmon folks did we really expect him to not get burnt, as a honest fan. NO. But TT and his ego thought he could get away with it. He picks avg players to often. He almost never goes for the uber athletic players. He likes too many 6-2 to 6-3 D-Linemen. And too many 5'11". Of course he chose Lowry last yr and we were all excited bc he was 6-5.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

April 07, 2017 at 12:07 pm

Only been to one game in Lambeau.
96 Title game.NFC . Loudest event I have ever been to anywhere. Wonder if it has been as crazy loud since???

0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

April 07, 2017 at 02:17 pm

There was a time before Rodgers when the 8 home games were counted as wins when the schedule came out, I think Favre might have a better winning percentage at Lambeau than Rodgers.

0 points
0
0
TXCHEESE's picture

April 07, 2017 at 04:18 pm

I think what Rodgers may have been alluding to, is GB can play its game in the weather. Other teams are not going to be as successful throwing the ball in inclement weather, especially dome teams. They're just not as used to ball handling in the cold. Defense? Yeah you need that too, but injuries played a huge factor in the Atlanta game. Could we have won that game, yes, but based on the health of both teams going in, Atlanta had the advantage.

0 points
0
0