ThurmasThoman

I read an article once about how the scheduling process works--it's pretty intense. Guys locked in a room for secrecy running thousands of permutations through computers to make sure things are balanced. Tons of considerations like: stadiums being used for concerts, weather factors (hurricane season, heat in the south, etc. etc.). I think a more fruitful thread discussion might be: should the last week of the season be reserved for divisional matchups. Personally, I'm kinda ehhhh on the subject. I think it might be cooler if the last week was inter-conference games only, as you would know that (a) you wouldn't see the same matchup next weekend in the wildcard round, and (b) rooting interest would be pretty straight forward for fans.

It was a good season, lots to be happy about. For the first time in 20 years, the things that are wrong are a matter of tweaks not tearing down to the studs. I love the leadership in place, and the vision they have. They called their shot with the three year rebuild, and it went exactly the way they said it would--good on them. Josh Allen had a great year, and developed nicely. The RB situation looked good. The D is awesome. Cap wise, they're situated perfectly. The rest of the division isn't great, and New England is coming back to earth. Big improvement from last season, and gives hope to the future that the team can have a down year, restock, and bounce back. I like Buf's chances against Houston in round 1, and the second round would be fun to watch in either scenario--Buf will be the road dogs in both rounds, and they got some Moxie. I don't know what you're worried about breh. It's entertainment, and from start to finish it has been a thoroughly enjoyable, entertaining season, and the future seems brighter than the present, and DEFINITELY brighter than the past.

That division should be theirs next year: Cam Newton era is officially over, so the Panthers will have someone new under center; the Saints look like they're gearing up for a grand finale with the AB activity today, although Bridgewater may keep them elite; the Bucs will either be rolling with Jameis, or rebuilding post-Jameis. The Rams seem to be moving in the wrong direction, the NFC East is weak, and the Falcons already beat the 9ers this year. Falcons finished the year either 6-2 or 5-3. I like rolling into the next season with a Super Bowl head coach/quarterback/combo. With the rate of turnover being what it is in the NFL, that's a rare club to be in. In fact, who's there? Patriots, Saints, Falcons, Seahawks, and Rams. On balance, look at the success of those teams. The Falcons SHOULD be one of the NFLs elite teams, so looking at their post Super Bowl run (in my opinion) you owe them the benefit of the doubt. Football is a game of weird bounces. If I owned that team, I'd rather gamble with the pocket 9s I'm holding, than fold this hand and hope to catch lightening on the next deal. They might not be the chip leaders at the table, but they have gone high enough with this leadership team to justify bringing them back. BUT. BUT. BUT. If Josh Allen and McD are up 28-3 late in the third quarter of the Super Bowl, and blow it, and then string together a nondescript 10-6 season followed by two 7-9 seasons, I would want the entire freaking organization purged of their defeatist attitudes and bad juju, and would be posting on here that the holdover guys like Tre should see trauma counselors to right the ship.

My first "exposure" to the Bills was as a kid during the Super Bowls, but the first season that I followed from the preseason on was the 1994/1995 season. Full disclosure: I was 10. I learned most of the rules to the game by playing Tecmo Super Bowl on the Super Nintendo. And living out of market, I relied on games that got national broadcasts to see the team. We had a dailup 14k modem at the time, and the sports news I had access to was on AOL. Suffice it to say, following the team from afar took a good amount of work back then, but I loved it. Buuuuuut I also think I missed most of the major details. The next season, the year Buf lost to Pit in the divisional round after beating Miami at Rich made a little more sense to me, and by 97 when Kelly went down vs Jax I was hooked. But now that I'm older and I look back at the Bills of the 90s, that 1994/95 season sticks out like a sore thumb. The only other year they missed the playoffs that decade was the year Kelly retired, but then they were right back to excellence with Flutie. Im sure the answer is something like "fatigue" but is that really it? To the old timers: did it feel like they had a shot that season? Was there hope going into the season? Or did you think the team was done and needed to retool? Help put this mystery of my childhood into context for me, anyone, please!

Buddy, that's the last time they won 10 games as well. I'd be fine with a loss, 10-6 sounds good to me too, because that was the record the Bills had the last season they won a playoff game, 1996.

i think 2 things you're going to see more of in the playoffs: isaiah mckenzie touches and screen passes designed for motor

No, to me its just not as cut and dry as video taping opponents when there are rules expressly forbidding it. For instance, if you had friends over for poker, and your buddy drew up a chart with exactly what he was going to do on each combo of cards he was dealt, including how he was going to bluff/bet depending on the situation... and then threw it away in your trash can. vs. You travel to another poker game that your buddy plays in, dress up as a utility worker, and stand outside the window of the dining room pretending to fix his telephone line while people are playing, and film his cards, then develop a strategy for beating him the next weekend.

Im fine with this, tbh. It's not cheating.

Not that I'm being cross examined, or anyone even knows who I am as a poster, but reading through my post history would be interesting. You would see a rabidly anti-Patriots poster from my sign up date until about 2017ish. Then you would see someone who grew to appreciate Brady's and Belichick's excellence, and came to assume the cheating accusations were overblown and they should be hailed for what they are--the GOATS. Well, here we go again. Where there's smoke, there's fire. I think in any one case you could say "well, maybe they didn't film the Ram's practice", or "maybe the Colts played with 2 deflated balls too", or "the guy could have filmed it from the stands, why go into the press box" or any other number of excuses that make sense when considered individually, absent everything else that goes into this. From their ridiculous record vs. the spread to the anecdotes of former and current players and coaches... again, where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Maybe your wife really did take a picture with her shirt off to compare to another one taken a year earlier and send it to an online oncologists phone; and maybe she really did lose wifi in her office and need to get a hotel room for an hour to send a report to Toronto; and maybe that really is her friend's brother who answered your call to her last Friday when she was out with the girls--the guy who told you to stop calling because "she's not a married woman tonight!" But I think the problem the NFL has is that overwhelmingly, fans on every comment section are calling for harsh penalties. There's some Patriots homers saying that all those other accusations have been "disproven", but they are roundly shouted down. And I'm starting to think the NFL is getting backed into a corner. They floated a "sanctions are likely to be light" demo tweet earlier and it's getting ripped apart. People want blood. Ironically, I think the Patriots are worse off then they were the previous 2 times they got caught--not because they're repeat repeat offenders, but because they're declining quickly and dramatically. Before, it was believable that it was just "haters" mad at their success--the Rams salty for losing a Super Bowl, the Colts salty for being perpetual playoff whipping boys, the Jets stirring the pot with Rex, etc. But now? Now it's much more (pick one/all: believable, plausible, likely, pathetic, disheartening, etc) that the Patriots cheated to gain an advantage over the hapless Bengals because they CAN'T win on their own merit, and coincidentally, they're playing the bengals this week. Also, here's another aside: as to why the Patriots wouldn't just sit someone in the stands, or wait for the all 22. The act they got caught doing it against the team they're facing this week shows the time sensitive nature of the material.. It would have to be sent directly to the advance scouts who could begin analyzing the data and making a game plan for the next week. A fan in the stands would either have to film for 5-7 minutes of action between commerical breaks, then send that over a wireless network jammed with 80,000 people uploading selfies of their gameday experience to facebook. And while it's sending, ready the next video to send, and the next, and on and on. No doubt they've tried, but I see barriers to entry here, to say nothing of the suspicion from drunk fans around you who would notice you sending videos after every few plays, not of the action, but of the sideline: unmoving shots. OR, get press credentialed, get the wifi password, get a secure connection with employees at Patriot Place, do some witty banter during commercial breaks, and film the sideline unhindered for the rest of the game, with a hidef camera. That info is accessed real time, a gameplan is made, and before Brady is showered and ready for his presser, the defensive scheme is updated and the plays the offense will run is overhauled. Why wait a few days (or even hours) for the all 22? Ok, so sorry for the long digression, but the ultimate point is this: I am coming around to the idea that the Patriots are going to get hit with some force this time. Suspension for Belichick for the remainder of the season seems about right, ala Garret--the last outrage that NFL nation felt needed to be dealt with harshly.

Right. Bowling indeed. Bent Over While Loving Insertion 'N Grinding

Bills definitely lost fair and square, tbh I didn't even think the officiating was poor in our game. Like I said in the post above, the Patriots got jobbed way worse yesterday. Yesterday was a great loss for the Bills--they hung with the best team in the league, had a chance to tie on the last play, didn't shoot themselves in the foot, and honestly were ready for the big stage. A win would have been gravy, but it was the first time since Flutie was QB that I can remember the team just.... looking like an actual competent NFL team for the entirety of a really big game. I was way, way, way worse for the wear after the Cleveland loss--that one was frustrating and one we should have had.

To be honest, the Patriots/Chiefs game that followed was the worst officiated game I've ever seen, and it was the Patriots who (for once) got the short end of the stick.

I suppose 2004 is a different era, isn't it? Welp, on a related note, I recently found/enjoyed this video on death and dying:

Honestly, Buffalo is due for a major market correction in their ticket distribution. A number of factors have gone into making the mess that is Bills ticketing, but 2 decades of irrelevance leading to low entry cost for seasons, and the low entry cost for seasons making the "commute" viable for people coming from VERY far away for games, creates what you have now, and what you're seeing with this game. With the team having a better product on the field, ticket prices will go up--and when ticket prices go up, people from Maine/New Hampshire/Ohio/etc. will have to decide if it's worth keeping their seasons, or if they should be single game buyers. With season ticket prices increasing, you'll also get the "sunk cost" fallacy at play for games like this Baltimore one, where people who payed thousands for seasons will feel like they HAVE to attend the late season contests to make the cost worth it. Dome/weather has nothing to do with it, honestly.

Interesting. Thanks for doing this math. To be fair, I did not play around with any teams other than New England and Buf, so if by chance I had Baltimore tied with them as well, the machine may have applied a 3 team tie breaker first?

If Buffalo wins out, and New England wins out with the exception of losses to Buffalo and Miami, Buffalo would win the division. No other single loss for the Patriots would give Buffalo the tie breaker advantage, so we must finish a game ahead. ASSUMING BUF WINS OUT--New England needs to lose any two of Hou/KC/Cin.. or, again, just lose to the Dolphins. Source: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/machine

Since it's a rainy Thanksgiving morning where I am, and I just had a nice big breakfast and am enjoying a cup of coffee while my family watches the parade, I'm going to take the time to write out the answer for ya bud. Here goes nothing... There are three factors to consider when understanding why losing to an AFC opponent matters more to the Bills playoff chances than losing to an NFC team: 1. Scheduling rotations 2. Division tie breaker scenarios 3. Conference tie breaker scenarios Consider scheduling rotations first. There are 4 divisions of 4 teams each, in both conferences. Teams within a division (in our case, the Bills, Patriots, Jets and Dolphins) play a schedule that is almost identical to one another, aside from 2 games. So everyone in the AFC east will play one another twice (Bills v. Jets 2x; Bills v Patriots 2x; Bills v Dolphins 2x) for a total of 6 games; they will play each team in another division within the AFC (this year, it is the AFC Central that we have been matched up against, so all of the Bills, Patriots, Dolphins and Jets will play the Steelers, Browns, Bengals and Ravens) for a total of 4 games; they will play each team in another division in the NFC (this year, it is the NFC East that we are playing, so all of the Bills, Patriots, Dolphins and Jets will play the Cowboys, Giants, Eagles and Redskins) for a total of 4 games. The remaining two games are based on the previous season's standings--so the first place finisher in the AFC East will play the other two first place finishers within the conference, the second place team will play the other two second place teams, the third place team will play the other two third place teams, and the last place team will play the other 2 last place teams. Because Buffalo finished in third place last year, we play the third placed teams in the South (Titans) and the west (Broncos). Because the rotations through division pairings are scheduled (as opposed to randomized), Buffalo's opponents can be known decades in advance (aside from the 2 games scheduled against teams based on order of finish). Looking at next year, we will be playing the NFC west, and the AFC west. Also, we seem locked into second place in the AFC east, so it's a safe bet we'll be playing our 2 order-of-finish games against other second place teams. Our schedule should look something like: Patriots/Patriots/Dolphins/Dolphins/Jets/Jets/Broncos/Chiefs/Raiders/Chargers/49ers/Seahawks/Cardinals/Rams/Colts, Texans or Titans/Steelers or Browns So, the important thing to wrap your head around with the scheduling formula is simply: teams play such a similar schedule within a division, in addition to head to head matchups vs each other, that the league has placed a premium on winning your division. That's why division winners get a home playoff game at the very least, and half of them get a bye. Winning your division is KEY in the NFL. With that in mind, if you take a step back and look at tie breakers, you can see that the tie breaking procedure for determining order of finish within a division is different than determining order of finish within the conference. Within a division, the tiebreakers are: Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs). Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference. Strength of victory. Within the conference, the tiebreakers are: Head-to-head, if applicable. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four. Strength of victory. Strength of schedule. One thing that you'll see a lot on here is that "NFC games don't matter as much." That's wrong. NFC games haven't been as important to the Bills for 20 years because the Patriots have had the AFC East by the balls while Buffalo has been hopelessly mired in mediocrity. For teams competing for a division crown (which, theoretically, every team should, but in practice, no one in the AFC East gets to do) NFC games are as important as any other game, aside from division contests. It outranks conference games in terms of tie breaking procedures, as the 2 different opponents the teams face get thrown out the window first in step 3--before being brought back in in step 4. Because Buffalo's ceiling has been a wildcard for 20 years, this year included, we only ever really look at the conference tie breakers. When you consider that we will be using those tiebreakers against teams who will not have faced OUR NFC schedule (none of the Titans/Texans/Colts/Raiders/Chiefs/Browns/Steelers will have played any NFC East teams this year, obviously) you can see that none of the tie breaking procedures would factor in NFC games until the fourth level of tie breakers... So, the long and short of it: Are NFC games less important? This year: technically, yes. When the Patriots come back to earth: absolutely not. Edit: Happy Thanksgiving all!

I don't think it's scripted or rigged, but I think officials in ANY sport call the game in favor of the viewer, meaning they make the calls that keep the game close. Blowouts are rare in professional sports, and that has to do with how the games are called. There's no stats to back it up, because number of fouls doesn't tell the full story, but anyone watching for it can see it. As for the Patriots... ehhh... I used to ride hard on the "THEYRE CHEATERS!!" bandwagon, but it's honestly lost its luster for me over the years as I've learned more about the game and the strategy (and preparation!) behind it. Reading "Take your eye off the ball" helped me along that road. They have the smartest QB, and the smartest head coach--Brady has access to the entire playbook when he steps to the line. The guy has dedicated his life to being the GOAT. I wish he wasn't in our division, but think of his offseason vs. Baker Mayfield's. The Pats draft and sign personnel based on the playbook that Brady and Belichick are designing as soon as the season ends. The yardage marker? I mean... it's a fast game and those guys aren't astrophysicists marking the ball. Somebody goofed. Using FOXs yellow line to corroborate your theory is on par with "DA PATS WON DA SUPABOWL IN 2001 CUZ OF 9/11 AND THEY'RE THE PATRIOTS SO THE LEAGUE WANTED PEOPLE TO BE LIKE, PATRIOTIC AND SH1T, AND AMERICA !@#$ YEAH AND SPEND MONEY ON NFL CLOTHES AND STUFF CUZ THE NFL LOGO IS RED WHITE AND BLUE."

Buffalo could very easily be playing in the AFC championship game in 2 months. Wildcard weekend, if we get the 5th seed and end up playing either HOU/IND, I like our chances there. At that point, we would presumably be heading to either Bal or NE, for either the second or third matchup vs either one of those teams. With the way Buf has played this year, it's hard to see that being anything other than 50/50. What IS hard to see, from where I'm sitting, is them winning that game AND THEN winning the next weekend against the remaining team that got a bye, or KC. I still think they're a year away, but would not surprise me at all to see them be a final four team this year.

Also, funny how no one here is willing to look ahead to next year's opponents and say that they will or won't be good--but we've set the standard here for a division title and deep playoff run for the Bills a year in advance.

Right. I am not referring to the teams that we will be playing, so much as the travel. A lot of "GOOD TEAMS WIN NO MATTER WHAT" posts here, which is the exact point of this thread. Good teams do win games, but it's tougher to win those games when you have to fly across the country. A west coast game is a big deal as it is--4 is just sadistic. Yes, every team in our division will be running the same gauntlet, but it's a rare scheduling quirk that we're facing. NOT SAYING we will or won't win, or we should or shouldn't win--just saying that 10-6 might be division champ next year, which means SIX WEEKENDS of losing football.

Next season, the planets will align just right for the AFC East and create a once-every-12-years schedule that is going to be an epic slog. The teams in the AFC East will play the team in the NFC and AFC west, guaranteeing at least 4 trips to the west coast--and depending on where Houston finishes in the south, a possible extra trip to Houston for one of the AFC East teams. This is to say nothing of the fact that the 49ers, Seahawks and Chiefs all look great, while the Cardinals, Rams, Chargers and Raiders all seem dangerous. The Broncos seem to be the only dog in the bunch, but for Buffalo, it will be a trip to Mile High--never an easy win. The last time the scheduling rotation put the AFC East in this position, the Dolphins won the division at 11-5, and the Patriots failed to make the playoffs (granted, Brady wasn't under center that season due to an injury.) I know we're all looking towards next year as the year when all of the pieces fall into place and the Bills begin their epic run of dominance... but it might be best to exercise some patience here. It's hard to see ANY team in the AFC east surpassing that 11 win benchmark from 2008. Edit to include 2 points: 1. I am not saying that our schedule will be tough because of WHO we are playing, but because of WHERE we will be playing. West coast road games are hard. 2. Despite that, if we are going to say that based on this year's record, next years Bills team SHOULD be good, then we can also say that based on this year's record, next years Chiefs, Raiders, Seahawks, 49ers and Rams teams SHOULD also be good.

This is an awesome post! Thank you for taking the time to write it. I love everything schedule-related--I've always enjoyed posts like this where the real "logistics nerds" can bounce ideas off each other. I was initially opposed to the 17 game schedule because no team would ever finish .500, but when I realized it's the only major North American sport with ties, so teams are already not finishing .500, I got over that. Although a very small part of me still can't get over the uneven number, I just want to "fix it" somehow, because I know it makes the schedule instantly unbalanced in terms of who that 17th game is played against. There are two directions it could go, as I see it--either keep everything "fair and balanced", or throw caution to the wind. Since the NFL is all about "fairness", the first approach would be to take draft order standings (before trades are applied), and the 17th game is played against the team that follows you in the draft. So the team . with the first pick plays the team with the second; 3&4, 5&6, etc. It would guarantee a Super Bowl rematch every year, which would be cool. Now if the NfL wanted to get crazy, I say make the scheduling more random, like it used to be in the early 90s when the AFC east was 5 teams, the central was 6, and the west was 4. I think it might send some millennial fans to the psych ward when the schedule came out and we were going back to back at the Seahawks home for the Packers, when the Patriots get a 4 week home stretch against the Skins/Bucs/Lions/Cards, but ripping the bandaid off of the perfect formula that the NFL uses for scheduling would be kinda nice. Personally (and this may just be me) I am bored to tears with the predictability of the NFL schedule and the lack of variance in scheduling between teams in the same division. It just feels like in a sport where you only play 16 games, against 13 out of 32 teams, there should be WAY more than 2 games difference between our schedule and New England's.You might say "well they're in the same division, so to accurately determine a division winner, they should face a similar slate of gams." At which point you get into the question of whether or not the divisions should be reconfigured. Personally, and again, this may just be me--I HATE 4 team divisions. A lot of questions with this, for sure.

Walk up to them and tackle them. Walk up to them and throw a football at them at 40 miles an hour. Walk up to them and scream to them to get to the fukking line of scrimmage in 4 seconds. Anything that happens out of context is illegal.

I gotta say: I agree with you. I've watched that video several times and... I just don't see it. I don't see where the complete and total outrage comes from. To those saying he could have killed him: I mean, he DID hit him in the head, with the leading edge of the helmet, and Rudolph was 100% fine. I'm not going to try to understand the thoughts going through Garret's mind, or his intentions, but is it possible he took some mustard off his swing so as to NOT injure him. Because a lot of the panic this morning seems to be centered on "imagine if he had hit him in the head and killed him!", and, again, he DID hit him in the head. Intentionally. With the most dangerous angle of the weapon. And Rudolph was very obviously fine. I'm way, way, way more fascinated with the battle lines being drawn so quickly, and how the internet escalates that process. It's 2019 America at it's finest. It's the most egregious thing EVER that needs a HISTORIC suspension and NO ROOM FOR DEBATE. Every week there's a new headline to get our dopamine receptors activated, a new outrage of historic proportions that we will surely still be talking about tomorrow at lunch (we won't). Anyways, I'm open to changing my mind on my stance, but after reading through this thread I still don't see a justification for anything more than... a 2 game ban? Maybe, MAYBE 4 because the other player was defenseless, in the sense that they were without their helmet.