BLeonard

Yep. Naval Air Station in Fallon, Nevada.

These animations about Herbert being "Top Gun" would make much more sense if the team were still in San Diego.

They're high enough that they can see Kauffman Stadium (Home of the Royals) in the background above the highest rows in Arrowhead.

Won't play Sunday, per McDermott:

96 playoffs, Kelly's last game.

Nope, Kelly played Carolina week 2 of 95. Reich was the starter for the Panthers.

I looked at this a bit further and, yeah, the whole idea of flipping the alternate years wouldn't work, it screws up the rest of the divisions. I was just viewing it through the AFC East's lens, which obviously the NFL doesn't do. So, I did a new sheet for 2018-2023, covering the entire AFC. To simplify, I used last year's division winners to represent the matchups, as I found it easier to work with actual teams than A,B,C,D. Using that, you can see where, in theory, every team could host another for three seasons in a row. Bills Host KC in years 1-3 (H,H, Whole West), KC Hosts Bills in years 4-6 (H,H, Whole East) Bills Host Ten in years 5-6 & 1 (H,H, Whole South), Ten Hosts Bills in years 2-4 (H,H, Whole South) Bills Host CIN in years 2-4 (Whole North, H, H), CIN Hosts Bills in years 5-6 & 1 (Whole North, H, H). I also don't think there's much they can do about it, either, especially since we're talking about 2 random games that may or may not happen, depending on where teams finish in the standings. The rest of the formula is about as balanced as you can ask for. Certainly better than what they had in the past. O/T: Bit of Bills schedule trivia for anyone that cares. When Jim Kelly retired after the 1996 season, there were 30 teams in the league. During his career, he played against 28 of them. Besides the Bills, which team did Kelly never play against? (PS, not thinking of the Ravens here, they had just started in 96).

Yes. In 2021, the AFC East Played the AFCS (B), meaning the Bills hosted the Colts and Texans, while on the road at Tennessee and Jacksonville. The Bills hosted the AFC North team that finished in 1st (Pittsburgh) which is Column E on the graph. They were on the road at KC, who finished first in the AFCW (Column G). Columns I and K are just me flipping the alternate years (highlighted in yellow) to eliminate the whole "2 year rotation" that people were discussing. They aren't part of the actual schedule formula. I included those to show that, if the NFL switched (thus eliminating the "2 year rotation") the issue would occur that whenever a team played a certain division, they would NEVER have the chance to play in one venue or the other. To illustrate, looking again at 2021, if the NFL didn't have the "2 year rotation," the Bills would have played the AFC South (B) like normal, had KC at Home and been on the road at Pittsburgh. The problem is, if you look at 2018, the last time the Bills played the AFC South (A), they would have also had the Chiefs at home, with Pittsburgh on the road. Under that scenario (Eliminating the "2 year rotation") anytime the Bills (and the rest of the AFC East) would play the AFC South, they would ALWAYS play on the road of the AFC North team and ALWAYS host the AFC West team. Long story short, the "2 year rotation" allows for teams to host and visit teams from the other two divisions, provided they finish in the same place within their divisions. Without it, teams would either be hosting or visiting the same division every time. That's why I'm guessing that the league prefers to use the "2 year rotation," so that they aren't, for example, locking the entire AFC East to have to go on the road to the AFC North every year the schedule has the East playing all four teams in the South. Hope that makes sense.

The easiest way to explain this is to look at the schedule in six year chunks. I didn't bother to include the NFC matchups. Below, I started with Josh's rookie year and went through 2023. Columns E and G show the 2 year rotation on the games that are created by teams finishing in the same place within their divisions (1st from the East hosted 1st from the West in 2018, 2nd East Hosted 2nd West and so on). In columns I and K, I flipped the alternating years highlighted in yellow to eliminate that 2 year rotation, since from what I've read, your major question is "why is the two year rotation not a 'home and home' rotation?". If you look across the rows under that scenario, you'd see that the Bills would NEVER have the chance to host the Chiefs in a year where the AFC East played the AFC North. KC would also NEVER have the chance to host the Bills any year the AFC East played the AFC South. It boils down to, which would you rather have? A chance at playing at the same place 3 years in a row, or knowing that anytime the Bills play the AFCN, they CAN'T host ANY AFCW team. So, they could they rotate every season, but my guess is, the NFL would rather have the 2 year rotation instead of locking teams out of ANY chance of playing at a given location every time they play a certain opposite division.

Wrong. If you're going to try and defend the "continuity" BS, at least back it with some facts. Mularkey quit after his second season... My guess is, he saw the dysfunction in the organization (specifically, the Front Office) and said "No thanks." Jauron got a 4th season, as you're suggesting with Gailey. Jauron was then fired midseason. The last Bills Coach to get 3 years was Gregg Williams and he was 17-31 in those three years. Chan Gailey would need to win these final two games to even get to that mark. At least Gregg Williams and Mike Mularkey were "hot coordinators" at the time of their hire and at least Jauron had held a Head Coaching job in the 21st Century before becoming the Bills Head Coach. Gailey was out of football after being fired by Kansas City as an Offensive Coordinator. Gailey has a worse record as Bills' Head Coach than Williams, Mularkey and Jauron. It could also be argued that Gailey has had more talent than all of those three coaches had during their tenure as well. He definitely has more talent than Jauron ever did, yet, Jauron has a significantly better record as Bills head coach than Gailey does. The problem isn't "disrupting continuity." The problem is not hiring the right guy to get positive continuity from in the first place. Unfortunately, those guys usally cost a bit more money and, well, the TV contracts don't pay for coaching staffs and front offices, like they do the players... That all comes out of the owner's wallet. -Bill

Had to sell the AV equipment to pay for the contract. The Bills plan to call New England. word is, they have some lightly used video equipment that they aren't supposed to be using anymore. -Bill

Well, it'll be interesting to see when that day comes... Especially if nothing is going on at SkyDome that day. I'm still of the opinion that Rogers actually loses money on the Toronto Series (especially the preseason games). I'll bet you that if they were turning a profit, this "scheduling conflict" wouldn't have been an issue. If they do renew the series (which I have my doubts, regardless of what Rogers and Russ Brandon say) I'm betting it won't include any preseason games. -Bill

I submit Exhibit A: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/21/bills-wont-play-in-toronto-this-preseason/ So, the schedule hasn't been set as of yet... also, as the article mentions, this was planned 5 years ago, when the deal was made. Like I said before, my guess is, Rogers would lose less money by not having the game, as opposed to having it. It'll be interesting when the schedules come out to see if SkyDome is available on either of the dates that the home games end up being on. -Bill

Yeah, did you see what the Season Ticket email said? It's in the first post of this thread... Do you believe that too? Meanwhile, Buddy and Chan are 10-22 in two seasons, while our #1 WR is an UFA with contract talks going nowhere fast. I couldn't care less what Russ Brandon says or tweets... Until words become action, it means nothing. BTW, I'm currently working on getting a threeway with Katy Perry and Anna Kourniova... I will provide more information once terms are finalized. -Bill

IMO, the "scheduling conflict" is an excuse... Think about this: 1: The NFL schedule is a good 2 months away from even being done. Preseason schedule comes even after that. 2: Rogers has already paid for the game. If you paid for something, why would'nt you get what you paid for? My guess is: Rogers would make more money (or, more accurately, lose less money) by not having the game, as opposed to having it. If they have the game in Toronto, I assume that Rogers would be responsible for paying the parking attendants, ticket takers, concessions staff, ushers, security, etc. If they aren't making anough money on the game and the residuals to pay these people, that means they're losing money. This tells me that the Toronto Series is done after this year. Rogers obviously isnt making money on it, so, in order for them to want it, the price tag would have to be lower... But, if Ralph doesn't make money off of the deal, there's no reason for him to agree to it, either. -Bill

As said above, once the ball crosses the LOS, the posession for one team becomes the "opportunity to posess" for the other. Thus the game would end when the ball crosses the LOS. A missed INT is not an opportunity to posess, because the rule clearly states that "The opportunity to possess occurs only during kicking plays." In literal terms, yes the DB may have had the "opportunity to possess." But, not according to the NFL rule, which I'm sure is what they would go by. -Bill

No, a dropped interception is not an "opportunity to posess." The opportunity to possess occurs only during kicking plays, as stated above. Now, if the DB intercepts the pass, then fumbles it back to the offensive team, THAT would be a posession by the intercepting team. -Bill

I would still think Team A would win the game... Once Team B punts the ball away, their posession is over. Since they didn't score during their posession, the game would end before the muff, or the recovery. -Bill

Well, since you can't advance a muffed punt, I would assume that Team A would win. Even if you could advance a muff (which you can't) Team B punting would constitue in ending their posession and, as a result, the game would be over, again, with Team A winning. -Bill

So, was this before or after he brought Marv Levy back as the GM...? I also thought that Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas currently work for the Bills in some capacity. I'm also pretty sure Darryl Talley was a Training Camp last year, working with the Linebackers... -Bill

Or, you could do a 10 second Google search: http://www.amazon.com/NFL-Game-Archives-Buffalo-Playoffs/dp/B000VAHQYM -Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afbLb8A6oSE -Bill

The column you want to sort by using that chart is the first PCT. column... That will tell you what percentage of the seats are sold. While the Bills are ahead of NE on average attendance, NE's attendance is 100%, while the Bills' is 94.5 Bills sell more seats because of ticket price and the fact that RWS capacity is bigger than Gillette Stadium. -Bill

He got put on waivers... He wouldn't have a choice. -Bill

God, I absolutely HATE this argument... You know why? Because it's NOT TRUE! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bills_(AAFC) So, Buffalo did, in fact, have a football team, named the Bills, no less, BEFORE Ralph Wilson. Another one of those "facts" that some homers just love to ignore: Ralph only chose Buffalo after he was denied a team in Miami: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wilson Buffalo could very well have gotten a football team, considering the fact that they were still a pretty decent sized city back in the 1950s and 60's. Dallas, Minnesota, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Tampa Bay and Seattle all received expansion teams between 1960 and 1976... if there was no team in Buffalo, one of those teams could very well have been put there. I won't go as far to say that there would DEFINITELY be a team in Buffalo if Wilson didn't put his team there, but to say that there 100% for sure WOULD NOT be a team in Buffalo is incorrect. -Bill