JDG
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JDG
-
-
Exact tie breaking procedures for wildcard teams is as follows (from NFL.com):
Three or More Clubs(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of applicable two-club format.)
- Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tie breaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two Wild-Card participants.
- Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)
- 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.
- Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
- Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
- Best net points in conference games.
- Best net points in all games.
- Best net touchdowns in all games.
- Coin toss
So my question is if the Steelers beat the Bengals this weekend, doesn's that kill us in tie breaker rule #4. Are common opponents with the Steelers are Patriots, Bengals, Colts and Chiefs. We would be 1-4 in those games, Steelers would be 2-3 if they beat the Bengals.
I'm slowly realizing that the Steelers must lose to the Bengals.
In answer to your question, if the Bills and Steelers tie with a 9-7 record, that will most likely be because the Bills beat the Jets and lost to the Eagles, Redskins, or Cowboys. That would mean that the Bills would beat the Steelers on Tiebreaker #3 by virtue of having 7 conference wins to the Steelers' conference wins.
If the Bills and Steelers tie at 10-6 - it would be exactly as you describe if the Steelers beat the Bengals, the Steelers beat us on tiebreaker #4. On the other hand, if the Bills and Steelers tie at 10-6, with a Steelers loss to the Bengals, then it goes to tiebreaker #5.
But yes, the Bills really need the Bengals to beat the Steelers. To put it in perspective, right now the NY Times Playoff simulator gives the Bills a 23% chance of making the playoffs. Those odds go up to 46% with a Bills victory over the Eagles and a Bengals victory over the Steelers. However, those odds go down to just 17% if a Bills win over the Eagles is paired with a Steelers win over the Bengals.
JDG
I take it the Ravens don't need the band now that the team sucks?
Hah! You have a very good memory!
In all credit to the Ravens band - that organization has actually been in continuous operation since the days of the Baltimore Colts. If they can operate for more than decade without even a football team - they'll definitely survive a few bad seasons.
-
Ha! I said the same thing...
Thanks Jay and SDS! Yup, its been a long time...... :-)
-
Here's some fun with the playoff simulator:
The Bills have two main playoff scenarios (ignoring exotic scenarios like getting a Wild Card at 8-8 (6% chance according to NY Times simulator) or getting in at 9-7 while losing to the Jets (14% chance!).) (A) Bills get in the playoffs at 10-6 by winning the rest of their games, AND any ONE of the following:(1) Pittsburgh loses to Cincinnati AND Bills win strength of victory tiebreaker(2) Any TWO Pittsburgh Losses(3) Any TWO Kansas City Losses(B) Bills get in the playoffs at 9-7 by going 2-1 vs. the NFC East, beating the NY Jets, AND any THREE of the following:
(1) Any ONE other NY Jets Loss
(2) Any ONE Oakland Loss
(3) Any TWO Pittsburgh Losses
(4) Any THREE Kansas City Losses
So, let's say that over Weeks 14 and 15 the following happens:(1) Buffalo beats Philly and Washington(2) Pittsburgh loses to Cincinnati and Denver(3) Oakland loses at Denver and/or vs. Green Bay(4) NY Jets lose at DallasIf those four things all happen, then the necessary conditions for the Bills making the playoffs iin both Scenario A and in Scenario B would be fulfilled. Thus, Buffalo would enter the game against Dallas knowing that win or lose vs. Dallas they could clinch a playoff berth the following week at home against the NY Jets. And in fact, so long as the Jets don't lose both games, the Bills would know that they had no "clinching" scenarios in Week 16 either - i.e., win or lose against Dallas, they would still be "in the hunt" for Week 17.
The game of course wouldn't be really meaningless, because a win vs. Dallas would give the Bills a few tiny "backdoor" scenarios for making the playoffs even with a Jets loss - but it nevertheless could be a game in which there isn't all that much on the line as we normally think of it. -
Correct. There is no Monday night game Week 17. However, there will be a Sunday Night game, the NFL will select a game that is guaranteed to have playoff implications for the Sunday nighter the final week of the season.
-
LA will eventually get a team. that is a virtual certainty.
Forbes says the Bills are valued at $870 million. the bills in L.A. would DOUBLE that value to $1.7 BILLION. that $400 million penalty for the bills to leave is just a speed bump.
This is exactly right.
For everyone who wants to dump the Toronto series, I'm not sure how the Bills stay viable in Buffalo over the next 20 years without making serious in-roads to the market. Green Bay continues to exist largely because of Milwaukee. Jacksonville is in a similar spot - but they've just moved one home game a year to London (it could be worse!)
But just look at the demographics of Western New York, there's very little way the Bills will be able to earn enough revenue to be competitive relying solely upon the Buffalo-Rochester market. Its expand to Toronto to die.
And I'm not sure how they do that without playing a game there. Clearly, playing a game there is not sufficient to tap the Toronto market - I think that a sustained couple years of winning has to be part of the equation too - but I think that playing at least one game (and arguably two) there is absolutely necessary part of that equation.... just not sufficient.
Yes, the Bills lose the home field advantage - but don't blame the Toronto deal for that, blame the elected leaders of Buffalo, Erie County, and New York for allowing Western New York's demographics to decilne so precipitously that it is now just barely a major-league-caliber sports market.
JDG
The reason that number has gone up is not because of the disaster Rogers dome games, but because the Bills are actively marketing to the fans southeast of Hamilton to attend games in Orchard Park. There is very little connection between the new Canadian fans going to the dome games and having them actually cross the border for games in OP. If there is overlap in the fans attending both, it's more likely those fans would have attended the home game at the Ralph anyway.
This series does zero for a true regionalization push.
This is where the stats promoted by the Bills are obfuscating a bit of the real problem.
Regionalization of the franchise to include southern Ontario is nice - and certainly better than not doing it - but is ultimately not going to be the sort of thing that can secure a sustainable demographic future for the franchise.
The only demographics capable of doing that are Toronto's - and yes, the increase in Canadian attendance at the Ralph is probably not reflective of penetration into the Toronto market, its reflecting regionalization into southern Ontario.
JDG
-
This is Rogers' third year, by that time, Greer was already established as the slot CB. He also showed promise from his first day in camp. Rogers, not so much in either category. I'll make an argument that Ellis Lankster should have been kept over Rogers back in the day.
Considering what Lankster has gone on to become - that's probably the case.
In fairness, though, Lankster was cut at the end of his sophomore camp in 2010 - and then spent that year in the CFL. So hardly an egregious gaffe in letting him go.
Justin Rogers' rooke year was 2011.
JDG
-
I agree great job! Let's hope that this is the game-changer moment....
-
Just win baby, and good things tend to happen. Look what's going on w/ Texans. You just never know.
Exactly right. If the Bills miss the playoffs at 10-6, consider where this team has come from, I think that would definitely count as a success of sorts....
-
11) Btw, thanks to anyone and everyone who takes the time to read my weekly thoughts. I love the dialogue, and I love the Buffalo Bills football team.
For what its worth... your weekly post is part of my weekly Sunday-evening must-read list. Always enjoy them.
JDG
-
For a while, he was an absolutely amazing kick returned. Might he be a future Wall of Famer?
-
I figured he must have been inactive but spotted him on the kneeldown. I'm glad Freddie's finally the feature back, but he's getting our entire workload. I'm not sure I ever saw CJ lined up in the backfield yesterday.
I'm not sure that Spiller has lined up at RB in the last two games now.... my guess is that since he is getting all his practice reps at WR until Donald Jones comes back that the coaches don't want to insert him at RB without any practice....
Overall, Jackson only had 26 carries (plus three catches). That's not a super-concerning workload. Instead of bringing in White in the reliever role, they pretty clearly used Brad Smith to reduce Jackson's workload, which I think is fine...
-
What'd they resign him to?
The active roster to take Merriman's spot. Coleman had been on the Giants' practice squad, so we couldn't sign him unless we added him to the active roster...
-
I don't know why people keep suggesting RFA's.
Thanks for the recognition.
Great job with the lists, Dan.
I know most people are failing to consider that it is very difficult to sign an RFA.
However, it is not possible. IIRC, Wes Welker was signed as an RFA..... That one has to have Dolphins fans shaking their heads as much as the fact that they passed on Drew Brees....
JDG
-
Chris Redman looked good when he started for Atlanta. He could be a nice pick up to compete for the starting job
I'd rather try and get Tyler Thigpen if we are looking to add another veteran QB - although my preferred strategy is to use our 2nd-rounder on a QB.
Redman simply does not look like a potential starting QB in this League. Yes, I know, neither did Kurt Warner - but there's a hundred other guys who did not look like starting QBs and ended up not being so. Redman strikes me as more of a John Beck type...
JDG
-
http://profootball.scout.com/a.z?s=127&...c=16&pid=16
WR 1 Vincent Jackson RFA 5 6-5/238 Northern Colorado San Diego
WR 2 Miles Austin RFA 4 6-3/216 Monmouth (NJ) Dallas
WR 3 Brandon Marshall RFA 4 6-4/230 UCF Denver
WR 4 Terrell Owens UFA 14 6-3/218 Chattanooga Buffalo
WR 5 Braylon Edwards RFA 5 6-3/215 Michigan NY Jets
WR 6 Malcom Floyd RFA 4 6-4.5/215 Wyoming San Diego
WR 7 Antonio Bryant UFA 7 6-1/205 Pittsburgh Tampa Bay
WR 8 Kevin Walter UFA 7 6-3/214 Eastern Michigan Houston
WR 9 Derrick Mason UFA 13 5-10/192 Michigan State Baltimore
WR 10 Steve Breaston RFA 3 6-0/193 Michigan Arizona
WR 11 Nate Burleson UFA 7 6-0/192 Nevada Seattle
WR 12 Lance Moore RFA 4 5-9/177 Toledo New Orleans
WR 13 Chris Chambers UFA 9 5-11/210 Wisconsin San Diego
WR 14 Jason Avant RFA 4 6-0/213 Michigan Philadelphia
WR 15 Mark Clayton RFA 5 5-10/195 Oklahoma Baltimore
WR 16 Muhsin Muhammad UFA 14 6-2/215 Michigan State Carolina
WR 17 Demetrius Williams RFA 4 6-2/197 Oregon Baltimore
WR 18 Jerheme Urban RFA 6 6-3/212 Trinity (TX) Arizona
WR 19 Brad Smith RFA 4 6-2/210 Missouri NY Jets
WR 20 Domenik Hixon RFA 4 6-2/190 Akron NY Giants
WR 21 Arnaz Battle UFA 7 6-1/213 Notre Dame San Francisco
WR 22 Kassim Osgood UFA 7 6-4/204 San Diego State San Diego
WR 23 Hank Baskett RFA 4 6-3/224 New Mexico Indianapolis
WR 24 Bobby Wade UFA 7 5-10/186 Arizona Minnesota
WR 25 Maurice Stovall RFA 4 6-4/218 Notre Dame Tampa Bay
WR 26 Ruvell Martin RFA 5 6-4/220 Saginaw Valley State St. Louis
WR 27 Troy Williamson RFA 5 6-1/203 South Carolina Jacksonville
WR 28 Sam Hurd RFA 4 6-2/205 Northern Illinois Dallas
WR 29 Mike Furrey UFA 7 6-0/195 Northern Iowa Cleveland
WR NR Josh Reed UFA 8 5-10/210 LSU Buffalo
WR NR Kelley Washington RFA 7 6-3/215 Tennessee Baltimore
WR NR Mark Bradley RFA 5 6-1/201 Oklahoma Kansas City
WR NR Sinorice Moss RFA 4 5-8/185 Miami (FL) NY Giants
WR NR Derek Hagan RFA 4 6-2/215 Arizona State NY Giants
WR NR Marty Booker UFA 11 6-0/205 ULM Atlanta
WR NR Brandon Lloyd UFA 9 6-0/194 Illinois Denver
WR NR Brian Finneran UFA 11 6-5/217 Villanova Atlanta
WR NR Terrance Copper UFA 6 6-0/207 East Carolina Kansas City
WR NR Greg Lewis RFA 7 6-0/180 Illinois Minnesota
WR NR Courtney Roby RFA 4 6-0/190 Indiana New Orleans
I'd love to see if the Bills could sneak picking up Lance Moore as an RFA. He is buried on the New Orleans depth chart - but from what I've seen of him, I think he can really play....
JDG
-
Yet of those five million people in Philly, 4.5 million actually give a sh*t the Iggles. In LA/Riverside, that number is far less despite the greater population number. I lived in LA for eight years, so I do feel like I know what I'm talking about.
I hear you, Dave - but I think that the logic of the numbers is overwhelming.... Even if a Los Angeles resident is twice as likely to not care about football as a Philadelphia resident - you still end up with more football fans in L.A.
Compared with WNY its no contest - it comes close to being that even if an LA resident is 10 Times as likely to not care about football as a WNY resident, you still end up with more football fans in LA.
JDG
-
I am amazed always at all of the Talk of Teams Moving to LA, how many have they had and Lost NOW... Ram to LA, Oakland to LA they have both been there and failed LOL When will the NFL get it, bunch of Corporate Idiots
The simple truth is that the Los Angeles urbanized area had nearly *12* million people as of the last sentence. And Riverside-San Bernadino had another 1.5 million on top of that. By comparison, the fourth-largest urbanized area in this country, Philadelphia - had fewer than HALF as many people - at only 5 million people.
The simple truth is that you put in a team in LA in a new, modern stadium - and it would be almost like a license to print money. I predict that when a team does move to LA, and if they get decent financing/subsidy on a new, modern stadium that they will be very successful. You would almost have to try to not be successful there.
JDG
-
In terms of population, Buffalo is actually bigger than both of those cities when you incorporate the nearby Rochester metro area. Neither San Antonio nor Las Vegas would even place among the top 75% largest NFL TV markets at the moment.
If you combine Buffalo and Rochester, then you have to combine San Antonio and their-Rochester: Austin. Austin is nearly an identical distance from San Antonio as Buffalo is from Rochester.
Based on 2000 Census Data for Urbanized Areas, you get: Buffalo (976k) + Rochester (694k) = 1.67 million vs. San Antonio (1.3 million) + Austin (900k) = 2.2 million. That's nearly 1/3rd larger - and that's as of nearly 10 years ago.
Yes, San Antonio is a relatively poor market by, but Buffalo ain't bursting with wealthy season ticket holders either). And yes, Austin has the University of Texas - but San Antonio + Austin is more than twice as large as Jacksonville + Gainesville.
And yes, Texas already has the Cowboys and Texans - but it is a 3-4 hour drive from either San Antonio or Austin to either Dallas or Houston. Plenty of space to put a third Texas team in the State.
If central Texas keeps growing and WNY keeps shrinking, I think it will be harder and harder for the NFL to justify having franchises in places like WNY, Jacksonville, and southern Louisiana and not one in central Texas.
JDG
P.S. The Vegas urbanized area came in 1.3 million in the 200 Census - but with basically zero in the ways of secondary markets (its pretty much empty desert outside of the urbanized area there - and no secondary cities.) Combine that with the NFL's fear of gambling, and don't expect Vegas to be on any short-list for an NFL Team any time soon. Los Angeles and Central Texas are clearly the most-prominent untapped domestic markets from the NFL's perspective. If you wanted a longer-shot market, I'd think that Portland (1.6 million) or Virginia Beach (1.4 million) would both have a much better shot than Vegas - and actually, I don't see either as being very likely. (Although somebody in some League is going to put a team down in SW Virginia at some point, I have to believe, since Virginia Beach's "Rochester" - Richmond - has another 800k.)
-
I'm going to guess Michael Vick or Tim Tebow.
I think you're right...
-
Reading the replies to this and other posts, it seems we have become a rather rude group of piss-offs.
I can only hope we get a January thaw.
-
Indeed, Gailey was Cowher's choice as successor in Pittsburgh... and it was definitely an open secret that Cowher planned on Gailey being his OC.
JDG
-
Grimm doesn't excite me. He didn't excite the Steelers either three years ago when they hired Tomlin. He was the Steelers 2nd choice to Wisenhunt, and became the 3rd choice after Tomlin interviewed and knocked the socks off off the Rooneys and Wisenhunt went to AZ. At best, he might end up being a poor man's Andy Reid (I guess that makes him a perfect fit for the Bills!). That is, he might be a decent X and O's guy, but relatively unemotional on the sidelines (doesn't that also describe Dick Jauron!) - I say keep looking.
Grimm hasn't excited me either.
But in any event, Bills fans just need to sit tight until the Vikings season ends - I feel pretty strongly that we're going to go with Leslie Frazier.
Hate to say it, but I'm rooting for the Cowboys this weekend...
-
There's a problem? Whuuuu?
Exactly. A couple weeks from now, the Bills will hire Leslie Frazier as their Head Coach, who is very highly regarded League-wide, and it won't matter who interviewed when or how....
JDG
-
I was listening to the local sports guys in DC over lunch. They mentioned the issue is with how the Bills have treated coaches and players over the last 10 years. they specifically mentioned Trent Edwards. Seems some coaches they interviewed have mentioned they like Trent and want him as the starter, but the front office seems to be listening to the fan base and doing everything to corrupt Trents career and run him out of Buffalo, rather than give him the tools he needed to succeed. Seems whoever in the front office has already told whoever this coach was that his job will be to develop whatever Qb the FO feels will be the leader of the future.
Anyone who really likes Trent Edwards at this point clearly hasn't been watching tape of Bills games. At best, you might like Trent as a project - but there's no way you can conclude at this point that he gives a team a great chance to win.
JDG
Could Dallas Game Be Close to Meaningless?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Strength of victory tiebreaker only kicks in if the Bills win out and the Steelers lose to the Bengals and then win out.
So its likely a moot point. However, if the strength of victory tiebreaker comes in to play, Bills fans should root for the Browns to lose (since Steelers would likely have swept them), as well as for the Chargers to lose (except for maybe each of their games against KC), and also root against the Cardinals (darn it Vikings!).
Bills fans should root for the Texans, Titans, and Dolphins to beat the Patriots and for the same three teams to beat the Colts.
Everything else is a bit murkier in terms of playoff implications.
JDG