BLeonard

Yeah, I know most people will say "who cares?" but sometimes, to some people, the details matter. I mean, I'm not even a Yankees fan, but it just looks wrong seeing a Babe Ruth jersey with the name "RUTH" on the back. Now, I never saw him play live (obviously) and his number was retired more than a quarter century before I was born. But, again, it just looks wrong. I guess I noticed the thing with the TV numbers on shoulders, but I assumed that they were up there if the player had big-ass shoulder pads, like Mueller, where it looks like the numbers wouldn't be seen if they were on the sleeves. Certainly not the case with Flip Johnson, though.

Looking at this, I just had another potential thought. That jersey and looking at a lot of other pics of Kelly from 1986, the part where the numbers are is practically mesh, especially compared to the shoulders and sleeves. Makes me wonder if they still had some of those type of jerseys (which would have the box 2 on them) while new jerseys were at the bottom of the pile, waiting to be used when the older ones were no longer salvageable. If they just got jerseys in bulk and then stitched the names and numbers on as needed, it could be that they used the rest of the old 2's up and then switched the the new one, as someone said earlier. Probably didn't help that there was a strike in the middle of the 87 season. Maybe some of the replacement players kept their jerseys, thus forcing the team to get some new ones on short notice?

I know some places can replace the nameplates nowadays. Curious as to if places like that would have the resources to help you at all. The other thought that crept into my head as a possible explanation was that I know Champion took over their jerseys somewhere in that timeframe (the jersey you have is a Champion, as the logo is on the white stripe). I guess it's possible that Champion used the diagonal numbers, while the previous manufacturer used the box numbers? Then there's the case of when OJ Simpson was playing:

Besides the obvious OCD, the simplest answer is, I had a replica while he was playing and it was correct, having the diagonal 2. The box 2 just looks so off to me, because he wore the diagonal two.

Same game. Ricky Porter, #26. diagonal 2.

Yes, that thought had crossed my mind, lol But, that begs the question, why did Kelly get a new jersey after his first season? Wouldn't Ralph had said "I just made you the highest paid player in the league last year! Buy your own damn jersey if you want a new one!" I wish it were that easy. I'm pretty picky and that box-looking 2 on a throwback when I know it's not right is way too far out of my comfort zone, lol

After buying jerseys every few years, only to see the player get traded, cut, etc, I decided that, if I ever bought another jersey, it'd be a throwback. Most likely, a Jim Kelly jersey. But, I don't want the road Super Bowl XXV jersey, for obvious reasons. I also don't want the 1994 version with the NFL 75th anniversary and Bills 35th anniversary patches (they had a losing season that year, so not really a fan). Essentially, I just want a blue 90's Kelly jersey with no extra patches. The problem is, pretty much every other throwback Kelly jersey is wrong. Let me explain: The first picture is the "Mitchell & Ness Legacy Replica." This is the one on the Bills shop site. The tag on the bottom reads "1990 Jim Kelly." But, it always looked wrong to me. After watching a clip of the 1990 AFC Championship, I figured out why. The second picture is a screenshot of that game. Look at the "2" on Kelly's jersey. It's a straight diagonal line connecting the top of the number to the bottom, where the jersey in the first picture is more of a "box" #2, much like the Bills wear today. So, I backtracked a bit and found that Kelly only wore the "box" 2 in 1986, his first season. But, while watching a game from 1987 (Dolphins at Bills) I noticed that there were players simultaneously on the field, some with jerseys that had the "box" 2 and others that had the "diagonal" 2. Pics 3 and 4 show #25 & #27 (Roland Mitchell & Ron Pitts) wearing the "box" 2 and #52 (John Kaiser) wearing the "diagonal" 2. So, why was this? I know this was before the NFL decided to start fining guys for wearing socks that were too high and/or the wrong color, but I'm trying to think of a reason why they'd not replace all of the jerseys at the same time. Even if you're gonna phase them in, or didn't wanna buy all new jerseys at once, wouldn't you change all of the home jerseys one year and road the next or something like that?

So, Brad Allen's crew does know that tripping is a penalty.

Dunno why it always involves Tampa Bay, but it's happened before:

Personally, I'd rather Denver win. Gives the Chargers their third loss and they've already lost to KC. Broncos also have the Jets next week. If they can get on track, their games against KC are both after Thanksgiving.

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