MattM

As per PFT, looks like Stevie may miss most of the preseason (and valuable time getting in sync with EJ)....

As I just asked in another thread, where are we in terms of "cash to cap"? Does anyone know?

Many thanks--what I'd be curious about is where we are in terms of "cash to cap", particularly after cutting Anderson. If we have any "cap" room under that metric, I don't quite know why they're not reaching out to someone like Brandon Moore to man the LG spot. Seems to me that we could step up our offensive potential immeasurably by shoring up that potential glaring weakness. If we signed Moore, and he can play to form at 33 (OL can often play into their mid-30's effectively--see Brian Waters with the Pats* two years ago), we'd be pretty solid across our front, and have some depth. Here's to hoping....

I agree that that game was great back in the day, until Fairport just got too big and started mauling us. My junior year was the last year ER won the jug, but before that we did a pretty good job regularly beating a school (and many others like it) that were at least 3-4 times our size. Great battles between Don Quinn (our coach) and Coach Santini of Fairport. Epic stuff, and epic antics off the field as well (my buddies and I started the "LIttle Brown Mug" game, a touch game organized by the schools' student councils, our Senior year, for ex.). Someone should make a movie out it. If you know Phillip Seymour Hoffman (a Fairport alum), tell him you have a script for him!

I don't see him lasting til October. Over/under on him landing on IR is Week 3, and can't much say that I'll care when it happens.....

That made me (an ER guy) just about spit up (and post)--I remember Thirsty's fairly well from my youth (Thursday night's in the summers I was back home), but spent more time down on the ER bar strip, not too surprisingly. Even more so since one of my best friends' godfather was(and still is) the owner of PG's back when they had quarter drafts and 10 cent wings on Monday nights and lines half a block long to get in. My, how things have changed....

When Spygate came out, they were accused of more than simply Spygate. Go back and read the NYT article from May of that year that (anonymously) quoted multiple members of the NFL's Competition Committee saying that it was one team over and over again brought before them on a number of charges--the Pats*. My take is that you have an owner and HC who will do anything to win and who are much more willing to approach (and at times, cross) the line than any other franchise in the League....

I live in lower Westchester and caught the Texans game at the Wicked Wolf last year (post-Sandy, no power at home). Good place with good Bills fans....

And there I was, thinking I was the only one who'd (a) made that transformation in views on the Pats* since that first SB and (b) wanted real payback in terms of one or (preferably) more 56-0 wins against them. Other than the parts about where you watched that game, I could have written this post word for word!

Believe it or not, I agree on this. I hate the Pats* as much (or more than) the next Bills fan, but I must admit I can't find fault with how they've handled the present situation with Hernandez.

What a Pats* homer (and a bit of a ridiculous statement, particularly when considering what they paid for him both monetarily with last year's extension and PR-wise)....

In the February civil case, not last week's shooting....

Actually, since I'd been relying on a poster above for that data, I went back and checked myself. From 2009 to 2013, the Cheats* played two opponents with an extra week of rest and two opponents with an extra three days of rest. Still well under the average you'd expect from a team over that time as there were a lot more Thursday night games pre-2012 than I remembered, but not in the "astronomical" category described by me above on the false assumption I was working under. Over that period you'd probably expect a team to play a total of about 8 games against better rested opponents rather than the 4 the Cheats* got (vs, for comparison, the 9 the Bills got just the last two years). You know what they say about "assumptions", however.....

BTW, I also calculated the rough odds of New England randomly playing only one opponent with extra rest over a 5 year period and found it to be about 750 to 1 using very conservative (ie, pro-Pats*) assumptions, namely: --pre-2012 (ie, pre-Thursday nighters) one-quarter of the League played no one with a bye; --gave them full (rather than partial) credit for the one year they played one team with extra rest and made that year a "tougher" year (2012, since it also has Thursday night byes); and --used a 0.10 multiplier for 2012 since less than 10% of the League plays no one with extra rest, Thus you get 0.25 times 0.25 times 0.25 times 1 times 0.1 equals about 0.0015 or 0.15 percent, or one in 750 or so. Combine that with the other data above re: how many division and important games they got coming off their own bye and it really looks like they have a direct dial line into the schedule makers' office, doesn't it?

The Hernandez news I was talking about was not his alleged involvement in killing someone this week, but his shooting of someone in the face in early February this year, which only came to light (along with two other night club disturbances he was involved in last month) when the murder came to light. How could shooting someone in the face not make it into the press or merit discussion by the League is beyond me, particularly when we've seen relatively minor things with our players (the Lynch gun incident comes to mind, as does the Anthony Hargrove bar fight a few years back) get massively blown up by both the League and the media. File it, along with much else about the Cheats*, under "things that make you go, hmmmm?",.......

A few points: --some teams have softer schedules than others each year by design--that's the way the League sets its schedules as a way to encourage parity, with the first place team in a division playing other first place teams, on down the line; --after thinking about it, the ratings and game appeal arguments don't seem to hold much water. The League has to make sure that they have 3-4 good games a week to showcase (Monday night, Sunday night and 1 to 2 Sunday national games). The rest will be regional action, which will cover the vast majority of the country on a Sunday afternoon, including, by definition, the 30 largest TV markets in America. In any randomly generated week of 14 to 16 games, you will easily have those 3-4 needed games; --once again, and following up on the last point, being a losing franchise has nothing to do with getting screwed by playing opponents with more rest. Nothing at all. Each team has two short weeks (a bye and a Thursday night game). Therefore, an average team should play opponents with more rest twice a year (under the new Thursday night rules), whether that team is good or bad, particularly since as noted in the point immediately above and repeatedly by others above, whether a team is good or bad and the concomitant ratings quest really has no bearing on this; --missed in all of this focus on the Bills is to my mind an equally large story if the poster way above on this point is correct--namely how the Pats* have played only one team on more rest in 5 years. The odds of that happening by chance are astronomical. That should be something the League is made aware of people knowing about to prevent it from continuing. If you think that was coincidence, I have a bridge to sell you. As noted above, just one more data point pointing to them getting WAAAYYY better treatment from the League (and media) than anyone else would. More evidence this week is the fact that Aaron Hernandez can shoot a guy in the face in early February and not a peep from the League (who must have known about that) or the media. Remember the sh*tstorm when Lynch was found with a registered gun in his trunk, and the three weeks off he got for that? Then again, when one of the major networks (CBS) has Kraft on their board and actually owns a part of Patriette* Place, I guess I should expect no less. (JW, if you're still reading this (doubtful, I know), I'm curious as to why no one has reported on that story--seems to me something like that would merit a story for sure, unless, of course, the media had been told to lay off it for fear of loss of access perhaps). John--I usually like your posts and agree with many of them, but I think you're missing the mark on this one....

Great post--well said....

You mean those same Patriots* who've played one game in 5 years against a better rested opponent? The same Pats* who a few years back pioneered the idea of getting the League to allow them to play their 2 West Coast games back-to-back? What beef could they possibly have against the schedule-makers? Just more data points (to go along with the MANY others) showing that there's something rotten going on with that team....

The League is extremely image conscious. They'll pay attention if enough noise is made. As for Toronto, that's just a fact of economic life, my friend. Would you rather lose a game a year to our northern brethren or the team to LA? In some sense, that's what it boils down to, particularly after Ralph inevitably passes. That should get little weight in this discussion.

This scheduling issue certainly doesn't absolve the Bills of years of suckitude--I haven't seen anyone make that claim, BTW, except for posters on the other side of the issue setting up straw men--but is pretty evidently something the League needs to work on based on the factual evidence above. I'm glad the Bills are pointing it out. By doing so it puts the League on notice that someone's watching.....

People who make arguments like that bolded just show me that they don't understand the issue--Monday night games and late starts are not what they're talking about here. What they're talking about are bye weeks and Thursday night games. Things that each time has one of now. Because each team has only one of them (just like all other teams), teams should be treated roughly the same with respect to them, including playing other teams coming off extra rest (i.e., bye weeks or Thursday night games). As Chris Brown's article, and some of the research above, show, however, they're not. That should be changed. Seems pretty simple of a concept to me. I really can't see how anyone could possibly argue otherwise. For those who argue that it eventually evens out, there's been evidence shown above (like the post above showing how Buffalo has gotten 9 such games in just the last two years while the Pats* have had one such game in the last five years) that shows that doesn't seem to happen in some cases, for whatever reason. Personally, I'm glad that the Bills have put the League on notice that they're paying attention. Heck, if posters on this board have noticed it (and we have), you'd think the team should as well. Maybe the sign of a new leaf of sharpness being turned over at OBD....

You mean like that 6 point, down to the last minute win your darling Pats* had after their usual extra week of rest last year?

Many thanks for the work, McD. After re-reading Brown's blog post, I really can't see how anyone could argue with it. He's not laying it out as an excuse, he's simply stating facts. Facts that the NFL may mot like, but facts nonetheless. FYI, I found the post above where someone took the trouble (much bigger job) of checking how often the Pats* played folks after the other team's bye or Thursday game and found that since 2009 they'd only played ONE such game. Compare that to the 9 we're playing in just 2012-13. Also recall how they beat us last year by only 6 after getting an extra week off and tell me that that extra week certainly had nothing to do with them winning that game, that extra time of 3 or 7 days is not a substantive advantage....

That doesn't really factor in here--it's based on bye weeks (which all teams have one of) and Thursday night games (which, again, all teams have one of). Thus, on average you'd expect most teams to have one or two games against better rested opponents. The divergence seen should not be allowed to stand over time....

The Pats* played us after the bye 4 straight years (odds of that occurring randomly are about 4000 to 1) and something like 5 out of 8 years (also getting Miami after the bye the year after Miami won the division, and Baltimore the year after the Ravens ended the Cheats*' season). I'd love to see an analysis of how the Cheatahs* have fared in these stats over the years. I think someone above noted they've played a ridiculously small number of post-bye teams since 2009, but I'm too lazy to go back through and check. As I've said before, the NFL's a lot like Orwell's "Animal Farm"--all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others....