MattM

And that's ALL they have this year now as per NFLN....

They apparently only have 2 more picks left in the whole draft as per NFLN. Both 2nd rounders. I'd guess they trade down to pick up one more pick, but it looks like our long Bills national nightmare of multiple 1st and 2nd round Cheats* picks may be coming to an end....

Your keyboard to God's ears....

Facing teams with extra time to prepare is the key thing to me here. I wondered how many games the Pats* have against teams that either played the prior Thursday or are coming off their bye, so I checked. The answer? One all season--they play one team either coming off a bye or a Saturday or Thursday night game, all season long. That team? The Colts, who may be fighting against for worst team in the League. At what point is the data enough for some of the folks around here who think this is all "coincidence" with that team? To paraphrase Orwell--"all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." That applies pretty well to the situation of the NFL and the Cheats* in my humble opinion....

I'll try to remember this through the tears that will be welling up in my eyes if they pick Barron--if you aren't upset about drafting him with your hate for early DB's, then I should be willing to trust Chixey on the pick....

What would they need to trade to get up from 27 to 10? Both that and 31? Or even more? Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing us trade back to the 15-20 range, but not much beyond that....

I had the exact same fear....

Remember that you need to view that not with the benefit of hindsight, knowing how crappy we've turned out to be, but as it would look to the Pats* before the season starts. Looking at it that way, I'd say that at least 4 of the 6 (yes, it's been 6) times they've played us after bye over the last 13 years we were considered the closest challenger to them in the AFCE. As noted above, division games are premium value games because of tie-breakers (and not just "head-to-head" as someone noted above). Of the other 7 games since 2000, one has been against Miami the year after Miami won the division (i.e., they were the Pats* closest competitor) and others were against the Ravens (the year after the Birds destroyed the Cheats* in the playoffs), the Stillers (who hate the Pats*), the Cowboys, Broncos, Panthers and 9ers. As you can see, most of those games, in fact nearly all of those games, are against either division rivals, AFC rivals or good teams that year. To contrast, the Bills have had one bye week game against a division rival (vs. NE's 6) since 2001.

Two years in a row I had to "remind them" that I'd paid for the service already and they needed to "flick the switch" to turn mine back on (usually done about 30 minutes prior to kickoff). Didn't have that problem last year, thankfully....

Unconvinced, and the bolded part is accounted for in my math (see above.) Still looks to me like there's a fairly good chance that the Pats* have input into who they get after their bye. Interesting article in the NYT yesterday about how the schedule is made--skimmed it (no time to read the whole thing yet), but one thing he does note in there is he takes requests from teams with respect to their schedule and one of the big requests is "no teams after a bye".....

I'm old enough to remember when it was on on Tuesday's in the '80s and ESPN (Berman and crew) used to cover it. I'd "get sick" that day and phone the picks in to my dad's bar to keep his patrons up to date on what was going on. See, young folks, there was a time before internet .....

Way to miss the point or try to avoid the main mathematical argument. Please explain to me the odds of them playing us 4 years in a row if the schedule were made randomly--if "randomly" (i.e., each game having an equal chance of occurring after a bye) is not how we should look at this, please explain to me why not. As noted above, I've laid out a factor that we can all easily understand that makes it actually less than a 1.8th chance that we get them after a bye in any given year. With the additional factors I laid out above, for ex., I'd say it's about 6,000 to 1 to 10,000 to 1 (1/9th or 1/10th per year by 4 years) that we should play them 4 YEARS IN A ROW after their bye. Also please explain to me why the Pats* seem to get "extra value" games (defined as above as divisional games, quite often against a team THAT YEAR (no revisionist history or hindsight benefit allowed, since the schedule makers wouldn't have that) that was seen to be a potential contender (us in at least 3 of the 5 we played them and the Fins in their other divisional game) or a premium/grudge match opponent (see the Ravens and Steelers the last two years)) after a bye nearly every year. Then we'll talk.....

"Mathematic Coincidence"? What odds do you need to see the possibility (that's all it is, since none of us were there) that there's something more than coincidence here? Personally, when the odds get over 200 to 300 to 1, my spidey-sense goes off, but that may just be me. Further food for thought. The odds of getting us after the bye each year are actually worse than 8 to 1 when one considers that teams like the Bills who play the Cheats* twice a year are much more likely to play them at least once (or, like last year and some prior years (2003?), both times) in non-bye eligible weeks, making the odds each year that we get them after a bye at probably between 9 to 1 and 10 to 1. So, really the odds of that happening 4 years in a row "naturally" are more on the order of 6,000 to 1 or 10,000 to 1. I'd like one of you to debunk the math--I'm open to being wrong on the odds here, but you'll need to prove that to me and none of you has yet..... Similarly, I must also admit that nothing I've seen above has convinced me that there's little to no chance that the Pats* don't have some influence or say on who they get after a bye. Whether it be a division game (again, we got 1 in 11 years, for ex.) or against another top team or rival (interesting that the years before they got them off a bye, the Pats* had been humiliated by each of the Steelers and Ravens, for ex.), they seem to get meaningful games after a bye, the kind of games one would want after a bye more often than randomness would suggest....

Wow--looks like I missed all the fun today on this one. Many thanks to the researchers--the overall opponents after a bye week stuff is interesting. I'd looked at that a few years ago myself when we led the League in post-bye opponents (one of the years when the Golden Boys got zippo). If this and all the other breaks they get "all averages out" as it should if it's truly random, then the Cheatahs* sure do have a lot comin' to them....

So it's a coincidence then that they seem to get to play more meaningful games after byes than other teams, including a 1 in 4100 probability of playing a particular divisional foe 4 times in a row and 5 times in 9 years, with 3 of those other 9 years getting to play the prior Year's division winner and two perennial playoff rivals? OK, believe that if you want. Back to work for me.....

How many such "breaks" does a team need to get before people start calling "fire" from the "smoke" is the question (and we haven't even brought up the ridiculous officiating in their games yet--oops, I guess we just did)..... I still really don't see how any of those factors leads to the Pats* being more likely to play us and other good teams after their bye. If it figures into this at all, it's on the margins (say 1 in 4100 chance to 1 in 3900 chance). What may figure in is the fact that NE* gets more games against better quality opponents since they play a first place schedule each year. That said, since we also play them twice a year to make up for that, we play almost as many "good" teams each year, but seem to come nowhere close to having as many "good" teams or divisional games after byes. All things considered, it looks to me like New England seems to get a say in who they play after their bye a good bit of the time. Either that, or it's a heckuva large coincidence....

As noted above, in at least 3 of the 5 years in question we were considered a main challenger in the Division. Other years they've gotten the Fins (the year after they won the division), the Steelers, Ravens, Broncos and Cowboys, among others (only twice did they get traditionally "weak" teams--Panthers and Niners--outside the Bills). I'm too lazy to see if those "weak" teams were supposed to be good the years in question, but you're smart enough to get the drift....

Sure I did--division games are the most valuable games on one's schedule for obvious reasons and please read the umpteen posts above for the rest. It may not be what you agree with, but it's all up above. How many have the Cheats* had after byes lately? Without even looking we know it's been at least 5. BTW, last year they got the Steelers, always a bit of a revenge game for them considering the recent rivalry, and in 2010, they got the Ravens, who'd ended their season the year before in the playoffs. Over the last 11 years in addition to the 5 division games and Stillers, Crows games they also got the Cowboys, Broncos, Panthers and Niners after they bye. How many have the Bills had? Have we ever even had any? We've had one AFCE game after they bye in the last 11 years. Interestingly it was against the Pats* in 2004, one of the 4 years in a row in question, so let's call that 3 and a half..... Unfortunately, I think Marv didn't notice because Marv at that age didn't notice--he actually thought it interesting when it was pointed out to him in the interview if I recall correctly. As for the bolded part you added, please see my other reply above. I'm not claiming to "know" anything about this, only pointing out for all the reasons laid out above that this seems beyond the statistical pale to be mere coincidence. It could be, but then it would be about a 1 in 4000 case of such coincidence.....

Whatever's most likely--all facts considered, if I had to guess I'd say help the Pats* and be done by someone (i.e., an individual) with schedule control or influence on the take. After all, why not? As some may recall, Marv (God love him) didn't even notice this anomaly when he was titular head of the organization until someone pointed it out to him. Kind of like taking candy from a baby.... Did you read the part about the rest of the division being pretty putrid (i.e., a crapshoot). To turn this around, you really think this is random? 4,000 to 1 odds of it happening randomly and involving a team known to cheat in at least one way and suspected of doing anything for an advantage, fair or foul (see reports of headsets cutting out at Gillette, etc. Please don't make me refind the NYT article detailing the charges again--Rodney Harrison getting busted for HGH only because he used his own name, all on a team known for "cagey vets" who seem to find a second career in New England)? Please see my post above about the historical context of the 4 years in question.

Yes, when something involving a known cheating team happens that's less statistically likely than Homer Simpson going a whole episode without saying "D'oh", I'd say yes..... Never said that for all 4 years, but you may recall that the 2004 team was one of the early Spikes/Fletcher/Bledsoe teams (what a disappointment that turned out to be) and one of the relevant years in question we were 9-7 and apparently on the upswing. Also recall that the rest of the division was putrid during that stretch....

Yes--more importantly for the way this "arrangement" probably works, I think that the Cheats* do. Hey, smart guy, do the math on the odds of this happening randomly 4 years in a row. It's an easy calculation--1 over (8*8*8*8), or roughly 1 in 4000. That's not even throwing in it happening again to us this year (after we beat them once last year and had them down 21-0 at home) and them also getting the Fins after a bye the year after Miami won the AFCE. If, bearing in mind this team's recent history, you don't think that's all kind of funny, I don't really know what to tell you, other than to wonder whether you still believe in Santa Claus, too..... Personally I doubt it--I also wonder why the Pats* "had" to have a later bye week each year, while the Bills "had" to have an early one. Isn't that also an advantage to the Cheats*, as I'd personally like my bye week as late into the season as possible?

That's part of the point--like this year, when many have us as a rising team, quite possibly 2nd in the AFCE, that's exactly who the frontrunner would want after the bye. (Us or the Nyets, and no way that happens since the NY media would rip it apart.). Remember my example above of them getting the Fish after the bye, too, the year after the Fish took the division. This stinks to high heaven, as most things involving the Cheats* does.....

It's actually pretty easy--division games are the most valuable games (divisional tie breakers, for ex.), so you'd just about always want a bye against one, preferably your closest competitor if you're division frontrunner. Perhaps that's why the Cheats(must never forget the asterisk)* broke their Bills post-bye streak with the Fins a few years ago the year after Miami won the division.....

Plus one......

I believe it was 4 in a row actually. Odds of that happening randomly--about 4,000 to 1. Someone really ought to investigate this. If I recall correctly after our 4 years in a row (years like this year more often than not when folks thought (wrongly as it turns out) that we were the biggest threat to the Pats*) the cheats got the Fins after their bye--of course that was after Miami had won the AFCE the year prior. Something's rotten in Denmark....