Peevo

As we are both Millennial Bills fans, I imagine responses here will cleave along generational lines. "Embarrassing" can take many forms. Sure, they got killed in the Superbowl. That's a bad game. It happens. Bills aren't the only team to get blown out in the Superbowl. The Bills CHOSE to remove home games from their fans, and play in Toronto. That's indefensible. The entire post Mularkey drought deserves consideration for this though. There's so many blunders. Trading All-Pro LT Jason Peters in his young prime (probably a Hall of Famer) Trading Marshawn Lynch in his young prime for peanuts (none of the return made any impact on Bills) Games in Toronto, then extending the Toronto series, then giving yourself credit for ending the extension of the series a year after Extending Dick Jauron Signing Terrell Owens The decision to redesign the jerseys & color scheme when Drew Bledsoe came to Buffalo The coterie of powerful, shadowy, old, male executives at One Bills Drive during the drought who kept getting paychecks yet never took responsibility for any of the team's failures. Tom Modrak - what did he do all day? no like seriously what was his job there? John Guy - same question as above Bud Carpenter - used outdated injury treatments on players, was hesitant to oversight or change. Doug Marrone wanted to fire him, and the head coach DIDN'T HAVE THE POWER TO FIRE HIS TRAINER Scott Berchtold - PR exec that ruled the press box with an iron fist. Remember when he denied "knowing anything about" that cancelled halftime celebration on the field for Ralph during the Browns 6-3 game? There was controversy with the media when Troy Vincent broke JP Losman's leg at training camp. WGR 550's Paul Hamilton reported it very differently than the "company line" and it's caused tension between the two camps for years Jeff Littman - mysterious financial advisor who was never available to the media Jim Overdorf - still employed? Didn't he cut Troy Vincent without anyone else's knowledge?

Appreciate your perspective. I appreciate you engaging with my point. I'm too young to remember the early 90s. But there seems to be a real hesitance to my generalized "every NFL team should play every NFL team" each season idea. This is not a crazy idea, in my opinion. It's almost heretical, judged by some of these responses. NHL teams play a brutal, violent, unhinged, bloodsport 82 times a year. How many concussions per year in the NHL? It's just, if not more violent, than the NFL. Then after all of that, they play another 20 plus brutal, violent, exhausting playoff games to determine a champion. Daring to suggest professional football players play 31 games in a calendar year is somehow some absurd idea. Increase rosters, bake in some "no more than 20 starts per player" rule and really force teams to have 2 QBs to be competitive. I know, none of this will happen. But isn't this more fun than "the Bills should draft this player in round 5 I've never heard of from a college i've never watched" conversation?

That's only 2 games out of 17 though. No one can seriously argue the Patriots run from 2001 - 2019 was competitive in the AFC East. No one could argue that. How many times did the Dolphins/Jets/Bills make the playoffs in that stretch? The Patriots consumed so much advantage from a weak division they cake walked to a home playoff game and a week off almost every single year. You can't tell me that isn't an unfair advantage. We are all so scared of promotion and relegation, yet the Bills were de facto relegated out of the league due to merely existing the AFC East for 2 decades.

I'm just some guy that used to work on Buffalo radio stations.

Yes, in a perfect world. I addressed this in above post. No playoffs. Who ever is in 1st place at the end wins. Simple. Fair. Again, I know this will never happen. Owners like money too much.

Plenty of leagues do. It's called promotion and relegation. All I'm saying is, this isn't as much a problem in the other big 3 leagues because of the amount of games. Every team plays every other team at least twice. No one care argue competitive imbalance. Everyone gets a fair shake at every team. Until all the teams play each other, you can't objectively say any NFL team is truly the "best". That's all I'm getting at.

Correct. This creates a system more in line with relegation/promotion. Teams have more to play for than just division titles and early playoff exits. It's a more "open" system than the closed system they currently have. That's really all I'm getting at.

The reason for change is because one team (Pats and now Chiefs) have monopolized the system to a point where it is non-competitive. It is a fact monopolies are bad for economies. That is a fact, right? They suppress competition. How can we (the league) create more equitable results? Break up the monopoly. (AT&T in the 80's, Standard Oil). This is not a new idea.

See, I'm not the only one who thinks the system could be reformed! Thank you @sullim4! And for the record, I know this stuff will never change. But there really is no good reason besides "we've always done it this way" to the NFL alignment and scheduling system. It's never made sense. There's conference realignment all the time in college. I don't know why it's such a third rail with the NFL.

I'm already getting lambasted for this so what the hell. Eliminate all divisions and conferences. 31 games, everyone plays everybody once. Alternate home and away every other year. Who ever is in 1st place wins the championship. If there's a tie at the end, fine 1 championship game to decide between the 2 top teams. You want 17 games? Fine - eliminate the divisions and everyone in the AFC plays each other once. 15 games. 2 games out of conference every year. If they go to 18 games, you can play 3 out of conference games. If you want to get real nuts have the bottom feeders in each conference forced to realign into the conference. You want 8 divisions? Force the 4th place team to "realign" or "relegate" to the opposite conference or something. You don't want to be in the NFC East? Fine, don't suck. I don't have every machination of every scenario worked out here. All I'm saying is we accept the current system as is, with all of its various flaws, and "im the worst post ever" candidate for merely suggesting we can change it.

But why is change so bad? I'm genuinely asking. Until all the teams play each other we will never really achieve competitive balance in the schedule.

All i'm saying is after all the games are played, we're stuck with the Chiefs in the AFC title again, what's the point of all of this? The Bills got their skulls crushed by the Pats for 20 years, and we all just accepted it without complaint. Now the Chiefs have ascended and there's virtually 0 hope for all AFC teams until he's retired. How is it fair? That's all I'm saying.

One of the few malleable things about the league is that we all accept how the schedule isn't the same for every team. Yet it's by CHOICE they do it this way. League owners and operatives could simply change it. You can't control player injuries, free agency, draft positioning, salary cap, etc. There's a lot of randomness that affects results. The scheduling system is by design, and I'd argue has a massive impact on what teams make the Superbowl every year. 31 games (every team plays each other once) is never gonna happen. So what are some better options than the current system? Brady and the Pats went to 8 consecutive AFC Championships (2011 - 2018). Not even counting their pre-2011 runs. The Chiefs have appeared in 6 straight conference championships. 2018 - 2023 & counting. The AFC domination transferred from Brady to Mahomes in the span of a season. Now the conference is Mahomes' to dominate until he retires. We just accept this as a reality. The NFL could just change it. Why is it this way? Because they decided to in 1967. If the conferences are unevenly matched due to the presence of a generational talent, it creates a competitive disadvantage for 15 teams simply because of league logistics. Again, they choose to have it this way. NFL fans accept the reality that their teams play almost all the same teams every year, and expect DIFFERENT results. I'm burnt out on the same teams every year. And of course I know as I'm writing this that IT WILL NEVER CHANGE. Doesn't mean we can't at least have the conversation, right?

It's more so the calculus that goes into deciding a WOF honor. I know, OJ remains up there. That's such a dark case I don't know if it's fair to even count. But with Aaron Schobel, I do genuinely wonder if the Bills induct him into the WOF, or retired his number even, would he show up to the ceremony?

Schobel was a good player on a terrible team for a decade. Arguably his most memorable play came in a famous, hilarious, Shakespearean level loss (Week 1 MNF @ NE 2009). If off-field is taken into account on WOF, he doesn't deserve it at all. Maybe did 1 interview in 10 seasons. No charity, community building work. Fred Jackson, Stevie Johnson, Kyle Williams, the list goes on. Lots of Drought Era guys did a LOT in the community, and are still active alumni members (leading the charge, social media, etc). Schobel sucks. His legacy means nothing to the Bills. What did he do? I'm genuinely asking. 14 sacks in the 2006 season? Awesome, he sacked Tom Brady in all those memorable 30 point losses. Was never accountable to the media. Nor the fans. Name me 1 interesting story about him as a Bill. An anecdote. ANYTHING. His career is "drafted, played, retired". Like, in the NFL. In the modern media age. Sure, the boomers on here will be like "he did his job, retired, that's what I want to do". Cool man. That works in a job where you're not beholden to media and community interests. There's at least a half-dozen drought era players that DESERVE recognition way ahead of him, despite his on field "accomplishments".