BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Peyton Manning? How about blame the NFL itself? Snoozer night games other than Indy. NE @ Miami? Rams & Giants? Miami @ JETS? Evening games comming soon Minnesota at Green Bay NY Jets at Denver Philadelphia at NY Giants Kansas City at New England Pittsburgh at Kansas City Philadelphia at Seattle San Diego at Jacksonville Cleveland at Pittsburgh St. Louis at Seattle Jacksonville at Atlanta
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 The bias shows way too much when you get a very average (at best) Cowboys team that had a 6-10 record in 2010 that figures to underwhelm again and they have 4 primetime games. The world doesn't revolve around the Cowboys. But...but....they're "America's Team"! I must have heard that at least 5 times last night.
BuffaloWings Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Peyton Manning? How about blame the NFL itself? Snoozer night games other than Indy. NE @ Miami? Rams & Giants? Miami @ JETS? Evening games comming soon Minnesota at Green Bay NY Jets at Denver Philadelphia at NY Giants Kansas City at New England Pittsburgh at Kansas City Philadelphia at Seattle San Diego at Jacksonville Cleveland at Pittsburgh St. Louis at Seattle Jacksonville at Atlanta Keep in mind that if you go back to the end of last season - which is basically what the NFL looks at when scheduling these games - you would think that many (if not all) of these games would be enticing enough to watch. The only questionable teams would have been Denver & Cleveland, coming off 4-12 and 5-11 seasons, respectively. However, Cleveland has a traditional rivalry with Pittsburgh, so I can see that game being shown nationally*. About the only reason I can see Denver being shown is because they're playing the Jets (big market team) and I'm sure the NFL hoped & prayed that Tim Tebow would be playing by the time this game came around. Even Minnesota had a down year, but were supposed to be going with Donovan McNabb and could have been better than they are. The plus side now is that at least Christian Ponder showed some flashes yesterday. Kansas City won their division in 2010 and so did Seattle (I know, they were a putrid 7-9). The Rams were supposed to be up-and-coming. Jacksonville usually fields a decent-to-good team. Every other team was a playoff team in 2010 or are in a big market or have a big national following. I don't think the NFL schedule makers really expected Kansas City, Indy, St. Louis, or Seattle to be so much worse, so I can't blame the NFL for this. The flex scheduling is the best thing they can do. Could they start it sooner? Possibly, but let's not lambaste them because Peyton Manning had 2 season-ending surgeries. * - Take the word "nationally" with a grain of salt. It's an NFL Network game, which isn't shown everywhere. Edited October 24, 2011 by BuffaloWings
truth on hold Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Maybe I am on the only one here, but I love me 1.00pm Sunday Bills games..and hate night games. That was the only, and i mean only, positive of the suckitude of the last 10 years..98% 1.00pm games I'm with ya. Having a hard time rescheduling this Sunday to accommodate the 4 start !
zow2 Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 As long as the Bills don't completely flame out they will be on a couple prime time games next year,,, (that is unless the Bills petition against a night home game, then they might get 1 road). The NFL wants compelling, exciting matchups obviously. This year they could've scheduled Buffal/Cincinnati and it would have been a great matchup...last year that game looked unattractive. It's such a year to year thing. Bills, Detroit and San Fran will be on the national scene in 2012.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Peyton Manning? How about blame the NFL itself? Snoozer night games other than Indy. NE @ Miami? Rams & Giants? Miami @ JETS? Evening games comming soon Minnesota at Green Bay NY Jets at Denver Philadelphia at NY Giants Kansas City at New England Pittsburgh at Kansas City Philadelphia at Seattle San Diego at Jacksonville Cleveland at Pittsburgh St. Louis at Seattle Jacksonville at Atlanta Wow. That's almost incomprehensibly bad. No surprise considering the crap they've scheduled for us so far. Keep in mind that if you go back to the end of last season - which is basically what the NFL looks at when scheduling these games - you would think that many (if not all) of these games would be enticing enough to watch. The only questionable teams would have been Denver & Cleveland, coming off 4-12 and 5-11 seasons, respectively. However, Cleveland has a traditional rivalry with Pittsburgh, so I can see that game being shown nationally*. About the only reason I can see Denver being shown is because they're playing the Jets (big market team) and I'm sure the NFL hoped & prayed that Tim Tebow would be playing by the time this game came around. Even Minnesota had a down year, but were supposed to be going with Donovan McNabb and could have been better than they are. The plus side now is that at least Christian Ponder showed some flashes yesterday. Kansas City won their division in 2010 and so did Seattle (I know, they were a putrid 7-9). The Rams were supposed to be up-and-coming. Jacksonville usually fields a decent-to-good team. Every other team was a playoff team in 2010 or are in a big market or have a big national following. I don't think the NFL schedule makers really expected Kansas City, Indy, St. Louis, or Seattle to be so much worse, so I can't blame the NFL for this. The flex scheduling is the best thing they can do. Could they start it sooner? Possibly, but let's not lambaste them because Peyton Manning had 2 season-ending surgeries. * - Take the word "nationally" with a grain of salt. It's an NFL Network game, which isn't shown everywhere. I appreciate your thorough post but I disagree with much of what you said. The NFL and its network partners get into trouble exactly because of their superficial and ironically shallow anticipation of which teams are worthy of prime time. Denver and Cleveland have zero basis to be included in the prime time schedule. Teams with horrible records and that showed zero improvement during the season should not be on prime time (Denver was 1-7 in their last 8 games of 2010. Cleveland was 2-6. At least the Bills were 4-4 and should have been considered before either Cleveland or Denver). Moreover, Denver and Cleveland have new coaches who were handicapped by the lockout. There was no reason to believe either team would be good OR deserving. Minnesota also has a first year coach who was handicapped by a lockout offseason. Frazier coached the defense last year but he had to install a completely new offense with a quarterback (McNabb) who crapped the bed in DC last season and crapped the bed in Philly the year before that. There was zero reason to believe that Minnesota was deserving of inclusion in the prime time schedule. I don't buy any rationale for Jacksonville or Seattle either. Jacksonville was 8-8 and has been showing no signs of improving for years now. They go up then down in wins every year. Seattle is just a bad football team. On top of this, neither Seattle or Jacksonville are remotely interesting teams. Besides being bad, they are dull and have no marquee players. I agree with you on Kansas City and the Rams. Who should we see more of (based on last year)? Before this season began I would have reasoned that Detroit and Tampa Bay are both teams in the 3rd year of a regime and have stockpiled talent and exciting young players. Detroit and Tampa are the kind of ascending teams which the NFL should showcase to mix with the perennial powers. Both of these teams should be on prime time 2-3 times. Houston has been a very exciting offensive juggernaut for several seasons now and drafted heavily for defense, signed prominent defensive free agents, and signed Wade Phillips as defensive coordinator. It's a do or die year for Gary Kubiak. Andre Johnson, Arian Foster, Schaub, Mario Williams… great young talent. I could see an argument made for Houston to be on prime time 2-3 times. Even before this season, for prime time purposes I would have said San Francisco before Seattle in the NFC West. At least San Francisco has a national following that exceeds Seattle (due to their Super Bowl years) and won the Jim Harbaugh sweepstakes in a bidding war with other teams. The Raiders were 8-8 last year and are a talented team and have a national following. They are an obvious team deserving of prime time date(s). While Hue Jackson is a 1st year head coach, he was with the team last year as the offensive coordinator. So no. The NFL and the networks have done a lousy job of picking games for prime time. It's their business and they should know it better than they do. Based on their ability to pick games, if they were a football team, they would finish with a 4-12 record. Edited October 24, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan
DDD Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Lol they should just show highlights of Stanford cardinals and say this is what colts are playing for this season. Be more exciting than that drivel they put on the field. +1
apuszczalowski Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I blame this on one guy. Bill Polian. How could he not have a backup for Manning that they think might actually be able to play. Pure arrogance. How dare you speak ill of Saint Polian, he can do no wrong! Around these parts, that is enough to get you banned for life! Maybe I am on the only one here, but I love me 1.00pm Sunday Bills games..and hate night games. That was the only, and i mean only, positive of the suckitude of the last 10 years..98% 1.00pm games It has more to do with the fans thinking that if they get games shown on prime time, they can walk around thinking that they are "respected" more and not a bad team. When was the last time the Bills had a nationally televised game where they looked good and won? I love the 1:00pm games too
dave mcbride Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I'd rather stand in line at the grocery store than watch MLB. I love the Bills, but I prefer baseball to football even though the latter is more exciting on TV.
apuszczalowski Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Peyton Manning? How about blame the NFL itself? Snoozer night games other than Indy. NE @ Miami? Rams & Giants? Miami @ JETS? Evening games comming soon Minnesota at Green Bay NY Jets at Denver Philadelphia at NY Giants Kansas City at New England Pittsburgh at Kansas City Philadelphia at Seattle San Diego at Jacksonville Cleveland at Pittsburgh St. Louis at Seattle Jacksonville at Atlanta Take away jacksonville, Denver and Cleveland, and looking at last years standings, alot of those look like they would be pretty good games. Throw in some good divisional rival games and its one of the better games of the week. Problem is, that logic doesn't always work out, and you can end up with having some really bad games because not all teams end up being as good as they were last season.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 The NFL should rotate Divisional games on Sunday, Monday and late season Thursday nights. Yes it gets us a Fins NYETS horrific 1st half, so slow you turned off the TV and went to bed (east coast), but you get away from them cramming Brady and Peyton at fans weekly where it can bite them in the arse. There are a lot of teams that are one player away from good to HORRIBLE. See Raiders vs KC. This season if Brady went out, it would kell them too because they are a passing mainly team.
apuszczalowski Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I appreciate your thorough post but I disagree with much of what you said. The NFL and its network partners get into trouble exactly because of their superficial and ironically shallow anticipation of which teams are worthy of prime time. Denver and Cleveland have zero basis to be included in the prime time schedule. Teams with horrible records and that showed zero improvement during the season should not be on prime time (Denver was 1-7 in their last 8 games of 2010. Cleveland was 2-6. At least the Bills were 4-4 and should have been considered before either Cleveland or Denver). Moreover, Denver and Cleveland have new coaches who were handicapped by the lockout. There was no reason to believe either team would be good OR deserving. Minnesota also has a first year coach who was handicapped by a lockout offseason. Frazier coached the defense last year but he had to install a completely new offense with a quarterback (McNabb) who crapped the bed in DC last season and crapped the bed in Philly the year before that. There was zero reason to believe that Minnesota was deserving of inclusion in the prime time schedule. I don't buy any rationale for Jacksonville or Seattle either. Jacksonville was 8-8 and has been showing no signs of improving for years now. They go up then down in wins every year. Seattle is just a bad football team. On top of this, neither Seattle or Jacksonville are remotely interesting teams. Besides being bad, they are dull and have no marquee players. I agree with you on Kansas City and the Rams. Who should we see more of (based on last year)? Before this season began I would have reasoned that Detroit and Tampa Bay are both teams in the 3rd year of a regime and have stockpiled talent and exciting young players. Detroit and Tampa are the kind of ascending teams which the NFL should showcase to mix with the perennial powers. Both of these teams should be on prime time 2-3 times. Houston has been a very exciting offensive juggernaut for several seasons now and drafted heavily for defense, signed prominent defensive free agents, and signed Wade Phillips as defensive coordinator. It's a do or die year for Gary Kubiak. Andre Johnson, Arian Foster, Schaub, Mario Williams… great young talent. I could see an argument made for Houston to be on prime time 2-3 times. Even before this season, for prime time purposes I would have said San Francisco before Seattle in the NFC West. At least San Francisco has a national following that exceeds Seattle (due to their Super Bowl years) and won the Jim Harbaugh sweepstakes in a bidding war with other teams. The Raiders were 8-8 last year and are a talented team and have a national following. They are an obvious team deserving of prime time date(s). While Hue Jackson is a 1st year head coach, he was with the team last year as the offensive coordinator. So no. The NFL and the networks have done a lousy job of picking games for prime time. It's their business and they should know it better than they do. Based on their ability to pick games, if they were a football team, they would finish with a 4-12 record. I agree that houston should have been included, along with Detroit and TB, and KC and the Rams where a huge surprise with how bad they have disapointed. The Seahawks made the playoff last year, it may have been in a weak division, but couldn't the same be said about KC? How can you say for some teams that they shouldn't be included because they have 1st year coaches, and then say that SF and Oakland should be included with thier 1st year coaches? There are too many contradictions in your arguements about why some should be included and why otheres shouldn't be
MikeSpeed Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Bills, Detroit and San Fran will be on the national scene in 2012. Add in Cincinnati. But I predict that one or all of these teams could be back to sucking next year. Just seems to be a trend where a coupling of teams rise up one year and fall off the face of the earth the next.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) I agree that houston should have been included, along with Detroit and TB, and KC and the Rams where a huge surprise with how bad they have disapointed. The Seahawks made the playoff last year, it may have been in a weak division, but couldn't the same be said about KC? How can you say for some teams that they shouldn't be included because they have 1st year coaches, and then say that SF and Oakland should be included with thier 1st year coaches? There are too many contradictions in your arguements about why some should be included and why otheres shouldn't be The Seahawks made the playoffs with a losing record (7-9) so that's the difference between them and 10-win Kansas City. As far as first-year coaches, if you read my post carefully you'd see that I mentioned that Hue Jackson, while a first year coach, was the Raiders OC in 2010 so the transition would be seamless on the offensive side of the ball. This is not true for the other teams mentioned with first-year coaches (again, Frazier coached the defense for Minny but the offensive staff is completely new). And you would have read my rationale that San Francisco, with 5 Super Bowl championships and the winner of the Harbaugh Sweepstakes (most sought-after coach this offseason) were a more interesting team than Seattle as far as the NFC West goes. In fact the only game I would show Seattle on prime time would be against San Francisco… divisional game and a reprisal of the Harbaugh-Pete Carroll antagonism established in the PAC Ten where Harbaugh made a habit of whipping Carroll and the "What's your deal?" storyline. I'm starting to repeat myself now and you certainly don't have to agree with my opinions. My point remains the same. The NFL and its network partners pick games like casual fans would, not like experts would. Maybe that's the problem, they view things from the perspective of the casual fan (i.e.- I've heard of Peyton Manning therefore I should watch this game). Edited October 24, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan
Billshank Redemption Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 yea this was like watching a college blowout
San Jose Bills Fan Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Add in Cincinnati. But I predict that one or all of these teams could be back to sucking next year. Just seems to be a trend where a coupling of teams rise up one year and fall off the face of the earth the next. I agree Mike. It's an inexact science. The league/networks are gonna have luck work against them in their projections. But it's still a mystery why they thought that Denver, Cleveland, and Jacksonville should have been on prime time.
truth on hold Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 Denver = tebow Cleveland = McCoy Jacksonville = ????? I'm totally with you on the last one. Why give air time to a dead end, boring team ?
Captain Hindsight Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 This was a Super Bowl Match up a few seasons ago. I know why the NFL picked this game but some of their primetime games have been like... Really? They pick games with players people have heard of. Thats marketing basically, The NFL is a product that is trying to be sold. I wouldnt be shocked to see Buffalo get a flex game this year or a monday nighter next year but I wouldnt be shocked if the Colts got one after going 0-16
Fan in Chicago Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 I agree Mike. It's an inexact science. The league/networks are gonna have luck work against them in their projections. But it's still a mystery why they thought that Denver, Cleveland, and Jacksonville should have been on prime time. As someone else suggested, maybe the answer is in flex scheduling. The first half of the season can be scheduled based on last year's performance and the second half based on this season's performance. That way we dont have to look for things to do at 9 pm on Sundays, by which time the games are pretty much decided.
apuszczalowski Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 The Seahawks made the playoffs with a losing record (7-9) so that's the difference between them and 10-win Kansas City. As far as first-year coaches, if you read my post carefully you'd see that I mentioned that Hue Jackson, while a first year coach, was the Raiders OC in 2010 so the transition would be seamless on the offensive side of the ball. This is not true for the other teams mentioned with first-year coaches (again, Frazier coached the defense for Minny but the offensive staff is completely new). And you would have read my rationale that San Francisco, with 5 Super Bowl championships and the winner of the Harbaugh Sweepstakes (most sought-after coach this offseason) were a more interesting team than Seattle as far as the NFC West goes. In fact the only game I would show Seattle on prime time would be against San Francisco… divisional game and a reprisal of the Harbaugh-Pete Carroll antagonism established in the PAC Ten where Harbaugh made a habit of whipping Carroll and the "What's your deal?" storyline. I'm starting to repeat myself now and you certainly don't have to agree with my opinions. My point remains the same. The NFL and its network partners pick games like casual fans would, not like experts would. Maybe that's the problem, they view things from the perspective of the casual fan (i.e.- I've heard of Peyton Manning therefore I should watch this game). So only offence matters when it comes to winning games? Wouldn't Fraser have just as much of an advantage as Jackson seeing as how they were both co-ordinators with thier current teams before becoming HC's? Only difference is one has a similar offence, while the other a similar defence? SF gets a new HC, and was a bad team last year and couldn't win a weak division, but they get the the prime time over Seattle who atleast made the playoffs (and made it past the 1st round?). If you look at the schedule, they give prime time "preference" to teams that made the playoffs the previous years, and to interesting games with sub-plots or rivalries. They also give preference to teams with a marketable Star player, such as Brady, Manning, Brees, etc. At the start of this season, an Indy NO game would have looked like a great game to watch, along with the Eagles vs Giants game. When the schedule was made earlier this year, all SF had done was sign Harbaugh as the HC, how is that enough to make them more worthy to be on prime time then a playoff team from last year?
Recommended Posts