The fix is in

[Cincyfan78]

I was all in favour of a week 19 and scuppering the off week before Super Bowl.

But they should have finished the game that day. If soccer players can do it, so can they.

I don't follow soccer - so no clue if they've actually revived someone multiple times on the field and then finished the game - if they did...does that make it right?

The players said they weren't playing. The NFL was stuck with either eating a really bad shitburger PR nightmare if they forced them to play, or tried to make up the game.

The right path forward was the no-contest and to follow the rules already on the books for such an issue. The only issue I took exception to was changing the rule on the fly - that was stupid. But, how the original rule was laid out - I have no real issue with. Sometimes things aren't fair - and that's life. You roll with the punches. Even if that meant the new stupid rule would have forced the Bengals to go to BMore - you know what...they shouldn't have started 0-2. Sucks - but in the end, the games were close enough (16 games to 17 games) for the teams to have control over their own outcomes.

 

[futballiscool]

I don't see how the NFL was going to give everyone in the AFC an extra bye while forcing the 2 teams that had to deal with this trauma to complete the game - if logistics weren't already a nightmare on doing something like this - the PR on this move would have melted the NFL's face off.

If that weren't enough, half of the Buff team had already left - and if the argument for suspending the game was for the mental well-being of the players involved, 24 hours when he was still on life-support wasn't likely going to change that. You're not making a team stay in town for 2-3 days to "finish a game", in which they may or may not be able to even practice, and then force these teams to play 2-3 days later again on Sunday. NFLPA would not sign off on playing 2 games in 3 days - it took a decade+ for them to finally agree to Thursday night games...and even still players complain and the product is trash.

NFL players are not trained to play that many games in a short span, players already complain about Sunday/Thursday games - imagine trying to do 3 games in a normal week/10 day span in which the last of those games would have been a playoff game in which Buff and Cin players would have been completely depleted/exhausted to face those matchups. Talk about "unfair". I'll take the road game every single time before I would ever entertain the idea of playing a schedule like that - or giving other teams a "free" week bye before playing the Bengals - while the Bengals get no such advantage. Play the Ravens, off a bye week, in which the AFCN winner has to play, but the team in 2nd place doesn't? I mean, that's even LESS fair than what ended up happening. I'd take a straight trip to Bmore for the playoff game before I'd want that scenario to play out.

And - neither team was forfeiting - I mean - let's get real for a moment. That was less of an option than making these teams try and finish the game.

The no contest was 100% the right way to go - and there were already rules in place for such an issue. Where the NFL screwed the pooch was deciding they wanted to change those rules mid-stride - and allowed knee-jerk reactions and emotions to run their thought process.

You mentioned Thursday games which happen all the time. There were also Tuesday games during the Coivd season. This was an extraordinary circumstance and required extraordinary measures to ensure the game was played IMO. It controlled the top 3 seeds in the AFC. If either the Bills or Bengals didn't feel playing the game after a day or on wild card weekend a forfeit was an option.
I think that health and well being of Hamlin was unequivocally the most important factor in the story but how they handled the Bills/Bengals game was also completely independent of it

 

[Cincyfan78]

You mentioned Thursday games which happen all the time. There were also Tuesday games during the Coivd season. This was an extraordinary circumstance and required extraordinary measures to ensure the game was played IMO. It controlled the top 3 seeds in the AFC. If either the Bills or Bengals didn't feel playing the game after a day or on wild card weekend a forfeit was an option.
I think that health and well being of Hamlin was unequivocally the most important factor in the story but how they handled the Bills/Bengals game was also completely independent of it

Except that it didn't AND there was already a rule in place. Covid affected EVERY team. This instance affects 2. It's apples and bacon.

Thursday games are 4 days a part, and they suck. You want them to play 3 games in 10 days and think the product is going to be "good" and/or "fair'? Really? Again, NO WAY the NFLPA would have allowed this to happen. To think it was ever going to be a possibility is foolish.

You are not moving 30 games for 2. Logistics would have been awful - and again, you would be forcing the 2 teams that dealt with this issue to play while everyone else gets a bye. Even if you make it up after the playoffs are "set" it doesn't work. So, great, Bengals win the AFCN, then they have to go back and play the bills, while the Ravens, who finished 2nd, get a free bye? KC gets 2 weeks off? Not. Happening.

Again - the rule for this instance was already on the books. Follow. The. Rules. It's that easy. Bengals were not catching KC - and maybe they could have gotten the #2 seed, but they played the same # of games as the Bills and they won 1 less game. No issues - fair and square. Only game it really may have affected was KC/Buff Conf Championship site - but shit happens - and Buff only ended up playing 16 games to KC's 17. Sure, that benefited KC, but had they lost an extra game - KC would be crying that Buff didn't get that extra chance to lose to the Bengals - giving them home field. The whole "let's change everything around for 2 teams" is completely absurd. Again, especially when there was already a rule in place for such a thing....it's not like there wasn't a rule - or this wasn't thought of - it was discussed - it was agreed upon - and enacted in the rules. The only reason ANY of this is up for conversation is because the NFL decided it wanted to change the rule mid-season in a knee-jerk reaction to emotion.

Dumb.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

I don't follow soccer - so no clue if they've actually revived someone multiple times on the field and then finished the game - if they did...does that make it right?

The players said they weren't playing. The NFL was stuck with either eating a really bad shitburger PR nightmare if they forced them to play, or tried to make up the game.

The right path forward was the no-contest and to follow the rules already on the books for such an issue. The only issue I took exception to was changing the rule on the fly - that was stupid. But, how the original rule was laid out - I have no real issue with. Sometimes things aren't fair - and that's life. You roll with the punches. Even if that meant the new stupid rule would have forced the Bengals to go to BMore - you know what...they shouldn't have started 0-2. Sucks - but in the end, the games were close enough (16 games to 17 games) for the teams to have control over their own

Last year at the European nations championship, Denmark was playing Finland in a meaningful game. One of the Danes was running along had a clangour and drop to the ground. Everybody stood around in grief mode while they worked on him. They had the defibrillator out there in the paddles were flying. After they got him in the ambulance and out of the way, both teams went to the locker rooms for 30 minutes. Then the game resumed

If these NFL players can watch, a guy become a potential quad and still continue the game, they should’ve continued that one.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Last year at the European nations championship, Denmark was playing Finland in a meaningful game. One of the Danes was running along had a clangour and drop to the ground. Everybody stood around in grief mode while they worked on him. They had the defibrillator out there in the paddles were flying. After they got him in the ambulance and out of the way, both teams went to the locker rooms for 30 minutes. Then the game resumed

If these NFL players can watch, a guy become a potential quad and still continue the game, they should’ve continued that one.

Watching someone leave the field who is awake and alert is not the same as watching someone be revived on the field, who was dead, and being loaded off with no certainty as to if they were actually alive or dead. So, the quad vs this situation is not even remotely the same.

That being said - if you are going to watch someone die and be brought back to life - and think that the game should contiue - that's fine, I can disagree - and we can go our separate ways - but regardless, if one "sport" does it, and another doesn't - does it make one more right than the other? I don't think so.

I don't have an issue with them not playing. I'd have not had an issue if they all decided to play. I think leaving it up to the players is the right call - and then after that you follow the rules as outlined. If you are Buff and you decide not to play, you take the consequence of not hosting the AFCC game in Buff. If you are the Bengals - and you decide not to play - you take the consequence of not tying Buff, and winning the H2H matchup for the #2 seed. Those are decisions to be made, and consequences to live by. They chose not to play, and they chose to follow whatever the rule was outlined in the NFL agreement. Thems the breaks - and I don't see how anyone really could have any issue with how the rule was laid out. It was already in place.

The only issue, again, I had was the NFL deciding after the fact to try and "fix" it by changing the rules. That, to me, was out of pocket. The rest of how it played out is how it played out and I don't have any real issue one way or the other. Play the game. Don't play the game. But, whatever you decision is - you live with the consequence of that outcome. I think, most are good with that - unless someone then decides to change the rules after the fact.....

 

[futballiscool]

Except that it didn't AND there was already a rule in place. Covid affected EVERY team. This instance affects 2. It's apples and bacon.

Thursday games are 4 days a part, and they suck. You want them to play 3 games in 10 days and think the product is going to be "good" and/or "fair'? Really? Again, NO WAY the NFLPA would have allowed this to happen. To think it was ever going to be a possibility is foolish.

You are not moving 30 games for 2. Logistics would have been awful - and again, you would be forcing the 2 teams that dealt with this issue to play while everyone else gets a bye. Even if you make it up after the playoffs are "set" it doesn't work. So, great, Bengals win the AFCN, then they have to go back and play the bills, while the Ravens, who finished 2nd, get a free bye? KC gets 2 weeks off? Not. Happening.

Again - the rule for this instance was already on the books. Follow. The. Rules. It's that easy. Bengals were not catching KC - and maybe they could have gotten the #2 seed, but they played the same # of games as the Bills and they won 1 less game. No issues - fair and square. Only game it really may have affected was KC/Buff Conf Championship site - but shit happens - and Buff only ended up playing 16 games to KC's 17. Sure, that benefited KC, but had they lost an extra game - KC would be crying that Buff didn't get that extra chance to lose to the Bengals - giving them home field. The whole "let's change everything around for 2 teams" is completely absurd. Again, especially when there was already a rule in place for such a thing....it's not like there wasn't a rule - or this wasn't thought of - it was discussed - it was agreed upon - and enacted in the rules. The only reason ANY of this is up for conversation is because the NFL decided it wanted to change the rule mid-season in a knee-jerk reaction to emotion.

Dumb.

Wait, are you saying the NFL didn't schedule Tuesday games because of Covid?

Three NFL games moved due to COVID-19 outbreaks

The NFL has moved three games because of COVID-19 outbreaks: Las Vegas at Cleveland from Saturday to Monday; and Seattle at the Los Angeles Rams and Washington at Philadelphia from Sunday to Tuesday.

apnews.com

The hypothetical situation of a game being suspended due to a traumatic injury effected 2 teams in this particular instance but similar to Covid it can effect any team in the league.

As far as the "unearned bye" argument the Chiefs got a bye and the Bills had a playoff game in the wildcard round. That doesn't happen if the Bills win their game against the Bengals.

My opinion, reschedule the game. If one team opts out it's a forfeit. If both opt out it's a tie. You then go with the seeding from there

 

[Cincyfan78]

Wait, are you saying the NFL didn't schedule Tuesday games because of Covid?

Three NFL games moved due to COVID-19 outbreaks

The NFL has moved three games because of COVID-19 outbreaks: Las Vegas at Cleveland from Saturday to Monday; and Seattle at the Los Angeles Rams and Washington at Philadelphia from Sunday to Tuesday.

apnews.com

The hypothetical situation of a game being suspended due to a traumatic injury effected 2 teams in this particular instance but similar to Covid it can effect any team in the league.

As far as the "unearned bye" argument the Chiefs got a bye and the Bills had a playoff game in the wildcard round. That doesn't happen if the Bills win their game against the Bengals.

My opinion, reschedule the game. If one team opts out it's a forfeit. If both opt out it's a tie. You then go with the seeding from there

Not what I said - said Covid affected ALL teams - not just 2. Didn't say they didn't play on Tues.

Bills/Bengals had to know when they decided to not finish the game there could be consequences - not winning the #1 seed or #2 seed is a consequence of not completing the game. I don't have an issue with either because the rules are spelled out what happens when 1 team doesn't play the same amount of games as another, etc....

Again - the issue is NOT change the rule to fix something that affects 2 teams - the issue is FOLLOW THE RULE that is on the books. If the Bengals/Bills were so worried about #1 or #2 seeds, etc...they should have decided to play the game. They didn't. These are the consequences as already laid out prior.

Only issue I have is with the NFL deciding to try and "fix" things by changing the rules, in which effect only offered to screw the Bengals royally had they not won against the Ravens.

Play the game, don't play the game...whatever. Either way - there are consequences. These teams decided to not play the game - there are consequences. They needed to accept them - whatever they were. The NFL had no need, or IMO no right, to decide after the fact to try and change things.

 

[cincygrad]

Listen.... The only way for this to stop mattering is for Jacksonville and Cincinnati to win this weekend. That would clean up everything. Lets do that.

 

[cincygrad]

BTW - I can't shake the eerie feeling that this is going to be one of those Cincinnati sports missed opportunity discussions several years from now. The same way we have the discussion about how the Bearcats would have won the NC if Martin doesn't break his leg in a conference tourney. Or, the 2012 MLB playoffs turning on Cueto's injury. This will be about the Bengals on a crazy win streak coming to an end in a game that they started on-fire.... Only to have the league create commotion with the coin-toss, the resulting injuries to offensive linemen, the momentum being changed and the season ultimately being lost. I hope I'm wrong, but this feels like a Cincy thing.

 

[Cincyfan78]

BTW - I can't shake the eerie feeling that this is going to be one of those Cincinnati sports missed opportunity discussions several years from now. The same way we have the discussion about how the Bearcats would have won the NC if Martin doesn't break his leg in a conference tourney. Or, the 2012 MLB playoffs turning on Cueto's injury. This will be about the Bengals on a crazy win streak coming to an end in a game that they started on-fire.... Only to have the league create commotion with the coin-toss, the resulting injuries to offensive linemen, the momentum being changed and the season ultimately being lost. I hope I'm wrong, but this feels like a Cincy thing.

Palmer 2005.....

 

[DanBengalfan]

Moneyline is +200

implied odds is that we have a 33.33% chance of winning

better than nothing.

really, I think the experts forget this is a game between 2 pretty good playoff teams. Carman, Sharping, and Adenjin know all week that they are playing, you'd have to throw a harpoon to get Volson out of there, and our Center is standing pat.

 

[CrashDavisSports]

and our Center is standing pat.

Is this a well placed pun? haha

 

[cincygrad]

Buffalo has been a tough team to predict this season. The expectations of that team were a little crazy in the offseason - And then they come out and blow out the Rams and Titans to start the season and people assumed they would just cruise. I still think that when Allen is playing his game, they can be the best in the league. But, it really hasn't happened for them much - Particularly after Allen's arm injury in the middle of the season.

I think this week will come down to which QB plays better.

 

[Cincyfan78]

Buffalo has been a tough team to predict this season. The expectations of that team were a little crazy in the offseason - And then they come out and blow out the Rams and Titans to start the season and people assumed they would just cruise. I still think that when Allen is playing his game, they can be the best in the league. But, it really hasn't happened for them much - Particularly after Allen's arm injury in the middle of the season.

I think this week will come down to which QB plays better.

I think a big part of that was thinking that both the Rams and the Titans were going to be good this year....they were not. Now, granted, for multiple reasons that played out over the year, but still...blowing out 2 teams that ended up being nowhere near as good as predicted...

Against competent offenses, the Buff defense has struggled. I think where they can be had a bit this year is it seems Allen is forcing some balls - up there in INT's with 14, IIRC...should be a good matchup between Lou and the Buff offense.

On the flip side, Burrow has got to start getting untracked a bit more - and the OL is going to be the big question - not only because it needs to protect Joe, but because despite what Taylor/Callahan may say about putting the ball in Burrows' hands more - they need to be at least somewhat effective in running the ball.....

 

[jbuck]

we'll need for the D to get this one. again. I suppose we got screwed a little. and we should thank them. puts that chip right where it belongs. Maybe that helps us. thing is, they took what was a home game away from us and a rd game from them....that they were losing by the way

 

[cincygrad]

I think a big part of that was thinking that both the Rams and the Titans were going to be good this year....they were not. Now, granted, for multiple reasons that played out over the year, but still...blowing out 2 teams that ended up being nowhere near as good as predicted...

Against competent offenses, the Buff defense has struggled. I think where they can be had a bit this year is it seems Allen is forcing some balls - up there in INT's with 14, IIRC...should be a good matchup between Lou and the Buff offense.

On the flip side, Burrow has got to start getting untracked a bit more - and the OL is going to be the big question - not only because it needs to protect Joe, but because despite what Taylor/Callahan may say about putting the ball in Burrows' hands more - they need to be at least somewhat effective in running the ball.....

My fear is that our offense is going to look like it did when we played Cleveland in both games this year. They had a dominant pass rusher in Garrett and we were banged up on the outside at receiver. Our only solution was check-downs and we couldn't sustain drives. If our only solution to having a decimated offensive line is to have Burrow get the ball out quick, the Bills will be happy to give us the underneath stuff and force us to win on third down. We've been a great third down team, but it's a different ballgame on the road with a bunch of replacement players on the line.

I also recently went back and watched highlights of the KC game - Our offense looks (I don't have the advanced stats so I'm just using my eyes) so much more efficient with Perine being our feature back. His running is very effective when the D doesn't know whether it is a pass or run... And the passing game is much better with him in the lineup, mostly because he can either be used as a receiver or as a blocker. I like Mixon, but I don't think he's adding much to the team anymore.

 

[cincygrad]

Can you imagine how much better the offense would be with a prime Gio Bernard? He was never a superstar, but his combination of running, blocking and receiving would have been lethal with the outside targets currently on the team.

 

[cincygrad]

The NFL is a little too excited about the AFC Championship in Atlanta.

The NFL is telling us, without telling us, that neutral-site conference championships may become the norm

Sometimes, it takes careful analysis to understand where the NFL’s hockey puck is going.

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

 

[Cincyfan78]

My fear is that our offense is going to look like it did when we played Cleveland in both games this year. They had a dominant pass rusher in Garrett and we were banged up on the outside at receiver. Our only solution was check-downs and we couldn't sustain drives. If our only solution to having a decimated offensive line is to have Burrow get the ball out quick, the Bills will be happy to give us the underneath stuff and force us to win on third down. We've been a great third down team, but it's a different ballgame on the road with a bunch of replacement players on the line.

I also recently went back and watched highlights of the KC game - Our offense looks (I don't have the advanced stats so I'm just using my eyes) so much more efficient with Perine being our feature back. His running is very effective when the D doesn't know whether it is a pass or run... And the passing game is much better with him in the lineup, mostly because he can either be used as a receiver or as a blocker. I like Mixon, but I don't think he's adding much to the team anymore.

Agreed - but Bills play more single high safety - which benefits Joe.

Though, they could try and go 2 high - but then that could hurt them in the medium passing zone where they may not be as strong. Dolphins had some success there despite having 3rd string QB. I'll take that matchup.

To me - it comes down to turning Allen over, not allowing Buff to be in 3rd and short often (like against Bmore), and having some semblance of a run game. Mixon doesn't have to go for 100+, but he's got to get 4.5 YPC or more. This offense can't be in 3rd and long.

 

[DanBengalfan]

I think it was very clear that Chase scored a touchdown on that play. he had control the entire time.

referees clearly trying to help the Bills narrative.