Ravens at Bengals game

[cinci4life]

(01-04-2023, 06:15 PM)packerbacker Wrote: First and Foremost I hope Hamlin makes a complete recovery. Second though is it really sucks that they won’t makeup the Bengals Bills game.

Doesn't suck yet because no one has said they aren't resuming it.

[packerbacker]

(01-04-2023, 06:20 PM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: Nah bengals will beat the chiefs. I think it would be unfair to the bengals to have to play in buffalo though. And of course the top seed would be nice if the chiefs lose and we win.

But I expect us to win the AFC. I’m not sure if we can beat a healthy Eagles team though. They are unstoppable with Hurts healthy. But it’d be an epic win and definitely possible with this team.

I’m just saying they need to resume the game then the seeds are set and it’s that easy. Handing one team a win or loss without playing is crap. I just hope Hamlin pulls through though. The Bengals have been awesome and very supportive through the whole thing. I think I’m becoming more of a Bengals fan by the day.

[WeezyBengal]

(01-04-2023, 06:24 PM)Nepa Wrote: It's never good to make up rules after the competition. Let all parties know the decision before this week's games. Waiting to see who wins and who loses and then make a decision is making up the rules after the games. Tell us the rules before the games.

Exactly. 

[Nepa]

(01-04-2023, 05:51 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: First, there is a reason to play starters if you are wanting a better seed, they can still get the 2nd seed unless you forgot that, second the NFL is not happy with the benching of players that can help or hinder other teams.. im good with it

If the Ravens' coaches believe the Bengals-Bills games will not be played, then they most certainly should rest their stars. It would certainly be unfair to have them go all out, risking injury to key players, only to find out they never really had a chance to win the division.

To be frank, it would really be very unfair of the league to wait and see who wins the weekend games and then make up the rules. They need to tell the teams the rules before they play this weekend. Yeah, I'm repeating myself now, but I would be absolutely and totally disgusted if the league actually makes their decision based on the weekend games, and thus have the NFL deciding the winners and losers of seeding.

[packerbacker]

I heard anaylists on the radio saying they should play the Bengals Bills game wildcard weekend but just have the NFC Wildcard games played then the Bengals Bills would be the only AFC game being made up of course then every other AFC team gets the week off. I heard on Sirius XM a bunch of people talking about that idea. I like it.

[Nepa]

(01-04-2023, 06:37 PM)packerbacker Wrote: I heard anaylists on the radio saying they should play the Bengals Bills game wildcard weekend but just have the NFC Wildcard games played then the Bengals Bills would be the only AFC game being made up of course then every other AFC team gets the week off. I heard on Sirius XM a bunch of people talking about that idea. I like it.

I like that idea too. 

[Nepa]

If Buffalo wins this weekend, and the Bengals win, and KC loses, and then the NFL says "we decided not to finish the Bengals-Bills game," then the NFL is basically deciding after the fact that they want the Bills to have 1st seed, the Bengals 2 and KC 3. The league is deciding the order. If the Bills, KC, and Bengals win, and then the league says we won't play the game, they are basically saying they want the Bills to be the 1 seed, KC 2nd, and Bengals 3rd.

This would be a terrible look for the league. If they tell us their plan before the weekend, then everybody knows ahead of time and can accept the plan. If they decide after the weekend, it looks like they are deciding who they want in which seeds.

Likewise, if the Bills lose, KC loses, and the Bengals win, and then they say play the Bills-Bengals game, then they are saying they don't want the Bengals as the #1 seed, because apparently the Bengals have the tiebreakers. (maybe)

Where is the leadership of the NFL? If they don't want to be looking like they are choosing winners and losers, they have to let everyone know the rules before this weekend.

And is anyone bringing up this point?

[packerbacker]

The last time this happened was Chuck Hughes of the Lions collapsed walking back to the huddle in the early 70s. I think this was after a hit he took from Dick Butkus.

[Rubekahn29]

The longer they take to make the decision, whatever the decision is, the worse it will be for everyone.

[basballguy]

(01-04-2023, 06:54 PM)Nepa Wrote: If Buffalo wins this weekend, and the Bengals win, and KC loses, and then the NFL says "we decided not to finish the Bengals-Bills game," then the NFL is basically deciding after the fact that they want the Bills to have 1st seed, the Bengals 2 and KC 3. The league is deciding the order. If the Bills, KC, and Bengals win, and then the league says we won't play the game, they are basically saying they want the Bills to be the 1 seed, KC 2nd, and Bengals 3rd.

This would be a terrible look for the league. If they tell us their plan before the weekend, then everybody knows ahead of time and can accept the plan. If they decide after the weekend, it looks like they are deciding who they want in which seeds.

Likewise, if the Bills lose, KC loses, and the Bengals win, and then they say play the Bills-Bengals game, then they are saying they don't want the Bengals as the #1 seed, because apparently the Bengals have the tiebreakers. (maybe)

Where is the leadership of the NFL? If they don't want to be looking like they are choosing winners and losers, they have to let everyone know the rules before this weekend.

And is anyone bringing up this point?

Honestly, I'm starting to lean towards the "I don't care if they play" camp.  I don't like the idea of essentially asking the Bengals (and Bills) to play 3 games in like 12 days (or however many it would be).  I think I'd rather have rest and less injuries.  Though I can be convinced to think differently.

[Big Boss]

Someone want to explain to me the point of having an NFL Commissioner if he won't speak now of all times?

The leadership void is deafening.

[Clark W Griswold]

Whatever they decide the Chiefs should not benefit from it. They lost head to head vs the Bills and the Bengals this year so if they end up at #3 it’s OK by me.

[casear2727]

(01-04-2023, 07:07 PM)Big Boss Wrote: Someone want to explain to me the point of having an NFL Commissioner if he won't speak now of all times?

The leadership void is deafening.

He wont make a decision until the owners have decided what to do.  If the Bills owner would take the L everything moves forward with no issues.  

[casear2727]

(01-04-2023, 07:01 PM)basballguy Wrote: Honestly, I'm starting to lean towards the "I don't care if they play" camp.  I don't like the idea of essentially asking the Bengals (and Bills) to play 3 games in like 12 days (or however many it would be).  I think I'd rather have rest and less injuries.  Though I can be convinced to think differently.

This, 100%

[*jason*]

(01-04-2023, 07:01 PM)basballguy Wrote: Honestly, I'm starting to lean towards the "I don't care if they play" camp.  I don't like the idea of essentially asking the Bengals (and Bills) to play 3 games in like 12 days (or however many it would be).  I think I'd rather have rest and less injuries.  Though I can be convinced to think differently.

Yep... It wasn't rescheduled for Tuesday, so I'm ready to move on from that game. We'll see em in the playoffs...

[NUGDUKWE]

(01-04-2023, 07:07 PM)Big Boss Wrote: Someone want to explain to me the point of having an NFL Commissioner if he won't speak now of all times?

The leadership void is deafening.

Yeah I get wanting to wait for news about Hamlin. But we could all focus on Hamlin rather than football and what should or shouldn't happen if the NFL would just make a decision and go with it. 

[KillerGoose]

Interesting perspective into the Bengals locker room, provided by Burrow.

Joe Burrow said there were side discussions about not playing Sunday vs. Ravens but nothing as a whole team. He said if you polled the locker room it would be mixed votes.

Burrow says personally he wants to play even though it’ll be tough. Other teammates may feel otherwise.

— Cameron Wolfe (@CameronWolfe) January 4, 2023

[Whacked]

(01-04-2023, 07:00 PM)Rubekahn29 Wrote: The longer they take to make the decision, whatever the decision is, the worse it will be for everyone.

Preach!

OF COURSE I understand the very sensitive nature of this, as well as the massive complexities.

I also appreciate the consequences tied to said decision(s).

That said, for a billion-dollar organization to not have made a decision by now - with its vast reach and endless resources - is ridiculous IMHO.  

[Bengalitis]

(01-04-2023, 01:23 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The rules state the game must be played. My guess is to alter that rule, then league owns as well as the NFLPA would have to agree on not playing it.

I think the league should do as Boomer said, cancel all games in week 18, then have Bengals?Bills resume play a 6 p.m. on Monday January 9. Then. all week 18 games be played the weekend of January 14th and 15th.

Playoffs weeks would be moved back one week, Super Bowl would just have one week after playoffs determine 2 winners.

I never liked the bye week prior to the super bowl. It just kills the momentum the teams have and as a fan too (feels like forever). On the players POV, they probably prefer to be rested and recovered for the supreme game, but I wish there was no bye. Removing the bye to account for the suspended game would be ideal.