BRH

Very true, but the opportunities for that to happen are infinitesimal compared to football, where there is the possibility of serious injury on virtually every play. My wife made it clear early on that our son was not going to play football, and I was honestly okay with that. I didn't play organized football growing up, so it wasn't a hard thing to go along with. Our son is 20 now and plays college baseball. He has had his share of injuries -- hip, back, ankle, knee, elbow. He's an outfielder now so he's run into a couple of fences as well, which is ironic because I worried more when he was a third baseman. I've seen kids get hit the face by pitched or hit balls and sustain serious injury -- broken noses from curveballs that didn’t break, broken orbitals from a bad hop and from a hole in the BP net. It's never good to see that happen to your child. Or to any child. But I can't imagine what it would be like watching him play football. I love watching the game but am so glad he never played it. .

Here's a question. IF they resume the game at some point (not this week obviously), are the rosters locked or can teams bring up healthy players to fill holes? For example: 1. Sam Hubbard was not active for this game. I assume he would be ready to go before any rescheduled game. Can the Bengals activate him for the rest of the game? I would assume not. 2. Say Taron had been declared "out" after the concussion but clears protocol before the rescheduled game. Can he come back in? I would assume not. Fortunately, his return was only declared "questionable." 3. Would the Bills be allowed to replace Hamlin (and Johnson, if he is still out) on the active roster with healthy DBs (like Benford and Rhodes)? By the letter of the law I would assume not -- but this may be an exceptional situation.

And the thing about the Hurst and Hendrickson plays is that now they're going to get lost in all the talk about how well the Bengals behaved after someone literally died on the field. All props to Taylor and the team and their fans for that, but it doesn't excuse what was glaringly obvious before that. Both Hurst and Hendrickson had opportunities to stop, and they continued with clear intent to injure.

That was bad. McD saw something he didn't like, but Josh figured out a way around it. Sometimes you need to trust your players. Worse was not getting a play to Josh in time a bit later in the drive, which forced him to call a throwaway run play that got stuffed. Josh didn't want to use yet another timeout there. Makes me think that if we play them again, and it's in Cincinnati, Josh needs to run the two-minute offense from the get-go.

If we could rewind to the Hamlin play and have him get up and be okay, but too injured to continue -- and I wish to hell we could -- that would have left us with a backup nickel corner, a backup to the backup to one safety, the other safety playing with a knee injury, the #1 corner still recovering from his own knee injury, and the #2 corner being either a rookie who has struggled to adjust to zone coverage or a guy who has struggled mightily at the point of catch all season long. And we had already blinked on our first drive by running a throwaway play (because Allen couldn't hear the play coming in), then not connecting with Beasley, and then deciding to take three instead of going for the first down in the red zone. You can think what you want about the Bills' offense making enough plays to win. I know they were up to that challenge. But unless the defensive line was eventually able to get home and rattle Burrow into sacks or errant throws, it really wasn't looking good at that point. If that game had been in Cincinnati, I doubt the Pats even come close to a comeback. We would have had a better chance, for sure. And we righted the ship in similar conditions in Baltimore already this year. But we were digging ourselves a pretty bad hole already. Add to that the PI call on Tre and the momentum swing after we thought we had recovered a fumble that wasn't, and it just didn't look good. Not saying we couldn't have won -- and I would never support giving Cincy a win because of eight plays -- but everyone has to admit that this was not one of our better starts, even taking into account our propensity to give up a first-drive score and take awhile for the offense to fully click.

I did not see that one live, but I did see when Richard Zednik caught a skate to the neck in Buffalo in 2008 or so. It was a while before I could watch hockey again.

I agree with you. But more than that, I don't think the league or the team should be making decisions based on what he would want. That's, quite honestly, a copout. Find the fairest and most logical feasible solution, and defend it. None of this "he would have wanted it this way" stuff.

They won't do this. Too many things are scheduled for the two-week window before the Super Bowl.

Completely expected. And add to that that KC barely played anyone else all year (and played all of their games in nice weather). The two games they played against stiff competition, they got rolled. But they want the 1 seed as a reward? Feels legit.

Who cares about the NFC? This should be about ensuring the fairest possible outcome to the most possible teams. The NFC doesn't have an inequity issue with their playoff process.

Ryan Clark said it best: if you make these teams play tomorrow (or any time this week), you're gonna get a trash football game. And it'll be one in which more players are likely to get hurt, if not now then next week on short rest. If the league really cares about player safety, they should be talking about canceling games, not getting a game in.

You think?

Ah, that's the piece I missed. Sorry. I still think that because there are three teams in play for the 1 seed, every effort should be made to ensure that they've played the same number of games. I think it would be logistically easier to cancel KC/Raiders than to make Cincy and Buffalo play this game (which would probably push their week 18 games farther into next week, affecting two more teams.) But I recognize the prism through which I am looking at all of this.

I haven't read all the suggestions, but my son just said this: - Don't play this game. - Cancel the KC-Raiders game next Sunday because the Raiders are out of the playoffs and KC has already won their division. - Let Cincinnati and Buffalo play their games because they involve a division title (in Cincinnati/Baltimore's case) and a playoff berth (in New England's case). No playoff games are eliminated or moved. I kind of like it. It's completely unfair to give KC the 1 seed outright because of this game being canceled. KC already played their game this week and won. Let Cincinnati and Buffalo have their games next week. Then all three teams have played 16 games and the 1 seed/bye can be more fairly decided.

Literally.

The tweets came out BEFORE their corresponding TBD posts. Are you saying that your imposter is also clairvoyant? Seriously. The Dolphins have virtually no tradable draft assets.

I’m actually happy the Rose Bowl is on so I don’t have to watch a minute of pregame.

Well, Browning is inactive, so it was just about giving him a game check. but the better news: Hubbard is also inactive.

So why would the Bengals call up a QB? Either they just want to reward him with a game check, or something’s up with Brandon Allen. Or maybe with … Burrow. 👀

We are the same age and obviously have many shared experiences as Bills fans. I couldn’t agree more.

It’s funny that people were ever in doubt about it.

and I’m totally okay with that, because it pisses off Dolphins fans even more.

Which is why he’s more likely to go to SF.

Brady’s no idiot. He would never purposely play in a division that had peak Josh Allen in it. I remember that. That was funny.

I have been saying for a week that this is a much more likely scenario than the percentages are showing. The hardest part of it all is the Steelers actually winning their games.