Rochesterfan
-
Posts
4,587 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rochesterfan
-
-
1 hour ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:
So on the NFL Radio Murray/Gannon were just saying that in the end, life is not fair and therefore the Bills will suffer the most unfairness. They believe the NFL will call game a no contest, Chiefs win Sat and have a better winning % and get 1 seed.
Do you think the NFL would want to release this plan prior to the games? I'm not so sure
This is what is going to happen and it is exactly what Troy Vincent meant by it might not be 100% equitable.
I know many Bills fans keep complaining about KC being potentially handed the #1 seed, but it is still significantly better than the league trying to find a way to squeeze in the Bills/Bengals game.
Yes it slightly hurts Buffalo, potentially slightly hurts Cincinnati in a bid for the #1 seed and slightly hurts Baltimore in a quest for the division hence the inequity.
I still think long term both the Bills and the Bengals will take this solution over the 2 of them having to squeeze a hard fought game in while their potential opponents rest. It also mirrors their plan talked about during Covid - where if unequal numbers of games happened to be played - winning % would drive the decisions.
The final thing is that there is no way they are doing any of the other suggestions like a coin toss, lotto balls, calling the game a tie, or creating a new rule where someone gets the #1 seed, but the other team gets home field. They just are not going to create something extraordinary and new for this situation.
They will work within the confines of the rules they have - which does allow for a no contest (ideally they must try to get the game played and it should have minimal impact per the rule) and their Covid protocols of utilizing win % if unequal games played.
In the meantime- for everyone wanting a decision - the NFL is correctly working with the Bills to ensure they are ok and getting what they need and then they will begin to address the options with Bills/Bengals/League. My guess is there will be 2: No contest and winning % or How can you guys get the game in and potentially play 3 games in 2 weeks or 3 games in 3 weeks - while all other teams play 2 games in 3 weeks.
45 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:Because giving 5 playoff teams a bye and making 2 play is a bigger disadvantage to the 2 than them potentially having to play an AFCCG on the road.
Calling it a no contest or a tie and using win % is the least bad option.
Agreed 100% wish I could give 1000 👍
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, BigDingus said:
Yes, but seeding itself is huge, & people on all sides will be weary because it again gives KC homefield throughout the postseason.
It also has the side-benefit of guaranteeing Mahomes MVP. All the stats Burrow or Allen could've put up with an additional game (and we already saw a glimpse of what could've been a great offensive game) get thrown out the window too. I know this isn't crucial, but fans of all teams are going to raise an eyebrow seeing only the Chiefs ended up benefitting from this game.
With the AFC playoffs again going through Arrowhead, Chiefs getting a BYE by default & Mahomes getting an uncontested MVP, it'll make fans from all around cry foul. The NFL is in a very tough position, and I doubt those outside of Buffalo or Cincy will be very reasonable.
So the options are call it a non-game and go to winning percentage - which you don’t like or force the Bills and Bengals to play a game alone sometime after week 18 and before the playoffs that puts both teams at a huge competitive disadvantage and most likely still gives KC home field advantage.
Which do you want - people need to pick their poison here.
Is it find a way in the next to weeks for the Bills and Bengals to play 3 games?
Call it a no contest and basis the playoffs on winning percentage?
There are no rules to make up a fake tie, award both teams wins, flip a coin to decide - so none of those are options.
There are only 2 and both suck, but calling it a no game keeps all the teams involved in the playoff and has minor negative impact. Trying to find a way to shoehorn in an extra game between Sunday and next weekends playoff is completely ludicrous and if they push the playoffs back and force a single Buffalo/Cincinnati game can you imagine how much bad press that will generate as the Bills have to return to the scene and every other playoff teams get byes to get ready and KC has to sit for 2 weeks.
The easiest answer is what the Bills have already said they expect - the game will not be made up - moving the seeding to win% as discussed during Covid and keeping all of the schedules the same.
Every choice has positive and negative impacts - that choice limits it as much as possible.
16 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:I posted the below in the other thread but after reading the rule, this appears to be the only reasonable solution that doesn't have the Bills playing 2 games in the next 6 days.
1-8-23 - Week 18 - Play normally
1-15-23 - Formerly Wildcard Weekend - Instead its just Bills vs Bengals
1-22-23 - Formerly Divisional Weekend - Instead it is Wildcard Weekend
1-29-23 - Formerly Conference Championships - Instead its Divisional Weekend
2-5-23 - Formerly Bye Week for SB Participants (Pro Bowl stuff) - Instead Conference Championships
2-12-23 - Super Bowl - Play normally
Sure some plane and hotel reservations will get messed up but at most for what? Just Wildcard weekend? Playing field for Divisional round can only possibly be known for 1st seeds which is up in the air for both conferences anyway so that is the risk you take.
Super Bowl remains the same.
I just don't see how they don't replay this game but then the Bills happen to play the Bengals in the playoffs 2 weeks later maybe? And that they can do? Doesn't make sense.
To summarize this method messes up some plane and hotel reservations but is fair for all involved teams.
Its the only solution.
Not really fair as it gives all of the wild card teams a week off and time to gameplan and prepare and the Bills and Bengals get screwed having to play with no rest for the 2 mentally scarred teams. My guess is if that becomes the proposal- the Bills go to the NFLPA and refuse and it gets scrapped and the Bills take the loss.
The Bills do not want to screw Cincinnati and that plan more than any other screws Cincinnati for being right their and supporting the Bills.
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:
Yea, at this point flipping a coin is a realistic option.
Again, I harp on the total inadequacy of this Billion $ business if they dont have some tie breakers to consider permanently canceled games.
No giving both teams a tie is not a fair option, that basically hands the #1 seed to the Chiefs.
They do - people are just complaining because the plan involves winning percentage and therefore KC becomes the #1 seed.
I am not sure why you do not think they have a plan. I believe it was ESPN earlier that posted the specific rules stating that it lies with the commissioner in any game either started or prior to that is cancelled or postponed to review and see if it can be played and if it can not be played - it is a non game for the purposes of records.
They will look at options - they will decide it has little bearing and they will call it a non contest and then similar to the Covid plan last year - if there are an uneven number of games it will go to win %.
People are jumping through trying to creat rules - like the NFL will award both teams a win, or a tie, or a coin toss and no of those are in the rules and will not be used. The NFL will follow exactly as it is laid out and when the Bills and Bengals say they can’t play and need to focus on the playoffs - they will rule it a non-event and they will only have 16 games.
It will have no impact on who makes the playoffs and will have minor impact of seeding, but they will get the right teams in without screwing up the schedule.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:
Can’t really push to Monday or Tuesday. Then you are putting teams at a rest disadvantage for the playoffs.
Agreed - especially since it impacts not just the Bills and NE, but potentially the Jets, Miami, and Pittsburgh and who plays when and who plays whom.-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Airseven said:
Why do people think that if the game is re-started within a couple days that the Bills and Bengals would still play again on Sunday? Doesn't it make sense that those two games on Sunday would also be pushed by a couple days, creating a short week much like Sunday-Thursday scheduling? The league did this during COVID.
Except if they push the Bills/NE game and the Cincinnati/Baltimore game back to even Monday - logistically that means none of the AFC playoff schedules could be done until Monday evening and by then it is a short week if an AFC team is expected to play Sat and doesn’t find out an opponent or venue until late Monday.
Seems like a very bad idea.
-
1 minute ago, Don Otreply said:
There might be required additional chest plate padding, but that’s likely the extent, but even that is unlikely.
🙏 for DH
Agreed - I could see pad makers looking to make changes - especially if they can get the impact data from the sensors on everyone’s pads, but I see no changes to the rules for this.
-
1 hour ago, DapperCam said:
The Bills didn’t have lodging in Cincinnati. They had to fly home. Why would they stay 2 nights there anyway if it were moved to Wed night?
I’m not advocating for it, I just think that is what the NFL is going to push the teams to do.
If they didn’t have Rooms for Monday night to stay over what are the chances today or tomorrow they can book 100s of rooms to come back. Logistically they make these reservations as the schedule is being shared not at the last minute.
If they end up trying to force the game to be played - Which I believe the NFLPA will nix do to player mental state - it will require Buffalo to fly in and out the same day and I can not imagine the mental state the Bills would be in having to quickly flip around like that and return to the field the incident happened on.
Leadership on the team wouldn’t allow it - so the NFL will be forced to review other options and work with the teams and my guess is they will agree that canceling is best and that if it means KC has the #1 seed - the teams will deal with that.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:
Most unpalatable thing about such a scenario is that Chiefs lost head to head to both teams involved … otherwise that’s the solution. It may still be, but perhaps a different decision will be reached.
Yes, but in the event Cincinnati won last night - if the Chiefs won versus LV then they would have still been the #1 seed and still lost to both teams.
Yes it sucks, but I do not see any way the Bills/Cincinnati play a game Wednesday or Thursday and then turn around and play later next week because their games against NE and Baltimore impact seeding and therefore it would impact the entire 1st round of games and prep time and who is in.
They also are not going to get traction to skip back a week and have 1 game Bills/Cincinnati to finish while every other team has a bye and then expect either one or both to turn around with a massive disadvantage.
The easiest and most logical thing is to call it a no game and then go by win%. Does it maybe help KC and maybe hurt Baltimore a bit - yep, but it keeps everything on track and allows the team time to recover. Additionally, the Bills already won in Arrowhead and Cincinnati did it last year - so yes it is a small advantage, but either Buffalo or Cincinnati were already going to have to go through KC and there was still a chance that both would of needed to.
Win % has the smallest impact without forcing the Bills to immediately jump on a plane and re-live the experience before they have emotionally dealt with it.
The league will be working with the teams to discuss options and based upon how honorable Cincinnati handled it so far - I think they would be accepting of a no contest outcome even if it made them a 3 seed.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, HurlyBurly51 said:
He does. And it doesn’t matter that the exact words from Troy were: “They’ve been given 5 minutes, That’s the word we got from the league”. Some serious mental gymnastics going on to spin this one.
So you believe while this was going on - Buck and Aikman called and spoke to NFL league officials in NY and were told by Vincent and Goodell that a five minute warmup and restarting the game was the plan.
Or was the League - a person on the sideline providing them with what the Standard SOP is with limited knowledge of what other discussions may be occurring.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:
Are we to believe that nobody from the network covering the game was in contact with the league? Come on you don't believe that do you?
Yes - I think the league was quite busy dealing with other things associated with the events.
At no time did they state the NFL told them it would be a five minute warmup. They did say they heard from the people on the field - so was the NFL decision makers on the field.
I am sure the sideline reporter talked to the head of officiating who quoted standard SOP - a five minute warmup and then the game resumes and that is what Buck and Aikman quoted. That is also where Van Pelt got his info from the broadcast.
I do not for a second believe anyone at ESPN was in contact with high up league officials during that break.
-
3
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:
Uggh just when I started to believe it. If Zac Taylor and McDermott stood up to the nfl wanting to resume the game I really think we deserve to know that.
an announcer slipping up once not using the best words to describe something I could buy .
Again was Joe Buck getting his info directly from the NFL?More likely Buck and Aikman were getting info from the Referee assigned to them who stated the standard SOP is a five minute warm up and play resumes.
People quoting Buck or Van Pelt as the NFL directed teams that the game would resume with a five minute break is stupid. They were not in contact with the league.
Who was in contact with the league - it appears the Refs and the HC of each team and after their discussion the players were sent to the locker room.
Following additional discussion - the game was suspended pending further discussion.
I am not saying the NFL is 100% clear, but the decision to suspend a game needed league, both team, and NFLPA input and was not something that was decided in the time Hamlin was injured. Hence getting the players off and having time to discuss the entirety of the situation.
Again - in the end the correct decision was made and the five minute thing was announced by people covering the game with no input or discussion with the league. It was based entirely on normal SOP for an abnormal situation.
Edit:
Honestly I believe Aikman and Buck had really no idea what to say and the 5 minute warmup was really them filling time as they couldn’t really talk about what was happening.
-
1
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:
I would be very happy if this is true…even SVP and the ESPN commentators were saying the 5 minute announcement was made though so I’m curious who that all is getting sourced from. I admittedly can’t remember if they said they were seeing it from tweets or not though.
Scott Van Pelt asked about that several times, but never got an answer. He was assuming as that is what the broadcast stated.
The sidelined reporters said the Bills huddled up and Diggs gave a speech, but the coaches and the Refs were still in discussion.
Then word came to clear the field.
The timing suggests the players and the on field Refs discussed a restart with the coaches - the coaches talked and made sure the league was aware the players were not ready.
They cleared the field to allow time for the coaches to better get a feel and then the coaches and the league talked and came to a proper decision.
There should be no blame - The league got it right - they consulted with the coaches who said it was a no go and they suspended the game.
The league should make that decision in consultation with the teams and did just that. The five minute thing was just standard post big injury timing.
Yes the league could have announced the suspension sooner, but it was obvious the Bills and Bengal players knew well before the announcement.
-
2
-
3
-
-
23 minutes ago, NoSaint said:
they are also the only ones who actually have to make the call and send logistics through a full chain of people for approval and execution in real time.”hey let them stretch while we get real time updates” isn’t crazy. Hell, goodell knew less than the coaches in that moment.
the nfl made the right call tonight, even if not movie script perfect in getting there. It’s easy to want to be angry at someone but no one truly did anything wrong tonight it seems.
Exactly Correct - wish I could like this x 1000.
Real time the NFL doesn’t have all the facts - the standard after this is to give the players 5 minutes and the coaches and Referees realized that was not going to happen.
The game was officially called at 10:01, but they showed stuff at 9:30 to 9:45 that players were changing at that point they knew the game was done well before it was announced.
You can be ticked at the NFL, but they worked with the team as they should and they made the correct call.
People want to lay blame, but the truth is they got it right and the coaches and teams directed the decision as they should.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Saint Doug said:
But do they? The Dolphins already have shown even this doesn’t cut it. So, I’m not going to rely on them to pick up subtle clues.
Yes they do. Even the NFLPA agreed that protocols were followed in the Bills game. He stumbled - they tested him for a concussion and he passed - they used an additional loophole to get him back on the field and have since closed that loophole.
If they show no signs the independent team should not be responsible for pulling the player. If they show no signs on the field it becomes important for the player, his teammates, and the coaching and training staff to help identify a situation.
Again - even in the GB game the NFLPA found nothing wrong and they have the most to gain.
Things happen and symptoms develop sometimes 2 or 4 or even 24 hours later - how teams handle it at that point when presented is the key.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:
The Cheatriots; from 7-6 to 8-8. A fly in the ointment.
HOWEVER, they can still be a MAJOR pain in our asses... If they beat us next week they secure a wild card spot so they're guaranteed to be super motivated against us. On top of that if they make the playoffs they'll be sure to want to make their season by beating us in the playoffs.
If we beat Cinci tomorrow night, we'll have to decide how to approach week 18 vs NE based on the aforementioned situation
.
If we beat Cincinnati- there is no decision on how to play week 18 - you go all out and eliminate NE and secure the #1 seed. Their motivation is irrelevant- the Bills win in Cincinnati they have to beat NE and let everything fall into place.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, chongli said:
If SEA wins earlier in the day against the Rams, then DET has no motivation as they are out. It would be either GB or SEA for the 7th seed, as even if DET won on SNF, they would lose to SEA in the head-to-head.
Yes, but you don’t think Campbell and Detroit wouldn’t be itching to know GB out of the Playoffs. I actually don’t think it impacts that game very much - I think Detroit - even if eliminated- would want to do everything to eliminate GB and may actually be more aggressive since they have nothing to lose.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, DCofNC said:
As much I agree completely with what you are saying, he’s in a really tough spot to expect much from him. He’s got very little to work with out there and very little time in the system as a whole. I think he could actually be everything Stafford was for them last year, which isn’t saying a ton, but he could start and do pretty well in that system. He’s streaky, that’s certain, but I think their best shot is to ditch Stafford, eat the dead cap and let Baker play on a prove it deal.
The original thread started out talking about how much better Mayfield looked with a competent HC and I just do not see a difference overall between Baker in LA and Baker at each of his other stops.
Yes - it has been 100% a tough spot for him coming in mid season, but for most of the Raider game he looked unimpressive until the last drive and then got tons of credit for leading an impressive last drive on 4 days practice. Game 2 he was bad and again it was he is still learning. Game 3 versus Denver - he looked like an MVP candidate (significantly better than Mahomes) against a good defensive team, but Denver appeared to give up on that game early. Game 4 versus the Chargers he once again looked like a below average QB against a team that had something to play for.
I guess in my mind - I would be very hesitant to assume with better coaching you are getting a better Mayfield. Depending on the injury to Stafford - Mayfield to me is a major step down from 2021 and before Stafford and is on par with injured 2022 Stafford.
I also think you have built the Rams with WR talent that Stafford uses, but Baker is more a TE thrower - which was a big part of why OBJ had issues in Cleveland. I think sticking with Mayfield drives OBJ away from the Rams and back towards an east coast team.
We will see how it goes and I am sure they would love to keep Mayfield, but I am not sure that a prove it deal gets it done there and I am not sure he is a great fit for the McVay offense long term.
-
1
-
-
So last week we had the Baker Mayfield “up” game and this week he was back “down”.
I don’t know where he will end up or if he stays in LA, but my god is the man inconsistent.
Barely over 100 yards in the SOFI “dome” and barely over 50% completions.
He is the same player in LA - he was in Cleveland and Carolina - fine when ahead and below average when the game is on his shoulders.
-
23 minutes ago, BuffaloBills1998 said:
Also Emmanuel Ogbah is another restructure or traded off the team. Byron Jones is also a goner as well
Maybe - Ogbah could net them almost 10 million in a conversion, but with limited term left - it makes it nearly impossible to cut him.
Byron Jones is a 14+ million cap hit. They could save 3 million+ cutting him, but then have to replace him.
They can certainly find a bit of money to do what they need, but being that far over the cap without paying a QB makes things harder.
-
33 minutes ago, BuffaloBills1998 said:
Xavien Howard most likely restructures or gets traded. Tyreek hill restructure etc. Grier will find a way to manipulate the cap
Howard doesn’t save them much for next year as his base is only 1.5 million.
Hill can get them around 10 million converting base to a bonus and spreading that out the remains 4 years, but his signing bonus is enormous and makes it harder to get out as he ages.
-
16 hours ago, DrPJax said:
They did not have to make up anything , that whiplash of his head off turf, FOR A PLAYER ITH TWO KNOWN CONCUSSIONS IN A SHORT SPAN THIS YEAR BY VERY SIMILAR WHIPLASH INJURIES, ESP THE TEAMS REACTION TO THE MILANO HIT WHICH TRIGGERED ALL THE CONTROVERSY, is a simple observation IF THEIR OBSERVATION PEOPLE WERE PROPERLY TRAINED and as I said in a prior solution, they have enough observers for this type of speed and impact game.
His head bounced with his occipital area slamming into the turf , exactly the mechanism involved with the Milano hit ! IF THE PROTOCOL was correctly done, he needed to be pulled into the tent or locker room after that hit and checked with physical and cognitive testing. IF THEY did do that, then I would say things worked as the algorithm is supposed too. He may not have had symptoms until the following day , but if they did NOT do the formal physical and cognitive exams required after the whiplash injury ( and the observers must know those who are higher risk as that’s one of the reasons for the protocol , to prevent second impact syndrome. Eg. Morse should be watched more closely than other line players , medicine is about assessing risk as it is not an exact science like repairing a car. Medicine HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT RISK STRATIFICATION. WE CAN ALL AGREE AS another example a healthy childs risk of death from a certain virus approaches zero , while a 96 year old with co morbidities is unlikely to survive the same infection). One with prior similar concussions is at higher risk and so the threshold for exam is lowered and thats just basic medicine , Med student level type analytical taught processing.
If they pulled Tua aside after the whiplash , then the system is working and it’s possible he was fine and later developed symptoms. I may Be wrong as I didn’t watch that whole game , but I was under the impression he wasn’t examined at all after that head impact , and was only placed in the protocol after self reporting symptoms the following day. This is about player health and you don’t do the protocol SOMETIMES. It’s with ANY observed impact that could cause a concussion and cognitive testing is part of that. If the NFL is stating THAT hit is not the type that needed follow up in a player with a recent history of concussions, I call BS and it’s just another example of inadequate preparation and training of observers and probably proof the observers are understaffed. Players have to also have skin in self reporting and there has to be documented poof they are being checked at intervals ( like half time for at risk players) or asking about symptoms DID NOT happen. The NFL protects THE NFL BOTTOM LINE , and they usually have to keep being dragged into progress fully.
This is just wrong for the protocol. The “whiplash” and hitting of the head has no impact on the observer deciding if they enter protocol or not. It doesn’t matter if it is his first and he has no documented concussions or if it is Tua or Morse with documented history - the hit to the head is irrelevant- they must show some signs/symptoms for the observer to pull him.
Therefore; your whole premise that “IF THEIR OBSERVATION PEOPLE WERE PROPERLY TRAINED” is totally wrong. The observers are properly trained and per the NFL and more importantly the NFLPA - the observers followed protocol correctly and there was no issue with the play.
Again - when Mitch Morse got his last concussion - he was not pulled by observers - he felt symptoms and self reported during the game. There is no reason that Tua couldn’t do the same.
As the NFLPA stated - the protocol was followed and there was nothing done wrong. The NFLPA has also stated they are 100% against stratification of players to identify concussions because it will impact contracts as those players are more likely to be pulled for no reason mid-game.
-
2 hours ago, benderbender said:
Considering concussion symptoms aren't always immediate, and he's already had clear concussion symptoms dismissed before, then actually was concussed; yes, I would assume they'd be watching for his head slamming on the turf. His fragile melon in particular. Are you telling me that the observers aren't looking for head contacting the ground? They're only looking for the birdies and stars to spin around above his head like a Bugs Bunny cartoon?
How many players have had concussions in the NFL? How do you decide who to pull based on a routine play?
The NFLPA made it clear they did not want players to be targeted because it could potentially cost them money and contract length if players with previous concussions could be pulled every time they hit their head.
They specifically wanted the spotters looking for signs. If there are no signs - don’t pull him and the teams and players are responsible for identifying issues afterwards.
-
3 hours ago, benderbender said:
You’re not wrong about symptoms, but look how hard his head hit.
You could say hindsight is 20/20, but not when it’s someone’s job specifically to watch for it. Add to it that it already happened twice this year! You can’t tell me the NFL cares.
Again hitting is head is not a reason to pull the player. The NFLPA was specific in what the independent team is looking for and just hitting you head would pull a ton of players out every game.
They have to show signs - motor impairment, stumbling, looking dazed, going toward 5he wrong sideline or huddle, not looking stable, ataxia, etc. and Tua showed none of that.
After that it is the team and the players that have to help and protect each other.
That play does not show anything about if the NFL cared or not - it was a routine play in this league and was handled correctly.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, benderbender said:
Why bother screaming on Tua’s behalf when the NFL never finds any wrongdoing? Didn’t you get the memo to not believe your own eyes?
The NFL obviously don’t care about his health, his coach throws him back in every time, no independent observers ever catch anything, so the message is: why should you care anymore?
Is the NFL supposed to make up symptoms for the players or identify concussions when there are no signs or symptoms present?
Why blame the NFL for any of this?
Tua was tackled by a normal/routine tackle - got up with no signs of an issue. He meet with teammates and coaches after the play - no one said or did anything to suggest he had a concussion.
The next day he presented with symptoms and the team put him in protocol.
It sounds to me like the team and the league handled it correctly. Now if Tua had symptoms during the game and did not say something - that is 100% on him. If he did say something and the team ignored it - that is on them. Finally, if his teammates thought there was an issue and they did not do anything - well then shame on them for not being there for their teammate and shame on the Dolphins for their culture.
Unfortunately- at this time all sign directly point to everyone handled it correctly and delayed symptoms showed up post game.
-
3
-
Playoff Solutions Assuming they don’t replay the Bengals game.
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
They do have rules that have been posted in this thread.
The issue is the rules state they need to do everything to play the game if possible if it could provide an advantage to other teams. Hence why the NFL is looking at various options.
They must explore options before working with everyone on a solution that per Vincent may not be equitable.
Additionally - they adopted Covid rules to deal with unequal number of games played - switching from record to winning percentage to determine seeding.
None of these have been used, but they are part of the discussion on figuring this out.
Ideally for the NFL is to get the game in, but they will get a huge amount of pushback from the NFLPA and the 2 teams trying to shoehorn in a Bills Bengals game.