UKBillFan

I guess Patriots-Bills is the attraction for Sky now it looks like Bengals-Ravens won't be for the division.

The concern with Josh is his ankle. We've seen him be limited with this elbow for a few weeks of the season. Not overly concerned about the rest from a physical viewpoint at this stage, but we'll see what tomorrow's update is like.

I forgot Tua's fencing posture was at the Jungle. It's seen two frightening events this year.

In other words, despite the bye, the number one seed bailed out before then.

So valuable eight of the teams got the bye in the last four years and none of them won the Super Bowl. Mind you, guess the same could be said about Home Advantage! Due to the complex nature of the AFC this year, extending to eight and dropping the bye makes sense. Dare I say it, the NFL will probably see how it pans out before confirming they're returning to seven next year.

I only want number one seed for home field advantage (which might be negated this year in the AFC anyway). I'm not fussed about the bye; the last two years we came out of the regular season bye cold.

Rumoured to be eighth seed added to both conferences.

That's very true. Think Cincy would be pleased to host us. Of course, they may be in the round themselves which could rule it out.

Indy. Don't like the idea of the Bills going back to Cincy quite yet.

I will be slightly smug if they add an eighth seed.

As said, for all intents and purposes we have lost at the Bengals. We have no control over the number one seed through no fault of our own and the benefits which go with it. (Well, I guess it is our fault to an extent; if we hadn't lost to the Jets or Vikings...)

Sorry, misread your original post!

The Super Bowl is the goal. The number one seed is the preferred way to it. However, a number one seed hasn't won the Super Bowl in the last four seasons - actuallly, three of them were won by the number two seed.

I was trying to think back to week three, and whether Wednesday practice was only a walk through after the Titans game. I thought it was.

Now listened back - yes, it's only neutral field if Monday's result may have had an impact on the seedings.

Would like a testimonial game for Damar to be held between the teams as part of the 2023 pre-season.

Sounds like they're cancelling the Bills-Bengals game now; it won't be finished.

It's either/or. Either the AFCCG is played at a neutral venue or the one seed benefits are split between one and two. Seems a bit harsh on the Bengals as they'd still have a shot at number one seed under normal circumstances if the Chiefs lose on Saturday, and they beat the Ravens. As it is, if the Bills beat the Pats, they'll be stuck at three. It's why I think they should extend both play offs to eight teams, scrap the bye and then implement the suggestion that if two of the Chiefs, Bills or Bengals play one another, it should be on neutral field. An issue then is if the Ravens beat the Bengals. I'd be tempted to given the Ravens the AFC North and number three seed in that circumstance on basis of divisional record (would be 4-2 vs 2-4 the Ravens would have beaten the Bengals twice). The number five seed can then be sorted between the Bengals and Chargers, should the Chargers win, on winning percentage.

The relief to see the change of thread title and then to find the original tweet. Very positive news, albeit with some way to go.

If the Bills announce that a load of people from the street will be playing them then barely anyone will turn up and watch. It won't be entertaining, it won't be a spectacle and it wouldn't help the local community that much. I agree with you that, if the Bills decide not to play, then they should forfeit though, and the same time, I don't think the Pats can just be given the win. I think the big sign will be if the Bills undertake a full practice today. If they do, then the game will definitely be going ahead.

Which would mean, even if the Ravens beat the Bengals, they wouldn’t get the third seed. And if both the Bills and the Bengals win, the latter won’t get a shot at first. Or if the Chiefs and the Bills win, the latter wouldn’t get a chance to get to one.

Plus the Bills still trained for the game and went through the usual processes. It wasn’t treated as a bye week.

Maybe I should have said companies and individuals, but my point still stands. It does go deeper into the issues of the world, but being reliant on footfall of one franchise does open up people and businesses to risk. Go back and read my original comment - what happened in Oakland and San Diego? They didn’t (possibly but probably not) lose one game; they lost at least eight or nine a year and, unlike this scenario, there’s no way of it being made up.

The Chiefs and Bengals losing with the Bills winning does not cement the standings - the Ravens would then have a shot at three, if we play and beat the Bengals.

That is sadly a risk for companies which rely on a NFL team to such an extent. For example, what must have happened in Oakland when the Raiders moved to Vegas, or what happened in San Diego when the Chargers moved (back) to LA?