Jump to content

We're on to Cincinnati(Bengals coming to OP). Sunday 1/22 at 3pm. Opening Line Bills -5


Big Turk

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Key word is IF. The game never happened and the league wasn’t dealing in what if’s. The records were what they actually were. There was a provision for a potential neutral site AFCC game involving CIN and KC (they played a different number of games ) but that went away when the Chiefs won their final regular season game. 

If we beat the Bengals we would've had the #1 seed most likely.  How is it any different than Bengals fans claiming they would've gotten the #2 seed if they beat us?  I'll take a home game but they got the short end of the stick even worse than we did.  KC were the only benefactors.  

Edited by Doc Brown
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

If we beat the Bengals we would've had the #1 seed most likely.  How is it any different than Bengals fans claiming they would've gotten the #2 seed if they beat us?  I'll take a home game but they got the short end of the stick even worse than we did.  KC were the only benefactors.  

Most likely, but the Bills were not awarded the #1 seed even though they actually owned a tiebreaker over KC. Provision for neutral field was only in championship game / playoff game involving two teams that played unequal amount of games. So no neutral field for BUF/ CIN. That may have been different if the records were tied. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Most likely, but the Bills were not awarded the #1 seed even though they actually owned a tiebreaker over KC. Provision for neutral field was only in championship game / playoff game involving two teams that played unequal amount of games. So no neutral field for BUF/ CIN. That may have been different if the records were tied. 

It’s interesting to point out the Bills and Chiefs are both 14-3 right now. I wonder if a “reseeding” was considered? As in, KC gets the WildCard bye but the Bills would be reseeded as 1 by beating Miami.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Punch said:

It’s interesting to point out the Bills and Chiefs are both 14-3 right now. I wonder if a “reseeding” was considered? As in, KC gets the WildCard bye but the Bills would be reseeded as 1 by beating Miami.

Good idea, or perhaps Jax does us a solid and upsets KC giving us back our home field.
 

I’m more confident in us beating Cincy than I am in Jacksonville pulling off a huge upset at KC. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Punch said:

It’s interesting to point out the Bills and Chiefs are both 14-3 right now. I wonder if a “reseeding” was considered? As in, KC gets the WildCard bye but the Bills would be reseeded as 1 by beating Miami.

Maybe , it seems like a lot of things were considered. In the end the league just wanted to “wash its hands”of the Bills/ Bengals game and deal with it only if certain scenarios came about. Other proposals required a complete rework of the playoff schedule or even format , and those were just creating new problems instead of resolving one. 

2 minutes ago, chongli said:

Ugh...just read this on the Bengals forum:

 

"it's been 3 decades since the last time a WC game winner that allowed 30 or more points also won the next week. Teams are 0-7 since then. "

Irrelevant. 3 decades is too far back as the WC format ( and caliber of team) was different. The Bills went 13-3 and would have had the second conference bye in years past. They would not have been playing a Wild Card weekend game. Going back 3 decades is comparing apples to oranges. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chongli said:

Ugh...just read this on the Bengals forum:

 

"it's been 3 decades since the last time a WC game winner that allowed 30 or more points also won the next week. Teams are 0-7 since then. "

 

7 times in 30 years is a small sample size

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Most likely, but the Bills were not awarded the #1 seed even though they actually owned a tiebreaker over KC. Provision for neutral field was only in championship game / playoff game involving two teams that played unequal amount of games. So no neutral field for BUF/ CIN. That may have been different if the records were tied. 

I understand the league's reasoning but it doesn't mean the league was right.  No matter what they did besides actually resuming the game somebody was going to feel more screwed than others.  Heck, even KC fans are whining that they won't get to host the AFC Championship game if we make it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

 

7 times in 30 years is a small sample size

Absolutely, it’s arguably statistically insignificant considering team point totals are wildly out of proportion today compared to 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, chongli said:

Ugh...just read this on the Bengals forum:

 

"it's been 3 decades since the last time a WC game winner that allowed 30 or more points also won the next week. Teams are 0-7 since then. "

That's pry because every WC winner in that span had to face a team coming off of a bye in a six team format.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, chongli said:

Ugh...just read this on the Bengals forum:

 

"it's been 3 decades since the last time a WC game winner that allowed 30 or more points also won the next week. Teams are 0-7 since then. "


Aw man I guess we should forfeit. However…

 

With the playoff expansion things are a little different because you had the one and the two seed coming off a bye to smoke a lower seeded team that played in WC.

 

Also, they probably stopped at 3 decades because in 1993 the Bills comeback game they let up over 30 points and wound up in the Super Bowl again.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, chongli said:

Ugh...just read this on the Bengals forum:

 

"it's been 3 decades since the last time a WC game winner that allowed 30 or more points also won the next week. Teams are 0-7 since then. "

 

To be fair, the Bills didn’t allow 31 points, they freely gave Miami about 21 of those points with self-inflicted errors, they only “allowed” about 10.

Edited by Special K
  • Like (+1) 3
  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I understand the league's reasoning but it doesn't mean the league was right.  No matter what they did besides actually resuming the game somebody was going to feel more screwed than others.  Heck, even KC fans are whining that they won't get to host the AFC Championship game if we make it there.

Agree. The only perfect solution was playing the game. Otherwise there were going to be “ inequities”. I’d have to think that if the situation had occurred in say, the first week of December the game would have been made up. With just one more week to go, resuming the game would have meant delaying the entire playoff schedule or reworking the format altogether. Those ideas were jettisoned in favor of certain adjustments if a few scenarios came about. They did the least amount of modification possible, but definitely not perfect. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

dont forget detectives

Don't forget the geniuses who were telling me, a few hours ago, that we will be playing Jacksonville, not the Bengals.


At least that happy horse doo doo is done with now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Caesar said:



Absolutely did not, even pulled his legs up on the roll.  I will try to post the full speed version.

 

I will point out that there were many posters on the Bengals messageboard on game day saying, if it had been against Burrow, they would be fuming about it and calling it a dirty play. So you should not be surprised about what Bills fans think about it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Protocal69 said:

Hyde is not playing

Remains to be seen

2 minutes ago, longtimebillsfan said:

Given that home teams get -3, that shows odds makers think this game is a toss up.

No, that’s not what it means

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mark92 said:

The difficult part to this game is going to be our secondary.  This game will be a shootout and we are going to need everything Josh has in him to win this one.  

would you rather have Tre as your #1 CB or Eli Apple?  Elam is stepping up.  And Benford is ready to go.  He broke his hand I believe, and that was months ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, longtimebillsfan said:

Not really,  but I appreciate your confidence.

 

Is this topic really worth arguing over?

What they were taking you on for is that Vegas odds makers don’t just give the home team an automatic 3 points anymore. You’re right in that was the practice for a long time. Now, they actually try to use analytics to figure out what the home field is worth in any given game. It’s usually closer to 1.5 but it varies.  Here is a discussion of this:

https://amp.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/nfl-odds-how-much-home-field-advantage-worth-spread

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FrenchConnection said:

What they were taking you on for is that Vegas odds makers don’t just give the home team an automatic 3 points anymore. You’re right in that was the practice for a long time. Now, they actually try to use analytics to figure out what the home field is worth in any given game. It’s usually closer to 1.5 but it varies.  Here is a discussion of this:

https://amp.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/nfl-odds-how-much-home-field-advantage-worth-spread

 

Your argument is very well presented.  My point is it is a very close match up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steptide said:

Seeing what the Ravens were able to do defensively gives me hope for the bills, but they gotta clean up the sloppiness 

I don't think we will get as lucky as the ravens did with the drops the Bengals had.  The over under for this game will be in the high 60's if not 70's.  Going to be an arms race.  Hold on.  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...