Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Loyal BF said:

 

What we tend to forget is that Bills played only 9 minutes on Monday night.  This is their week off.   And if they get the #1 seed, they would get “week 20” off as well.  

 

Not a prefect solution, but a lot better than just declaring the game a tie or no contest, and virtually handing the #1 seed to KC.

 

Of course, KC could do the whole league a favor and lose on Saturday vs the Raiders.  

 

 Give KC the 1 seed. I rather that than give 12 out of 14 playoff teams a bye week. I'm not one bit scare of going to KC in the playoffs. Bad coaching for 13 seconds is the only reason KC was able to win 1 out of the last 3 there.

 

 Monday night was not their "off week" far from it. That was far more draining than any other game they've played in their careers.

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

 

 Give KC the 1 seed. I rather that than give 12 out of 14 playoff teams a bye week. I'm not one bit scare of going to KC in the playoffs. Bad coaching for 13 seconds is the only reason KC was able to win 1 out of the last 3 there.

 

 Monday night was not their "off week" far from it. That was far more draining than any other game they've played in their careers.

 

 

 

 


I don’t know, I think he’s onto something with that whole “KC losing to the Raiders” thing.      
Let’s do that. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
Just now, WotAGuy said:


I don’t know, I think he’s onto something with that whole “KC losing to the Raiders” thing.      
Let’s do that. 

 

 We would still need to beat the Pats and Bengals. I don't think the players want to go back to the "scene of the crime" so quickly. Doing so a few weeks into the playoffs, would at least give them the extra time to process everything that's happened. And not give everyone else in the AFC playoffs a bye week that we don't get. Jmo.

 

In the end it probably doesn't matter either way. They're either going to come out like gang busters and crush everybody or extremely flat and lose.

 

 

 

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

 

 We would still need to beat the Pats and Bengals. I don't think the players want to go back to the "scene of the crime" so quickly. Doing so a few weeks into the playoffs, would at least give them the extra time to process everything that's happened. And not give everyone else in the AFC playoffs a bye week that we don't get. Jmo.

 

In the end it probably doesn't matter either way. They're either going to come out like gang busters and crush everybody or extremely flat and lose.

 

 

 


Not exactly, IF the Rayduhs win Saturday and the Bills beat the Cheats, almost home free for #1. I don’t expect it… but.
If the Ravens further helped out… then home and cooled out.

 

The Cinci game then becomes irrelevant… to the Bills.

Edited by Billsatlastin2018
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

 

 We would still need to beat the Pats and Bengals. I don't think the players want to go back to the "scene of the crime" so quickly. Doing so a few weeks into the playoffs, would at least give them the extra time to process everything that's happened. And not give everyone else in the AFC playoffs a bye week that we don't get. Jmo.

 

In the end it probably doesn't matter either way. They're either going to come out like gang busters and crush everybody or extremely flat and lose.

 

 

 


I thought I read in one of these threads that they can just settle the Bengals game with “a coin flip”. Or “lottery”. Let’s do one of those too. 

  • Agree 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:


I thought I read in one of these threads that they can just settle the Bengals game with “a coin flip”. Or “lottery”. Let’s do one of those too. 

 

  I like how you think!!😏

 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bills!Win! said:

The Bills should start their first defensive play with 10 players on the field and just Poyer as safety in support of Damar

Who did that? I recall a similar play a few years back. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Bills!Win! said:

The Bills should start their first defensive play with 10 players on the field and just Poyer as safety in support of Damar

 

 I'm in agreement with this. It seems like the right thing to do and a good way to honor #3.

 

 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Bills!Win! said:

The Bills should start their first defensive play with 10 players on the field and just Poyer as safety in support of Damar


And Belichick would be like “We’re on to the end zone” and throw a bomb where Hamlin would be. 

  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

Do the Bills bring up Cole Beasley for his 3rd and final call up? Or do they save him in case they have to play Cinci week 19?

I'm curious if there is a replay, do the rosters have to remain how they were when the game was suspended? Or can they Bills call up Xavier Rhodes from PS and/or activate/inactivate different players?

32 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:


And Belichick would be like “We’re on to the end zone” and throw a bomb where Hamlin would be. 

I think the Redskins did this for Sean Taylor

Edited by Herc11
Posted
47 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:


And Belichick would be like “We’re on to the end zone” and throw a bomb where Hamlin would be. 

Probably. But Mac couldn’t get it there anyway. Poyer with a pick 6

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

I'm curious if there is a replay, do the rosters have to remain how they were when the game was suspended? Or can they Bills call up Xavier Rhodes from PS and/or activate/inactivate different players?

Well, they cut Rhodes today, so guessing that's a no.

 

In all seriousness, the discussion has been had elsewhere and we're in uncharted territory.  I don't recall a suspended game ever being resumed at a later date, so no idea what the roster rules would be.

 

I would THINK that, if they were to resume the game, the teams would be limited to who was on the active roster when the game started, but again, that's just my guess and, to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in the rulebook about it, either.

Posted
11 minutes ago, BLeonard said:

Well, they cut Rhodes today, so guessing that's a no.

 

In all seriousness, the discussion has been had elsewhere and we're in uncharted territory.  I don't recall a suspended game ever being resumed at a later date, so no idea what the roster rules would be.

 

I would THINK that, if they were to resume the game, the teams would be limited to who was on the active roster when the game started, but again, that's just my guess and, to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in the rulebook about it, either.

Oh man, didn't see that Rhodes got cut. But still curious how the roster situation would play out. It definitely benefits us if we don't have to carry the same active roster since it will allow us to bring up Marlowe and/or an extra DB.

Posted
1 hour ago, Herc11 said:

Oh man, didn't see that Rhodes got cut. But still curious how the roster situation would play out. It definitely benefits us if we don't have to carry the same active roster since it will allow us to bring up Marlowe and/or an extra DB.

I don’t think anyone would care or expect both teams to have the same exact roster if the game was replayed at a later date. For one thing, it's not even possible, really. Teams make transactions all the time. Injuries happen. Both teams would need to account for that.

  • Like (+1) 1
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...