Bills/ Bengals [cancelled - process in OP]

[cmh6476]

In case anyone needs it spelled out, we would play at a neutral site if the AFCCG ends up being Chiefs vs. Bills. All other scenarios abide by the usual rules (so any other game the Chiefs play will be at home).

Old posts:

Spoiler!

The NFL will consider a neutral site for the AFC Championship Game. Full details: pic.twitter.com/oi3fItUWIj

— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) January 6, 2023

Breaking News: Of course the game is secondary to #DamarHamlin’s health, but #Bills insider @viccarucci just reported on @wgrz Daybreak that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell will make the call on rescheduling the Bills/Bengals game and it would have to be played within 2 days.

— Melissa Holmes (@2MelissaHolmes) January 3, 2023

There is another option according to @viccarucci - the league can add a 19th week so the Bills/Bengals can get in all their games. @wgrz https://t.co/1X1hCHVN8c

— Melissa Holmes (@2MelissaHolmes) January 3, 2023

I assume we'll hear something soon

After speaking with both teams and NFLPA leadership, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell informed the clubs today that the Bills-Bengals game will not be resumed this week.

The NFL has made no decision regarding the possible resumption of the game at a later date.

— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) January 3, 2023

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

I was gonna say me and that Bills poster on here could sword fight with our pork swords to see who gets home field

Do you talk about penises constantly in real life or is this just a thing you do on ChiefsPlanet

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by DTVietnam

ok I think thats most important suck about the AFFCG home field but the bye is important

the homefield advantage didnt help us last year up by 20 . .and we play great on the road. .

the Bye is huge...

hopefully the chargers lose their first playoff game

We only go to a neutral field if we win and the Bills win this weekend.

We would get Cincinnati at Arrowhead.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Unless the Chiefs or Bills blow it this weekend, this is probably gonna be the divisional rd:

LAC @ KC
CIN @ BUF

I'd say its pretty much a coin flip we get either the Jags or the Chargers should that be the matchup.

But ideally, the Bills lose the first game and we get that scrub while the Chargers and Bengals have to play each other.

[TwistedChief]

Just want to clarify:

Do people think Clark is voting in favor of this or against it because of some crazy idea that the Chiefs got screwed here?

I figured we were all on board with the former but I want to make sure as this thread has been extra spicy.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by DRM08

Stidham is trying to prove himself both with the Raiders and other teams around the league for his next contract. I don’t think he will be tanking.

I think there's a pretty good chance Jacobs doesn't play. He's questionable and really there's no reason to run him out there. He's also due for a contract I think so he probably doesn't have a lot of interest in playing.

[DTVietnam]

to be honest this actually favors the Chiefs...

pewrsonally think the Bills wouldve beat the Bengals. .

so we got gifted a bye. . in that scenario. .

but I hope we can keep our eye on the prize and curb stomp the Raidfers Saturday

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

It’s not convenient for anyone if it didn’t benefit the Bills last AFCCG and if it doesn’t favor anyone going forward. Now who’s being obtuse?

JFC man yes you're absolutely still being obtuse.

It's not about it not benefiting the Bills going forward.

It's about the fact that the Bills cried like babies and everybody screamed about how unfair it was with them THEN something got done.

It happened just two years prior in the SAME exact way in a game EVERYBODY was watching and NOBODY gave a ****.

You are absolutely being obtuse by not seeing the clear differences, and the fact that you're acting like when it happened to the Chiefs was also part of the reason something finally got done is hilariously reeruned.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by DRM08

Stidham is trying to prove himself both with the Raiders and other teams around the league for his next contract. I don’t think he will be tanking.

Sure. But that doesn't necessarily go for everyone else.

Going back to the 90s, the Raiders are always a good bet to pack it in this late in the season if they're out of it. They've got vacations planned. Who wants to get injured right before that in a meaningless game?

They've never shown that divisional pride late in the season, when they're out of it, like the Broncos and Chargers do sometimes.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

Obviously, the change benefits everyone going forward, but yeah, can’t imagine why I would think anyone was trying to accommodate the Bills.

I offered my reasons what was different this time.

How do you compare that versus the prior experience?

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by DTVietnam

to be honest this actually favors the Chiefs...

pewrsonally think the Bills wouldve beat the Bengals. .

so we got gifted a bye. . in that scenario. .

but I hope we can keep our eye on the prize and curb stomp the Raidfers Saturday

The Bills minus 2 starting dbacks were not beating the Bengals if that game resumes...

[Monty]

Originally Posted by ArrowHeader

Neutral site proposal? What a ****ing joke. Play it in Dallas if that’s the case.

This works!

[jettio]

I predict that the owners approve the plan after an amendment that says Bills v. Bengals in Divisional can be neutral site because Bengals lost opportunity to give Bills a 4th loss so that teams would end up with a tie with Bengals winning head to head tiebreaker.

The rationale that Bills and Bengals lost opportunity to match the Chiefs record and win tiebreaker should also apply to Bengals Bills in Divisional if both win week 19 games.

I predict it passes after amended to say if Bills and Bengals win week 19 and wildcard games so that they are the 2 v. 3 matchup in Divisional, that game is at neutral site.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Just want to clarify:

Do people think Clark is voting in favor of this or against it because of some crazy idea that the Chiefs got screwed here?

I figured we were all on board with the former but I want to make sure as this thread has been extra spicy.

I do not think they would have announced it if the owners were not all on board--the vote is just a formality.

Clark is too much of a gentleman to vote no. The Ravens/Bengals...I could see both of those teams maybe voting no...

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by DTVietnam

to be honest this actually favors the Chiefs...

pewrsonally think the Bills wouldve beat the Bengals. .

so we got gifted a bye. . in that scenario. .

but I hope we can keep our eye on the prize and curb stomp the Raidfers Saturday

Absolutely baseless. Nothing about how that game started should make you think that.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by staylor26

JFC man yes you're absolutely still being obtuse.

It's not about it not benefiting the Bills going forward.

It's about the fact that the Bill cried like babies and everybody screamed about how unfair it was THEN something got done.

It happened just two years prior in the SAME exact way in a game EVERYBODY was watching and NOBODY gave a ****.

You are absolutely being obtuse by not seeing the clear differences, and the fact that you're acting like what happens to the Chiefs was part of the reason something finally got done is hilariously reeruned.

If something happens once, people ignore it as it feels like a one-off. If something happens 2 times in 4 seasons, it feels like something that needs to be addressed. Especially as the first time involved Tom ****ing Brady who gets a free pass from everything and the second time involved the greatest game of our lifetimes.