OK, I get what you are saying and I get that too. If you look at the URL that you get by clicking on the bottom left link, it's a weird URL that I think is probably an old URL that doesn't update. If you click on the main link at the top of the triangle, it goes to the correct - and current - URL.
Your issue seems to be with Google, not ESPN. Google is the one bookmarking those URLs.
No, but it means they can lose to Bills and still win if they beat Dolphins.
That’s the conundrum when you don’t take care of your own business. That Texans game was an abomination — especially in light of Denver beating them at home by 14 points the very next week.
If Indy is less than 8-8, it ends up Tennessee:
Indy is a gut shot, but those are a pretty easy last two games so if they upset NO tomorrow, who knows? New Orleans can still get the 1 seed with SF losing today so you bet they will be playing hard.
Yup. Saturday is a playoff game. Win it and after all this angst, the team would just need to beat Miami at home to secure a bye.
Breaking ties
Why? If the Bills win out they are 12-4, one game better than the #2 seed Super Bowl winning Patriots of 2018/19.
I think he's so used to the Bills being the butt of jokes that it's causing him great cognitive dissonance to imagine that we might have a serious challenger for the division. Basically, he thinks we should get the AFC East by birthright.
To be clear, the Bills do not control their division destiny, and did not control it entering December. They needed Pats losses to win the division. They still don't control their division destiny. They need the Pats to lose twice.
To be clear, they did indeed control it entering December. Prior to their loss on 12/8 vs the Ravens, and following NE's loss against the Texans, the Bills would have tied the common-games tiebreaker and then won the division on conference record if both had won out, with Buffalo winning the mutual matchup.
Ok so there was 1 week on the schedule where they controlled their own destiny. But entering December they were 9-3 to the Pats 10-1. And then after 12/8 they did not control their division destiny. So they controlled it for a single week.
I accept your apology. If you're going to be a dick and use condescending phrasing to correct people, you best be right. Say what I might about (for example) E5, he checks his work before taking the safety off his posting finger.
Wasn't trying to be a dick. When you wrote "into the month of December" I thought you meant heading into December, as opposed to a point in time in December. I wasn't wrong. But you weren't wrong either. The Bills did indeed control their division destiny heading into last weekend. You were correct on that. I was correct that the Bills did not control their division destiny heading into December.
If Houston wins this week (at Tampa) and the Titans lose to the Saints, the Texans will have the division wrapped up. Would make for an interesting week 17 game - would BOB rest his starters and let the Titans win?
Depends on seeding but unless they have a shot at the bye, why wouldn't they rest some key guys?
Looks like you are correct by virtue of division record. So if Houston takes care of business they may have nothing to play for in week 17, unless they are trying for the off chance of the #3 seed as opposed to the #4 seed.
If the Texans got the 3 seed and the Titans the 6th, they'd be playing each other 3 times in 4 weeks
1943 had the Giants and Redskins face off in 3 consecutive weeks, beginning with two to end the regular season and then a play-in round playoff round to determine the winner of the Eastern Division as both were tied at 6-3-1.
That was the perception, but the Pats played the Colts in Foxboro in January and were a 3.5 point favorite. They had beaten them on the road earlier in the year. If they meet in the title game this year, I doubt the Pats are favored @ Baltimore.
Not so fast. Rewind to 2010. The defending champion Saints end up as the Wild Card at a respectable 11-5, but have to travel to Seattle to play the 7-9 division winning Seahawks.
Re Texans:
