Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-03-2019, 05:42 PM
HeyHomie's Avatar
HeyHomie is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Viburnum, MO
Posts: 9,866

(NFL) Football Question: Would This Be Untoward (Running Gimmick Plays For The Lulz)


Let's say it's the final game of the season. Two last-place teams with nothing to lose are playing in front of a three-quarters-empty stadium. One of the coaches, for the lulz, pulls out every trick play and gimmick play in the book. The Statue of Liberty. The Flea Flicker. A Hail Mary on first down.

Would this be considered untoward by the League? Should either coach be expecting a phone call from the Commissioner on Monday morning?
  #2  
Old 06-03-2019, 09:01 PM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyHomie View Post
Let's say it's the final game of the season. Two last-place teams with nothing to lose are playing in front of a three-quarters-empty stadium. One of the coaches, for the lulz, pulls out every trick play and gimmick play in the book. The Statue of Liberty. The Flea Flicker. A Hail Mary on first down.

Would this be considered untoward by the League? Should either coach be expecting a phone call from the Commissioner on Monday morning?
Likely not, especially if this was in an effort to win the game in the latter part of it.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #3  
Old 06-03-2019, 09:55 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,674
My understanding is that the reason these plays are trick plays is that they don’t work as well as the regular plays if the other team is expecting them. After a couple of trick plays the other team would be prepared and the team using them would be in deep trouble. It’s not just about revealing the trick plays for that game and that the coach is on full tilt. It also means that the other teams would have more material to study for next season’s games. It probably wouldn’t be the NFL commissioner calling on Monday morning, it would be the team’s owner handing the coach his pink slip.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 06-03-2019 at 09:56 PM.
  #4  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:31 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,793
Why would the owner complain? The owner doesn't care if the team wins or loses; they care if the team draws a lot of eyeballs (buying tickets or watching ads on TV). And for a team who's not drawing eyeballs by playing good football, running a bunch of crazy stunt plays probably would help.
  #5  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:38 AM
Railer13 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,632
A Hail Mary, by definition is a desperation pass thrown to the end zone at the end of each half with little time on the clock. Thus, 'A Hail Mary on first down' isn't really possible. And deep passes on first down are certainly not uncommon.

And, judging by the OP's link, the flea-flicker isn't really uncommon, either. Yes, it's a trick play, but it's also one that's seen several times each season. And I would guess that if it's run more than once in a game, the defense will be prepared for it.

I will grant that the Statue of Liberty is an uncommon trick play, although the execution of the play has to be perfect for it to work. And once it's been successfully run in a game, it probably won't work again.

Although it would certainly be entertaining if a team tried a gimmick play on each snap. It would certainly make the highlights on ESPN, whereas a 'normal' meaningless game probably wouldn't get a second look.
  #6  
Old 06-04-2019, 10:52 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,419
Trick plays aren’t all that rare. Remember the Philly Special?
  #7  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:10 AM
AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,095
Tricks by their very nature only work when the opposition is not expecting them.
  #8  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:17 AM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Why would the owner complain? The owner doesn't care if the team wins or loses; they care if the team draws a lot of eyeballs (buying tickets or watching ads on TV). And for a team who's not drawing eyeballs by playing good football, running a bunch of crazy stunt plays probably would help.
I'm as cynical as the next guy, but I do think the owners prefer winning to not winning.

The seem to care about 1) money, 2) winning/ego, and 3) massages.
  #9  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:18 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,367
Those are all real plays. If they work they gain yards or points. There's nothing wrong with any of them in any game. The league doesn't care. The coach may feel some blowback if they don't work in other games, but in the scenario described in the OP the coach's fate was likely decided already by the team's last place position.
  #10  
Old 06-04-2019, 11:59 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
I'm as cynical as the next guy, but I do think the owners prefer winning to not winning.
If the season's a bust anyway, additional losses only make your drafting position better.
  #11  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:06 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Why would the owner complain? The owner doesn't care if the team wins or loses; they care if the team draws a lot of eyeballs (buying tickets or watching ads on TV).
Um...this is not correct. Owners do, in fact, care about winning. They fire coaches for not winning, or not improving the team. They hire new coaches, better players, upgrade facilities, etc...all because they want to win.
  #12  
Old 06-04-2019, 12:35 PM
Ike Witt's Avatar
Ike Witt is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Tricks by their very nature only work when the opposition is not expecting them.
Starting the game with an on-side kick, for instance.
  #13  
Old 06-04-2019, 03:00 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,793
Owners care about winning only because winning is usually the most reliable way to get eyeballs and hence dollars. But there's not much dollar difference between being the worst team and being the second-worst team, so you might as well try something gimmicky.

Wasn't Bill Veeck famous for running crazy stunts? Granted, that was baseball, not football, but the principles involved are the same.
  #14  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:51 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Owners care about winning only because winning is usually the most reliable way to get eyeballs and hence dollars. But there's not much dollar difference between being the worst team and being the second-worst team, so you might as well try something gimmicky.

Wasn't Bill Veeck famous for running crazy stunts? Granted, that was baseball, not football, but the principles involved are the same.
Veeck sent a dwarf to bat thinking he would draw a walk and he did. But then baseball told him not to do that again.
  #15  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:01 PM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 100 miles N. of Chicago
Posts: 1,522
I bet some number crunchers would enjoy dissecting this. See how well various trick plays work in real action if the defense/return team is aware that at minimum the premeditated option for one exists every single play.
  #16  
Old 06-05-2019, 10:43 AM
mcgato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Hoboken
Posts: 1,349
It was pre-season, but the Minnesota Vikings tried multiple on-side kicks in a game back in the 1980s. I think there were penalties on a couple of them, but the Vikings tried the on-side kick again anyway. I seriously doubt that would have happened in a regular season game, but it was a chuckle at the time.
  #17  
Old 06-05-2019, 11:14 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Owners care about winning only because winning is usually the most reliable way to get eyeballs and hence dollars. .
No. You obviously know nothing about sports. Why do you keep opining on things you don't understand? Owners like to win. This is not rocket science.
  #18  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:05 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 83,793
What do sports have to do with it? Sports teams owners aren't in sports; they're in business. And in business, owners like to make money.
  #19  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:26 PM
storyteller0910 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
What do sports have to do with it? Sports teams owners aren't in sports; they're in business. And in business, owners like to make money.
I feel like, as with most generalizations about groups of people, you're both wrong. And both right. There are definitely owners who care much more about winning than about their bottom lines: Jerry Jones, Mark Cuban, Original Recipe George Steinbrenner. There are owners who view their team as a business, and care about winning only insofar as it affects income: Bill Bidwell, Jeff Loria. There are owners who are actual aliens from another planet: James Dolan. And there are a lot of guys who fall somewhere in the middle.
  #20  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:33 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
What do sports have to do with it? Sports teams owners aren't in sports; they're in business. And in business, owners like to make money.
For the third time, you do not know what you are talking about.
  #21  
Old 06-05-2019, 12:49 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
For the third time, you do not know what you are talking about.
Some owners only care about the bottom line. Some care deeply about winning over all else. Most are somewhere in between.
  #22  
Old 06-05-2019, 01:48 PM
Ike Witt's Avatar
Ike Witt is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
For the third time, you do not know what you are talking about.
To be honest, it isn't clear that you know what you are talking about either. James Dolan has been mentioned. How about Donald Sterling? Neither of them made moves towards winning a championship. In fact, you could probably say that Sterling went out of his way to make sure the Clippers were not a good team.
Harold Ballard never did anything to ensure the Leafs were competitive but he loved the money they generated.
  #23  
Old 06-05-2019, 02:10 PM
Railer13 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Witt View Post
To be honest, it isn't clear that you know what you are talking about either. James Dolan has been mentioned. How about Donald Sterling? Neither of them made moves towards winning a championship. In fact, you could probably say that Sterling went out of his way to make sure the Clippers were not a good team.
Harold Ballard never did anything to ensure the Leafs were competitive but he loved the money they generated.
David Glass took over as CEO of the Kansas City Royals in 1993, and became sole owner in 2000. His first move in 1993 was to cut the payroll from 41 million to 19 million. Under his ownership, the Royals have had exactly 4 winning seasons. Their 2015 championship team has been gutted, and they currently are tied for the worst record in baseball.
  #24  
Old 06-05-2019, 02:37 PM
dzeiger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Frisco, Tx
Posts: 1,667
Even with the "owners like to win" mentality, is there really going to be that much of a difference between going 3-13 and 4-12?
  #25  
Old 06-05-2019, 02:52 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 14,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by dzeiger View Post
Even with the "owners like to win" mentality, is there really going to be that much of a difference between going 3-13 and 4-12?
For most, probably not.

And, barring it being a first-year head coach, and/or a team that's acknowledging that it's in rebuilding mode, either of those records are likely indicators of a coach that's about to be shown the door anyway.
  #26  
Old 06-05-2019, 03:44 PM
Freddy the Pig is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 7,956
This whole discussion is based on a false premise because owners don't hire and fire coaches, general managers do. General managers are unlikely to look kindly on a coach that turns even a meaningless game into a joke. The coach would be saying in effect, "The talent the GM gave me is such crap that this game will be a joke anyway so we may as well treat it as one. Screw player development, screw player evaluation, this is a joke." This is not a message designed to appeal either to the incumbent GM or to future GM's that may be in a position to hire the coach.
  #27  
Old 06-05-2019, 06:05 PM
gdave is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 202
I suspect a head coach who tried this would get a call from the players' union, possibly before the game was even played when the players saw the game plan.

Football is a dangerous, violent sport. Players risk their health and careers on every single play. It's deeply ingrained in the culture of the sport that players should still go all out and take such risks even in meaningless games in an effort to win the game. I rather suspect the players, and their union, would take a much dimmer view of taking such risks in order to execute plays just for the lulz.

Also, at least some players would most likely have performance-based bonuses at stake. Again, it's ingrained in the culture of the sport (but not as deeply) that players should accept diminished roles and possibly missing out on performance bonuses due to coaching decisions made in a genuine effort to win a game. But due to to coaching decisions made just for the lulz? If any players missed out on any significant performance bonuses, I'd expect union grievances and lawsuits.

And yeah, I'd expect a call from the commissioner's office. It would probably be seen by traditionalists as an insult to the dignity of the game. More importantly, it would be probably be seen as a blatant attempt to tank in order to secure a better draft position. There's no doubt NFL teams do deliberately tank, but they usually try to have at least a vaguely plausible cover (evaluating and developing young talent with real game experience, typically). I doubt the NFL would be as willing to look the other way for a team that just ran deliberately silly plays.
  #28  
Old 06-05-2019, 11:36 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig View Post
This whole discussion is based on a false premise because owners don't hire and fire coaches, general managers do. General managers are unlikely to look kindly on a coach that turns even a meaningless game into a joke. The coach would be saying in effect, "The talent the GM gave me is such crap that this game will be a joke anyway so we may as well treat it as one. Screw player development, screw player evaluation, this is a joke." This is not a message designed to appeal either to the incumbent GM or to future GM's that may be in a position to hire the coach.
That’s not even close to being universally true. In many cases the GM and HC are on equal footing in the front office (like Seattle). Or if you’re Bill Belichick, you are both HC and GM in one person. You seem under the impression that there’s this clear hierarchy in the NFL and all HCs report to GMs. It’s going to vary from team to team.
  #29  
Old 06-06-2019, 08:38 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,378
IANAFootballFan, but why not?

Never change a winning game, always change a losing one. If both teams are 3-12, what they have been doing so far isn't winning. At worse, you've made your last loss entertaining. At best, you're 4-12. You can't do it all the time, but the last game of the season when you aren't going to the playoffs isn't "all the time". Send in your second-stringers, try a triple lateral, pull the plucky but under-sized yet hard-working water boy and send him in after playing a montage of training scenes on the stadium screen with the theme from "Rocky" playing in the background.

Sport is spectacle. The season has been tragedy - might as well let it become farce.

Regards,
Shodan
  #30  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:15 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
No. You obviously know nothing about sports. Why do you keep opining on things you don't understand? Owners like to win. This is not rocket science.
I assume most do, but not all- Donald Sterling pretty much admitted he was fine with the Clippers losing for twenty years because the payroll was low and he made a profit each year.
  #31  
Old 06-07-2019, 06:11 PM
MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,881
Somewhat related question... has there been a situation where it's the final game of the season, and the two teams are both playoff-bound, and both have their seeds 100% locked up. So winning and losing matter literally not at all. I'd imagine that both teams would rest all their starters, and, heck, why even risk injuring backups, and you'd get the most boring, tepid football imaginable. And presumably the league would not be happy with that.
__________________
This post is merely corroborative detail, intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
  #32  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:29 PM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,771

(NFL) Football Question: Would This Be Untoward (Running Gimmick Plays For The Lulz)


It would be a bad idea for several reasons. Even the worst team wants to win even the last game of the season so it’s bad for morale.

Yes there’s a call from the Commissioner because the NFL is serious business with billions of dollars on the line and does not like to look ridiculous.

Finally, it might be bad for the future of the team. This final game might be a way to yes try a few new plays, but maybe sit some starting players and give bench players some reps. For bad teams Game 16 is the first pre-season game for the next year so why not practice the basic schemes rather than clown around?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by russian heel; 06-09-2019 at 08:33 PM.
  #33  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:31 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Somewhat related question... has there been a situation where it's the final game of the season, and the two teams are both playoff-bound, and both have their seeds 100% locked up. So winning and losing matter literally not at all. I'd imagine that both teams would rest all their starters, and, heck, why even risk injuring backups, and you'd get the most boring, tepid football imaginable. And presumably the league would not be happy with that.
The last week of NFL football always involves division rivals playing each other. So your scenario can’t happen. It’s impossible for two teams in the same division to have the #1 seed.

The closest would be if one team had the #1 seed locked up and the other was so bad it had last place locked up. Then both teams might not care. But... Division rivals tend to get feisty no matter what. Which might be why the NFL schedules that way.
  #34  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:32 PM
russian heel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,771
Also, trick plays don’t work as well if the other teams know when you are going to run them and what they are. Why reveal all of them to the rest of the league in a meaningless game?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #35  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:45 PM
Railer13 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
The last week of NFL football always involves division rivals playing each other. So your scenario can’t happen. It’s impossible for two teams in the same division to have the #1 seed.

The closest would be if one team had the #1 seed locked up and the other was so bad it had last place locked up. Then both teams might not care. But... Division rivals tend to get feisty no matter what. Which might be why the NFL schedules that way.
That wasn't what MaxTheVool asked. He said "the two teams are both playoff-bound, and both have their seeds 100% locked up." This absolutely could happen, even if both teams are in the same division. It's not uncommon for multiple seeds to be locked in with a game to play, even if two playoff-bound teams happen to be playing each other in the final week.
  #36  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:39 AM
MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
That wasn't what MaxTheVool asked. He said "the two teams are both playoff-bound, and both have their seeds 100% locked up." This absolutely could happen, even if both teams are in the same division. It's not uncommon for multiple seeds to be locked in with a game to play, even if two playoff-bound teams happen to be playing each other in the final week.
Right. I've read occasionally about late-season NBA games where all the starters were rested, and, assuming I'm not just totally pulling this out of my ass, the league ended up fining the teams or something, because of course the aim of the league is to provide an entertaining product. It seems like a much bigger deal in the NFL in both directions, because the incentive to rest all the valuable players is much higher as the risk of injury is higher, but at the same time, not getting to see a "real game" when the season is so much shorter seems like a bigger blow to the fans as well. On the other hand, what would stop both teams from tacitly agreeing to just not really try very hard, no rough tackling, yada yada yada?
__________________
This post is merely corroborative detail, intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
  #37  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:47 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Right. I've read occasionally about late-season NBA games where all the starters were rested, and, assuming I'm not just totally pulling this out of my ass, the league ended up fining the teams or something, because of course the aim of the league is to provide an entertaining product. It seems like a much bigger deal in the NFL in both directions, because the incentive to rest all the valuable players is much higher as the risk of injury is higher, but at the same time, not getting to see a "real game" when the season is so much shorter seems like a bigger blow to the fans as well. On the other hand, what would stop both teams from tacitly agreeing to just not really try very hard, no rough tackling, yada yada yada?
The OP is not talking about teams laying off and not competing. He's talking about actual football plays which can work, and do provide plenty of entertainment. And even knowing that a team is going to attempt some trick play doesn't help that much if they don't know what it is. The OP doesn't mention any tacit agreement either, it's just one coach calling these plays.

On top of all that, the team with all the 'trick' plays might win. If that happens a coach of a last place team may just save his job.
  #38  
Old 06-10-2019, 12:50 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,278
OP would have been a Jack Patera fan.
  #39  
Old 06-10-2019, 01:17 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Railer13 View Post
That wasn't what MaxTheVool asked. He said "the two teams are both playoff-bound, and both have their seeds 100% locked up." This absolutely could happen, even if both teams are in the same division. It's not uncommon for multiple seeds to be locked in with a game to play, even if two playoff-bound teams happen to be playing each other in the final week.
I doubt this very much. For two playoff-bound teams in the same division to have their seed “locked” before the end of the season, that’s such a tall order. I doubt that this has ever or would ever happen with the way that schedules and the playoff seeding format work in the NFL.

So do you mean, say, the Steelers are undefeated at 15-0 and the next-highest team to win its division is at 13-2? And they are playing the Browns in Week 17 who are at 13-2, and the next-best team that is a wild card contender is 11-4?

So the Steelers are guaranteed to have the #1 overall seed, and the Browns are guaranteed to have the higher wild card spot and play whoever is the #4 seed as a wild card.

I guess something like that is possible, but it depends a lot on what is happening in the rest of the AFC. I’d be surprised to ever see that. And again, I expect both teams to still want to rip each others’ throats out (going back to the subject of running trick plays because “whatever”).
  #40  
Old 06-10-2019, 06:55 PM
Railer13 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I doubt this very much. For two playoff-bound teams in the same division to have their seed “locked” before the end of the season, that’s such a tall order. I doubt that this has ever or would ever happen with the way that schedules and the playoff seeding format work in the NFL.

So do you mean, say, the Steelers are undefeated at 15-0 and the next-highest team to win its division is at 13-2? And they are playing the Browns in Week 17 who are at 13-2, and the next-best team that is a wild card contender is 11-4?

So the Steelers are guaranteed to have the #1 overall seed, and the Browns are guaranteed to have the higher wild card spot and play whoever is the #4 seed as a wild card.

I guess something like that is possible, but it depends a lot on what is happening in the rest of the AFC. I’d be surprised to ever see that. And again, I expect both teams to still want to rip each others’ throats out (going back to the subject of running trick plays because “whatever”).
Just because I'm a stubborn bastard...

In 2012, after Week 16, the Baltimore Ravens had a record of 10-5 and had clinched the AFC North. They could not improve their position and were locked in as the #4 seed. The Cincinnati Bengals had a record of 9-6 and had clinched the second wild-card berth. They couldn't improve their position and were locked in as the #6 seed.

The Bengals hosted the Ravens in Week 17 and won the game 23-17. Both teams played their backups most of the game. With the win, the Bengals finished 10-6, same record as the Ravens, but Baltimore won the division.

So there were two teams from the same division, both playoff-bound, and both locked in to their playoff seeds. And they both played their second-stringers.

Here's a recap of the game:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/recap?gameId=321230004
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017