Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thspfc]

To add to that . . . I think there’s a solid chance the Chargers job opens up this offseason, which would be a very attractive one as far as head coach openings go. McVay wouldn’t have to move an inch. 

[webny99]

So now it's been 50 years since the last time a team went through an entire season and playoffs undefeated...

And yet, every season, people are still gonna look at the last undefeated team's remaining schedule and be like "they'll be favored in every game here on out! This is the year!" And the reverse with the last winless team.

I was thiiiis close to posting "the Eagles will lose before Thanksgiving" before their TNF game last week. I didn't do it, so I can't take any credit, but I'm not at all surprised. They already had over a month as the lone undefeated team; given the increased parity and the individual game results seeming to become more unpredictable every year, the chances of going 0-17 or 17-0 are extremely slim.

[webny99]

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-power-rankings-week-11-2022-nfl-season

I generally don't take major issue with team rankings, but I do this week. Eagles still at #1 is crazy, the Chiefs should probably be #1, the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime; starting the paragraph about the Vikings with "No matter how this season turns out..." proves that point. In short, I disagree with all of the top five for maybe the first time ever.

[JayhawkCO]

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-power-rankings-week-11-2022-nfl-season

I generally don't take major issue with team rankings, but I do this week. Eagles still at #1 is crazy, the Chiefs should probably be #1, the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime; starting the paragraph about the Vikings with "No matter how this season turns out..." proves that point. In short, I disagree with all of the top five for maybe the first time ever.

I disagree with your assessment about the Vikings/Bills game. Admittedly biased as a Vikings fan, but a lot of the fluky stuff goes away if the Cousins QB sneak goes one inch farther. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the one loss Vikings over the third place in the AFC East Bills.

[webny99]

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-power-rankings-week-11-2022-nfl-season

I generally don't take major issue with team rankings, but I do this week. Eagles still at #1 is crazy, the Chiefs should probably be #1, the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime; starting the paragraph about the Vikings with "No matter how this season turns out..." proves that point. In short, I disagree with all of the top five for maybe the first time ever.

I disagree with your assessment about the Vikings/Bills game. Admittedly biased as a Vikings fan, but a lot of the fluky stuff goes away if the Cousins QB sneak goes one inch farther. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the one loss Vikings over the third place in the AFC East Bills.

But in the (repeated) words of Hanzus himself, this isn't about record. Seven one-score wins by Week 10 is unprecedented in NFL history. It was the rare game where the result that levels each team's record with its season-long performance did not occur. The Vikings were arguably worse than their record while the Bills were arguably better than their record before this game, and now the disparity is even greater. All three of the Bills' losses have been fluky bordering on bizarre -- a lot of the fluky stuff in this game goes away if they take an easy field goal instead of getting overagressive -- there's also this insane stat adding to the flukiness, and the only reason they're third in the division is because of the two division losses, which will have rematches next month.

How many wins have the Vikings had that similarly could have gone either way? I would argue almost all of them. And look at their other games: could the Vikings have beat the Chiefs in Arrowhead, or beat the Titans and Steelers by 35 points each? All 9 Vikings games combined have been decided by a total of 80 points, including 47 points combined (avg 6.7 per game) on this 7 game win streak, while the Bills have a +99 point differential despite those three losses. And the Vikings haven't looked vastly superior to anyone all season, so you can't say yes with a straight face.

All that makes it pretty hard to argue that the Vikings are the better team -- again, not the team with the better record -- than the Bills. FiveThirtyEight agrees, and for what it's worth, the Bills are also well ahead of the Eagles in season-long ELO rating, 1657 to 1611, and Eagles' loss was much worse; in other words, you could have made a much better argument to move the Eagles down the rankings and leave the Bills where they were than vice-versa.

(I really wanted to avoid talking about the Bills, but you got me there...)

[JayhawkCO]

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-power-rankings-week-11-2022-nfl-season

I generally don't take major issue with team rankings, but I do this week. Eagles still at #1 is crazy, the Chiefs should probably be #1, the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime; starting the paragraph about the Vikings with "No matter how this season turns out..." proves that point. In short, I disagree with all of the top five for maybe the first time ever.

I disagree with your assessment about the Vikings/Bills game. Admittedly biased as a Vikings fan, but a lot of the fluky stuff goes away if the Cousins QB sneak goes one inch farther. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the one loss Vikings over the third place in the AFC East Bills.

But in the (repeated) words of Hanzus himself, this isn't about record. Seven one-score wins by Week 10 is unprecedented in NFL history. It was the rare game where the result that levels each team's record with its season-long performance did not occur. The Vikings were arguably worse than their record while the Bills were arguably better than their record before this game, and now the disparity is even greater. All three of the Bills' losses have been fluky bordering on bizarre -- a lot of the fluky stuff in this game goes away if they take an easy field goal instead of getting overagressive -- there's also this insane stat adding to the flukiness, and the only reason they're third in the division is because of the two division losses, which will have rematches next month.

How many wins have the Vikings had that similarly could have gone either way? I would argue almost all of them. And look at their other games: could the Vikings have beat the Chiefs in Arrowhead, or beat the Titans and Steelers by 35 points each? All 9 Vikings games combined have been decided by a total of 80 points, including 47 points combined (avg 6.7 per game) on this 7 game win streak, while the Bills have a +99 point differential despite those three losses. And the Vikings haven't looked vastly superior to anyone all season, so you can't say yes with a straight face.

All that makes it pretty hard to argue that the Vikings are the better team -- again, not the team with the better record -- than the Bills. FiveThirtyEight agrees, and for what it's worth, the Bills are also well ahead of the Eagles in season-long ELO rating, 1657 to 1611, and Eagles' loss was much worse; in other words, you could have made a much better argument to move the Eagles down the rankings and leave the Bills where they were than vice-versa.

(I really wanted to avoid talking about the Bills, but you got me there...)

For the record, I don't recognize the usefulness of Elo when it comes to pro sports because it is based on teams from previous years which have different players, coaches, etc., so the 538 rankings mean pretty little to me. The Bills are going to be higher than the Eagles or Vikings due to a large part their record from last year if nothing else.

As to if the Vikings could beat the Chiefs at Arrowhead? Sure. Why not? They just beat the Bills at Highmark. The Chiefs have lost to the Colts, who are demonstrably worse than the Vikings. They only beat the Raiders by 1 at Arrowhead, a team also demonstrably worse than the Vikings.

For the record, my opinion on the Vikings is not that they're the Culpepper/Moss/Carter Vikings of the past, or even the Favre-led Vikes that should have made the Super Bowl. But cherry picking particular stats just to ignore win loss record and head to head isn't going to convince me. Would the Bills beat the Vikings if they played again tomorrow? Maybe? But all sports, football especially, are conglomerations of talent and skill mixed with some randomness. Adapting to that randomness is the sign of a good team to me.

Tom Brady is considered by many to be the GOAT because he came up big in big moments. The Vikings have come up big in big moments this year, as is evident by your NGS link posted about JJ. Having close games doesn't mitigate the skill it takes to rise to the occasion.

[thspfc]

the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime

If things were different then they would be different.

My top 10 right now would be:
1) Chiefs
2) Eagles
3) Vikings
4) Bills
5) Ravens
6) Cowboys
7) Dolphins
8) 49ers
9) Bengals
10) Jets

this insane stat adding to the flukiness

News flash: great players make great plays. They didn't flip a coin or something to determine whether he caught it.

I disagree with the heavy usage of the word "fluke", because in this context it's a logical fallacy - you're assuming from the go that the Bills are better than all these teams at doing all these things and therefore every time the Bills mess up it must be a "fluke", not even a potentially legitimate representation of the Bills level relative to other teams.

Here's what I will give you: the Bills/Dolphins game was extremely bizarre and is not an accurate representation of those two teams. For Buffalo to gain nearly 500 yards of offense to Miami's 212, gain 30 first downs, have the ball for more than two thirds of the game, turn it over just once, never trail by multiple possessions, only trail period for about 10 minutes, and still lose?

All in all there's still no standout team or few teams to me. The top 4 are interchangeable. Philly beat Minnesota, Minnesota beat Buffalo, Buffalo beat KC, but KC has looked without a doubt the best of the four outside of that loss to Buffalo.

[JayhawkCO]

the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime

If things were different then they would be different.

My top 10 right now would be:
1) Chiefs
2) Eagles
3) Vikings
4) Bills
5) Ravens
6) Cowboys
7) Dolphins
8) 49ers
9) Bengals
10) Jets

I'm pretty close to that exact list, maybe with the Cowboys slotted down a few to #8.

[webny99]

For the record, I don't recognize the usefulness of Elo when it comes to pro sports because it is based on teams from previous years which have different players, coaches, etc., so the 538 rankings mean pretty little to me. The Bills are going to be higher than the Eagles or Vikings due to a large part their record from last year if nothing else.

The preaseason Elo is based on the previous season, but it does factor in changes to the team in the offseason, and also updates after every game result. The Bills have played 9 games, so it's updated 9 times since the beginning of the season. Where they started at the beginning of the season means literally nothing at this point in the season. And the Bills' record last year was only 11-6 - not all that spectacular.

As to if the Vikings could beat the Chiefs at Arrowhead? Sure. Why not? They just beat the Bills at Highmark. The Chiefs have lost to the Colts, who are demonstrably worse than the Vikings. They only beat the Raiders by 1 at Arrowhead, a team also demonstrably worse than the Vikings.

Chiefs-Colts was also one of the most bizarre results of the season. And we did expect the Raiders to be able to hang with the Chiefs: what's happened since has been a major careening off the rails, but their roster and talent preseason suggested they could do it (and they should have won that game). I guess the question is not so much "could the Vikings win?" (of course they could) but "are they a better team?". Nothing I've seen at any point suggests to me that the Vikings are a better team than the Chiefs or Bills... or Eagles, for that matter. And that's not an anti-Vikings take, I just don't think they're better roster-wise or QB-wise.

Adapting to that randomness is the sign of a good team to me. ... Having close games doesn't mitigate the skill it takes to rise to the occasion.

It's a good sign - and of course Jefferson is great and they have other great players - but it's also not necessarily sustainable. Like I said, 7-0 in one score games, especially at this point in the season, is unprecedented.

[webny99]

the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime

If things were different then they would be different.

But it also doesn't mean anything in the context of team rankings. The Falcons lost by 10 to the Panthers, and are ranked well above them. The Saints lost by 10 to the Steelers, and are ranked several spots above them. When an upset occurs and it's a close, one-score game - and sometimes even when it's not, like Bucs-Panthers - it's almost always an overreaction to say that the underdog is now the better team.

this insane stat adding to the flukiness

News flash: great players make great plays. They didn't flip a coin or something to determine whether he caught it.

For anyone that doesn't know, it's a metric that computes the expected probability of a completion based on several factors. Like any metric, it's not perfect, and obviously, there are non-tangible factors too, including the fact that Jefferson is just a great player. But to have 9 in a single game when the previous record was 6? That is insane. You need everything to go your way, and that includes getting lucky as well as just making great plays.

I disagree with the heavy usage of the word "fluke", because in this context it's a logical fallacy - you're assuming from the go that the Bills are better than all these teams at doing all these things and therefore every time the Bills mess up it must be a "fluke", not even a potentially legitimate representation of the Bills level relative to other teams.

No, I don't think everything is always a "fluke". I would not call the Jets loss a fluke, even though I don't think it means the Jets are a better team. I think the Bills are better than all three of the teams they've lost to, and it's largely their own mistakes and lack of adjustments that have led to the losses. In the Vikings and Dolphins games, it was all that and some flukiness - the final Vikings touchdown, for example, and the final play against the Dolphins where they ran out of time to get a potential game-winning field goal off. If they lost by multiple scores and looked inferior for long stretches, I would obviously rethink whether they were the better team.

All in all there's still no standout team or few teams to me. The top 4 are interchangeable. Philly beat Minnesota, Minnesota beat Buffalo, Buffalo beat KC, but KC has looked without a doubt the best of the four outside of that loss to Buffalo.

See, I don't think the Vikings have to be in the top four just because they beat the Bills. The Jets did too, and no one is saying they're in the top four. I'd probably have the Cowboys ahead of the Vikings even despite the loss, and possibly the Dophins too given that they hung with the Vikings without Tua and are much better when he's on the field.

[thspfc]

the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime

If things were different then they would be different.

But it also doesn't mean anything in the context of team rankings. The Falcons lost by 10 to the Panthers, and are ranked well above them. The Saints lost by 10 to the Steelers, and are ranked several spots above them. When an upset occurs and it's a close, one-score game - and sometimes even when it's not, like Bucs-Panthers - it's almost always an overreaction to say that the underdog is now the better team.

But you're grouping a 7-1 underdog beating a 6-2 favorite in the same category of "upset" as, say, a 1-7 underdog beating a 6-2 favorite. Would it almost always be an overreaction to rank the now 2-7 team over the 6-3 team? Yes.

For anyone that doesn't know, it's a metric that computes the expected probability of a completion based on several factors. Like any metric, it's not perfect, and obviously, there are non-tangible factors too, including the fact that Jefferson is just a great player. But to have 9 in a single game when the previous record was 6? That is insane. You need everything to go your way, and that includes getting lucky as well as just making great plays.

As long as we're on the topic of luck: https://billswire.usatoday.com/2022/11/15/buffalo-bills-penalty-overtime-vikings-12-men/

See, I don't think the Vikings have to be in the top four just because they beat the Bills. The Jets did too, and no one is saying they're in the top four. I'd probably have the Cowboys ahead of the Vikings even despite the loss, and possibly the Dolphins too given that they hung with the Vikings without Tua and are much better when he's on the field.

Dallas has serious issues on defense and if given the choice between Cousins and Dak today, I would take Cousins. Very close, but still. I might pick the Cowboys to beat them this week since I think it's a somewhat favorable matchup for Dallas, but in the long run this season I'd have my money on the Vikings.

[JayhawkCO]

As long as we're on the topic of luck: https://billswire.usatoday.com/2022/11/15/buffalo-bills-penalty-overtime-vikings-12-men/

Not to mention the Gabriel Davis "catch" that hit the ground and didn't get reviewed within the last two minutes.

[webny99]

But it also doesn't mean anything in the context of team rankings. The Falcons lost by 10 to the Panthers, and are ranked well above them. The Saints lost by 10 to the Steelers, and are ranked several spots above them. When an upset occurs and it's a close, one-score game - and sometimes even when it's not, like Bucs-Panthers - it's almost always an overreaction to say that the underdog is now the better team.

But you're grouping a 7-1 underdog beating a 6-2 favorite in the same category of "upset" as, say, a 1-7 underdog beating a 6-2 favorite. Would it almost always be an overreaction to rank the now 2-7 team over the 6-3 team? Yes.

The size of the upset is determined by the pregame point spread and how much they won by, not the teams' records. Texans-Giants vs. Jaguars-Chiefs last week is a great example. The Chiefs and Giants had the same record, and the Texans had a worse record than the Jaguars, yet the Texans were much smaller underdogs, since the Chiefs were correctly seen as much better than the Giants.

Interestingly, the last time the Bills and Vikings played, in 2018, is another great case study. The Bills were 17-point underdogs and won by 21. That's probably among the biggest pregame spread to final result differentials (+38) in NFL history. (For context, Titans-Ravens in the 2019 divisional playoffs, which felt like an all-time stunner, had a spread-to-result differential of +25). That type of upset is one that might be reason to rethink things, but a small spread and close final result usually isn't.

[thspfc]

As long as we're on the topic of luck: https://billswire.usatoday.com/2022/11/15/buffalo-bills-penalty-overtime-vikings-12-men/

Not to mention the Gabriel Davis "catch" that hit the ground and didn't get reviewed within the last two minutes.

Forgot about that one.

[Henry]

Needless to say, I'll fork these teams just to put them out of their misery:

Bears, Broncos, Browns, Jaguars, Lions, Panthers, Raiders, Rams, Saints, Steelers, Texans

[JayhawkCO]

Titans over Packers
Vikings over Cowboys
Bears over Falcons
Bills over Browns
Eagles over Colts
Patriots over Jets
Saints over Rams
Lions over Giants
Ravens over Panthers
Commies over Texans
Raiders over Broncos
Bengals over Steelers
Chiefs over Chargers
49ers over Cardinals

[NWI_Irish96]

Bills home game vs Cleveland has been moved to Detroit due to expected mass quantities of snow.

As for my picks, I was a season worst 6-8

Packers
Bears
Ravens
Bills
Commanders
Eagles
Jets
Rams
Giants
Broncos
Vikings
Bengals
Chiefs
Niners

[NWI_Irish96]

I'm not going to be quite as aggressive, I'll fork these teams:

Jets
Browns
Texans
Lions
Falcons
Seahawks

Adding:

Patriots
Steelers
Raiders
Commanders
Panthers

Looks like I'm gonna take a hit on the Jets.

I'm going to add

Broncos
Jaguars
Saints

Adding:

Colts
Rams
Cardinals

[jlam]

I went a brutal 5-9 last week.

Titans 21, Packers 17
Browns 19, Bills 24
Eagles 24, Colts 15
Lions 21, Giants 27
Jets 26, Patriots 21
Panthers 20, Ravens 34
Bears 34, Falcons 28
Commanders 23, Texans 17
Rams 20, Saints 17
Raiders 20, Broncos 23
Cowboys 31, Vikings 29
Bengals 27, Steelers 21
Chiefs 34, Chargers 26
49ers 28, Chargers 21

[thspfc]

I'm late with my predictions, promise I haven't seen the score of tonight's game yet  .

Titans 19, Packers 17
Falcons 27, Bears 17
Eagles 26, Colts 14
Jets 20, Patriots 13
Commanders 31, Texans 19
Saints 24, Rams 14
Bills 31, Browns 20
Ravens 28, Panthers 10
Lions 29, Giants 13
Broncos 22, Raiders 16
Cowboys 28, Vikings 24
Bengals 28, Steelers 14
Chiefs 35, Chargers 21
49ers 26, Cardinals 20

[thspfc]

Here's a look at where everyone's at in our competition. Obviously this is really oversimplified, and incomplete because some of us have a few forks left to do. Playoff odds are from 538, with the top 7 in each conference counted as incorrect forks as of today.

Green = not in playoff position
Red = in playoff position

NWI_Irish96
Lions (+20, 4%)
Jets (+20, 59%)
Browns (+20, 8%)
Texans (+20, .1%)
Falcons (+20, 13%)
Seahawks (+20, 76%)
Patriots (+15, 40%)
Steelers (+15, 3%)
Raiders (+15, 1%)
Commanders (+15, 37%)
Panthers (+15, 6%)
Broncos (+13, 3%)
Jaguars (+13, 3%)
Saints (+13, 5%)
Colts (+10, 28%)
Rams (+10, 6%)
Cardinals (+10, 10%)
Current total: 264
-60 for Jets and Seahawks = 204
Forks left: 1
Average playoff % = 17.7


jlam
Falcons (+20, 13%)
Texans (+20, .1%)
Jets (+20, 59%)
Giants (+20, 75%)
Bears (+20, 1%)
Lions (+20, 4%)
Raiders (+15, 1%)
Steelers (+15, 3%)
Seahawks (+15, 76%)
Panthers (+13, 6%)
Commanders (+13, 37%)
Saints (+13, 5%)
Cardinals (+13, 10%)
Broncos (+13, 3%)
Jaguars (+13, 3%)
Colts (+13, 28%)
Patriots (+13, 40%)
Chargers (+13, 40%)
Current total: 282
-90 for Jets, Giants, and Seahawks = 192
Forks left: 0
Average playoff % = 22.4


thspfc
Texans (+20, .1%)
Jaguars (+20, 3%)
Giants (+20, 75%)
Falcons (+20, 13%)
Bears (+20, 1%)
Lions (+20, 4%)
Seahawks (+20, 76%)
Patriots (+15, 40%)
Jets (+15, 59%)
Steelers (+15, 3%)
Panthers (+15, 6%)
Raiders (+13, 1%)
Saints (+13, 5%)
Cardinals (+13, 10%)
Broncos (+13, 3%)
Browns (+13, 8%)
Current total: 265
-90 for Jets, Giants, and Seahawks = 175
Forks left: 2
Average playoff % = 19.1


jayhawkco
Giants (+20, 75%)
Panthers (+20, 6%)
Seahawks (+20, 76%)
Jets (+20, 59%)
Falcons (+20, 13%)
Browns (+20, 8%)
Jaguars (+20, 3%)
Lions (+20, 4%)
Bears (+20, 1%)
Commanders (+20, 37%)
Cardinals (+15, 10%)
Cowboys (+15, 93%)
Steelers (+15, 3%)
Raiders (+15, 1%)
Patriots (+15, 40%)
Broncos (+13, 3%)
Texans (+13, .1%)
Saints (+13, 5%)
Current total: 314
-120 for Jets, Giants, Seahawks, and Cowboys = 194
Forks left: 0
Average playoff % = 24.2


webny99
Steelers (+20, 3%)
Browns (+20, 8%)
Jets (+20, 59%)
Patriots (+20, 40%)
Texans (+20, .1%)
Titans (+20, 93%)
Falcons (+20, 13%)
Giants (+20, 75%)
Commanders (+20, 37%)
Seahawks (+20, 76%)
Lions (+20, 4%)
Bears (+20, 1%)
Panthers (+15, 6%)
Packers (+13, 12%)
Buccaneers (+13, 83%)
Broncos (+13, 3%)
Jaguars (+13, 3%)
Raiders (+13, 1%)
Current total: 320
-150 for Jets, Giants, Seahawks, Titans, and Buccaneers = 170
Forks left: 0
Average playoff % = 28.7


CoreySamson
Falcons (+20, 13%)
Bears (+20, 1%)
Giants (+20, 75%)
Panthers (+20, 6%)
Jaguars (+20, 3%)
Current total: 100
-30 for Giants = 70
Forks left: 13? 
Average playoff % = 19.6


hobsini2
Jets (+20, 59%)
Texans (+20, .1%)
Jaguars (+20, 3%)
Steelers (+20, 3%)
Broncos (+20, 3%)
Commanders (+20, 37%)
Giants (+20, 75%)
Panthers (+20, 6%)
Falcons (+20, 13%)
Saints (+20, 5%)
Lions (+20, 4%)
Current total: 220
-60 for Jets and Giants = 160
Forks left: 7
Average playoff % = 18.9

Henry
Bears (+10, 1%)
Broncos (+10, 3%)
Browns (+10, 8%)
Jaguars (+10, 3%)
Lions (+10, 4%)
Panthers (+10, 6%)
Raiders (+10, 1%)
Rams (+10, 6%)
Saints (+10, 5%)
Steelers (+10, 3%)
Texans (+10, .1%)
Current total: 110
-0 for nobody (sure hope so  ) = 110
Average playoff % = 3.6



Based off all that I think NWI_Irish_96 is the most likely winner right now. Assuming he doesn't blunder his last fork, I think I'm the only one that can realistically beat him, and I would need the Commanders to make the playoffs. Hobsini2 would have a shot, if he returns to this thread.

[webny99]

Here's a look at where everyone's at in our competition. Obviously this is really oversimplified, and incomplete because some of us have a few forks left to do. Playoff odds are from 538, with the top 7 in each conference counted as incorrect forks as of today.

...

Based off all that I think NWI_Irish_96 is the most likely winner right now. Assuming he doesn't blunder his last fork, I think I'm the only one that can realistically beat him, and I would need the Commanders to make the playoffs. Hobsini2 would have a shot, if he returns to this thread.

The Patriots are currently in the #7 seed in the AFC, but thanks for not counting them as -30. 

I agree NWI_Irish_96 will probably have the fewest incorrect forks, but that doesn't necessarily mean win the competition when you factor in the varying point totals based on when they were forked.

[webny99]

Bills home game vs Cleveland has been moved to Detroit due to expected mass quantities of snow.

The current band of snow coming off of Lake Erie seems to be parked almost directly over Orchard Park, with totals of at least 3 feet expected by the end of the day tomorrow, so moving the game was probably the right decision. (Meanwhile, 80 miles away, there's hardly a dusting.) The Bills also play the Lions on Thanksgiving, so they'll have two games in five days at Ford Field.

[TheHighwayMan394]

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-power-rankings-week-11-2022-nfl-season

I generally don't take major issue with team rankings, but I do this week. Eagles still at #1 is crazy, the Chiefs should probably be #1, the Bills should still be above the Vikings given the insane nature of what had to happen for the Vikings to beat them in overtime; starting the paragraph about the Vikings with "No matter how this season turns out..." proves that point. In short, I disagree with all of the top five for maybe the first time ever.

I disagree with your assessment about the Vikings/Bills game. Admittedly biased as a Vikings fan, but a lot of the fluky stuff goes away if the Cousins QB sneak goes one inch farther. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the one loss Vikings over the third place in the AFC East Bills.

If Cousins sneaks it in and the rest of the game plays out the same after that, it just proves the Vikings made the play in OT and the Bills did not.

[webny99]

Bills home game vs Cleveland has been moved to Detroit due to expected mass quantities of snow.

The current band of snow coming off of Lake Erie seems to be parked almost directly over Orchard Park, with totals of at least 3 feet expected by the end of the day tomorrow, so moving the game was probably the right decision. (Meanwhile, 80 miles away, there's hardly a dusting.) The Bills also play the Lions on Thanksgiving, so they'll have two games in five days at Ford Field.

But don't take it from me:

https://twitter.com/BuffaloBills/status/1593650649329278976