Bengals/Broncos: Bengals can clinch WC

[TeamBoone]

I read the the other day that that assumption came from some blog site after someone witnessed Carson, in practice, acting like his shoulder was injured. It seems he was play acting (goofing off) with guys in practice, and he says his shoulder is fine.

Unless of course there is some new development that I haven't heard of.

Maybe so, but he was listed as "probable" due to shoulder on the injury report.

[macro]

But if the Broncos lose and the Chiefs win, they lose the tie breaker to the chiefs who in turn lose the tie breaker to the Bengals.

That's right! Wildcard tiebreakers between more than two teams are settled within the division first. If KC and Denver tie, then KC wins that tiebreaker out of the AFC West and then "face" the Bengals for the final tiebreaker, which the Bengals would win. It's all a mute point, though, because SF ain't gonna go into Denver and win.

[GAC]

Maybe so, but he was listed as "probable" due to shoulder on the injury report.

So Carson lied when asked about it during practice, and when he laughed and said his shoulder was fine, knowing he could be listed as "probable" due to said shoulder?

[traderumor]

So Carson lied when asked about it during practice, and when he laughed and said his shoulder was fine, knowing he could be listed as "probable" due to said shoulder?

The injury report is not reliable at all for determining a player's health. Coaches play games with it all the time.

[TeamBoone]

So Carson lied when asked about it during practice, and when he laughed and said his shoulder was fine, knowing he could be listed as "probable" due to said shoulder?

I don't claim to know what he was thinking (or said... I didn't hear it). All I know is what the injury report said pregame.

[Dom Heffner]

It's all a mute point, though, because SF ain't gonna go into Denver and win.

They weren't supposed to go into Seattle and win, either.

The Niners aren't that bad.

[Doc. Scott]

They weren't supposed to go into Seattle and win, either.

The Niners aren't that bad.

I also wouldn't call the Niners "good". "Better than Oakland" is about as far as I can go until Alex Smith starts producing something. SF is also missing the suspended Antonio Bryant from its passing game.

I do, however, like KC's chances to beat Jacksonville. That one's something of a coinflip.

[WVRed]

I also wouldn't call the Niners "good". "Better than Oakland" is about as far as I can go until Alex Smith starts producing something. SF is also missing the suspended Antonio Bryant from its passing game.

I do, however, like KC's chances to beat Jacksonville. That one's something of a coinflip.

Frank Gore is pretty good.

[Dom Heffner]

I went back and looked at their schedule. They are pretty bad, actually.

I think I let Frank Gore being good turn into the "Niners are good."

Not the case.

They beat the Seahawks twice, which says more about the state of football in Seattle than it does about the Niners.

[Tony Cloninger]

That easy schedule for bad teams really worked well for the Bengals back in the late 70's-80's and most of the 90's when it was a 4 team division.

They never got the benefit of an easy schedule.

You would see bad teams in 1 division play the other bad team in another divsion AND within the same conference twice. Like if SD finished last....they would play IND twice that year....while bypassing the strongest teams in the other 2 divisions within that conference. They would also get to play the last place team in the other Conference (Like usually the Bucs or Falcons.

Not the Bengals beacuse of that 4 team divsion.

Heck......the worst thing that ever happened was being stuck in a division with PITT.

Why wasn't PITT/PHI/BAL in the same divsion after the merger?

How did CIN ever get stuck with PITT and HOU?

I guess it is kind of like CHI and STL wanting to be together in the same divisions in baseball after 1968.