Both division rival games with only one week in between (1 Viewer)

[Jewell]

The Minnesota Vikings played the Chicago Bears Week 12 and then again Week 14.

The Indianapolis Colts will be playing the Houston Texans Week 15 and then again Week 17.

Should the NFL do a better job spacing out the two games between division rivals or is one week in between fine?

One possible argument against playing the two games so close together is that if an impact player on one team has an injury, there may be a greater chance of that player's time missed due to injury covers both games.

 

[Mentos]

Steelers and Ravens also met two times in three weeks.

I like the quirky nature of the schedule.

There have been quite a few cases like this in the past. A couple notable ones-

The Jets played the Bills two times in a row in 1966. The games were spread out over three weeks, though.

The Giants played the Redskins on December 5, 12 and 19 in 1943. The third meeting was a playoff game.

 

[BobbyLayne]

The emphasis on late season divisional games is not accidental. The league stated this was done to discourage playoff teams from resting their starters (since H2H and divisonal records are the first tiebreakers applied).

 

[Jewell]

The emphasis on late season divisional games is not accidental. The league stated this was done to discourage playoff teams from resting their starters (since H2H and divisonal records are the first tiebreakers applied).

Thanks. It's nice to see that there's some method to the schedule makers madness.

 

[spodog]

The emphasis on late season Division games is fine, but playing the same opponent twice in three weeks is dumb.

The NFL Schedule czars should limit regular season matchups to no closer than 4 weeks apart.

 

[spodog]

There have been quite a few cases like this in the past. A couple notable ones-The Jets played the Bills two times in a row in 1966. The games were spread out over three weeks, though.

Not really. The Bills had a game with the Dolphins in between the two Bills v Jets games. The Jets had a bye week in between.

 

[Black Box]

Steelers and Ravens also met two times in three weeks.

One possible argument against playing the two games so close together is that if an impact player on one team has an injury, there may be a greater chance of that player's time missed due to injury covers both games.

And Big Ben missed both games against the Ravens due to his injury which he sustained against the Chiefs the week before the first Ravens game.I like pushing divisional games later in the season, but dislike this scheduling "quirk".

 

[Shutout]

The logistics of an NFL schedule are mind-blowing. It can not be underestimated how many factors have to come together to get a balanced and overall fair schedule that meets all the playing requirments, spaces out bye week considerations, ensures teams don't play too many short-week games, too many extended layoffs between games, everyone gets a prime time game, everyone gets a Thursday game, all the venues are available (because some of these arenas have other events scheduled, city events, etc,) and the list literally goes on and on and on.

so, having something like this happen, asl long as its not ongoing every year for the same teams is beyond fine. It just happened to happen like this, THIS year. In other years it manifests itself in other ways. Like when the Falcons had to play 5 straight road games or some team had to face multiple "travel across the country games" in a row.

For all they do to make this come together and balance the home/away, the relative spacing, I think they do great.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The emphasis on late season Division games is fine, but playing the same opponent twice in three weeks is dumb.The NFL Schedule czars should limit regular season matchups to no closer than 4 weeks apart.

i love how all of Week 17's games are now divisional matchups only. but yeah, playing a team twice in three weeks is dumb. One needs to only look at the Ravens and Steelers playing twice in 15 days and how Roethlisberger missed both games because the three games he missed just happened to bookend those games. That should not happen.

 

[Godsbrother]

Steelers and Ravens also met two times in three weeks.

One possible argument against playing the two games so close together is that if an impact player on one team has an injury, there may be a greater chance of that player's time missed due to injury covers both games.

And Big Ben missed both games against the Ravens due to his injury which he sustained against the Chiefs the week before the first Ravens game.I like pushing divisional games later in the season, but dislike this scheduling "quirk".

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I have always thought the first 3 games of the year should be against your division teams and the last three weeks against them as well....in the middle you take care of everything else....

similiar to fantasy schedules that do this....you play the "more meaningful" games prior to the start of the bye weeks and after they are over, so the divisional games do not have one team coming off a bye versus a team who maybe hasn't had one yet or hasn't had it for awhile....start of the season there is a decent chance all hands are on deck for the first few weeks

wouldn't think it would be that hard if you started with this as a base.....but maybe it is harder than we think...

something just seems very wrong about playing the same team twice in 3 weeks when they are such pivotal games....

 

[SacramentoBob]

I think a more glaring problem is playing favorites for the Patriots in the scheduling. They play 4 teams that were playoff participants last year and 3 of those games are at home. They're expecting these to be marquee matchups in the coming season and give the edge to the Pats. Why is that? I guess it's just a coincidence that the two teams from nicer climates have to play that Pats late in the season in New England too.

 

[Mentos]

There have been quite a few cases like this in the past. A couple notable ones-The Jets played the Bills two times in a row in 1966. The games were spread out over three weeks, though.

Not really. The Bills had a game with the Dolphins in between the two Bills v Jets games. The Jets had a bye week in between.

Read it again. I wrote the Jets played the Bills twice in three weeks. I made no mention about who the Bills played during the middle week. Did you really think I knew this yet was totally clueless about it at the same time. C'mon man!

 

[Ghost Rider]

I think a more glaring problem is playing favorites for the Patriots in the scheduling. They play 4 teams that were playoff participants last year and 3 of those games are at home. They're expecting these to be marquee matchups in the coming season and give the edge to the Pats. Why is that? I guess it's just a coincidence that the two teams from nicer climates have to play that Pats late in the season in New England too.

And at night, too. Never underestimate how much the league loves Robert Kraft.

 

[glumpy]

The emphasis on late season divisional games is not accidental. The league stated this was done to discourage playoff teams from resting their starters (since H2H and divisonal records are the first tiebreakers applied).

Thanks. It's nice to see that there's some method to the schedule makers madness.

No Kidding! I thought it was just an anomaly.

 

[spodog]

There have been quite a few cases like this in the past. A couple notable ones-The Jets played the Bills two times in a row in 1966. The games were spread out over three weeks, though.

Not really. The Bills had a game with the Dolphins in between the two Bills v Jets games. The Jets had a bye week in between.

Read it again. I wrote the Jets played the Bills twice in three weeks. I made no mention about who the Bills played during the middle week. Did you really think I knew this yet was totally clueless about it at the same time. C'mon man!

"in a row" typically means consecutive, with nothing else in between. Could be interpreted a few different ways I guess, but I interpreted it to mean consecutive games, with no intervening opponents, which wasn't the case for the Bills.

 

[Mentos]

There have been quite a few cases like this in the past. A couple notable ones-The Jets played the Bills two times in a row in 1966. The games were spread out over three weeks, though.

Not really. The Bills had a game with the Dolphins in between the two Bills v Jets games. The Jets had a bye week in between.

Read it again. I wrote the Jets played the Bills twice in three weeks. I made no mention about who the Bills played during the middle week. Did you really think I knew this yet was totally clueless about it at the same time. C'mon man!

"in a row" typically means consecutive, with nothing else in between. Could be interpreted a few different ways I guess, but I interpreted it to mean consecutive games, with no intervening opponents, which wasn't the case for the Bills.

"The Jets played the Bills two times in a row..." as opposed to "The Jets and Bills met two times in a row."My initial comment on the matter was from a Jets point of view and it was correct. The Jets played the Bills two times in a row