Looking ahead - Larry Johnson (1 Viewer)

[CrazyHorse1581]

With the Bengals having a playoff spot locked up and no shot at a #1 seed, I'm thinking we may see a heavy dose of LJ in week 16. It's just my opinion, but I'm guessing part of him signing the 1 year deal with Cinci had some kind of gentleman's agreement that he would get significant time in the Bengals vs. Chiefs game. We all know what LJ can do with a chip on his shoulder...

Just sayin' if you have an extra roster spot and think you'll still be playing in week 16 it may be worth a flier!

 

[MNTom]

With the Bengals having a playoff spot locked up and no shot at a #1 seed, I'm thinking we may see a heavy dose of LJ in week 16. It's just my opinion, but I'm guessing part of him signing the 1 year deal with Cinci had some kind of gentleman's agreement that he would get significant time in the Bengals vs. Chiefs game. We all know what LJ can do with a chip on his shoulder...Just sayin' if you have an extra roster spot and think you'll still be playing in week 16 it may be worth a flier!

If they beat San Diego this week, they will have the inside track for the #2 seed. If they, lose they will be fighting to maintain the #3 seed. Either way, week 16 will have meaning for the Bengals.

 

[kd1]

With the Bengals having a playoff spot locked up and no shot at a #1 seed, I'm thinking we may see a heavy dose of LJ in week 16. It's just my opinion, but I'm guessing part of him signing the 1 year deal with Cinci had some kind of gentleman's agreement that he would get significant time in the Bengals vs. Chiefs game. We all know what LJ can do with a chip on his shoulder...Just sayin' if you have an extra roster spot and think you'll still be playing in week 16 it may be worth a flier!

If they beat San Diego this week, they will have the inside track for the #2 seed. If they, lose they will be fighting to maintain the #3 seed. Either way, week 16 will have meaning for the Bengals.

teams never care if they are the 3 or 4 seed.

 

[Abstract]

If I advance this weekend, I plan on starting LJ with confidence against the Chiefs.

 

[The_Fonz]

I have him, didn't play him the one week he did well at cincy, grabbed him off the waiver wire while he was in limbo. I doubt I'll play him but I don't want anyone else to have him so I am keeping him for that reason only....that and just in case Benson gets injured.

 

[ballrific]

I cut him loose, he won't see squat the next 2 weeks, at least not enough to count on.

 

[MNTom]

With the Bengals having a playoff spot locked up and no shot at a #1 seed, I'm thinking we may see a heavy dose of LJ in week 16. It's just my opinion, but I'm guessing part of him signing the 1 year deal with Cinci had some kind of gentleman's agreement that he would get significant time in the Bengals vs. Chiefs game. We all know what LJ can do with a chip on his shoulder...Just sayin' if you have an extra roster spot and think you'll still be playing in week 16 it may be worth a flier!

If they beat San Diego this week, they will have the inside track for the #2 seed. If they, lose they will be fighting to maintain the #3 seed. Either way, week 16 will have meaning for the Bengals.

teams never care if they are the 3 or 4 seed.

Yes, they do. It can be the difference between a home championship game if the 3 and 4 seeds make it to that game. Not very likely but still worth playing for.

 

[kd1]

With the Bengals having a playoff spot locked up and no shot at a #1 seed, I'm thinking we may see a heavy dose of LJ in week 16. It's just my opinion, but I'm guessing part of him signing the 1 year deal with Cinci had some kind of gentleman's agreement that he would get significant time in the Bengals vs. Chiefs game. We all know what LJ can do with a chip on his shoulder...Just sayin' if you have an extra roster spot and think you'll still be playing in week 16 it may be worth a flier!

If they beat San Diego this week, they will have the inside track for the #2 seed. If they, lose they will be fighting to maintain the #3 seed. Either way, week 16 will have meaning for the Bengals.

teams never care if they are the 3 or 4 seed.

Yes, they do. It can be the difference between a home championship game if the 3 and 4 seeds make it to that game. Not very likely but still worth playing for.

no, they don't.

 

[MNTom]

With the Bengals having a playoff spot locked up and no shot at a #1 seed, I'm thinking we may see a heavy dose of LJ in week 16. It's just my opinion, but I'm guessing part of him signing the 1 year deal with Cinci had some kind of gentleman's agreement that he would get significant time in the Bengals vs. Chiefs game. We all know what LJ can do with a chip on his shoulder...Just sayin' if you have an extra roster spot and think you'll still be playing in week 16 it may be worth a flier!

If they beat San Diego this week, they will have the inside track for the #2 seed. If they, lose they will be fighting to maintain the #3 seed. Either way, week 16 will have meaning for the Bengals.

teams never care if they are the 3 or 4 seed.

Yes, they do. It can be the difference between a home championship game if the 3 and 4 seeds make it to that game. Not very likely but still worth playing for.

no, they don't.

Let's see: Number 3 seed in NFC will most likely play Dallas or NYG while the number 4 seed will be playing Green Bay. The way the teams have been playing, I would bet that any team would rather face Dallas or New York instead of the Packers. Currently, the AFC may not have such a distinct example but teams do play for the #3 seed.

 

[CrazyHorse1581]

Let's see: Number 3 seed in NFC will most likely play Dallas or NYG while the number 4 seed will be playing Green Bay. The way the teams have been playing, I would bet that any team would rather face Dallas or New York instead of the Packers. Currently, the AFC may not have such a distinct example but teams do play for the #3 seed.

You need to turn your sarcasm sensor up.My bad for lack of research. I thought they had the #3 locked up without a chance at the #2. I was wrong.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Bengals will probably rest their players in week 17. If they lose to SD, they'll be 10-5, SD will be either 12-3 or 11-4, and will have locked up the #2 seed. While they may be fighting for the #3 or #4 seed, I don't think it will make much difference. The two wild cards will be about equivalent, and Cincy won't have a bye. To the #3 and #4 seeds, having a "bye" in week 17 is huge, since the #1 and #2 seeds will get real byes the next week. Having a chance to rest up before the playoff game is much more enticing than playing one more game (that you could lose) IMO.

Week 16, though, they should play.

 

[kd1]

Let's see: Number 3 seed in NFC will most likely play Dallas or NYG while the number 4 seed will be playing Green Bay. The way the teams have been playing, I would bet that any team would rather face Dallas or New York instead of the Packers. Currently, the AFC may not have such a distinct example but teams do play for the #3 seed.

You need to turn your sarcasm sensor up.My bad for lack of research. I thought they had the #3 locked up without a chance at the #2. I was wrong.

i wasnt being sarcastic. go back the past couple seasons and look. if a team is locked into either the 3 or 4 seed by week 17, they will take that week to rest. you can't control who you are playing. the chances of the 5 and 6 seed being locked up on week 17 without the 3 and 4 seed being decided is pretty much nil. for all you know, losing the final game would get you the team that you'd rather play. the smart thing to do in these situations is to rest up, which is exactly what they always do when the situation presents itself. i am telling you what they actually do. you are telling me what you think they should do. you are wrong.

 

[MNTom]

Let's see: Number 3 seed in NFC will most likely play Dallas or NYG while the number 4 seed will be playing Green Bay. The way the teams have been playing, I would bet that any team would rather face Dallas or New York instead of the Packers. Currently, the AFC may not have such a distinct example but teams do play for the #3 seed.

You need to turn your sarcasm sensor up.My bad for lack of research. I thought they had the #3 locked up without a chance at the #2. I was wrong.

i wasnt being sarcastic. go back the past couple seasons and look. if a team is locked into either the 3 or 4 seed by week 17, they will take that week to rest. you can't control who you are playing. the chances of the 5 and 6 seed being locked up on week 17 without the 3 and 4 seed being decided is pretty much nil. for all you know, losing the final game would get you the team that you'd rather play. the smart thing to do in these situations is to rest up, which is exactly what they always do when the situation presents itself. i am telling you what they actually do. you are telling me what you think they should do. you are wrong.

I went back and looked. Last year's number 3 and 4 seeds all played their starters in week 17. That would be the Vikings, Cardinals, Steelers, and Chargers. And last year, the Steelers and Cards were already locked into their positions and still played their starters. In 2007, all the 3/4 seeds were already settled by week 17, so that year does not matter because nothing was on the line. In 2007, the NFC 1 thru 4 seeds were already settled by week 17. But in the AFC they still had the 3/4 up for grabs and New England and Indy both played their starters the whole game. So I would have to say, that when looking at actual instances of when the 3 and 4 seed is up for grabs the teams will play for it and you are wrong.

 

[kd1]

Let's see: Number 3 seed in NFC will most likely play Dallas or NYG while the number 4 seed will be playing Green Bay. The way the teams have been playing, I would bet that any team would rather face Dallas or New York instead of the Packers. Currently, the AFC may not have such a distinct example but teams do play for the #3 seed.

You need to turn your sarcasm sensor up.My bad for lack of research. I thought they had the #3 locked up without a chance at the #2. I was wrong.

i wasnt being sarcastic. go back the past couple seasons and look. if a team is locked into either the 3 or 4 seed by week 17, they will take that week to rest. you can't control who you are playing. the chances of the 5 and 6 seed being locked up on week 17 without the 3 and 4 seed being decided is pretty much nil. for all you know, losing the final game would get you the team that you'd rather play. the smart thing to do in these situations is to rest up, which is exactly what they always do when the situation presents itself. i am telling you what they actually do. you are telling me what you think they should do. you are wrong.

I went back and looked. Last year's number 3 and 4 seeds all played their starters in week 17. That would be the Vikings, Cardinals, Steelers, and Chargers. And last year, the Steelers and Cards were already locked into their positions and still played their starters. In 2007, all the 3/4 seeds were already settled by week 17, so that year does not matter because nothing was on the line. In 2007, the NFC 1 thru 4 seeds were already settled by week 17. But in the AFC they still had the 3/4 up for grabs and New England and Indy both played their starters the whole game. So I would have to say, that when looking at actual instances of when the 3 and 4 seed is up for grabs the teams will play for it and you are wrong.

roethlisberger played a little over a quarter, and the cards played because they had lost all momentum and rhythm and were risking going into the playoffs at 8-8, and wanted a winning season, after not having one for 20-whatever years. do you consider "playing" to be playing literally 1 snap minimum? if so, go ahead and play everybody. they will all "play". i'm guessing that's not what you mean though, so give it up.

 

[MNTom]

Let's see: Number 3 seed in NFC will most likely play Dallas or NYG while the number 4 seed will be playing Green Bay. The way the teams have been playing, I would bet that any team would rather face Dallas or New York instead of the Packers. Currently, the AFC may not have such a distinct example but teams do play for the #3 seed.

You need to turn your sarcasm sensor up.My bad for lack of research. I thought they had the #3 locked up without a chance at the #2. I was wrong.

i wasnt being sarcastic. go back the past couple seasons and look. if a team is locked into either the 3 or 4 seed by week 17, they will take that week to rest. you can't control who you are playing. the chances of the 5 and 6 seed being locked up on week 17 without the 3 and 4 seed being decided is pretty much nil. for all you know, losing the final game would get you the team that you'd rather play. the smart thing to do in these situations is to rest up, which is exactly what they always do when the situation presents itself. i am telling you what they actually do. you are telling me what you think they should do. you are wrong.

I went back and looked. Last year's number 3 and 4 seeds all played their starters in week 17. That would be the Vikings, Cardinals, Steelers, and Chargers. And last year, the Steelers and Cards were already locked into their positions and still played their starters. In 2007, all the 3/4 seeds were already settled by week 17, so that year does not matter because nothing was on the line. In 2007, the NFC 1 thru 4 seeds were already settled by week 17. But in the AFC they still had the 3/4 up for grabs and New England and Indy both played their starters the whole game. So I would have to say, that when looking at actual instances of when the 3 and 4 seed is up for grabs the teams will play for it and you are wrong.

roethlisberger played a little over a quarter, and the cards played because they had lost all momentum and rhythm and were risking going into the playoffs at 8-8, and wanted a winning season, after not having one for 20-whatever years. do you consider "playing" to be playing literally 1 snap minimum? if so, go ahead and play everybody. they will all "play". i'm guessing that's not what you mean though, so give it up.

I stated that the Steelers and Cards already LOCKED in their seed and they still played their starters. Ben was going to play two full quarters but he got a concussion. In the cases where 3 and 4 was on the line, the teams played their starters for the whole game. WHEN 3 and 4 is on the line, the teams play their starters. The Vikings played their starters the whole game last year and the Pats and Colts played their starters the whole game in 2006. These are the examples where the 3 and 4 seed is being played for. You can ignore it if you want, but the facts are the facts. When the seed is on the line, the teams will play their starters. It just so happens that in the last 3 years the seed has not been on the line very often. You have given no facts, just your opinion. So why don't you give it up.

 

[kd1]

I stated that the Steelers and Cards already LOCKED in their seed and they still played their starters. Ben was going to play two full quarters but he got a concussion. In the cases where 3 and 4 was on the line, the teams played their starters for the whole game. WHEN 3 and 4 is on the line, the teams play their starters. The Vikings played their starters the whole game last year and the Pats and Colts played their starters the whole game in 2006. These are the examples where the 3 and 4 seed is being played for. You can ignore it if you want, but the facts are the facts. When the seed is on the line, the teams will play their starters. It just so happens that in the last 3 years the seed has not been on the line very often. You have given no facts, just your opinion. So why don't you give it up.

you are grasping at straws, making stuff up and embarrassing yourself buddy boy. the vikings didnt even have a playoff berth locked up going into their game in week 17.

 

[MNTom]

you are grasping at straws, making stuff up and embarrassing yourself buddy boy. the vikings didnt even have a playoff berth locked up going into their game in week 17.

I do not feel embarrassed at all. At least I have attempted to back up my argument. You have done nothing. Why don't you show some facts that when the 3 and 4 is on the line, the teams rest the players? In the last 3 years, there are none. You can go back further if you want and if you find them please state them. But until then stop the condescending buddy boy crap.

 

[kd1]

you are grasping at straws, making stuff up and embarrassing yourself buddy boy. the vikings didnt even have a playoff berth locked up going into their game in week 17.

I do not feel embarrassed at all. At least I have attempted to back up my argument. You have done nothing. Why don't you show some facts that when the 3 and 4 is on the line, the teams rest the players? In the last 3 years, there are none. You can go back further if you want and if you find them please state them. But until then stop the condescending buddy boy crap.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271230033Good night, nurse. There's the next instance that I could find, after already shooting down the 2 that you made up out of thin air. don't come on here and give everybody misinformation please.

 

[MNTom]

you are grasping at straws, making stuff up and embarrassing yourself buddy boy. the vikings didnt even have a playoff berth locked up going into their game in week 17.

I do not feel embarrassed at all. At least I have attempted to back up my argument. You have done nothing. Why don't you show some facts that when the 3 and 4 is on the line, the teams rest the players? In the last 3 years, there are none. You can go back further if you want and if you find them please state them. But until then stop the condescending buddy boy crap.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271230033Good night, nurse. There's the next instance that I could find, after already shooting down the 2 that you made up out of thin air. don't come on here and give everybody misinformation please.

Finally, some hard facts. I commend you sir. But you did not shoot down 2 made up out of thin air. The first instance, I stated the Steelers and Cards had their respective seeds locked up and you said Ben played only part of the game. Well that's not part of the argument as the 3 and 4 seed were not on the line. In the other case, I forgot that the Vikings were playing for the division title. It still leaves the status as 2 teams played their starters and 1 didn't in the last 3 years when the 3 and 4 seed is on the line.