AP

Bengals linebacker Vontaze Burfict absorbed a three-game suspension for an illegal hit that concussed Steelers receiver Antonio Brown, knocking him out of a divisional round game against the Broncos. As a result of the suspension, Burfict will miss the next chapter in the Bengals-Steelers rivalry.

So was the scheduling of a Bengals-Steelers game in Week Two, during Burfict’s absence, intended to reflect extra punishment for the Bengals?

“I doubt that,” Steelers owner Art Rooney said in quotes published on the team-owned website. “I’m sure the league wanted a game that would be an interesting game for us to open our season at home, and that certainly fits the bill in terms of renewing the rivalry with the Bengals early in the season.”

It would have been much more interesting if it had come two weeks later, in lieu of the Sunday night game the Steelers will be hosting against the Chiefs.

With Burfict due to miss three games, why shouldn’t one of those missed games happen against the team that saw its Super Bowl hopes dashed by not having Brown in a playoff game against the Broncos? Given that Denver couldn’t cover Brown when the teams played in Pittsburgh on December 20, it’s not a stretch to say the Steelers would have won with Brown.

So if anyone deserves to catch the Bengals when they don’t have Burfict, it’s the Steelers. If anything, both Bengals-Steelers games should have been played in the first three weeks of the season.