(01-12-2016, 03:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.

The only way we lose the game after that fumble is if the defense blows it.  Steelers were no where close to scoring position after that fumble

The defense came up big all damn day... How many times do they have to save the offenses collective asses in 1 game.?

Final drive wasnt the Defense blowing it. It was the entire city be let down by a fumble in the redzone with the lead on 1st down in the last 2 minutes THAT is what cost us the game.

All the defense did was keep the game in hand the entire game. With all the turnovers in the 1st half it should have been over then. Instead we are down by just 6.

No this is on the running back who did nothing in the first half and then coughed up the game.

(01-12-2016, 04:15 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: So then when the defense doesn't allow the other team to march down the field and make the potentially game winning turnover they did their job right? Cuz that's what happened if you don't remember.

I don't even understand what that means.

(01-12-2016, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't even understand what that means.

So then when the defense doesn't allow the other team to march down the field and SIMULTANEOULY THE DEFENSE MAKES the potentially game winning turnover they did their job right? Cuz that's what happened if you don't remember



Does this make more sense?

(01-12-2016, 04:17 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: So you're telling me when the offense scored 0 points in the first 3 quarters, and the defense still made it a close game it's on the defense? Amazing logic right there. Just simply amazing.

(01-12-2016, 04:21 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: The defense came up big all damn day... How many times do they have to save the offenses collective asses in 1 game.?

Final drive wasnt the Defense blowing it.    It was the entire city be let down by a fumble in the redzone with the lead on 1st down in the last 2 minutes  THAT is what cost us the game.

All the defense did was keep the game in hand the entire game.  With all the turnovers in the 1st half it should have been over then.  Instead we are down by just 6.

No this is on the running back who did nothing in the first half and then coughed up the game.

So now Hill's fumble is the reason that the ENTIRE OFFENSE struggled earlier in the game?

How is that even possible?

"Derp.  If Hill had not fumbled with less than 2 minutes left we would have scored a lot more points earlier in the game.  Derp." 

(01-12-2016, 04:24 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: So then when the defense doesn't allow the other team to march down the field and SIMULTANEOULY THE DEFENSE MAKES the potentially game winning turnover they did their job right? Cuz that's what happened if you don't remember



Does this make more sense?

No, because the defense DID allow the team to march down the field and score the winning points.

I think it's pretty clear that

MR KRABS!!!!!

is the reason that the Browns lost to the Saints, not the fumble.

(01-12-2016, 04:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So now Hill's fumble is the reason that the ENTIRE OFFENSE struggled earlier in the game?

How is that even possible?

"Derp.  If Hill had not fumbled with less than 2 minutes left we would have scored a lot more points earlier in the game.  Derp." 

What did Hill do that entire game other than get stuffed behind the line of scrimmage, and then fumble the ball at the wosrt possible time? How did Hill do anything for the offense? How is it the defense fault for losing the game when they only have up 15 points when the offense gave up 3 turnovers up until the Hill fumble.

Oh, and stop throwing out strawman arguments. Those seem to be the only ones you have been giving this thread.

(01-12-2016, 04:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, because the defense DID allow the team to march down the field and score the winning points.

You're illogical Fred.

Apparently you don't understand situations and only understand who was on the field last.

I'm sorry you think the Defense has to do their job twice when the Offense can't do theirs once. I would hate to be employed by you.

(01-12-2016, 04:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: What did Hill do that entire game other than get stuffed behind the line of scrimmage, and then fumble the ball at the wosrt possible time? How did Hill do anything for the offense? How is it the defense fault for losing the game when they only have up 15 points when the offense gave up 3 turnovers up until the Hill fumble.

Oh, and stop throwing out strawman arguments. Those seem to be the only ones you have been giving this thread.

If you want to blame the entire offense for not scoring enough throughout the game then that is completely different from blaming one players mistake on one single play.

And it also means you have to blame the defense for the loss to the Cards because the offense scored enough points to win that game.

(01-12-2016, 04:33 PM)GreenCornBengal Wrote: You're illogical Fred.

Apparently you don't understand situations and only understand who was on the field last.

I'm sorry you think the Defense has to do their job twice when the Offense can't do theirs once. I would hate to be employed by you.

I am logical.  You are the one who claimed the defense did not allow the other team to drive down the field and score the winning points.

The offense scored the "potentially" game winning td and then the defense could not hold the lead.

And just like Brownshoe you are now changing the argument.  

(01-12-2016, 04:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you want to blame the entire offense for not scoring enough throughout the game then that is completely different from blaming one players mistake on one single play.

And it also means you have to blame the defense for the loss to the Cards because the offense scored enough points to win that game.

Who said I don't blame the defense for the Cards game lol?

I blame Hill because he played very poorly the whole game and fumbled the ball at the worst possible time. If he played outstanding and averaged 5.0+ YPC and had over 100 yards I wouldn't put so much blame on him, but he played like poo, and made a costly mistake at the worst time.

It's cause and effect....sort of.

Because Hill fumbled, the defense had to go back on the field when they should have been getting a breather....the effect was two penalties....

(01-12-2016, 04:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am logical.  You are the one who claimed the defense did not allow the other team to drive down the field and score the winning points.

The offense scored the "potentially" game winning td and then the defense could not hold the lead.

And just like Brownshoe you are now changing the argument.  

No. I've never changed the argument.

The defense made the "potentially" game winning INT and the offense could not hold onto the ball.

This is where you and I differ, both are correct, just sad you can't see it my way.

(01-12-2016, 04:38 PM)Wyche Wrote: It's cause and effect....sort of.

Because Hill fumbled, the defense had to go back on the field when they should have been getting a breather....the effect was two penalties....

Fred doesn't get this part.

No they're teammates that I would hope have each others back. Acting like something is owed is pity and childish. They all put in their best effort unless that is in doubt it's time to move on.

(01-12-2016, 03:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't.

The only way we lose the game after that fumble is if the defense blows it.  Steelers were no where close to scoring position after that fumble

Defense blows it?  Are you kidding me!  The defense kept them in the game all night, all the offense had to do was run out the damn clock and they couldn't.  They let a HOF QB come back into the game down a point with over a minute left and 3 time outs.  Give me a break about the defense blowing it.  Hell, Vontaze gave them the damn ball back (again) on an INT to just run out the clock.  Please.

Fredtoast and his stupid logic. Hill lost the game but he wants to blame the defense right after they gave the offense the ball. By this logic its simply up to the D to win all games.

(01-12-2016, 04:38 PM)Wyche Wrote: Because Hill fumbled, the defense had to go back on the field when they should have been getting a breather....the effect was two penalties....

The only reason they needed a breather is because they sprinted the full length of the field after the interception like a bunch of dumbasses.

(01-12-2016, 04:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you want to blame the entire offense for not scoring enough throughout the game then that is completely different from blaming one players mistake on one single play.

And it also means you have to blame the defense for the loss to the Cards because the offense scored enough points to win that game.

This says it all right here folks. He wants the entire offense blamed for Hills fumble and wants burfict and Jones blamed for the game? Can it get any nuttier than that?

(01-12-2016, 05:40 PM)Fresno B Wrote: Fredtoast and his stupid logic. Hill lost the game but he wants to blame the defense right after they gave the offense the ball. By this logic its simply up to the D to win all games.

The offense gave the defense the lead and they could not hold it.

This is getting silly.  It started out as a "blame Hill's fumble" and then when i showed how ridiculous it turned into a "blame the offense" which is a completely different argument.


the fact is that plenty of players on BOTH sides of the ball made mistakes throughout the game.  It just so happened that it was the defense that shit the bed last and in the biggest way.

I never said the defense was responsible for winning every game.  in fact IF YOU COULD READ you would know that if Hill's fumble had been returned for a score or gave the Steeler's the ball close to scoring position then I would blame him.  But he didn't.  The Steelers were not close to scoring position when when they got the ball.  So according to YOUR logic it is never the defenses fault for losing a game when they allow the other team to drive the length of the field to score the winning points.