02-14-2018, 06:57 AM
(02-14-2018, 12:35 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Except you conveniently ignore that when we lost in week 17 to the Chiefs, one of the teams with a winning record, that we only played our starters for one quarter (maybe two, but it wasn't long, regardless). Makes us 4-3 against winning teams.
Also, a lot of the teams we beat had great defenses, with three being in the top 5 for yards given up (four wins), and three teams in the top ten in points given up, and not to mention putting up 37 on the #2 ranked D of the Colts.
You did beat some good teams with good defenses that year (namely Chicago and Pit), but you lost to just as many or more (Ind, Jax and Pit). And you also lost to the Bills (29th ranked D).
Also: you bring up the 37 points against the Colts (in a loss) as if it supports your point. But your point was that Carson would've beaten the Steelers because he regularly overcame his own bad defense. And he didn't do that against Indy: he scored a ton and still didn't overcome your bad D. So, that particular example actually supports the opposite point.
Finally, yes, I overlooked the sitting of starters in the season finale. My bad. But why do you give yourself an automatic win there intead of just discounting the loss and saying it's really 3-3? They would've had a legit chance against your starters, yet you write it off as a win. This kind of sums up your 'logic': Whenever there is an unknown, you automatically assume it benefits the Bengals and goes against the Steelers. But this is not logic. It's homerism.
