02-16-2018, 04:32 PM
(02-16-2018, 03:14 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'm the ignorant one and ignore objective reasoning when you're the one claiming that the Steelers would have won that game when the Bengals were set-up to score a TD on the first drive and you don't see every other factor in the game from the injury related to emotion?
Steelers fans are blind to any reality of the world that doesn't point to them being the greatest franchise in the history of sports.
Jags game: The Bengals were also already down 20-10 and on the road when the fumble happened. Not exactly the same as a team's biggest rival on at home in a playoff game trying to win for the first time in the postseason since 1991 and completing getting down there on the first play of the game.
Titans game: On the road, delay of game and then a holding penalty brought it back to the 20, which they still almost scored a TD. Not exactly the same as a team's biggest rival on at home in a playoff game trying to win for the first time in the postseason since 1991 and completing getting down there on the first play of the game.
Cleveland game: late in the game and we were obviously playing conservative because we were up two scores, not trying to be aggressive and score a TD like we obviously were in the playoff game. Not exactly the same as a team's biggest rival on at home in a playoff game trying to win for the first time in the postseason since 1991 and completing getting down there on the first play of the game.
You do research and post it like it makes it a valid argument when you're actually posting misleading facts that actually prove you wrong.
There you go again imagining an argument that I'm not making. I have never argued that the Steelers would have absolutely won that game. I'm arguing that it's not a foregone conclusion that they would've lost. I concede that it is entirely probable that Carson's presence would've led to a Bengal victory. But even some of your fellow Bengal fans in here have pointed out that it wouldn't have been a guarantee. Barring injury, it was a pretty even matchup. Any rational person would understand that point.
But, because you refuse to accept reality, you have to pretend that I'm arguing something more ridiculous (like a definite victory) so that you can feel like you're "winning" the argument.
As for your rebuttals to my examples:
Jacksonville: So your point is that a team that was down by only 10 halfway through the third quarter wasn't really that motivated to score a touchdown from the 21 just because they were on the road? Seriously?
Tennessee: So, if the Steelers do something good (like a 100 yard pick-six), they're "lucky", but if the Bengals do stupid things crucial situations (like commit two penalties from the opponent's 5 yard line) it's what ... bad luck? What difference does it make that it was a penalty? How does that excuse the failure in that situation?
Cleveland: you are factually incorrect. The Bengals were losing that game 14-7 at that point. Look it up (scroll down to get the play-by-play list: Johnson's run occurred at the 10:37 mark of the second quarter and the field goal at 7:42). They ultimately won a close game, but to argue that they weren't really motivated to score a TD from the 5 in that situation is pure foolishness.
In any case, you can't just throw away these examples because they weren't against the Steelers in the playoffs. Motivation can add a little extra "oompf", but to suggest that a professional team puts forth less effort to defeat non-rivals, as you are doing here, is just silly. You will reach for any argument to make your case, regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Bengal Hawk was right - it's comedy gold to watch you pull nonsense out of your butt.
