Are The Steelers Good or Just Lucky?

[BFritz21]

(02-19-2018, 09:50 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Actually, I’d rather go back to this one: was Pat right?  Because if not, the Pats were, in fact, lucky that Seattle made a bad call.  And if it wasn't a bad call, you find yourself agreeing with Pat and admitting you were wrong.  You can't have it both ways.  Which do you choose?

False.  It can be both a bad play call but a good play, also.

It was a horrible play call, but at least Butler had to make a play on it, whereas Harrison's interception was thrown right to him.  There's also a difference between Russel throwing it to the outside in single coverage versus Warner throwing it to the middle of the field within 5 or 10 yards.

(02-19-2018, 09:50 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Also, with respect to the Titans-Rams: let's take height out of the equation.  After watching it again, it wasn't quite as close as I thought.  But here's something else.  The Titans used two timeouts Prior to that drive.  Had they been more conservative with them, they'd have had at least one more play (maybe two) from the one yard line.  Lucky for the Rams, eh? 

The two timeouts the Titans took, they scored ON THE VERY NEXT PLAY BOTH TIMES, so, no, it wasn't just luck because those timeouts were likely needed to set up scoring plays.  So they wouldn't have been in the same situation if they hadn't used the timeouts.

So you claim you stand by all your examples, yet you just admitted that you changed one example and replaced it with a worse example.

(02-19-2018, 09:50 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: The onside kick: any onside kick involves kicking an oblong ball straight into the ground.  The bounce that it gives is not 100% predictable, regardless of how often you practice it.  This one even bounced off the chest of a Colts player. Do you think they practiced that? There's a reason why the play is rarely used outside of desperate situations: it is a roll of the dice.  Payton gambled and won.  Luck.  

It was somewhat lucky, but coaches don't take risks if they're not calculated and have a good chance of going right.  

Also, it didn't bounce off of his chest like he was just standing there but rather that he dove forward and it hit off of him.

Onside kicks are difficult to field for a ball bouncing around with front-line players not expecting it.  
 
As I said, it was obviously lucky, but there's no way of saying the Colts score, even with good field position.  The Saints controlled the second half, even without that.

In fact, the Saints only scored a field goal, so not like it was too big. 

(02-19-2018, 09:50 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: And Butler: The Pats lost by a touchdown.  Poorly ranked D or not, It's not implausible to suggest  that the presence of one of their best defensive players could have made that small of a difference.  Good fortune for the Eagles.  

Not implausible, but unlikely.

Who's to say that they wouldn't have gotten beaten worse?

(02-19-2018, 09:59 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: By the way, your assumption that I took an hour or longer to respond is incorrect.  The site may have indicated that I was online, but it does not notify you when new posts are made.  Thus, it wasn't until a while after you posted that I saw it. The first three examples really were off the top of my head, though I am still mystified as to why you think that matters.

Actually, it does tell you when posts are made, which is how I know it took you an hour.

As I pointed out, your examples are horrible attempts to avoid acknowledging that your team was just lucky and that no other team is as lucky as the Steelers were.