Are The Steelers Good or Just Lucky?

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-13-2018, 11:03 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Like I said, whole team was deflated, but Palmer overcame bad defense all year.

Except when the opponent was good.  The Bengals were 3-4 against opponents with a winning record that year.  They were 2-3 against that years' playoff teams (2-4 if you count the actual playoffs).  

I know you will find a way to talk yourself out of considering that a meaningful stat in this discussion, but I thought I would put it out there for the sake of those reading this who actually use reason. 

[StrictlyBiz]

Is Brad still crying about 2006?

[BFritz21]

(02-13-2018, 09:51 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Except when the opponent was good.  The Bengals were 3-4 against opponents with a winning record that year.  They were 2-3 against that years' playoff teams (2-4 if you count the actual playoffs).  

I know you will find a way to talk yourself out of considering that a meaningful stat in this discussion, but I thought I would put it out there for the sake of those reading this who actually use reason. 

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.  

(02-13-2018, 11:08 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Is Brad still crying about 2006?

We're having a debate on why your team's Super Bowl is tainted.

Not crying about anything.

Try and keep up, lil guy 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

ITT Brad tries to convince people that the most successful NFL franchise in the Super Bowl era isn't really that good.  Then his brain malfunctions when no one agrees with him because his premise is gotarded.

MFW

[Captain Obvious]

(02-13-2018, 07:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: See, I use logic there and you make up things that I never even said or are irrelevant.  

Let's look at them, shall we?

-never said that they're cheaters, but I'm guessing you're referring to the cheap shot on Carson.  It's hilarious how you try and act like it had no impact on the game and how it's not likely that we would have won.  Being down 0-7 instead of 0-3 with our offense having momentum would have made all the difference, especially with the best player on our team still on the field.  Despite all that, we still gave you a game, but you're right, the injury was a minor point.

-when did I ever suggest the refs were bias in this thread?  Why would it be relevant to bring up?  It's not.  Pretty much like every other sentence in this post, it's empty rhetoric that you use to try and make your post look stronger, but anyone with an ounce of common sense or at least a third grade education sees right through it.  I'm sure the other Steelers fans are liking the post, though 

-your QB is a known rapist who should be in jail and even your fans don't deny that.  Once again, though, irrelevant to this thread and empty rhetoric.

-when did I say their fans are their fans are fat, ugly hillbillies that live in trailers with no electricity or plumbing and can't walk erect?  Once again, empty rhetoric used to try and make your post seems like it has any substance, but it doesn't and this is one of the most worthless posts to ever litter this board.

You just throw out constant bullshit......  pretty much like every other Steelers fan, but it's funny to see 

I never said you posted that in this thread did I? Reading comprehension is fun Brad, you should try it sometime. What I posted are the only lines you accept as the truth. If we disagree, you won't let your blind hatred of the Steelers accept anything less than the Steelers are the luckiest team and get all or 90% of the breaks. You won't accept that no other team is as lucky as the Steelers even though that is totally false. You can't tell me no team that wins the Super Bowl isn't as lucky as the Steelers or ill call you a little. Im done arguing with you because it's completely pointless at this time since you can't let your blind hatred of the Steelers let you see anything but anger and rage. I would hate to have that much anger towards a team that I have no control over. Get a life dude. Don't let those big bad Steelers rule your brain like that.

[BFritz21]

(02-14-2018, 02:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: ITT Brad tries to convince people that the most successful NFL franchise in the Super Bowl era isn't really that good.  Then his brain malfunctions when no one agrees with him because his premise is gotarded.

MFW

It's only homer Steelers fans disagreeing with me in here and no one has offered much to refute the points I made, including you.

In fact, I don't even know why you're on here anymore because you never post anything with anything credible and you lost offering anything valuable when negative rep went away.

(02-14-2018, 06:09 AM)Captain Obvious Wrote: I never said you posted that in this thread did I? Reading comprehension is fun Brad, you should try it sometime. What I posted are the only lines you accept as the truth. If we disagree, you won't let your blind hatred of the Steelers accept anything less than the Steelers are the luckiest team and get all or 90% of the breaks. You won't accept that no other team is as lucky as the Steelers even though that is totally false. You can't tell me no team that wins the Super Bowl isn't as lucky as the Steelers or ill call you a little. Im done arguing with you because it's completely pointless at this time since you can't let your blind hatred of the Steelers let you see anything but anger and rage. I would hate to have that much anger towards a team that I have no control over. Get a life dude. Don't let those big bad Steelers rule your brain like that.

Then why bring it up in this thread?  What relevance does it have to this discussion?  None, but you think posting it somehow weakens my points in this thread.

Please show me where any other team has gotten as much luck in those two Super Bowl runs as the Steelers have.  You and every other clueless Steelers fan just keeps saying "every team gets lucky," but never offer anything to back up your claim.

It's also hilarious how I call out your team for being more lucky than good and suddenly I have anger and rage and let the Steelers rule my life.

As I pointed out, though, that's the thinking and intelligence of a Steelers fan.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(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.

[ballsofsteel]

(02-13-2018, 07:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It wouldn't have been a toss-up after the first play if Carson doesn't go down.

The defense wouldn't have been on the field as much if Palmer hadn't gotten injured.

We would have scored on the opening drive instead of having to settle for 3.  

We would have had all the momentum, probably scored once or twice more before half, and then the halftime meltdown doesn't happen.

See, I use logic there and you make up things that I never even said or are irrelevant.  

Let's look at them, shall we?

-never said that they're cheaters, but I'm guessing you're referring to the cheap shot on Carson.  It's hilarious how you try and act like it had no impact on the game and how it's not likely that we would have won.  Being down 0-7 instead of 0-3 with our offense having momentum would have made all the difference, especially with the best player on our team still on the field.  Despite all that, we still gave you a game, but you're right, the injury was a minor point.

-when did I ever suggest the refs were bias in this thread?  Why would it be relevant to bring up?  It's not.  Pretty much like every other sentence in this post, it's empty rhetoric that you use to try and make your post look stronger, but anyone with an ounce of common sense or at least a third grade education sees right through it.  I'm sure the other Steelers fans are liking the post, though 

-your QB is a known rapist who should be in jail and even your fans don't deny that.  Once again, though, irrelevant to this thread and empty rhetoric.

-when did I say their fans are their fans are fat, ugly hillbillies that live in trailers with no electricity or plumbing and can't walk erect?  Once again, empty rhetoric used to try and make your post seems like it has any substance, but it doesn't and this is one of the most worthless posts to ever litter this board.

You just throw out constant bullshit......  pretty much like every other Steelers fan, but it's funny to see 

Thanks for reminding everyone of this and not let anyone try to deflect from this accusation with facts about the actual game.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-14-2018, 06:55 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's only homer Steelers fans disagreeing with me in here and no one has offered much to refute the points I made, including you.

In fact, I don't even know why you're on here anymore because you never post anything with anything credible and you lost offering anything valuable when negative rep went away.

Still complaining about rep.  Sad.  

[bengalguy71]

I've been watching, off and on, this banter going on in here and wanted to offer my 'bottom line' to what, for me, is foolishness.

This Bengal franchise has never been the same since Paul Brown had the reins and probably won't be until Mike Brown gives them up and even then it's no guarantee.  It's expect the worst and hope for the best.

As far as arguing the 'only ifs' as far as players getting hurt, is at best speculation and at worst a waste of time.  NO ONE can predict what would have happened in those scenarios, INCLUDING this latest nonsense with Malcom Butler.

In fact, it's entertaining to watch these talking heads giving their 'expert' opinions!!

[Luvnit2]

(02-14-2018, 12:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Still complaining about rep.  Sad.  

Still complaining about members complaining about rep.  Sad.  

[Captain Obvious]

(02-14-2018, 06:55 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's only homer Steelers fans disagreeing with me in here and no one has offered much to refute the points I made, including you.

In fact, I don't even know why you're on here anymore because you never post anything with anything credible and you lost offering anything valuable when negative rep went away.

Then why bring it up in this thread?  What relevance does it have to this discussion?  None, but you think posting it somehow weakens my points in this thread.

Please show me where any other team has gotten as much luck in those two Super Bowl runs as the Steelers have.  You and every other clueless Steelers fan just keeps saying "every team gets lucky," but never offer anything to back up your claim.

It's also hilarious how I call out your team for being more lucky than good and suddenly I have anger and rage and let the Steelers rule my life.

As I pointed out, though, that's the thinking and intelligence of a Steelers fan.

No you don't call out the Steelers for being more lucky, you just call them out because of your blind hatred for them. As for showing you where a team has gotten as lucky as the Steelers in the Super Bowl runs as the Steelers I already offered you one earlier in this post about the Eagles winning it with a backup. You just dismiss it automatically because you can't admit they were since it goes against your anti Steelers agenda. What about the Patriots in Super Bowl 51? Coming back from 24 points down to win it. That takes a hell of a lot of luck. Oh wait, you'll have some excuse why that wasn't luck as well and the Steelers were still luckier. 

[StrictlyBiz]

(02-14-2018, 12:35 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: We're having a debate on why your team's Super Bowl is tainted.

Not crying about anything.

Try and keep up, lil guy 

Yes. Yes he is. 

[BengalHawk62]

This thread is pure comedy gold. 

[BFritz21]

(02-14-2018, 06:57 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: 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.

He didn't do every time, but he did overcome his bad defense a lot.

He didn't overcome his bad defense in Indy, but he also didn't score first like we would have against Pit (a TD).

(02-14-2018, 12:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Still complaining about rep.  Sad.  

You say that I'm complaining about rep to avoid admitting that you have nothing to refute that you never have anything of any credibility to offer in response to anything I ever say.  Sad, but not surprising.

(02-14-2018, 03:35 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Yes. Yes he is. 

I didn't say anything in that post that you could be referencing a "Yes.  Yes he is." to, so what are you talking about?

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-15-2018, 08:22 PM)https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200510230cin.htmBFritz21 Wrote: He didn't do every time, but he did overcome his bad defense a lot.

He didn't overcome his bad defense in Indy, but he also didn't score first like we would have against Pit (a TD).

Why do you assume that?  Carson having the ball deep in Pittsburgh territory was by no means an automatic touchdown.  In the first game between the two, the Bengals got into the red zone in their first two possessions and came away with a grand total of 3 points.  They also kicked a field goal from the 21. If you don't believe me look it up.  In the second game, the Bengals kicked a field goal from the Pittsburgh 12.  

If you're keeping score, that's no less than  four instances in that year alone year where Palmer got to the 21 or deeper against the Steelers and failed to score a TD. His pass in the playoffs got to the 22.  Was a touchdown probable at that point?  Sure.  But past precedent demonstrates that it was hardly a sure thing, as you suggest.  

You keep talking about 'logic', but you continue to demonstrate that, as far as you're concerned, what you want to be the case trumps any rational thought.  

[*Go Cards*]

(02-15-2018, 09:19 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Why do you assume that?  Carson having the ball deep in Pittsburgh territory was by no means an automatic touchdown.  In the first game between the two, the Bengals got into the red zone in their first two possessions and came away with a grand total of 3 points.  They also kicked a field goal from the 21. If you don't believe me look it up.  In the second game, the Bengals kicked a field goal from the Pittsburgh 12.  

If you're keeping score, that's no less than  four instances in that year alone year where Palmer got to the 21 or deeper against the Steelers and failed to score a TD. His pass in the playoffs got to the 22.  Was a touchdown probable at that point?  Sure.  But past precedent demonstrates that it was hardly a sure thing, as you suggest.  

You keep talking about 'logic', but you continue to demonstrate that, as far as you're concerned, what you want to be the case trumps any rational thought.  

Carson scored 5 times that season while penetrating that deeply as well. By the stats you have provided. 

So it is fair to say that he had a better chance to score than not to score TD against steelers after driving that deep. 

But it was not a lock, nor was it improbable. 

[BFritz21]

(02-15-2018, 09:19 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Why do you assume that?  Carson having the ball deep in Pittsburgh territory was by no means an automatic touchdown.  In the first game between the two, the Bengals got into the red zone in their first two possessions and came away with a grand total of 3 points.  They also kicked a field goal from the 21. If you don't believe me look it up.  In the second game, the Bengals kicked a field goal from the Pittsburgh 12.  

If you're keeping score, that's no less than  four instances in that year alone year where Palmer got to the 21 or deeper against the Steelers and failed to score a TD. His pass in the playoffs got to the 22.  Was a touchdown probable at that point?  Sure.  But it was hardly a sure thing, as you suggest.  

You keep talking about 'logic', but you continue to demonstrate that, as far as you're concerned, what you want to be the case trumps any rational thought.  

Again, you're not considering the emotional edge and momentum that we would have had from the first play being that big.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-15-2018, 09:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Again, you're not considering the emotional edge and momentum that we would have had from the first play being that big.

And as we all know, emotions are always the deciding factor in sports, and the momentum they cause leads  to 100% predictive reliability.   

You really should run your ideas past people who are capable of objective thought before you post.  

[BFritz21]

(02-15-2018, 11:17 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: And as we all know, emotions are always the deciding factor in sports, and the momentum they cause leads  to 100% predictive reliability.   

You really should run your ideas past people who are capable of objective thought before you post.  

Not a deciding factor, but in a playoff game between rivals when we haven't won a playoff game in 15 years, emotions play a big role and so does momentum, which you conveniently left out.  

Not only would our emotions have been high, they wouldn't have been completely deflated like they were.

Having conversations with Steelers fans makes me realize that having a traumatic brain injury isn't so bad.

Thanks