Are The Steelers Good or Just Lucky?

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-15-2018, 11:57 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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 

Yeah, it apparently does give you an excuse to reject objective reason.  Ignorance really is bliss, I guess.

But here's a thought for those of us who live in the real world: momentum shifts happen all the time in football.  Having it at one point in the game doesn't guarantee that you'll keep it the rest of the game, or even until the next play.  

Here's 3 examples, all from the 2005 Bengals' season:

Against the Jags that year, the Bengals recovered a kickoff fumble on the Jacksonville 21.  Lots of emotional momentum there, right?  It resulted in 3 points.  Against the Titans, Carson completed a 35 yard pass to the Tennessee 5. Surely a splash play like that revved up that offense to the point where a TD was inevitable, right?  The drive ended in a field goal.  Against Cleveland Rudi Johnson ran 32 yards to the Browns 5.  The trip across the goal line was just a formality at that point, no?  It ended in another field goal.  And those are just a few of the examples I found before I stopped looking.  I have no doubt that there were more.  

The point is that 'momentum' is too fluid to be a reliable predictor.  It can literally shift at any moment with one bad play, injury, or penalty, and does not in any way make a team invincible.

[Luvnit2]

I think anyone who thinks the Harrison TD play was not a huge factor in the Super Bowl win is not very bright. It was more than just a turnover, it turned 7 possible points from the Cards into 7 points to the Steelers to end the half.

But, it was not luck, it was a great read by Harrison who left his area of responsibility and be where Warner was not expecting anyone to be. But more importantly, it was one of the greatest runs by a non running back, QB or receiver in NFL history with time running out. That was not luck, that was a HOF effort by a HOF player.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-16-2018, 01:10 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I think anyone who thinks the Harrison TD play was not a huge factor in the Super Bowl win is not very bright. It was more than just a turnover, it turned 7 possible points from the Cards into 7 points to the Steelers to end the half.

But, it was not luck, it was a great read by Harrison who left his area of responsibility and be where Warner was not expecting anyone to be. But more importantly, it was one of the greatest runs by a non running back, QB or receiver in NFL history with time running out. That was not luck, that was a HOF effort by a HOF player.

At least a small amount of luck is often involved in plays like that - Harrison is fortunate that they didn't run at the lane he left open to drop back, for example.  

But only a blind homer who is incapable of objective thought would make the case that Brad is making.  

[BFritz21]

(02-16-2018, 01:43 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Yeah, it apparently does give you an excuse to reject objective reason.  Ignorance really is bliss, I guess.

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.

(02-16-2018, 01:43 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: But here's a thought for those of us who live in the real world: momentum shifts happen all the time in football.  Having it at one point in the game doesn't guarantee that you'll keep it the rest of the game, or even until the next play.  

Here's 3 examples, all from the 2005 Bengals' season:

Against the Jags that year, the Bengals recovered a kickoff fumble on the Jacksonville 21.  Lots of emotional momentum there, right?  It resulted in 3 points.  Against the Titans, Carson completed a 35 yard pass to the Tennessee 5. Surely a splash play like that revved up that offense to the point where a TD was inevitable, right?  The drive ended in a field goal.  Against Cleveland Rudi Johnson ran 32 yards to the Browns 5.  The trip across the goal line was just a formality at that point, no?  It ended in another field goal.  And those are just a few of the examples I found before I stopped looking.  I have no doubt that there were more.  

The point is that 'momentum' is too fluid to be a reliable predictor.  It can literally shift at any moment with one bad play, injury, or penalty, and does not in any way make a team invincible.

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.  

[JS-Steelerfan]

(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.  



  

[BFritz21]

(02-16-2018, 04:32 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: 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.    

False.  

Scoring a TD on the opening drive, along with the high-powered, up-tempo offense that Palmer led would have had us smoking you.  We hadn't lost a game that season when we scored a touchdown before the other team.

Being at home with the energy of the crowd and the team fired up means that it's not a foregone conclusion that we'd win, but it was pretty probable.  

However, all that aside, you're admitting that it's not a given that they win, but you don't think it was lucky for them that Carson went down?

(02-16-2018, 04:32 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: 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? 
  

Not ANYWHERE near the same amount of momentum as that big of a play on the first offensive play and then scoring, especially on the road.

Have you ever seen an offense come out on the field after a fumble?  Typically, they're not all jumping up and down and celebrating, especially not on the road, and it doesn't lead to a lot of momentum.

(02-16-2018, 04:32 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: 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? 
  

Stupid plays by the Bengals, but not common to happen that they'd commit a delay of game at home and unlikely that they'd commit a holding penalty.

(02-16-2018, 04:32 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: 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.  

  

False start penalty backed them up 5, which would be unlikely to happen again in the Pit game.

(02-16-2018, 04:32 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: 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.  
  

I judge off probabilities, you just make judgements because "it's the Steelers, so it would have gone there way, no matter how improbable.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-16-2018, 06:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: False.  

Scoring a TD on the opening drive, along with the high-powered, up-tempo offense that Palmer led would have had us smoking you.  We hadn't lost a game that season when we scored a touchdown before the other team.

Being at home with the energy of the crowd and the team fired up means that it's not a foregone conclusion that we'd win, but it was pretty probable.  

However, all that aside, you're admitting that it's not a given that they win, but you don't think it was lucky for them that Carson went down?


Not ANYWHERE near the same amount of momentum as that big of a play on the first offensive play and then scoring, especially on the road.

Have you ever seen an offense come out on the field after a fumble?  Typically, they're not all jumping up and down and celebrating, especially not on the road, and it doesn't lead to a lot of momentum.



Stupid plays by the Bengals, but not common to happen that they'd commit a delay of game at home and unlikely that they'd commit a holding penalty.


False start penalty backed them up 5, which would be unlikely to happen again in the Pit game.





I judge off probabilities, you just make judgements because "it's the Steelers, so it would have gone there way, no matter how improbable.

Well, I've got you to admit that it wasn't a foregone conclusion, which is pretty much agreeing with what I've been saying (despite what the voices in your head tell you).

So, if they had a chance to win, luck wasn't necessarily the ONLY factor involved, which means the Steelers were BOTH lucky AND good, which is what I've been saying all along about the vast majority of championship teams.

Glad to see that, together, we could finally come up with an answer to your question.

[BFritz21]

(02-16-2018, 07:52 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Well, I've got you to admit that it wasn't a foregone conclusion, which is pretty much agreeing with what I've been saying (despite what the voices in your head tell you).

So, if they had a chance to win, luck wasn't necessarily the ONLY factor involved, which means the Steelers were BOTH lucky AND good, which is what I've been saying all along about the vast majority of championship teams.

Glad to see that, together, we could finally come up with an answer to your question.

Most teams aren’t THAT lucky. I don’t think any team has been, and that’s my point.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-16-2018, 08:52 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Most teams aren’t THAT lucky. I don’t think any team has been, and that’s my point.

Your point is wrong then.

You could point to similar incidents in the playoffs runs of MANY championship teams. But you have no interest in even exploring that line of thought, because those teams are not the Steelers.

[BFritz21]

(02-16-2018, 10:24 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Your point is wrong then.  

You could point to similar incidents in the playoffs runs of MANY championship teams.  But you have no interest in even exploring that line of thought, because those teams are not the Steelers.

You're online right now, and, since you can point to them, post a few in the next minute or two so you don't have time to go searching through the internet for any.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-16-2018, 11:22 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're online right now, and, since you can point to them, post a few in the next minute or two so you don't have time to go searching through the internet for any.

Why would that make any difference?  If examples exist, they exist.  Having to look them up doesn't make them any less true.  Contrary to the way you seem to think, ignorance of a thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  

Besides, I already mentioned one earlier in this discussion: when the Pats beat Seattle in the Super Bowl, they got a game saving interception in a very similar set of circumstances to those in which Harrison got his.  Why is that 'luck' for the Steelers and not for the Pats?

Here's some more, off the top of my head (as if that mattered):When the Rams played the Titans, a Tennessee pass came within inches of a game winning score as time ran out.  Wasn't it lucky on the Rams' part that the Titans receiver wasn't two inches taller?

Just this past Super Bowl, Bellicheck benches Malcolm Butler, for who knows what reason.  Foles torches their secondary in the upset.   Would he have been able to do that if Butler's in there?  Lucky he wasn't, eh?  

Sean Payton calls for an onside kick to begin the second half against the Colts, a move many laud as giving them the momentum to win the game.  But that's a move with a very low statistical chance of success.  It literally depends on a lucky bounce of the ball. If it doesn't work, his team is screwed.  Isn't he lucky it worked?  

Okay, this one I admit I looked up (but it doesn't change how good it is): In the AFC Championship game a few years ago, the Broncos won it when they intercepted a two point conversion attempt by the Pats.  But the only reason the Pats needed two is because Gostkowski missed on an extra point earlier in the game.  If he makes that earlier, the Pats most likely tie the game into overtime.  It was Gostkowski's first miss in 524 times.  Wasn't it lucky for Denver that 'Mr. Reliable'  finally missed one?  Denver went on to beat Carolina in the Super Bowl.  Oh, and something seems familiar about this scenario, doesn’t it? Where have we seen crucial goal line interceptions before? Is this one lucky or do we actually give the defense credit?

I could go on, but I think that's enough for now.

All of these are crucial situations that easily could've gone the other way, but I'm guessing you never thought of them as luck.  Why? Because they didn't happen to the Steelers.

[bengalguy71]

Now boys, play nice!!

Here are the head to head facts.

The Bengals didn't play the Steelers until the NFL/AFL merge in 1970.

From 1970 - 1990 (under the ownership of Paul Brown)

The Bengals won 21 and lost 19 of the 40 times they met.

From 1991 to 2017 (under the ownership of Mike Brown)


The Bengals have won 14 and lost 42 in the 56 times they met.

Can an owner make a difference? ABSOLUTELY, because has the final say so in EVERYTHING that happens off the field and on the field with the exception of how the players perform and even then he has some influence through motivation.

The only speculation I have is that I believe if Mike had been a student/clone of his father and ran things exactly like he did, the Bengal franchise would be just as successful and play toe to toe with the Steelers.

[BFritz21]

(02-17-2018, 12:56 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Why would that make any difference?  If examples exist, they exist.  Having to look them up doesn't make them any less true.  Contrary to the way you seem to think, ignorance of a thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  

Besides, I already mentioned one earlier in this discussion: when the Pats beat Seattle in the Super Bowl, they got a game saving interception in a very similar set of circumstances to those in which Harrison got his.  Why is that 'luck' for the Steelers and not for the Pats?

Because you said they exist and you had to be basing your opinion off of something.  You can't just say "it's true because it MUST be true," which, since you had to look them up, it looks like that's exactly what you were doing.

That interception is NOWHERE NEAR SIMILAR to the James Harrison interception!  I tried to claim that it was a bad call, everyone said that it was a good call and just a great play by Butler!  Pat even started another thread in a very lame and pathetic attempt to mock me called "Biggest Thread Failures" because my thread was called "Biggest Super Bowl Failures"!  (I believe those were the exact titles.)

(02-17-2018, 12:56 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Here's some more, off the top of my head (as if that mattered):When the Rams played the Titans, a Tennessee pass came within inches of a game winning score as time ran out.  Wasn't it lucky on the Rams' part that the Titans receiver wasn't two inches taller? 

It took you an hour to reply to this, so I'm sure that all of this were "off the top of your head."



That, however, is one of the stupidest things you've ever posted, which is saying a lot.  That's like saying "aren't the Patriots lucky that the other team didn't have a 7'6 player with a huge vertical to jump up and block the field goals that they won Super Bowls with?!"

(02-17-2018, 12:56 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Just this past Super Bowl, Bellicheck benches Malcolm Butler, for who knows what reason.  Foles torches their secondary in the upset.   Would he have been able to do that if Butler's in there?  Lucky he wasn't, eh?  

Considering the Pats ranked 30th against the pass in 2017, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that Foles still would have lit them up.

(02-17-2018, 12:56 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Sean Payton calls for an onside kick to begin the second half against the Colts, a move many laud as giving them the momentum to win the game.  But that's a move with a very low statistical chance of success.  It literally depends on a lucky bounce of the ball.  If it doesn't work, his team is screwed.  Isn't he lucky it worked?  

Why would his team have been screwed?  It was a play they had practiced and a calculated risk, just a lot of plays are.  They knew it could work because they had practiced it a lot and they executed it.  It wasn't just a lucky bounce.

(02-17-2018, 12:56 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: Okay, this one I admit I looked up (but it doesn't change how good it is): In the AFC Championship game a few years ago, the Broncos won it when they intercepted a two point conversion attempt by the Pats.  But the only reason the Pats needed two is because Gostkowski missed on an extra point earlier in the game.  If he makes that earlier, the Pats most likely tie the game into overtime.  It was Gostkowski's first miss in 524 times.  Wasn't it lucky for Denver that 'Mr. Reliable'  finally missed one?  Denver went on to beat Carolina in the Super Bowl.  Oh, and something seems familiar about this scenario, doesn’t it?  Where have we seen crucial goal line interceptions before?  Is this one lucky or do we actually give the defense credit? 

I'll give you that one, but that's still only one, and you had to look that one up (which I think you did for all of them, which proves my point even more that the Steelers were lucky because you looked them up and could still only find one).

(02-17-2018, 12:56 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: I could go on, but I think that's enough for now. 

All of these are crucial situations that easily could've gone the other way, but I'm guessing you never thought of them as luck.  Why? Because they didn't happen to the Steelers.

You could go on when you look more up like you did for every point you tried to make, but, even so, only one qualified.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-17-2018, 03:36 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Because you said they exist and you had to be basing your opinion off of something.  You can't just say "it's true because it MUST be true," which, since you had to look them up, it looks like that's exactly what you were doing.

That interception is NOHERE NEAR SIMILAR to the James Harrison interception!  I tried to claim that it was a bad call, everyone said that it was a good call and just a great play by Butler!  Pat even started another thread in a very lame and pathetic attempt to mock me called "Biggest Thread Failures" because my thread was called "Biggest Super Bowl Failures"!  (I believe those were the exact titles.)


It took you an hour to reply to this, so I'm sure that all of this were "off the top of your head."



That, however, is one of the stupidest things you've ever posted, which is saying a lot.  That's like saying "aren't the Patriots lucky that the other team didn't have a 7'6 player with a huge vertical to jump up and block the field goals that they won Super Bowls with?!"




Considering the Pats ranked 30th against the pass in 2017, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that Foles still would have lit them up.

Why would his team have been screwed?  It was a play they had practiced and a calculated risk, just a lot of plays are.  They knew it could work because they had practiced it a lot and they executed it.  It wasn't just a lucky bounce.
I'll give you that one, but that's still only one, and you had to look that one up (which I think you did for all of them, which proves my point even more that the Steelers were lucky because you looked them up and could still only find one).



You could go on when you look more up like you did for every point you tried to make, but, even so, only one qualified.

According to you.

The thing about luck is that it cannot be quantified. There is no objective standard by which to measure it, and it is extremely subjective. And the problem with subjective arguments is that the person making the argument tends to define the parameters to fit that argument. You seem especially fond of doing that, by the way.

My examples may not carry much weight, but it’s not because they don’t ‘measure up” to yours. It’s because debates over luck are generally fruitless. They usually boil down to nothing more than differences of opinion. And everyone in this forum BUT you knows how little your opinion is regarded.

[BFritz21]

(02-18-2018, 12:34 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: According to you.  And everyone in this forum BUT you knows how little your opinion is regarded.

Nice rebuttal 

Very well-informed and thought out 

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-18-2018, 12:42 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Nice rebuttal 

Very well-informed and thought out 

I did add a further bit, but really there's no need to elaborate when something has been so frequently and profoundly demonstrated.

[JS-Steelerfan]

And by the way, your previous rebuttal demonstrated the fruitlessness of subjective arguments.

When you were talking about that NE/Sea interception right after it happened, you disagreed with Pat and others said it was a bad play call, just as you had said Warner's was. I doubt you ever agreed with them because you never admit to being wrong. But when it came to THIS conversation, suddenly Pat's opinion was the standard and 'correct' one.

How are we to respect your opinion when it keeps changing to fit whatever argument you're making at the time?

[BFritz21]

(02-18-2018, 12:53 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: And by the way, your previous rebuttal demonstrated the fruitlessness of subjective arguments.  

When you were talking about that NE/Sea interception right after it happened, you disagreed with Pat and others said it was a bad play call, just as you had said Warner's was.  I doubt you ever agreed with them because you never admit to being wrong.   But when it came to THIS conversation, suddenly Pat's opinion was the standard and 'correct' one.  

How are we to respect your opinion when it keeps changing to fit whatever argument you're making at the time?

What do you mean changing my argument?

I said they were both horrible play calls.

Pat was saying it was a good play call.

However, even so, at least Butler had to make an athletic play, whereas the ball was just thrown right to Harrison.

[BmorePat87]

[StrictlyBiz]

Am I reading this right (cause Im skimming this inane thread)? Brad is now monitoring who is online and giving them time limits to come up with an answer or it doesn't count?