Are The Steelers Good or Just Lucky?

[BFritz21]

(02-18-2018, 09:56 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: 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?  

lol.....  not at all.  

Just pointing out that he had to look them up and still could only find one example.

But that's a nice copout attempt and I'm guessing now that you and JS will turn this thread into a a thread about that instead of acknowledging the substance of my last post.

Run along 

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 12:15 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: lol.....  not at all.  

Just pointing out that he had to look them up and still could only find one example.

But that's a nice copout attempt and I'm guessing now that you and JS will turn this thread into a a thread about that instead of acknowledging the substance of my last post.

Run along 

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?

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 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.

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.

So, I stand by my examples. All of them. But, at the end of the day, these are subjective arguments, which means these are largely opinions. And you are entitled to yours. I'm content to rest in the knowledge that yours are more lowly regarded around here than you realize.

[JS-Steelerfan]

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.

[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.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 02:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: 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.

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.



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. 
Not implausible, but unlikely.

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




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.

You are hilarious, and you don't even know it.

[BFritz21]

(02-20-2018, 01:38 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: You are hilarious, and you don't even know it.

What's hilarious if you think that, just because you follow the Steelers, you can throw out bullshit and think I'll buy it just because I follow the Bengals.

Typical of most Steelers fans that I've ever come into contact with, though.

[ballsofsteel]

(02-20-2018, 01:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: What's hilarious if you think that, just because you follow the Steelers, you can throw out bullshit and think I'll buy it just because I follow the Bengals.

Typical of most Steelers fans that I've ever come into contact with, though.

Hi Brad.

"Typical of most Steelers fans that I've ever come into contact with, though."


I believe this could be true. There are a lot of Steeler fans in the Cintucky area!

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 01:56 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: What's hilarious if you think that, just because you follow the Steelers, you can throw out bullshit and think I'll buy it just because I follow the Bengals.

Typical of most Steelers fans that I've ever come into contact with, though.

What’s hilarious is that you think a conversation about an inherently subjective topic like luck has an objective ‘right answer’.  And even funnier is that you don‘t even realize the extent to which your defining criteria is ‘did it happen to the Steelers or to someone else?’.  You are the king of confirmation bias, which you mistakenly identify as ‘logic’.  

Incidentally,vthe reason you saw that it took me an hour to respond is because it took me nearly that long to see your post.  You can check and see whether someone has been on recently, but there's no instant notification of new posts, thus I didn't see yoursat first.  I didn't go back to that thread for about an hour, so I had no idea you posted what you posted until then. But I don't even know why I'm bothering to point that out because it's really irrelevant. It may seem like a rhetorical advantage in your own head, but it really has to do with nothing.

[BFritz21]

(02-20-2018, 07:31 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Hi Brad.

"Typical of most Steelers fans that I've ever come into contact with, though."


I believe this could be true. There are a lot of Steeler fans in the Cintucky area!  

There actually are a lot of Steelers fans in the area because they all just jump on the bandwagon and have no sense of loyalty or pride in anything, much like most Steelers fans.

And I also meant Steelers fans on here that I've come into contact with. 

[Captain Obvious]

(02-20-2018, 02:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There actually are a lot of Steelers fans in the area because they all just jump on the bandwagon and have no sense of loyalty or pride in anything, much like most Steelers fans.

And I also meant Steelers fans on here that I've come into contact with. 

I'm not from Pittsburgh so I guess in your eyes I'm a bandwagon Pirates fan as well.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(02-20-2018, 02:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There actually are a lot of Steelers fans in the area because they all just jump on the bandwagon and have no sense of loyalty or pride in anything, much like most Steelers fans.

And I also meant Steelers fans on here that I've come into contact with. 

I grew up 90 miles east of Pittsburgh and am also a Pirates fan. You can count me among the exceptions. According to your 'logic' (read: preconceived and unquestioned assumptions), I should have temporarily become a 49ers fan in the 80s. But I stuck it through the freaking Cliff Stoudt, Mark Malone, and Bubby Brister years, brother. And there are a lot of Pittsburgh fans like me. You don't know what you don't know.

[ballsofsteel]

(02-20-2018, 02:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There actually are a lot of Steelers fans in the area because they all just jump on the bandwagon and have no sense of loyalty or pride in anything, much like most Steelers fans.

And I also meant Steelers fans on here that I've come into contact with. 

Hi Brad . I grew up 25 miles south of Pittsburgh. I hear the term "jump on the bandwagon" thrown around here alot. Does living in or near the city of the town your team is from make you a better fan? What does it really matter. Why should I have loyalty or pride in the Steelers? They are running an entertainment business whose main goal is to make money. They are not putting any money in my pocket.  The NFL has a great marketing model, put out a product that entices people to feel " loyalty or pride" in their product, hook line and sinker. I'm not going to think less of you because your team beat mine. Its not my team.  Are the Bengals paying you to go on a message board and  stick up for them? All we are doing here is passing the time.

[StrictlyBiz]

(02-23-2018, 08:01 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Hi Brad . I grew up 25 miles south of Pittsburgh. I hear the term "jump on the bandwagon" thrown around here alot. Does living in or near the city of the town your team is from make you a better fan? What does it really matter. Why should I have loyalty or pride in the Steelers? They are running an entertainment business whose main goal is to make money. They are not putting any money in my pocket.  The NFL has a great marketing model, put out a product that entices people to feel " loyalty or pride" in their product, hook line and sinker. I'm not going to think less of you because your team beat mine. Its not my team.  Are the Bengals paying you to go on a message board and  stick up for them? All we are doing here is passing the time.

Wash Pa?

[ballsofsteel]

(02-23-2018, 12:21 PM)StrictlyBiz Wrote: Wash Pa?

The Mon Valley.

[GMDino]

Suppose this goes here:

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2018/02/steelers-team-without-top-10-draft-pick-since-2001/

Quote:Steelers Only Team Without Top 10 Draft Pick Since 2001


Kevin Colbert was brought in for the 2000 season from the Detroit Lions, where he served as their Pro Scouting Director for a decade, to act as the Director of Football Operations for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Director of Football Operations was a title equivalent to General Manager for the Steelers prior to their formally naming Colbert their first General Manager in franchise history in 2010. He was named Vice President/General Manager in 2016.

He came to Pittsburgh—a Pittsburgh native himself—to replace another Pittsburgh-area native, Tom Donahoe, who was the Director of Football Operations from 1991 to 1999. During that 1999 season, the Steelers went 6-10, missing the playoffs for the second year in a row, with the second losing season in a row, the first time they had consecutive losing seasons since 1985-6.

That was the last time that the Steelers have had a selection in the top 10 of the NFL Draft, and according to ESPN and Jeremy Fowler, they are the only team in the NFL during the subsequent span between 2001 to the present day to have no picks that high in the draft.
Every other team has at least had one. 29 of the 31 other teams have had at least two picks in the top 10 since that time.

Quote:[/url][url=https://twitter.com/JFowlerESPN]Jeremy Fowler

✔@JFowlerESPN

Model of consistency: Steelers are NFL's only team w/out a top-10 draft pick since 2001. Twenty-nine NFL teams have had multiple top-10 picks. Pittsburgh selected Plaxico Burress No. 8 overall in 2000. (Numbers verified by @ESPNStatsInfo).
4:42 PM - Feb 22, 2018

While this also speaks to the fact that the Steelers do very little maneuvering—and no particularly high-profile maneuvering—the primary reason that they have been so frequently distant from the top portions of the draft is because they have been among the most consistent teams in the NFL, avoiding having such seasons that enable them to draft that high.

The only losing season that they have posted since 2000, during Colbert’s first year in Pittsburgh, was during the 2003 season, when a Tommy Maddox-led team finished 6-10. This awarded them the 11th-overall pick in the draft, which admittedly is extremely close to the top 10, but it was this pick that is primarily responsible for allowing them to avoid picking so high.

Of course, that’s because they used that selection on quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who likely enters the Hall of Fame in his native Ohio five years after he retires. During his 14 seasons, they have never posted a losing record, and have only gone 8-8 three times, with injuries to himself usually factoring into those struggles.

The most recent top-10 draft pick the Steelers have made, back in 2000, was for wide receiver Plaxico Burress, the eighth-overall selection that year. The highest picks that they have had since then have been 11 (2004 – Ben Roethlisberger), 15 (2007 – Lawrence Timmons; 2014 – Ryan Shazier), 16 (2003 – Troy Polamalu), 17 (2013 – Jarvis Jones), 18 (2010 – Maurkice Pouncey), and 19 (2001 – Casey Hampton).

Those are the only selections the Steelers have made in the top 20 picks of all drafts since 2000. Just eight players in the top 20 in 18 drafts. More than half the time, they have been picking among the final 12 picks in the first round.

Damn lucky I say....  

[StrictlyBiz]

(02-26-2018, 05:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Suppose this goes here:

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2018/02/steelers-team-without-top-10-draft-pick-since-2001/



Damn lucky I say....  

Do you know how badly missing on a top 10 pick can wreck your salary cap? So yes, the Steelers are lucky that they haven't been forced to gamble on a top 10 pick in the last 17 years. Thanks for proving my point.

.....Brad Logic