Fool's Gold

[fredtoast]

(12-23-2020, 07:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fools gold is a good thing?

A lot of times "fools gold" refers to a good thing that gives false hope for future good things.

A touchdown on the first play of a game is obviously a good thing, but it can be "fools gold" if people think it automatically means that team is going to win or even score a lot more tds.

[*bfine32*]

(12-23-2020, 08:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A lot of times "fools gold" refers to a good thing that gives false hope for future good things.

A touchdown on the first play of a game is obviously a good thing, but it can be "fools gold" if people think it automatically means that team is going to win or even score a lot more tds.

Noted...Fools gold is a good thing. 

[Fan_in_Kettering]

There are three definitions of “fluke:”

1. A parasitic flatworm.
2. The tail end of a whale.
3. What happened on Monday Night Football.

[BengalsRocker]

(12-23-2020, 08:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: meh..I was also accused of "not being logical" as I supported Marvin. 

How has logic worked out?

As for me I'll celebrate every Bengal victory and not look for the cloud in front of the silver lining. 

^ Here is exhibit A

[Bengalholic]

(12-23-2020, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Noted...Fools gold is a good thing. 

'something that seems more promising than it really is.'

Fool's gold sort of requires a good thing happen, that gives false hope for more good things, right?

How often does the term ever get used based on a bad thing happening?

[*bfine32*]

(12-23-2020, 08:53 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: 'something that seems more promising than it really is.'

Fool's gold sort of requires a good thing happen, that gives false hope for more good things, right?

How often does the term ever get used based on a bad thing happening?

Always

[Bengalholic]

(12-23-2020, 09:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Always

You're confusing the assumption with the thing the assumption is 'based on'.

We beat the Steelers = We will start winning because we beat the Steelers

Beating the Steelers was a good thing. Assuming it means more winning could be false. If so, it was fool's gold.

[IcoHolic]

A smart organization wouldn't care much about the win from a staff standpoint. This Steelers team is easily the worst 11-0 team in NFL history, their cupcake schedule was insanely easy. That said, we're not a better team, but they're tier 3 at best this season when the playoffs roll around.

Even if Taylor is back, there are a bunch of guys under him that shouldn't be. Turner should be fired after the final game.

[Wes Mantooth]

Fwiw, here's an anology that I think kind of illustrates how OP can 100% like the win, while also being a little wary at the same time.

I really like both whisky and bourbon. I enjoy them both very much. Too much even. There's nothing I enjoy more sometimes than getting together with my friends (who are real into bourbon) and having a nice glass or four. It's great.

I'm also wary sometime when I drink it because I'll inevitably drink too much, or drink it too fast. And occassionally I'll do both. What this leads to is a hangover and regret. And a level of hangover and regret you don't want to get when you're in your 40's.

So, at this point in my long-winded story, I think we can establish I like whisky (or bourbon.) But I'm nervous about hangovers. I still like it though.

Imagine this scenario between me and my friend, who will call Turd Furgeson (funny name):

---Turd Furgeson: Hey, Wes! I brought over this bottle of whisky to drink tonight for the game.

---Me: I'm tempted, Turd. But I gotta work in the morning. I'm just gonna nurse a few beers.

---Turd Furgeson: Man, you don't even like whiskly do you? You've never liked it. Clearly you prefer beer.

That would ridiculous of my pal Turd, would it not? I enjoy whisky, I'm just worried about the hangover. Nothing in my reasoning suggests I don't like it, or that I prefer beer.

This is how I view this debate between one particular poster here who is accusing people of not enjoying the win. He's the Turd of my story. It's perfectly reasonable to both enjoy the win but be wary of the future it causes.

tldr Bfine is being a Turd.

[*bfine32*]

(12-23-2020, 09:15 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Fwiw, here's an anology that I think kind of illustrates how OP can 100% like the win, while also being a little wary at the same time.

I really like both whisky and bourbon.  I enjoy them both very much. Too much even. There's nothing I enjoy more sometimes than getting together with my friends (who are real into bourbon) and having a nice glass or four.  It's great.

I'm also wary sometime when I drink it because I'll inevitably drink too much, or drink it too fast.  And occassionally I'll do both.  What this leads to is a hangover and regret.  And a level of hangover and regret you don't want to get when you're in your 40's.

So, at this point in my long-winded story, I think we can establish I like whisky (or bourbon.)  But I'm nervous about hangovers.  I still like it though.

Imagine this scenario between me and my friend, who will call Turd Furgeson (funny name):

---Turd Furgeson: Hey, Wes!  I brought over this bottle of whisky to drink tonight for the game.

---Me: I'm tempted, Turd.  But I gotta work in the morning.  I'm just gonna nurse a few beers.

---Turd Furgeson:  Man, you don't even like whiskly do you?  You've never liked it.  Clearly you prefer beer.

That would ridiculous of my pal Turd, would it not?  I enjoy whisky, I'm just worried about the hangover.  Nothing in my reasoning suggests I don't like it, or that I prefer beer.

This is how I view this debate between one particular poster here who is accusing people of not enjoying the win.  He's the Turd of my story.  It's perfectly reasonable to both enjoy the win but be wary of the future it causes.

tldr Bfine is being a Turd.

[MileHighGrowler]

(12-23-2020, 08:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: meh..I was also accused of "not being logical" as I supported Marvin. 

How has logic worked out?

As for me I'll celebrate every Bengal victory and not look for the cloud in front of the silver lining. 

So you're saying you support mediocre coaches.  

I supported Marv for a long time, too.  But anyone who thinks his time to leave hadn't come missed a whole lotta signs that I can't make you read if you didn't read 'em yourself.  Same with Zac.  I supported the hell out of him until about halfway through this season when it was clear he just didn't get it.  Wanting to bring in a HC that has a vision and can take this team to the great heights we all aspire to reach together as fans is the most fan thing I can think of.  Blindly shilling for the HC just because he's the HC doesn't make an ounce of sense to me.  Or a gram if you're into metric and want to measure in smaller quantities.  

[Bengalstripes9]

I completely understand the need to be weary. The Steelers aren't the team we lost to earlier in the year, lack confidence, beat themselves with turnovers, etc.

But this Bengal team is missing a ton of players. They put together a solid game plan and played inspired football against a really tough opponent. I did not expect them to be able to move the ball at all--yet they were able to scheme out a win without any sort of passing game at all.

Looking at the defense as a whole, they have shown signs of improvement throughout the year. They aren't where they need to be, but they are also missing some key players. They've got room to improve, especially when it comes to their pass rush. I give Lou credit for making progress with the defense in spite of the injuries.

You have to give Taylor some credit for moving the ball without any sort of passing game against one of the best defenses in the league. You have to give him credit for winning a game in prime time, something we have never done with consistency. You have to give him credit for beating the Steelers, who've won what? 11 straight games against us?

I understand the hesitation to trust Zac and the staff after merely one win. But you have to give credit where it's due. I'm happy they proved me wrong on Monday. I'd trust him more if he could win this week against a stronger opponent when you factor in the injuries. Zac definitely doesn't have my full trust. I'm still on the fence. But I'm willing to give him a chance after shocking the world on Monday. We've been decimated by injuries this year. The oline has not been good. But 'maybe' he can turn a corner with the team. Maybe.

[Benton]

To the op, I agree one game shouldn't decide zt's fate. But I am curious to see what happens the rest of the season.

Did he finally turn a corner? Did he finally get the lineups/matchups right, and if so, can he repeat that or was it just because there's been a blueprint drawn up for beating the Steelers?

I think were stuck with zac another year, like it or not. If he's figured it out and we end up with a great season, great.

[Bengalholic]

(12-23-2020, 09:59 PM)Benton Wrote: To the op, I agree one game shouldn't decide zt's fate. But I am curious to see what happens the rest of the season.

Did he finally turn a corner? Did he finally get the lineups/matchups right, and if so, can he repeat that or was it just because there's been a blueprint drawn up for beating the Steelers?

I think were stuck with zac another year, like it or not. If he's figured it out and we end up with a great season, great.

Agree that he's gonna be here regardless, and like you said, it'll be interesting to see if he can repeat it in these final 2 games.

[chopperbobby]

Fools gold or not it was fun to watch. It’s been a long time with this team. Now I will say it was some what fun to watch JB this year but as a team. I had a blast. Finally, I could text my Steelers friends and talk crap. Instead of just having to sit and take. Ho dey

[bonesaw]

if the Bengals keep Zac and win less than 7 games next year Bfine has to change his name to Turd Ferguson in they keep Zac and win more than 7 games Wes Mantooth has to change his name to Turd Ferguson. Win exactly 7 games and it's a push.

[BengalChris]

(12-23-2020, 07:35 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: The question about Zac getting a 3rd year isn't whether he was ever in any real danger of losing his job...it's about whether he SHOULD be in danger of losing his job. It's more of a question of how important winning really is to the front office. When you look at bringing Zac back for a 3rd year, and then look at the rest of the NFL, one doesn't seem like the others. 

With you 100%.

(12-23-2020, 08:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: A lot of times "fools gold" refers to a good thing that gives false hope for future good things.

A touchdown on the first play of a game is obviously a good thing, but it can be "fools gold" if people think it automatically means that team is going to win or even score a lot more tds.

Yep

(12-23-2020, 09:59 PM)Benton Wrote: To the op, I agree one game shouldn't decide zt's fate. But I am curious to see what happens the rest of the season.

Did he finally turn a corner? Did he finally get the lineups/matchups right, and if so, can he repeat that or was it just because there's been a blueprint drawn up for beating the Steelers?

I think were stuck with zac another year, like it or not. If he's figured it out and we end up with a great season, great.

People were wondering the same thing after the Tennessee game. Did Taylor turn the corner? Then the Bengals turned around and lost 5 straight games, 3 of those losses to bottom feeder NFC East teams. Bengals were the only team in the NFL, who played against the NFC East, to not record at least one win against that division.


This whole Taylor thing reminds me of the Ross thing only last year. After two dismal years where Ross did very little, he played amazingly well for the first time in the NFL. The fanboys came out of the woodwork to crow how everyone else was oh so wrong about Ross.

Of course, Ross returned to his normal self shortly there after and now he's pouting in his milk somewhere.


If Taylor were the guy we'd have seen some indication that he had football smarts enough to lead this team to a championship, but we've been presented with the opposite of a team that has declined rather than turned around.

Jacksonville won their first game this season by beating the much better Colts team. They haven't won since and are current projected to have the top pick in the draft.

 

[2MinutesHate]

(12-23-2020, 09:59 PM)Benton Wrote: To the op, I agree one game shouldn't decide zt's fate. But I am curious to see what happens the rest of the season.

Did he finally turn a corner? Did he finally get the lineups/matchups right, and if so, can he repeat that or was it just because there's been a blueprint drawn up for beating the Steelers?

I think were stuck with zac another year, like it or not. If he's figured it out and we end up with a great season, great.

While we do not know the terms of ZT's contract, I get the feeling that it's a 3 year deal.  MB has nothing to lose by seeing how the end of this season plays out.  I do believe if Joe Burrow had played in the place of Ryan Finley, it would change the whole dynamic of the win.  With Finley and his 89 passing yards, it almost taints the win as if it was some sort of fluke.  If Burrow gets the win, there automatically begins chatter of how the Bengals are turning things around because he has much more credibility than Finley.

These next two games will be quite telling.  If we are completely blown out, I think we're back where we started before the Steelers game and one could call our win "fools gold".  If we win even one of the last two, MB give ZT another year and we're back to hoping they'll fix the team through FA and the draft.

I see our offseason full of skepticism and guarded hope once again.

[Benton]

(12-23-2020, 10:55 PM)BengalChris Wrote: With you 100%.



Yep



People were wondering the same thing after the Tennessee game. Did Taylor turn the corner? Then the Bengals turned around and lost 5 straight games, 3 of those losses to bottom feeder NFC East teams. Bengals were the only team in the NFL, who played against the NFC East, to not record at least one win against that division.


This whole Taylor thing reminds me of the Ross thing only last year. After two dismal years where Ross did very little, he played amazingly well for the first time in the NFL. The fanboys came out of the woodwork to crow how everyone else was oh so wrong about Ross.

Of course, Ross returned to his normal self shortly there after and now he's pouting in his milk somewhere.


If Taylor were the guy we'd have seen some indication that he had football smarts enough to lead this team to a championship, but we've been presented with the opposite of a team that has declined rather than turned around.

Jacksonville won their first game this season by beating the much better Colts team. They haven't won since and are current projected to have the top pick in the draft.

 

Meh, we lost to the Steelers after the Titans (which was a good team). Then we lost Burrow and lost the next few. There's very few coaches who would've recovered that quickly with what we had on the roster.

Really, the only issue is I'd say the team hasn't declined. We had some guys who didn't do much of anything, and we're replacing them. Dunlap is a prime example. He stands around in stripes and complains, gets traded and looks like a solid player again. We need solid guys, not ones that think they're entitled to run the team.

[*bfine32*]

(12-23-2020, 10:31 PM)chopperbobby Wrote: Fools gold or not it was fun to watch. It’s been a long time with this team.  Now I will say it was some what fun to watch JB this year but as a team. I had a blast. Finally, I could text my Steelers friends and talk crap. Instead of just having to sit and take.  Ho dey

Quit celebrating these wins and be logical.