|Bunghole| Posted September 13, 2007 Report Share Posted September 13, 2007 You guys are like long lost brothers or something. Or The Odd Couple. I can't decide which one of you should be Felix, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 [quote name='Bunghole' post='546784' date='Sep 13 2007, 05:09 PM']You guys are like long lost brothers or something. Or The Odd Couple. I can't decide which one of you should be Felix, though...[/quote] Make Jaime be Tony Randle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='546771' date='Sep 13 2007, 05:02 PM']What would you expect him to do? Wasnt it just your new coach that said "where there is smoke there is fire" when speaking about the Pat's current issues?[/quote] There is exactly as much proof of other teams in the 70's doing steroid as there is of the Steelers doing steroids in the 70's. That "proof" is called hearsay. You choose to believe the part about the Steelers, but not about the rest of the league, and you tell me you arent biased at all? Look, I dont deny that some of the Steelers were probably on the juice back then....but I do deny that 1) it was cheating (since it was not a banned substance in the NFL, nor was it illegal in the US) 2) the Steelers were the only ones doing it. You use as proof what Jim Haslet said(an admitted user himself) and ignore the fact that he had no proof, he never even played with the Steelers or spent any time in a Steeler locker room during that period and later said "That's just what we believed when I played". So you automatically believe a guy who used steroids himself, but says that the Steelers had an unfair advantage over all of the other teams because they were the only ones who used steroids? Yup, that makes sense. Haslett also said the he believed half the players in the league and EVERY lineman used steroids (I think that would include your Cinci Bengals). But he must be lying about that part, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 [quote name='oftt4' post='547307' date='Sep 14 2007, 07:00 AM']There is exactly as much proof of other teams in the 70's doing steroid as there is of the Steelers doing steroids in the 70's. That "proof" is called hearsay. You choose to believe the part about the Steelers, but not about the rest of the league, and you tell me you arent biased at all? Look, I dont deny that some of the Steelers were probably on the juice back then....but I do deny that 1) it was cheating (since it was not a banned substance in the NFL, nor was it illegal in the US) 2) the Steelers were the only ones doing it. You use as proof what Jim Haslet said(an admitted user himself) and ignore the fact that he had no proof, he never even played with the Steelers or spent any time in a Steeler locker room during that period and later said "That's just what we believed when I played". So you automatically believe a guy who used steroids himself, but says that the Steelers had an unfair advantage over all of the other teams because they were the only ones who used steroids? Yup, that makes sense. Haslett also said the he believed half the players in the league and EVERY lineman used steroids (I think that would include your Cinci Bengals). But he must be lying about that part, right?[/quote] There is exactly enough proof to show the Pats didnt cheat in more than one game. There is exactly enough proof to show that OJ didnt murder his exwife and goldman. The steelers have been specificly named, did the bengals do it? Entirely possible, but unless I see them named specificly I cant say either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted September 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='547447' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:47 AM']There is exactly enough proof to show the Pats didnt cheat in more than one game. There is exactly enough proof to show that OJ didnt murder his exwife and goldman. The steelers have been specificly named, did the bengals do it? Entirely possible, but unless I see them named specificly I cant say either way.[/quote] Way to sidestep that one. Lets just agree that the Pats cheat, and that they got off easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 [quote name='oftt4' post='547584' date='Sep 14 2007, 03:17 PM']Way to sidestep that one. Lets just agree that the Pats cheat, and that they got off easy.[/quote] Sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 [quote name='oftt4' post='547584' date='Sep 14 2007, 03:17 PM']Way to sidestep that one. Lets just agree that the Pats cheat, and that they got off easy.[/quote] [quote name='Jamie_B' post='547600' date='Sep 14 2007, 03:32 PM']Sounds good to me.[/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//6.gif[/img] I just knew you two would eventually make up and be bestest buds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 14, 2007 Report Share Posted September 14, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bammorrisgotmehigh Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Now that that is taken care of I will open up some other can of worms. Who is better? Bradshaw or Anderson? O'donnell or Boomer? Kordell or Akili? Klingler or Graham? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigris Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 [quote name='bammorrisgotmehigh' post='547883' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:53 PM']Now that that is taken care of I will open up some other can of worms. Who is better? Bradshaw or Anderson? O'donnell or Boomer? Kordell or Akili? Klingler or Graham?[/quote] carson or ben? only one i could comment on is akili and kordell. id gp w/ kordell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bammorrisgotmehigh Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 34 pass attempts and the Steelers won? Worlds colliding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie martin Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='bammorrisgotmehigh' post='550741' date='Sep 17 2007, 12:56 AM']34 pass attempts and the Steelers won? Worlds colliding [/quote] Yeah, i thought 30 was the "magic number" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted September 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='frankie martin' post='550798' date='Sep 17 2007, 10:23 PM']Yeah, i thought 30 was the "magic number"[/quote] Let me save the Bengals fans some time: Standard response #1: The defense carried us. Standard response #2: The running game carried us. Overall opinion #...well, the only one: Ben had nothing to do with the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='bammorrisgotmehigh' post='547883' date='Sep 14 2007, 11:53 PM']Now that that is taken care of I will open up some other can of worms. Who is better? Bradshaw or Anderson? O'donnell or Boomer? Kordell or Akili? Klingler or Graham?[/quote] Bradshaw. Boomer. Kordell. I don't know who the hell Graham is but Klingler sucked... I can't weigh in on that. What is the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='bammorrisgotmehigh' post='550741' date='Sep 17 2007, 12:56 AM']34 pass attempts and the Steelers won? Worlds colliding [/quote] Damn... and he cleared 60% passing. I'm impressed. Just for giggles Palmer was 66% with 50 attempts. Ben was 12-23 (that is 52% for those playing at home) against this same defense. Having said all that we still lost. Bottom line. Hysterical - Steeler fans coming to this forum pounding their chests because Ben had more than 30 attempts... AND THEY STILL WON! The need for approval here is pretty sad. Comical really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie martin Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='551302' date='Sep 18 2007, 11:24 AM']Hysterical - Steeler fans coming to this forum pounding their chests because Ben had more than 30 attempts... AND THEY STILL WON! The need for approval here is pretty sad. Comical really.[/quote] Just proving a point... all of your fellow fans here say that if Ben throws more than 30 we lose every time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='frankie martin' post='551308' date='Sep 18 2007, 11:34 AM']Just proving a point... all of your fellow fans here say that if Ben throws more than 30 we lose every time[/quote] you sound like my wife... So you pull the one blip on the radar screen that contradicts the many examples to the contrary and "prove a point". Wouldn't what he did Sunday actually be a statistical anomaly? I'd be interested to see - what is Ben's record when he attempts 30 passes or more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='551316' date='Sep 18 2007, 09:53 AM']you sound like my wife... So you pull the one blip on the radar screen that contradicts the many examples to the contrary and "prove a point". Wouldn't what he did Sunday actually be a statistical anomaly? I'd be interested to see - what is Ben's record when he attempts 30 passes or more?[/quote] It isn't good. I'd guess like 2-8 or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='551316' date='Sep 18 2007, 11:53 AM']you sound like my wife... [color="#FF0000"]So you pull the one blip on the radar screen that contradicts the many examples to the contrary and "prove a point".[/color] Wouldn't what he did Sunday actually be a statistical anomaly? I'd be interested to see - what is Ben's record when he attempts 30 passes or more?[/quote] Bingo. That would be like saying we have a good defence based on what we did to the Ravens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted September 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='551316' date='Sep 18 2007, 11:53 AM']you sound like my wife... So you pull the one blip on the radar screen that contradicts the many examples to the contrary and "prove a point". Wouldn't what he did Sunday actually be a statistical anomaly? I'd be interested to see - what is Ben's record when he attempts 30 passes or more?[/quote] It is 4-8. He was 1-7 last year, so that would make him 3-1 in those games during season in which he didnt nearly die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='Jamie_B' post='551438' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:30 PM']Bingo. That would be like saying we have a good defence based on what we did to the Ravens.[/quote] Exactly. I guess you could go over to their board and post that exact comment. [i]"See, we do have a good defense. Nay - we have a shutdown defense. We held the Ravens to 13 and had 6 turnovers!!!"[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='oftt4' post='551450' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:41 PM']It is 4-8. He was 1-7 last year, so that would make him 3-1 in those games during season in which he didnt nearly die.[/quote] So he is 4-8, with one of those W's being this year. That is what I was curious about. Appreciate the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oftt4 Posted September 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='551454' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:44 PM']So he is 4-8, with one of those W's being this year. That is what I was curious about. Appreciate the info.[/quote] No problem. Expect that first number to change this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie martin Posted September 20, 2007 Report Share Posted September 20, 2007 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='551454' date='Sep 18 2007, 02:44 PM']So he is 4-8, with [color="#FF0000"]one of those W's being this year[/color]. That is what I was curious about. Appreciate the info.[/quote] And there will be more to come this year, bookmark it dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gangtieren Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 1. Ben vs. Carson Who cares? Who cares which QB throws a better ball or completes more passes? AFAIK, football is a team sport. I want my team to win the Super Bowl. That's the only... THE ONLY stat that matters to me. So, you lot can console your broken hearts when CP gets inducted in to the HOF some day after he retires after never having won a Super Bowl game. You can even laugh at how Ben will not get nominated to enter the HOF. But, I'm certain that Ben and we who love the black and gold will be more than consoled by the memories of glorious championship victories. 2. 70s STEELERS I don't think the NFL is going to take away the 4 lombardi Trophies won by the greatest football dynasty ever, so you can keep crying about alleged steroid use all you like... but, here's a clue... your crying ain't gonna change a thing. The STEELERS still have 5 Lombardi Trophies sitting pretty in pissburgh. That's 5 times better than the b u n g l e s ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.