Bengals vs Steelers Game Thread

[flamingrey]

Considering most people agree about just about everything else about the team (Marvin, defense, Green, o-line, etc), I think it'd kind of make sense that many posts are about the one big thing fans are split on: Dalton.

I've never started a thread about Carson nor a post about Carson in over a year. Not one. The only time I've mentioned him is either in the thread about him or in response to someone else mentioning him. That's a fact.

 

[Servo]

Silly you.

gay.

 

[cincygrad]

Considering most people agree about just about everything else about the team (Marvin, defense, Green, o-line, etc), I think it'd kind of make sense that many posts are about the one big thing fans are split on: Dalton.

I've never started a thread about Carson nor a post about Carson in over a year. Not one. The only time I've mentioned him is either in the thread about him or in response to someone else mentioning him. That's a fact.

You spent the preseason posting footage of every throw. I must have missed the post where someone asked for that.

 

[flamingrey]

"The only time I've mentioned him is either in the thread about him..."

Not sure which part of that statement was difficult to understand. But you're probably also one of those that likes to read only what you want to read.

There were a few games someone compiled his throws between Weeks 1 and 4 or something like that. I simply posted a link. Whoopdee damn doo.

 

[flamingrey]

gay.

Pay attention and read carefully and you may have some legs to stand on in the future.

 

[cincygrad]

In post #441 you said "I've never started a thread about Carson nor a post about Carson in over a year."

Wouldn't posting a link in a 'post' about Carson count as a 'post?' Or is that something else.

Of course you didn't start a thread about him - We took care of that with a sticky.

 

[Servo]

Pay attention and read carefully and you may have some legs to stand on in the future.

I'm pretty comfortable with my reading comprehension...as I'm sure grad is. Even if my reading comprehension was poor at least I don't get my panties in a twist over someone 'calling me out' over something on an anomyous message board then in the next breath saying 'oh yeah, I repeatedly said that.'

And maybe I'm the crazy one but 'he got better in the 2nd half but missed a lot' in response to someone saying that Dalton was atrocious as a passer is not exactly praising the guy for having made some very difficult throws in difficult spots as you claimed that you had. My limited reading comprehension translates that to 'yeah, Dalton sucks but he sucked less in the 2nd half.' High praise, indeed.

 

[flamingrey]

In post #441 you said "I've never started a thread about Carson nor a post about Carson in over a year."

Wouldn't posting a link in a 'post' about Carson count as a 'post?' Or is that something else.

Of course you didn't start a thread about him - We took care of that with a sticky.

And then in the following sentence I gave the one exception which was in the Carson thread, you know, dedicated to Carson. It's funny, kind of like you do with stats, instead of taking a group of sentences (stats) as a whole and determining their true meaning, you like to take them as pieces to fit your own argument.

Even in the Carson thread, after a good game, I've never once jumped in there to mention how great of a game he had. Why? Because I don't care. And as I mentioned in that very thread when Tubbs tried to call me out on posting videos, I posted them when they were available to give everyone an opportunity to judge him based on current performances, not past perceptions.

Oh, and feel free to check the thread since it's right there for you, count the number of Carson conversations that were started by me. It was always in response to someone else. Even though I know you won't as it won't fit what you want to believe, I still dare you to. This should be fun.

 

[flamingrey]

I'm pretty comfortable with my reading comprehension...as I'm sure grad is. Even if my reading comprehension was poor at least I don't get my panties in a twist over someone 'calling me out' over something on an anomyous message board then in the next breath saying 'oh yeah, I repeatedly said that.'

And maybe I'm the crazy one but 'he got better in the 2nd half but missed a lot' in response to someone saying that Dalton was atrocious as a passer is not exactly praising the guy for having made some very difficult throws in difficult spots as you claimed that you had. My limited reading comprehension translates that to 'yeah, Dalton sucks but he sucked less in the 2nd half.' High praise, indeed.

'It's not "exactly" praising the guy'....in other words, it doesn't fit your criteria of "praising" someone who had an otherwise awful game.

Like I said before, if it wasn't enough for you, too bad.

 

[cincygrad]

And then in the following sentence I gave the one exception which was in the Carson thread, you know, dedicated to Carson. It's funny, kind of like you do with stats, instead of taking a group of sentences (stats) as a whole and determining their true meaning, you like to take them as pieces to fit your own argument.

Even in the Carson thread, after a good game, I've never once jumped in there to mention how great of a game he had. Why? Because I don't care. And as I mentioned in that very thread when Tubbs tried to call me out on posting videos, I posted them when they were available to give everyone an opportunity to judge him based on current performances, not past perceptions.

Oh, and feel free to check the thread since it's right there for you, count the number of Carson conversations that were started by me. It was always in response to someone else. Even though I know you won't as it won't fit what you want to believe, I still dare you to. This should be fun.

Look at your post. You took the time to bold a statement saying you never made a post about the dude and then you put your disclaimers below.... It's funny that you like to criticize everyone on this board for making stats fit their argument or taking performances or points out of context, yet that's pretty much your entire posting life.

 

[flamingrey]

Yes. And I stick by it. I've never started a post about Carson within any thread with the exception of the Carson thread, where I may have had 1. I fit it with about 80% of other posters on this board. I'm not seeing the issue here.

I've never claimed anyone is taking stats or performances OUT of context. But I see what you did there, and it was pretty clever. When it permits, I've claimed people are not looking at stats or performances WITHIN any context.

And you are right, I have a keen interest in statistics in general and do take the time to figure what fits and what doesn't, why perception may show one thing but statistics another (as with the Texans topic in another thread), etc. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Bengals, people only want what makes them feel better possibly because it gives them more hope (I don't know), so they start pouting when it's suggested something else may be the case. Interestingly though, when it comes to players on other teams where people are more indifferent, they can offer some decent insight and put things in perspective.

 

[cincygrad]

Yes. And I stick by it. I've never started a post about Carson within any thread with the exception of the Carson thread, where I may have had 1. I fit it with about 80% of other posters on this board. I'm not seeing the issue here.

I've never claimed anyone is taking stats or performances OUT of context. But I see what you did there, and it was pretty clever. When it permits, I've claimed people are not looking at stats or performances WITHIN any context.

And you are right, I have a keen interest in statistics in general and do take the time to figure what fits and what doesn't, why perception may show one thing but statistics another (as with the Texans topic in another thread), etc. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Bengals, people only want what makes them feel better possibly because it gives them more hope (I don't know), so they start pouting when it's suggested something else may be the case. Interestingly though, when it comes to players on other teams where people are more indifferent, they can offer some decent insight and put things in perspective.

Failing to put something 'in its context' is really no different than taking something 'out of context.' But, hey splitting hairs is pretty much what you do.

And I'd argue that what you accuse Bengals fans of is the exact same for you. You watch Palmer and see what you want - Other Bengal fans see what they want. The difference is that you think you are somehow objective while everyone else is a 'homer.' It's either the case that you're simply better/smarter than anyone that posts to the SportsHoopla, or you're just more smug and arrogant.

 

[UDFlyers90]

Wow Flamingey is a tedious prick. Really dude. Get over yourself. It's only football for fucks sake.

 

[flamingrey]

Failing to put something 'in its context' is really no different than taking something 'out of context.' But, hey splitting hairs is pretty much what you do.

And I'd argue that what you accuse Bengals fans of is the exact same for you. You watch Palmer and see what you want - Other Bengal fans see what they want. The difference is that you think you are somehow objective while everyone else is a 'homer.' It's either the case that you're simply better/smarter than anyone that posts to the SportsHoopla, or you're just more smug and arrogant.

There actually is a very astute difference between putting into context and taking out when something already comes with very little context. There are cases when you don't have to look for much additional context, but when comparing players you almost always do.

Take the Atkins/Suh debate for example. In any given comparison, should surrounding talent not be accounted for? Does it not help Atkins that he almost always has 2-3 other very good pass rushers around him? Or that Suh undoubtedly faces for double teams? Those facts have to be accounted for along with any stats (QB hits, rushes, sacks, etc.)

When someone other than myself or a few others makes an assessment of Carson with the same fairness shown towards Luck in the hyperlink posted, then we'll talk. But as I stated in my previous post, too many times people allow their biases from even attempting to.

As far as being smarter than anyone else, I don't claim to be. Do I believe I put more effort into my assessments than most others, absolutely. Do I believe I'm also more objective/impartial than most, yes.

 

[flamingrey]

Wow Flamingey is a tedious prick. Really dude. Get over yourself. It's only football for fucks sake.

That's what I try to tell people. Most people here would only be happy if everyone agreed with their homer opinions about the Bengals. Instead, because most don't like my non-homer opinions, they get their panties in a bunch. Then they conveniently gang up and try to brush off my opinions.

Kind of like what you just did here.

 

[cincygrad]

There actually is a very astute difference between putting into context and taking out when something already comes with very little context. There are cases when you don't have to look for much additional context, but when comparing players you almost always do.

Take the Atkins/Suh debate for example. In any given comparison, should surrounding talent not be accounted for? Does it not help Atkins that he almost always has 2-3 other very good pass rushers around him? Or that Suh undoubtedly faces for double teams? Those facts have to be accounted for along with any stats (QB hits, rushes, sacks, etc.)

When someone other than myself or a few others makes an assessment of Carson with the same fairness shown towards Luck in the hyperlink posted, then we'll talk. But as I stated in my previous post, too many times people allow their biases from even attempting to.

As far as being smarter than anyone else, I don't claim to be. Do I believe I put more effort into my assessments than most others, absolutely. Do I believe I'm also more objective/impartial than most, yes.

You may believe what you want -- It doesn't make it true. In fact, it makes you no different than the people you argue with. You're just a bigger dick about it.

 

[UDFlyers90]

That's what I try to tell people. Most people here would only be happy if everyone agreed with their homer opinions about the Bengals. Instead, because most don't like my non-homer opinions, they get their panties in a bunch. Then they conveniently gang up and try to brush off my opinions.

Kind of like what you just did here.

No I really just think you are a tedious prick.

 

[DanBengalfan]

people keep arguing with him though.

23 pages of posts later.

maybe just stop.

 

[Servo]

people keep arguing with him though.

23 pages of posts later.

maybe just stop.

Rey is a passive aggressive prick but I read his posts. He's a smart guy that watches a lot of football and can typically defend his positions.

 

[DanBengalfan]

I don't argue with him as much, but my opinions about certain players have mellowed over time, so we have less to argue about I guess.