Author Topic: steelers-vikings  (Read 6599 times)

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
steelers-vikings
« on: October 25, 2009, 01:10:56 PM »
what a fking game.

steelers got a lot of breaks.

UPINTHEMGUTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5633
  • I can spot crazy pussy....
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2009, 01:31:45 PM »
Of course as a Ravens fan I'm going to have sour grapes. But the Vikings were due to lose.

Sometimes NFL teams get those kinds of breaks during the season like those two defensive touchdowns the Steelers had. That last TD on that Chester Taylor dropped pass/interception was ridiculous, though.

Jeff Reed is a serious loser. Nice form tackling in the open field on that Harvin touchdown! Good week for the Steel City's effeminate kicker!

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2009, 01:34:50 PM »
what a fking game.

steelers got a lot of breaks.


So did the Vikings.  I thought we were in serious trouble when Rishard lost the ball doing that fly through the air like "I'm an acrobat" routine.

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2009, 01:36:55 PM »
Jeff Reed is a serious loser. Nice form tackling in the open field on that Harvin touchdown! Good week for the Steel City's effeminate kicker!


That was just downright unacceptable.  Stupid little girl push.  I think the Steelers really need to work on tackling all around.  There were several bad tackles, a lot of the guys seemed to be trying to go for the BIG hit instead of a solid tackle.  When it works, it looks good on tv, but when it doesn't it costs them dearly.

UPINTHEMGUTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5633
  • I can spot crazy pussy....
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2009, 01:49:29 PM »

That was just downright unacceptable.  Stupid little girl push.  I think the Steelers really need to work on tackling all around.  There were several bad tackles, a lot of the guys seemed to be trying to go for the BIG hit instead of a solid tackle.  When it works, it looks good on tv, but when it doesn't it costs them dearly.

Ryan Clark is nasty, though. He lays the wood. That one hit on Harvin was money...

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2009, 01:51:23 PM »
Ryan Clark is nasty, though. He lays the wood. That one hit on Harvin was money...


Harvin earned his paycheck this game.

body88

  • Guest
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2009, 02:00:24 PM »
what a fking game.

steelers got a lot of breaks.

Why do people say this everytime a good team loses?  You don't think the Vikings got breaks too?  The Vikes got beat, plain and simple.  Breaks had no effect on the outcome of this game.  Both team got "breaks".

Andy Griffin

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6620
  • I know my own name, bitch.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2009, 02:03:31 PM »
Jeff Reed is a serious loser. Nice form tackling in the open field on that Harvin touchdown! Good week for the Steel City's effeminate kicker!

Jeff Reed is no Roy Gerela (probably a more accurate kicker, though)

~

UPINTHEMGUTS

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5633
  • I can spot crazy pussy....
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2009, 02:19:34 PM »
Jeff Reed is no Roy Gerela (probably a more accurate kicker, though)



Wow, what a handsome guy....Real lady killer right there....

Andy Griffin

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6620
  • I know my own name, bitch.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2009, 02:54:50 PM »
Wow, what a handsome guy....Real lady killer right there....

hahahahahahaha 

But not effeminate at least. 
~

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2009, 02:59:23 PM »
Why do people say this everytime a good team loses?  You don't think the Vikings got breaks too?  The Vikes got beat, plain and simple.  Breaks had no effect on the outcome of this game.  Both team got "breaks".

are you just arguing to argue or did you actually watch the game?

body88

  • Guest
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2009, 03:03:14 PM »
are you just arguing to argue or did you actually watch the game?

Of course I watched the game.  I'm not trying to argue.  I'm wondering why you say what you said so much?  It's an excuse, dude.  The Vikes got beat, period.

This kind of logic is strange to me.  It's like the types who say "not to take anything away from the (insert team)", then they procede to say something that takes away from the team.  Which is usually based on officiating and ignores the "breaks" that went the way of the team they are trying to valid the loss for.

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2009, 03:19:15 PM »
Of course I watched the game.  I'm not trying to argue.  I'm wondering why you say what you said so much?  It's an excuse, dude.  The Vikes got beat, period.

i say that so much?

i said it last week when the saints got breaks, which they did and i mentioned in in this thread when the steelers got breaks also. Stop reaching.

When a center fumbles a snap and the defense recovers, thats called luck. Thats a break for the defense. That has nothing to do with the opponent being better.

Theres a reason they keep all these stats.

maybe you think they should dump all game stats and just write "they got beat" on the game summary  ???

body88

  • Guest
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2009, 03:22:22 PM »
i say that so much?

i said it last week when the saints got breaks, which they did and i mentioned in in this thread when the steelers got breaks also. Stop reaching.

When a center fumbles a snap and the defense recovers, thats called luck. Thats a break for the defense. That has nothing to do with the opponent being better.

Theres a reason they keep all these stats.

maybe you think they should dump all game stats and just write "they got beat" on the game summary  ???

You said:

Quote
what a fking game.

steelers got a lot of breaks.

Which clearly highlights the "breaks" the Steelers got as a factor in the win.  What do "breaks" have to do with game stats?  A "break" would consist of a "gimme" or an example of good fortune.  Ex: You're speeding and a cop decides to give you a break and not ticket you.  A gift, right?  You never mentioned any game stats, so I don't really follow the point that you are trying to make with that.

The Steelers didn't need any "breaks" to strip sack farve and score.  They were the better team today, plain and simple.  Breaks had nothing to do with anything, imo.

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2009, 03:23:36 PM »
thats what i thought.

arguing just to argue.

body88

  • Guest
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2009, 03:26:16 PM »
thats what i thought.

arguing just to argue.
 

Translation, I can't counter any of the points that you just made in your post, above.  Nothing personal bro, I just don't agree with your logic.  We'll agree to disagree, unless you want to quote the post above and make some counter points.

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2009, 03:32:04 PM »
i just gave you a legit example of why I and people say "breaks" or "excuses" as you put it.

You then acted like a dummy. "what do breaks have to do with game stats" sigh..

maybe if you hadnt edited your posts 11 times in 2 minutes i might actually give a shit about what youre trying to argue here. But youre arguing just to argue. Go have a beer champ.

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2009, 03:43:38 PM »
You said:

Which clearly highlights the "breaks" the Steelers got as a factor in the win.  What do "breaks" have to do with game stats?  A "break" would consist of a "gimme" or an example of good fortune.  Ex: You're speeding and a cop decides to give you a break and not ticket you.  A gift, right?  You never mentioned any game stats, so I don't really follow the point that you are trying to make with that.

The Steelers didn't need any "breaks" to strip sack farve and score.  They were the better team today, plain and simple.  Breaks had nothing to do with anything, imo.


i didnt see this edit.

so youre basing your argument off of one play?

how about that pass on the screen play thrown directly to chester taylors hands and literally bounced in to timmons lap? then taken for a pic six? Would you define that as a break or did the other team just "beat em"

this is without factoring in bad officiating. The steelers got a break with the offials in the second half also. If you watched the game like you said, you know what play im talking about.

body88

  • Guest
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2009, 05:54:54 PM »

i didnt see this edit.

so youre basing your argument off of one play?

how about that pass on the screen play thrown directly to chester taylors hands and literally bounced in to timmons lap? then taken for a pic six? Would you define that as a break or did the other team just "beat em"

this is without factoring in bad officiating. The steelers got a break with the offials in the second half also. If you watched the game like you said, you know what play im talking about.



To me, you seem to pick and choose when "bad officiating" results in wins.  Why not mention some breaks that went the other way?  Your initial post said nothing of a particular play....  What am I phychic?  Again, I'm merely pointing out your tendency to cherry pick calls, officitating and situations to discredit football teams.

In football, lucky bounces and tips lead to game changing plays all the time. It's a part of the game. The Tyree catch in 07 is a good example of this.  A freak play that helped the Giants win a sb.  That said, the play of the Giants leading up until that point was the true reason they won.  Had the Patriots taken care of business, it would never have come down to those two or three freak plays or bad calls that happen in every football game each week.  Had the Vikings taken care of business, they would have won today...  but they didn't - so they lost.

I'm not trying to be argumentative; this is a messageboard where people come to talk sports and voice their opinion.  I voiced mine on your statement.... nothing more, nothing less.  It's not personal, nor am  I upset to the point where I need a beer.

The Showstoppa

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26879
  • Call the vet, cause these pythons are sick!
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2009, 06:38:51 PM »
Very entertaining game.  Vikings are for real.  And of course Pitts will be in the thick of things as always....although their lack of a consistent running game could come back to haunt them.

That bulldozer job that AP did to Gay was insane.  He literally trampled on him after destroying him.  Wow.

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2009, 06:46:00 PM »

To me, you seem to pick and choose when "bad officiating" results in wins.  Why not mention some breaks that went the other way?  Your initial post said nothing of a particular play....  What am I phychic?  Again, I'm merely pointing out your tendency to cherry pick calls, officitating and situations to discredit football teams.

In football, lucky bounces and tips lead to game changing plays all the time. It's a part of the game. The Tyree catch in 07 is a good example of this.  A freak play that helped the Giants win a sb.  That said, the play of the Giants leading up until that point was the true reason they won.  Had the Patriots taken care of business, it would never have come down to those two or three freak plays or bad calls that happen in every football game each week.  Had the Vikings taken care of business, they would have won today...  but they didn't - so they lost.

I'm not trying to be argumentative; this is a messageboard where people come to talk sports and voice their opinion.  I voiced mine on your statement.... nothing more, nothing less.  It's not personal, nor am  I upset to the point where I need a beer.

i can respect that. Im not trying to sling shit on this board, it was fun a few months ago but its just old now.

im still sticking to my guns though. The steelers had the "ball bounce their way" today so to speak a couple times and it helped them for sure.

2ND COMING

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6307
  • Might is right.
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2009, 06:50:50 PM »
That bulldozer job that AP did to Gay was insane.  He literally trampled on him after destroying him.  Wow.

agreed


Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2009, 02:05:11 AM »
what a fking game.

steelers got a lot of breaks.
steelers buy a lot of refs.  I'm glad one of the cocksuckers got flattened in the 4th, make him earn his payoff ::)

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2009, 02:08:06 AM »
Why do people say this everytime a good team loses?  You don't think the Vikings got breaks too?  The Vikes got beat, plain and simple.  Breaks had no effect on the outcome of this game.  Both team got "breaks".
I don't say it every game, but come on, it was fucking obvious on this game.  come to think of it, the last time I was saying this was with the steelers a few years back when it was again obvious as fuck.

Earl1972

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22045
  • #EarlToo
Re: steelers-vikings
« Reply #24 on: October 26, 2009, 11:47:55 AM »
what a fking game.

steelers got a lot of breaks.

so did the vikings

mendenhall dropping the ball on the 4 yard line

the phantom interference call on miller when santonio caught a td pass

in the end the better team won

E
E