2018/19 NFL Season (the Buffalo Bills are worse than pizza with pineapple on it)

[NoirCore]

2 hours ago, Anacybele said:

Except I was only talking about last season, not any others.

Even then, I agree with Raven. We didn't have that unstoppable presence the Pats had. After the bye week, most of our wins were close games, including the final game against the Browns. That didn't have me optimistic going into the playoffs.

[Anacybele]

9 minutes ago, NoirCore said:

Even then, I agree with Raven. We didn't have that unstoppable presence the Pats had. After the bye week, most of our wins were close games, including the final game against the Browns. That didn't have me optimistic going into the playoffs.

So? Having a few close wins doesn't mean you're not a great team. Raven makes no sense to me here.

Also, you do realize we rested our starters in that Browns game, right? :/

Edited September 29, 2018 by Anacybele

[NoirCore]

3 hours ago, Anacybele said:

So? Having a few close wins doesn't mean you're not a great team. Raven makes no sense to me here.

Also, you do realize we rested our starters in that Browns game, right? :/

D'oh. My bad. Misremembered the Browns stuff.

You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean such a team is not great. But it doesn't make them unarguable "kings" of a conference. Want to look unstoppable? Beat teams efficiently.

[Life]

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

For a bunch of seasons, this was the point in the seasons where the Patriots floundered and the dynasty is over, for the record.

I'm pretty fucking superstitious as an NFL fan and I will not believe the Patriots look weak until I see them eliminated from the playoffs. I'm not falling for that bullshit this time.

My buddy from Boston actually thinks that the Pats will be lucky to win the division this year but I'm with you. Won't believe it until I see it.

[Anacybele]

7 hours ago, NoirCore said:

D'oh. My bad. Misremembered the Browns stuff.

You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean such a team is not great. But it doesn't make them unarguable "kings" of a conference. Want to look unstoppable? Beat teams efficiently.

No it doesn't, but did you also forget our record and that we would've beaten the Patriots if it wasn't for a bad rule? And like I said, the rest of the AFC was meh. Jags were kinda good, just also our kryptonite...

[NoirCore]

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

No it doesn't, but did you also forget our record and that we would've beaten the Patriots if it wasn't for a bad rule? And like I said, the rest of the AFC was meh. Jags were kinda good, just also our kryptonite...

Fair point about the Patriots (though we also dropped the game by letting our chances for another TD go away), but that also brings into question: why were we getting close wins over "meh" teams, as you describe them? The Bengals, Ravens, and Packers (we faced them) had mediocre records at the end, and the Colts were even worse off at 4-12 (going by the logic that record alone tells a lot about the team's skill, as you point out about the Steelers). But we snuck by with close wins.

[Lord Raven]

Ana, the vast majority of the time an NFL team wins around 8 games by within one score, it's because their defense can't put the game away or their offense has to do late game heroics which is unsustainable. A lot of teams tend to lose 5-6 less games the next year if they win the fashion the Steelers had last year, and when Shazier went down their defense went to shit. Their expected win-loss record was 10-6 or 9-7 or something based on their point differential, which is the stat correlated with future success and consistency.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Anacybele]

18 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Ana, the vast majority of the time an NFL team wins around 8 games by within one score, it's because their defense can't put the game away or their offense has to do late game heroics which is unsustainable. A lot of teams tend to lose 5-6 less games the next year if they win the fashion the Steelers had last year, and when Shazier went down their defense went to shit. Their expected win-loss record was 10-6 or 9-7 or something based on their point differential, which is the stat correlated with future success and consistency.

Uh, duh? You think I don't know how bad our defense has generally been? Shazier didn't go down until December though, and most of those close games came at around that time of the season as well. We still made a deep playoff run and if it wasn't for the fact that the Jags are our kryptonite, we probably would've at least made the AFC title game again.

And I'm not denying that you need a defense to win a Super Bowl. I haven't thought we could win one in years because of that. They say offense wins games, but defense wins SBs, remember? And it's pretty true. And I still don't think we'll get another one so long as the defense remains bad to meh.

EDIT: NoirCoire: Playing down to the competition has been a problem too, which applies to the Packers and Colts (the Packers sans Aaron Rodgers are not great). And the Ravens are a team we tend to have close games with no matter what.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Anacybele

[Slumber]

I always think of this when the Jets play the Jaguars:

Spoiler

 

 

[NoirCore]

4 hours ago, Anacybele said:

Uh, duh? You think I don't know how bad our defense has generally been? Shazier didn't go down until December though, and most of those close games came at around that time of the season as well. We still made a deep playoff run and if it wasn't for the fact that the Jags are our kryptonite, we probably would've at least made the AFC title game again.

And I'm not denying that you need a defense to win a Super Bowl. I haven't thought we could win one in years because of that. They say offense wins games, but defense wins SBs, remember? And it's pretty true. And I still don't think we'll get another one so long as the defense remains bad to meh.

EDIT: NoirCoire: Playing down to the competition has been a problem too, which applies to the Packers and Colts (the Packers sans Aaron Rodgers are not great). And the Ravens are a team we tend to have close games with no matter what.

I don't understand what you're getting at, but are you saying we apparently "had bad days" against those teams and we didn't play how we were "supposed to"? If so, that sounds like an attempt to justify a team's lackluster skill. And I don't really believe that the Steelers had a close game against the Ravens because history asked the gods of football to make it so. Unless there's superstition going on (and I don't believe it here), I don't like to rely on distant history for their performance today. The team from way back then is not the team now, whether it's two, three, four, etc. seasons ago, no matter if it's a trend of close games that go both ways. Maybe one season, but there's still quite a bit of differentiation.

The Steelers barely edged by those teams with lackluster records because they didn't play better enough.

[Anacybele]

1 minute ago, NoirCore said:

I don't understand what you're getting at, but are you saying we apparently "had bad days" against those teams and we didn't play how we were "supposed to"? If so, that sounds like an attempt to justify a team's lackluster skill. And I don't really believe that the Steelers had a close game against the Ravens because history asked the gods of football to make it so. Unless there's superstition going on (and I don't believe it here), I don't like to rely on distant history for their performance today. The team from way back then is not the team now, whether it's two, three, four, etc. seasons ago, no matter if it's a trend of close games that go both ways. Maybe one season, but there's still quite a bit of differentiation.

The Steelers barely edged by those teams with lackluster records because they didn't play better enough.

Who said anyone was relying on distant history? I'm not.

Yeah, because of playing down to the competition which really needs to stop. It doesn't always happen, but it happens too much regardless.

Also, when I said this team was great, I didn't mean there were no problems with it. You guys are also still missing the fact that much of the rest of the AFC were blah last season. I wasn't saying the Steelers were a king then because of the team by themselves. The rest of the conference being mostly meh is a reason too. Besides the Pats and maybe the Jags, the Steelers were the only other actually good team at that point.

[NoirCore]

4 hours ago, Anacybele said:

Who said anyone was relying on distant history? I'm not.

Yeah, because of playing down to the competition which really needs to stop. It doesn't always happen, but it happens too much regardless.

Also, when I said this team was great, I didn't mean there were no problems with it. You guys are also still missing the fact that much of the rest of the AFC were blah last season. I wasn't saying the Steelers were a king then because of the team by themselves. The rest of the conference being mostly meh is a reason too. Besides the Pats and maybe the Jags, the Steelers were the only other actually good team at that point.

"And the Ravens are a team we tend to have close games with no matter what." To justify this, you'd have to use way more than two games as an example. So yes, you are using history. Two years ago, three years, etc.

And it sounds like you're going in circles because again, the Steelers barely edged by some of those meh (and bleh, in the case of the Colts) AFC teams, let alone the meh Packers team. If the Steelers have to narrowly beat meh teams, that says a lot more than their record. We probably "played down to the competition" because we were merely slightly better than the competition.

Also, why multiple kings? If you're a king in this metaphor, you're the king and the only king while others try to usurp you. We were trying to usurp the Patriots; there is no question that was our reputation last season, if you ask me. The Pats had close losses aside from their week 1 game (but again, week 1) and most of their wins were 10-20 point margins.

The Pats were the kings, period.

[Anacybele]

1 minute ago, NoirCore said:

"And the Ravens are a team we tend to have close games with no matter what." To justify this, you'd have to use way more than two games as an example. So yes, you are using history. Two years ago, three years, etc.

And it sounds like you're going in circles because again, the Steelers barely edged by some of those meh (and bleh, in the case of the Colts) AFC teams, let alone the meh Packers team. If the Steelers have to narrowly beat meh teams, that says a lot more than their record. We probably "played down to the competition" because we were merely slightly better than the competition.

Also, why multiple kings? If you're a king in this metaphor, you're the king and the only king while others try to usurp you. We were trying to usurp the Patriots; there is no question that was our reputation last season, if you ask me. The Pats had close losses aside from their week 1 game (but again, week 1) and most of their wins were 10-20 point margins.

The Pats were the kings, period.

I said that to point out that it wasn't unusual for us to have had close games with the Ravens last season. That's not the same as saying "the Steelers were great last season because of this stuff way back when" or whatever.

Yes, we are going in circles here, so let's just end it.

It's a figure of speech. You're taking it too literally.

[NoirCore]

33 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

I said that to point out that it wasn't unusual for us to have had close games with the Ravens last season. That's not the same as saying "the Steelers were great last season because of this stuff way back when" or whatever.

Yes, we are going in circles here, so let's just end it.

It's a figure of speech. You're taking it too literally.

Then if your reasoning for why the second game was close was "the first game was close", then that's not a good excuse, either. It's just two games. Thus, we barely edged by a team with a meh record because we weren't too much better than them.

You brought us in circles by bringing up that the Steelers were battling meh teams a second time for some reason since we were trying to judge how good the Steelers are compared to the Patriots and whether they deserved to be considered among the ultimates of the AFC. Dunno why you mentioned I helped out. 

And you are ignoring how I pointed out that the Patriots have had more definitive wins than the Steelers, who were stuck with close wins. I don't think we could be considered on the same level (as you initial words imply) as the Pats if they had an easier time winning. We were princes, really.

Edited September 30, 2018 by NoirCore

[Anacybele]

12 minutes ago, NoirCore said:

And you are ignoring how I pointed out that the Patriots have had more definitive wins than the Steelers, who were stuck with close wins. I don't think we could be considered on the same level (as you initial words imply) as the Pats if they had an easier time winning. We were princes, really.

Saying they were the two best teams in the AFC does not mean saying they're on the same level. Pats were probably the best, with us at second best. But no other AFC team was as good.

[NoirCore]

1 hour ago, Anacybele said:

Saying they were the two best teams in the AFC does not mean saying they're on the same level. Pats were probably the best, with us at second best. But no other AFC team was as good.

Well, "Just a season ago, we were the AFC kings" didn't exactly convey your intended message well. Your wording implies the Steelers and Pats were equals at the top.

[Anacybele]

12 minutes ago, NoirCore said:

Well, "Just a season ago, we were the AFC kings" didn't exactly convey your intended message well. Your wording implies the Steelers and Pats were equals at the top.

I meant both the Steelers and Pats when I said that since I was quoting chococoke, obviously.

[Moblin Major General]

Wow. We beat the Superbowl Champs. Is Tennessee actually good? Or are they channeling their bad luck as a weapon against their enemies?

[NoirCore]

30 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

I meant both the Steelers and Pats when I said that since I was quoting chococoke, obviously.

Yes, like I just said in the same message you quoted. "We" means the Steelers and Patriots, and by giving them the same title, your words implied that both teams were equals in how good they were.

[Anacybele]

30 minutes ago, NoirCore said:

Yes, like I just said in the same message you quoted. "We" means the Steelers and Patriots, and by giving them the same title, your words implied that both teams were equals in how good they were.

I didn't mean they were equals though, I meant they were just better than the rest of the AFC.

[Lord Raven]

https://i.imgur.com/ifRp05w.gifv

hell yeah

Edited October 1, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Life]

This offensive line is ugly to watch. How we actually managed to drive the ball on the Vikings last week, I'll never know.

I want first overall pick.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Life

[Slumber]

4 hours ago, Life said:

This offensive line is ugly to watch. How we actually managed to drive the ball on the Vikings last week, I'll never know.

I imagine there was some Monstars-esque talent stealing going on last week. Whether it was the Bills' stealing it, the Vikings having it stolen(Or both), clearly aliens were involved. 

[NoirCore]

2 hours ago, Slumber said:

I imagine there was some Monstars-esque talent stealing going on last week. Whether it was the Bills' stealing it, the Vikings having it stolen(Or both), clearly aliens were involved. 

is this space spike, the football-themed spinoff sequel to space jam

[-Cynthia-]

On 9/30/2018 at 9:31 PM, Hylian Air Force said:

Wow. We beat the Superbowl Champs. Is Tennessee actually good? Or are they channeling their bad luck as a weapon against their enemies?

As loath as I am to admit, the Titans are pretty good. I think a lot of people (including myself) are waiting for some more decisive victories though, as discussed previously in this thread winning by a small margin every game is generally not sustainable.

Nice win over the Jets this week, Chiefs should be an interesting matchup. How often do we have a big AFC game that doesn't involve the Pats or Steelers?