STEELERS Vs Broncos week 12 (1 Viewer)

[belljr]

Probably a hold on brown but you need to fight through that

 

[irish eyes]

I might be in the minority but I don't dig Romo schtick

Agreed 

 

[chad in Indy]

Get back to the running game Pitt! 

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Nice hands, Kordell.

 

[JoeSteeler]

Steelers trying their best to lose

 

[belljr]

Have the Steelers run the ball in the 2nd half?

 

[belljr]

### #### it.

You can't keep turning the ball over

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Put that ball away, goon.

 

[JoeSteeler]

wtf

 

[Ghost Rider]

Great defensive play. 

 

[sped1103]

Have the Steelers run the ball in the 2nd half?

Why would they run the ball? Ben looks great. 

 

[irish eyes]

@@@@ conner with another fumble in key moment,  wtf

 

[irish eyes]

They aren't getting to Keenum, need a sack 

 

[irish eyes]

And the Steelers say, here Denver take the game. Horrible horrible fumble by conner. No business losing to this team. They are not good.

 

[fred_1_15301]

No offsides there?

 

[IheartGuinness]

Think the Steelers will find a way to win.

 

[sped1103]

Maybe a loss will knock some sense into them that they need to, you know, actually run the ball on the road.

47 pass attempts against a flailing JAX team last week and >50 this week is inexcusable in these close games.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Romo was completely correct there.  No reason to run a play there.  And now - oh #### they score and then what?  Too much time.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Ben looking like Franco Harris

 

[fred_1_15301]

Ben looking like Franco Harris

Franco in his 20s or 50s?

 

[The General]

Run the gd ball

 

[fred_1_15301]

I despise the fade

 

[fred_1_15301]

No timeouts left for Denver?  WTF?

 

[fred_1_15301]

Bad play calling again.  

 

[Gachi]

Oof

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

What was that crap?

 

[SengerCJ]

Doink 

 

[Courtjester]

And the Steelers say, here Denver take the game. Horrible horrible fumble by conner. No business losing to this team. They are not good.

Yeah.....um....

 

[The Kerminator]

Big Ben just crapped himself

 

[irish eyes]

Who the @@@@ did he think was catching that. Poor poor poor game, just bad.

 

[fred_1_15301]

That was a tough loss but the Steelers got a little lucky against the Jags last week.  So I guess it evens out.  Still in good shape to take the division.  Next week is a big test.

 

[irish eyes]

That's a bad loss, going to come back to haunt them.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Who the @@@@ did he think was catching that. Poor poor poor game, just bad.

I don't think Ben played that poorly of a game.  He made 2 mistakes but he also had the team set up to win.  If Conner doesn't fumble and Washington doesn't make a horrific, unnecessary leap on an easy catch, the Steelers likely win.      

 

[fred_1_15301]

I don't think Ben played that poorly of a game.  He made 2 mistakes but he also had the team set up to win.  If Conner doesn't fumble and Washington doesn't make a horrific, unnecessary leap on an easy catch, the Steelers likely win.      

Oh and lets not forget Grimble.  Ben is low on the list of culprits for this loss.

 

[Mike Damone]

That was really strange play. Connor looked like he was fully expecting the ball. Tough loss , way too many screwups

 

[Mike Damone]

I don't think Ben played that poorly of a game.  He made 2 mistakes but he also had the team set up to win.  If Conner doesn't fumble and Washington doesn't make a horrific, unnecessary leap on an easy catch, the Steelers likely win.      

I was yelling at the tv about Washington’s leap

 

[5-ish Finkle]

Had this down as a loss the day the schedule was released.  The Steelers FIND ways to lose in Denver....which is precisely what they did.  Stole defeat from the jaws of victory one more time in that building.

I was yelling at the tv about Washington’s leap

Yeah, no need at all to lay out there.  Takes one more step instead of diving and he probably houses it.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Horrible play call at the end there, it was a quick rhythm throw, not sure I fully blame Ben even though it was horrible. 

 

[fred_1_15301]

It's funny but if the Steelers score a TD there I think Vance is going into the "post here when coaches do something obviously stupid" thread for not calling a timeout on the play before (unless they were out of timeouts which I'm not certain about).  Vance has to call a timeout there and maximize the chances for Denver to win the game in regulation.  

 

[Mile High]

It's funny but if the Steelers score a TD there I think Vance is going into the "post here when coaches do something obviously stupid" thread for not calling a timeout on the play before (unless they were out of timeouts which I'm not certain about).  Vance has to call a timeout there and maximize the chances for Denver to win the game in regulation.  

They still had 3 timeouts.

 

[Buffaloes]

Dumbest rule in all of sportsdom:

Fumble out of bounds at 1-inch line = retain possession (no loss of yards)

Fumble out of bounds at goal line = lose possession (AND lose 20 yards)

It's such a senseless, illogical rule. In every other fumble scenario, the ball stays with the offense. But in this one exception, you not only give the defense credit for recovering the fumble (which they didn't earn), but you give them 20 free yards as well.

The league has changed so many rules to encourage scoring, but they kept this stupid rule which just took 7 points away.

edit: technically it didn't take 7 points away. But the rule should be changed so that the offense retains possession at the 1 OR at the 20.

It's not dumb, it's consistent. If a punt goes oob it's a touchback for the team whose end zone the ball exited. Why? Because it's an unpossessed ball going oob. Same as if it's a fumble that goes oob in the end zone. It's an unpossessed ball going out of the ez and thus a touchback for the team whose ez it exited.

It's consistent with any other time an unpossessed ball goes oob in the ez and I don't understand all the hand wringing around it when it happens every year.

 

[Ghost Rider]

It's funny but if the Steelers score a TD there I think Vance is going into the "post here when coaches do something obviously stupid" thread for not calling a timeout on the play before (unless they were out of timeouts which I'm not certain about).  Vance has to call a timeout there and maximize the chances for Denver to win the game in regulation.  

Agreed.  Joseph was left off the hook when Ben threw that bonehead pass. 

 

[Da Guru]

I might be in the minority but I don't dig Romo schtick

Romo is better than he was when he started.  Still do not need to hear his prediction of what play is going to happen.   

 

[[scooter]]

Dumbest rule in all of sportsdom:

Fumble out of bounds at 1-inch line = retain possession (no loss of yards)

Fumble out of bounds at goal line = lose possession (AND lose 20 yards)

It's such a senseless, illogical rule. In every other fumble scenario, the ball stays with the offense. But in this one exception, you not only give the defense credit for recovering the fumble (which they didn't earn), but you give them 20 free yards as well.

The league has changed so many rules to encourage scoring, but they kept this stupid rule which just took 7 points away.

edit: technically it didn't take 7 points away. But the rule should be changed so that the offense retains possession at the 1 OR at the 20.

It's not dumb, it's consistent. If a punt goes oob it's a touchback for the team whose end zone the ball exited. Why? Because it's an unpossessed ball going oob. Same as if it's a fumble that goes oob in the end zone. It's an unpossessed ball going out of the ez and thus a touchback for the team whose ez it exited.

It's consistent with any other time an unpossessed ball goes oob in the ez and I don't understand all the hand wringing around it when it happens every year.

Your analogy actually shows just how inconsistent the rule is.

When an "unpossessed ball" (using your terminology) goes out of bounds on a punt, the defense receives the ball REGARDLESS of whether the ball goes out at the 1 or in the endzone.

When an "unpossessed ball" (using your terminology) goes out of bounds on a fumble, the defense ONLY receives the ball if it goes out of bounds in the endzone.

See? Inconsistent.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Agreed.  Joseph was left off the hook when Ben threw that bonehead pass. 

And it came shortly after the Steelers ####### decision to run a play before the 2 minute warning.  The Steelers are horrific at clock management and apparently so are the Broncos.  Blunder after blunder at the end of that game.  

 

[Buffaloes]

Your analogy actually shows just how inconsistent the rule is.

When an "unpossessed ball" (using your terminology) goes out of bounds on a punt, the defense receives the ball REGARDLESS of whether the ball goes out at the 1 or in the endzone.

When an "unpossessed ball" (using your terminology) goes out of bounds on a fumble, the defense ONLY receives the ball if it goes out of bounds in the endzone.

See? Inconsistent.

no, it's not inconsistent at all. if a ball is unpossessed there is no defense or offense. if the ball is unpossessed, which it is during a fumble, punt, kickoff, and it goes out of bounds in the end zone, in every instance it goes to the team whose end zone it exits at the 20 yard line. it's consistent and the rule is fine.

 

[[scooter]]

Your analogy actually shows just how inconsistent the rule is.

When an "unpossessed ball" (using your terminology) goes out of bounds on a punt, the defense receives the ball REGARDLESS of whether the ball goes out at the 1 or in the endzone.

When an "unpossessed ball" (using your terminology) goes out of bounds on a fumble, the defense ONLY receives the ball if it goes out of bounds in the endzone.

See? Inconsistent.

no, it's not inconsistent at all. if a ball is unpossessed there is no defense or offense. if the ball is unpossessed, which it is during a fumble, punt, kickoff, and it goes out of bounds in the end zone, in every instance it goes to the team whose end zone it exits at the 20 yard line. it's consistent and the rule is fine.

Huh? If a Denver player had batted that ball into the endzone, it would have been a safety for Pittsburgh, NOT a touchback.

 

[Buffaloes]

Huh? If a Denver player had batted that ball into the endzone, it would have been a safety for Pittsburgh, NOT a touchback.

Yeah, that's a weird one. I'd be more inclined to change the batted ball rule tbh. Doesn't make sense to penalize a player for a heady play in the ez...esp when it runs contrary to every other instance of a loose ball going oob in the ez. That's the dumb rule Imo.