STEELERS

ace63 · Post by **ace63** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:05 pm

cool cucumber wrote:Oh yeah I forgot having an amazing run stop defense and a couple of safeties and linebackers that scare offensive players poopy less is lucky, oh and Mendenhall running for 127 yards and a game winning touchdown is luck. darn lol.

Yea that was a playoff team too.

Manwithplan · Post by **Manwithplan** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:37 pm

Soooo, how do you figure that we got lucky?

Red_Dog · Post by **Red_Dog** » Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:08 pm

It wasn't luck at all. The Falcons are a good team and could make the playoffs this year. The defense was stout as always. Dennis Dixon didn't do that bad today and Rashard Mendenhall looked good, capping off a good game with a 50 yd TD. Bottom line, the Steelers won and the Bungals got owned, so get over it.

Rebels on 3 · Post by **Rebels on 3** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:18 am

The Bengals didnt get owned they played real well in the second half and if it wasnt for the kick return the Bengals prob would have won.

cool cucumber · Post by **cool cucumber** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:09 pm

Rebels on 3 wrote:The Bengals didnt get owned they played real well in the second half and if it wasnt for the kick return the Bengals prob would have won.

No they got owned! The only reason they started scoring was because when the Pats got up they started giving pretty large recieving cushions like 10 yards sometimes 15-20 yards deep.

Rebels on 3 · Post by **Rebels on 3** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:32 pm

Losing by two TD's isnt getting owned.

Manwithplan · Post by **Manwithplan** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:58 pm

Rebels on 3 wrote:The Bengals didnt get owned they played real well in the second half and if it wasnt for the kick return the Bengals prob would have won.

Oh, really? Well "if" fumble fingers Sweed doesn't drop the td pass in the endzone, the Steelers would have beaten the Bungals at home last year.

ace63 · Post by **ace63** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:06 pm

manwithplan wrote:
Rebels on 3 wrote:The Bengals didnt get owned they played real well in the second half and if it wasnt for the kick return the Bengals prob would have won.
Oh, really? Well "if" fumble fingers Sweed doesn't drop the td pass in the endzone, the Steelers would have beaten the Bungals at home last year.

I guess we got lucky .

Rebels on 3 · Post by **Rebels on 3** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:06 pm

Thats last year. But they didnt beat the Bengals just like the Bengals didnt beat the Pats. Its football that stuff happens.

Rebels on 3 · Post by **Rebels on 3** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:11 pm

IMO the Bengals looked better in week one then Sqeelers did. The Sqeelers got lucky and beat a ok Falcons team, while the Bengals kept it close to a very good New England team.

cool cucumber · Post by **cool cucumber** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:20 pm

cool cucumber wrote:
Rebels on 3 wrote:The Bengals didnt get owned they played real well in the second half and if it wasnt for the kick return the Bengals prob would have won.

Rebels on 3 wrote:IMO the Bengals looked better in week one then Sqeelers did. The Sqeelers got lucky and beat a ok Falcons team, while the Bengals kept it close to a very good New England team.
No they got owned! The only reason they started scoring was because when the Pats got up they started giving pretty large recieving cushions like 10 yards sometimes 15-20 yards deep.

Rebels on 3 · Post by **Rebels on 3** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Thats their fault they shouldnt have gave a cushions that big.

cool cucumber · Post by **cool cucumber** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:55 pm

You are missing the point. It doesn't matter about the points scored because it was a wasted effort! I don't care how you look at it but where it matters the record and the Steelers are 1-0 and the Bungals are 0-1

Question:so who looked better?

Answer:Steelers.

Rebels on 3 · Post by **Rebels on 3** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:10 pm

Question:who is the better team?

Answer: Bengals by far.

3 of the 4 NFL live guys picked the Bengals to go to the Superbowl. That doesnt mean they will but that for sure means that their better than the Steelers. I will go ahead a say the Bengals will beat the Steelers both times by 2 TD's or more.

ace63 · Post by **ace63** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:11 pm

well palmer did throw over 300 yards. To and chad did well . Palmer 92 % passer rating. Didnt need the int .
What was dixons rating ????

ace63 · Post by **ace63** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:17 pm

Dixon 18 for 26 236 yds 0 td 1 int

Manwithplan · Post by **Manwithplan** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 8:54 pm

ace63 wrote:Dixon 18 for 26 236 yds 0 td 1 int

Pretty darn good #'s for just his 2nd career start. Dixon throws for over 200 yrds and wins. Palmer throws for over 3oo and loses. Hmmmmmmmmm

cool cucumber · Post by **cool cucumber** » Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:29 pm

Dixon is our third stringer lmao those are good numbers for a third string QB in only his second start.

ace63 · Post by **ace63** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:10 pm

manwithplan wrote:Soooo, how do you figure that we got lucky?

Does it have something to do with cucumber living in his parnets basement and not leaving

Manwithplan · Post by **Manwithplan** » Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:30 pm

ace63 wrote:
manwithplan wrote:Soooo, how do you figure that we got lucky?

Does it have something to do with cucumber living in his parnets basement and not leaving

Not at all. Now I could say that it would be "unlucky" for cool's parents, but I don't know cool personally.

SoutheasternOhioPreps.com

STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS

Re: STEELERS