NoirCore
-
Posts
1,475 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by NoirCore
-
-
1 hour ago, Anacybele said:
You're twisting my words. My opinion isn't solely due to just this season, which I'll explain below in my quoting of NoirCore.
Except not just this season, but in a few recent seasons as well, we've seen big problems that have to be due to coaching and yet the Rooneys have yet to fire any. Not renewing Todd Haley was a start, but it hasn't been enough.
I'm tired of this team taking so many penalties in just about every game. That's lack of discipline which is on coaching. This has happened in recent seasons as well, not just this one. The defense has sucked for several years. It was getting somewhere before Shazier went down, which is no one's fault (but his own, technically), but one player should a not a defense make.
Some of the playcalling over the past few seasons has been bad too, on both sides of the ball. Also down to coaching. I'm not sure Keith Butler or Randy Fichtner are cut out for these. Butler in particular since he's had a few seasons to get into the role of DC. Fichtner could probably be given another year to improve.
And I haven't mentioned the issues of playing down to the competition and having bad starts. Bad starts happened a lot in previous seasons too, not just this one, as did playing down to the competition. These are all due to lack of preparation, which is again, on coaching.
So as I said, our coaching sucks, and the Rooneys suck because they refuse to fire any.
And yet, so far, we have consistently made the playoffs for plenty of years and have so far never had a losing season under Tomlin. If we're doing this in spite of bad playcalling (which I'm not certain of since you don't compare us to all other teams) (and of the last 3 seasons, only 2016 was bad for penalties (we were on the edge of the top 10) because we were in the middle of the pack in 2017 and among the least penalized in 2015, so you're inaccurate on penalties for the most part), "playing down to the competition", or "bad preparation", then we must really be impressive these years for getting by on that. Not that I necessarily believe what you claim is easily blamed on the staff.
Again, wait until we have a truly bad season before we even think about talking about changing up the staff, and I mean think about. But you'll never convince me thanks to recent decent-great years of performance that the Rooneys are doing "bad"; that's super silly.
-
6 hours ago, Anacybele said:
That was hardly an asswhooping. It wasn't even close to being an actual blowout. You only scored two TDs, both of which were only in the first quarter and one came off a turnover in our own end. Our D held you to just FGs afterward, our offense just didn't do what they were supposed to do.
I don't know what's with this team. Against the Chiefs it was the defense's fault we lost, now against the Ravens it was the offense's fault. Is this team just wildly inconsistent or something? I still think we probably need to sell the team to owners who are more willing to fire coaches and then fire at least Tomlin and coordinators. Things like consistency and the absurd amount of penalties are due to bad coaching.
Ana, you probably shouldn't ask for a mass firing of major roles after many seasons of success with similar coaches because of a 1-2-1 start for one season all of a sudden. Chill your boots. Making general assumptions with no concrete base to go off of does not diagnose a problem correctly. Need I remind you that in the 2013 season, we went 8-4 after a 0-4 start? That's not too bad, considering how bad we tumbled out of the starting gate (worse than this year, even) and that didn't stop Tomlin from bringing us to the playoffs consistently after that.
Wait and see if this losing reputation sticks, THEN we can start talking about new coaches. But for now, no way.
-
3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:
So even if Rex doesn't make it into Smash then its still very likely that some of Xenoblade's soundtrack will make it into Smash. Which songs would you guys like to see?
Counter attack and the Mor Ardain theme seems like pretty obvious bets. The song ''drifting souls'' is possible since it such a prominent one but its not exactly fighting music.
The Torna battle theme is one I really like to see.
I really hope "Song of Giga Rosa" gets in. A mecha anime OP-sounding song? Hell yeah, that should get in Smash.
Similarly, since it looks like X's lyrical music got into 2 with no issue, Uncontrollable and Wir Fliegen would be great, too.
plus xenosaga i's battle theme
and fatal fight from xenosaga ii
cmon namco you love xenosaga crossover stuff anyway
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
59 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:
We've been over this but that Steelers team was definitely not great. They were 13-3 but had a Pythag of like 10-6, they eked out too many close wins to be "king." They got beat pretty handily by the Jaguars twice that year so if anything Jacksonville is better off.
Besides, the Patriots made 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah, and until now, the Patriots often had that talk of being that team in the NFL which is unstoppable. I didn't really get the same invincibility sense from the Steelers.
-
On 9/23/2018 at 11:21 PM, Anacybele said:
Just a season ago we were the AFC kings. Oh how the mighty have fallen...
If the Steelers lose again tomorrow though, there will definitely be trouble.
We were? I am very certain that was the Patriots who were the Goliaths of the AFC, if not the NFL in general before the Super Bowl. We were good, but not necessarily the best.
-
1 hour ago, Lord-Zero said:
Making L!Tiki an armored dragon is just an excuse to bait whales as well as giving her a very high BST. It’s still stupid reasoning, though. We have stuff like Garon wearing a full suit of armor and he’s considered infantry. Ugh, her fake British voice they keep insisting on her is terrible.
How so? I think Mela Lee's English accent is great. Not perfect, but I wouldn't go anywhere near terrible to describe the authenticity.
As for the armor, I think we already hit that point of no return long ago with the Christmas units, so... *shrug*
-
1 hour ago, Anacybele said:
I'm surprised this isn't adult Tiki. Huh. Young Tiki is cute to me, but I have no orbs, and I'm no fan of armors anyway. I'll go blue on the free pull tho.
Young Tiki is arguably more iconic than her adult self, being among the first manaketes in the series and being undoubtedly more useful than Bantu whereas adult Tiki, as much as I like her, didn't really do anything notable in Awakening except be a nice callback that is optional to recruit. I think there was also some official anniversary art some years ago where young Tiki was featured alongside other lords, so all that probably indicates why she's held at a higher regard.
-
3 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:
Except I wasn't talking about what Vergeben did or didn't mention, rather that Isabelle being playable was a pretty easy guess to make (as was K.Rool after the Ridley reveal).
So it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about either.
I cannot disagree with you more. There was talk earlier about how on the blog, some items' URLs had numbers that skipped some others, which indicated a new character would be coming in with a new song dedicated to them, which obviously did not happen with Isabelle who showed up with Tortimer Island music. Without hindsight, Isabelle would be an unlikely guess.
You also still have not explained how K. Rool was easy to guess in your eyes.
-
1 hour ago, Anacybele said:
And that could've been a 3.0 update. Nobody would've known for sure. I'm tired of people telling me "they can't see laguz being added until this point" though, so can people just drop it? Not your fault, but I've been hearing it a lot.
Sorry, but if you're expecting a 3.0 update without anything as much as a Feh Channel to hint at it yet, we understandably will be questioning such expectations when they pop and (especially including those who are not aware of this conversation) are under no moral obligation to stop questioning. You'll have to deal with it. Remember, Ver. 2 was two weeks after the Feh Channel advertising it.
-
2 hours ago, Anacybele said:
I was really thinking and hoping the Sept. 21 banner would be laguz, but I'm cool with this too! Laevateinn! :D
If you mean possibly dragon/heron Laguz, sure, but otherwise I confidently can say I can't see new laguz being added until possibly 3.0.
Anyways, I might likely go for Laegjarn, speaking without knowing her stats. She's pretty awesome and noble. :)
-
38 minutes ago, DisobeyedCargo said:
Daisy’s heart shaped box much? :P
Oh, Emile. :P
Speaking of Chuggaaconroy and his interests, I'm gonna guess we'll get Rex/Pyra this Direct. Not only does the whole delay talk earlier sorta expose that the new character has a song associated with them, but it would go along with the Xenoblade 2 DLC coming out around this time (which I also expect to be covered here).
-
1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:
Smash has waifu pandering? Never realized people saw Inkling in that way. And I thought the Daisy Daisyier Daisyist Cult wasn't quite into that.
I mean, I know of a pun-loving Let's player who once lost his innocence thanks to his choice words describing putting Daisy on a hard difficulty in Mario Party. :P
-
I wouldn't say "dislike", more just have no interest in, but...
Metroid - I dunno...Super Metroid, as popular as it is, didn't really grab my interest.
Most FPS with realistic visuals - A common sight and sorta boring in my eyes. Splatoon is a breath of fresh air (no pun intended :P).
Bubsy - ...what? It's popular in the infamous way. :P
-
1 minute ago, eclipse said:
Masked Lucina feels forgotten.
Excuse me, that is clearly a man taking up Marth's name. :P
But yeah, I don't think IS really gives too much damns about gender balance, patterns or consistency in Heroes. They just seem to do their own thing.
-
Eh, might skip this banner. Save for the fact that I recently killed an enemy NPC named after Silas in a D&D game, I'm not feeling much interest in anybody. Though, I'm curious; is that Anthony Del Rio? He sounds lighter; closer to his Pit voice.
15 minutes ago, Anacybele said:Also, why does Silas get a smaller skill set than the others? That's not fair to him. Is it because he's not a girl? That's sexist and messed up. It's no wonder players find females more desirable, IS purposely makes them that way. You won't get males selling just as much with this kind of treatment, IS.
I'll give that him being the only guy in a 4-person banner is ehh, but let's not play the sexist card and start dreaming up conspiracy theories on IS being sexist people just because the only guy in the banner happens to have less skills. I get Silas is yo boi, but...
2018/19 NFL Season (the Buffalo Bills are worse than pizza with pineapple on it)
in Entertainment
Posted
...never mind that in two of the last three years, we've won at least one playoff game if not get to the AFC Championship game.
And yes, teams do get to the SB to win, but remember the beauty of sport: only one team out of many (in this case, 32) can win it. Even reduced to the number of teams in the playoffs, it's still many fighting for one. By your logic, many NFL teams need giant staff overhauls, and to be blunt, that's stupid. So what if you didn't win the SB? If you're making the playoffs, that's good enough that switching up your head coach is among the weirdest and silliest moves you can make.
From the sounds of things, Ana, you just have big expectations. Seems less like your accusations hold insight and more like you're making yourself allergic to losing instead of just taking your sigh of disappointment and moving on. Like @Life said, losing sucks. You just need to accept what you did accomplish and move on. Instead, you're blaming the coach like he's a wizard or something.
Funny; you were talking about how we used to be among the best not too long ago. Wonder what makes all those then-"meh" AFC teams that apparently were worse than a team coached by the guy you claim "hasn't been good enough". Should all those teams have fired their coaches, too?