The Steeler blame game
In his Jan. 16 letter, Jack Juris states the New England Patriots Spygate affair didn't result in the loss of draft picks. That is incorrect. The Patriots had to forfeit their 2008 first-round pick.
He also feels the Steelers are the most scrutinized team in the NFL. Based on the list of teams that have lost draft picks since 1980, that argument loses some steam.
Eleven teams have forfeited picks for incidents including tampering with players, salary cap violations, illegal tryouts and contract violations. One of those incidents involved the Steelers — they lost a third-round pick for violating the salary cap in 1998.
The Broncos, 49ers, Raiders and Patriots have been penalized twice each.
The paranoia and blame-game mindset of some Steeler fans escalates when our beloved Black and Gold fail to make the playoffs.
Many fans blame the Kansas City kicker for missing the field goal that would have gotten the Steelers into the playoffs. Many more blame the referees who missed the penalty on the field goal attempt.
To lay blame, the Steelers themselves — including coach Mike Tomlin — know they need only look in the mirror. They know full well that had they beaten bottom feeders Minnesota, Oakland or Tennessee, they'd have been in the playoffs.
They know that bad performances on the field, not a conspiracy, kept them on the outside looking in.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett, the reformer
- Sheetz-CVS hearing
- Failing to lead
- Not for expressway
- Far-left continuation
- He’ll tax, we’ll pay
- ‘Badges’ before Brooks
- Renaming in order?
- Confidence in our courts
- Science on fracking’s side
- Not clean enough