Steelers had been successful keeping quarterbacks healthy
By Alan Robinson
Published: Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012, 8:52 p.m.
Get rid of the ball, don't take the sack. Get rid of the ball, don't take the sack.
“We don't want hits on our quarterbacks,” offensive coordinator Todd Haley said. “We don't want sacks.”
One of Haley's goals was to reduce the number of times Ben Roethlisberger picked himself off the turf, and he was successful — until Monday night.
Roethlisberger, sandwiched by two Chiefs linebackers, slammed elbow-first into the turf and injured his upper chest and a rib. The prognosis for his return is uncertain.
“The one (hit) that Ben took, unfortunately, was one of the few times this year,” Haley said Thursday. “He started backwards, got in trouble as opposed to just running or throwing it away, and it caused an issue. … The quarterbacks did a great job of getting rid of the football — all but one play.”
This isn't the Baltimore defense the Steelers are accustomed to seeing, not with Ray Lewis and Lardarius Webb out and the Ravens ranked an uncommonly low 27th overall. But they are forcing turnovers: They own a plus-9 advantage in takeaways; the Steelers are merely even. With a replacement quarterback in Byron Leftwich and possibly a rusty Rashard Mendenhall getting carries, the Steelers must guard against turnovers, especially in a series in which low-scoring games are common.
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.