Share This Page

Steelers notebook: Steady Suisham franchise's most accurate

| Saturday, Oct. 19, 2013, 8:51 p.m.

Shaun Suisham is the most accurate kicker in Steelers history.

Since joining the team in 2010, Suisham is 75 of 87 (86.2 percent), well ahead of the 82.7 percent pace of Norm Johnson (105 of 127, 1995-98). Jeff Reed (81.9 percent) and Gary Anderson (78.2) are Nos. 3-4, reflecting how kickers are becoming more accurate not only with each generation but also with each season.

No phase of play has improved over the past 40-plus seasons more than kicking.

For example, Gene Mingo made only 38.6 percent of his Steelers attempts (17 of 44) in 1969 and 1970. Suisham is perfect on 10 kicks this season and is 38 of 41 (93 percent) over the past two seasons.

Bengals provide hope

If the Steelers (1-5) don't beat the Baltimore Ravens (3-3), history shows their season effectively will be over.

Only one team during the Super Bowl era, the 1970 Bengals, started 1-5 and recovered to make the playoffs. Those Bengals lost six of their first seven but recovered to win their final seven games and the AFC Central because no other division team had a winning record.

The Cleveland Browns went 7-7, the Steelers 5-9 during a season in which rookie quarterback Terry Bradshaw had six TDs and 24 INTs, and Houston Oilers were 3-10-1.

The Bengals' recovery was made possible partly because the Oilers and Steelers played 20 nonwinning games between them. There is more balance in the AFC North, which makes it unlikely a team can pull off a streak to match that of the 1970 Bengals.

“We've got to keep climbing and build off last week (a 19-6 win) and get another one,” defensive end Brett Keisel said.

Alan Robinson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at arobinson@tribweb.com or via Twitter @arobinson_Trib.

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.