Antonio Brown could have been a Seahawk? Imagine his debut against the Steelers | TribLIVE.com
Tim Benz, Columnist

Antonio Brown could have been a Seahawk? Imagine his debut against the Steelers

Tim Benz
1653319_web1_ce81129b068f41b9a548f4418ddfa484-ce81129b068f41b9a548f4418ddfa484-0
AP
Oakland Raiders wide receiver Antonio Brown watches from the sidelines during the second half of an an NFL preseason football game against the Arizona Cardinals, Thursday, Aug. 15, 2019, in Glendale, Ariz.

Antonio Brown floating out of Oakland in his hot air balloon over to New England has been a huge story.

Oh, gross. Make me puke.

That element of Brown teaming up with Tom Brady and company certainly added some spice to the Pittsburgh Steelers’ season-opening loss at Gillette Stadium Sunday. But since he didn’t sign with the Patriots until Saturday of last week, he was ineligible to play against the Black and Gold.

It’s tough to envision greater theater than if Brown had made his debut in Foxborough Sunday night.

Against the Steelers.

Playing for… them.

But let’s try, shall we? And it might not be hard to concoct such a scenario.

Imagine if Antonio Brown had made his debut with his new team in Week 2 at Heinz Field.

Against the Steelers.

As…. a Seahawk.

Apparently, that could’ve happened.

The Seattle Seahawks play in Pittsburgh Sunday for the Steelers 2019 home opener. According to ESPN’s Brady Henderson, Seattle may have taken a run at signing the former Steelers receiver if he didn’t engineer a deal in New England instead.

“(Head Coach) Pete Carroll said the Seahawks did indeed look into Antonio Brown once he was released by the Raiders on Saturday. The important reminder there is that Carroll and GM John Schneider always talk about looking into every potential move that comes up. Carroll offered a reminder of that, saying: ‘Not everything is always as it seems and you’ve got check into stuff and figure out what’s going on.’ So they may have merely been doing their usual due diligence as opposed to having a strong desire in adding Brown — and it may not have mattered even if they were seriously interested. Carroll gave the impression that Brown was intent on signing with the Patriots, saying: He was headed to New England. He was going.’”

That sounds like a little bit more than a passing interest to me. I’m not sure why Carroll would’ve even allowed that much if it wasn’t worth talking about.

Can you picture what that would’ve looked like on the North Shore?

I can. It’s somewhere between the final Colosseum scene in “Gladiator” and the original “The Longest Yard.”

For all the hype and hoopla associated with Brown’s arrival in New England, try to get a grasp of what this week would’ve been like for the first post-Antonio-Brown-era game at Heinz Field with A.B. wearing the other team’s uniform and standing on the other sideline.

I get it. The Seahawks don’t engender the same kind of hatred here that the Patriots do. And, yeah, that’s a big part of the explosive reaction to the way Brown wiggled out of his deal in Oakland.

However, to have that undercurrent of hate as the major storyline leading into the 2019 season opener may have set off the most emotionally frothing environment ever in that building.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

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.