ShareThis Page
Breakfast with Benz

First call: Ranking the best Steelers post-1970s; weird night in MLB

| Tuesday, June 19, 2018, 6:36 a.m.
Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, left, and Jerome Bettis celebrate after the Steelers' 21-10 win over the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl XL football game Sunday, Feb. 5, 2006, in Detroit. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, left, and Jerome Bettis celebrate after the Steelers' 21-10 win over the Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl XL football game Sunday, Feb. 5, 2006, in Detroit. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)

In "First Call" today, who are the Steelers' best of the best after 1979? Why did Barry Trotz really leave Washington? And an incredibly weird night in baseball with highlights aplenty.


Did they get it right?

As we referenced in our afternoon commentary on Monday , the guys over at SteelersWire.com put together a list of the best Steelers ever.

Well, best Steelers post-1970s, anyway.

As much as I like Casey Hampton, I wouldn't put him in the top 10. Top 15-20? Yes. But that's too high for a guy who was a one-to-two down player for much of his career. And there are too many other guys with Hall of Fame talent to leave off the list.

The other nine, I agree with. Just not the order. Mine would be:

1. Ben Roethlisberger

2. Jerome Bettis

3. Dermontti Dawson

4. Rod Woodson

5. Alan Faneca

6. Troy Polamalu

7. Antonio Brown

8. Hines Ward

9. James Harrison

10. Heath Miller

And your next 10 candidates in no particular order? Hampton, Greg Lloyd, Joey Porter, Carnell Lake, Jason Gildon, Maurkice Pouncey, Aaron Smith, James Farrior, Levon Kirkland and does Le'Veon Bell get to be considered?

Or are we all still too mad at him?

That's still not mentioning Kevin Greene, Cam Heyward, Brett Keisel, Jeff Hartings, Louis Lipps ...

How did this team not win more Super Bowls since 1979 again?


Trotz waltzes away

I guess the Caps just can't have nice things.

The ticker-tape has barely been swept up around Washington D.C., and the Capitals are already looking for a new coach.

Barry Trotz resigned Monday. And the team is saying that money and term on his contract demands were a "sticking point." Trotz apparently had a Stanley Cup winning clause in his contract. It kicked in. That would've extended his deal to $1.8 million over the next two years.

But Trotz wanted more so he left. Word is, that's going over poorly in the Caps' front office.


MLB oddities

We already told you about the Juan Soto time-bending home run. But that just started scratching the surface on an unreal, strange night in baseball.

For instance, how often do you see a lead-off inside the park home run?

That was courtesy of the Mets' Brandon Nimmo in Colorado. He hit another one of a more conventional variety en route to a 4-for-6 day and a 12-2 Mets win.


MLB oddities, part 2

Tired of weird homers? No problem.

I give you Phillies-Cardinals.

First, there was Nick Williams busting his nose after this fluke play off the fence in right field.

Then, there was how the game concluded. Forget homers that went back in time. How about coming back to win a game after you committed the 27th out? Victor Arano managed to strike out Yairo Munoz. But it was a wild pitch and Munoz reached first base.

That kept a rally going for the Cardinals, who forced extra innings. St. Louis took a 5-4 lead into the 10th until the Phillies won the game on this errant dive from Marcel Osuna in an attempt to make a game saving catch.

An incredibly wild game.


Who did it better?

Speaking of those Phillies highlights, one of their players turned in a highlight that rivaled Josh Harrison's fabulous play in the Pirates 1-0 win over the Brewers.

So, who did it better? J-Hay?

Or Philadelphia's Maikel Franco?

So who did it better?

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.

click me