Fake field goal furor, misplaced Pitt angst dominate this week's 'U mad, bro?'

This week’s “U mad, bro?” is all about Pitt’s flameout against Miami and the Steelers’ botched fake field-goal attempt.

Oh, and one guy who is still angry that I asked Mike Tomlin about those college coaching jobs.

Maybe I should change the name of this column to “Let it go, bro.”

JR defends the Steelers’ fake field-goal attempt last Sunday in Cleveland and isn’t fond of how the media is second guessing it.

“I hate fake punts and field goals. Not for the obvious reasons. I hate them because if they don’t work I have to put up with days of endless media commentary detailing the idiocy of the decision.

‘Yeah — but not now, dummy!’

The truth is, there is never a good time to gamble with points or field position. If there were a good time, the other team would know it too, and would be looking for it! Gambling for more points in the first half of a game tied 3-3 is as good a time as any. You have an entire half to make up those precious 3 points — and [in this case] the bonus of receiving the second half kickoff.

A bad time would be risking three easy points with three minutes to go in a game where a field goal would give you a two score lead. That would be dumb. But what Tomlin did Sunday? Meh — why not?

But you know this town, people lick their chops at any chance to question Tomlin’s I.Q.

I won’t comment on the design or execution of the fake. It could very well have been idiotic. But none of us really know those details because we weren’t involved.”

I won’t speak for anyone else, JR, but I think it’s entirely possible to question a coaching decision without questioning the coach’s intelligence. I think Tomlin is a smart guy who simply picked the wrong time to run that play.

The problem I have with your email is your last line attempting to dismiss the execution and design of the play. After all, those are the reasons why Tomlin said it didn’t work.

If it only took an extra second or two for the Browns to figure out the fake was on before the ball was snapped (as Tomlin has twice stated since the game ended), then it’s too easy of a trick play to diagnose. And it’s too easy to defend once the ball is snapped.

As we plainly saw.

I keep going back to the sequence of how the play was set up. If getting seven points was so important to him in that situation, then why not take another shot at the end zone on third and long instead of running Najee Harris to get half the distance back?

If they burned third down to help set up the fake for fourth down, then I have even more of a problem with the risk-reward angle — considering they put such a high premium on rolling the dice to get seven, instead of kicking the sure three.

Especially in a game that was clearly tight and low scoring.

Steve chimes in on a different angle of frustration about the fake field goal.

“I’ve heard nothing about the hit on Chris Boswell. Just about the bad coaching decision! OK bad decisions are made, live with it! My concern is why no penalty?

I think the lack of any penalty to protect the player is MORE important to discuss than a coach’s decision! People need to get their priorities in order!”

Well, Steve, I think you are hearing less discussion about the missed penalty because just about everyone agrees that the penalty was missed. Even CBS rules analyst Gene Steratore.

His tweet was something I did point out after the game.

As the email above indicates, there is room for debate about the decision to try a fake in that situation. The conversation about the officials missing that call is open and shut.

Matt sent a tweet after Pitt lost to Miami on Saturday, sapping all that momentum from the Clemson victory a week earlier.

Pitt will always disappoint after a big win. It is an inviolable law of nature. At least the delusional "Pickett for Heisman" folks will hopefully crawl back in their holes.

— Matt McCartney (@Matt_McCartney) October 30, 2021

You know, I wasn’t all that put off by Pitt fans who were backing Pickett for the Heisman Trophy. That didn’t bother me. I mean, as you are suggesting, it was never going to happen. But they were just backing their guy. And he was red hot. So I get it.

As for your “inviolable law of nature” suggestion, I agree with you more there.

After the Clemson win, when I said on 105.9 The X that Pitt may win the ACC, but they’ll be left out of the college football playoff, I kept getting inundated with an ESPN link that showed a path to them getting one of the top four spots.

If anyone should know that theory was getting way too far out, way too fast, it’s Pitt fans. For the exact reasons you pointed out. Yet many seemed to buy in anyway.

Beat a mediocre version of Miami before you start angling for why you should be in the playoff ahead of Alabama or Ohio State.

Robert did not like my exchange with Pitt fans during last week’s “U mad, bro?” Nor did he appreciate my attempt to praise the Panthers after their win over Clemson two weeks ago.

After reading your (garbage) column of this past Saturday, I can understand the two Pitt fans’ anger with you.

What does “you people” mean ? Are you referring to those of us who read the paper that employs you ?

‘Since Dan Marino left ?’ How old are you there, Timmy. Were you even born yet?

Perhaps you should go back to Syracuse. You proved nothing than other….what a (jerk) you are !

Hmmm. I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t bother writing about Pitt after they lost to Miami. Imagine how mad this guy would’ve been then.

Robert, based on the tone of your email, “you people” means (quite literally) people like you — the segment of Pitt’s fan base that is thin-skinned, hair-triggered, self-victimizing and perpetually persecuted.

As for your other points, I was born in 1974. I do remember watching Marino’s college and pro career as a kid. How ’bout you?

Go back to Syracuse? Ouch! Never heard that one before. Fresh grade-A material there. That cuts deep.

Also, I think you meant “other than.” At Syracuse, I took writing classes. What did you learn at Pitt?

Finally, this guy is still busting my chops over me asking Mike Tomlin about all the speculation caused by Doug Whaley, Ryan Clark and Carson Palmer regarding Tomlin’s level of interest in jobs at USC and LSU.

“Sanzwvu” says Tomlin was right to feel disrespected by the question even though some of his contemporaries, such as Andy Reid, Sean Payton and Bill Cowher, were also asked about college jobs while they were NFL coaches.

Reid was not a long tenured coach in 2002, neither was Sean Payton in 2014, Payton was coming off an NFL ban (BountyGate). Cowher was going to retire from NFL so his alma Mayer reached out. So nice try, please keep those facts for your ignorant radio listeners.

— sanzwvu (@sanzwvu) November 1, 2021

What’s an “alma Mayer”? Does your “alma Mayer” have a first name? Is it spelled O-S-C-A-R?

Palmer’s “alma Mayer” is USC. He is apparently posing as a de facto search committee member for the university. He brought up Tomlin’s name.

Clark is a former Steeler. His “alma Mayer” is LSU. He openly begged for the school to open the vault to get Tomlin to leave the NFL and come to Baton Rouge. He also said, “People don’t make this stuff up out of thin air.”

Whaley used to work with the Steelers. He got the whole conversation going.

Still, I thought all three of them were nuts. So that’s why I asked Tomlin if he ever privately said something about having a desire — for whatever personal reason he may have had — to coach in college. He made it clear he does not.

I was justified in asking for these reasons. I’m tired of having to defend my rationale for asking the question. I won’t be doing so anymore.

As a wise man once said, “Never say never. But…never.”