John Steigerwald: Steelers barely beat a really bad Bengals team |
John Steigerwald, Columnist

John Steigerwald: Steelers barely beat a really bad Bengals team

John Steigerwald
Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph looks to hand off the ball during the first half against the Bengals on Sunday, Nov. 24, 2019, in Cincinnati.

Tank you very much.

That’s what Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin should have said to Cincinnati Bengals coach Zac Taylor during the postgame handshake Sunday in Cincinnati.

A team doing its best to lock up the first pick in the 2020 draft couldn’t have come at a better time for the Steelers. They were coming off a disastrous loss and desperately needed a win to stay alive for a wild-card spot.

If the Bengals were serious about winning the game, Ryan Finley would have been yanked before halftime. How much of him did you need to see to know that they weren’t keeping him in the lineup because they think he’s their quarterback of the future?

The beat-up Steelers came to town with an offense populated by three wide receivers who were on practice squads this season and a quarterback who seems to get worse with every game he plays.

Andy Dalton may not end up in the Hall of Fame, but he’s a better-than-average NFL quarterback who would have given the Bengals a chance to win their first game.

The Bengals obviously weren’t all that interested in winning a game yet. They’ll be picking their quarterback of the future next April.

That was a really bad team the Steelers beat in Cincinnati, and they barely beat them.

Now Steelers fans and media can focus on the immediate future, and the immediate future begins with a quarterback controversy.

It’s not fair to judge Mason Rudolph’s longterm future based on a game he had to play with practice-squad weapons, but he was bad enough Tomlin had no choice but to yank him.

And what does Devlin Hodges do? He immediately throws a 79-yard touchdown pass to James Washington that had 90% of the viewers in Western Pennsylvania declaring him the starter until further notice.

Many of them may not have noticed that Washington was wide open and delivered one of the best stiff-arms in Steelers history to Bengals cornerback B.W. Webb and turned a nice gain into a long touchdown.

Other than that splash play, Hodges was 4 of 10 for 39 yards, which wasn’t much better than Rudolph.

After the game, Tomlin sounded like a guy ready to start his starter again next week against the Browns: “You want to make more out of Duck’s contribution than need be, so be it. It comes with the position. They get too much credit at times, and they get too much blame at times. They all understand the nature of that.”

They may understand it, but who doesn’t like a good quarterback controversy?

Other than quarterbacks, of course, and maybe coaches.

But this isn’t Neil O’Donnell replacing Bubby Brister or Tommy Maddox replacing Kordell Stewart.

The Steelers quarterback of the immediate future is Ben Roethlisberger. Rudolph and Hodges might be in a battle for his backup, but neither has done anything to establish himself as the quarterback of the future.

They combined to go 13-27 for 203 yards with one touchdown and one interception against a defense that ranked at the bottom of the league in every important category.

They deserve a lot of slack because of the supporting cast they had, but sometimes a quarterback in that situation can rise above it to show he has something special.

Neither did.

The competition gets much tougher next week. The Browns bring a much better defense to town and a quarterback who was a first overall pick and is beginning to play like one.

Baker Mayfield has thrown eight touchdown passes and one interception in his last four games, and the Browns have won three in a row.

So, who should start at quarterback for the Steelers?

Mason Rudolph.

With a very short leash.

Oh, by the way, Happy Tanksgiving.

John Steigerwald is a Tribune-Review contributing writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.