Mark Madden: A tale of two quarterbacks, using that term loosely |
Mark Madden, Columnist

Mark Madden: A tale of two quarterbacks, using that term loosely

Mark Madden
Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph is taken down by Cleveland Browns defensive end Myles Garrett (95) during the second half Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019, in Cleveland.

A tale of two quarterbacks (if I may use that term loosely):

• Mason Rudolph should have been suspended for one game after that melee at Cleveland on Thursday. I am not outraged by Rudolph being merely fined, and I agree with the other discipline handed down.

But Rudolph started it.

Yes, Myles Garrett hit Rudolph a little late, but quarterback is a dangerous job. What Garrett did is part of the game.

Rudolph initiated the actual fight when he and Garrett were on the ground and Rudolph tried to wrench off Garrett’s helmet. When that was just about broken up, Rudolph charged Garrett with David DeCastro in proximity and two other Steelers approaching.

That doesn’t justify Garrett going nuclear. But Rudolph started it, then prolonged it.

ESPN’s Max Kellerman voiced this opinion, adding the appropriate histrionics. O.J. Simpson absolved Garrett. (Of course, he did.) Actor Samuel L. Jackson tweeted Rudolph “played badly, fought worse.” (Guilty as charged.)

ESPN’s Josina Anderson insinuated (and then deleted her comment) via Twitter that Rudolph uttered a racial slur, adding, “Never seen Garrett act like that, ever.” (Except for Week 1, when Garrett punched a Tennessee Titan and Week 2, when Garrett’s late hit ended the season of New York Jets quarterback Trevor Siemian.)

The NFL Network’s Aditi Kinkhabwala chose to be just plain stupid, blaming the play call: “Why are you calling a pass, anyway? Run a draw and call it a night.” That doesn’t justify committing assault with a deadly weapon. Same agenda, even dumber statement.

But Rudolph isn’t blameless. A one-game suspension would have been apropos. 

• When Colin Kaepernick first took a knee during the national anthem to protest social injustice, I supported his right to do so. Still do.

But NFL owners have rights, too. They also have the money.

If you take a stand like Kaepernick, be prepared for the consequences.

When Tommie Smith and John Carlos did their black power salute on the medal stand at the 1968 Mexico City Summer Olympics after finishing first and third, respectively, in the 200 meters, they got expelled from the Games and ostracized by the U.S. sporting establishment.

They didn’t get their due until years later.

Kaepernick isn’t Smith or Carlos. Nowhere close. He’s not Jackie Robinson or Rosa Parks, either. Nor is he Kunta Kinte.

Kaepernick wore a “Kunta Kinte” T-shirt to his sham of a workout this past Saturday in Atlanta. Kunta Kinte was the protagonist in the book and TV series “Roots.” He was kidnapped into slavery in Africa, then brought to America.

Kaepernick is a millionaire who wants more. I fail to see the connection.

As ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith said, Kaepernick doesn’t really want to play in the NFL again. He wants to continue and maximize his martyrdom. Why else would he insult the NFL every chance he got just before and immediately after Saturday’s de facto job interview?

No team wants (or should want) a backup quarterback who is going to hold regular news conferences. If Kaepernick did get signed, his vocal army of stooges would be demanding he start the first time his team’s No. 1 quarterback threw an incompletion. Up next, the Pro Bowl. It would never stop.

After an impressive workout that saw him complete passes to receivers who weren’t being covered, Kaepernick said, “We are waiting for the 32 owners, 32 teams and (NFL commissioner) Roger Goodell to stop running.”

Kaepernick is 32.

He hasn’t played in the NFL since 2016. He wasn’t that good in the first place.

You don’t have to run to escape the idea of employing Kaepernick. Strolling briskly and using common sense will do the trick.

Kaepernick just isn’t worth the trouble. It’s just not important that he’s employed. In 10 years, no one will be talking about him.

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.