Mark Madden: It’s still hard to get too optimistic about Steelers |
Mark Madden, Columnist

Mark Madden: It’s still hard to get too optimistic about Steelers

Mark Madden
Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph tries to get away from Colts defensive end Ben Banogu on Sunday, Nov. 3, 2019.

The Steelers are 4-4, have won three straight and are in the playoff hunt because the standings say so.

But I can’t take them seriously.

Their first three wins came against teams with a combined record of 5-20. Sunday’s victory came against a third-string quarterback. The Steelers kept trying to hand that game to Indianapolis. But the Colts kept refusing delivery.

The Steelers’ sloppiness was epidemic, as it has been most games.

JuJu Smith-Schuster dropped a pass that resulted in an interception. The absence of Ben Roethlisberger is a primary reason, but Smith-Schuster is nothing resembling a No. 1 receiver. That gifted Indianapolis a field goal.

Jaylen Samuels’ fumble cost the Steelers a touchdown.

Mason Rudolph conceded a safety that could easily have been a touchdown. Get rid of the ball! Rudolph might be a first-year starter, but don’t flunk quarterback 101.

Mike Tomlin stupidly wasted two replay challenges on fourth-quarter plays separated by a snap. The NFL has turned over only 11% of pass interference reviews, so don’t bother. Tomlin’s second challenge was made out of petulance after losing the first.

Andrew Luck retired. Jacoby Brissett got hurt. So Brian Hoyer came in and tossed three touchdown passes for the Colts. Indianapolis is Hoyer’s seventh team. Sunday was his first game action this season. His QB rating was 105.9.

It’s tough to pop out of all that muck with a win. But the Steelers did, and that’s to their credit.

But the Steelers aren’t often buttoned-up, and that’s why I can’t take them seriously. Tomlin talked about changing the culture this past offseason. There are less raving lunatics on hand, but mistakes still are plentiful and accountability debatable.

But it’s not all bad.

The defense is a splash-play machine: three takeaways and five sacks Sunday. The takeaways led to 17 points, with safety Minkah Fitzpatrick taking the direct route via his 96-yard interception return. Fitzpatrick and rookie linebacker Devin Bush have proven to be the ballhawks required for that defense to take the next step.

Samuels had 13 catches, albeit for just 73 yards. I bet Rudolph nursed until he was 11 years old. Samuels had more catches than the entire wide receiving corps had targets. The receivers disappear for series, quarters and games at a time.

Chris Boswell was 4 for 4 on field goals. More important, Colts kicker Adam Vinatieri chose to be washed-up (instead of an all-time great) at the moment of truth.

The Steelers and Colts both have big-time talent on each side of the line. The Steelers didn’t dominate that battle but more than held their own. That helped.

Rudolph’s “progress” is tough to gauge.

Rudolph didn’t lose the game. But his style and numbers invoke a hallucinogenic fog: 26 for 35 for 191 yards, an average of 7.3 yards per completion. We don’t know if Rudolph is constantly checking down, or if the play calls keep most throws painfully short. But we do know that somebody’s afraid.

Rudolph and James Washington hooked up for a 40-yard pass Sunday. When that happens with Rudolph at QB, you can’t believe your eyes. It’s like seeing a UFO.

But Rudolph won. He is deserving of the job, if only because he’s better than Devlin Hodges. He deserves your patience, if only because there’s no other choice.

Winning three straight doesn’t make me tons more optimistic about the Steelers moving forward. A win over the visiting Los Angeles Rams on Sunday might.

But at least we remain invested in the Steelers at the season’s halfway point. When Roethlisberger got hurt, even that seemed highly unlikely.

Top Sports Videos
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.