Tim Benz, Mark Madden break down Steelers’ loss to Ravens, Penguins’ start, Pitt’s big win | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Tim Benz, Mark Madden break down Steelers’ loss to Ravens, Penguins’ start, Pitt’s big win

Tim Benz
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Baltimore Ravens celebrate after Justin Tucker game winning field goal in overtime to beat the Pittsburgh Steelers 26-23 Sunday, Oct. 6, 2019 at Heinz Field.

We have so much on the plate in this week’s “Madden Monday.” Most of it has to do the Pittsburgh Steelers’ latest loss, this time to the Baltimore Ravens.

Baltimore won at Heinz Field Sunday by a final score of 26-23 in overtime, thanks to a game-winning field goal by Justin Tucker.

Mark Madden of 105.9 the X joins me to talk about where the Steelers go from here now that they have fallen to 1-4.

Quarterback Mason Rudolph has been concussed. So can Devlin Hodges really be the guy to take the wheel and drive the team moving forward?

We get into lots of other topics such as Mike Tomlin’s decision to kick the ball away to start overtime, why the coaches elected to brush off the wildcat offense again and the costly fumble by JuJu Smith-Schuster in overtime.

The defense made lots of big plays. It also couldn’t hold a fourth quarter lead on two separate occasions. And the offense didn’t do a good job of converting turnovers into touchdowns.


Beyond the Steelers’ problems, we also talk about the Penguins’ first two games, Sidney Crosby fighting and Pitt’s wild win over Duke.

LISTEN: Tim Benz and Mark Madden get into what happened in Steelers’ overtime loss to the Ravens, JuJu Smith-Schuster’s bad fumble, the start of Penguins’ season and Pitt’s wild win over Duke

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

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.