Tim Benz, Mark Madden discuss Mason Rudolph vs. Myles Garrett, Colin Kaepernick, Ben Cherington | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Tim Benz, Mark Madden discuss Mason Rudolph vs. Myles Garrett, Colin Kaepernick, Ben Cherington

Tim Benz
1957630_web1_1953880-445584a186bc4ebb96bcdcec076d3d0d
AP
Free agent Colin Kaepernick participates in a workout for NFL football scouts and media Saturday, Nov. 16, 2019 in Riverdale, Ga.

If you were on Twitter this weekend, it was a frustrating place to be.

Nothing but people trying to soften Myles Garrett’s actions against the Steelers by way of blaming Mason Rudolph. And people pounding the Colin Kaepernick drum because he threw a nice deep ball or two against air in a dog and pony show of a workout.

Which group was more annoying? Mark Madden and I discuss in this week’s “Madden Monday” podcast.

He seems to think it’s the Kaepernick crew. We agree on a lot of fronts there. But Mark and I are on opposite ends when it comes to the “Rudolph should be suspended” debate. He agrees with that sentiment. I don’t. You listen and tell us who is right.


Mark and I also kick around the problems facing the Steelers independent of Garrett’s helmet swing. Then we talk about the rise of Dominik Kahun during a split weekend for the Penguins. And we ponder the Pirates’ hire of Ben Cherington as their new general manager.

Most importantly, we analyze the final season of “Man in the High Castle.”

Tim Benz and Mark Madden discuss the Myles Garrett fight and people blaming Mason Rudolph for it, also what to make of Colin Kaepernick’s workout

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.