ShareThis Page
Tim Benz, Mark Madden discuss Roethlisberger, Bell, Penguins’ bad weekend, Pirates infield | TribLIVE.com
Tim Benz, Columnist

Tim Benz, Mark Madden discuss Roethlisberger, Bell, Penguins’ bad weekend, Pirates infield

Tim Benz
901925_web1_gtr-pens08-031819
The Flyers’ James van Riemsdyk celebrates his game tying goal against the Penguins in the third period Sunday, March 17, 2019 at PPG Paints Arena.

Thanks to an off-day, this week’s “Madden Monday” comes on a Tuesday.

We get into:

• Josh Harris’ accusation that Ben Roethlisberger fumbled on purpose against the Bengals. Why is this information just coming out now?

• Le’Veon Bell’s failed contract. The spin continues!


LISTEN: Mark Madden, Tim Benz discuss Roethlisberger, Bell, Penguins


• A rough weekend for the Penguins. There is a lot to get to there. The conversation includes Matt Murray’s play, the playoff posibilities and the loss of Evgeni Malkin for the next few weeks. Will Teddy Blueger make up for the absence at second-line center? I think there is at least one other good option.

• Then there are the curious Pirates infield decisions. Curious in the sense that we wonder how the Pirates will spin them.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at tbenz@tribweb.com 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.