U mad, bro?: Fending off rampaging readers about Steelers QB situation, Tom Brady, Olympics in China

After opening my inbox this week, now I know what Pittsburgh Steelers running back Najee Harris feels like.

I was facing an oncoming assault from a bunch of angry people, with a free run, who wanna rip my head off. Meanwhile, I’ve got nowhere to escape, and no one to block for me.

Let’s see if I can pull a Najee, shake off a few tacklers, throw out a stiff arm and plow forward for some positive yards. Watch me as I try to move the pile forward in this week’s “U mad, bro?”

We start with John. He hates the fact that I endorsed the idea of the Steelers investigating what the cost would be to acquire Aaron Rodgers from the Green Bay Packers.

“It amazes me, the Rodgers fan boy writers in this town. Rodgers is 11-10 all-time in playoffs. Despite the awful joke division he has been in … Rodgers’ incessant desire for attention is beyond parody. As for his lone Super Bowl win — Mendenhall’s fumble sealed that win.

Nope, I’ll take Big Ben Every time. Zero losing seasons. Your Rodgers’ man-crush is embarrassing. Move on.”

The argument isn’t about Roethlisberger versus Rodgers. It’s about getting Rodgers to replace Roethlisberger now that Roethlisberger is retired. You made it into Roethlisberger versus Rodgers because you can’t win an argument about Rodgers versus Mason Rudolph.

Since you brought it up, what was Roethlisberger’s record in the playoffs since the Super Bowl he lost to Rodgers? It was 3-7. With losses at home to Joe Flacco, Blake Bortles and Baker Mayfield.

Also, Mendenhall’s fumble didn’t “seal the win.” Rodgers’ dart to Greg Jennings on third and 10 with 5:55 left did.

You would take Ben over Rodgers, huh? Did you watch any games last year? Roethlisberger was 24th in passer rating and 29th in yards per attempt. Rodgers is going to be the MVP for a fourth time.

I don’t have a man crush on Rodgers, but you appear to have one on Big Ben.

And it’s a little much.

Gabrielle agrees with John but for different reasons.

“It’s about identity. Aaron Rodgers is a Green Bay Packer every bit as much as Terry Bradshaw and Ben Roethlisberger are Pittsburgh Steelers. We don’t want a quarterback who already has a strong identity with another team, especially a successful one. It would be much easier to take a Jimmy Garoppolo or Marcus Mariota (I’ve even seen arguments in support of Gardner Minshew) who haven’t had much success with their franchise and have them blossom in ours. We don’t want someone else’s quarterback taking our team to glory.”

I couldn’t agree less.

It isn’t about identity. It’s about winning. At one point the Steelers identity was winning. It isn’t anymore. Who cares who gets you to “glory”? Just get there and reconcile it later.

Garoppolo, Minshew and Mariota are bland. Rodgers has a Super Bowl and four MVPs. “Easier” should have nothing to do with the conversation. “Easier” used to get the Steelers Kent Graham, Mike Tomczak and Todd Blackledge.

From the identity perspective, is there anyone in Tampa Bay who cares that most people will identify Tom Brady as a Patriot? Do you think people in Denver care that Peyton Manning will be remembered as an Indianapolis Colt?

Phil Kessel, Ron Francis, Tom Barrasso, Ulf Samuelsson, Joe Mullen, Bryan Trottier, Larry Murphy and Paul Coffey weren’t homegrown Penguins. When’s the last time they paid for steak in this town?

A.J. Burnett and Andy Van Slyke were Pirates fan favorites despite coming to Pittsburgh from elsewhere.

Does that homegrown “identity” stuff really matter?

Related:

• Let's be 'Blount': Former Steeler LeGarrette Blount gives his story on why things went so bad for him in Pittsburgh
• Tim Benz: As Sidney Crosby nears 500 goals, a look at how he got there, his chances of breaking Mario Lemieux's team record

Jerome thinks I diminished “SpyGate” too much when I wrote about Tom Brady’s retirement last week.

“As Hines Ward said, ‘They knew the plays before I ran my routes.’”

Yeah. I know. I was the guy who asked him the question that led to that response.

So let me ask you something, did the Patriots also know that the blocked field goal and the punt return after a penalty were coming in the 2001 AFC Championship Game?

Did they know Plaxico Burress wasn’t going to come down with that end-zone lob, and Bill Cowher was going to lay up for a field goal in the 2004 AFC Championship Game?

If so, those tapes were even more damaging than I thought!

Jim sent me an email lobbying for the Steelers to get Las Vegas Raiders backup quarterback Marcus Mariota.

“He’d be a great fit for the Steelers. Very mobile, which the Steelers need with their offensive line woes. Has a track record of winning in the league. Not a head case (huge plus). Obvious improvement over their current roster and won’t break the bank compared to Russell (Wilson) or Rodgers.”

Track record of winning? He started two playoff games in 2017 and is 1-1.

What planet are we on? This is the mentality I’m talking about when I say Steelers fans are approaching the quarterback conversation with a defeatist attitude. The discussion is about a potential starting quarterback. You don’t cheap out and shop in the bargain bin for a starting quarterback.

You spend for a starting quarterback. Whether that’s in terms of draft position, tradable commodities or actual dollars and cents.

The Steelers are entering next year with the eighth-most cap space in football. Spend to get a quarterback. Don’t apply a Pirates mentality to a conversation about the Steelers. Please. I’m begging you.

How does the Steelers fan base — which is so high on itself and on the team it supports — so frequently retreat to the position of, “We don’t deserve a top notch quarterback unless he falls into our laps in the top 10 of the draft”?

That’s ridiculous. They are the Pittsburgh Steelers. They can do better than Marcus Mariota.

Lastly, here’s an email from Jay. He is one of dozens who angrily emailed me because they felt I was too dismissive of their bold, socially conscious “boycotts” of the Winter Olympics which are being staged in China.

In my recent column about rotten television ratings for the Games so far, I acknowledged that disdain for the Chinese government and the country’s human rights violations were likely playing a role. However, I listed a number of other factors that I felt were more germane to the conversation, and I suggested that such “protests” were merely convenient excuses to avoid watching obscure sporting events that most of us don’t care about anyway.

“My problem with NBC and (their) corporate sponsors is the fact that they’re ignoring the genocide being committed in China. I don’t think we should be giving China’s Communist government a stage to deceive the rest of the world. The fact that during the opening ceremony they focused on a Uyghur citizen is disgusting. The media seems baffled by the dismal ratings. I think it’s pretty simple. The snarky comments aren’t necessary, Tim.”

Snark? Me? Nooo! Never.

Look, no one in the media is “baffled” why ratings stink. There are numerous reasons why. Hence the numerous reasons I outlined in the column.

You just want to focus on reason one that fits your personal agenda and ignore the others because you are confusing being righteous with being right.

It is possible to be both. To a certain point, you are in this case.

But it is folly to suggest that the vast majority of people who are staying away from watching the Games are truly “conscientious objectors” to the degree that you are positioning yourself to be. John and Jane Q. Public in America are likely just as unfamiliar with the depth, history and scale of human rights violations in China as they are to what makes a good ice dancing routine.

That doesn’t make your stance any less noble. It is. Don’t worry. Your virtue has been signaled — and recognized.

I just happen to disagree that “anti-China angst” is genuinely at the heart of why people are staying away from watching the Winter Olympics to the level that ratings indicate.

An augmenting factor? Yes. The driving force behind the dip? I doubt it.

As stated in the column, I believe the ratings drop is much more about how streaming is impacting television viewing habits, time delays, a lack interest in the actual sports, the absence of NHL players, and a diluted sense of patriotism in America these days.

Like I said, if you put an NFL game or Red Sox-Yankees or Duke-North Carolina in China, people would suddenly stop caring so much about human rights issues and they’d watch it. A declining, anachronistic niche-sport showcase like the Winter Olympics is just a convenient event to be used as a soap box to stand on for a “boycott.”

Go ahead and do it if it makes you feel good about yourself. I simply question the impact and sincerity beyond the convenience of not really caring about missing out on the tandem luge finals.

For most Americans, “boycotting” cross-country skiing at the Winter Olympics would be like me saying, “I’m boycotting all the country music on Spotify because of Joe Rogan.” What a bold stance that would be for a guy like me that has never downloaded a country music song in his life, eh?

At any rate, I’m proud of how socially conscious my readers are. So let me help.

Here’s a list of the sponsors for the Olympic games, noting the amount of money they made from China in 2020. So — for all you keyboard cowboy Abbie Hoffman activists flooding my inbox — if you drive that certain brand of car, now you know you should sell it.

You should get rid of all of the electronic products from those corporations, too. Stop buying those soft drinks. And don’t use that online reservation service to book your next vacation.

Oh, also, remember to skip watching the Super Bowl this year since it’s on NBC and they are disseminating these Olympic broadcasts. Let’s make a difference! Why stop at curling and short-track speed skating?

That said, I do appreciate the feedback. Especially from all of you who sent messages outlining your heartfelt, thoughtful, nuanced protests … in emails from @comcast accounts.

Those were my favorites.