U mad, bro?: Not all Steelers fans are happy with drafting Devin Bush, Diontae Johnson | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

U mad, bro?: Not all Steelers fans are happy with drafting Devin Bush, Diontae Johnson

Tim Benz
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Not all Steelers fans were so excited about the team’s first-round pick Devin Bush.

It’s an all-Steelers-NFL-draft edition of “U mad, bro?” Fans are mad about trading up, my critique of missing out on certain positions, and uttering the name of a certain big-chested wide receiver out loud.

An unsigned email takes umbrage with my article likening Toledo wide receiver Diontae Johnson’s draft profile to that of Antonio Brown when he entered the NFL from Central Michigan.


I very seldom get angry over articles but you drugging all the ab stuff back up isn’t going to help the team or the fan base for that matter…


Well, whoever you are, it’s not my job to help the team or the fans “get over it” and “move on” from Brown’s trade to Oakland. You can do that on your own, like a grown up.

Secondly, just because Brown is gone doesn’t mean his name is banned from being mentioned. Are the names Jaromir Jagr, Barry Bonds, and James Harrison similarly banned? Let me know. Send me an email so I know the rules.

And lastly, the Steelers drafted a receiver with their second pick. They did so despite many other needs, and they used the acquired pick for Brown to do it. Plus, Johnson’s measurables and resume are nearly identical to Brown’s when he came out of college.

This is a worthwhile story. If you can’t see that, it’s because you are trying to miss it intentionally.

Here’s another unsigned one about the trade up to get Devin Bush.

Does this pick show us that (Kevin) Colbert might be worried about his job ????? This is a super reach based on need, in my mind.

If I’m Kevin Colbert, I’d be more worried about my job if I couldn’t figure out a way to make this trade happen.

Colbert doesn’t need to be worried about his job. Mike Tomlin will go long before Colbert does.

And I don’t see giving up a second-round selection this year and one of likely two third-round picks next year as all that much of a reach to fill a crater on your roster with a universally respected prospect.

A Twitter follower named “J” did NOT like my post on what positions the Steelers could’ve addressed more directly in the draft.

Well, your experts in the Steelers front office passed on Zach Gentry four times over, too. Maybe they should’ve waited another round or two — as apparently the rest of the NFL would have — and drafted an outside linebacker or a safety.

By the way, did you “ride with” the Steelers scouts when they reached on the likes of Ricardo Colclough, Alonzo Jackson, Artie Burns, Curtis Brown, Senquez Golson, and Chris Carter?

In your effort to fly the flag and be king fanboy, you missed the point. I’m not claiming to be a better football scout than them. The article says I would’ve preferred to see outside linebacker and safety positions addressed. Given the vacancy of depth at those positions, I don’t know how you could argue against that point.

“JSoft75” is set to declare the draft an unqualified success already. He also disagrees with my assessment that the Steelers still have holes to fill.

It’s funny how we can announce the draft “great” before anyone plays a snap. But it can’t be declared “bad” based on who they took. Weird, huh?

Generally, I’m fine with what they got. For those who like to grade drafts, I’ll play along and give it a B+. So don’t be prickly.

Again, the article merely points out that the Steelers failed to properly bolster pass rusher and safety. Show me how that is “a stretch.”

With Anthony Chickillo and Jordan Dangerfield as the lone experienced reserves at those two positions, it’s fruitless to argue against that stance.

Somebody who goes by the name Rieder79 sees nothing wrong with the Steelers’ approach.

Ola Adeniyi and Keion Adams are “the future?” Now that’s “a stretch.” I’m simply hoping at least one of them can become borderline serviceable. You make it sound like they are going to be the next James Harrison-LaMarr Woodley combination.

You are also reaching by justifying Bud Dupree’s value by stating “he draws penalties” in the same breath as Harrison. Harrison drew penalties, too. And for each one he got, five more weren’t called. Plus, he had 10 to 16 sacks per year in his prime.

Dupree can’t boast that production, averaging five per season over four years.

And likening Harrison’s situation to that of Adams and Adeniyi is a farce. Harrison started his career behind Jason Gildon, Joey Porter, and Clark Haggans (in a nine-sack campaign).

Adams and Adeniyi are blocked by “Bud” and “Chick.” Gimme a break.

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.