ShareThis Page
U mad, bro? Readers believe Steelers actually were ‘a few plays away’ |
Breakfast With Benz

U mad, bro? Readers believe Steelers actually were ‘a few plays away’

Tim Benz
| Thursday, January 10, 2019 6:45 a.m

This week’s “U mad, bro?” shines a light on angry Steelers fans and prickly Penguins fans.

And on people who still call Antonio Brown their “idol.”



Steve emailed me. He agrees with most of my comments in this article about John Elway potentially impacting the Steelers’ future on the sidelines.


“Another good article. One exception, though, is this stretch of a comment:

‘If the Steelers can’t move Antonio Brown, keeping Tomlin as his boss will be a disaster thanks to the outright insubordination Brown showed this year.’

Tomlin is Brown’s boss? Really? I think the only boss #84 has is #84. And, even in that latter sentence, I question #84’s ability to be his own boss. He’s a punk. Let the 49ers deal with him.”

Well, based on what Jerry Rice said, the 49ers would love to do just that.

To the greater point, Steve, that’s the basic problem. Tomlin is Brown’s boss. Even though he is feckless in his attempt to fill that role by allowing Brown to operate as his own entity.

That’s why I’m endorsing the idea of giving Mike Munchak a shot instead.

Virginia quibbles with my article about fans and media who are making the argument that the Steelers were “just a few plays away from the playoffs.”

How does she do that?

By complaining about a few plays, of course.

“I was present for the MORE THAN ONE poor bit of officiating at the Chargers game. That alone kept us out of the playoffs! Add the SHOCKINGLY bad call against Joe Haden in the end zone at the Saints game which resulted in a TD and you have a solid argument for an 11-4-1 season and a trip to the playoffs.

I know Ben has too many interceptions, Tomlin is a mediocre disciplinarian; AB, my idol, is a mess; et cetera. I can live with a fair and square defeat but the Steelers were deprived of one, not once, but twice.”

You’re right, Virginia. But the officials didn’t screw up the third-and-20 in that Saints game or the defense at the end of the first half.

The refs were an atrocity against the Chargers. They were directly responsible for 14 points. But the Steelers defense allowed 19 points. Also, the refs didn’t tell the Steelers to cover Keenan Allen with linebackers. The Steelers defensive coaches did that.

And the zebras didn’t cost them losses (and a tie) at Denver, Oakland and Cleveland.

By the way, get a new “idol.” Yuck.

It appears “Pittsburgh Pete” wasn’t wild about my article suggesting the 2019 Penguins need to avoid becoming the 2018 Steelers.

Interestingly, that’s accurate

Interestingly, I agree.

Interestingly, that’s mentioned in the column.

The “Church of Kessel” wasn’t a fan of that piece either.

Two reasons:

1. To compare the very similar arcs of the seasons for both teams so far.

and …

2. To extract that exact reaction from overly sensitive Penguins fans who freak out at the slightest mention of the local football team in the same breath as their club because of their inherent hockey inferiority complex.

Austin thinks I was too hard on the Steelers in this post.

He prefers to simply blame Xavier Grimble for fumbling in Denver.

Then maybe read the column and not just the headline. But you’d rather blame a third-string tight end for all the ills of the rest of this team.

If that makes you feel better and more justified for a 9-6-1 season, you go right ahead and do that.

I’ll be over here living in the real world. Come visit some time.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.