U mad, bro? Readers grouse over Ryan Switzer, Antonio Brown, Steelers offense, Tim Benz | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

U mad, bro? Readers grouse over Ryan Switzer, Antonio Brown, Steelers offense, Tim Benz

Tim Benz
Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Ryan Switzer returns a kickoff during the first half of an NFL football game against the Los Angeles Rams in Pittsburgh, Sunday, Nov. 10, 2019.

Even during a four-game win streak, there is plenty of anger to be found in Steeler Nation.

Granted, most of it is directed at Antonio Brown.

And me.

But there is anger nonetheless.

We set it free in this week’s “U mad, bro?”

Jolen is unhappy with Ryan Switzer.

Given that the Steelers have a long line of return specialists such as Allen Rossum, Chris Rainey, Dri Archer, Stefan Logan and Najeh Davenport, that’s a bold statement.

It may also be an accurate one.

Doug is not happy with a comment I made on WDVE about the Steelers’ recent 17-12 win over the Los Angeles Rams.

Well, I didn’t put an asterisk on their loss to the Seahawks after questionable calls went against them. And I won’t do so after a win either when some calls went in their favor.

A guy named “3Angry Chili Peppers” sent a very succinct tweet during that same game.

Yes. Yes, at times, it did.

Especially when it was averaging 1.6 yards per carry on the ground and when players were dropping the ball and fumbling it all over the turf.

All the penalties and punts didn’t help either.

But the drive that resulted in Chris Boswell’s 33-yard field goal late in the fourth quarter was clutch.

It went for 14 plays and 60 yards, and it chewed up eight minutes.

Most importantly, the Steelers converted two third-down conversions and a fourth-down conversion as well.

That was a big step for Mason Rudolph and company.

I knew this was coming.

Take it away, Matt.

So (expletive deleted), still think trading for Minkah Fitzpatrick was a bad idea?

For the record, I never thought trading for Fitzpatrick was a bad idea.

I thought trading away a first-round pick was a bad idea.

And if that makes me an (expletive deleted), then so be it.

Mike echoed my recent ire toward Antonio Brown when I pointed out all three — maybe four — of his former teams could make the playoffs without him this year.

His self-inflicted career suicide is beyond belief and so SO satisfying. Looking back to the offseason I kept thinking that I wanted to see him fail so badly – but that he was going to probably be on his best behavior for at least a year in Oakland.

“HA!!!!! Hahahahahahhahahahaha

“Only thing I fear is that he clears up the legal stuff, gets a little suspension from the league, and then has a glorious comeback…. with the national media guys slobbering all over him and celebrating him ‘overcoming the odds yet again!’ And then he would be an exponentially worse (jerk) than he is now. Just imagine how emboldened he would be.

I believe Mike is referring to the looming, potential “Dallas Cowboys factor.” If not this year, then maybe next.

Sheryl also chimed in on A.B.

Given your bipolar mood inconsistencies, who in the NFL — or anyone else — would even THINK of putting up with (you)?

“Hit the streets, man. That’s where you belong… until you behave like an accountable, young MAN, not the pampered brat that you are.

“Furthermore, any team that would consider adopting this behavior would represent a true absence of morals. A punk for a buck — or a win.”


Oh! I’m sorry. You were waiting for me to disagree with her?

Sorry to disappoint.

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.