ShareThis Page
Notebook: Injuries nag Steelers |

Notebook: Injuries nag Steelers

| Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:00 a.m

Three Steelers players missed practice, including ailing linebacker Kendrell Bell , who has a sore groin and remains questionable for the game Sunday against the Cincinnati Bengals. The only other idle players are backup safety Mike Logan (hamstring, questionable) and quarterback Tommy Maddox (elbow), who is out for at least five more weeks.

  • When strong safety Troy Polamalu was at USC, he shared a house with Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer . Polamalu said he didn’t pick up any of Palmer’s tendencies during their time together, but they still speak occasionally. Asked what the conversation entails, Polamalu said, “Stuff football players normally talk about — flowers and mountains and trees. ”

  • Free safety Chris Hope’s hit on Miami Dolphins running back Lamar Gordon separated Gordon’s shoulder and ended his season. “You never want to be proud of hurting anybody,” Hope said. “I know he has trained all year, just like I have, and it’s just unfortunate that he got hurt. So, I apologize for that.” Hope also said he doesn’t mind the term head-hunter.

  • You can’t argue with kicker Jeff Reed’s logic. Asked about his struggles this season that were noted by coach Bill Cowher , Reed said, “Inconsistency can be corrected. All you have to do is be consistent.” Reed said his leg feels stronger after offseason hip surgery. He didn’t mind Cowher’s criticism, he said. “It’s more of a challenge than a critique, in my eyes,” he said.

    Categories: News
  • 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.