ShareThis Page
U mad, bro? Readers frustrated by Le’Veon Bell coverage, NFL officiating |
Breakfast With Benz

U mad, bro? Readers frustrated by Le’Veon Bell coverage, NFL officiating

Tim Benz
Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger (7) is tended to after a play in the second half of an NFL football game against the Baltimore Ravens, Sunday, Nov. 4, 2018, in Baltimore. (AP Photo/Gail Burton)

It’s time for this week’s “U mad, bro?” This week, our readers get frustrated with Le’Veon Bell coverage, rip the NFL officiating, question my fashion sense and criticize me for not showing Josh Dobbs enough love.

Jason claims he doesn’t care about Le’Veon Bell’s whereabouts.

Well, Jason, the amount of reads we get any time we post a story about Le’Veon Bell would suggest you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

I’d argue the more “true” of a Steelers fan you are, the more you should care. Because if a division-leading football team is potentially adding an All-Pro running back to its roster as a backup for its current AFC-leading running back, that’s a good thing.

Jason’s tweet is just one of dozens of tweets, emails and phone calls I’ve gotten in recent weeks bellowing “Who cares about Le’V!?”

I’ll answer that question. You do. At least, you should, if James Conner were to get hurt.

Being dismissive of Bell might make you feel good about yourself and Conner. That doesn’t minimize the news value of the story.

Remember the rankings Mayor Bill Peduto and I came up with when it comes to those MLB logo hockey jerseys that popped up on Twitter?

A different guy named Jason thinks we made a glaring omission.

Jason, when you’re right, you’re right. The Detroit “script D” should be in the top five somewhere.

John is ticked off about Za’Darius Smith injuring Ben Roethlisberger Sunday.

“Why do officials call roughing the passer on T.J. Watt for basically playing tag on a QB while Ben loses his wind from full weight falling on him? And no call!!!

I know you don’t have an answer. Who does??!! But think the NFL might fine the guy after a review ??


Actually John, I do have an an answer.

Big Ben was scrambling out of the pocket, thus becoming a runner at that point. So the “full body weight” thing doesn’t apply. Whereas Watt hit Matt Ryan while he was still in the pocket. Also, Watt’s hit was a matter of hitting the QB low. It had nothing to do with that silly body-weight interpretation they have on the books.

While I agree with your sentiment that Watt shouldn’t have been fined, I don’t think fining Smith, too, makes the problem better.

During the Steelers game in Baltimore on Sunday, I tweeted that I’ve had enough of those offensive backfield looks including Ryan Switzer.

This was “T-Box’s” idea of advancing the conversation.

Almost as much as I value this tweet?

When Ben Roethlisberger got hurt against the Ravens, I tweeted a reminder that a more experienced quarterback in Landry Jones had been cut. And I pointed out that Josh Dobbs was being thrown into the fire for his first-ever appearance.

First of all, I gave plenty of love to Dobbs for his throw.

Secondly, I’m glad our bar is so low now that one throw justifies an entire decision. If Ben Roethlisberger is out for an extended period of time, the one throw against Baltimore — wonderful as it was — won’t mean anything. And that’s when judgment of the backup quarterback move will truly be handed down.

So, no, I won’t “acknowledge being wrong” after one play. I will, however, remind you that Jones made a few good throws, too, in that win over Arizona a few years ago.

And when he went 23 for 27 against Cleveland last year.

But you go ahead and apply your selective memory as you see fit.

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.