ShareThis Page
Steelers’ Williams, Bengals’ Burfict take feud to Twitter |

Steelers’ Williams, Bengals’ Burfict take feud to Twitter

| Thursday, April 7, 2016 5:24 p.m
Bengals linebacker Vontaze Burfict (left) and Steelers running back DeAngelo Williams sparred verbally on social media this week.

The war of words between Vontaze Burfict and the Steelers continued this week.

Burfict, the Cincinnati Bengals talented-but-combustible linebacker, took to Twitter on Tuesday in response to an appearance on ESPN by Steelers running back DeAngelo Williams. Williams, who missed the wild-card playoff game between the teams in January because of injury, had said on ESPN that Burfict’s penalized hit on Steelers star receiver Antonio Brown prevented the Steelers from winning the Super Bowl.

A message posted to Burfict’s Twitter account directed to Williams read: “u didn’t play nor help yo team and I’m happy to still b in y’all heads 4 months later.”

Williams, in part, responded, “what are you doing when u not costing your team games(?)”

The 15 yards Burfict was penalized on the Brown hit put the Steelers into field-goal range in the closing seconds for the winning points.

The Twitter conversation continued, with Burfict belittling Williams for being “a backup.” Williams got the final word, saying Burfict’s “inability to control yourself” holds him back.

The week following the Brown hit, the NFL suspended Burfict for the first three games of the coming season “for repeated violations of player-safety rules.”

Chris Adamski is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at or via Twitter @C_AdamskiTrib.

Categories: Steelers
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.