Archive

ShareThis Page
With James Conner out, Steelers backup RBs struggle vs. Raiders | TribLIVE.com
Steelers/NFL

With James Conner out, Steelers backup RBs struggle vs. Raiders

Tribune-Review
| Sunday, December 9, 2018 10:30 p.m
525649525649e2e8da9ddbb7436db636317e7e9ef989
Raiders linebacker Jason Cabinda tackles Steelers running back Jaylen Samuels during the first half in Oakland, Calif., Sunday, Dec. 9, 2018.

OAKLAND, Calif. — The Pittsburgh Steelers can only hope that running back James Conner’s stay on the inactive list with an ankle injury is a short one.

Backups Jaylen Samuels and Stevan Ridley combined for 32 yards on 16 carries Sunday in a 24-21 loss to the Oakland Raiders on Sunday at Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.

The second-leading rusher was backup quarterback Joshua Dobbs, who had 15 yards on two scrambles.

Samuels started and had 28 yards on 11 carries in addition to 64 yards on seven receptions. Ridley gained four yards on five carries, although his 2-yard touchdown run tied the score, 7-7, in the second quarter.

“We didn’t run the ball as well as we’d like,” Tomlin said, “but that’s an 11-man job for our offensive unit.”

Conner’s status for the game next weekend against New England will be updated Tuesday when Tomlin holds his weekly press conference. Conner has 909 yards rushing and 12 touchdowns on the ground this season.

Joe Rutter is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Joe at jrutter@tribweb.com or via Twitter @tribjoerutter.

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.