U mad bro? Readers vent about Steelers loss, NHL refs, Le’Veon Bell |
Breakfast With Benz

U mad bro? Readers vent about Steelers loss, NHL refs, Le’Veon Bell

Tim Benz
Dustin Bradford/Getty Images
Strong safety Will Parks of the Denver Broncos forces a fumble by tight end Xavier Grimble of the Pittsburgh Steelers near the end zone at Mile High Stadium on Nov. 25, 2018 in Denver.

In “U mad, bro?” this week, there is much venting! You sound off about hockey officiating, Le’Veon Bell flirting with the Colts, and the Steelers offensive strategy.

After the loss in Denver, I wrote that the Pittsburgh Steelers “playing down to the level of competition on the road under Tomlin” thing is back. They tied Cleveland, lost to Denver, and needed a miracle to beat the Jaguars.

This guy begs to differ with that opinion.

I dunno. What do you suggest they do to avoid constantly having to go through a playoff bracket which features a potential trip to Foxboro?

ESPN’s John Buccigross is mad about that non-call against Gabriel Landeskog near the end of the Penguins game in Colorado Wednesday night.

Join the club, Bucci!

My goodness! Even Al Riveron would tell you that should’ve been a trip.

That led to an empty-net goal to make the score 5-3 Colorado. They’d score again after Tristan Jarry was put back into the net for a 6-3 final score.

For the record, it probably should’ve been icing, too, before the trip took place.

But, hey, who’s counting?

John replied to my story about Le’Veon Bell flirting with the Indianapolis Colts on Instagram.

“Who cares”

— John

Who cares, John? You do. Or else you wouldn’t have taken the time to click on the story and send a response via email. You sound like a jilted boyfriend who pretends to blow off news of his ex’s new guy and then goes through every one of his pictures on Facebook when no one is watching.

Plus, you should care. When a former All Pro is about to leave your team for another club, it’s news. Especially when that club may be another AFC playoff foe.

Stop acting. It’s transparent. “Thou doth protest too much.”

Angelo doesn’t agree with my stance that the Steelers should run the ball more often .

Well, they ran it more than they threw it versus Carolina. That was the only time this year that happened, in fact. And part of the reason why their red-zone offense has been so good is the run game — James Conner has seven touchdowns of five yards or less. Maybe you should do the homework, Angelo?

By the way, their red-zone offense is vastly improved in large part because they ran in the red zone more often during the first five victories in their six-game win streak.

I’ve publicly disagreed with Mike Tomlin’s postgame assessment that the only reason why the Steelers lost to Denver was because of the turnover ratio.

This stance was not met with universal agreement.

You’re right. Their run defense was totally fine. Vance McDonald and James Washington didn’t drop any passes. And their red-zone play calling was superb … hence the interception and the need for a trick play to bail them out.

But, please, by all means, lap up this serving of coach speak and ask for seconds.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter @TimBenzPGH. 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 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.