ShareThis Page
U mad, bro? Tim Benz says fans aren’t as sick of Le’Veon Bell as they claim |
Breakfast With Benz

U mad, bro? Tim Benz says fans aren’t as sick of Le’Veon Bell as they claim

Tim Benz
| Wednesday, November 21, 2018 6:27 a.m
Pittsburgh Steelers running backs Le'Veon Bell (26) and James Conner greet each other at Heinz Field before an NFL football game against the Jacksonville Jaguars, Sunday, Oct. 8, 2017, in Pittsburgh. (AP Photo/Don Wright)

This week’s “U mad, bro?” includes shots at the Pittsburgh Steelers, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Murray and, well, me.

Here’s one response to my post about ESPN’s story suggesting the Steelers and Le’Veon Bell would’ve reached an agreement for him to report last week if the Steelers had waved their use of a tag next year.

It’s just one response. But I got a dozen others like it in various forms.

The more Steelers fans tweet me that they “don’t care” about Bell, the more I think you care and you feel jilted. The more Steelers fans tell me to “move on,” the more I know you are hung up on him.

Venting like that is cathartic. It’s just not honest. Every Bell story we post gets tons of traffic. Every time I bring him up on the radio, the phone lines blink in a matter of seconds.

His absence is still a hot topic. And it will be until we know which team gets him next year. Feigning disinterest to hide your anger over the situation is a thin facade.

Nick likes the idea of the Steelers trying to tag Le’Veon Bell again next year, just for the sake of screwing him over.

“I like the idea of the Steelers being PETTY! I would be. I’d want to hurt his career going forward on purpose if I could.”

Nick, no one enjoys being petty more than me. This weekly post illustrates that.

I get that your email felt good to send. But you’re being silly.

Why be “petty” at the expense of hurting the club? If you tag Bell again and he refuses to show up again, you are just putting yourself through the same process and drama in 2019 that you endured in 2018.

Furthermore, you are tying up funds against the cap that could otherwise be used to bolster your roster.

Spite is fun. Intelligence is better. The Steelers can’t restrict Bell from playing forever. The longer they try, the more they hurt themselves.

Matt disagrees with my column stating that the Penguins need to play Matt Murray full time and cease platooning him with Casey DeSmith.

Yes. I’m aware. I inserted those exact numbers in the column. In the fourth paragraph. Thanks for the help, Matt.

That doesn’t change my premise. Murray has won two Stanley Cups for this team. They made a seismic, franchise-changing move deciding to keep him over Marc-Andre Fleury before last season began.

The Penguins shouldn’t scrap that decision and turn him into DeSmith’s backup after two bad months.

For the record, DeSmith’s numbers are better. But only above average by league standards. He’s only won three of nine decisions himself.

Michael didn’t like this passage from my story that the Trib tweeted out.

To be clear, that was one line from a story that was a “pull-quote” which I didn’t even tweet out myself.

It was a single thought from a story that was 95 percent about Bell. Not Conner.

This is a predictable, overly sensitive, typically childish, whiny Pitt fan tweet. I’ve barfed praise all over Conner for six weeks. Then I was appropriately critical after a game where he deserved it, and this guy acts like Conner is being crucified. I’ve never seen a fan base so eager to be offended — over anything — as Pitt’s is.

Finally, this hot take during the Jacksonville game aged well.

Good call.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review sports columnist. You can contact Tim via Twitter .

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.