Why do the Steelers keep playing Ben when he is hurt? (1 Viewer)

[Fensalk]

You have a backup QB for a reason. He should be able to come in and play when the starter is hurt. The Steelers have done this many times with Ben. They've put him in the game when he cannot go and he's hurt his team. Sometimes, they've gotten away with it and they won anyway, but this time, he obviously had no business being out there and his horrible play has cost them a shot at home field.

The guy isn't an iron man. He's an oft-injured player that the team refuses to put on the bench.

The franchise deserves a ton of criticism for what happened tonite.

If Charlie Batch is so horrible that they cannot put him in even when Ben can hardly walk, they should think about finding another backup.

 

[wormburner]

Perhaps Ben's ego was greater than his pain.

 

[NeverEnough]

B/c Batch is that bad

 

[Dedelvis]

He's a freakin Jedi, maaaaaan.

TOMLIN: "Ben, you've had enough. We're not going to risk you getting hurt any more than you already are. Take the helmet off and get some ice, you're done for the night."

BEN: "Maybe I'm not."

TOMLIN: "Maybe you're not. Ten straight shotgun plays with all nine-routes coming up."

 

[apalmer]

Yeah, look how well playing the backup has worked out for the Colts, Bears, and Chiefs. Even the Browns played their mediocre QB when he was concussed rather than play their backup.

 

[Bayhawks]

You have a backup QB for a reason. He should be able to come in and play when the starter is hurt. The Steelers have done this many times with Ben. They've put him in the game when he cannot go and he's hurt his team. Sometimes, they've gotten away with it and they won anyway, but this time, he obviously had no business being out there and his horrible play has cost them a shot at home field.The guy isn't an iron man. He's an oft-injured player that the team refuses to put on the bench.The franchise deserves a ton of criticism for what happened tonite.If Charlie Batch is so horrible that they cannot put him in even when Ben can hardly walk, they should think about finding another backup.

You're back on this horse, again?It's weird how you weren't posting this crap during the 2nd half of the Cleveland game, when Ben (PLAYING HURT) led the Steelers to a win that Charlie Batch obviously wouldn't have been able to (he looked AWFUL at the end of the 1st half of that game).The Steelers offense succeeds, not because of a system, or their OC's genius, but because of Roethlisberger's unique skill-set. Their offense usually features a lot of deep routes, and their O-line is not good (especially with Pouncey hurt). Ben's ability to avoid the rush & extend plays enables that to work. Usually if you run deep routes, you need a good O-line. Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, etc would not do as good IN THIS SYSTEM & BEHIND THIS O-LINE. While they are all more prolific passers, none of them are able to take the hits, shrug off would-be tacklers, and still make plays downfield like Roethlisberger does.The fact is that this game offered the Steelers a unique opportunity. With Hou and Balt losing yesterday, they not only had the chance to take hold of their division, but also seize the #1 seed in the AFC. They took their shot. Ben clearly wasn't 100%. He couldn't do what he is normally capable of doing. He tried on a few occasions to move around like he usually does and extend plays, but he couldn't. He couldn't drive through his throws like a QB needs to, and it impacted his accuracy several times. That, coupled with SF's (season-long) dominance of the run game, made Pitt VERY one-dimensional. They were left with nothing but short & intermediate routes, and that wasn't enough. Charlie Batch or Dennis Dixon, however, weren't going to do any better.As for your comment of "they should think about finding another backup," maybe you should think about understanding NFL football. The economics of the game make it difficult to have multiple QBs without question marks. Look at the Colts, Eagles, Texans, Bears, Raiders, Patriots, Saints, 49ers, Panthers, Jaguars, Cowboys, Giants, etc. Every one of those teams has back-up QB issues; either they are un-proven rookies/young guys, or they have journeymen who don't have the skills necessary to be a starter anymore. It is financially impossible to give significant money to a back-up QB. **And for the record, Byron Leftwich was the Steelers back-up QB this season, but he got hurt early in the pre-season. Prior to that, talk around Pittsburgh was that Batch/Dixon would likely be cut.I've posted this before in your other trolling threads (as have others), but please show some proof/support for your claim that Roethlisberger has "hurt his team" by playing hurt. I'm not talking about 1 game with bad stats, I'm talking about something that shows a link between Ben being hurt, and his play hurting his team. You never have, because you can't. Either put up, or shut up.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

You have a backup QB for a reason. He should be able to come in and play when the starter is hurt. The Steelers have done this many times with Ben. They've put him in the game when he cannot go and he's hurt his team. Sometimes, they've gotten away with it and they won anyway, but this time, he obviously had no business being out there and his horrible play has cost them a shot at home field.The guy isn't an iron man. He's an oft-injured player that the team refuses to put on the bench.The franchise deserves a ton of criticism for what happened tonite.If Charlie Batch is so horrible that they cannot put him in even when Ben can hardly walk, they should think about finding another backup.

You're back on this horse, again?It's weird how you weren't posting this crap during the 2nd half of the Cleveland game, when Ben (PLAYING HURT) led the Steelers to a win that Charlie Batch obviously wouldn't have been able to (he looked AWFUL at the end of the 1st half of that game).The Steelers offense succeeds, not because of a system, or their OC's genius, but because of Roethlisberger's unique skill-set. Their offense usually features a lot of deep routes, and their O-line is not good (especially with Pouncey hurt). Ben's ability to avoid the rush & extend plays enables that to work. Usually if you run deep routes, you need a good O-line. Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, etc would not do as good IN THIS SYSTEM & BEHIND THIS O-LINE. While they are all more prolific passers, none of them are able to take the hits, shrug off would-be tacklers, and still make plays downfield like Roethlisberger does.The fact is that this game offered the Steelers a unique opportunity. With Hou and Balt losing yesterday, they not only had the chance to take hold of their division, but also seize the #1 seed in the AFC. They took their shot. Ben clearly wasn't 100%. He couldn't do what he is normally capable of doing. He tried on a few occasions to move around like he usually does and extend plays, but he couldn't. He couldn't drive through his throws like a QB needs to, and it impacted his accuracy several times. That, coupled with SF's (season-long) dominance of the run game, made Pitt VERY one-dimensional. They were left with nothing but short & intermediate routes, and that wasn't enough. Charlie Batch or Dennis Dixon, however, weren't going to do any better.As for your comment of "they should think about finding another backup," maybe you should think about understanding NFL football. The economics of the game make it difficult to have multiple QBs without question marks. Look at the Colts, Eagles, Texans, Bears, Raiders, Patriots, Saints, 49ers, Panthers, Jaguars, Cowboys, Giants, etc. Every one of those teams has back-up QB issues; either they are un-proven rookies/young guys, or they have journeymen who don't have the skills necessary to be a starter anymore. It is financially impossible to give significant money to a back-up QB. **And for the record, Byron Leftwich was the Steelers back-up QB this season, but he got hurt early in the pre-season. Prior to that, talk around Pittsburgh was that Batch/Dixon would likely be cut.I've posted this before in your other trolling threads (as have others), but please show some proof/support for your claim that Roethlisberger has "hurt his team" by playing hurt. I'm not talking about 1 game with bad stats, I'm talking about something that shows a link between Ben being hurt, and his play hurting his team. You never have, because you can't. Either put up, or shut up.

Playing Ben late in the fourth qtr was stupid. He definitely could have injured his ankle worse and for what? The need for Roethlisberger in the playoffs is far more important than a game in which they had no chance to win late in the fourth qtr.

 

[cheese]

I don't blame them at all for playing him when every game could mean the division. Personally, I would play him and then yank him the minute I thought the game was decided either way. Sure, Batch could blow a lead or keep you from a miracle comeback, but thats the most logical IMO.

 

[Bayhawks]

You have a backup QB for a reason. He should be able to come in and play when the starter is hurt. The Steelers have done this many times with Ben. They've put him in the game when he cannot go and he's hurt his team. Sometimes, they've gotten away with it and they won anyway, but this time, he obviously had no business being out there and his horrible play has cost them a shot at home field.The guy isn't an iron man. He's an oft-injured player that the team refuses to put on the bench.The franchise deserves a ton of criticism for what happened tonite.If Charlie Batch is so horrible that they cannot put him in even when Ben can hardly walk, they should think about finding another backup.

You're back on this horse, again?It's weird how you weren't posting this crap during the 2nd half of the Cleveland game, when Ben (PLAYING HURT) led the Steelers to a win that Charlie Batch obviously wouldn't have been able to (he looked AWFUL at the end of the 1st half of that game).The Steelers offense succeeds, not because of a system, or their OC's genius, but because of Roethlisberger's unique skill-set. Their offense usually features a lot of deep routes, and their O-line is not good (especially with Pouncey hurt). Ben's ability to avoid the rush & extend plays enables that to work. Usually if you run deep routes, you need a good O-line. Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, etc would not do as good IN THIS SYSTEM & BEHIND THIS O-LINE. While they are all more prolific passers, none of them are able to take the hits, shrug off would-be tacklers, and still make plays downfield like Roethlisberger does.The fact is that this game offered the Steelers a unique opportunity. With Hou and Balt losing yesterday, they not only had the chance to take hold of their division, but also seize the #1 seed in the AFC. They took their shot. Ben clearly wasn't 100%. He couldn't do what he is normally capable of doing. He tried on a few occasions to move around like he usually does and extend plays, but he couldn't. He couldn't drive through his throws like a QB needs to, and it impacted his accuracy several times. That, coupled with SF's (season-long) dominance of the run game, made Pitt VERY one-dimensional. They were left with nothing but short & intermediate routes, and that wasn't enough. Charlie Batch or Dennis Dixon, however, weren't going to do any better.As for your comment of "they should think about finding another backup," maybe you should think about understanding NFL football. The economics of the game make it difficult to have multiple QBs without question marks. Look at the Colts, Eagles, Texans, Bears, Raiders, Patriots, Saints, 49ers, Panthers, Jaguars, Cowboys, Giants, etc. Every one of those teams has back-up QB issues; either they are un-proven rookies/young guys, or they have journeymen who don't have the skills necessary to be a starter anymore. It is financially impossible to give significant money to a back-up QB. **And for the record, Byron Leftwich was the Steelers back-up QB this season, but he got hurt early in the pre-season. Prior to that, talk around Pittsburgh was that Batch/Dixon would likely be cut.I've posted this before in your other trolling threads (as have others), but please show some proof/support for your claim that Roethlisberger has "hurt his team" by playing hurt. I'm not talking about 1 game with bad stats, I'm talking about something that shows a link between Ben being hurt, and his play hurting his team. You never have, because you can't. Either put up, or shut up.

Playing Ben late in the fourth qtr was stupid. He definitely could have injured his ankle worse and for what? The need for Roethlisberger in the playoffs is far more important than a game in which they had no chance to win late in the fourth qtr.

I agree that when they got the ball back with 2:01, they didn't need Ben in there. However, their prior possession started with 5 & 1/2 minutes left. They were down by 3 scores, and a comeback would have been very difficult, but there was still a chance (cue Lloyd Christmas voice). However, that has little to do with the point of my post. Fensalk has made it a habit of criticizing Roethlisberger for playing hurt, calling him injury-prone, and soft, & for "hurting his team" when he plays at less than 100%. He obviously has an agenda, and that is to disparage Roethlisberger.Now there are a number of things you could criticize Roethlisberger (& the Steelers) for, but his toughness is not one of them, nor is the Steelers playing Ben in this game.

 

[sho nuff]

No way he should have been in there late in the 4th quarter.

 

[Godsbrother]

I knew that Beej was going to have a thread about this before I came into the Shark Pool this morning. It is an obvious fishing trip for Steelers fans but I'll respond.

The answer to your question is the Steelers obviously felt that a banged up Ben gave them a better opportunity to win the game than Batch or Dixon. You may not agree, and you may even be right, but this was Tomlin's call and I assume it was based on Ben's history of playing well through injury and seeing the backups in practice all week.

I think Bayhawks answered the question of why the Steelers don't have a better backup pretty well. My question to BGP is why haven't the Browns had a better starter in the past couple decades?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

I knew that Beej was going to have a thread about this before I came into the Shark Pool this morning. It is an obvious fishing trip for Steelers fans but I'll respond.

The answer to your question is the Steelers obviously felt that a banged up Ben gave them a better opportunity to win the game than Batch or Dixon. You may not agree, and you may even be right, but this was Tomlin's call and I assume it was based on Ben's history of playing well through injury and seeing the backups in practice all week.

I think Bayhawks answered the question of why the Steelers don't have a better backup pretty well. My question to BGP is why haven't the Browns had a better starter in the past couple decades?

ok, about the last 3/4 minutes down 3-20

why he was out there ?

 

[fanofthegame]

You have a backup QB for a reason. He should be able to come in and play when the starter is hurt. The Steelers have done this many times with Ben. They've put him in the game when he cannot go and he's hurt his team. Sometimes, they've gotten away with it and they won anyway, but this time, he obviously had no business being out there and his horrible play has cost them a shot at home field.The guy isn't an iron man. He's an oft-injured player that the team refuses to put on the bench.The franchise deserves a ton of criticism for what happened tonite.If Charlie Batch is so horrible that they cannot put him in even when Ben can hardly walk, they should think about finding another backup.

It was obvious that he was ineffective due to his ankle injury. Regardless of what a win means here, I'd prefer a healthy Ben on a wildcard team to a gimpy Ben with the 1 or 2 seed. He should have been rested. It's possible that Batch could have led them to a win - anything can happen. I hope he's able to heal in time for the playoffs.

 

[Bayhawks]

You have a backup QB for a reason. He should be able to come in and play when the starter is hurt. The Steelers have done this many times with Ben. They've put him in the game when he cannot go and he's hurt his team. Sometimes, they've gotten away with it and they won anyway, but this time, he obviously had no business being out there and his horrible play has cost them a shot at home field.The guy isn't an iron man. He's an oft-injured player that the team refuses to put on the bench.The franchise deserves a ton of criticism for what happened tonite.If Charlie Batch is so horrible that they cannot put him in even when Ben can hardly walk, they should think about finding another backup.

It was obvious that he was ineffective due to his ankle injury. Regardless of what a win means here, I'd prefer a healthy Ben on a wildcard team to a gimpy Ben with the 1 or 2 seed. He should have been rested. It's possible that Batch could have led them to a win - anything can happen. I hope he's able to heal in time for the playoffs.

Ben, playing like he did last night, has more mobility and more velocity on his throws than Charlie Batch does. Those are just facts. Batch isn't mobile, and has a weaker arm than Ben. So, playing Ben gave them a better chance than playing Batch. It didn't work out, but it was the right decision.

 

[Godsbrother]

Ben, playing like he did last night, has more mobility and more velocity on his throws than Charlie Batch does. Those are just facts. Batch isn't mobile, and has a weaker arm than Ben. So, playing Ben gave them a better chance than playing Batch. It didn't work out, but it was the right decision.

I wouldn't go THAT far. I understand why Ben started the game but we lost the game and risked further injury on the most important player on the team. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 but he should have been yanked in the 4th quarter at the very least.

 

[Bayhawks]

Ben, playing like he did last night, has more mobility and more velocity on his throws than Charlie Batch does. Those are just facts. Batch isn't mobile, and has a weaker arm than Ben. So, playing Ben gave them a better chance than playing Batch. It didn't work out, but it was the right decision.

I wouldn't go THAT far. I understand why Ben started the game but we lost the game and risked further injury on the most important player on the team. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 but he should have been yanked in the 4th quarter at the very least.

I already posted that I don't agree with the decision to have him out there for the last Pitt possession (starting at 2:01), but prior to that, the game wasn't out of reach. Granted, after the 49ers made it 20-3, it would have been VERY difficult to come back, but winning the division, and the #1 seed was worth the risk.That being said, IMO, the chances of a victory with Ben at QB were higher than with Batch (or Dixon), so starting Ben was the right decision.

 

[Fensalk]

I knew that Beej was going to have a thread about this before I came into the Shark Pool this morning. It is an obvious fishing trip for Steelers fans but I'll respond.

The answer to your question is the Steelers obviously felt that a banged up Ben gave them a better opportunity to win the game than Batch or Dixon. You may not agree, and you may even be right, but this was Tomlin's call and I assume it was based on Ben's history of playing well through injury and seeing the backups in practice all week.

I think Bayhawks answered the question of why the Steelers don't have a better backup pretty well. My question to BGP is why haven't the Browns had a better starter in the past couple decades?

Let's not play the ol' shoot the messenger game. ESPN was blasting the Steelers for playing Ben after the game. Are they biased too?

 

[Fensalk]

That being said, IMO, the chances of a victory with Ben at QB were higher than with Batch (or Dixon), so starting Ben was the right decision.

If starting Ben on a hobbled ankle is a better plan than starting their backup, then the fault lies with having a terrible backup.

 

[Fensalk]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:

1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.

2. The year Ben faceplants off the windshield of some lady on his motorcycle, he rushes back from surgery and plays, even though he clearly is not ready to perform. His stats are terrible, he suffers another concussion early in that year, and leads the league in interceptions. He opens that seasons throwing 0 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. They lose a bunch of games early that year and miss the playoffs at 8-8.

I don't how you go from these facts, to "I must have a bias".

 

[Coeur de Lion]

How many NFL teams have a backup capable of winning on the road against a 10 - 3 team with one of the best defenses in football? Much less a 3rd guy capable of doing so (Leftwich was the original plan at backup for the Steelers)?

With the #1 seed at stake, starting Ben was likely the right call. Leaving him in after the game was 20 - 3 was madness, however.

 

[Copeman]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.2. The year Ben faceplants off the windshield of some lady on his motorcycle, he rushes back from surgery and plays, even though he clearly is not ready to perform. His stats are terrible, he suffers another concussion early in that year, and leads the league in interceptions. He opens that seasons throwing 0 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. They lose a bunch of games early that year and miss the playoffs at 8-8.I don't how you go from these facts, to "I must have a bias".

You shouldn't have gone this route. Be prepared to get crushed by the many examples where he has played hurt and played very good while doing so.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

not every team can manage personnel like the pats.

 

[massraider]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:

1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.

2. The year Ben faceplants off the windshield of some lady on his motorcycle, he rushes back from surgery and plays, even though he clearly is not ready to perform. His stats are terrible, he suffers another concussion early in that year, and leads the league in interceptions. He opens that seasons throwing 0 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. They lose a bunch of games early that year and miss the playoffs at 8-8.

I don't how you go from these facts, to "I must have a bias".

Well hey, as long as you're not cherry picking!And ESPN has spent months over the past few years talking about what a wonderful warrior Ben is for playing hurt, just because they demonstrate the same crystal clear hindsight you have, doesn't erase that. Did you hear any of that criticism before the game? Nah, me either.

 

[Fensalk]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.2. The year Ben faceplants off the windshield of some lady on his motorcycle, he rushes back from surgery and plays, even though he clearly is not ready to perform. His stats are terrible, he suffers another concussion early in that year, and leads the league in interceptions. He opens that seasons throwing 0 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. They lose a bunch of games early that year and miss the playoffs at 8-8.I don't how you go from these facts, to "I must have a bias".

You shouldn't have gone this route. Be prepared to get crushed by the many examples where he has played hurt and played very good while doing so.

How does that change the argument being put forth by ESPN? They never bench him for injury, whether it works out of not. That not policy. That's just ignorance.

 

[Bayhawks]

That being said, IMO, the chances of a victory with Ben at QB were higher than with Batch (or Dixon), so starting Ben was the right decision.

If starting Ben on a hobbled ankle is a better plan than starting their backup, then the fault lies with having a terrible backup.

Agreed, but if you were able to ignore your bias against Roethlisberger/the Steelers, you would know that well over 1/2 the league is in the EXACT same situation, and would have done the EXACT same thing, in the same situation.

 

[Fensalk]

ESPN's comments on Ben:

Should Steelers have played Big Ben? ESPN analysts say no

By Nate Davis, USA TODAY

Dec 20, 2011

Had they won Monday night in San Francisco, the Steelers would have taken over first place in the AFC North and claimed the inside track to winning the conference's No. 1 playoff seed.

However they lost to the 49ers 20-3, and ESPN's analysts were critical of Pittsburgh's decision to play injured QB Ben Roethlisberger, suggesting playoff seeding wasn't a sufficient reason to risk the eighth-year veteran's health.

Big Ben started and played the entire game despite suffering a high ankle sprain 11 days earlier; his movement was noticeably limited vs. the 49ers, who sacked him three times.

"Looked awful, can't play, can't play," said ESPN's Steve Young assessing his impression of Roethlisberger during warmups. Young felt that pre-game display should have been enough for Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin to shut his quarterback down.

"The guy's a stud, we understand that. Ben is going to go. If you ask him a question, 'You want to go?' He'll go," continued Young. "But it became very clear to me that he can't play -- he can't protect himself, he can't do anything that he'd like to do -- uncomfortable, and he put himself at risk for further injury. This is a guy you have to have to do anything in January. Why would you -- despite all that was at stake tonight -- put him at further risk when he can't protect himself? And why at halftime, when it was obvious that he can't protect himself -- he's a stud, he won't pull himself out of the game -- why would you allow him to continue to go?"

Roethlisberger, who did not take a pain-killing injection to play, took every snap and completed 25 of 44 throws for 330 yards but lost a fumble and threw three INTs in addition to taking the trio of sacks. He clearly lacked his patented escapability that so frequently allows him to extend plays and find late-breaking receivers downfield.

"Now you're risking him Saturday, when they play (the Rams in Week 16), not being all the way healed ... extending the healing process to when you get into the playoffs, when it really matters the most, and you're not capable of playing your best football, that's a big problem for the Steelers," added ESPN's Trent Dilfer.

"And what Steve is saying is you have to be a bigger thinker than that. You have to look forward to the playoffs and say, 'No, the goal is to get to the Super Bowl.' When you're a Pittsburgh Steeler, the goal is to get to the Super Bowl and win it. And playing him tonight might have affected their chances negatively."

Now 10-4, the Steelers are tied with the Ravens atop their division. But after getting swept by their rivals this season, Pittsburgh must win one more game than Baltimore to win the division and earn a playoff home game and possibly a bye week, a reward that would obviously give Roethlisberger extra time to recuperate.

But Young remain unbowed in his criticism.

"To me, when I see someone who cannot protect themself out on the field, (he) needs to come off the field. He couldn't get out of the way," said Young. "And he's so strong, and so big and so tough, he kept getting up. But it was painful. And I think that, just from that perspective -- forget about playoffs, forget about what Ben means to the Pittsburgh Steelers -- if you can't protect yourself, can't play."

Roethlisberger indicated after the game that the decision to play him was Tomlin's.

"I was gonna play," said Roethlisberger. "I mean it wasn't my call -- I'll go out and play at 5%, I don't care. Told coach that, said 'It's your call, you make the call, you're the head coach, and I'm gonna give you everything I got no matter what that is.' "

But the quarterback came away lampooning his own performance despite the obvious display of toughness.

"I was probably the best 49er tonight," cracked Roethlisberger, admitting he had trouble dropping back to pass.

"It's just frustrating on my part when you feel like you let the guys down and, you know, you blow it."

 

[Fensalk]

In the poll on the USA today website at the bottom of the linked article, 2700 voters cast their votes.

Should the Steelers continue playing injured QB Ben Roethlisberger?

13% say "Yes, as long as they're vying for the No. 1 seed"

8% say "Yes, as long as they're vying for a playoff bye"

78% say "No, rest him up for postseason"

 

[bushdocda]

If Batch had played the Steelers would have only scored 2 points.

 

[roadkill1292]

Can't Dennis Dixon beat the Rams and Browns?

 

[Cookiemonster]

4 turnovers by Ben. He didn't help the Steelers, and it was obvious to me after he started sailing passes in the 1st quarter and after the 1st interception that Ben was not capable of playing within his current limitations. I don't think Batch turns the ball over 4 times HIMSELF. Maybe Batch was incapable of winning that game, behind that O line and against that defense, but both my wife and I were calling for Tomlin to pull Ben by the end of the 1st Q, both for Ben's health AND for the Steelers chances.

 

[Bayhawks]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.

His rookie year. He was facing the #2 ranked D in the league that year (NE), the same D that held Peyton Manning to 238 yards, 0 TD, & 1 INT the prior week. So, what you're saying is that an injured Ben Roethlisberger is equal to a healthy Peyton Manning. Way to make your point here.

2. The year Ben faceplants off the windshield of some lady on his motorcycle, he rushes back from surgery and plays, even though he clearly is not ready to perform. His stats are terrible, he suffers another concussion early in that year, and leads the league in interceptions. He opens that seasons throwing 0 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. They lose a bunch of games early that year and miss the playoffs at 8-8.

This was his worst year as a pro. He was a third year player, his defense was unusually bad this year, ranking outside of the top-10. His stats are terrible, he suffers two concussions in a period of months (counting the motorcycle accident), and he leads the league in INTs.Guess who else had a bad year early in their pro career, throwing huge amounts of INTs? Peyton Manning, Jay Cutler, Drew Bledsoe, Warren Moon, Eli Manning, Johnny Unitas, just to name a few.It's not uncommon for young pros to have "down years," especially when they start to press. It doesn't mean they are "hurting their team by playing," rather that very few people are perfect.So, if those two cherry-picked, poor "facts" are your only basis for this weak argument, you may want to stop while you're behind.

 

[Bayhawks]

ESPN's comments on Ben:

Should Steelers have played Big Ben? ESPN analysts say no

By Nate Davis, USA TODAY

Dec 20, 2011

Had they won Monday night in San Francisco, the Steelers would have taken over first place in the AFC North and claimed the inside track to winning the conference's No. 1 playoff seed.

However they lost to the 49ers 20-3, and ESPN's analysts were critical of Pittsburgh's decision to play injured QB Ben Roethlisberger, suggesting playoff seeding wasn't a sufficient reason to risk the eighth-year veteran's health.

Big Ben started and played the entire game despite suffering a high ankle sprain 11 days earlier; his movement was noticeably limited vs. the 49ers, who sacked him three times.

"Looked awful, can't play, can't play," said ESPN's Steve Young assessing his impression of Roethlisberger during warmups. Young felt that pre-game display should have been enough for Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin to shut his quarterback down.

"The guy's a stud, we understand that. Ben is going to go. If you ask him a question, 'You want to go?' He'll go," continued Young. "But it became very clear to me that he can't play -- he can't protect himself, he can't do anything that he'd like to do -- uncomfortable, and he put himself at risk for further injury. This is a guy you have to have to do anything in January. Why would you -- despite all that was at stake tonight -- put him at further risk when he can't protect himself? And why at halftime, when it was obvious that he can't protect himself -- he's a stud, he won't pull himself out of the game -- why would you allow him to continue to go?"

Roethlisberger, who did not take a pain-killing injection to play, took every snap and completed 25 of 44 throws for 330 yards but lost a fumble and threw three INTs in addition to taking the trio of sacks. He clearly lacked his patented escapability that so frequently allows him to extend plays and find late-breaking receivers downfield.

"Now you're risking him Saturday, when they play (the Rams in Week 16), not being all the way healed ... extending the healing process to when you get into the playoffs, when it really matters the most, and you're not capable of playing your best football, that's a big problem for the Steelers," added ESPN's Trent Dilfer.

"And what Steve is saying is you have to be a bigger thinker than that. You have to look forward to the playoffs and say, 'No, the goal is to get to the Super Bowl.' When you're a Pittsburgh Steeler, the goal is to get to the Super Bowl and win it. And playing him tonight might have affected their chances negatively."

Now 10-4, the Steelers are tied with the Ravens atop their division. But after getting swept by their rivals this season, Pittsburgh must win one more game than Baltimore to win the division and earn a playoff home game and possibly a bye week, a reward that would obviously give Roethlisberger extra time to recuperate.

But Young remain unbowed in his criticism.

"To me, when I see someone who cannot protect themself out on the field, (he) needs to come off the field. He couldn't get out of the way," said Young. "And he's so strong, and so big and so tough, he kept getting up. But it was painful. And I think that, just from that perspective -- forget about playoffs, forget about what Ben means to the Pittsburgh Steelers -- if you can't protect yourself, can't play."

Roethlisberger indicated after the game that the decision to play him was Tomlin's.

"I was gonna play," said Roethlisberger. "I mean it wasn't my call -- I'll go out and play at 5%, I don't care. Told coach that, said 'It's your call, you make the call, you're the head coach, and I'm gonna give you everything I got no matter what that is.' "

But the quarterback came away lampooning his own performance despite the obvious display of toughness.

"I was probably the best 49er tonight," cracked Roethlisberger, admitting he had trouble dropping back to pass.

"It's just frustrating on my part when you feel like you let the guys down and, you know, you blow it."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but as far as I know, ESPN has no history of bashing Roethlisberger or the Steelers, as you do. Your take on this situation is clearly biased, ESPN's take is not. You argue that the Steelers are a "faulty" organization for not having a better backup QB situation, but ignore the fact that over 1/2 the NFL has a similar backup QB situation (because of your bias). ESPN does not. You argue that Ben hurts his team by playing when dinged, ignoring the facts that show the opposite. ESPN does not.You are biased and wrong in this situation. ESPN is unbiased and wrong in this situation.

 

[Godsbrother]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.2. The year Ben faceplants off the windshield of some lady on his motorcycle, he rushes back from surgery and plays, even though he clearly is not ready to perform. His stats are terrible, he suffers another concussion early in that year, and leads the league in interceptions. He opens that seasons throwing 0 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. They lose a bunch of games early that year and miss the playoffs at 8-8.I don't how you go from these facts, to "I must have a bias".

You shouldn't have gone this route. Be prepared to get crushed by the many examples where he has played hurt and played very good while doing so.

How does that change the argument being put forth by ESPN? They never bench him for injury, whether it works out of not. That not policy. That's just ignorance.

The Steelers organization is a lot of things but ignorant isn't one of them. They had access to all of the info and felt that Ben gave them a better chance to win than Batch or Dixon. It really is that simple.You have a right to your opinion but calling them ignorant suggests that you think you know more about football and injuries than the Steelers coaching and medical staff which I find laughable.

 

[Cookiemonster]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:

1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.

His rookie year. He was facing the #2 ranked D in the league that year (NE), the same D that held Peyton Manning to 238 yards, 0 TD, & 1 INT the prior week. So, what you're saying is that an injured Ben Roethlisberger is equal to a healthy Peyton Manning. Way to make your point here.

2. The year Ben faceplants off the windshield of some lady on his motorcycle, he rushes back from surgery and plays, even though he clearly is not ready to perform. His stats are terrible, he suffers another concussion early in that year, and leads the league in interceptions. He opens that seasons throwing 0 touchdowns and 7 interceptions. They lose a bunch of games early that year and miss the playoffs at 8-8.

This was his worst year as a pro. He was a third year player, his defense was unusually bad this year, ranking outside of the top-10. His stats are terrible, he suffers two concussions in a period of months (counting the motorcycle accident), and he leads the league in INTs.Guess who else had a bad year early in their pro career, throwing huge amounts of INTs?

Peyton Manning, Jay Cutler, Drew Bledsoe, Warren Moon, Eli Manning, Johnny Unitas, just to name a few.

It's not uncommon for young pros to have "down years," especially when they start to press. It doesn't mean they are "hurting their team by playing," rather that very few people are perfect.

So, if those two cherry-picked, poor "facts" are your only basis for this weak argument, you may want to stop while you're behind.

Batch was a much better QB back then, and certainly was better than a Ben post concussion that was slow making his reads, never getting much past his 1st two reads and throwing many interceptions as well as recognizing blitzes slower and taking more huge hits, losing more fumbles, throwing while being hit causing INTs and just generally taking a lot of punishment (likely leading to the 2nd concussion). Under Batch for the 1st month (and the couple weeks following the 2nd concussion with Ben in and healthy) the Steelers likely go 10-6 that year. As for Ben's unusually poor defense that year, they were well below Steelers standards for defense, but they were not as bad as their stats that year, as there was a turnover prone, ineffective offense supporting them. I'm not saying Batch was going to play better than Ben last night, but it was obvious early that Ben was not going to be able to win that game, would likely contribute to a loss and would risk further injury because he could not evade the pass rush leading to almost the same problems as the concussion year. Would any Steelers fans saying that Ben should have been left in the game for the 4th quarter, let alone the whole 2nd half, still be saying the same things had Ben been concussed last night because he couldn't get out of the way?

 

[The Jerk]

I'm starting to root for the Browns to actually win a playoff game sometime this century so that BGP can post praise for the Browns instead of endlessly trying to denigrate the Steelers.

Hey BGP, can you should bring back those two "scientific" prediction threads of how the Steelers were going to lose to both Seattle and Arizona in the Super Bowls? Thanks.

 

[Fensalk]

ESPN's comments on Ben:

Should Steelers have played Big Ben? ESPN analysts say no

By Nate Davis, USA TODAY

Dec 20, 2011

Had they won Monday night in San Francisco, the Steelers would have taken over first place in the AFC North and claimed the inside track to winning the conference's No. 1 playoff seed.

However they lost to the 49ers 20-3, and ESPN's analysts were critical of Pittsburgh's decision to play injured QB Ben Roethlisberger, suggesting playoff seeding wasn't a sufficient reason to risk the eighth-year veteran's health.

Big Ben started and played the entire game despite suffering a high ankle sprain 11 days earlier; his movement was noticeably limited vs. the 49ers, who sacked him three times.

"Looked awful, can't play, can't play," said ESPN's Steve Young assessing his impression of Roethlisberger during warmups. Young felt that pre-game display should have been enough for Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin to shut his quarterback down.

"The guy's a stud, we understand that. Ben is going to go. If you ask him a question, 'You want to go?' He'll go," continued Young. "But it became very clear to me that he can't play -- he can't protect himself, he can't do anything that he'd like to do -- uncomfortable, and he put himself at risk for further injury. This is a guy you have to have to do anything in January. Why would you -- despite all that was at stake tonight -- put him at further risk when he can't protect himself? And why at halftime, when it was obvious that he can't protect himself -- he's a stud, he won't pull himself out of the game -- why would you allow him to continue to go?"

Roethlisberger, who did not take a pain-killing injection to play, took every snap and completed 25 of 44 throws for 330 yards but lost a fumble and threw three INTs in addition to taking the trio of sacks. He clearly lacked his patented escapability that so frequently allows him to extend plays and find late-breaking receivers downfield.

"Now you're risking him Saturday, when they play (the Rams in Week 16), not being all the way healed ... extending the healing process to when you get into the playoffs, when it really matters the most, and you're not capable of playing your best football, that's a big problem for the Steelers," added ESPN's Trent Dilfer.

"And what Steve is saying is you have to be a bigger thinker than that. You have to look forward to the playoffs and say, 'No, the goal is to get to the Super Bowl.' When you're a Pittsburgh Steeler, the goal is to get to the Super Bowl and win it. And playing him tonight might have affected their chances negatively."

Now 10-4, the Steelers are tied with the Ravens atop their division. But after getting swept by their rivals this season, Pittsburgh must win one more game than Baltimore to win the division and earn a playoff home game and possibly a bye week, a reward that would obviously give Roethlisberger extra time to recuperate.

But Young remain unbowed in his criticism.

"To me, when I see someone who cannot protect themself out on the field, (he) needs to come off the field. He couldn't get out of the way," said Young. "And he's so strong, and so big and so tough, he kept getting up. But it was painful. And I think that, just from that perspective -- forget about playoffs, forget about what Ben means to the Pittsburgh Steelers -- if you can't protect yourself, can't play."

Roethlisberger indicated after the game that the decision to play him was Tomlin's.

"I was gonna play," said Roethlisberger. "I mean it wasn't my call -- I'll go out and play at 5%, I don't care. Told coach that, said 'It's your call, you make the call, you're the head coach, and I'm gonna give you everything I got no matter what that is.' "

But the quarterback came away lampooning his own performance despite the obvious display of toughness.

"I was probably the best 49er tonight," cracked Roethlisberger, admitting he had trouble dropping back to pass.

"It's just frustrating on my part when you feel like you let the guys down and, you know, you blow it."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but as far as I know, ESPN has no history of bashing Roethlisberger or the Steelers, as you do. Your take on this situation is clearly biased, ESPN's take is not. You argue that the Steelers are a "faulty" organization for not having a better backup QB situation, but ignore the fact that over 1/2 the NFL has a similar backup QB situation (because of your bias). ESPN does not. You argue that Ben hurts his team by playing when dinged, ignoring the facts that show the opposite. ESPN does not.You are biased and wrong in this situation. ESPN is unbiased and wrong in this situation.

I've always said Ben is a very talented QB. He also gets injured a lot. Both are true.

 

[apalmer]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:

1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.

I don't how you go from these facts, to "I must have a bias".

So, you know AS A FACT that the Steelers would have won that game if Tommy Maddox had played? A few NE people might just disagree.

 

[Fensalk]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:

1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.

I don't how you go from these facts, to "I must have a bias".

So, you know AS A FACT that the Steelers would have won that game if Tommy Maddox had played? A few NE people might just disagree.

I definitely think starting Maddox gave them the best chance to win. The argument put forth by the Steelers was that Ben was 15-1 asa starter, which I think was stupid.

 

[Bayhawks]

ESPN's comments on Ben:

Should Steelers have played Big Ben? ESPN analysts say no

By Nate Davis, USA TODAY

Dec 20, 2011

Had they won Monday night in San Francisco, the Steelers would have taken over first place in the AFC North and claimed the inside track to winning the conference's No. 1 playoff seed.

However they lost to the 49ers 20-3, and ESPN's analysts were critical of Pittsburgh's decision to play injured QB Ben Roethlisberger, suggesting playoff seeding wasn't a sufficient reason to risk the eighth-year veteran's health.

Big Ben started and played the entire game despite suffering a high ankle sprain 11 days earlier; his movement was noticeably limited vs. the 49ers, who sacked him three times.

"Looked awful, can't play, can't play," said ESPN's Steve Young assessing his impression of Roethlisberger during warmups. Young felt that pre-game display should have been enough for Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin to shut his quarterback down.

"The guy's a stud, we understand that. Ben is going to go. If you ask him a question, 'You want to go?' He'll go," continued Young. "But it became very clear to me that he can't play -- he can't protect himself, he can't do anything that he'd like to do -- uncomfortable, and he put himself at risk for further injury. This is a guy you have to have to do anything in January. Why would you -- despite all that was at stake tonight -- put him at further risk when he can't protect himself? And why at halftime, when it was obvious that he can't protect himself -- he's a stud, he won't pull himself out of the game -- why would you allow him to continue to go?"

Roethlisberger, who did not take a pain-killing injection to play, took every snap and completed 25 of 44 throws for 330 yards but lost a fumble and threw three INTs in addition to taking the trio of sacks. He clearly lacked his patented escapability that so frequently allows him to extend plays and find late-breaking receivers downfield.

"Now you're risking him Saturday, when they play (the Rams in Week 16), not being all the way healed ... extending the healing process to when you get into the playoffs, when it really matters the most, and you're not capable of playing your best football, that's a big problem for the Steelers," added ESPN's Trent Dilfer.

"And what Steve is saying is you have to be a bigger thinker than that. You have to look forward to the playoffs and say, 'No, the goal is to get to the Super Bowl.' When you're a Pittsburgh Steeler, the goal is to get to the Super Bowl and win it. And playing him tonight might have affected their chances negatively."

Now 10-4, the Steelers are tied with the Ravens atop their division. But after getting swept by their rivals this season, Pittsburgh must win one more game than Baltimore to win the division and earn a playoff home game and possibly a bye week, a reward that would obviously give Roethlisberger extra time to recuperate.

But Young remain unbowed in his criticism.

"To me, when I see someone who cannot protect themself out on the field, (he) needs to come off the field. He couldn't get out of the way," said Young. "And he's so strong, and so big and so tough, he kept getting up. But it was painful. And I think that, just from that perspective -- forget about playoffs, forget about what Ben means to the Pittsburgh Steelers -- if you can't protect yourself, can't play."

Roethlisberger indicated after the game that the decision to play him was Tomlin's.

"I was gonna play," said Roethlisberger. "I mean it wasn't my call -- I'll go out and play at 5%, I don't care. Told coach that, said 'It's your call, you make the call, you're the head coach, and I'm gonna give you everything I got no matter what that is.' "

But the quarterback came away lampooning his own performance despite the obvious display of toughness.

"I was probably the best 49er tonight," cracked Roethlisberger, admitting he had trouble dropping back to pass.

"It's just frustrating on my part when you feel like you let the guys down and, you know, you blow it."

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but as far as I know, ESPN has no history of bashing Roethlisberger or the Steelers, as you do. Your take on this situation is clearly biased, ESPN's take is not. You argue that the Steelers are a "faulty" organization for not having a better backup QB situation, but ignore the fact that over 1/2 the NFL has a similar backup QB situation (because of your bias). ESPN does not. You argue that Ben hurts his team by playing when dinged, ignoring the facts that show the opposite. ESPN does not.You are biased and wrong in this situation. ESPN is unbiased and wrong in this situation.

I've always said Ben is a very talented QB. He also gets injured a lot. Both are true.

Agreed, he is very talented. Agreed, he gets injured (I'm not sure we agree on what "a lot" means, though).What is not true are your posts that he is soft ("Brittle Ben"), that he hurts his team when he plays hurt (proven false), and that the Steelers are a "bad" organization for not having a backup that gave them a better chance to win last night ("Steelers deserve a lot of criticism").

Those are the points on which you are wrong, and when your bias clearly shows. Had you just said "Ben is a very talented, tough QB, but he's injured and can't do as much as he normally would," this fishing thread wouldn't have gotten as many responses, now, would it?

 

[Apple Jack]

That poll is useless AFTER the game. Should have been done before the game to get an accurate gauge on people's thoughts. Most people are incapable of putting truth above their need to be right.

Not to mention, the appearance is that most people who get into comments and polls on espn.com are brain-damaged.

 

[Bayhawks]

From a historical standpoint, these are the facts:

1. In the 2004 playoffs, the Steelers played an injured Ben Roethlisberger in the AFC championship game against the Patriots. It was obvious during the game he was not able to function properly, but they let him play and kept Tommy Maddox on the bench. And it cost them the game.

I don't how you go from these facts, to "I must have a bias".

So, you know AS A FACT that the Steelers would have won that game if Tommy Maddox had played? A few NE people might just disagree.

I definitely think starting Maddox gave them the best chance to win. The argument put forth by the Steelers was that Ben was 15-1 asa starter, which I think was stupid.

Well, that's surprising No bias here.Roethlisberger in that playoff game: 58.3% completion, 2 TD/3 INT, 78.1 QB rating

Maddox in 2003 (his last full season as starter): 57.4% completion, 18 TD/17 INT, 75.3 QB rating

Maddox in his 4 games in 2004: 43% completion, 1TD/2INT, 58.5 QB rating.

So what, other than your obvious bias against Roethlisberger, makes you think Maddox would have done better? A (in your estimation) "hurt" Roethlislberger out-performed Maddox's performance in 2004, AND his last full season in 2003? What kind of reasonable person would insist that playing Maddox would have been the better decision when the facts show that this is not true?

 

[Fensalk]

Its very difficult to discuss Steeler football on this forum. Their fans can be very homerish.

 

[Bayhawks]

Its very difficult to discuss Steeler football on this forum. Their fans can be very homerish.

Why don't you "discuss" the facts? Explain why starting Maddox over Roethlisberger in that '04 Championship game would have been the right decision, despite Roethlsiberger's performance in that game being better than what Maddox had done in the previous two year?Why don't you provide more than 2 bogus "examples" of Ben "hurting his team" by playing while banged up?Why don't you provide ANY substantiation for your biased posts?You say Steeler fans are hard to have a discussion with, yet you refuse to discuss the points I raised. Interesting.BTW-I'm not a Steeler fan, I just happen to live in western PA now. I'm a Redskins fan, so believe me, I know bad quarterbacking (over the last 20 years or so, at least )

 

[The Jerk]

Its very difficult to discuss Steeler football on this forum. Their fans can be very homerish.

Another jaw-dropping example of brilliance and objectivity in action. Thank goodness FBG also welcomes the fans of all 31 other teams and their persistent neutrality and complete absence of bias.