The Terrible Podcast - Episode 36, The Offseason Commences (2/9)

My Super Bowl experience in Dallas and game thoughts are coming....soon. Here is the lastest Podcast. Also, here is an email from a Packers fan whose tickets were in the section declared unsafe. Brutal. I would have been apoplectic.

In Part 1 of Episode 36 we wrap-up our analysis of Super Bowl XLV. We discuss Troy's reaction to the loss and acceptance for some of the blame and talk about whether it is justified. We look at the Steelers' nickel and dime packages and whether they made the right adjustments and we recap a few other issues from the game.

In Part 2 we talk about Hines Ward's dissatisfaction with not getting the ball on the last drive. Is there still a lingering issue between Ben and Hines? And we wonder why Antonio Brown didn't try to get to the sideline on the last Packers' kick-off (I was wrong on the podcast, it was not Antonio Brown who returned the final KO, it was Isaac Redman). Finally we get to some issues taking place off the field--who is and will have surgery. And, will the Steelers defensive philosophy continue to hold up or do changes need to be made? News comes out that defensive backs coach Ray Horton is leaving to be defensive coordinator in Arizona.

In Part 3 we talk about the suggestion that the Steelers move Maurkice Pouncey from center to guard and put Doug Legursky at center. We close with a look at the seating fiasco in Dallas and what the NFL is going to do about it.

Make sure you also listen to Friday's Episode 37 when we go through all 60+ guys on the Steelers roster and analyze whether they will be back and what the cap ramifications will be.

Thanks for listening!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

The Terrible Podcast - Episode 35, Super Bowl Recap (2/7)

I'll have my Dallas experience and Super Bowl thoughts up in the next 24 hours. Episode 35 recaps Super Bowl XLV from start to finish. Thanks for listening.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

The Terrible Podcast - Super Bowl Preivew Episode 34 & Episode 3 of Super Bowl Week (2/2)

The Super Bowl Preview. Episode 34/Episdode 3 of Super Bowl Week is all about Sunday's big game. We give our hardcore, in-depth analysis in a 45 minute podcast discussing all aspects of Steelers-Packers.

In Part 1 we look at the matchup between the Steelers defense and the Packers offense.

In Part 2 Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders joins us for a second time and fills us in on what he expects to happen on Sunday.

In Part 3 we go to the other side of the ball and look at the Steelers offense against the Packers defense.

We close with our predictions which turn out to be exactly the same, right down to the final score.  Thanks for listening!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

The Terrible Podcast - Episode 33 & Episode 2 of Super Bowl Week (2/2)

In Part 1 of Episode 33 we interview Chad Milliman who writes for ESPN.com, ESPN the magazine and is the author of "The Odds" and "The Ones Who Hit the Hardest" which takes a look at the blood feud between the Steelers and Cowboys and the battle for the heart of America in the 1970s. Chad talks about how he got his dream job writing about sports and gambling and discusses how that world has changed during the 11 years he's been in the business. He talks about some of his own experiences and then we get into the game and where the "sharps" are putting their money and how the sportsbooks in Vegas see the rest of the week playing out. We discuss prop bets, which have become a huge part of the handle during Super Bowl week and then Chad tells us how he thinks things are going to play out on Sunday.

In Part 2 we talk with Shawn Kennedy Co-Founder of Steel City Mafia which you can find on the web at www.steelcitymafia.com. Shawn tells us how this Steelers Fan Club, which now has over 9,000 members located across the U.S., was founded and how you can become a member. Shawn also talks about the big weekend Steel City Mafia has planned in Dallas. They will be involved with Trib Live Radio at Malarkey's Tavern (www.MalarkeysTavern.com) on both Friday and Saturday. You can find all the details on their website. Steelers attending Saturday include Louis Lipps, Eric Green, Yancey Thigpen and Ernie Mills. Be sure to stop by if you are in town.

In Part 3 we chat with Brian Blessing of 4GuysWin.com. This one is for the hardcore gamblers. Brian works with ESPN Las Vegas and has a show on Sirius 98 called Hardcore Sports Radio. Brian gives all the inside info of what goes on in Vegas this weekend and where the money is going. These guys aren't just throwing darts, Brian gives some great analysis of the game. Listen and find out what is really happening with Super Bowl 45 and who he likes.

Thanks for listening.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

It Continues, ESPN and Others Trot Out Their "Don't Forget Ben is a Bad Guy" Pieces

I guess at the end of the day I shouldn't be surprised. If the goal of a media outlet is to get eyeballs on the site and people buzzing about the content, bloggers like me are seen as low hanging fruit--easy to rile up, further the conversation and generate interest. I generally don't care what "the media" says or writes about teams or players I root for. I certainly try not to get worked up about it. I play on the fringes of being part of that media. I can come up with my own opinions, and I try to share some of those here with the few of you that care to stop by. Like most bloggers, I try not to post entries that you might also read in the daily paper or easily find on the web. I hope to, on occasion, bring a unique angle or insight that is, if not eloquently expressed, at least readable. But, when I think someone has really missed the boat, I feel I have to enter the fray. "Have to" probably is not phrase. When I feel someone has really missed the boat I can generally work myself into a mild frenzy. Then, it is probably less "have to" and more "probably shouldn't." This week I have.

Earlier in the week I responded to an article by Ann Killion from SI.com. I like Sports Illustrated. I like the magazine and the website and I know people who work there. But Ann wrote a bad piece. It was an opinion piece that lacked insight. From where I sit, she had a well-formed opinion, didn't like what she was reading in the media and wanted to add a voice of reason to the hysteria surrounding the "redemption" of Ben Roethlisberger. Problem is that hysteria doesn't exist and Ann didn't do any background research on what has happened in the 11 months since events in Georgia. If what she wrote reflects her opinion that is fine, but the article ignores the facts surrounding the story she chose to write about. Turns out Ann isn't alone. She was just first horse out of the gate.

Yesterday ESPN.com published this piece which, today, is featured and linked to on the front page of their website. Wins don't give Ben Roethlisberger a free pass. Clever title, better than Ann Killion's. But rather than "nauseous" like Ann, Jane McManus of ESPN is "a little wary" of stories about the Pittsburgh quarterback. Good. Don't want anyone else getting sick. First question, do people at ESPN.com ignore SI.com? Did her editors not say, "Hey Jane, a woman at SI.com just wrote the exact same piece. You probably won't get nailed for plagiarism, but this isn't exactly unique?" Or, did someone notice that that article at SI.comwas generating a lot of traffic and decide they had to have one of own? Just wondering.

Generally my response to Jane is: Please refer to my "Open Letter to Ann Killion." I'd like to leave it at that, but Jane makes a few points I can't ignore. That's where the mild frenzy part kicks in. She writes, "Roethlisberger has had a number of interactions with women that have involved courts or police to one degree or another." This is disingenuous at best, factually wrong at worst. I and the population at large know of two occasions. I am not in any way dismissive of these two events, but suggesting their have been a number of interactions when there have been two is misleading. But maybe that is splitting hairs.

This is where Jane really gets off the rails:

Now the Steelers are in the Super Bowl. What that means is that reporters will want to write about what happened [in Georgia], but will have a hard time using phrases like "alleged rape." Instead, you might hear a lot of references to "off-the-field distractions."

So weak. You cannot lump DWIs, drug use, alleged rape and assualt charges into the same phrase you'd use for trying to talk and text at the same time.

You're right Ann, I mean Jane, you can't. The reason is the word "alleged." Alleged is defined as: stated, doubtful, suspect or supposed. If you said alleged DWIs, alleged drug use, alleged rape and alleged assault charges you could lump them all in the same phrase. But, if rape is the only one that is alleged you should probably exclude it. Otherwise it would not only be weak, it would be slanderous to lump them together.

You later lump Antonio Cromartie, Big Ben (your term, not mine), Mike Vick, Tiger Woods and Kobe Bryant together as "antiheroes." One is a convicted felon, the other four are not. Careful not to be hoisted by your own "lumping" petard.

There are lots of other points to make. Santonio Holmes is Charles Barkley 2.0. Charles is the original "I am not a role model." But that isn't particularly germane to your point, that's just me showing off that I actually read your whole article, painful as it was.

Jane, like Ann you didn't add to the conversation or the dialogue about Ben Roethlisberger and you didn't bother to research your topic or include anything that didn't fit your story line. Again, I ask, how did this get past the editors at ESPN.com? But, I've written this all before. Please see In Defense of Ben Roethlisberger: An Open Letter to Ann Killion of Sports Illustrated. Insert your name and ESPN where appropriate and you'll get the idea.

(Too read similar pieces go to FoxSporst.com and WashingtonPost.com among others.)

The Goodell-King Fiasco: A Disaster for the Commissioner, Apology Required

Wow does Roger Goodell owe Ben Roethlisberger and every other NFL player a big apology. For those not familiar with the story, yesterday Peter King published excerpts of interviews gathered from a season spent following the NFL Commissioner in his Monday Morning Quarterback article on SI.com. A larger article is to be featured in the print edition of Sports Illustrated that hits newsstands today, but King teased that piece with five items that didn't make the print issue in his on-line column.

In that column, King quoted Goodell as having interviewed two dozen Steelers in the process of gathering information to determine the length of Ben Roethlisberger's suspension and reportedly said not one of them "had his back." Don't bother looking for King's original quote because he has already retracted it and apologized, writing that he assumed when Goodell was talking about "players" he meant "Steelers." The Commissioner apparently called to clarify that was not the case, but why would Goodell be seeking opposing players' comments on Roethlisberger and why would they "have his back?" It makes little sense.

While King is responsible for making a significant and thoughtless error in reporting, it is Goodell who has violated the trust of players across the league--something that surely isn't going to serve him well as he tries to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with the players' union. The Commissioner, in his singular role as judge and jury (a role Ann Killion would like to play as I wrote yesterday after her attack on Roethlisberger), has a responsibility to gather as much information as possible before meting out fines and suspensions. To share that information with the media demonstrates a startling lack of judgment and an inexcusable breach of trust, undermining his credibility with players and fans alike. The thought that any player would agree to speak "confidentially" going forward in regard to any investigation is a stretch.

Peter King and Sports Illustrated held on to this story (King attributes the quotes to a January 7 interview with Goodell) to have maximum impact during Super Bowl week. But what point did it serve Goodell to bring any of this up, particularly with the Steelers participating in the playoffs? His role as Commissioner is to enhance and support the image of the league. Talking on record to a journalist about private meetings that took place at least four months prior serves little discernible purpose. Further, the reasons cited that players' didn't have Roethlisberger's back were "stories like, 'He won't sign my jersey.'" That is as laughable as it is insignificant.

In the same piece Goodell is also on record as saying he "doesn't feel any connection with Ben Roethlisberger"--a statement not retracted by King. The Commissioner's personal feelings about any player should be his and his alone, less he show an appearance of not being impartial in his oversight of the league. With many on the Steelers feeling the league office has inappropriately targeted them for aggressive hits, this only adds fuel to the fire.

Goodell isn't the only one taking a hit. Peter King's reputation is also damaged. Local beat writer Ed Bouchette was all over King's story and immediately squashed the credibility of Goodell's statement even before King retracted it. Bouchette spells out how ludicrous King's details are here saying what a low blow the Commissioner dealt to Roethlisberger. For King to take Goodell's word that two dozen Steelers did not have Ben's back suggests a) King is just a mouthpiece for others' thoughts and does very little analytical thinking about what he is told, b) he is completely out of touch with a team like the Steelers and what goes on in their locker room, or c) both. Regardless, this significantly damages his credibility as an "NFL Insider."

This article has blown up in ways King and Goodell never imagined and it is not going to go away quickly. King has apologized for his mistake. If Goodell thinks King's misinterpretation and apology somehow also gets him off the hook he is making another huge error in judgment. Goodell now doesn't just owe Ben Roethlisberger and the Steelers an apology, he owes the entire league an apology.

The Terrible Podcast - Episode 32 (1/31)

Episode 32 is Episode 1 of Super Bowl Week and we have a lot to talk about.

In Part 1 we talk about the different schedules that the two teams followed last week. The Steelers practiced early in the week, the Packers later. We'll find out Sunday if it has any effect. Both teams arrived Monday. We discuss the press conferences of Mike Tomlin and Ben Roethlisberger and how they handled the expected and the unexpected. We also have a good time with the Steelers offensive line's decision to wear Flozell Adams' Michigan St. jersey to honor him. Flozell has been an under-recognized part of the Steelers success and it was a great gesture.

In Part 2 we lead off by highlighting our scheduled guests later in the week and then get into the four players who are, at best, questionable for the game Sunday. Pouncey, McFadden, Smith and Allen are all uncertain to play and we look at the situation surrounding each and the odds that they will be on the field. We then get into the beating that Ben and the Steelers seem to be taking in the media. We discuss Roger Goodell's asinine comments relayed by Peter King in his MMQB and David's continued-bashing of Ann Killion in his blog after his rant on last Friday's podcast.

In Part 3 we look at dysfunction all over the league, particularly in the AFC North. Baltimore, Cincinnati and Cleveland all have issues that we note. Then, we can't resist but get into Photogate surrounding the Packers. Finally we get to the game and look at some of the analysis Kurt Warner shared early Monday and generally talk about the matchups that intrigue us.

Thanks for listening.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner