PDA

View Full Version : Real Story on Big Ben's Scratch???



phillyesq
11-30-2009, 11:55 AM
This is from PFT. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. If Tomlin decided to bench Ben, to protect him as both a player for the rest of the season and as a human being who suffered a head injury, then I applaud the move.


The real story on the Roethlisberger scratch
Posted by Mike Florio on November 30, 2009 9:09 AM ET

As seemingly every reporter had the chapter-and-verse details of the events that led to Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger being scratched from Sunday night's game against the Ravens, something was gnawing at us.

Why would the notoriously tight-lipped Steelers suddenly be so loquacious regarding the mechanics of the decision to shut down their starting quarterback for a critical regular-season contest against the Baltimore Ravens?

In contrast, the Arizona Cardinals managed to keep tightly under wraps until early Sunday afternoon the status of quarterback Kurt Warner.

But as to the Steelers, everyone had by Sunday morning the story of Roethlisberger experiencing exercise-induced headaches during practice on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and of the independent neurologist declining to clear Roethlisberger to play -- even though he was still listed as the emergency quarterback.

As it turns out, the story that had been pushed by the team wasn't the entire truth.

We're told that the decision to go with Dennis Dixon instead of Roethlisberger came early in the week, and that it came directly from coach Mike Tomlin. It wasn't a benching in the classic sense; as we hear it, Tomlin feared that Roethlisberger -- who in Tomlin's estimation holds the ball way too long -- would take another blow to the head against a tenacious Ravens defense, which surely would have treated that white seven in the yellow stripe of Ben's helmet like the red dot in the middle of a dart board.

So the call was made to get Dixon ready. Though Roethlisberger might have indeed been suffering from post-practice headaches, the notion that a neurologist didn't clear Roethlisberger to play was cover for a coaching decision to give him a week off.

That helps explains why Roethlisberger served as the emergency quarterback. Though Tomlin claimed that, if Dixon and Tyler Palko had been injured, Roethlisberger would have entered the game only to hand the ball off, he still could have taken another blow to the head if, for example, the running back had fumbled the ball and Ben opted to dive for it.

We don't expect the Steelers to publicly concede that this was, in reality, a coaching decision. After all, the Steelers are very secretive about matters of this nature.

But as players like receiver Hines Ward are now publicly questioning Roethlisberger's toughness, Tomlin might have to come clean in the locker room, in order to ensure that Ben will still be an effective leader of his teammates.

RuthlessBurgher
11-30-2009, 12:02 PM
PFT is not a news site, even if it is owned by NBC now. Its purpose is to spread football rumors. Florio stating that that story that had been pushed by the team wasn't the entire truth is just an attention grabber. All he says was "we're told" but I only trust news sources for actual news. Regardless of how the decision was made, and even though we lost this game, the decision to sit Ben was the correct one.

sd steel
11-30-2009, 12:06 PM
PFT is not a news site, even if it is owned by NBC now. Its purpose is to spread football rumors. Florio stating that that story that had been pushed by the team wasn't the entire truth is just an attention grabber. All he says was "we're told" but I only trust news sources for actual news. Regardless of how the decision was made, and even though we lost this game, the decision to sit Ben was the correct one.

Florio's explanation makes way more sense than anything else I have heard.

ANPSTEEL
11-30-2009, 12:12 PM
PFT is not a news site, even if it is owned by NBC now. Its purpose is to spread football rumors. Florio stating that that story that had been pushed by the team wasn't the entire truth is just an attention grabber. All he says was "we're told" but I only trust news sources for actual news. Regardless of how the decision was made, and even though we lost this game, the decision to sit Ben was the correct one.

Florio's explanation makes way more sense than anything else I have heard.

same here-

Jom112
11-30-2009, 12:39 PM
PFT is not a news site, even if it is owned by NBC now. Its purpose is to spread football rumors. Florio stating that that story that had been pushed by the team wasn't the entire truth is just an attention grabber. All he says was "we're told" but I only trust news sources for actual news. Regardless of how the decision was made, and even though we lost this game, the decision to sit Ben was the correct one.

Florio's explanation makes way more sense than anything else I have heard.

I don't know about that. If Tomlin decided early in the week not to play Ben, I think he would have let the receivers know about it earlier, so they can get more reps with Dixon. Instead of waiting until Saturday to let everyone know.

You can see how Hines didn't like getting that news late...

:2c

LouSteel
11-30-2009, 12:39 PM
True or not, Ben sitting out was the right call.

If BB was in the game I can guarantee you that the thugs on the Ratbird's D would literally
have a bounty on his head.

Ben absolutely had to sit this one out. Dixon played far better than my expectations, and if our defense played better we'd be calling him the hero.

NC Steeler Fan
11-30-2009, 12:52 PM
Hell, I'll buy it.

I personally think that if Tomlin had any final say over the doctor's
recommendation, he purposefully chose to seat him and sent a message
to Ben to not duplicate the kind of HEAD FIRST dive that gave him the
concussion in the first place.

And, 'bout damn time too. I love Ben, but he NEEDS to stop acting
like a one-man team sometimes...

Oviedo
11-30-2009, 02:06 PM
True or not, Ben sitting out was the right call.

If BB was in the game I can guarantee you that the thugs on the Ratbird's D would literally
have a bounty on his head.

Ben absolutely had to sit this one out. Dixon played far better than my expectations, and if our defense played better we'd be calling him the hero.

Absolutely. I applaud Tomlin for accepting the short term pain of the loss and the potential season to protect our franchise QB. I want a a healthy Ben for the next 5-10 years more than another play off run this year. A healthy Ben will get us lots of play off runs.


Every cloud has a silver lining because we found out that we have a keeper in Dixon...sorry Charlie!!!!!

NorthCoast
11-30-2009, 02:27 PM
Not buying it. If Tomlin decided early in the week why have Ben practice AT ALL? and why wait til Friday before Dixon 'took the majority' of the snaps? Doesn't add up...

RuthlessBurgher
11-30-2009, 02:55 PM
If BB was in the game I can guarantee you that the thugs on the Ratbird's D would literally have a bounty on his head.

Ravens? Bounty? C'mon...that would never happen. :evil:

LouSteel
11-30-2009, 03:17 PM
Ravens? Bounty? C'mon...that would never happen. :evil:

How dare I ever accuse that bunch of angels of being dirty :twisted:

:ratsuck :ratsuck :ratsuck

RuthlessBurgher
11-30-2009, 03:22 PM
Ravens? Bounty? C'mon...that would never happen. :evil:

How dare I ever accuse that bunch of angels of being dirty :twisted:

:ratsuck :ratsuck :ratsuck

It was a silly thought, wasn't it?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08296/921898-100.stm


NFL to investigate Ravens 'bounty' on Steelers
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Baltimore defensive end Terrell Suggs is under investigation by the National Football League for saying the Ravens had a "bounty" on Steelers Rashard Mendenhall and Hines Ward.

"We certainly are looking into it," Ray Anderson, the NFL's Executive Vice President of Football Operations, said in Pittsburgh today.

Anderson said that league officials have seen Suggs' comments and "we will look into it aggressively."

Suggs revealed recently on the syndicated sports radio talk show "2 Live Stews" that the Ravens had a bounty on Mendenhall and on Ward.

"We definitely like to send our messages to rookie running backs who think they've made it." Suggs said. "We did a good a job of sending a message."

As for Ward, Suggs said, "Hines Ward is definitely a dirty player, a cheap shot artist."

"If he chooses to say that, so be it," Steelers Coach Mike Tomlin said. "We respect that guy. He's a heck of a player. I saw him run with the ball on somebody last week. We don't lose any sleep over what anybody says."

Anderson paid a visit to the Steelers today because of recent comments by some of them over fines that were levied the past few weeks and players such as Troy Polamalu calling it a "pansy" league.

First published on October 22, 2008 at 1:48 pm

NWNewell
11-30-2009, 05:57 PM
PFT is not a news site, even if it is owned by NBC now. Its purpose is to spread football rumors. Florio stating that that story that had been pushed by the team wasn't the entire truth is just an attention grabber. All he says was "we're told" but I only trust news sources for actual news. Regardless of how the decision was made, and even though we lost this game, the decision to sit Ben was the correct one.

Florio's explanation makes way more sense than anything else I have heard.

Most good rumors often do.

But the one flaw is that NO coach is going to have a QB won't start take most of the snaps in practice when the projected starter is a 3rd string QB that has played one series in the NFL.

That's some Mangini gimmick coaching that gets HC's fired in the middle of the season. Not what Tomlin would do.

If the decision was made early i the week, Dixon would have been taking all the snaps from the beginning of the week.

BradshawsHairdresser
11-30-2009, 07:14 PM
PFT is not a news site, even if it is owned by NBC now. Its purpose is to spread football rumors. Florio stating that that story that had been pushed by the team wasn't the entire truth is just an attention grabber. All he says was "we're told" but I only trust news sources for actual news. Regardless of how the decision was made, and even though we lost this game, the decision to sit Ben was the correct one.

Florio's explanation makes way more sense than anything else I have heard.

Most good rumors often do.

But the one flaw is that NO coach is going to have a QB won't start take most of the snaps in practice when the projected starter is a 3rd string QB that has played one series in the NFL.

That's some Mangini gimmick coaching that gets HC's fired in the middle of the season. Not what Tomlin would do.

If the decision was made early i the week, Dixon would have been taking all the snaps from the beginning of the week.

Exactly.
More than likely, the decision to sit Ben was not made until Friday.

eniparadoxgma
12-01-2009, 06:25 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/1044 ... lay-Sunday (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10442208/Steelers-expect-Roethlisberger-to-play-Sunday)

"I understand that if we allowed Ben to play that we'd be open to questions in regards to that. I thought that if we didn't allow Ben to play, that we'd be open to questions in regards to that. Really, it was irrelevant in terms of my decision making. I was more concerned about doing what was right. Medical experts suggested he not play, so we didn't play him."

What reason do we have to believe anything other than the above?

isonator07
12-01-2009, 06:32 PM
Maybe there's some truth to this. Could the Hines interview have been part of the cover up? Could he just have been acting mad about the whole situation? I was surprised to hear what he had to say, it just didn't seem like the usual Hines.

eniparadoxgma
12-01-2009, 06:49 PM
ďDr. Maroon, on Saturday morning, suggested that we donít play him, and itís quite simply this: He passed neurological tests throughout the week that we gave him repeatedly. He had headaches with exertion, which is a symptom of post-concussion deals. It persisted throughout the week. We didnít feel comfortable allowing him to play. [Dr. Maroon] made that suggestion on Saturday. We respect his expert medical opinion. We did make the moves that we did in regards to that.Ē

from the post game quotes

Time to start passing out the tinfoil hats.

RuthlessBurgher
12-01-2009, 07:04 PM
ďDr. Maroon, on Saturday morning, suggested that we donít play him, and itís quite simply this: He passed neurological tests throughout the week that we gave him repeatedly. He had headaches with exertion, which is a symptom of post-concussion deals. It persisted throughout the week. We didnít feel comfortable allowing him to play. [Dr. Maroon] made that suggestion on Saturday. We respect his expert medical opinion. We did make the moves that we did in regards to that.Ē

from the post game quotes

Time to start passing out the tinfoil hats.

http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tinfoil.jpg

Chavezz
12-01-2009, 08:53 PM
PFT is not a news site, even if it is owned by NBC now. Its purpose is to spread football rumors. Florio stating that that story that had been pushed by the team wasn't the entire truth is just an attention grabber. All he says was "we're told" but I only trust news sources for actual news. Regardless of how the decision was made, and even though we lost this game, the decision to sit Ben was the correct one.

Florio's explanation makes way more sense than anything else I have heard.

Most good rumors often do.

But the one flaw is that NO coach is going to have a QB won't start take most of the snaps in practice when the projected starter is a 3rd string QB that has played one series in the NFL.

That's some Mangini gimmick coaching that gets HC's fired in the middle of the season. Not what Tomlin would do.

If the decision was made early i the week, Dixon would have been taking all the snaps from the beginning of the week.

Bingo.

I'll also add that Tomlin had no problem taking responsibility for the Ryan Clark benching. Why wouldn't he do that now?