Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger has a sprain of his SC joint in his shoulder.
It's the same injury that finally forced Brett Favre to miss a game in his career, so you can expect that Roethlisberger will sit this week against the Ravens.
The general diagnosis for such an injury is - at minimum, three weeks - so Roethlisberger will be out for a little while.
Head coach Mike Tomlin confirmed that Byron Leftwich would be the starter in Roethlisberger's absence.
Strong safety Troy Polamalu is "doubtful" according to Tomlin, while Antonio Brown, Marcus Gilbert and Rashard Mendenhall are questionable.
Tomlin did say that Ryan Clark is being evaluated after suffering another possible concussion Monday night, but that Clark is feeling OK.
37 comments:
To get an idea of what to expect, here's what ESPN said about Favre's injury:
quote:
Feels like: Very, very painful. Swelling and tenderness in the front of the chest. The SC joint attaches the collarbone to the breastbone -- in essence, the arm to the body -- which means most upper-body motions are affected. Worst case scenario: An unstable collarbone can compress major blood vessels, including the jugular vein and aorta.
Standard treatment: Requires careful evaluation by a specialist. Less severe cases require ice, anti-inflammatories, wearing a sling for a few weeks and rehab with range-of-motion exercises. More severe cases require surgery to rebuild torn ligaments.
Average recovery time: Three weeks to more than three months.
Weekend warrior impact: Your status as a jeans-wearin', backyard football all-time quarterback may be in doubt. "It's typically an extremely difficult injury from which to recover fully," Millett says. "Especially for an overhead-throwing athlete."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page...es&sportCat=nfl
Favre only missed one game, so that's a good sign.
I would have bet the farm that Ben's old lady went into labor and the shoulder-deal was a ruse. Alas, is only.
Speaking of farms, when do we start talking about putting Polamalu out to pasture? Too soon? Keep whistling past the graveyard?
Favre missed one game, tried to play the next game and reinjured it, forcing him to miss the remaining two games of the season. So he missed 3.5 games. If you want to trump up someone elses injury to give you hope, fine.... but mention the entirety of the case, not just the first game he missed. Danny Amendola had the same injury this year, was supposed to miss 8 games. He missed the first 3.... then again, hes a receiver and he doesnt have to throw.
Sucks but I am not surprised to hear.
http://limitlessreport.blogspot.com/
Baltimore Ravens (7-2) @ Pittsburgh Steelers (6-3)
Pick: Ravens 24, Steelers 17
Why: Simple the Steelers are without Big Ben and The Ravens are without Ray Lewis. Now Ray is the Bigger loss to me, because I do Believe Leftwich can put points up but not against the Ravens Defense. The Defense on both sides of the ball are good, so it comes down to the offense and that to me was easy.
"Ray is the Bigger loss to me" Seriously, are you both retarded? Ben is bigger loss to the Steelers than if the Ravens lost both Flacco and Rice. BTW Dannell Ellerbe is playing lights out in place of Ray Lewis, something Lewis was not doing pre-injury.
Ellerbe can stand around a pile just as good as Lewis. The key tho is that upperward thrust when you start flexing. It makes it look like you were the first to emerge from the pile, and most likely to get credit for the tackle and gushed over by Phil Simms; who demonstrates as much interest for any given game as he has he has for any given library.
"Ray is the bigger loss to me". HA. Well, that will be the one and only time I will ever look to that nonsense blog!!
Weird. "Ray is the bigger loss", but pick the Ravens by 7 at Pittsburgh... Which one is the typo?
ray lewis sucks, they are better without him
Big Ben is better than anyone on the Ravens and its not close
I find it interesting that Ta'amu is now on the practice squad with Gilreath promoted. I believe this is really what works best for the Steelers anyway. They knew that he wasn't going to play unless of a significant injury, and they really could have used another WR on the big squad. They rightfully didn't want to exposed him to waivers after training camp, but his run-in with the law allows them to have a really good mix on the 53. Probably what worked best all along.
This game comes down to 1 thing IMO. QB Play. Can Lefty run this offense and generate points? Can Flacco go on the road and get it done, something he hasn't done all year?
how's ryan clark doing?
ugh,sadness
This is for Patrick.
I decided to check if Tomlin teams really can't blow out opponents. I looked at the score of every regular season game so far during his tenure. I defined a blowout as a difference of 17 or more points.
I compared Tomlin's seasons to the last six years of Cowher's tenure. I figured a lot of the players are the same, both reigns included a Super Bowl win, and the game hasn't changed drastically since 2001-2006.
I decided on all of the criteria before looking at the numbers in case anyone wants to cry foul.
Here it is:
Cowher 2001 - 2006
63 - 32 - 1
Win Percentage - 65.6%
Blowout Wins - 18
Blowout Losses - 10
Tomlin 2007 - 2012(through 9 games)
61 - 28
Win Percentage - 68.5%
Blowout Wins - 23
Blowout Losses - 3
The win/loss records and win percentages are regular season only. The blowout wins and losses include playoffs so I didn't bother with the percentage of blowouts per games played.
I honestly did not know what I would find and I was going to mention it regardless of the results.
If the criticism is that blowing out a good team isn't the same as barely beating or losing to a bad team then I agree. My counter would be, looking over the games (all of the info is just from wikipedia, by the way) you can see that many of the blowouts were against bad teams for both coaches (the Browns more than once). And a blowout against an average or good team is fine by me.
I never said anything about a "blowout"
thats a haircut not a football statistic.
I said that Tomlin's team consistently play down to competition.
If you want to throw another stat out there, how about cowher's record with a 10 point lead? What's Tomlin's?
Playing down to teams and blowing leads are the reasons his teams loses to poor teams, or come extremely close to it, year in and year out. How big are those losses to the Raiders and Titans now with Ben out?
So I don't get your analysis here, and I never once said the word "blowout" but have said playing down to competition numerous times. If you don't think his teams play down, then we aren't going to agree on anything.
Focusing on a specific word instead of the argument? Check.
Continuing to focus on a specific word instead of the argument? Check.
Reiterating an argument that is clearly related and pretending it isn't? Check.
Changing the argument to one that might be more favorable? Check.
If Tomlin teams continually play down to competition they wouldn't beat teams more soundly than Cowher teams did.
If you are not playing down to competition than you are beating them by more than 3 points right?
Or does the point differential not matter. Would you not complain if the Steelers dominated a bad team and only won by 3?
I never said you mentioned blowouts. I mentioned you at the beginning as a slight aside.
So it isn't playing close games against bad teams you care about, it's salting games away and preserving a lead? Got it. Fine. If Tomlin is as good or better at that? What next? Chin size? You might want to take a class on rhetorical fallacies. It'll come in handy.
I'm so glad Tomlin has 5 more "blowout" wins of 17 points of more. Theres no analysis of the quality of competition, which is CLEARLY what I'm talking about.
If you enjoy watching nailbiters against 1-7 teams then so be it. Go through your 2001-2007 time period with Cowher. Yes there are a few bad loses. (Oakland in 06) and Cinci in 2001 when they were 13-3 come to mind immediately (Cinci game was close to pointless)
Well here is my definition. Its called playing down and here are the numbers:
2007:
L to 8-8 Cardinals
L to 7-9 Broncos
L to 4-12 Jets
L to 5-11 Ravens
and that sweet lose to the 11-5 Jaguars at home in the playoffs
2008:
was a great year. Obviously.Nonetheless:
10-6 Win over 4-12 Browns
26-21 Win over 5-11 Jaguars
2009:
I'm not even listing them. That was the hell in December year and agree or disagree they played down?
2010: Obviously another good year, but here are games where they played down:
23-22 W over 7-9 Dolphins (remember the really odd call that won that one?)
27-21 W over 4-12 Cinci
19-16 W in OT to Bills (Stevie Johnson drop game)
2011:
23-20 W over 2-14 colts
17-13 W over 5-11 Jags
13-9 W over 7-9 KC
13-9 W over Cleveland (pointless game if I remember correctly)
and the loss to Tebow in the playoffs (who got destroyed by NE a week later, but it was in Den so we have excuses right?)
You don't see a trend there?
The Hou game is another Cowher one that was awful. I'm surprised I didn't think of that immediately. That was Maddox after a back injury, but we could be here all day with injuries.
I do see a trend. Most of those games are wins.
Do the Steelers under Tomlin play close games against teams you expect them to beat by a lot (blowout maybe?)? Yep.
Do the Steelers under Tomlin play close games against teams I expect them to beat by a lot? Nope. I don't expect the final score of a game. I do not care about "ugly" wins. I don't care about close games, nailbiters, letting a team "hang around." I care about wins. When the Steelers lose to a team with a winning record I don't take solace in that.
Are you a gambler? If you aren't, ask a gambler if there's ever been a week in the NFL where there were no upsets and every team covered the spread.
The Jets demolished the Bills earlier this year 48-28. The Patriots beat the Bills 37-31 three days ago. Are the Jets better than the Patriots? The Patriots beat the Bills 52-28 earlier this year. Are the Patriots only 4 points better than the Jets?
The transitive property doesn't apply to football. If Team A beats Team B who beat Team C than Team A must be better than Team C. That isn't how it works. "Any given Sunday" and "parity" are cliches but they aren't inaccurate. The Jaguars lost a lot of games last year. The Ravens were a dropped pass from going to the Super Bowl. The Jaguars beat the Ravens without much trouble.
Power rankings and picking scores are the two most useless things in professional sports. I do not mind being hackneyed when I say: the only statistic that counts is wins.
Why isn't Cam Heyward starting for Ziggy Hood?
the same reason we have ugly wins is the same reason we have ugly losses. If the Steelers miss the playoffs by a game, are you not going to care about the losses to Ten/Oak, or is just any given sunday and we have injury excuses?
For whatever reason, you don't want to admit that this team plays down to competition on a consistent basis.
I completely understand that there are close games in the NFL to inferior opponents. There are upsets. But when there is a trend of losing to inferior opponents and blowing leads consistently in games, then thats alarming to me.
If you are happy with the result, then ok. But understand you are going to have more seasons like 2009 where the sloppy play catches up with you. There is a good chance it will this season now too since Ben is probably out a month or longer.
also Kyle, you said this:
"Focusing on a specific word instead of the argument? Check.
Continuing to focus on a specific word instead of the argument? Check.
Reiterating an argument that is clearly related and pretending it isn't? Check.
Changing the argument to one that might be more favorable? Check."
your ENTIRE post was about "blowout" wins. that was YOUR argument
"I never said you mentioned blowouts. I mentioned you at the beginning as a slight aside. "
As a slight aside? You wrote "this is for Patrick"
I wrote "this is for Patrick" as a joke. I addressed here because I thought it would be of interest given the discussion about the last game, particularly to you.
My argument wasn't blowouts. I wasn't making an argument. You'll notice I didn't draw any conclusions as to what the information meant. Just that people, not just you, were saying the Steelers don't beat teams by wide margins. You meant only bad teams. Who cares if they don't always beat bad teams by wide margins but occasionally do and occasionally beat decent to good teams by wide margins? Who cares about the margin other than bookies?
That 2009 season you mentioned, the one where Tomlin committed that cardinal sin of using a line from Gladiator in a press conference, the team went 9-7. Cowher went 6-10 not too many years before. I wasn't calling for his head or saying he needs to stop losing games to bad teams. I was saying they need to stop losing.
I care about the losses to Ten/Oak because they were losses, not because of who they were to. Would you be ok with losses if they had been to the Giants and Bengals?
You're wrong if you think I don't recognize the team plays down to competition. You're also wrong if you think it happens all the time or even a majority of the time. You're right if you're saying it seems I don't care. I don't. If they win the game I don't care if it's by 1 point in overtime against an 0-15 team.
Do you know when margin of victory matters? It's the 9th tiebreaker for the playoffs.
I'm not much older than you are so why is the memory of Cowher getting a small lead and taking the air out of the ball so vivid to me and not apparently to you? What is the difference between being up by 3 the entire second half and winning and being up by 13 and winning by 3?
I think the problem is schedule release day. Every sportswriter, fan, and even some players/coaches look at the schedule and start putting w's and l's next to weeks. Then once the season gets going and the team loses a game that was penciled in as a w everyone panics because now they have to turn a penciled-in l into a w. None of the games are played beforehand. If the Steelers win the Super Bowl this season I will not care whatsoever how they got there. I will not care if they lost to gimmes. I don't believe in gimmes. And if they don't win the Super Bowl, I'll be disappointed. Not because they lost to some teams who finished sub .500 but because they lost. I won't feel better if they only lost to other playoff teams.
so if the team plays sloppy year in and year out against inferior competition it doesn't matter to you. You don't care about that. If they win despite that the majority of the time, its ok.
I do care about that. And the reason why is because if you have a talented team playing sloppy and they lose one game they shouldn't, in a year like this year, that might be enough to miss the playoffs. Do you care then?
You can't miss the playoffs in the prime of Ben's career because you couldn't put away the 1-7 Chiefs at home or because your coach made an inexplicable decision to kick a long FG with the game on the line. You might be missing a SB run.
really guys? you're both forcing me and my OCD to read all of this, not cool.
^ fair enough
Sorry, Anonymous.
Patrick doesn't like Tomlin. Instead of thinking he's a successful coach who has flaws like every coach - clock management, game day roster gambling, and legitimate gripes - Patrick thinks he's terrible. When a Tomlin team wins they didn't win correctly. When they win correctly it was because of Cowher's players. When they lose it is entirely Tomlin's fault.
I'm not even an apologist, I just only gauge if a coach is good by how much he wins. Imagine that.
kyle vs. Patrick
= Timmy vs. Jimmy in South Park
Thanks.
To Kyle's point on Patrick's assessments of loss being all about Tomlin look at this line from Patrick's previous comment:
[Regarding Ten Loss]"...because your coach made an inexplicable decision to kick a long FG with the game on the line."
He disregards important details such as losing 2 starting OL, getting a punt blocked for essentially a TD, Ike playing an absolutely terrible game and all of it being on a road Thursday nighter.
I agree Tomlin's derision to have Suisham kick that long FG was a mistake and a chance he should have not taken, but to say thats why we loss while ignoring so many other (non-Tomlin related) reasons only confirms your bias Patrick.
Stop assuming the Steelers should win how you think they should and you'll appreciate the wins more.
Never mind about my OCD Patrick, go ahead.
Also the idea that Tomlin is winning with Cowher's players is inaccurate. Cowher wasnt the GM and neither is Tomlin. Tom Donahoe ('91-'99) and Kevin Colbert are responsible for bringing in players, Cowher and Tomlin definitely have input but they coach first and foremost. For example, Cowher wanted to draft Rivers over Roethlisberger.
Both Tomlin and Cowher deserve credit for competently coaching the quality players Colbert and the Rooneys bring in.
"I just only gauge if a coach is good by how much he wins. Imagine that."
You don't judge them by the decisions they make though? You must be a big Andy Reid fan then too. Hes been doing great since his DC's passing and has had clock management issues his entire career. Too bad he'll be looking for a job next year.
And the Cowher-team thing is old. Its 2012 now, I said before that the 2008 team had a lot of Cowher's players on it before. But I haven't said that once this year. So again, thats words in my mouth. And then someone else ran with it.
And Eric T...
"He disregards important details such as losing 2 starting OL, getting a punt blocked for essentially a TD, Ike playing an absolutely terrible game and all of it being on a road Thursday nighter. "
losing 2 starting OL - injury excuses. If we want to incorporate injuries into these arguments, lets pull the respective injury reports for kyle's "blowout wins" too.
A blocked punt and Ike's worst game isn't playing down to competition?
I said to Kyle that he was ignoring the level of competition and then you responded with how the team played down to that competition.
Andy Reid is the only coach to win as many games as Cowher during Cowher's career. You don't go to as many championship games as those two guys without being a good coach. That nonsense that people bring up about "can't win the big one" is so stupid that I can't believe they say it. Marv Levy was a great coach. It's not like he was a great coach all the way up until the Super Bowl.
I didn't suggest you were saying they're "Cowher's guys" this year. I said when the team does well you say that, which you have, doesn't have to be this year.
You made an excuse for Maddox having a bad back for one of Cowher's bad losses but the half dozen starters down for the playoff game last year don't matter. I never made injury excuses. I presented information.
A blocked punt is "playing down to the competition"? Tomlin should have given them a rousing speech about not letting someone block a punt? So getting a blocked punt against the Texans would be fine and the result of a good team making a play?
I am not biased in favor of Mike Tomlin. I judge him on the win/loss record and I criticize him for individual decisions while considering the context of those decisions, just like I did for Cowher and for every other coach.
You are biased against him.
Post a Comment