Steelers lost when they took timeout before that controversial call

After JuJu Smith-Shuster's 69 yard catch and run and with 34 seconds on the clock, Ben Roethlisberger immediately signaled a timeout. My brother pointed out Pittsburgh's mistake as it happened. It ultimately cost the Steelers the game and nobody will ever talk about it.

After the big gain, the Steelers should have sprinted up to the line and spiked it, saving the timeout so they could choose whatever plays they wanted to call on 2nd and 3rd downs. With the timeout in your pocket you can run on 2nd down, or maybe play-action pass into the end zone or out of bounds, and then run on 3rd. You have much more flexibility in what you can decide to do. Which also makes it harder for the defense, forcing them to respect the run (especially against Le'Veon Bell), defend the pass, and be aware of the 240 pound Roethlisberger possibly running a draw.

You can also use the timeout to ensure the Patriots don't get the ball back.

It would have taken some time to get to the 10 and get set. Maybe 15 seconds. So the options are:

2nd & Goal/10, 19 seconds on the clock, 1 timeout

or

1st & Goal/10, 34 seconds on the clock, 0 timeouts

Do you want 15 extra seconds on the clock that you might not need, or do you want to be able to use every play and player in your offensive arsenal, and make it harder on the defense to know what you're doing?

The Steelers set themselves down the path of bad decision-making, managed themselves into a corner, and paid the consequences.

Patriots vs Steelers Drinking Game: AFC Championship Edition

Patriots vs. Steelers. Tom Brady vs. Big Ben. Bill Belichick vs. Mike Tomlin. SpyGate and DeflateGate vs. a coach trying to block a kick returner on the field. Two teams, lots of recent success, lots of rivalry, lots of respect, and lots of shared hatred for Roger Goodell.

Get ready to share your drunken thoughts on SpapFace and InstaChat, because it's the motherfucking AFC Championship.

Belichick says that players play, and coaches coach. And we say that drinkers drink. So here's a drinking game to play during the AFC Championship:

Anytime a Commentator Says...
"AFC" = 1 drink from a beer
"Conference" = 1 drink
"Championship" = 1 drink
"Game" = 1 drink
"Super Bowl" = 1 drink
"51" = 1 drink
"Houston" = 1 drink
"Playoffs" = 1 drink
"Home field" = 1 drink
"Rivalry" = 1 drink
"Record" = 1 drink
"History" = 1 drink
"In a row" = 1 drink

"Tom" = 1 drink
"Ben" = 1 drink
"Brown" = 1 drink
"Bell" = 1 drink
"Killer bee" = 1 drink (bonus points if you're buzzed by the time you drink it)
"Malcolm" = 1 drink
"Jones" = 1 drink
"Bill/Will/Williams" = 1 drink

Anything about Tom Brady's or James Harrison's age = drink 39 seconds for Brady, 38 seconds for Harrison
Anything about Brady's or Harrison's workout routines = 1 drink (bonus points for light beer), 5 push-ups, 10 crunches, 1 shot of liquor

"Roger Goodell" = 1 drink with your middle finger in the air (something both Pats and Steelers fans can agree on)


Anytime this is on screen...
A trophy = 1 drink per trophy
The AFC logo = 1 drink
A Super Bowl ring = 1 drink per ring
The Super Bowl logo = 1 drink
A Terrible Towel = 1 drink per towel
A tri-cornered hat = 3 drinks per hat (1 per corner, bonus points if drinking Sam Adams)

Highlights of Patriots beating the Steelers = drink for the duration of the highlight (bonus points/bonus drinking below)
-Clip of Bledsoe throwing a TD = drink for 11 seconds
-Troy Brown punt return TD = drink for 80 seconds
-Rodney Harrison INT return TD = drink for 37 seconds
-If you're the first to spot Corey Dillon, Deion Branch, Ted Johnson, or David Givens, you can distribute drinks to everyone else until the end of the quarter

Rob Gronkowski = finish your beer, spike it (bonus points for spiking glass containers)
Josh McDaniels = 1 drink
Dante Scarnecchia = 1 shot of gin
Ernie Adams = 1 slug of moonshine
Bob Kraft = 1 drink
Kraft talking to someone = drink entire time he's talking
Mike Tomlin = 1 drink, then block someone from walking to the fridge

The number 7 or 12 (in the score, the clock, on a uniform, in the stands) = 1 drink

Roger Goodell at Gillette Stadium = finish a keg of beer because it won't happen


Anytime this happens...
Tom Brady points out the 'Mike' = 1 drink (bonus points for girls if drinking a Mike's Hard product, negative points for guys drinking Mike's Hard products)
Brady says "Alpha milk" = 1 drink (bonus points for White Russian drinking)
Brady throws to a non-WR = 1 drink
Brady gets pissed at himself or others = 1 drink
Brady throws deep incomplete = 1 drink
Brady throws deep complete = 1 shot
Brady throws to Julian Edelman = 1 drink
Edelman gets the ball in a non-receiving way (punt return, run, throw, etc.) = 1 drink
Dion Lewis gets the ball in a non-running way (catch, return, etc.) = 1 drink
LeGarette Blount runs someone over = 1 drink
Patriots RB runs for 10+ yards = 1 drink
Patriots RB runs for 20+ yards = 1 shot
Matthew Slater makes a special teams tackle = 1 drink
Patriots try a trick play = finish your beer
Patriots successful (at least 20+ yards) with trick play = finish your beer + 1 shot

You think Ben Roethlisberger is sacked, but he escapes = 1 shot
Antonio Brown touches the ball = drink until he's tackled
Brown is just too fast to be covered/tackled = 1 drink
Le'Veon Bell hesitates = pause, then drink, but the last one to drink after pausing has to finish their beer

A kicker misses a kick = 1 drink for PATs, 3 for FGs
A team goes no huddle = 1 drink per snap
Kickoff or punt return = drink during entire return
Touchback = 1 drink


So enjoy the game. Get lubed up. Don't drink and drive. In fact, don't play this game at all because it will kill you.

It Doesn't Matter if Tom Brady Is a "Top-5 QB" or Not

An ESPN article has outraged the sports fans of Boston and New England. Sam Monson wrote a piece that argued that Tom Brady was no longer a "top-5 QB." I contend that as far as the Patriots are concerned, it doesn't matter if Brady is or isn't.

I'm not going to waste much time dwelling on Monson's assertions. If forced at gunpoint to give my top 5 NFL QBs, I'd include Brady. You'd have to force me at gunpoint because I think such discussions, and the side-arguments they spawn, are essentially meaningless. Being in the top 5 is such a relative, changeable thing. One year the 6th best QB could be great, another year the 3rd best could just be good. What does it matter?

It's all relative, yet the discussion is phrased in absolute terms. Instead of Brady "being in the top 5," pundits and some fans say Brady "is a top-5." That's an important difference in words. Being "in" a top 5 suggests that there's a list that QBs enter, fall out of, rise, and fall. The list is permanent, the player's spot on the list is not. Saying someone "is" a top 5 suggests that it's the player's greatness that is permanent, that he has some sort of top-fiveness quality to him, and somehow this attribute can only be possessed by 5 players at any given time. Once this greatness transfers to another player, the player drops out of the top 5.

So instead of acknowledging that these are rankings and are relative, they become attributes, described the same way that someone might describe height or weight. "He's a tall QB," "He's a big QB," "He's a top-5 QB." Saying a player "is a top-5 QB" sounds much more absolute than saying "he's in the top 5."

It pisses me off.

The biggest reason I hate these discussions is because football is so team-oriented that it doesn't matter if your QB is in the top 5 or not. Monson didn't include Russell Wilson in his top 5, but did include Philip Rivers. Who won the last Super Bowl? Was Joe Flacco "a top-5 QB" in 2012? Eli Manning wasn't a top 5 candidate until the Giants won in '07 (against Brady, who was a top 1 QB that season), then Eli was top 5 material, then he wasn't, then the Giants won again so he was, now he's not.

A "top-5 QB" is not a necessary ingredient to victory. Monson's top 5 (Rivers, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger) have a total of 5 Super Bowl rings, none in the last 3 years. Non-top-5 QBs have won the last 3 Super Bowls, and wear a total of 7 rings.

Six of the last 11 Super Bowl winning QBs aren't among Monson's top 5. Eight of the last 14 Conference champions have been helmed by QBs outside his top 5. In the past three seasons, only 1 of Monson's top 5 has made the Super Bowl, and he lost.

Have I made my point?

Two conclusions can be drawn from this:

1. Monson's list isn't very good

2. More importantly, teams win Super Bowls, not top 5 quarterbacks

Tom Brady may or may not be in the top 5 in 2014. Time will tell. Ultimately, it doesn't mean that much in determining the fate of the 2014 Patriots. And here's why:

If the Patriots win the Super Bowl this season, it will be because they did not need Brady to be amazing.

I'll phrase the argument to address Monson: If the Patriots win the Super Bowl, it will be because they did not need Brady to be a top-5 QB.

In other words, for the Pats to win this year, they have to win as a team. Brady could be the best QB in the League, but if the Pats NEED him to be "a top-5 QB," they'll lose in the end, no matter how good Brady is. By the same token, if the Patriots DON'T need Brady to be "a top-5 QB" to be successful, then they have a strong chance at winning it all. And that's the only way they'll have a chance, if they don't need him to be amazing all the time.

Therefore, Brady's position in the rankings of quarterbacks is irrelevant. He's part of a team. An important part, but still just one part. If that team needs him to be spectacular, the team will fail. If the team doesn't need him to be spectacular, the team has a good chance to succeed.

Where Brady falls in QB rankings is meaningless for the Patriots, and should be meaningless for their fans. What matters is that the Patriots don't rely solely on him to win. Brady being in or out of the NFL's top 5 QBs has little bearing on the success or failure of the 2014 Patriots.

Steelers Dress as Patriots For Halloween, Pats Dress as Steelers

Do you know what's alarming? As ugly and painful to watch as the Pats' D was on Sunday, they were the best unit on the field for New England. They kept the Patriots in the game. They held the Steelers to 3 field goals and 2 TDs in the Red Zone. They intercepted Roethlisberger which set up an 8 yard TD drive. They were on the field for 2/3 of this game, and they played much better than the offense.

Give credit to the Steelers for doing two key things defensively: pressuring Brady (from unanticipated angles) and neutralizing Wes Welker. Brady was rarely comfortable and Welker was held to 6 catches for only 39 yards. When Welker did catch the ball, he was immediately (and forcefully) greeted by a Pittsburgh defender.

The Patriots shot themselves in the foot, too. Four false start penalties by the line (give partial credit to the Steelers' pass rushers), and they all came at key moments in drives. The Pats didn't take advantage of the penalties Pittsburgh committed, they didn't even try to run the ball, they didn't do much to stop Pittsburgh's pass rush like run some screens with Woodhead and/or Faulk. The Patriots offense was 3/10 on 3rd downs.

It was nice seeing Faulk in the backfield, he played well for being 80 years old. Gronkowski was stellar. He had more guys on him than Bibi Jones after a baseball game. And unlike Bibi Jones, he didn't go down easily. That's about it as far as good offensive performances go.

The defense did a decent job, but it was far from pretty. The blitzing was predictable. Blitzing worked for the Germans in 1940 because France didn't know where or when it was coming. The Patriots sent extra men in predictable situations, and sent them in predictable directions. And the Steelers ate them up for it.

If any team wants to move the ball against the Pats, all they have to do is run 6-10 yard curls. It's open. Every single down. Thankfully, the Pats clamped down in the Red Zone and turned possible touchdowns into field goals. If they hadn't, Pittsburgh would have won in a blowout.

Speaking of field goals. This was Gostkowski's worst game as a Patriot. One missed field goal, two botched onside kicks. He was one of many Patriots that simply didn't do their job.

Then there was the Patriots' clock management in the 4th. Instead of challenging the refs when Gronkowski appeared to catch the ball over the goal line, they wasted 1:37, taking their time to set plays up before finally scoring after several attempts.

The Pats are 2-2 on the road. Those 2 wins were in Miami and Oakland. Those 2 losses were in Buffalo and now Pittsburgh. The Patriots haven't beaten a good team on the road yet. And they play in the Meadowlands in 2 weeks. I'm more than a little concerned.

They host the Giants Sunday evening.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo

NO PARADES FOR SCHADENFREUDE

Schadenfreude (noun): enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others (German)

As a Patriots fan, it's nice to see the Steelers lose. Apart from Mike Tomlin, there's really not much to like about that team. By the way, had Pittsburgh won, I would have written how Mike Tomlin doesn't get nearly enough credit as he deserves. Probably because he's not as secretive as Bill Belichick, not as preachy as Tony Dungy, and not as loudmouthed as Rex Ryan. The guy just coaches a football team and does a damn good job at it.

As a Patriots fan, and as someone who dislikes the Steelers, and who has an intense animosity (coupled with respect) toward Ben Roethlisberger, I'm relieved this morning. But I'm not happy. I'm not from Wisconsin. My team got bounced, early, again. So I recommend to my fellow Patriot fans not to smile so smugly today. Because for the last two seasons, we've enjoyed watching NFC teams doing our dirty work, and eliminating our rivals.

I do think that this game thoroughly exemplified what the NFL is truly about these days. There were about 10 quality teams in the League this year. And there wasn't much on paper that separated them from each other. Green Bay lost 6 games this year. They lost to the Falcons once, then beat them. The Patriots lost to the Jets, then beat them, then lost. The Steelers lost to the Jets, then beat them.

These games really do come down to execution on a few key plays. Last night, Pittsburgh's turnovers pretty much cost them the game. But there were also potential big plays that never materialized. Green Bay muffed an early punt, but fell on the ball. The entire shape of the game changes if that one play changes.

It's a League of execution. So while Patriot fans shouldn't be jumping for joy for a parade in Wisconsin, they also shouldn't be moping about. Our team in Foxborough, though imperfect, has sufficient talent to be among those 8 to 12 good NFL teams. They just need to execute. It's simple to say, difficult to do.

BEN AND AARON

I hate phrases like "changing of the guard" to talk about the evolving environments of a sport. Although Tom Brady and Peyton Manning took early exits from the postseason, and neither has won a title since George W. Bush was President, it's hard to eliminate them from the elite, uppermost echelon of quarterbacks in the NFL.

However, I think it's time we allow more names to populate that short list. It's no longer just Brady and Manning, then everyone else. I think it's Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, and maybe even Rodgers.

What are the arguments against Roethlisberger's inclusion? His lack of eye-popping numbers? The help of a good running game and an excellent defense? But weren't those the precise arguments used against Tom Brady about 10 years ago? And since when has a QB won a Super Bowl by themselves? Ask John Elway and Terrell Davis, or Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith. Better yet, ask Dan Marino and nobody else.

In this pass-happy NFL, Roethlisberger's numbers don't dazzle. Even if you extrapolated his 12 game performance into 16 games, he'd have thrown 23 TDs (tied for 13th with Garrard, Cutler, and Fitzpatrick), although with only 7 INTs. He would have been among League leaders for yards thrown, and his QB Rating was 5th at 97.0. So the numbers don't fizzle, either.

Those are good numbers. Even the TD number is good considering what sane coach would throw the ball on 3rd and goal at the 1 when Rashard Mendenhall is in the backfield? The whole "supporting cast" argument can go both ways.

Then there's his ability to win. He just does it. He makes plays when plays are needed. Apart from his experiences with the mid 2000s Patriots, he's beaten all comers in big games. He's won two Super Bowls, 3 AFC titles, and 10 playoff games. And he hasn't been a passenger along for the ride in those games, either.

So no matter what happens a week from Sunday, I think Roethlisberger has cemented a spot in that top tier of QB.

Then there's Rodgers. And unless he throws for 500 yards and 6 TDs, he might have to show us a bit more in years to come before being included in the Manning-Brady-Roethlisberger discussion. I don't get to see him often, being in the NFC. But I've yet to be thoroughly impressed with him as a player. So much so that even after a bad game, or a bad year, I'd be sure that he'd recover.

His numbers are gleaming, and his postseason performances have been admirable. A ring would go a long way to solidify himself at the top of the food chain. He certainly has the potential to reach such heights, but there needs to be more results over a slightly longer stretch of time.

So I'd say it's now a three horse race for the top spot among NFL QBs. They all have strengths, they all have slight weaknesses that can be used in an argument against them. Their biggest achievements have all come with assistance. And each of them plays the position in a different way, within different systems, that have all been successful.

But there's something about these three guys that transcends stats, and wins, and rings. There's an aura of strength around them. Opponents respect them, even fear them, in a way above and different from other QBs. I think that says a great deal more than passer ratings or playoff records.