OT: Steelers, Historically Speaking

Submitted by twohooks on January 23rd, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Congrats to the Pittsburgh Steelers. Class Franchise. Although I am too young to remember there woes they were the laughingstock in the NFL from 1933-71. Winning happens on the field but Lions fans can take note that positivity from the ground up goes quite a long way.  Another reason that a team together, not divided, can achieve remarkable success throughout a long period of time. Stick together and GO BLUE!

Comments

dennisblundon

January 23rd, 2011 at 10:36 PM ^

The Steelers turned their franchise around through the draft and no pick was more important than Mean Joe Greene. Hopefully for Lions fans Suh will have a similiar effect.

Vasav

January 23rd, 2011 at 10:53 PM ^

Or he finds what Ben did deserving more punishment than <1/2 a season. Speaking of the Eagles, their QB committed a crime on animals and served two years in prison - and by all accounts has completely changed because of that experience. Roethlisberger has been accused of multiple crimes against women and yet to serve a day.

I agree that the Steelers are a classy franchise, but I just can't bring myself to want success for their QB. And that goes along with not wanting success for that team.

dennisblundon

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^

That is the difference between accused and convicted. I think he made some pretty poor choices and was not very well liked by business owners in Pittsburgh. Since then he has been humbled and seems to be getting his shit together. His father even made the comment it was nice having his son back again. I understand why you wouldn't root for him but I believe Ben is a man on the path to redemption.

urbanachiever

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:08 PM ^

Don't get me wrong.  From the rape accusations to the motorcycle incident to the college fiascos, he hasn't created a very good image for himself, and I can understand why people wouldn't want to root for him.  But, he hasn't been found guilty, let alone charged with anything.  I have a little more faith in our judicial system than this

urbanachiever

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:40 PM ^

Yes, may initial comment was purely emotional.  I have no problem with someone not rooting with Ben on the ground sof the image he's created.  I do have a problem with people that have no knowledge outside of the what they hear from the media calling him a rapist

Vasav

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:30 PM ^

http://nationalsportsreview.com/sports/us/d-wil/2010/04/12/da-fred-bright-transcript-plus-the-post-statement-interview/

 We are not condoning Mr. Roethlisberger’s actions that night, but we do not prosecute morals, we prosecute crimes

Also

Q: You say something did happen, but you just can’t prove it. Would that be accurate?

A: I can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, a crime. If I did, I would do so, and I’m admitting to you I can’t. Something may have happened, but that’s not a conviction.

Q: Did her wish not to prosecute have any bearing on your decision here today?

A: Yes it made it easier

Clarence Beeks

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:52 PM ^

Right.  Obviously that's true.  I was taking issue with the portion of your comment where you said that "he wasn't found guilty mainly because the victim didn't want to be a target of the national media."  That's just false.  He wasn't found guilty mainly because there was no probable cause to even arrest him, let alone prosecute him or convict him.  Her desire not to press charges was a secondary consideration.

Sopwith

January 23rd, 2011 at 10:37 PM ^

... in the value of patience.  42 years.  3 coaches.  They don't panic when they hit a down cycle, they just stick with the program, have a philosophy on offense and defense, and go find the guys who fit the philosophy.  That is how football programs, pro or college, should be run.

T4L

January 23rd, 2011 at 10:46 PM ^

Pittsburgh = Ann Arbor East.

Pittsburgh is a class act that puts the team above any individual. They may be the only organization that would consider shopping their under-30 year old 2-about-to-be-3 time Super Bowl winning quarterback because of headlines in the news. Gotta respect em.

Tater

January 23rd, 2011 at 10:57 PM ^

Uh, might I point out that Rothlesberger hasn't even been charged, what alone convicted of any crime?  And it's not like anyone tried to cover it up, either.  If that DA down in GA had even a shred of physical evidence, he would have brought the circus to town.  All I'm seeing with this and "copycat complaints" are flimsy accusations by people with a lot to gain financially and not a shred of proof to back anything up. 

Until the legal system takes care of him, or until it becomes obvious that Rothlesberger is recieving special treatment due to his celebrity status, I'll judge him for what he does on the field.   

Clarence Beeks

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:24 PM ^

MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. -- A prosecutor said Friday he completed investigating allegations that Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger sexually assaulted a college student.

Roethlisberger's attorney, Edward T.M. Garland, said his client hasn't been arrested or indicted.

- - -
 
"There has been no criminal charge that has been brought against Ben Roethlisberger," Garland said in an interview in his Atlanta office. "There has been no warrant, no accusation, no indictment, and there should be none in this matter."
 
- - -
 
"Had they wanted to arrest Roethlisberger, they would've issued a warrant, not waited for a press conference on Monday," said B.J. Bernstein, an Atlanta defense attorney with no ties to the case.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_675686.html

M-Wolverine

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:32 PM ^

But he didn't have the burden of proof. The NFL, which doesn't have to adhere to the same standards suspended him. And there wasn't a big appeal by Ben decrying it as an injustice (as an innocent man would). He didn't put up a big defense because he didn't want people looking into either case more closely. Not the actions of a man wrongly accused (twice).

dennisblundon

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^

He didn't put up a big defense because his actions, though not criminal, were still in poor taste. It was in his best interest to take his lumps and step away from the spot light. Look I am not going to change your perception of him but Ben was acting like a drunken idiot for some time. He is not a rapist. If you took time to look at these cases this we would agree on.

The fact that many of you feel this way is also his own doing but  he really has turned things around. He even recently got engaged. So hopefully my team's QB will be staying out of bars and off motorcycles in the future.

Clarence Beeks

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^

But he didn't have the burden of proof.

Uhh.... what?  How did the DA not have the burden of proof?  I'm guessing that you meant to say that he couldn't satisfy the burden of proof?

And there wasn't a big appeal by Ben decrying it as an injustice (as an innocent man would). He didn't put up a big defense because he didn't want people looking into either case more closely.

Please, just stop.  He didn't appeal it because it wasn't going to change and appealing it was only going to draw more attention to the suspension aspect, which would have driven the NFL to take the hard line of enforcing the full length of the suspension, instead of the deal worked out behind the scenes to keep it at four games.  Given the conduct code violation that he was suspended for (seriously, look it up, it didn't have anything to do with the NFL thinking anything happened contrary to what the police determined), his suspension wasn't going to be rescinded or reduced, so what sense would it have made to do anything other than make the suspension as short as possible?

M-Wolverine

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:55 PM ^

And if he was innocent of any wrong doing, he would have appealed, because that's what innocent people do. Not everyone lives by the backroom deal standards that lawyers do to get off the guilty more lightly. If he hadn't done anything wrong, more spotlight would highlight his innocence, not dirty details. And while the NFL Player's union isn't the strongest, I'd say they have enough pull to keep a guy who did nothing wrong from being suspended for a quarter of the season.

You act like I said somewhere he was suspended for raping someone. There are a lot of levels of misconduct below that...obviously one that was crossed. That he's a rapist is almost assuredly overstating it. That he's a douchebag probably isn't.

Clarence Beeks

January 24th, 2011 at 12:19 AM ^

If he hadn't done anything wrong, more spotlight would highlight his innocence, not dirty details.

Actually, this thread is almost perfect proof to use to counter your point.  Just read the unknowledgeable stuff that has been posted in this thread as fact.  There was literally nothing that was going to be done that could make him look "more innocent", primarly because this is 100% true:

That he's a rapist is almost assuredly overstating it. That he's a douchebag probably isn't.

M-Wolverine

January 24th, 2011 at 12:35 AM ^

Could he have been more public, and maybe come off bad, but clarify his innocence, to help stem off some of the misconceptions shown here? I think so. He might be proven without a doubt to be a douchebag, rather than assumed, but he also could have the idea in people's minds that yes, I may have acted like a drunken juggalo, but hey, I'm not someone who is a criminal. But you may be right, this might be a path of less resistance that when the wins inevitably came, he could recover from more easily. I obviously don't care if people think I'm a dick. I would care if they thought I was a criminal. But then I'm not a mini-corporation to be managed either.

Belisarius

January 23rd, 2011 at 11:30 PM ^

Actually, I've had a bird's eye view of the situation. Prof. John Burkoff of Pitt Law, who is a luminary in the field of Criminal Law, especially in PA (and who has no opinion on the Steelers), told me that the only reason Big Ben wasn't exonerated`(note, I don't say vindicated) earlier than he was was because the officials didn't want to seem like he was being treated preferentially. It is probable he treated this woman shabbily, but the matter never went into the realm of feasible charges. There was no evidence beyond the circumstantial to sustain any allegation. That's really the final word on the criminal side of the matter. The question of his morals, before and after his chastisment, are a matter of speculative opinion.