10 comments Peter King Chimes In On Ben Roethlisberger

Peter King hadn't really given his opinion on the Ben Roethlisberger situation as of his Tuesday mailbag. Quite possibly he was waiting for the verdict on whether the DA was going to press charges against Roethlisberger or not. Obviously, this isn't a terrible move since Roger "the racist" Goodell did the exact same thing before meeting with Roethlisberger and it is easier to punish him or make a judgment on his punishment if you know exactly what he is guilty of. Today we get Peter's opinion and not shockingly he doesn't recommend a harsh punishment for Roethlisberger. He recommends a 2 game suspension.

Roethlisberger has had a tough week. He's lost his beef jerky sponsor and has drawn the ire of "NFL legend" Terry Bradshaw. Notice I put "NFL legend" in quotations? Yeah, he had a great team around him on offense and defense. I could have won a Super Bowl or two with those Steelers teams. That's just me throwing that out there, not trying to be controversial. Bradshaw was a game manager and that is pretty much it. Look at this stats and tell me he is really an NFL legend.

I have never really liked Roethlisberger, he has always seemed like a dick to me. I think it started with the rumors his teammates didn't really like him during his rookie season and then the overall smugness that he seems to display in public.

Enough piling on, let's get Peter's take.

"I'm a pretty hardcore Steelers fan (and father of 2 young daughters). I'm done with this team as long as Ben is a part of it.''
--@MarcMick, Steeler follower Marc Mickiewicz, in a Twitter message to me this morning at 8:51.

I always find it fun and interesting when fans take the moral high ground on a player and refuse to support the team if that player is on the team. As if the 2008 team that won the Super Bowl was a group of angels and always accurately represented the morals everyone wants their children to have. Save the high horse for another time. Much like yesterday's article about how Mickelson is a great guy compared to Tiger Woods, we just set these athletes up for failure. We hold them to a standard they just can't meet and when they don't meet it, people freak out. I am not saying what Roethlisberger did is innocent or right, and sure he is a terrible role model, but we shouldn't be surprised by his behavior. He is a single athlete who has poor judgment. Believing him to be anything other than that is setting him up to fail. Of course, you can't expect him to commit sexual assault, but expecting great behavior is unrealistic.

Once some fans find out players aren't perfect they just don't want those players to be on the team they support. Personally, I think it is an incredibly amount of moral superiority to expect players to be perfect. Once you are perfect yourself, then you can expect a football team of 53 guys to be perfect too. I am not defending Roethlisberger or trying to say some of the stuff he has gotten into isn't a big deal, but there has to be a time when we can't get shocked by an athlete's behavior. Yeah, Roethlisberger deserves to be suspended and he is an asshole, but there is nothing worse in my mind than fans getting on their high horse and acting like a football team is supposed to be a bunch of moral individuals. Give up on the team, that's a fan's right, but I think it says as much to just not cheer for Roethlisberger and support the guys on the team who weren't accused of sexually assaulting someone.

I went through something similar to what Steelers fans with the Carolina Panthers in the late 90's and early 2000's. There was a good amount of players arrested during that time and there was even a player killed (Fred Lane). The sports page was a police blotter. Thankfully, the team was cleaned up by management and we all moved on. Bad behavior wasn't rewarded and the players paid a price for their behavior. That's what should happen in Pittsburgh. Let's not pretend the rest of the players are perfect. It's fine to not cheer for the Steelers while he is on the roster, just realize there is something annoyingly superior about that attitude.

You're not alone, Marc. There's dissatisfaction all over Steeler Nation, about Ben Roethlisberger's serial immaturity, Santonio Holmes' substance abuse and Jeff Reed's off-field antics.

Guess what? All of these same problems existed when the Steelers won the Super Bowl in 2008. Holmes had a history of using marijuana coming out of college, Roethlisberger had immaturity issues from his motorcycle accident on, and Jeff Reed has always been a jackass. Nobody cared then though because the Steelers were winning and it wasn't the offseason where the focus is not on football being played.

Ace beat man Ed Bouchette, in this morning's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that Steelers president Art Rooney II was furious when he watched the Georgia district attorney detail Roethlisberger's sordid night of boozing with underage girls and the furtive dalliance that created the latest firestorm around the Steelers' franchise quarterback.

But here is the key thing. Just like I said on Monday, they won't get rid of Roethlisberger. He is the quarterback and good ones are hard to find. Rooney is more furious about Roethlisberger than Holmes or Reed because he knows he can't get rid of him without hurting the team.

I'm not sure who's going to suspend Roethlisberger to start his NFL season -- I suspect it will be the Steelers who will sit him for conduct detrimental to the team for a game or two -- but there's no question he needs to be suspended, though he's been formally charged with nothing.

I have previously been all about waiting for the outcome before making a decision. Well the outcome is here. I think Roethlisberger should be suspended 4 games for his actions. I know he wasn't charged of the crime, but for me it is a pattern of behavior. This is the second time he has been accused of something like this and it just seems like he needs to be punished in some fashion to avoid a third time. For me, it's a pattern of behavior and I am being harsh because I really don't know if he has learned his lesson about this or not. You would think he would have learned the first time.

Combining his actions in this case with his actions in the Las Vegas case previously, it's clear he puts himself in situations that he shouldn't. Throw in this "new" alleged incident, and even his motorcycle accident, and it is clear that Roethlisberger has poor judgment that is eventually going to get him in trouble. Isn't that purpose of a stiff punishment? To deter future behavior and try to prevent future behavior like the bad behavior from occurring?

Why would this attorney go on the radio and say he investigated another incident if it isn't true? Unless he just enjoys being hit with a defamation suit or finds Roethlisberger to be an easy target. Even if he is lying, the point is that many people can now believe it is true, what he says about Roethlisberger. I think four games is a fair punishment for him in this case, given some of the other times his name has come up in the media in a not-so kind light.

Make no mistake -- he's done plenty wrong, even if it's just as the prosecutor detailed Monday: drinking way too much, then plying underage girls with alcohol until one of them was overly intoxicated and he followed her down a dark hall, and bodyguards got in the way, and no one but the two participants is certain what happened next.

See, that's exactly the type of situation Roethlisberger needs to have better judgment regarding. Drunk girls, dark hallways, and football players generally don't go together well.

The Steelers, rightfully, are ashamed. Roethlisberger over the past nine months has brought that shame on the team himself, twice, and he deserves to pay for it with two games off. Without pay.

Four games. Without pay.

And by the way, I would have liked to hear a little more I-screwed-up in Roethlisberger's statement Monday night. Whoever crafted that thing, here's a nugget: Who gives a darn about Big Ben being "more determined than ever to have a great season'' on a day he should be solely concerned with telling the world what a knucklehead he's been and that it will never, ever happen again?

When Roethlisberger (not Big Ben, he's not your buddy) said he was "more determined than ever to have a great season" he was essentially saying, "I am completely focused on football right now and I am going to play really well this season, so I don't want the Steelers to cut me or go hard on me for this. I am willing to work hard and I am all about the team. Don't cut me or suspend me too long please Mr. Rooney."

That part of the statement was the carrot to the Steelers to remind them he can be a great quarterback and he has a place on the team. At least in my mind.

The commish will be right. The best thing that came from the Georgia district attorney who declined to prosecute the case Monday was Fred Bright's point about what he'd say to Roethlisberger if he were his son, and his son had done this: "Grow up. Come on, you're supposed to stand for something.''

Yeah Roethlisberger, if you are going to try to hook up with girls at a bar, at least have them sign a waiver or try to do it in front of witnesses.

He should have two September Sundays to think about it, without football getting in the way.

I think he should have four Sundays to think about how he isn't going to put himself in a bad situation again. Maybe it is too harsh, but he has a record of immaturity involving the motorcycle accident and the allegations against him by the previous girl in Las Vegas. I think he really needs to see how his off-the-field actions have hurt him and his teammates and four games would do that.

From Mark Pence of Pittsburgh: "Regarding the upstanding Steelers, how has the organization handled Jeff Reed's off-field incidents? Has he been suspended by the team? Or was he rewarded with the franchise tag and the contract that it carries? And what about James Harrison? Didn't the organization overlook Najeh Davenport's off-field transgressions when they needed help at running back? Weren't there warning flags about Santonio Holmes before the draft that the organization chose to ignore? Didn't they give him numerous chances, until he was facing a league suspension and in the final year of his contract? And THEN they trade him? To say the Steelers are 'upstanding' is a bit of a stretch. They're no different than any other team -- if it's convenient, and necessary, they'll keep a player.

Peter LOVED this email, but isn't this common sense right now? It's a great point, but is also a pretty obvious point. As long as the team is winning or the players are contributing to the team, an NFL team can overlook any type of transgressions by a player or locker room issues. It's a good point, but I always find it interesting when writers (like Peter King, actually specifically Peter King) have talked about the "Steeler way" like it is a more upstanding and noble way than other teams in the NFL exhibit, when it isn't.

From Dave of Methuen, Mass.: "With all of the visits to NFL team facilities that a draft choice takes prior to the draft, do you believe that coaches from time to time would work out a player not because they have interest in him but instead to identify his weaknesses/shortfalls in preparation for seeing them on the opposite side of the field in the fall?

I don't think teams work out a player specifically for this reason, but I think it makes sense when working out a high draft pick to take note of tendencies or weaknesses/strengths and possibly refer back to them at some point. It just seems logical to do this.

PK: I don't think so. I think it's more likely that they interview and poke and prod for three reasons: to see if he'd be a good fit with the team, to smokescreen other teams particularly with high draft choices to keep others guessing about their true interests,

Does Peter really believe teams work out players to smokescreen other teams? He seems to mention in his MMQB a lot whenever a team is working out Tim Tebow or Sam Bradford/Jimmy Clausen/Dez Bryant and other draft prospects. When he mentions these players are working for certain teams, Peter says they are "in demand" or seems to believe these teams actually have interest in these players. I know for a fact (from how he has talked about it in MMQB) he has assumed every team that has worked out Tebow have interest in drafting him. Peter says teams work out players as a smokescreen but I can't help but wonder why he never seems to mention this smokescreen in relation to certain players working out for teams in MMQB?

and to file thoughts on players away for the day when they might be able to pick them up on waivers or trade for them.

So Peter thinks teams will file away thoughts on players for 2-3+ years down the road when they may be able to trade for them or pick them up on waivers, but he doesn't believe the teams would keep the report from when the player worked out with the team to use as a scouting report? This doesn't make sense to me. Why would a team base part of their evaluation on whether to trade or sign a player on that player's workout with the team, but not use this same information to even get an idea on that player's strengths and weaknesses? A team would really keep what they thought about a player in a workout in order to trade or sign that player, but not to get an edge when it comes to facing that player? They wouldn't do this just a little bit?

I know it is not real live game situations, but if a team would trade or sign a player based partially on this pre-draft workout, wouldn't they also use this workout to get an idea of this player's strengths or weaknesses?

From Michael Bruno of Pennington, N.J.: "Will Andy Reid join Mike Holmgren in Cleveland after this year?''

No offense to Michael Bruno, but how in the hell is this a question that deserves to make Peter's mailbag? It's like he threw a random coach onto a random team after this season. Are there no better no questions for Peter's mailbag?

I have a great question. In retrospect does Peter feel very stupid by saying a weakness of Aaron Curry is that he didn't sack the quarterback enough in college? Wasn't Curry's good first year and 2 sacks an indication this doesn't really matter? If so, why did Peter continuously believe it did matter last year?

I think I asked this question to Peter 2-3 times last year and it never got answered.

From James of Rochester, N.Y.: "How do you see the Albert Haynesworth vs. Mike Shanahan faceoff playing out? Personally, I'd love an early 2nd round pick or a starting caliber 3-4 NT for Haynesworth. And as far as the money that's already been paid to Albert, it's gone. Keeping him around would just be throwing good money after bad to me.''

I think a 2nd round pick is a bit too small of compensation for Haynesworth. Really this reminded me of a moment Bill Simmons had on Twitter the other day regarding Haynesworth. Every team has fans that think a team can switch from 3-4 to 4-3 in a heartbeat and that a coach who has run the 3-4/4-3 his entire life will just change it around on a whim. I hate those people. These are people who always have really bright ideas like trading for a player and then changing the entire defense around to fit that player. I didn't know Bill Simmons was one of those uneducated fans.

This is him talking about Haynesworth on Twitter:

Haynesworth possibly being available has me frothing at the mouth. He'd immediately become the 2nd best Pat. Plus him + Wilfork in a 4-3???
9:06 PM Apr 8th via UberTwitter

Yes, the Patriots and Bill Belichick run a 3-4 defense. As far as I can remember Belichick has always run a 3-4 defense, but he will change his entire defensive philosophy if he trades for a guy that is in the process of trying to sink the Redskins one year after signing a massive contract with the team? The same guy who only gets motivated to play when he has a contract year coming up? Does this sound like a guy who it would be wise to change the entire defense for a guy Belichick may want, but who doesn't fit into the current defense? I don't think so.

I never knew Simmons was one of those fans who thinks teams can just randomly change from a base 3-4 defense to the 4-3 (or the other way around) and expect great results...specifically for one player. But Bill wasn't done.

Good point. And yet... Wilfork AND Haynesworth? RT @JoeGrady78: Belichick going 4-3 would be like Andy Reid deciding to run 50% of the time.
9:17 PM Apr 8th via UberTwitter

"Hey great point and what you say makes sense if you actually pay attention to how Belichick builds his team and how the personnel the Patriots currently have fits in with the 3-4 defense, but wouldn't it be great if real life was like a video game? You do make a good point and I am going to try and deflect the fact I am acting like an idiot, by trying to get you to focus on how great it would be to have both these players, even though logically it would never work out."

PK: All good points, but I think if a team like Tennessee (which is interested, I can tell you that with certainty) wants to pursue Haynesworth, it would have to find good compensation to offer Washington. I doubt a second-round pick this year is good enough.

Though Haynesworth is a turd, he is a turd that has a lot of potential when he is actually trying hard. A 2nd round pick is a weak offer for Haynesworth even with the money he is owed and given his overall attitude.

My gut feeling is Washington will keep Haynesworth this year, experiment with him on the nose early, and if it doesn't work, use another player on the nose and use Haynesworth as a 3-technique tackle to get to the quarterback on second and third downs.

Great, the Redskins now have a very expensive situational pass rusher.

Steve of Plano, Texas: "I love your thought of Jerry [Jones] trading his second-round pick to Baltimore for Jared Gaither. Any chance of that happening?''

Of course you like it, you are a Cowboys fan. That's a great deal for a proven left tackle in the NFL. Baltimore Ravens fans shouldn't like this at all.

PK: I doubt it. Teams, as usual, are over-valuing draft picks as D-day gets closer.

That and I think the Ravens would be crazy to trade a proven left tackle for only a 2nd round pick and then hope Michael Oher can play left tackle in the NFL, thereby possibly weakening both tackle positions on the Ravens offensive line. This trade would make sense for the Cowboys, but I really question whether it makes sense for the Ravens or not.

But you know it and I know it: The Cowboys should do this deal eight days a week.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RAVENS? The Cowboys can't just pick the players they want on other teams and then choose the compensation they will give as well. Though I am sure the Cowboys and their fans would love that.

From David of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: "So Akwasi Owusu-Ansah looks like a guy Jerry Jones might covet. He would help in the return game and might be a real asset at safety, both areas I know he has talked about improving. How early do you think he might have to move on him?''

PK: Gut feeling is Owusu-Ansah will be picked somewhere between 80 and 110, probably late in the third, early fourth.

Peter's statement here pretty much ensures I will be putting Owusu-Ansah in my mock draft somewhere in the 1st round or he will be undrafted.

From Garrett Grant of Calgary, Alberta: "The twitching that so many batters do reminds me of Sergio Garcia a number of years ago. The amount of twitching and resetting he did before he hit a shot got to the point of insanity, and I believe the PGA finally told him enough was enough as he was delaying the game. Thing is, he went away and fixed it, so one would ask why can't MLB hitters be requested to do the same?

Here's the thing I don't get. The umpire don't have to grant timeout to a player or if the umpire thinks the player is taking too long out of the batter's box, he can award an automatic strike against the player and can do this for as long as the batter delays the game. Specifically:

(c) If the batter refuses to take his position in the batter’s box during his time at bat, the umpire shall call a strike on the batter. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. After the penalty, the batter may take his proper position and the regular ball and strike count shall continue. If the batter does not take his proper position before three strikes have been called, the batter shall be declared out.
Rule 6.02(c) Comment: The umpire shall give the batter a reasonable opportunity to take his proper position in the batter’s box after the umpire has called a strike pursuant to Rule 6.02(c) and before the umpire calls a successive strike pursuant to Rule 6.02(c).

So the umpire has to give a player reasonable opportunity to be in the batter's box and if the batter is still refusing to do so, the umpire can call a strike.

Notwithstanding Rule 6.02(c), if the batter intentionally leaves the batter’s box and delays play, and none of the exceptions listed in Rule 6.02(d)(1)(i) through (viii) applies, the umpire shall award a strike without the pitcher having to deliver the pitch. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. The umpire shall award additional strikes, without the pitcher having to deliver the pitch, if the batter remains outside the batter’s box and further delays play.

There is a rule on the books that could speed up the game, but the umpires don't take advantage of it. MLB hitters can be requested to get in the batter's box, but if the rule on the books won't be enforced why would they comply with the request?

PK: No, but I'm with you. MLB has to get to players, and to the players union, and tell them enough is enough.

Ok, the player's union? Isn't that making too much of a big deal over this issue...especially when there are rules that prevent the delaying of the game already in the books? If MLB is really concerned about the speed of the game, merely say to teams, "we are enforcing the rules about a batter delaying the game. Tell your players to be ready to hit. They will be given ample time between pitches, but not to stretch and re-adjust every piece of equipment they have. Tell them to be prepared to hit when they are up to bat."

This doesn't really even take care of pitchers taking too long between pitches, which I think is as big a problem as batters taking too long. I am all for a pitcher taking some time between pitches but sometimes a pitcher is delaying the game more than a hitter does. What can be done about that?

Leave it to Peter King to have a football mailbag and have us talking about baseball.