PITTSBURGH — As I listened to ex-Steelers spewing accusations over the past few days, I couldn't help but think of Hunter S. Thompson's legendary 1970s piece for Rolling Stone, a self-described "vague and vengeful screed" titled "Fear and Loathing at the Super Bowl."
In the case of these ex-Steelers, a better title might be, "Smear and Loathing at the Super Bowl." Which is not the same as saying their accusations lack merit. We'll examine that. But shots were definitely fired at the likes of Chuck Noll, Todd Haley, Bruce Arians, Ben Roethlisberger (I think), and maybe even Mike Tomlin, although it was hard to tell.
Vague? In some cases, yes.
Vengeful? Maybe.
I didn't think I'd ever put Terry Bradshaw, Max Starks and LeGarrette Blount in the same sentence, but here we are. They said what they said, and I'm glad they did. It makes for some mighty interesting fodder in an otherwise insufferable (and typically boring) lead-in week to the Super Bowl.
Here we go ...
— Starks levied by far the most incendiary accusation, talking to The Fan's Andrew Fillipponi and Chris Mueller from radio row at the Super Bowl (Fillipponi was on site).
First, Starks ripped the Steelers' offensive plan from their Super Bowl loss to Green Bay.
"We abandoned the run game, which is what we needed in that game to win, because (Packers nose tackle) B.J. Raji was an open door, a swinging gate," Starks said. "We should have run it a lot more, especially between the tackles. And we didn't do that. We tried to pass our way into it, and, you know, throwing against the best secondary in the league is not the best way to get at it."
Why did he think the Steelers passed so much if the Packers' nose tackle was such a liability?
Starks paused.
"What's the statute of limitations?" he said. "I think we were trying to make sure that, you know, guys had opportunities for bigger trophies at the end. I'll just leave it at that. But I think it's one of those things where if you feel good about it, and you know who your superstar is, you try to put the ball in his hands as many times (as needed). The problem is, it wasn't the right opponent. If it was anyone else but the Packers who came out of the NFC that year, then yes. ... If you take one less pick away from the game, we're talking about seven-time Super Bowl champions instead of just six times."
Verdict: First of all, wow. Starks is one of the most honest, intelligent players I have encountered. Honesty does not always equate to accuracy, but in this case, the Steelers did seem bent on passing their way to a win. Is he saying Arians, the offensive coordinator, wanted to see Roethlisberger win MVP? Is he saying Roethlisberger steered the game plan in that direction? Or did Roethlisberger merely believe that the best path toward victory was through him? Every quarterback believes that, after all.
I'm going to need more clarity here, but this much is certain: The Steelers, despite falling behind, should have run more. It seemed like a day where they could have piled up about 250 yards rushing. They ran 23 times for 126 yards and threw it 40 times. We all remember Rashard Mendenhall's fumble, but Roethlisberger was picked off twice, including a pick-six. Yes, a missed block led to that pick (Roethlisberger's arm was hit), but didn't a missed block also lead to Mendenhall's fumble? Also, Tomlin has ultimate control of the game plan, so Starks is implicating him, as well.
— Bradshaw, speaking a few days earlier with CNN's Chris Wallace, addressed the "dumb" label he has carried (and profited from) for decades.
Wallace: "The rap that you were — forgive me — dumb: (Cowboys linebacker) Hollywood Henderson famously said, 'He couldn't spell cat if he were spotted a 'c' and an 'a.' Did that talk get to you? Did it get under your skin?"
Bradshaw: "Yes, absolutely. The dumb image, I have yet to figure out. Lotta interceptions my rookie year. But my rookie interception record initially was broken by Peyton Manning, considered one of the smartest quarterbacks. I threw 25 (24, actually). He threw 28. I do get upset by the dumb image. I don't like it being brought up. I think probably some of my anger and frustration with it is, I didn't get enough support, I didn't feel like, from Pittsburgh. I thought Chuck Noll could have stepped in and said, 'That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard.' After all, I called my own plays. You can't be too stupid and call your own plays."
Verdict: First of all, this was an interview in which Bradshaw seemed unusually serious and contemplative — at least on this question. I can't confirm whether Noll addressed the issue leading into the second Super Bowl matchup with the Cowboys, so, as usual with Bradshaw, it's hard to tell what's real and what's not. What's indisputable is that Bradshaw has parlayed the "dumb" image into an extremely lucrative career. He has basically played the role of professional fool — and done it quite well (more on that in a minute). But he's also 100% correct in that talk of him as a dumb player was ludicrous. He did call his own plays and did it expertly, often setting his ego aside to establish a running game. (Starks would have loved that!) And if Noll didn't vociferously stand up for him on this issue, he should have.
Addendum: To his credit, Bradshaw admitted to Wallace that he used the "dumb" label to his benefit in his post-football life.
"I've taken that image and had some fun with it," Bradshaw said. "As you know, I like to have fun in interviews. I like to entertain people. If it's at my expense, I'm fine with it. But there are times, even at Fox, when it's, 'Terry's always the goofball,' and there are times ... I don't say anything, but I do say to myself, 'Enough.' Hey, look Chris, it's the bed that's made, and I made it, and I lay in it. I'm fine with it. We move on, but being honest with you, does it bother me? Yes."
That just seems like a rare real moment with Bradshaw.
— Lastly, we have Blount, who famously walked off the field before the final gun of a Monday night game against the Titans in 2014 — and in disturbingly short order wound up back with the New England Patriots.
There was no confusion as to whom Blount blamed for his misery here, as he told The Fan: "The problem was the offensive coordinator (Todd Haley), not calling the plays where I would be (utilized)."
Blount said he would speak with Haley "ad nauseam" about his role and was assured he'd see more action. Or at least some action (on the night he quit, Blount had zero carries to Le'Veon Bell's 33).
Blount said Haley would tell him, "We've got to get the ball to you. We'll do more and more to get you the ball. We're going to get it to you."
"Obviously I'm going to believe that because it's my offensive coordinator," Blount said. "So I'm going to trust what he's saying."
Verdict: Blount had a right to be angry, even if Bell was breaking out as a superstar at that point. Blount acknowledged he would been fine with half of Bell's work load or less. "I was OK with that, but there were games where he would have 30 carries and I would have zero, or one or two, and I'd be like, 'Why did I come here?' "
He also admitted that he didn't leave the team "in the most ethical way." But he added, "Everyone gets to the point where it's like, 'Bro, respect goes a long way.'"
Of course, Tomlin also is the guy ultimately responsible for the division of labor (and Blount says he loves Tomlin as a coach and person). Blount deserved more of a role, and it would have been prudent to preserve Bell at least a little bit — but it's probably time to let bygones be bygones.
Or not, thankfully for us.
