To Play or Not to Play--Roethlisberger's Injury Has Been a No-Win Situation for Mike Tomlin

by Anthony Defeo on Dec 30, 2011 11:49 PM EST

One of the most delicate issues an NFL head coach must deal with is what to do with an injured star player towards the end of the season when his team still has something to play for.

Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin has been living in that world since the night his franchise quarterback suffered a high ankle sprain in a Thursday night game against the Cleveland Browns.

Just a couple of weekends ago, days before the Steelers were to take on the San Francisco 49ers on Monday Night Football, what to do with Ben Roethlisberger may have been an easier decision. There were only three regular season games left to play, and the Steelers were on the wrong side of a tiebreaker with the Baltimore Ravens in the AFC North. Despite their 10-4 record, the Steelers would still be a wild card team as long as Baltimore kept pace with the same record. And even if they did manage to catch the Ravens for the division, Pittsburgh wouldn't be guaranteed a bye because of another disadvantageous tiebreaker involving the AFC South champion Houston Texans. With a wild card playoff spot all but secure, and only ten days removed from the Thursday night game, nobody could have blamed Tomlin for resting Roethlisberger in the Monday night game. There were bigger fish to fry. A healthy Big Ben in a wild card scenario was certainly better than no Big Ben and a bye. I know I was strongly in-favor of keeping Roethlisberger safe and out of harm's way so he could be healthy and ready to go come playoff time.

But the Sunday before the game, in the span of about eight hours, things changed. The Texans and Ravens both lost, and suddenly, the Steelers controlled their own destiny for the number one seed in the playoffs. What would Tomlin do now that he had such an epic opportunity unexpectedly fall in his lap? Would he turn to the veteran back up Charlie Batch, or would he go with number 7, a player who has displayed the kind of toughness in his career that would suggest he'd be more than capable of playing at a high-level so soon after such a serious injury?

Tomlin went with option B. Roethlisberger was cleared to play, the quarterback said he could go, what else was the coach supposed to do? He owed it to his players and fans to give his team the clearest avenue to a championship. After all, it wasn't unprecedented for Roethlisberger to excel in-spite of an injury. We're talking about a man who helped lead the Steelers to a pivotal win in Baltimore last year after suffering a broken nose. We're talking about a quarterback who played a significant portion of the 2010 season with a broken bone in his foot. We're talking about a player who passed for five touchdowns in a game earlier this season after spraining his foot the week before.

Unfortunately, things didn't turn out so well for the Steelers that night. Roethlisberger wasn't exactly immobile, but he wasn't very sharp either. It was an ugly, 20-3, loss, and the team finished the week where it started--looking up at the Ravens in the AFC North.

Almost immediately, the second-guessers came out of the woodwork. Many fans and media-types were adamant that Tomlin should have gone with Batch, that he could have been the difference in the outcome of the game. However, I know as sure as God gave me pretty hazel eyes that if the Steelers lost by the exact same score with Charlie Batch under center for the entire game, people would have been up-in-arms the next day. They would have said that Tomlin dropped the ball by not going with his elite quarterback, injured or not. The Steelers had an opportunity to seize the top seed, and Tomlin didn't put his team in the best position to win. You might say I'm just speculating, but I can almost guarantee you that is what the reaction would have been.

The only thing I disagreed with was Roethlisberger playing the entire game against the 49ers. After the score became 20-3 with barely half a quarter left to play, Tomlin should have made Roethlisberger sit down. The way the '9ers pass rushers were teeing off at that point, I didn't think it was worth the risk. There's courageous, and then there's stupid, and Roethlisberger taking so much unnecessary punishment at the end of a game the Steelers had no chance of winning was a little too close to the latter for my tastes..

For the Christmas Eve game, Tomlin decided to go with Batch against the St. Louis Rams. If Roethlisberger could go in San Francisco, why couldn't he play the following game? This was something else that was a no-win situation for the coach. And Batch's efficient if unspectacular performance only further fueled the sentiment that Batch could have won the game in San Francisco the week before.

Word is that Roethlisberger will go this week in Cleveland, but the Steelers will have him on a bit of a pitch count, if you will. But with the Steelers needing help in the form of a Bengals win over the Ravens in order for a victory against the Browns to matter, it's probably another no-win situation for Tomlin.

How long does he let Roethlisberger play? What if both games are close, but Tomlin still takes Big Ben out, the Steelers go on to lose, and the Bengals beat the Ravens? Imagine the outrage Monday morning.

What if the Ravens win, and Roethlisberger aggravates his injury in what turns out to be a meaningless game, and the team is compromised for the playoffs?

Like I said, it's a no-win situation for Tomlin, and I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions.

It's much easier to speculate.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | Add comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think Ben should play as long as the game is competitive and Cincy is at least keeping it close against the Ravens

We have an opportunity to get the #2 seed, which would entail one road playoff game at most rather than three to get to the Super Bowl. This is especially important this year, when we’ve been demonstrably better at home. Additionally, high ankle sprains are very tough to aggravate due to the nature of the injury. If Ben somehow reinjures his ankle or gets significantly hurt in some other way, I will still stand by playing him on account of the reward being significantly greater than the risk.

Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever
-Napoleon Bonaparte

There’s a lot of stuff we wouldn’t have to clean up if the city provided basic human rights, like a Port-A-Potty.
-OWS Protester

Cornell University Class of 2014

by LV Steelers Fan on Dec 31, 2011 12:38 AM EST reply actions

Disagree

Pittsburgh is not Indy. The Steelers defense keeps games close, and the receivers are outstanding at improvising, as they do that with BB all the time. This means a back up has a better chance to win.

Further, Batch could start fir at least six teams in the NFL. It isn’t just the rams game that gives you confidence in him.

So Tomlin’s remark that he would play BB if he could walk on the field made no sense. But what is even stranger is that he could have started Batch in the second half, down by less than a TD. BB was heavily limping and obviously hurting the offense because his injury was interfering with performance.

A good coach quashes all egos and does what is best for the team. MT did this with Ward but not with BB. The difference between a broken BB and a healthy Batch was so obvious by halftime that only a coach showing too much deference to a player would make the call to keep BB in.

I blame MT, not BB for this. With the exception of a certain Bears QB, players always want to play hurt even to the detriment if their bodies and teams. A coach has to be the force of reason, whose dictates were obvious by halftime. MT’s inaction was a strange deviation from his normal excellence.

by ec on Dec 31, 2011 5:16 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

I think that tomorrow's game is a tossup if Batch starts

What you said about how we win games true, but Ben is better at it than Batch now that he’s had a couple weeks to heal.

Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever
-Napoleon Bonaparte

There’s a lot of stuff we wouldn’t have to clean up if the city provided basic human rights, like a Port-A-Potty.
-OWS Protester

Cornell University Class of 2014

by LV Steelers Fan on Dec 31, 2011 5:55 PM EST up reply actions

This is a classic case of a Steelers fan not appreciating a franchise quarterback

It wouldn’t even be suggested to take out Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees, regardless if they were injured or not.

by Anthony Defeo on Jan 1, 2012 10:10 AM EST up reply actions

Im with you

20-25 snaps at most. A high ankle sprain doesn’t get better by putting weight on it. Batch is more than serviceable against the Browns. Especially considering they’re one of the worst run defenses, just like St. Louis. The formula is simple. Smash mouth run and defense. Open up the play action and let Chuck catch them in the box. Keep Cribbs from returning one and we should easily win this game. Go Bengals!

"Hey number 16! I'm coming to kill you and there ain't nothing he can do about it!" -James Harrison to Matt Cassel on his LT during the 08' beating of the Pats.

by SoCalSteelerFan on Dec 31, 2011 2:05 AM EST via Android app reply actions

Sit him

If the Steelers can’t best a low level AFC team like the browns even without their QB, they won’t last long in the playoffs. Give Ben his rest. I think Batch can put away the Browns. Also I would put my money on the Ravens taking care of the Bengals.

by guybudpal on Dec 31, 2011 2:59 AM EST via Android app reply actions

Disagree

I hear this argument all the time, and it’s wrong. The Pats were blown out in week one to the Bills and then won the SB. Denver’s SB team lost ugly late in the season. Really good teams can lose ugly and still win the SB. If the Steelers drop to the Browns, it means nothing for the playoffs beyond the statistical impacts of seeding (bye, home field adv).

There is a high degree of randomness in the playoffs such that the best teams, measured with stats or records, win the SB only thirty percent of the time. The idea of deserving it is just a bogus idea.

by ec on Dec 31, 2011 5:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Ravens are 1 for 6 in Cincinnati

Flacco is not impressive. AJ Green is in and Boldin is out. There is no guarantee for Baltimore in that game.

I don’t want to hear it from Browns fans – so the Steelers need to win convincingly.

by SteelheadOH on Dec 31, 2011 8:27 AM EST reply actions

Pitch Count..

Ben will play until the outcome’s no longer in doubt or unless the Bengals-Ravens game is decided early in the Ravens favor.

Those who saw him at practice yesterday said that had you not know he had an ankle injury, you would have that nothing was amiss.

by swissvale72 on Dec 31, 2011 10:02 AM EST reply actions

Does anybody happen to know of a live feed for the Ravens-Bengals?

by Here We Go! on Dec 31, 2011 10:14 AM EST reply actions

firstrowsports.com

by Hanrahanfan on Dec 31, 2011 2:26 PM EST up reply actions

How about a stream for the Steelers game

I live in the Washington D.C. area and they are televising the Ravens game.

by Allen F on Dec 31, 2011 10:50 PM EST up reply actions

Same place

Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever
-Napoleon Bonaparte

There’s a lot of stuff we wouldn’t have to clean up if the city provided basic human rights, like a Port-A-Potty.
-OWS Protester

Cornell University Class of 2014

by LV Steelers Fan on Jan 1, 2012 12:03 AM EST up reply actions

http://www.wiziwig.tv/broadcast.php?matchid=137651&part=sports

by SteelersVT on Jan 1, 2012 1:15 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks a lot. It is appreciated.

by Allen F on Jan 1, 2012 1:50 AM EST up reply actions

Ben and Charlie

I dislike a strategy of limiting Ben’s snaps if Ben starts. It may work like a charm if we put up a couple of scores on the first few drives, get a league and let Batch protect it. However, what if the offense starts slowly and the game is tight at the end of the first half? If the Cincinnatti is hanging with the Ravens, won’t there be a great temptation to let Ben finish the game to improve our chances of getting the second (or first) seed? If Ben starts and splits the snaps with Charlie, it will feel like a preseason game when it is hard to have offensive continuity. I agree that a win is important and that it will be good for Ben to get some snaps so that he is not too rusty heading into the playoffs. Wouldn’t it be better to start Batch, try to establish the run, get a lead and control the game; then bring Ben in when we want or need him to get some snaps. If we are struggling with Charlie, we have Ben in reserve to play at the end of the game to get the win (or to take a limited number of snaps if the Ravens have their game in hand).

by avelaguy on Dec 31, 2011 10:36 AM EST reply actions

I think that would sterilize the offense

Because basically you’re tipping the D off. You’re saying if we put Ben in, we need to pass more. And so therefore when they see limpy Ben come on the field, they’re going to blitz the hell out of us and attack the Ben.

By putting Ben first, you can pass and run and the defense has no idea. When Batch comes in, they still don’t really know whats up.

But if you put Batch in first, and struggle, then it’s obvious what Ben’s gonna do.

by Mechem on Dec 31, 2011 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

maybe

but i like the idea of putting the game on the shoulders of the rest of the team. It could build a lot of momentum if the defense dominates, which i think it can, and if the offense takes care of business. I didn’t have much confidence in Charlie before last week, but I thought he did fine. I am not sure if he does as well as substitute for the second half of a tight game. As important as the win is, we should be able to beat the Browns without Ben if we are a Super Bowl team. It is a calculated risk but, on balance, I think that is very important to get the team as healthy as possible for the playoffs. The rest of the offense has a lot to play for—1000 receptions for Hines, 1000 yards for Rashard, more rallpurpose yards for Antonio, a big play or two or three for Mike W. I agree with your following comment that the issue is how the team plays. If the team plays well, we win with any of the qbs.

by avelaguy on Dec 31, 2011 11:13 AM EST up reply actions

If the

game is that tight chances are that the Steelers would be losing with Charlie starting the whole game, unless it’s close due to Ben making bad decisions and turnovers.

People don't ever seem to realize that doing what's right is no guarantee against misfortune.
- William McFee

by stillergorillar on Dec 31, 2011 6:14 PM EST up reply actions

Not really

I get that you don’t really want to expose Ben to the kind of pass rush that comes from playing from behind, but remember Cleveland is 25th in the league in sacks. Besides, if it’s so obvious that we’re going to pass, we can take advantage of that and let Mendy pick up some big yards.

Also, do you really want Batch holding the reigns at the end of the game if it becomes close? It seems like even with the best case scenario of Ben giving us a solid first half lead, the offense could easily stall in the second half under Batch, allowing Cleveland to catch up.

I posited the “start Batch and let Ben fill in” idea on another thread, and I think it’s a good one. Starting Batch gives you the most control over how many snaps Ben actually takes, because you can ascertain immediately if it’s really necessary for him to be in there.

by Steelgator on Dec 31, 2011 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

To me, this is the least important issue

People keep talking up this whole Ben vs Batch/Dixon situation. Tomlin needs to just focus his team on playin good football all around. And sometimes, an opponent is just gonna win. San Frän looked like they had our number. I don’t think Batch would have won that game, I think it might have been closer but I don’t think we would have won.

At the end of the day, it’s the Browns people.

by Mechem on Dec 31, 2011 10:37 AM EST reply actions

Good point

Far and away the biggest issue here is that the whole team has to show up and play 100% and not be thinking “it’s just the Browns” or “the Ravens have the lead, so what’s the point.”

by Steelgator on Dec 31, 2011 12:00 PM EST up reply actions

Past 2 games

Uninspired play, yes they shut out stlouis, so what. They nearly got shut out the week prior too.
We need guys flying to the ball and playing sharp. Ben and pounceyj as well as Troy should sit. We need to impose our will!!!
Get it done with d, speciateams and running game.

Impose your will.

by ALDOG on Dec 31, 2011 11:24 PM EST reply actions

Ben stinks up the joint

When he gets rust, even a little. His only game time prep is the game itself, no game more rust.

by ibygeorge on Jan 1, 2012 8:07 AM EST via mobile reply actions

To me, I keep Ben in for at least the first half, with 3 caveats:
1-We take him out as soon as he shows any signs of having aggravated that ankle injury, whether it’s a slight limp after a sack or, god forbid, something worse.
2-We take him out as soon as we get a 3-possession lead at any point.
3-We take him out as soon as the Ravens get a 3-possession lead at any point.

Apart from those 3, I see no reason not to let him play for at least a half given that he seems to be back near or at 100% from all the reports from practices this week.

by Akshay R on Jan 1, 2012 10:12 AM EST reply actions