Tomlin vs Collier

86HOF — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:38:30 -0000

It seems that Mike Tomlin has decided that sports writers are a more appropriate opponent than opposing coaches. He felt it necessary to express his opinion on a column by Gene Collier in which he's quoted as saying:

"His actions were referred to as 'thuggery.' We take offense to that."

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08226/903878-66.stm

Well I take offense at head coaches who try to manipulate or intimidate the press especially when they haven't shown the same courage when it really counted. I remember last year when Bill Belichick rubbed Smith's nose in the dirt after his idiocy prior to and during the New England debacle. Belichick was gloating post-game when he told the national press that they'd faced better safeties than Smith. Since when is it OK for a coach to criticize another team's players? Where was Mike Tomlin then? I don't recall him having his players back at that time. Is the press an easier target? Was Tomlin afraid to say anything in response to Belichick? At the least he could have pointed out that Belichick's comments said more about Belichick as a person than it did about Smith as a player!

Is Anthony Smith's psyche that fragile?

Come on Mike, coach the team, and let the reporters write.

Is it time for the Rooneys to give up the Steelers?

86HOF — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:20:43 -0000

Heresy to some I know but I wonder if reality isn't forcing the best decision to the forefront. Gerry Dulac's article today,

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08220/902475-66.stm

has rekindled some thoughts that I've been having.

Isn't it better to have a dedicated billionaire owner than a dedicated millionaire owner? Of course Dan Rooney's dedication is above question and Druckenmiller's, though apparently genuine, is still to be proven.

Is this problem too close to Dan Rooney's heart to let him make the best decision for the team? How will the team compete with the debt that he'll have to take on to get majority ownership? As with his brothers, it seeems he's trying to do what he thinks is best for his family. But is that what's best for the Steelers?

It seems to me that three risks have to be weighed.

The likely risk that if Dan Rooney becomes majority owner that he will need to mortgage (at least part of) the team's future to do so. Is his family's heritage blinding him to the financial realities? And I know the league wants him to retain ownership but are the NFL's priorities the same as the Steeler nation? I can see Goodell wanting to help Rooney retain ownership simply as a reward for getting him the job of commissioner and all that he's meant to the league.
Sure Stanley Druckenmiller is saying all of the right things. But we don't really know what kind of owner he'll be. And even if he honors the statements that he's made, will his heirs? I think Art II and his descendants will certainly maintain the commitment to Pittsburgh. Who are Druckenmiller's heirs and what history will they have guiding the decisions they'll make about the team?
Unknown buyer. If Dan Rooney can't convince his brothers to sell to him and they choose someone other than Druckenmiller then the future is unknown. There's not a lot of good that I can see in this outcome that isn't already inherent in the sale to Druckenmiller. And there is a LOT of bad that could come from it.

Is Druckenmiller the higher risk, higher reward option just like the hedge funds he manages and the Rooney's the savings account option, safe in the bank but watching inflation erode its value?

As it stands today, I'm leaning towards Stanley Druckenmiller as my preferred Steelers owner (since the league made it impossible for a city to own its team).

If you had to decide, how would you invest?

SB Nation User Blog: 86HOF

Tomlin vs Collier

Is it time for the Rooneys to give up the Steelers?