U mad, bro? Readers rip Bill Cowher, defend Tony Romo, debate James Conner, attack Tim Benz

In “U mad, bro?” this week, readers pop off about James Conner, they defend Tony Romo’s money, they rip Bill Cowher’s Hall of Fame induction, and they go hard against me.

Well, not so much me. Just this weekly column.

Eh, no. It’s me.

It’s definitely me.

The “RefofPttsburgh” sent me a series of tweets about my column wondering if Tony Romo was really worth the reported $10-$14 million he might get to jump from CBS to ESPN.

Does anyone really watch — or avoid watching — a game based on who the announcer is?

Yes I’m a Green Bay fan. And yes I have seriously not watched the GB game & tune into to here what and how he is calling another game.

He should be calling the Super Bowl, Pro Bowl & MNF

— RefofPittsburgh (@RefofPittsburgh) January 14, 2020

First of all, Ref, no one should call the Pro Bowl. It should be banned from television.

As far as Romo goes, as I said in the column, I like his work. I enjoy listening to him. But I can’t ever imagine ignoring my team’s game just because Romo is calling a contest on another network.

And I bet you are in the vast minority. At least to that extreme.

That said, I did have lots of people reply to that column by insisting they do, indeed, watch games specifically because of who calls the game. Especially Romo.

I think that sounds good coming out of your mouth or looks good on your Twitter feed. But I don’t think people really practice what they preach in that regard.

If “Monday Night Football” features the 4-4 Chicago Bears against the 3-5 Denver Broncos, I’m willing to bet most people are no more inclined to watch it if Romo is in the booth versus “Broadcaster X.”

But if the 8-0 San Francisco 49ers are facing the 8-0 Baltimore Ravens, fans would watch if they bring back Jason Witten and pair him with Gilbert Gottfried.

If the color analyst matters so much, why does everyone claim to hate Anthony “Booger” McFarland, but “MNF” ratings were up this year?

Ron chimes in on the election of former Steelers coach Bill Cowher to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

He’s bitter about one specific moment from Cowher’s past.

@TimBenzPGH Actions define a man. Lets not forget that Cowher clearly forgot where he came from a long time ago.https://t.co/kgPTO44Kjl

— Ron Raimondi (@RonRaimondiAZPG) January 13, 2020

You’re right, Ron. I was on the fence about Cowher getting in the Hall of Fame. I ended up endorsing his selection on “The Nightly Sports Call.”

But you’ve swung me back to the other side! The “Sin of the Siren” cannot be ignored. Cowher should not be given a gold jacket.

In fact, he should be forced to live the rest of his life in this sweater.

Cowher should have to wear this sweater again at his HOF induction. pic.twitter.com/9RJ4Heo3Yu

— Tad Wissel (@DickAndSauce) January 12, 2020

Not only for the Carolina Hurricanes siren. But for the second half offensive game plan against Denver in the 1997 AFC Championship game, too.

No. I’m not getting over that one. I’m taking it to my grave.

To my grave!

Tom responded to my column suggesting that the Steelers should avoid extending running back James Conner.

And maybe even be prepared to move on from him entirely.

“I don’t disagree with anything you said about Conner, but I also question whether his, or any Steeler running back’s performance this year was due to an offensive line that clearly did not perform to the level that they did last year.

“Too often the holes were simply not there. Given that the player personnel was identical to the presiding year (albeit a year older) what else changed?

“Offensive line coaching!

“In all the articles I have read and radio shows I listened to, why have I not heard anyone question the offensive line coaching as an issue? Perhaps filling Munchak’s job from within, was not the best move.”

Tom, you must have been listening to the wrong shows and reading the wrong columns. Because I’ve been pretty hard on the offensive line.

It wasn’t good enough this year. And I’m sure Munchak’s departure played a role in that.

But there is one thing that can’t be put on the O-line. And that’s Conner’s inability to stay on the field.

Whether that’s Conner’s fault or not is irrelevant. The Steelers can’t just assume he’ll be a healthy football player next season.

They either need to promote Benny Snell to starter, find more depth, or both.

However, Phil goes way too far in the other direction in this email about Conner.

“Conner is a waste of a contract. He will never play a full season and the Steelers would be foolish to keep him. He’s a great story but those stories don’t = W’s”

Actually, the last part of that I can’t dismiss. I hope the Steelers don’t feel obligated to keep Conner just because of his local ties with Pitt and his courageous battle against cancer.

If a good back is able to be signed in free agency or they feel the need to use a high draft choice on one, they should do it.

To call Conner a waste of a contract is a little much, though. He’s going to make less than $1 million and when he is on the field, he’s still capable.

But, hey, far be it from this fanbase — or this columnist — to dabble in hyperbole from time to time.

Tim replied to last week’s “U mad, bro?” in the comments section.

“I think it’s funny how Benz cherry picks people on social media. Come down here and play in the comments buddy. We might embarass [sic] you but you will learn football in the end.”

Tim, I’d sooner play in traffic on Carson Street at 2:01 a.m. on a Saturday than “play” online with you.

The only “embarrassment” I absorb from the comments section is admitting that occasionally I read it to get material for this post every week.

But as far as “cherry picking” from social media, yeah. That’s what I do for this weekly mailbag contribution.

Congratulations. You’ve cracked the code.

From the responses that I get to columns and our digital content, I find submissions that I deem to be the most poignant, harsh, edgy, funny, entertaining and intelligent.

Or the ones that are the most mundane, dim and uninformed.

Whatever might make people think — or laugh.

Guess which category you are in.

If I didn’t cherry pick from social media and I just reposted every comment I ever got and replied to all of them, it would just be … well … social media.

John also dislikes “U mad, bro?”

“So you get a free column by rehashing this dribble and get paid for it. America is a great country. Now go upstairs. Your mom has your Fruity Pebbles ready.”

1. I prefer Cocoa Pebbles.

2. Most of the time I can pour the milk myself, unless it’s on too high of a shelf

3. “Dribble” is a fine way to describe what usually can be found when I dive into my Twitter interactions, the comments section or my emails.

I think you meant “drivel.” But to underscore the point, let’s go with “dribble.”

“U mad, bro?” isn’t a “free column,” as you describe. It was actually advanced to me as an idea by an editor who apparently saw the value in the “dribble” of our readers’ feedback.

Initially, I saw the value in proving that was a poor idea. But now, I kinda like it.

So I’m just gonna keep eating my Cocoa Pebbles, entertaining myself and replying to the “dribble” of jackwagons like you.

Yes. America is great.