This is sad because it's probably true

Huh?

Hey, look: baseball.

A person familiar with the talks says baseball players and owners have reached an understanding that ties for division titles will be broken on the field under the new playoff format.

Okay. Weren't ties already broken on the field?

Since 1995, head-to-head record has been used to determine first place if both teams are going to the postseason.

Right. So yes. Ties were already broken on the field, over the course of like 13 divisional head-to-head games.

But with the start of a one-game, winner-take-all wild-card round, both sides agreed the difference between first place and a wild-card berth is too important to decide with a formula and a tiebreaker game would be played.

Summary: some owners said "let's make more money!" and the knucklehead players said "Yes. Also, home field advantage is way too important to not be decided by the impossibly small sample size of one, nine-inning game." We said: "/faceplant."

A little more than two months before opening day, the sides still don’t know whether the expanded playoffs will start this year.

Free Tank Carter has obtained the off season to-do list for MLB. We would put a scanned image of it here, but our fax/scanner is in the shop. Here it is, transcribed:

1. Make a genuine effort to expand and refine instant replay
2. RETAIN BUD SELIG'S SERVICES EVEN IF IT MEANS UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT (DON'T F AROUND ON THIS ONE, PEOPLE)
3. Decide if we should have playoffs this year;
3.a. and if so, what it should look like.
4. Fix that damn division tie problem that might one day happen.
5. Euthanize Jorge Posada.
6. See Moneyball, Ides of March before the Oscars.

Two months til opening day. Plenty of time to knock off those last few chores.

Negotiators plan to talk again next week and decide by March 1 whether the 2012 playoffs will have eight or 10 teams.

I've been wanting to write a post about the different sports' postseason formats, and undoubtedly we'll be addressing the subject as baseball tinkers with theirs. Without going too deep into it, I'm going to throw the following thoughts out there:

A good playoff format must strike a balance between offering do-or-die excitement, while also keeping flukey, small-sample-size stuff somewhat in check. Ideally, it's the Caps, Pens, Sabres, Caps, Devils or Caps representing the East in the 2010 finals, not the Flyers/Canadiens. But at the same time, sometimes it's awesome when the Cardinals sneak in on the last day of the season, upset the Phillies and Brewers, and then come back from the brink to beat the Rangers. I'm not saying we, as fans, root for top seeds to meet up, nor do we always root for Cinderella stories. But we know it when a team has sneaked its way into a round it doesn't belong in, and we yawn about it (see: 2006 St. Louis Cardinals). So, my point here is that a good championship system is tricky and doesn't always work.

Baseball's format is the smallest of the big four, pro sports. Originally, the point was to win the most games and ignore the rival league. Then in 1903, Pittsburgh and Boston played each other in a cross-league contest to determine who was the best of the best. This was a best-of-nine World Series, so the head-to-head sample size was somewhat meaty (until it was subsequently reduced to the less meaty, best-of-seven). It wasn't until 1969 that a playoff format was introduced, and this was only four teams total. The league championship series to advance to the World Series was a meager best-of-five. 1994 saw one of the few decent innovations by our friend, Mr. Selig, and that was an expansion to an eight team playoff bracket; the first round being a best-of-five, the pennant round and World Series being best of seven. I think it's safe to say that everyone has pretty much approved of this format.

My only real complaint with it is that it starts too late. I love baseball so much that I have been legally married to it twice now, but even I think the season is too long. I don't like rain/snow mix on opening day and then again in the World Series. I'd like to see either more double headers, or fewer games, so that the World Series can be ending in the second week of October. I'll also add that when two teams are forced to play a one-game tie breaker for the right to be the wildcard seed because they have an identical record, that is tremendously exciting (it happened in the AL Central 2 years in a row, and was great). I don't like small sample sizes determining the fate of the really awesome teams, but I don't mind it occasionally affecting two teams that weren't good enough to win a playoff spot outright.

I keep talking about sample size, like there's a huge difference between a best-of-five and best-of-seven or -nine. Well, in baseball there kind of is. And that's due to the unique nature of the game, where individual players of great impact are off the field more often than they're on it. The pitcher is somewhat similar to the goalie or the quarterback in terms of being isolated from and elevated above the rest of the team; but goalies and QBs aren't played in rotation. A best-of-five series really only requires a team have two, stud pitchers, and maybe six to eight good innings from the bullpen. A best-of-seven series requires that a team not only have an ace or two, but also depth behind them. A best-of-nine series requires not only front line quality and depth, but also endurance (imagine how awesome it would be to see Verlander used in four or five games in different capacities, different situations, etc. (in the case of Verlander, specifically, he would actually be kept out of the game in four or five different capacities or situations, etc. JimLeyland etc.).

Okay, so that brings us up to now.

What the gents in the league office are considering, is taking my two complaints (long season, don't want too much small sample size) and making them worse. Instead of consolidating the season, they've decided that the best way to generate excitement for September games is to add an additional round of the playoffs. Potentially a best-of-one round for teams that are almost good enough to be the wild card seed.

Here's the thing though... it's not even middle of the road teams getting an extra chance to crash the big boy party. It's just another spin of the craps wheel for teams that were already good and already had a chance to decide their own destiny but came up short.

For example, if this system was in place last year, that SUPERB ending, where Tampa Bay defied all odds to steal Boston's playoff spot would have been irrelevant, because the 91-71 Rays still would have had to play the 90-72 Red Sox in a game where anything could have happened. All that improbable magic on one night would have been noise, because regardless of Longoria's heroics and Papelbon's meltdown, they'd be meeting up the following night on even ground as if they finished with the same record. (Devil's advocate: the less exciting, though equally important night in which the Cardinals stole the Braves' wildcard seed would have been replaced by a head-to-head matchup that would have had more fanfare than an Atlanta loss to the Phillies. Just saying.)

So that's what it is, or what it could be. From the people who brought you "and the home field advantage shall be decided by the league that wins the All Star game!" we have "oh, we can definitely do worse than the shootout. Give us a few months to reflect. It'll come."

Glad you're back, Bud.






(Twenty two days until pitchers & catchers.)

The Post-Gazette is showing its age

Gene Collier has apparently challenged Ron Cook to a wrong-off.

Oddly enough, the Rooneys have not solicited my suggestions on whom to talk with about replacing offensive coordinator Bruce Arians, likely because I was not in total agreement with his sudden "retirement."

Two Arians columns, two self-deprecating revelations that the Steelers haven't talked to Newspaper Columnist X about who they should hire as their new offensive coordinator. There are two problems with this alone. First, while the self-deprecation might be real, it is insincere. Both Ron Cook and Gene Collier think, either consciously or subconsciously, that their opinions should carry weight on this matter because they're columnists for a newspaper. They might be joking about the Steelers not asking for their opinion, but the only catch is that they're not at all joking. Second, the "nobody asked for my opinion but I'm going to give it anyway" is as weak a literary device as the one-sentence paragraphs both Collier and Cook are so fond of.

Oh, and it's good the Steelers haven't solicited your suggestions because you're wrong.

This won't be the first time I wasn't consulted on urgent policy matters, nor is it unprecedented for my opinions on a range of football issues to be pointedly ignored.

The more you talk about how unimportant you are, Mr. Collier, the less likely it appears to the rest of us that you actually believe it.

By random example, I've made it clear to various Rooneys throughout the years that I'd prefer the Steelers have cheerleaders, but they apparently feel I'd be better off spending the timeouts asking God's forgiveness for even the thought of objectifying young women, and/or praying to Saint Vincent, the patron saint of ball security.

You get it? Because the Steelers train at St. Vincent College! And when they train there, they...try not to fumble? This has all of the canned-cranberry-sauce-saccharine feel of a joke that's built for continuous re-use. BOLD PREDICTION: come August, this line will still not be funny.

Fair enough.

Our first one-sentence paragraph of the column! We should really start keeping track of how often the Two Gentlemen of the Boulevard use these.

But, today, I fear they seriously are overcomplicating the offensive coordinator search, particularly in a city where there is an offensive coordinator every 30 feet. In fact, when they announce the attendance at Heinz Field, I think they now say, "Today's attendance, 63,881 offensive coordinators."

Everyone thinks they're SOOOOO smart! Collier's exempt from this because he's merely pointing out how stupid this all is, which is his way of telling you he's yards smarter than everyone else who thinks they know something about football. Honestly, if you took 64,000 people at Heinz Field for a game, I'd be willing to bet that 4,000 of them could be more inventive playcallers than Arians. Of those 4,000, about 1,500 probably have a disturbingly technical knowledge of football that Gene Collier does not.

On a daily two-mile walk with my belligerent Airedale, I typically meet two to four offensive coordinators, which is how I know Jim Kreiger. Jim's standards for modern offensive football are so high that he calls talk shows to criticize Tom Brady.

Sports writers think people who call talk shows are sad, pathetic, blithering idiots. I have never in my life known an exception to this. For the most part, they're not wrong -- people who call talk shows to criticize Tom Brady sound like inherently sad, pathetic, blithering idiots.

"Hines Ward, you have to get rid of him," Jim said Tuesday. "I mean he was great. I loved watching him. A great Steeler. Great for the city, all that, but it's time to go."

Hey, Jim's actually dead on! I take it back.

"I'd also consider getting rid of Charlie Batch. He's gettin' up there."

I don't think you "get rid of" Charlie Batch, so much as you just bring him to camp, tell him you're going to cut him and allow him to retire a Steeler.

"Now this one, people will say I'm nuts, but I'd think about trading Ben [Roethlisberger]. He's 29, and I think he's just average, maybe a little better than average. I think you could get something for him."

I disagree with this, but not strongly. If the Steelers could have traded Roethlisberger two years ago during the draft, they should have. As it is now, I think they're probably stuck with him for the foreseeable future. That said, were the opportunity to come around for the Steelers to make an upgrade at quarterback, they should take it.

This is what I like about Jim. I was talking to him about the offensive coordinator's job, but he jumped right to vice president of pro personnel. Jim, what about the play-calling?

Yeah, Jim. Tell us about the play-calling.

"Too predictable," he said. "It's very obvious to me it's always run the ball, run the ball, throw the ball. They should mix it up a little. Other teams don't seem to do that."

If Jim can correctly identify 22-Double and when it's coming, he's going to get a guest column on FTC and we're going to take him out to a nice dinner.

This is about where it occurred to me that, if the Steelers were overcomplicating the search, perhaps I was guilty of oversimplifying it, and that just walking around the neighborhood did not necessarily meet the professional standard of due diligence.

By a quick show of hands, who thinks he's setting this up as a transition into something insightful, perhaps a well-reasoned opinion, maybe even the point of the column?

/silence

/crickets

/crickets go silent

Okay, who thinks that this paragraph is actually the gateway to another joke about how fans have stupid and ill-informed opinions?

/raises hand

/crickets explode

So I went to Giant Eagle.

If you're playing along with the FTC home game and you raised your hand, move yourself forward three spaces. If you knew he was going to deliver the joke with a one-sentence paragraph, give yourself a new two-year contract.

I knew there would be at least one strong candidate at the Camp Horne Road store, because that's where I saw the guy with the leather-sleeved 5 TIME SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS jacket that time, but this was after Super Bowl XLIII, so he had ripped off a three-inch square of duct tape, covered the big '5' on the back with it, and wrote '6' right on the duct tape.

Did he do that himself, or did he buy it on etsy?

That's the kind of attention to detail you need in an offensive coordinator.

Funny you mention that, because little patches of duct tape are what hold the Bruce Arians offense together.

I didn't find that guy, but, in the parking lot, I talked with Raymond Connolly, who gave a good presentation and had some football experience on his resume. High school, yeah, but around here, that's closer to pro than a lot of places.

"Anybody but [Arians]," Raymond said. "We've got to run the ball more. Get a fullback. Get back to basics. Quit giving Ben his way all the time. I've been watching for a long time. We've got to get back to some ball control. All that talent and no points."

It'd be nice to carry a real fullback, but I don't agree with experienced football mind Raymond Connolly. An indictment of Arians is not an indictment of the pass-based offense. That said, it's nice Gene Collier didn't have to look too hard to find exactly the quote he was looking for -- some yinzer who played WPIAL football, probably in the 70s, who longs for the days of Franco Bettis and a fullback with one eye who eats rocks and broken glass.

That's not exactly what Art Rooney II said last week, but it's not exactly not, either.

Eerie.

That's six one-sentence paragraphs so far, if you're scoring at home.

As the Steelers' search progresses, you might notice that only men are being considered. My own preliminary interviews were under no such arbitrary restriction.

"I like the way the offense has been going; I like the play-action and I like the passing, but I'd mix it up more," Jeanne told me from behind the lottery tickets at the gas station. "I think the mentality of this team and these fans is that we expect to win, but you can't run the same old thing all the time. You have to mix it up when your progressions aren't working."

Does anyone else feel like Gene Collier is mocking these people?
The sentiment here is totally dead-on. When some guy you meet while walking your dog, some guy you stop to talk to at the grocery store and the lady selling lottery tickets at the gas station all think that your play-calling is predictable, YOUR PLAYCALLING IS PREDICTABLE. But please, Gene Collier, continue to mock these people in the name of telling me why the Steelers should not have fired Uncle Genius Bruce Arians.

Progressions tended to break down for Arians, according to my candidates, specifically in the red zone.

"My motto would be," Jane Ubb told me at the Northland Public Library, "red zone equals end zone. If you get it to the red zone, you have to put in the end zone."

Forgot to ask her how soon she could start.

Maybe that's because you didn't tell her you were going to skewer her in a column, and instead just went up to her and asked for her opinion? I'm sorry, Geno, but for you not to look like an asshole here, you're going to have to convince me that all of these people mobbed you in public to force their opinions down your throat. I refuse to believe that's the case. Also, this woman at the library is the first person you've talked to who hasn't offered any real pointed analysis. Everyone else has had something to say that's been spot on. You haven't paid attention to that because you went into this with one goal, and that was to make people look stupid. You, meanwhile, have offered nothing in the way of solutions or ideas, and we're about three-quarters of the way through this thing. We're running out of space. Do you have anything to say, or are you going to just crack wise from on high?

But, in the interest of thoroughness, and so no one might accuse me of failing to conduct a nationwide search, I interviewed Billy Gardell, the Pittsburgh native now the co-star of the CBS sitcom "Mike and Molly."

/soulpalm

I started by mentioning that the person who succeeded Arians would need skin thicker than a pachyderm.

What are we up to? Is that nine? I've lost count.

"My skin's been that thick since I was 9," said Gardell via cell as he was pulled into work in Los Angeles. "Look, we've been going to the pass too quick. The first thing I'd do is start that [John] Clay at running back and pound him at them in the first quarter, like we used to do with [Jerome] Bettis. That will set up Ben's play-action and sets up our quick receivers because the safeties will have to come up.

"When we get the lead, I'd run it up like it was a college team and then I'd bring back the big back. Then, we don't have to spend the last six minutes wondering if we're gonna get the ball back in time to score."

Geno, if your point is that Pittsburgh fans like the old, two-back power run system, why can't you just say that? If you don't like that this is a fanbase resistant to change, why can't you just say that? If you think the game has changed to the point where the power run is obsolete, why can't you just say that? Why don't you just say whatever it is you're trying to say? All you're doing here is taking up space by trying to be cute. So far, the only positions you have clearly taken in this column have been that you didn't think Arians should have been let go, and that you think the locals are imbeciles. By my count, you've defended neither of those positions.

Sounds like five strong candidates to me. I assume any of 'em will work nights and weekends. No need to thank me.

When did these people you approached ever start pontificating about how they could do better than Arians? Since when is expressing a criticism of a football team the same thing as an assurance the critic could do just as well? This guy didn't call you and say "Man, listen to what I would do because I'm so much smarter than him." You called this guy and you asked him what he would do. You did that with all these people, only to flip it around and write it so that it looks like Steelers fans are claiming they're all way better options than Bruce Arians. Not only is that unfair, it's lazy and mean-spirited.
These folks who were just going about their business when you ambushed them -- none of them said outright that they were right for the job. The gist of their criticism was that they didn't think it was being done well, and that it could be done better.

Look, I do not happen to think I would make a particularly good offensive coordinator. But you know what job I'd be great at, Geno? Post-Gazette sports columnist. Since you're obviously not doing anything but collecting a paycheck, how about you take a buyout and make some room for someone -- anyone -- who has things to say.

Rejoice, for the offensive coordinator is dead

Ron Cook is back to his old tricks.
Seems like everyone is saying the Steelers need to spend more time and money on constructing a better offensive line. The team has invested $102 million in quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Doesn't it need to do a better job keeping him healthy?

Yes.

Well, here are two more questions:

I bet you ten Romney-minutes that neither of Ron's questions has anything to do with how to go about getting better offensive linemen.

Isn't it important to keep Roethlisberger happy?

Is this guy serious? This is a hilarious joke, right? 

If so, why are the Steelers on the verge of forcing offensive coordinator Bruce Arians to retire?

No! Wait! Too fast!

First of all, an emphatic NO, it's not important to keep the Ben happy, so before we elaborate any further on that, let's say it outright as a means to invalidate the second question.

If so, why are the Steelers on the verge of forcing offensive coordinator Bruce Arians to retire?

Moving on...

Whose job is it to keep Ben Roethlisberger happy? It's not the Steelers' job to keep Roethlisberger happy. That's actually his job, and to a certain degree, maybe it's his wife's job. That's it, that's the list. The Steelers do not work for Ben Roethlisberger. Ben Roethlisberger works for the Steelers. In the nicest of situations, Roethlisberger could, conceivably, elevate himself to a point at which he would work with the Steelers. Franchise players are often consulted on major personnel decisions, and rightfully so. But this is never going to happen with Ben for two reasons:

1. The Rooneys do not give a fuck what makes Ben happy.

1a. Nor should they.

2. Ben has given the Steelers no reason whatsoever to believe he deserves to be treated like an adult, let alone like someone on the level of athletes who've had input in picking their own coaches. LeBron gets that. Kobe gets that. Lemieux got that. Sidney Crosby gets that. Going two years without being accused of rape does not automatically elevate you into that company.

In fact, the very reason it was so important that Arians not be retained as the offensive coordinator is that his buddy-buddy relationship with Roethlisberger has been hurting the offense for five years. Arians has enabled Roethislberger, who when he plays poorly, does so because he's quite obviously winging it. He's undisciplined, he doesn't study film, and he doesn't know his hot routes. When he's healthy and does not perform well, that's why. This is not a referendum on the pass-first offense. This isn't even about play calling, though that's been piss-poor, also.

It makes no sense.

You're right, Ron. Nothing you write makes any goddamn sense. Honestly, your first reaction to the Steelers canning this failmachine is to ask what makes Roethlisberger happy? I'm going to finish writing this post, critique your opinions and so on and so forth, Ron, but holy shit, man, that's so depressing. Is that really the direction in which you want to take this? Is that really what concerns you? You know what would make Ben happy? If the offensive coordinator was four slutty 20-year-old girls, practice was optional on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and the cafeteria at the practice facility served nothing but Taco Bell and Cinnamon Toast Crunch.
That's you're so in the tank for this guy is really sad, Ron. It's sad, and it's infuriating to what Norman Mailer so arrogantly termed "my sense of intellectual pollution."

It hardly matters that I think it's a big mistake.

Yes, and we're glad for that. Fuck, man. Take the PG's buyout and see if Ben will hire you for his entourage. I don't think he has a biographer yet. Down the line, when he gets to work on that memoir, he's going to need someone with some journalistic integrity to lend some credence to his version of what really happened in the club that night.

What does Tomlin think? He's a Super Bowl-winning coach and he's being told he has to fire a coordinator who he wants? No one is arguing that Rooney isn't the boss. Make no mistake, he is. But is this a good thing to do your coach? To emasculate him even a little bit? It's not as if the Steelers have been dreadful for a long time, as they were when Rooney's father, Dan, forced Hall of Fame coach Chuck Noll to make staff changes. They went 12-4 this season before losing to the Broncos.

They were a shitty 12-4. We've discussed this.

Firing Arians now is just as wrong as it would have been after the 2009 season when there was media speculation he was out.

Ron is actually dead-on here, except for the part where he says that "Firing Arians now is just as wrong as it would have been after the 2009 season when there was media speculation he was out." Point, Cook.

The Steelers went 9-7 and missed the playoffs that year, although the offense wasn't nearly as much to blame as the defense, which blew five fourth-quarter leads, and the special teams, which allowed four kickoff returns for touchdowns. Roethlisberger went to management and Tomlin and argued to keep Arians. It's hard to say what impact he had, but Arians stayed. Good thing because the team made it to the Super Bowl in '10. In '08, it won Super Bowl XLIII with Arians calling the plays, including those on the late, 78-yard winning drive.

Just so we're clear, this is on the defense. This is on that monstrous front seven and the steady hand of Dick LeBeau.

You know that we're big on numbers here at FTC, and we'll get to those shortly. In late 2008, the Steelers were gearing up for another playoff run that looked like it wouldn' t go far. Ben played terribly all season long. He looked visibly confused and unprepared the entire year. And as they were gearing up for that playoff run, I had a conversation with FTC Tweetster/Writer Emeritus Dan Richey, the gist of which was this:

Matt: Well, you have to figure the plus side of this is that they're going to have to get rid of Bruce Arians.
Dan: You'd think that's the case, right? 

Matt: Yeah, unless...
Dan: Unless what?

Matt: What if they win the Super Bowl? They can't fire him if they win the Super Bowl.

Dan: Don't be ridiculous. They're not going to win the Super Bowl.
Matt: You're probably right. But wouldn't that be tragic in a sense? They'd have to keep him.

Here are the Steelers' offensive rankings (by points scored) up against their defensive rankings (by points, yards allowed) during the Tomlin era.

2011: O - 21; D - 1, 1

2010: O - 12; D - 1, 2

2009: O - 12; D - t12, t-5

2008: O - 20; D - 1, 1

2007: O - 9; D - 1, 2

[stats courtesy of DanRichey.geocities.com]

The Steelers have ranked No. 1 in the NFL in either points, yards or both in four of the last five years. The one time they weren't, the offense was ranked 12th in points scored and the team went 9-7. That was the year the offense "carried" the team, but even then the Steelers still had the league's fifth-best defense by yards.
It's nice to think Rooney will realize he's making a mistake and change his mind before the official Arians retirement announcement is made.
There's no doubt Roethlisberger will fight for Arians again, if he hasn't done so already. Last year, he said of Arians: "He gets way, way too much blame and criticism. It's kind of unfortunate because he's so good. If you ask the players, we know." Only days before a playoff loss Jan. 8 in Denver, he said of Arians and the offense: "We've got something special here. We've got a lot of great young players. As long as they don't get crazy and change the offense -- that can really set you back -- the sky is the limit for this team."
That last part is actually correct -- this team has unbelievable talent. Imagine what it would look like if it was disciplined enough to do things like run timing patterns or learn more than two running plays. What if these guys, instead of playing backyard football, were run with the professionalism and complexity of a professional football organization? This team could be amazing. This team could blow Green Bay out of the fucking water. But that hasn't happened because practice is too much work, and it's not a part of the Arians offense. Of course the players love him -- he doesn't make them actually do anything. How's that worked style worked out for the similarly dumb Wade Phillips in his head coaching stints? Hint: terribly.
"If I tell him I hate a play, he won't call it," Roethlisberger said. "He doesn't have an ego that way. He doesn't ever say, 'We're going to do it my way.' It's the same way with the receivers...he has enough faith in his players to do that. He's a players' guy."

Does this strike anyone else as the worst kind of appeasement? Ben hated Bill Cowher because Cowher made him work hard. Tomlin's not going to do that because Tomlin delegates a great deal more authority than Cowher did. But so far, nobody's held Ben's feet to the fire or forced him to do anything he didn't want to do. Ben Roethlisberger does not deserve to have that kind of authority.
"He brings consistency," Batch said. "You don't want to change that right now when Ben is actually entering into the prime of his career. I don't see why you would want to change."
Really.
Why would you want to change?
There's a reason we've had a "fire bruce arians" tag in the lexicon for some years now, but just in case you need a quick refreshment:

The Bruce Arians Play-Caller 9000 just turned two years old. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most of you have never watched a Steelers game with it on-hand. Well, we have, and it's disturbing how accurate it is. For that matter, Dan is just as good at telling you exactly what the Steelers are going to run in any given situation. 

Point is, we're a bunch of idiots with a blog in somebody's mom's basement, and we figured this out two years ago. Do you really think defensive coordinators don't recognize this stuff? It's a testament to the greatness of the talent that the Steelers have done as well as they have, but sweet Christ-on-a-stick, it's been frustrating to watch. Nobody can honestly tell me they want it to stay this way, or that the Steelers can't do better. Good riddance; can't believe it's taken this long.

Eulogy for JoePa

Dispelling rumors about the death of Joe Paterno

We'd just like to dispel what we feel will become a few rumors and sentiments about the death of Joe Paterno.

• The Penn State University Board of Trustees did not kill Joe Paterno.
• The Penn State University Board of Trustees did not give Joe Paterno lung cancer. 
• Joe Paterno died of a medical condition, lung cancer, that was not at all related to football or his firing.
• Joe Paterno did not die of a broken heart.
• Joe Paterno did not die because he was no longer coaching football.
• The Penn State University Board of Trustees did not kill Joe Paterno. This bears repeating.
• At the time of his death, Joe Paterno was undergoing treatment for said ailment that also was not related to football or his firing.
• Joe Paterno's medical condition and treatment for said condition would have led to his death, regardless of his standing with the university or its football program.
• Had he not been fired by Penn State a few months ago, Joe Paterno would not have coached next season. He would not have been alive enough to do so.
• Once more:  The Penn State University Board of Trustees did not kill Joe Paterno.

How this almost a headline

Don't stress: The Pens should be fine

The Pens have lost six games in a row and have fallen to 9th place in the Eastern Conference playoff race. Fans and media are wondering if the wheels have fallen off, and some sports show callers are even calling for Dan Bylsma's head. I'm here to tell everyone to take a deep breath. It's a losing streak. They happen. The Capitals lost 8 games in a row last season and still managed to finish 1st in the conference with 107 points. The 2008-2009 edition of the Pens slumped well into February, and that season ended with them hoisting the Cup. Here's why we shouldn't worry just yet:

1) The Pens are still out-shooting their opponents. In fact, the Pens have out-shot their opponents for the last six games, all losses. Goals are determined by two things: how many shots you take, and your shooting percentage. Team shooting percentage is pretty fluky. A team can have a good percentage one year and a bad percentage the next. I suspect it may be due to chance more than anything else. The Pens are still getting a lot of shots on goal, and that's important. Their team shooting percentage is 8.5% for the year. During the streak? An unreasonably low 3.1%. The Pens have run into bad luck and hot goaltending. Henrik Lundqvist stopped 37/38, and Martin Brodeur stopped 41/42. Eventually, the shots will go in.

2) When you account for empty net goals, three of the losses were 1 goal losses. These are close games against good (and hot) teams. The Pens are just losing them. They'll even out in the end.

Things to consider:

1) Injuries. Obviously we miss Sid and Jordan Staal. We really miss Kris Letang. He was playing some great hockey before suffering a concussion. The folks at www.hockey-reference.com can estimate how many points a player contributes to his team in the standings. Letang is 2nd among NHL defensemen in Point Shares per/game, right behind Shea Weber. He's an extremely valuable player.

2) It may be time to split up the Neal-Malkin-Kunitz line. With 2 of our top 3 centers out of action for a while, it might be better to spread out the scoring talent. Teams are sending out their top D pairing and top defensive forwards against the Malkin line. We need the other lines to be more of a threat. Look for Tyler Kennedy to start scoring more goals. I'd like to see him with Malkin and Neal, but I'll leave the lines up to Bylsma.

Bottom line: Things haven't gone well lately, but that's not because the Pens are a bad team. Things will start turning around, and hopefully, the injured guys will be back soon.

A few more thoughts on the Broncos game

Franco did an excellent job of summing up what went wrong on Sunday and, by extension, the rest of the season. Though I didn't make a prediction on here (we should really start doing that), I told Nils, Dan and Franco in the week leading up to the game that I thought the Steelers were going to lose. If that game had been a regular season game and not a playoff game, it would have had "TRAP" written all over it. A few quick observations:

• The Steelers' offense was erratic all year long. None of the teams they beat up on during the regular season were particularly good, and while the home win over New England was impressive, the Pats' defense was so atrocious that the Steelers should have scored significantly more points than it did. Given how LeBeau's boys showed up that day, the Steelers should have blown out New England.

• The best game all-around game this team played all year came against the Bengals. There were a lot of similarities between Pittsburgh and Cincy this year. Cincy's offensive coordinator, Jay Gruden, did a really great job of crafting game plans that catered to the strengths of his personnel -- power running attack, fast and talented receivers, a competent rookie quarterback, etc. Cincy's offensive line, though, was miles better than Pittsburgh's, and I think if there had been a Jay Gruden running the Steelers' offense -- or really anyone willing to work with the players they have rather than trying to make the players they have fit into a particular type of scheme -- this would have been a much more dangerous team. This all goes back to the severely unhealthy, enabling relationship between Ben Roethlisberger and Bruce Arians, and we've really beaten that topic to death here. To Ron Cook's credit (twice in one week! Ridiculous, no?) he wrote a great piece on this last week before the game.

• Franco posited the following with regard to the Steelers' defensive approach against Denver:

1. Because using safeties closer to the line is more effective against stopping the run, and we were afraid we couldn't stop the run. 

2. Because Ryan Mundy is slow and big, and therefore better as a run stopper than as a cover guy. Would Ryan Clark have allowed for more Cover 1? I don't know. Certainly Mundy played a good game with what he was given, and I don't think Clark would have had any more impact plays than Mundy, but there exists the possibility that we would have been looser with the safeties.

• I don't think the Steelers were afraid they couldn't stop the run. The Steelers stacked the box against Denver because Denver's offense is a run-first unit and, until Sunday, couldn't throw to save its life. With the truly great seasons Ike Taylor and William Gay had, I don't blame Dick LeBeau for thinking that those guys could stick with Demaryius Thomas and Eric Decker in man coverage all game. Both cornerbacks were great this year. And while the Broncos had won with Tebow, they'd yet to beat anybody with the passing game. So the idea of selling out to stop the run and daring Tebow to beat you with his arm made sense before that game -- especially given how piss poor Tebow looked during most of the season.

• FTC was prominently involved in Maurkice Pouncey's little Twitter blowup after the game. It's curious how big that story has become given that Pouncey didn't actually play in the game. Meanwhile, Ike Taylor, who did play in the game and turned out what's probably one of the worst performances of his career, sat at his locker with his head down and didn't talk to the media afterwords. I don't blame him. In fact, I really feel for the guy. The 2011 season was probably the best or second-best of his career, and that was a horrible way for it to end. This afternoon, he went on TribLive Radio for his weekly scheduled appearance, and talked about it. I don't blame Ike for not talking after the game. In fact, it was probably smart of him not to. He took a few days, decompressed, and today, spoke with great candor, sincerity and eloquence on just how painful the loss was, even saying that it hurt more than last year's Super Bowl loss to Green Bay. Ike's going to be fine. While Maurkice Pouncey was being an asshole to people on Twitter, Ike was stewing in his own failure. This is where I disagree with Ron Cook about the column referenced in the post below. Some of these guys do think of all this as a business-first thing. But Ike's immediate reaction and subsequent comments earlier today only reinforce the idea that he's someone who gives a lot of himself to his work, and that he's genuinely invested, not only professionally, but personally, in how he does. This guy cares.

• The Steelers are, like, $22 million over the cap going into next year, and a lot of guys won't be back. If I had to guess now, I'd say that list includes Chris Kemoeatu, Larry Foote, Bryant McFadden, Will Allen, Daniel Sepulveda, William Gay and Max Starks. James Farrior, Aaron Smith and Hines Ward should retire. I believe Smith will, but if either of the other two decide to play next year, I can't see it being for Pittsburgh. It won't shock me if any of the following guys are also gone next year: Colon, Keisel, Hoke, Hampton, David Johnson. Suisham and Dennis Dixon will definitely not be back.

Credit where it's due

Ron Cook, who I slammed in this space last week, was one of a slew of local sports writers who jumped all over Maurkice Pouncey's Twitter blowup following the Steelers' loss to Denver last weekend. I won't repost the entire thing here, but it's definitely worth a read.

Someone please explain to Maurkice Pouncey how the Internet works

And FTC's resident in-game tweeter didn't do him any favors. 

FTC: whoa, what the hell is up with @probowler53 and @mgilbert76shilling for some hack rapper like mere moments after a humiliating loss?

Pouncey: @FreeTankCarter unfollow me then loser!!

FTC: @Probowler53 i'm a huge fan of both you and gilbert and it makes you look like a fucking idiot to call your own fans losers and haters ...

FTC: @Probowler53 just because they don't want to hear about your bullshit rapper buddy after your boys went out and played like total bitches

FTC: @FreeTankCarter I'm done talkin to losers!

Other Pouncey gems from the evening include:

@Rick_D00Va your a loser Rick! Get a life I hate people like u! Dont talk about my life dumb fuck!
@JRitzMoney lmao u have 17 followers u wish u had my life!!
@Rick_D00Va why would I be mad I'm rich play for the steelers and have a awesome life!! Are u mad loser
@steelcitykid18 lol that's haters if u can't see that! I'm cool lose respect for me!!
@stevegiglio I will idiot!! You enjoy your lame life!!
@scottalanlong dude u have 6 followers no one cares what u have to say!! Can u not see that!!

Points to consider

1. It's okay to admit we were wrong

Coming into this game we knew it was going to be uncomfortably close, but we were sure it was impossible Denver could win. Well, we were wrong about that. Tim Tebow made throws that we were sure were impossible for him to make. Tip your cap, don't read too much into it. Their offense had a terrific day.

2. Our ouster was about a week ahead of schedule

We were the shittiest 12-4 team you'll see. Yes, we had a tremendous yard differential, and that combined with the record looked good on paper. But c'mon. If you've been watching all year, we were frustratingly bad.

Week 1: we got the shit kicked out of us by the Ravens.
Week 2: we beat up on a crummy Seahawks team led by Tarvaris Jackson.
Week 3: we almost lost to the worst team in the league, the Colts.
Week 4: we lost to the Texans.
Week 5: we won in convincing fashion against a hobbled Titans team.
Week 6: we almost lost to the Jaguars.
Week 7: we beat the Cardinals.
Week 8: we beat the Pats, hanging on at the end.
Week 9: we tried hanging on against the Ravens and failed.
Week 10: we narrowly beat the Bengals.
Week 11: bye.
Week 12: we very narrowly beat the Chiefs.
Week 13: we kicked the crap out of the Bengals.
Week 14: we very narrowly beat the Browns.
Week 15: we got the crap kicked out of by the 49ers.
Week 16: we kicked the crap out of the Rams.
Week 17: we narrowly beat the Seneca Wallace led Browns.

That's 7 games with playoff teams. We went 3-4 in those games.

That's 9 games with shit teams. We went 9-0 in them, but only won 3 of them comfortably.

So we're looking at 4 losses and 6 ugly wins on the season. Losing ugly to the Broncos isn't an aberration. If anything, it's a fitting way to go. And if it hadn't been the Broncos, it would have been the Pats next week.


3. Our defense got beat, but they aren't what's wrong with us as a team

If you're interested in how specifically we got beat, let me tell you.

We opted to run a lot of plays from a Cover 1 or Cover 0 shell, which only provides the minimum safety protection against the pass. If a wide receiver beats one of our defensive backs, there's nothing to be done about it in Cover 0. We were running this defense for two reasons, near as I can figure:
1. Because using safeties closer to the line is more effective against stopping the run, and we were afraid we couldn't stop the run.
2. Because Ryan Mundy is slow and big, and therefore better as a run stopper than as a cover guy. Would Ryan Clark have allowed for more Cover 1? I don't know. Certainly Mundy played a good game with what he was given, and I don't think Clark would have had any more impact plays than Mundy, but there exists the possibility that we would have been looser with the safeties.

Our defense was atypical for us, in that we didn't play bend-don't-break. We sold out to stop the run by both bringing in the safeties, and by keeping a 3-man line on the field for most of the game. Rarely were we able to get into the exotic blitz packages, and that was because Denver kept us honest with their short yardage game.

Could we use help in the secondary? Yes. The answer has always been yes. We do not have an heir apparent for Troy. This is nothing new. Ike Taylor is quite capable, and William Gay has made serious strides this year. But we weren't as good as our #1 ranking for pass defense indicated; it was simply a result of a weak schedule.

4. Forget about the defense, we need a face-lift on offense

Bruce Arians and Ben Roethlisberger are enabling idiots. Throw in Ron Cook, and you have a circle jerk that can get sacked out of field goal range with the best of 'em.

"He's a first-ballot Hall of Famer in my mind," Arians said of Roethlisberger. "He's won two Super Bowls and been to a third. He's not done with Super Bowls, I believe. Even if he stopped right now, he'd be a first-ballot guy."

That's cute. Let's get cuter.

"Seriously, it means a lot coming from a guy like that," Roethlisberger said. "He's coached some of the best. He coached Peyton Manning. It's awesome to hear even if it is premature."

Arians coached Manning for two seasons (followed that up by coaching the powerhouse Cleveland Browns to some terrible offensive rankings). Manning had a passer rating of 80.6 and the team went 16-16 in the time Arians was there. You might be saying "But Franco, those were just Manning's first two years in the league, and besides team record can't be blamed on the QB coach!" Sure. I'll give you that. But give me this: Bruce Arians' association with Peyton Manning bears the absolute minimum of greatness. His comparison of Ben with first-ballot hall of famers is further proof that the man has no concept of what a high end offensive player should look like.

The man gets no argument here.

Thanks for backing me up, Ron Cook.

Oh, wait. You were referring to something Arians said about Ben being great, weren't you? Never mind.

Ronny boy concludes that Ben is too awesome and loves Arians too much for the Steelers to get a new offensive coordinator. I conclude that BA waxes Ben's ass and doesn't hold him accountable, and Ben's afraid that if we get someone new in there, he'll be asked to do his homework week-in, week-out.

That is precisely what we need.

This isn't the 1970s, where a QB can call his own plays at the line. If you watch the Saints or the Packers play, you will see a new level of offensive mastery that would blow us out of the water. I'm not saying we have to copy their playbooks (in fact, I'd say we shouldn't just copy their playbooks if we don't understand the plays, see: fullhouse backfield, run for no yards play). I'm saying we have to match their level of precision and discipline. Ben chaffed a little under Whisenhunt because he wasn't allowed to throw the ball as much. But that was the thing, when Ben did throw, he was brilliant because it was very well designed. There is nothing designed about this current offense. It's just two idiots who are making it up on the fly. Don't believe me? Here:

"As I get stale as a play-caller, I like to turn it over to No. 7. We have a wager on who gets to the end zone first."

Know who doesn't get stale as a playcaller? A good offensive coordinator!

Here's what I'm specifically calling for:
1. A new offensive coordinator who will hold Ben accountable.
2. An offense that gets its mojo from short timing routes that crisscross over the middle.
3. Screens to the running backs.
4. Designed QB rollouts, where Ben is given permission to jog and slide for yards if his options are all dead (flopping into the fetal position will be missed).
5. Better time management on offense.
6. Better understanding of the spots on the field where sacks aren't an option (i.e. FG range).
7. A running game that finds its mojo on short yardage situations, and doesn't just run on first down.

There's more, but those are good places to start.

Seriously folks, if you're at all interested in the Steelers being a top-shelf competitor, and not just a winning-record, early-exit playoff team, then you should be getting on board with this. Our offense is below average garbage, and as long as it's run by the best friends club, nothing is going to change.


5. Go Steelers!

It was a frustrating year, but still a fun one. I love watching the games with all of you, and I'm counting down until we can do it again next year.

Let's go ice skating!

What's the resale value on my BBVA Compass Bowl tickets?

Friday with FRANCO: wildcard edition

Everyone is talking about Tim Tebow. Some people are talking about Tebow overshadowing the defense. I'm here to actually tell you about the Denver defense, because that is the only significant thing with which the Steelers will have to contend.

This is Elvis Dumervil sacking the shit out of Tom Brady.



It is easily my favorite play of the year, because of the rarity of it. Tom Brady isn't supposed to be taken off his feet and drilled into the ground. At least that's been the wisdom for some time now, and it is true: his line is excellent at picking up the pass rush.

So what happened?

Denver sets up with a three down-linemen. Two of them are fatties, and the one off to the right is Elvis Dumervil, this LB/DE hybrid. Dumervil is only 5'11 and all of his weight is in his lower body; he uses his size much the way James Harrison and Dwight Freeney do, taking on the much larger offensive linemen at a low center of gravity where he has the advantage.

In this play, Dumervil is aided by a linebacker and a defensive back.

The guy who starts off at the bottom of the screen is #58 Von Miller. He is a rookie and he is unbelievably good at his job. As a LB in a traditional 4-3 defense, Miller wouldn't be asked to pass rush as much as he does; but Denver's nickel and dime packages look more like a 3-4 attack, and so he gets plenty of opportunities to come out of coverage.

If you notice the guy lined up outside Dumervil, across from the slot receiver, that's Quinton Carter, another rookie. He's in as the dime back on this play, but Denver gives him the blitz call. This is just enough to catch the eye of New England's right tackle, who picks him up leaves Dumervil free.

With both Dumervil and Miller penetrating, New England can only pick up one of them; in this case it's Miller who gets blocked and Dumervil who gets the sack. Combined, these two have a cool 20 sacks on the year, which is 2 more than our tandem of Harrison and Woodley.

I don't know that this particular play is characteristic of Denver's defense, but as I said, they are a 4-3 team that isn't afraid to go to an unbalance 3-man front in their sub packages. The trick to beating that is to keep help in the backfield. We've been using Heath (too much) as a pass blocker lately, and we'll definitely need Redman to get into the act as the sidecar. I have serious doubts about Denver's big men, and if they're going to leave a hole in the line like they do here (note the giant gap between Dumervil and the NT), then I run the draw out of the shotgun.

In all frankness, I think there's cause for some concern. Ben is a big meathead with a gimpy leg. Max Starks is capable as a "push-and-apologize" blocker, but Von Miller requires more of a "good" blocker to really shut him down. Legursky is fine as fake Mike Pouncey, but that's when he's playing next to real Maurkice Pouncey. Real Maurkice Pouncey is effectively dead this Sunday. I don't even know who is on the right side of the line, but I'm rooting for them to put in Hines Ward at RG as the first milestone tribute of 2012.

Look their pass rush can be sweet. Our line and our QB are icky. We're going to have to be smart, which isn't our forte, though it is possible.

What else is going on in Bronco land?

Brian Dawkins and Champ Bailey are both drawing on social security. Ron Paul will put a stop to that.

The running game is anchored by 30 year old Willis McGahee. This happened the last time Willis McGahee played us in the playoffs.



We all know what happened the last time Ryan Clark played in Denver.

Man, head hits and sickle cell disorders are terrible!

There's not too much more to the Broncos. They pass rush very well, and that creates pressure situations which create the potential for turnovers. If we don't take care of the ball we give them a chance to win. If we take care of our business on offense, it's extraordinarily unlikely that Denver's offense can beat us.

My guess is that we'll see a pretty shitty game, with a lot of incompletes. Ben will shake his head in disbelief a lot, Tebow will keep his chin up because he's a moron. That will be your football afternoon.

the Marlins aren't going to be that good anyway

As reported by the folks over at Big League Stew, Mark Buehrle can't bring his pitbull into Miami, because Miami is fucking dumb.

The editorial board of FTC isn't just deeply concerned about Florida sports (all Florida sports), we are also fans of adorable pitbulls in general, and the two adorably fat man-eaters we sometimes dogsit in particular.

This one is dedicated to you, Luke & Rosie. Go sick those redneck lawmakers... with kisses!

FRANCO did a blue collar photoshop job

Right?


Doesn't get much more blue collar than Greg Warren.

Not!

That's why, when I found this photo gallery of top jersey sellers, I had to stand up for our most blue-collar, lunch-pail, hard-hat, hard-nose, working-class, no-name, pro-union, coal-mining, specifically-non-marquee player.











Alright, so I didn't do the cleanest photoshop job, pasting Troy's image into this frame. But being blue collar isn't about being clean.


Being blue collar is about working near minimum wages in total obscurity, like Troy and Sean Casey do.


Here's to them -- the saltiest of the Earthiest!

The Washington Post fantasizes about the Washington Post having sex with the Washington Post

Because having two knuckleheads throw together a completely meaningless, nonsensical list simply for the sake of doing it wasn't enough, here comes the good old Wall Street Post to try and justify why what is in is in, and why what is out is out.


And because the newspaper business is thriving and the Post has money to burn, instead of having the geniuses who wrote the list write their explanations of the list, they've brought on a third person, in this case, self-proclaimed Pittsburgh native and FTC-proclaimed turncoat Maura Judkis to interview them about why Pittsburgh is It and Portland is Not It. Is there a greater declaration of self-importance than having one of your writers interview two of your other writers for a story to appear in your own publication?


This year’s List has spoken, and writers Dan Zak and Monica Hesse have laid their anointed hands upon my hometown for 2012. Pittsburgh, Pa., is cool now. Sorry, Portland hipsters!

I can't emphasize enough how uncomfortable I am with the Washington Post, in general, and these two know-nothing reporters, specifically, being the arbiters of cool. A casual Googling of these two reveals some telling information. Dan Zak was born and raised in Buffalo. Buffalo is like Cleveland if it were perpetually buried under eight feet of snow. Buffalo sucks. Monica Hesse is obviously lying about her age to someone, and writes the kind of trash typically reserved for the Friday edition of a college newspaper. Think about someone whose idea of what it means to be a writer is completely defined by their unwavering obsession with "Sex and the City" -- a little vapid girl's feckless fantasy about what being a writer is actually like, disconnected from anything in reality, then multiply that times fucking infinity. That's Monica Hesse.

Portland, Ore., is the land of microbreweries, indie bands, bicyclists and rose gardens. 

True! No other city has those things! Not San Diego or San Francisco or Denver or Minneapolis or Seattle or Chicago or Milwaukee or Boston or...you get the point.

Pittsburgh is often reviled by outsiders for its abrasive-sounding accent and rabid football fans.

Everyone hates a winner. Except Green Bay. It's impossible to hate Green Bay. It's also impossible to hate Milwaukee.

Portland has Portlandia, the hit comedy sketch show, while Pittsburgh just subs in as other cities in movies.

Because who would ever set a movie in Pittsburgh? And a TV show? Please.

Why did Listmakers Hesse and Zak bestow their blessings upon the latter?

“Portland has overextended its welcome as the destination for hipsters who want to find themselves, while frolicking in beautiful scenery and reasonable rents,” says Hesse.

Totally agree. Hipsters love frolicking in reasonable rents.

Matt: Hey, Monica. Would you like an extra preposition for this sentence?

Monica: No, I'm good.

Matt: You sure? I think you might really need one.

Monica: Look, Matt. I'm 28. I'm an adult woman. I don't need a man giving me prepositions or correcting dangling modifiers.

Matt: I'm just saying, you know, that copy desk, when they get a hold of this, are going to laugh at you real, real hard if, you know, they're doing their jobs at all. Because this is obviously a prepared quote and you're trying to be funny, but...

Monica: I'M 26 YEARS OLD GODDAMMIT!

Has Portland overextended its welcome? No. Portland is fine. They have free public transportation, for fucks sake. It's the hipsters who have overextended their welcome. Not Portland. The way Monica says it, Portland has overextended its welcome as a destination for hipsters, making it sound as though Portland has done something wrong. Shouldn't we be more concerned with the hipsters? Have they not overextended their welcome? This is very simple. If Portland and hipsters have to part ways, I'm fine with that. If the hipsters have to choose somewhere new to go because Portland is "so over," then that's fine. But under no terms am I okay with Pittsburgh being thought of as the new Portland, being called the new Portland or, worst, becoming the new Portland. 

Portland is a great place for hipsters because it keeps them tucked away in a secure corner of the west coast, away from our town. The nearest hipster colony to here is in Brooklyn, and even that's six-plus hours by car. Pittsburgh is the greatest city in the world just the way it is. There's great balance here between the old and the new, the progressive and the moronically reserved. For every drunken yinzer who calls sports talk show to ask about Hines Ward, there's someone making stunningly beautiful art. For every Mayor Dudeface, there's a Bill Peduto. For every pothole, there's a street whose name is clearly marked in blue and white. For everything vaguely negative, change-resistant, or cloaked in mindless deference to the way things used to be, there's something positive, forward-thinking and hopeful. These forces fight little battles all the time, and if either of them won out, the balance responsible for making Pittsburgh so great would be ruined. This is why we have so much vacant riverfront space, but that's okay.

“Pittsburgh is reasonable-rents, nice scenery, nice downtown, and the people are, in general, just far less insufferable.”

The authors of Free Tank Carter would like to cordially invite Monica Hesse to go have sexual intercourse with herself and die of car accident cancer. "Far less insufferable"? You can't say that we're nice or that we're friendly? We're actually both. As a native Pittsburgher, one of my favorite things is encountering people who are visiting from out-of-town. Baseball, football and hockey fans who make the trip to Pittsburgh to see their teams play are always fun to encounter. I'm always curious to hear what they think of the park/stadium/arena, the the town and the people. How's their experience been so far? What have they seen? Have they tried the local brews? I'll tell them that Primanti's is overrated, but Pamela's is worth the wait. I'll send them to Kelly's and the Round Corner Cantina, and recommend they take a morning stroll through the Strip District or spend a few hours in those two culture-packed blocks of Oakland between Carnegie Library and Craig Street. I've engaged in these conversations even with Mets and Patriots fans. I know I'm not the only person who does this. We're a very welcoming people, and we love it when you come to town and enjoy what we have to offer.

Less insufferable? Have you seen how people in your area drive? Have you read your own writing? Fuck you.

As a born-and-raised Pittsburgher, I’ll go a step further. Portland, with its elaborate facial hair and abundance of strip clubs, represents irony. Pittsburgh, with its working-class pragmatism, is the opposite: earnest and straightforward. It’s a place where people drink cheap beer and wave their Terrible Towels without self-consciousness. Hipsters take faux working-class attributes —brusque beards, Pabst Blue Ribbon and occupations such as butchery — and integrate them into their lives with an ironic wink and a superiority complex. In Pittsburgh, you can find all of the above, only without the derision and affectation.

First of all, irony is dead. Generation Y has killed it. Our grandparents saved the world from the Nazis, our parents ruined the world with overuse, and our generation's lone contribution has been to kill the abstract concept of irony. That said, I agree with Judkis' point about Pittsburgh, but it's not as though we're totally without affectation. I'm just sick and fucking tired of hearing how "blue-collar" and "working-class" a town this is. Don't you have to have blue-collar jobs to be a blue-collar town? Our jobs are all in health care, sustainability and natural gas. That's it, that's the list. When was the last time you saw a mill worker walking around? We're not a blue-collar town anymore. We're a white-collar town, we just don't have any money.

What's often said about New York or Los Angeles is that they're not places, they're "states of mind" or "non-places." They're ideas; modes of thought. One of the things that makes Pittsburgh so great is that it's simultaneously very real (as in a drive past the Heinz Field parking lot at 8 a.m. on game day to see people already outside grilling and drinking in the snow, and what that says about us) and very ethereal (as in the Pittsburgh of Michael Chabon's stories, Annie Dillard's memoir and August Wilson's plays, and what they say about us).

Look, I love it when Pittsburgh gets good PR, and I'm glad the esteemed Washington Post thinks we're so great. But the Portland comparison makes me nervous. Please, by all means, come and visit. Avail yourself of what we have to offer. Unless you're looking to establish New Portlandia here or your name is Monica Hesse, we're glad to have you. But please, respect the balance. This is not Portland. If you make it Portland, I will kill you.