PDA

View Full Version : Holmes cost Steelers dearly in loss to Giants


lamberts-lost-tooth
10-28-2008, 06:16 AM
Holmes cost Steelers dearly in loss to Giants
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
By Ron Cook, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


To no one's surprise, Steelers coach Mike Tomlin did not invite guests for his meeting with wide receiver Santonio Holmes yesterday. So we are left to speculate: The sit-down did not go well for Holmes. Tomlin did almost all of the talking. Holmes quickly learned how stupid and selfish he was for being charged Thursday for possession of a small amount of marijuana. He found out how much he let his teammates down by not being available for the 21-14 loss Sunday to the New York Giants after being deactivated for the game by an angry Tomlin. And he probably left the room significantly poorer after being fined by Tomlin for idiocy, if no other reason.

Really, how could that man to man have gone any other way?

There was another meeting at the Steelers' South Side headquarters a little later in the day, a team meeting. Again, Tomlin didn't allow visitors. Again, we are forced to speculate:

"All right, men, before we get started, Santonio has something he wants to say to all of you ..."

"I'd just like to say I'm sorry for not being there for you guys yesterday. You all played your guts out and I wasn't there to help. You depend on me to be a big part of this football team. I blew it. That loss is on me. It won't happen again."

Really, how could that meeting have gone any other way?

It would have been nice if Holmes had chosen to apologize publicly. You know, in person. People love apologies and are quick to forgive because they know how easy it is to make a mistake, even a dumb one. But Holmes and the Steelers took the easy way out, issuing a lame statement that was supposed to serve as his apology. The words -- if they were indeed Holmes' and not those of some staffer in the public relations office -- don't have the same impact on paper that they do coming from a man's heart. It's just too hard to measure sincerity on paper.

But it's no wonder that Holmes and the Steelers want this issue to go away as quickly as possible. This easily was the low point of their season because the incident was so unnecessary. It's not so much that Holmes' offense was so dastardly. Getting caught with three marijuana-filled cigars isn't the worst crime known to mankind, although having the blunts in your SUV is off the dumb charts when you know you can be stopped by police at any time for any reason from a faulty tail light to speeding or running a red light to, in Holmes' case, an investigatory stop of vehicles similar to his that allegedly were involved in the transportation of narcotics.

"Just his bad luck," a Pittsburgh police commander said of Holmes' arrest.

Just his stupidity, actually.

What's sad is the hurtful impact the incident had on the Steelers. It crushed their chances of beating the Giants. It's hard for any team to beat the defending Super Bowl champs without one of its best players. I'm not sure Holmes' absence wasn't the No. 1 reason the Steelers lost.

People were quick to blame quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, which is fine. He's paid big money to take responsibility for the losses and he did not have one of his better games, throwing four interceptions. They also blamed the offensive line, which isn't so fine. Those guys played a decent game, certainly good enough to win. Most of the five sacks of Roethlisberger weren't their fault. The sacks happened because the receivers weren't getting open.

Holmes would have made a huge difference.

How could one of the NFL's top deep-threat, big-play receivers not make a difference?

Holmes should have sought out Roethlisberger and each of the offensive linemen yesterday to apologize individually.

It's nice to think the Steelers will have Holmes for their game Monday night at Washington. Tomlin wasn't available for comment yesterday, what with all of his meetings, but the guess here is he's satisfied that Holmes has paid his debt to the team. But the NFL? That might be a different story. The league didn't comment about Holmes' situation yesterday, but it seems possible he still could get a suspension for violating its drug policy or code of conduct.

"I recognize that I made a mistake and understand the significance of my actions," read the statement attributed to Holmes.

That's a good thing, I'm thinking.

Maybe it really won't happen again.

"[I] will not make any excuses for my behavior," Holmes allegedly wrote.

That's a better thing.

There is no good excuse for it.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08302/923385-87.stm

PolamaluPower
10-28-2008, 06:22 AM
I think the reason he said in his statement that he'll no longer talk about this publicly is they want it to go away. We're ashamed and everyone is talking about it. It's caused a stir. As a fan, we're proud of our team and this made us shake our heads. Let the law take care of him and if he does this again...toss him. The team isn't only as good as one player.

X-Terminator
10-28-2008, 08:49 AM
Yes it would have been nice if he apologized publicly, but the Steelers have always kept things like this in-house. But I do agree that that conversation between Tomlin and Holmes did not go well for Holmes, and I will trust him to not pull another boneheaded stunt in the future. If he does, then he'll be dialing Mike Brown's number looking for a job.

steelpride12
10-28-2008, 09:09 AM
You can't be sure that he cost us the game, sure he would have played well, but we will never know for sure.

He was in the wrong place at the wrong time and his apology was accepted, and lets just move on, and hope he straightens up.

Steeldude
10-28-2008, 09:44 AM
i doubt if holmes played it would have changed the outcome.

memphissteelergirl
10-28-2008, 09:48 AM
I agree...we can't really say if Holmes being in the game would have made it a W, but it wouldn't have hurt either.

But I hope this is the last we hear of any shananigans from Santo.

tyler289
10-28-2008, 09:59 AM
I like the way Tomlin and Holmes have handled this. Tomlin took a hard approach to it and Holmes knows he screwed up. Hopefully Holmes won't be so stupid next time and will come out fired up on Monday.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-28-2008, 10:05 AM
I'm inclined to give Holmes the benefit of a doubt....but I truly am tired of thinking to myself..."maybe he learned a lesson from this".

You know...."fool me once"...and all that.

Leftoverhard
10-28-2008, 10:14 AM
I agree - we should give the dude one more chance and if he fails one more time, out with him.

lamberts-lost-tooth
10-28-2008, 10:50 AM
I agree - we should give the dude one more chance and if he fails one more time, out with him.

Careful...people see you and I agreeing on something and it throws off the natural order of things....

...people may start wearing white after september 1st....start betting on the Bengals to win....etc.

Hines0wnz
10-28-2008, 11:47 AM
I wouldnt say his suspension caused the loss since its tough to throw to any WR on your ass in the backfield. :coffee:

stlrtruck
10-28-2008, 11:53 AM
Maybe his presence wouldn't have made a difference completely but when you've got to cover Holmes instead of a rookie, it makes a difference in the defensive scheme.
I would summize that it's easier to go man up on a rookie rather than a seasoned veteran who can burn you for a 60 yard TD on a 5 yard slant!!!
It may not have cost the Steelers the W but it did cost the offensive performance at least some.

HometownGal
10-28-2008, 12:01 PM
I like the way Tomlin and Holmes have handled this. Tomlin took a hard approach to it and Holmes knows he screwed up. Hopefully Holmes won't be so stupid next time and will come out fired up on Monday.

Yeppers - absolutely. :thumbsup:

To me, Tomlin comes across publicly as a gentle soul but you can clearly see still waters run deep in this man. I'm 100% sure it must have sucked to be Santo in that room with a pissed off Tomlin doing all of the talking.

I agree this matter should be put behind the Steelers and it is time to move forward and hope that Santo uses better judgment in the future. The kid is a valuable asset to the team and we're going to need to utilize his talents and deep threat specialties against the Skins on MNF. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here because I believe in the guy. :tt03:

steelreserve
10-28-2008, 12:19 PM
i doubt if holmes played it would have changed the outcome.

Are you kidding? Our passing game sucked, and his absence was a big part of it.

Hell, if Holmes was in the game for that play with the goofball interception, maybe he takes a hit and hangs on to the ball, instead of Washington taking a hit and the ball coming loose. Who knows? But I can't imagine he'd do worse than 3 catches for 28 yards, which is what Sweed had. Anything to help that awful passing performance would've made a difference.

Steeldude
10-29-2008, 10:07 AM
Are you kidding? Our passing game sucked, and his absence was a big part of it.

Hell, if Holmes was in the game for that play with the goofball interception, maybe he takes a hit and hangs on to the ball, instead of Washington taking a hit and the ball coming loose. Who knows? But I can't imagine he'd do worse than 3 catches for 28 yards, which is what Sweed had. Anything to help that awful passing performance would've made a difference.

how is holmes going to grab BR's inaccurate throws and INTs? how is holmes going to give BR time to throw? how is holmes going to get BR to scan the field quicker and get rid of the ball? holmes would have been running the same lame routes as the rest of the WRs.

i see what you are saying. a more experienced WR is better than a rookie, but i don't think it would have really helped the situation, IMO. if he arians kept going wioth the short passing routes, then yes, i agree holmes would have helped. but if he did keep going short i think they would have won without holmes. they should have kept going to miller.

on a different note: what is ken anderson doing for BR? i have seen no improvement in BR in terms of his long ball and read/recognition skills. i really don't see any(much) difference in BR now and BR in his rookie season. where is the growth?

steelreserve
10-29-2008, 11:01 AM
I just think Holmes would've been better at getting open on those short-to-medium routes than Washington or Sweed was. There were several times when it seemed like Ben was looking to get rid of the ball for 10-15 yards after a couple seconds, but then everyone was covered and he panicked. He hit Miller a couple times and Ward a couple times on passes like that, but overall it was an area where we were lacking. Maybe if we'd had more success we would've stuck with it.

Really can't tell you what's been going on with Ben's development or lack thereof. I mean, the guy's natural talent and instinct are off the charts, but if anything, it seems like sometimes he's regressing to sandlot football when he tries too hard to make plays. It also seems like there are a LOT more passes where he overthrows or underthrows a guy by 5 yards or some Maddox-like amount of that nature. That hardly ever happened his first two seasons, but happens all the time now.

stlrtruck
10-29-2008, 12:10 PM
Really can't tell you what's been going on with Ben's development or lack thereof. I mean, the guy's natural talent and instinct are off the charts, but if anything, it seems like sometimes he's regressing to sandlot football when he tries too hard to make plays. It also seems like there are a LOT more passes where he overthrows or underthrows a guy by 5 yards or some Maddox-like amount of that nature. That hardly ever happened his first two seasons, but happens all the time now.

It's what I referred to as the "Favre symptoms"

GBMelBlount
10-29-2008, 12:22 PM
how is holmes going to grab BR's inaccurate throws and INTs? how is holmes going to give BR time to throw? how is holmes going to get BR to scan the field quicker and get rid of the ball? holmes would have been running the same lame routes as the rest of the WRs.

i see what you are saying. a more experienced WR is better than a rookie, but i don't think it would have really helped the situation, IMO. if he arians kept going wioth the short passing routes, then yes, i agree holmes would have helped. but if he did keep going short i think they would have won without holmes. they should have kept going to miller.

on a different note: what is ken anderson doing for BR? i have seen no improvement in BR in terms of his long ball and read/recognition skills. i really don't see any(much) difference in BR now and BR in his rookie season. where is the growth?

I agree. Could Holmes have made a difference, perhaps, but there were so many "issues" with our offense it is really hard to say......our problems ran much deeper than just one receiver imo.

Very glad we have him back though!

steelreserve
10-29-2008, 12:53 PM
I agree. Could Holmes have made a difference, perhaps, but there were so many "issues" with our offense it is really hard to say......our problems ran much deeper than just one receiver imo.

Very glad we have him back though!

Yeah, something's just not right. We've got a Pro Bowl quarterback, a Pro Bowl running back plus another back who's playing even better, two Pro Bowl-caliber receivers, one of the best TEs in the league, and even the offensive line has been doing better lately.

That's every position on offense, so what the hell is our problem? Seems to indicate our strategy and playcalling just flat-out sucks.

SunshineMan21
10-29-2008, 07:57 PM
I actually liked Tomlin's handling of the matter. While Cook might think it was 'lame' that seems more like trying to create a story out of nothing than anything else. Tomlin showed balls by voluntarily suspending Santonio and publicly stating that he didn't give a damn what the league thought.

I guess now he and Mike Singletary can start a club.

ChronoCross
10-29-2008, 11:34 PM
Pretty simple on who help cost us the game .. He goes by Big Ben, throwing balls in the ground, forcing balls, throwing 4 INTs, having his worst game of the season.. No were else to look at but Number 7 on this loss.

stillers4me
10-30-2008, 05:29 AM
Santonio Holmes said he thinks he would have made a difference in the Steelers' 21-14 loss to the Giants last Sunday. Instead, he watched the game on TV with a feeling that he said, "can't even be described." The Steelers deactivated Holmes for the game following his third run-in with the law since the team drafted him in 2006.



Holmes said he decided to address his teammates after veteran quarterback Charlie Batch called him following Sunday's game. Batch is on injured reserve this season but is still around the team on a regular basis and he has said Holmes "needs to work on his image and realize this is probably your last mistake."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_595859.html

This incident is either going to make or break Santonio. I think he really, really knows he screwed up and he's going to try to redeem himself with a vengence. While I'm never going to go so far as to say I'm glad we lost the game, I think the end result will do nothing but benefit the Steelers in the long run.

And it sounds like we need Charlie Batch in the locker room in a coaching position after he retires.