The Pittsburgh Steelers have been to the Super Bowl eight times. They won six of them. But according to one former offensive lineman who played in one of those losses, they would have had seven if the Steelers would have made the tough decision at quarterback—and kept Charlie Batch in the starting lineup instead of Ben Roethlisberger.
Jonathan Scott, the journeyman offensive lineman who is most fondly remembered for ass-blocking Dwight Freeney, had some interesting things to say about his former teammates on the Select Few podcast a week ago while promoting a new book that he wrote.
While that appearance seemed to attract little attention, his remarks about Roethlisberger probably will. Referring to the 2010 season during which he was suspended for the first four games (and not injured, as Scott misremembered), he said that the Steelers would have defeated the Green Bay Packers in Super Bowl XLV if they had just left Batch in rather than turning back to the Pro Bowler after he returned from suspension.
“I remember Ben got hurt and Chuck came in and we went 4-0 without Roethlisberger”, he said. “They had to put Ben in because he was Ben, but I am thoroughly convinced if we would’ve stayed with Chuck, we would’ve won the Super Bowl. I can say that with confidence. Easy”.
The Steelers lost that game, 31-25, having pulled to within four early in the second half. The turning point was a fumble from RB Rashard Mendenhall (which he refuses to call a fumble) on the first play of the fourth quarter, which led to a Packers touchdown. The Steelers got back to within three with half of the fourth quarter to go, but Aaron Rodgers orchestrated a five-minute field-goal drive in response and Roethlisberger ultimately threw three straight incompletions with under two minutes to go, resulting in a turnover on downs.
Roethlisberger finished the game 25-for-40 for 263 yards with two touchdown passes, but also two interceptions. Nick Collins got him for a pick six in the first quarter to extend a 14-0 early lead, but Pittsburgh scored 17 of the next 24 points to make it a ballgame.
Batch is a beloved figure in the community, but went 25-30 as a starter in his career, even if that was 6-3 while with the Steelers as Roethlisberger’s backup. He went 1-1 in 2010 (Dennis Dixon started the first two games over Batch before getting hurt), so the Steelers were also not 4-0, as Scott recalled, but rather 3-1, and went 12-4 overall, winning two postseason games to advance to the Super Bowl.
They managed to do pretty well without Batch, who was a very fine backup but certainly not a starter. Indeed, Scott’s comments, at least the part that isn’t a (belatedly successful, admittedly) publicity stunt, rather seem to stem from personal issues.
“I didn’t respect him”, he stated outright about Roethlisberger, with whom he was teammates at arguably the lowest point of his public life in 2010-11 in the wake of his suspension for accusations of sexual assault, stemming from which no charges were ever filed.
“I think he just didn’t have the capacity to be a leader”, he said of Big Ben. “There was a constant dissonance between my experience of what I thought leadership would be from a quarterback and what I experienced”.
Adding that the two of them “didn’t mesh at all”, he contrasted Roethlisberger with Batch, describing him as a leader, one who could be the mayor of Pittsburgh and “win in a landslide” because “he gives a damn about his community”.
But it’s clear that Scott is either being intentionally disingenuous or really didn’t understand the quarterback position very well, or simply wasn’t familiar enough with the respective games of his two quarterbacks.
No, the Steelers likely wouldn’t have won the Super Bowl in 2010 had they left Batch in the starting lineup all season. They may not have even made it to the postseason. It’s a palpably outrageous assertion from a historical footnote—though one he’s entirely in his right to have and to publicize if he so chooses. But in doing so, he also opens up his remarks for public comment, and I don’t suspect many will agree with his views.
