MMQB Mail: Why Big Ben wasn't on injury report and more questions

Ben Roethlisberger said he played in Super Bowl XLIII with fractured ribs. Al Tielemans/SI Peter King's Mailbag Peter King will answer your questions each week in Monday Morning Quarterback: Tuesday Edition. Name: Email: Hometown: Question: SEND Follow Peter King on Twitter

Should the Pittsburgh Steelers have been more forthright about the rib injury to Ben Roethlisberger prior to the Super Bowl? It's an interesting and highly debatable question.

I say no -- unless they knew before the game that Roethlisberger had fractured ribs, and I don't think they did. Or unless they knew before the game there was some chance he would not play, and we all know Roethlisberger was playing all the way.

Teams fudge with the injury report all the time. The Patriots have at times made a mockery of it, listing everyone but the secretaries as probable. I rarely pay any attention to it at all. The only time teams should get whacked for it is if a player is not on the report before the game and ends up not playing because of a pre-existing injury. That's dishonest.

For gambling and just plain fairness reasons, the Super Bowl injury report is a different story. We should have an honest assessment of a player's condition before the game, because if a team doesn't acknowledge a player is hurt and the injury will be a factor in the team's performance, inside information could influence the betting line and potentially compromise the integrity of the game.

The league requires Super Bowl teams to allow a neutral reporter to watch their most important practice week of the year -- and then write a report on what was seen in the practice -- even though the team and the league are allowed to sanitize the report if there's something in there either feels is an advantage to the other side. I don't think the Steelers changed a word I wrote in three practice reports. Maybe they were hiding the X-rays given to Roethlisberger before the Super Bowl (reported by ProFootballTalk.com three days before the game), which would not be kosher in my opinion. But the bottom line in this story is simple: Did the Steelers ever have any doubt that Roethlisberger would play in the game? No. And so I don't think they owed it to the public to put him on the injury report.

What happened with Roethlisberger is that he was on the off-week injury report as probable with a "back'' injury. Then, because doctors cleared him to practice fully the week before the game, he was taken off the injury report. He didn't miss a snap in the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday practices before the game. He played the game without incident. As he told me Saturday night, there was no way he was not going to play in the game, regardless of his rib discomfort. "It was just suck it up and play,'' he said.

While I do respect the arguments made by Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk and others that the Steelers needed to be more transparent with Roethlisberger's injury -- and if Tomlin knew of the X-rays, he should have admitted it -- I don't believe Big Ben needed to be on the injury report. It's simple. Putting him on the injury report as "probable'' would have told the world there was a "virtual certainty'' he'd play in the game. That's the definition of "probable'' in NFL injury-reportage. That sounds like a 94 percent chance he'd play. It was 100 percent. Same with center Justin Hartwig, who was gimpy with a knee injury but was definitely going to play in the game.

"My problem,'' said Florio, who has been beating the drum for more honest injury reports, "is the injury report focuses only on availability to play without giving full information as to whether a player will be effective. It's called an injury report. Roethlisberger was injured, and he wasn't on the report. I think that's wrong.''

True, with an asterisk. I think if a guy's definitely playing, he doesn't need to be listed.

Now onto your e-mail for the week:

• THE PRO BOWL IS WONDERFUL! From Steve Bishop of Dallas: "Love your column but disagree with you on the Pro Bowl. I loved it. The interviews with the players, listening to the coach send in the signals, etc. It is fun to watch. It will be ruined next year because everyone will be focused on the Super Bowl, and of course the Super Bowl players will not play. Typical NFL: ruin something good for the fans for a new advertising money gimmick.''

Not buying that, Steve. I like to hear from the players, to be sure. And I did catch a play or two called in from Cam Cameron to Peyton Manning, which is interesting, as you say. But I want the players to give a darn about a game if I'm going to take the time to watch it. The sport is only good if players are playing with intensity, which doesn't happen in this game.

• PLAYERS CAN RUN OUT OF BOUNDS ON NON-KICKOFFS. From Rob Murphy of Denver: "I have a question that no one seems to comment on about the James Harrison touchdown run during the Super Bowl. If you notice during the run back, Larry Fitzgerald goes out of bounds around the 40-45 yard line. Instead of going back in bounds, he runs along the sidelines (clearly out of bounds the entire time) for what appears to be 40 yards and makes the tackle. Shouldn't this be illegal since he is chasing him for a considerable distance from out of bounds. If he chased him from in bounds, chances are he would have never caught up to him. There would have been a major controversy if Harrison would have been tackled short of the goal line. What is the rule for this type of play?"

On kickoffs and punts, players cannot run out of bounds unless they are blocked out of bounds. On all other plays, there is not a rule about where they may run.

• JUST A GUT FEELING. From Marco of Toronto: "OK, Peter. Cowboys Nation needs a little more as to why you predict it will be within six weeks that Terrell Owens is gone.''

No real inside information. Just a sense that Jerry Jones, by the end of March, will come to the realization that he has a better chance to win without Owens than with him. He also knows that the new receiver, Roy Williams, for whom he paid first- and third-round picks to acquire, will never be a great player in Dallas until Owens, who tends to block out the sun, is gone.

• TEBOW'S DIFFERENT. From Garrett Grant of Calgary: "Regarding your comments about Tim Tebow, haven't teams tried to draft 'multi-position' players before with limited success? Names that come to mind are Kordell Stewart and Matt Jones. Isn't there something to the old adage 'Jack of all trades, master of none?' With teams having separate coaches for QBs, RBs, receivers, etc. with which group does a multi-position athlete practice and train? I don't necessarily disagree that Tebow should be a high draft pick, but I'm not convinced that he should be picked to fill several positions.''

Stewart was drafted to be a quarterback, and Bill Cowher found other uses for him -- and Stewart would have been wise to go with Cowher's gut and become a jack-of-all-trades quarterback instead of demanding that he be a classic quarterback. That hurt his long-haul NFL chances. Matt Jones was drafted as a wideout only. Neither of those players has the internal competitive clock of Tebow, and neither was as good a college quarterback as Tebow is now. Just my opinion, but I think Tebow will play multiple positions and play them well in the NFL.

• HMMMMMM. From Debbie of Nashua, N.H.: "Just for clarification -- was the travel note about the Steelers fan in the airport without a napkin 'enjoyable' or 'aggravating?' Now the real question: Since you don't think Matt Cassel will play for my Pats in 2009, where do you think he'll land and for what price?''

Answers: Grotesquely compelling, but aggravating. I don't know where Cassel will land, but give me the week to have an educated guess. Read next Monday's column. He'll make about $11 million a year.

• BECKHAM LIGHT. From Scott of Fairbanks, Alaska: "Go easy on David Beckham. Can you really blame him for wanting to play football in Milan rather than spending the year(s) toiling in obscurity in the States? Aren't writers usually criticizing athletes for taking the money and then going through the motions? If Beckham wants to play in one of the best leagues in the world rather than the MLS, I think good for him.''

Scott, he signed a five-year contract. Should the Galaxy just say, "Oh, go ahead, and good luck?''

• DON'T SEE GRAN TORINO. From Phil T. of Yonkers: "I love Clint Eastwood -- always have and always will. "Gran Torino" has to be one of the most overrated films in the history of cinema. I was sadly disappointed -- save your $10...it's barely worth the $5 at Blockbuster.''

Sad to hear that.

• GO SEE GRAN TORINO. From Matt of Tempe, Ariz.: "You have to go see "Gran Torino." One of the best movies I have seen. Can't think of one thing that I didn't like about it.''

Glad to hear that.

• PHELPS SHOULD HAVE MANNED UP. From Adam Leonard of Austin: "Regarding shame in the Michael Phelps incident, the real shame here is that Phelps didn't say 'You know, I've worked my a** for years for my sport and what I was doing to relax harmed no one. If we're serious about meeting the challenges this country has (two wars, near economic ruin), it might be time to stop this maddeningly puritanical crusade against marijuana and put those resources to better use.' But instead, he followed the standard public figure response: "It was an error in judgment that I regret."

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant. I wish I'd written that. Want to come work for me, Adam?