Whose loss was more surprising: Steelers or Falcons?

Published: Dec 10, 2012 at 02:59 AM

The Falcons took their NFC South-best record to Carolina and got Cammed. The Steelers got Big Ben back, then lost at home to the Chargers. Which team's loss was more surprising?

The Steelers. Aside from the provocations of certain Panthers defenders, the Falcons didn't have much to play for. They were 11-1. They had the division locked up and a two-game NFC lead.

For a guy who's banged on the Falcons all season for not handling theirs, I can't believe you are giving them an excuse. The Steelers was most surprising but Atlanta doesn't get off the hook.

What were the Steelers playing for? Only their whole season.

So are the Falcons. Based on their playoff past, which you love to dredge up, they need home field. They also need to go into the postseason playing their best football. That wasn't the case Sunday.

Injuries aside, what happened yesterday was anything but typical. They were home with their best player back in Big Ben. And they were playing the Chargers, in whom I have no faith.

That's why the way they got physically dominated on both sides of the ball was surprising. The Falcons lost to a rival on the road but a rival that's been more disappointing than San Diego.

I mean, if Charlie Batch can beat the Ravens in Baltimore, Ben Roethlisberger should beat the Chargers in Pittsburgh, right? Am I asking too much?

That logic is why you've made it so far in life.

The Steelers fall behind by 24. They make history. They become the first Pittsburgh team ever to lose at home to the baby blue bolts. This isn't merely surprise. It's shock. It's drained me. Goodnight.

If this is shock, then you might not want to know how badly an NFL team from Arizona got beat by Seattle. You might have a seizure.

This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. Please use the Contact Us link in our site footer to report an issue.