Local Media Panties In A Bunch Over James Harrison

Sure, we’ll go down this road with you Mike. But let’s not forget that this tweet was from Mike Vukovcan, KDKA-TV sports producer and producer of the #1 Cochran Sports Showdown. So basically, if it wasn’t for “idiot athletes,” Mike wouldn’t have a job. Let’s also remember that professional athletes aren’t Rhodes Scholars or summa cum laude graduates. Sure there is the occasional few like former Florida State Safety Myron Rolle (drafted by Tennessee in 2010) that spent a year away from football in England on a Rhodes Scholarship. But for the most part, a lot of professional athletes are the same jocks that would shove kids in lockers in high school. The media runs a double-edged sword: they want athletes to be open and honest with them, and then they turn around and blast them if the athlete says something they don’t like. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one (even professional athletes). You’re running the same risk asking a professional athlete a question as you do when the 6:00 news goes to a gas station and asks someone what they think of gas prices.

As we know, Harrison’s statement about Ben focused on Ben’s play in the Super Bowl. Mike Vukovcan and Post-Gazette beat writer Gerry Dulac took exception to this, calling out Harrison’s Super Bowl play.

Of course, I took to twitter to respond to Puke and Douchelac. In response to his comment about Harrison only having 1 tackle (which was a 7-yard sack on 3rd down) in Super Bowl XLV asked Gerry if we were judging players entire careers based one game. Gerry responded by saying no one was judging their careers. Except that’s what he just did. I also mentioned that Harrison had as many tackles in Super Bowl XLV as he had 100-yard interception returns in Super Bowl XLIII. Let’s be honest, we don’t beat the Cardinals if Harrison doesn’t make that interception.

Ken Laird from the Trib dropped some knowledge on us this morning in response to these criticisms of Harrison’s Super Bowl:

The common theme of criticism here is that Harrison somehow didn’t perform in the playoffs. So let’s take a look at the numbers. Numbers in parentheses are where he ranked on the team in that category.

In the turnover category, only Ryan Clark had an interception in the playoffs, and Harrison was not involved in the 2 forced fumbles or 3 fumble recoveries. To say that Harrison’s supposed lack of performance in the playoffs was somehow the reason for the Steelers losing is simply ridiculous. Harrison was 2nd in the league with 4 sacks in the playoffs (Terrell Suggs had 5). Of the 9 players that recorded more than 2 sacks in the 2010 playoffs, only 2 players had more than 10 tackles – Clay Matthews (16) and Harrison (15). In the regular season, of players that finished in the top 35 in the league in sacks (6.5+ sacks) only 2 players had more than 70 tackles. Harrison, who finished 15th in the league in sacks with 10.5 and 100 tackles, and Justin Tuck who was 7th in the league with 11.5 sacks and had 76 tackles.

Digging a level deeper into Harrison’s stats, only 27 of his 100 regular season tackles came on passing plays. Adding his 10 sacks to that means that 10% of his tackles were sacks, 27% were on pass plays, and 63% were on running plays. On the season, the Steelers defense faced 593 pass attempts (64%) and 333 rushing attempts (36%). Harrison made tackles or sacks on 6.2% of opponents passing plays and 18.9% of opponents running plays.

In the Super Bowl, the Packers ran 39 pass plays and 13 running plays, 2 of which were kneel-downs by Rodgers. So in reality, the breakdown was 39 passes (78%), 11 runs (22%). Against the Packers, the Steelers saw less running plays than they were used to during the season, which in and of itself diminished Harrison’s impact on the game. Considering that Harrison was approximately 1/3 as likely to make a tackle or sack on a pass play than on a running play, is it any surprise that the Packers pass-heavy offense diminished his statistics?

Another point that was brought up in my twitter conversation with Douchelac was in respect to Harrison’s comment about the defense being put in situations where they have to bail out the offense. The twitter conversation pretty much speaks for itself.

I really don’t think I need to explain myself here with respect to his argument that drives after turnovers mattered more…But for argument’s sake, I’ll do it.

The Steelers committed 3 turnovers in the Super Bowl which led to 21 points for Green Bay. One of those turnovers was a pick-6 where the defense had no chance to stop it, so we’ll take that one off the table. Therefore, the defense gave up 14 points off turnovers. My point centered around the 3 stops the defense had after the score was 21-17 in the 3rd quarter. But in reality, the defense came out of the halftime break with a fire under their ass.

• If the Steelers defense prevents the Packers offense from scoring on the 2 drives after the turnovers, that takes 14 points off the board for Green Bay, which means the Steelers would have won 25-17.
• However, if the Packers had scored on the drives when it didn’t “count” (drives that followed a Steelers punt or kickoff), let’s say, the 4 drives at the beginning of the 3rd quarter, they could have put anywhere from 12 to 28 points on the board. Even if the Steelers defense had held the Packers to all field goals in those 4 drives that Gerry thinks didn’t count, the Steelers still would have lost 29-25. If the Packers had scored touchdowns on those drives, it would have been a crushing 45-25 defeat.