PDA

View Full Version : My Email to Peter King...



steelblood
10-18-2010, 04:57 PM
Hi Peter,

I've enjoyed reading your columns for twenty years or so. Generally, I find your opinions fair and thoughtful. However, I take issue with your latest assertions about James Harrison's hit on Mohammed Massaquoi.

I invite you to look at the Massaquoi-Harrison collision again. Look at the original TV feed as it shows two very good angles. The first live angle shows Harrison clearly leads with his shoulder and aiming at Massaquoi's midsection/chest. Massaquoi sees him coming at the last second and ducks (which is a natural reaction). Watch the contact several times. Focus on Harrison's helmet. If there was solid helmet to helmet contact, Harrison's head will show that impact. It doesn't. It appears that Harrison's shoulder made impact first and Harrison's helmet second (if at all). The second angle that I thought was telling was the first replay angle. Try freeze framing it at the point of impact (not the rather deceiving and more inflammatory angle your article shows). If you freeze it perfectly at the moment of impact, you will clearly see that Harrison's shoulder buckles Massaquoi's helmet. Again, the only reason Massaquoi's head was directly contacted was that he ducked into Harrison's hit.

Now, I am a football fan. And, I want what is best for the players and the game. I understand that Harrison could have been flagged for hitting a defenseless receiver under the current rules. But, even this would have been a poor call. I am quite certain that Harrison lead with his shoulder and came in fast and hard to hit a receiver at the proper level. He did not lead with his head (as the first angle clearly shows). He did not contact directly with his head as both angles show. And finally, he only contacted Massaquoi's head because Massaquoi ducked right into Harrison's shoulder. Harrison's only other choice in this play would have been to go low. This would have been a poor choice. The defender in this situation must try to separate the receiver from the ball. This is his job. Going low would have been to ignore an opportunity to nullify a completion, and he would have risked missing the receiver altogether. Harrison did what he should have. He chose a good impact height (chest high-where the ball was) and lead with his shoulder. To punish him would be an injustice and to ask him to play any differently, would be recommending a fundamental change to the game of football.

Finally, Rodney Harrison's disgust with these plays is totally laughable and hypocritical. Rodney Harrison took great pride in trying to separate the receiver from the ball (as this was his job). He relished every opportunity to hit players and often did so violently with his helmet and shoulder. Rodney Harrison was voted one of the dirtiest players in the NFL, and he enjoyed his role. His opinions are often biased, snap judgements. He rarely illuminates the game for the viewer and often seems to chose a controversial role or stance for the sake of titillation. I know you are colleagues, and he is probably a nice man, but using him as an expert on this issue is both ironic and short-sighted.

dsmith
10-18-2010, 05:07 PM
Extremely well written. I read mmqb every week and while I don't always agree with Peter, I have found that he makes compelling arguments and usually thinks out his positions. He seems a bit more personal in his attack of James in this case though.

I couldn't agree more about your point about Rodney. I can't even watch the pre game show with that jack hat on there.

PSU_dropout43
10-18-2010, 05:10 PM
:Clap

[youtube:ec9fptmv]iLXJy3dap3o[/youtube:ec9fptmv]

Slapstick
10-18-2010, 05:18 PM
Note to Brian Dabol, Offensive Coordinator, Cleveland Browns:

Dear Brian,

Please don't call anymore 3 yard crossing routes to James Harrison's side of the field.

Sincerely,

Mohammad Massaquoi


PS - Rodney Harrison is the worst kind of hypocrite.

brothervad
10-18-2010, 05:18 PM
Well done! Look at the front page of ESPN...human nature at it's finest as he braces for impact.

Harrison makes a split second decision and you fine/suspend him because he can't changes physics?

I am tired of the 24x7 media looking for a soap box issue to stand on.

brothervad

skyhawk
10-18-2010, 05:49 PM
Well done! Look at the front page of ESPN...human nature at it's finest as he braces for impact.

Harrison makes a split second decision and you fine/suspend him because he can't changes physics?

I am tired of the 24x7 media looking for a soap box issue to stand on.

brothervad

Exactly.

I keep watching the clip. I can't see anything wrong with the hit. Unfortunately Cribbs head got rung. If Cribbs got up right away, this wouldn't even be talked about afterwards.

proudpittsburgher
10-18-2010, 06:48 PM
Well done! Look at the front page of ESPN...human nature at it's finest as he braces for impact.

Harrison makes a split second decision and you fine/suspend him because he can't changes physics?

I am tired of the 24x7 media looking for a soap box issue to stand on.

brothervad

Exactly.

I keep watching the clip. I can't see anything wrong with the hit. Unfortunately Cribbs head got rung. If Cribbs got up right away, this wouldn't even be talked about afterwards.
The opposition is going to forget that Harrison was not flagged for either hit. The second flag was against Cleveland, which added insult to injury.
And my guess is t

Crash
10-18-2010, 07:03 PM
That second hit was the same hit Harrison delivered on the next to last play of SB XLIII.

He wasn't fined for that one either.

Jooser
10-18-2010, 07:57 PM
Back when I played football, that was called getting your bell rung. Except, in this case, the Brownies got their bells rung by a Daisy Cutter.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p262/jooser73/myron.jpg

Double Head Blasters James! YOI!

StarSpangledSteeler
10-18-2010, 08:35 PM
I have no problem with the hit on Cribbs. As a running back, part of your job is to see the field and choose your lanes, as well as choosing when to get down. This is a man's game and if you don't want the contact then stay away from the contact.

I do feel that hits on defenseless receivers must be banned and in my opinion Massaquoi was defenseless. I'm not so much concerned with whether it was Harrison's helmet or split second of shoulder leading the way, or even forearm first, you can't aim high in that situation. There's no glory in that. Hit him as hard as you want in the body, but you have to start protecting these guys' heads. Massaquoi might've ducked a little but Harrison was still aiming way too high. I love James and his attitude, but he needs to be careful. I don't want to see another team taking out Wallace or Sanders or Brown with a high head hit and then saying "Oh, well. Fine me." That's why i used to hate Rodney Harrison (who is a complete hypocrite BTW). I know it might not be a popular opinion on this board but I feel James Harrison hit on Massaquoi was probably too high and definitely defenseless.

steelblood
10-18-2010, 08:50 PM
I have no problem with the hit on Cribbs. As a running back, part of your job is to see the field and choose your lanes, as well as choosing when to get down. This is a man's game and if you don't want the contact then stay away from the contact.

I do feel that hits on defenseless receivers must be banned and in my opinion Massaquoi was defenseless. I'm not so much concerned with whether it was Harrison's helmet or split second of shoulder leading the way, or even forearm first, you can't aim high in that situation. There's no glory in that. Hit him as hard as you want in the body, but you have to start protecting these guys' heads. Massaquoi might've ducked a little but Harrison was still aiming way too high. I love James and his attitude, but he needs to be careful. I don't want to see another team taking out Wallace or Sanders or Brown with a high head hit and then saying "Oh, well. Fine me." That's why i used to hate Rodney Harrison (who is a complete hypocrite BTW). I know it might not be a popular opinion on this board but I feel James Harrison hit on Massaquoi was probably too high and definitely defenseless.

Harrison did aim for his body. Massaquoi ducked right into his shoulder. If Massaquoi doesn't duck, he gets hit in the chest. You are wrong on this one.

Vindrow
10-18-2010, 08:53 PM
And, of course nobody has even talked about the helmet-to-helmet spear hit that TJ Ward layed on Mendy which was on purpose.

StarSpangledSteeler
10-19-2010, 12:04 AM
I have no problem with the hit on Cribbs. As a running back, part of your job is to see the field and choose your lanes, as well as choosing when to get down. This is a man's game and if you don't want the contact then stay away from the contact.

I do feel that hits on defenseless receivers must be banned and in my opinion Massaquoi was defenseless. I'm not so much concerned with whether it was Harrison's helmet or split second of shoulder leading the way, or even forearm first, you can't aim high in that situation. There's no glory in that. Hit him as hard as you want in the body, but you have to start protecting these guys' heads. Massaquoi might've ducked a little but Harrison was still aiming way too high. I love James and his attitude, but he needs to be careful. I don't want to see another team taking out Wallace or Sanders or Brown with a high head hit and then saying "Oh, well. Fine me." That's why i used to hate Rodney Harrison (who is a complete hypocrite BTW). I know it might not be a popular opinion on this board but I feel James Harrison hit on Massaquoi was probably too high and definitely defenseless.

Harrison did aim for his body. Massaquoi ducked right into his shoulder. If Massaquoi doesn't duck, he gets hit in the chest. You are wrong on this one.

Well, I think you're wrong. So there. We'll see what the league says.

stlrz d
10-19-2010, 12:23 AM
I have no problem with the hit on Cribbs. As a running back, part of your job is to see the field and choose your lanes, as well as choosing when to get down. This is a man's game and if you don't want the contact then stay away from the contact.

I do feel that hits on defenseless receivers must be banned and in my opinion Massaquoi was defenseless. I'm not so much concerned with whether it was Harrison's helmet or split second of shoulder leading the way, or even forearm first, you can't aim high in that situation. There's no glory in that. Hit him as hard as you want in the body, but you have to start protecting these guys' heads. Massaquoi might've ducked a little but Harrison was still aiming way too high. I love James and his attitude, but he needs to be careful. I don't want to see another team taking out Wallace or Sanders or Brown with a high head hit and then saying "Oh, well. Fine me." That's why i used to hate Rodney Harrison (who is a complete hypocrite BTW). I know it might not be a popular opinion on this board but I feel James Harrison hit on Massaquoi was probably too high and definitely defenseless.

Harrison did aim for his body. Massaquoi ducked right into his shoulder. If Massaquoi doesn't duck, he gets hit in the chest. You are wrong on this one.

Well, I think you're wrong. So there. We'll see what the league says.

Sorry. Doesn't matter what the league says. The league said Ben should sit based on accusations.

Harrison would have hit the WR square in the chest had the WR not ducked. You can't legislate that. It's ridiculous for *anyone* to think you can.

StarSpangledSteeler
10-19-2010, 01:55 AM
I have no problem with the hit on Cribbs. As a running back, part of your job is to see the field and choose your lanes, as well as choosing when to get down. This is a man's game and if you don't want the contact then stay away from the contact.

I do feel that hits on defenseless receivers must be banned and in my opinion Massaquoi was defenseless. I'm not so much concerned with whether it was Harrison's helmet or split second of shoulder leading the way, or even forearm first, you can't aim high in that situation. There's no glory in that. Hit him as hard as you want in the body, but you have to start protecting these guys' heads. Massaquoi might've ducked a little but Harrison was still aiming way too high. I love James and his attitude, but he needs to be careful. I don't want to see another team taking out Wallace or Sanders or Brown with a high head hit and then saying "Oh, well. Fine me." That's why i used to hate Rodney Harrison (who is a complete hypocrite BTW). I know it might not be a popular opinion on this board but I feel James Harrison hit on Massaquoi was probably too high and definitely defenseless.

Harrison did aim for his body. Massaquoi ducked right into his shoulder. If Massaquoi doesn't duck, he gets hit in the chest. You are wrong on this one.

Well, I think you're wrong. So there. We'll see what the league says.

Sorry. Doesn't matter what the league says. The league said Ben should sit based on accusations.

Harrison would have hit the WR square in the chest had the WR not ducked. You can't legislate that. It's ridiculous for *anyone* to think you can.

How can you say "It doesn't matter what the league says?" That's probabaly the stupidest thing i've ever heard in my life. It DOES matter what the league says. In fact that's the ONLY entity whose opinion matters. What you or i think has nothing to do with anything. We're just fans opinions. The league is who makes the rule in the first place. The league is who interprets the rule. The league is who reviews the play. The league is who issues the fine. I'll be sure to send a letter to Roger Goodell and tell him "Stlrz thinks Harrison would've hit him in the chest." That should settle it. Maybe then he won't fine him.

stlrz d
10-19-2010, 07:46 AM
I have no problem with the hit on Cribbs. As a running back, part of your job is to see the field and choose your lanes, as well as choosing when to get down. This is a man's game and if you don't want the contact then stay away from the contact.

I do feel that hits on defenseless receivers must be banned and in my opinion Massaquoi was defenseless. I'm not so much concerned with whether it was Harrison's helmet or split second of shoulder leading the way, or even forearm first, you can't aim high in that situation. There's no glory in that. Hit him as hard as you want in the body, but you have to start protecting these guys' heads. Massaquoi might've ducked a little but Harrison was still aiming way too high. I love James and his attitude, but he needs to be careful. I don't want to see another team taking out Wallace or Sanders or Brown with a high head hit and then saying "Oh, well. Fine me." That's why i used to hate Rodney Harrison (who is a complete hypocrite BTW). I know it might not be a popular opinion on this board but I feel James Harrison hit on Massaquoi was probably too high and definitely defenseless.

Harrison did aim for his body. Massaquoi ducked right into his shoulder. If Massaquoi doesn't duck, he gets hit in the chest. You are wrong on this one.

Well, I think you're wrong. So there. We'll see what the league says.

Sorry. Doesn't matter what the league says. The league said Ben should sit based on accusations.

Harrison would have hit the WR square in the chest had the WR not ducked. You can't legislate that. It's ridiculous for *anyone* to think you can.

How can you say "It doesn't matter what the league says?" That's probabaly the stupidest thing i've ever heard in my life. It DOES matter what the league says. In fact that's the ONLY entity whose opinion matters. What you or i think has nothing to do with anything. We're just fans opinions. The league is who makes the rule in the first place. The league is who interprets the rule. The league is who reviews the play. The league is who issues the fine. I'll be sure to send a letter to Roger Goodell and tell him "Stlrz thinks Harrison would've hit him in the chest." That should settle it. Maybe then he won't fine him.

Speaking of stupid, you clearly missed my point by that statement.

You said the league's decision would prove that you were right. That Harrison hit him high.

I said "it doesn't matter what the league says" meaning "it doesn't prove you right". And you know that.

Harrison was in a perfect tackling position to deliver a shot to the torso of the WR. He wasn't aiming to hit him high. The WR ducked. Should guys now start aiming at a player's knees and hope the player ducks so they end up with a torso shot?

You're wrong...and the league fining and/or suspending Harrison doesn't prove anything other than that Goodell is an idiot.

ramblinjim
10-19-2010, 07:51 AM
I've watched both videos probably a dozen times and I have to agree that the Massaquoi hit looks legit to me. It looks to me like Harrison got him with his shoulder and if you watch the tape you actually see Harrison's arms flail immediately after contact. I just don't see that as helmet to helmet. The only thing I see here is that he left his feet to make the hit.

That Cribbs hit though looks brutal. Of course it also looks like Cribbs crouched as he was going down and put his ear hole right in Harrison's line of attack. I think that's just bad luck on his part there.

As for Harrison? The Steelers need to keep him in the back somewhere after the game and not let him anywhere near a camera or a microphone.

steelblood
10-19-2010, 08:26 AM
I have no problem with the hit on Cribbs. As a running back, part of your job is to see the field and choose your lanes, as well as choosing when to get down. This is a man's game and if you don't want the contact then stay away from the contact.

I do feel that hits on defenseless receivers must be banned and in my opinion Massaquoi was defenseless. I'm not so much concerned with whether it was Harrison's helmet or split second of shoulder leading the way, or even forearm first, you can't aim high in that situation. There's no glory in that. Hit him as hard as you want in the body, but you have to start protecting these guys' heads. Massaquoi might've ducked a little but Harrison was still aiming way too high. I love James and his attitude, but he needs to be careful. I don't want to see another team taking out Wallace or Sanders or Brown with a high head hit and then saying "Oh, well. Fine me." That's why i used to hate Rodney Harrison (who is a complete hypocrite BTW). I know it might not be a popular opinion on this board but I feel James Harrison hit on Massaquoi was probably too high and definitely defenseless.

Harrison did aim for his body. Massaquoi ducked right into his shoulder. If Massaquoi doesn't duck, he gets hit in the chest. You are wrong on this one.

Well, I think you're wrong. So there. We'll see what the league says.

Ok. Think maybe you should watch the replay again. Or, you could take your ball and go home.

JUST-PLAIN-NASTY
10-19-2010, 02:43 PM
First let me say this is becoming a pu$$y a$$ league. I understand...But I don't. Next, I want to say what Harrison said post game is 110% correct. You go ever snap to hurt a player....Not injure him. Defenders & OL especially. That is the name of the game. The more physical player comes out in the end. It is a process that unfolds at the end of every game. The toll tells the tale. Battle of attrition. I don't like the new NFL but I have been old school all my life.

That being said, the first hit should not even be referenced. That collision happens every play. If Cribbs didn't get knocked out or fumble....It would be lost in the plays. The second, however, by rule will get fined. What is prohibited is initial contact Helmet-to-helmet with a defenseless receiver, also to include the forearm or shoulder in the head or neck area. Rule was re-written. Like I said, pu$$y a$$ league. Safety first, so I understand...But it is football, so I don't.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
10-19-2010, 03:26 PM
Harrison's only other choice in this play would have been to go low. This would have been a poor choice.

You are right here, but you fail to mention why. Going low is a cheap shot. Take out the guy's knees? That is beyond cheap...that is Rodney Harrison cheap.

A hitter has a small window in which he can hit the receiver, much like a strike zone. Going hard below the waist is wrong and rightfully so. We are talking about shattered bones if JH delivers that hat to the leg area.

Above the shoulders is also a no-no as that is aiming for the head. Once again it is quite justifiable that the hit be delivered within this zone.

Finally, three more criteria to be followed....

1) Receiver should not be in the air reaching up for an overthrown ball - that would make him defenseless.

2) Hit must not be delievered before the ball arrives.

3) Body should not be launched head first at the receiver. When running it is natural that a hunched over player's head arrive first, but he should not leave his feet and launch head first.


Harrison leads with his forearm, looks like he glances off the shoulder first and does so after the ball has been contacted by the receiver. Could it have drawn a flag? Maybe. Could it be fineable? Possibly. They fine a lot of H2H hits these days regardless of intent only because they cause injury. Suspension? Don't be ridiculous.

StarSpangledSteeler
10-19-2010, 03:57 PM
First let me say this is becoming a pu$$y a$$ league. I understand...But I don't. Next, I want to say what Harrison said post game is 110% correct. You go ever snap to hurt a player....Not injure him. Defenders & OL especially. That is the name of the game. The more physical player comes out in the end. It is a process that unfolds at the end of every game. The toll tells the tale. Battle of attrition. I don't like the new NFL but I have been old school all my life.

That being said, the first hit should not even be referenced. That collision happens every play. If Cribbs didn't get knocked out or fumble....It would be lost in the plays. The second, however, by rule will get fined. What is prohibited is initial contact Helmet-to-helmet with a defenseless receiver, also to include the forearm or shoulder in the head or neck area. Rule was re-written. Like I said, pu$$y a$$ league. Safety first, so I understand...But it is football, so I don't.

Well said. I 100% agree.

NJ-STEELER
10-20-2010, 05:30 AM
Note to Brian Dabol, Offensive Coordinator, Cleveland Browns:

Dear Brian,

Please don't call anymore 3 yard crossing routes to James Harrison's side of the field.

Sincerely,

Mohammad Massaquoi


PS - unless i'm feeling really tired .
:stirpot

steelblood
10-20-2010, 07:12 AM
Harrison's only other choice in this play would have been to go low. This would have been a poor choice.

You are right here, but you fail to mention why. Going low is a cheap shot. Take out the guy's knees? That is beyond cheap...that is Rodney Harrison cheap.

A hitter has a small window in which he can hit the receiver, much like a strike zone. Going hard below the waist is wrong and rightfully so. We are talking about shattered bones if JH delivers that hat to the leg area.

Above the shoulders is also a no-no as that is aiming for the head. Once again it is quite justifiable that the hit be delivered within this zone.

Finally, three more criteria to be followed....





1) Receiver should not be in the air reaching up for an overthrown ball - that would make him defenseless.

2) Hit must not be delievered before the ball arrives.

3) Body should not be launched head first at the receiver. When running it is natural that a hunched over player's head arrive first, but he should not leave his feet and launch head first.


Harrison leads with his forearm, looks like he glances off the shoulder first and does so after the ball has been contacted by the receiver. Could it have drawn a flag? Maybe. Could it be fineable? Possibly. They fine a lot of H2H hits these days regardless of intent only because they cause injury. Suspension? Don't be ridiculous.

Good points. I agree. But, I did not "fail" to say "why" going low was wrong....

"Harrison's only other choice in this play would have been to go low. This would have been a poor choice. The defender in this situation must try to separate the receiver from the ball. This is his job. Going low would have been to ignore an opportunity to nullify a completion, and he would have risked missing the receiver altogether. " (from the email)

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
10-20-2010, 09:35 AM
Harrison's only other choice in this play would have been to go low. This would have been a poor choice.

You are right here, but you fail to mention why. Going low is a cheap shot. Take out the guy's knees? That is beyond cheap...that is Rodney Harrison cheap.

A hitter has a small window in which he can hit the receiver, much like a strike zone. Going hard below the waist is wrong and rightfully so. We are talking about shattered bones if JH delivers that hat to the leg area.

Above the shoulders is also a no-no as that is aiming for the head. Once again it is quite justifiable that the hit be delivered within this zone.

Finally, three more criteria to be followed....





1) Receiver should not be in the air reaching up for an overthrown ball - that would make him defenseless.

2) Hit must not be delievered before the ball arrives.

3) Body should not be launched head first at the receiver. When running it is natural that a hunched over player's head arrive first, but he should not leave his feet and launch head first.


Harrison leads with his forearm, looks like he glances off the shoulder first and does so after the ball has been contacted by the receiver. Could it have drawn a flag? Maybe. Could it be fineable? Possibly. They fine a lot of H2H hits these days regardless of intent only because they cause injury. Suspension? Don't be ridiculous.

Good points. I agree. But, I did not "fail" to say "why" going low was wrong....

"Harrison's only other choice in this play would have been to go low. This would have been a poor choice. The defender in this situation must try to separate the receiver from the ball. This is his job. Going low would have been to ignore an opportunity to nullify a completion, and he would have risked missing the receiver altogether. " (from the email)

You're right, poor choice of words on my part...should have said that I'm expanding on what you said to include the cheap shot factor of going low.

steelblood
10-20-2010, 09:50 AM
[quote=steelblood]Harrison's only other choice in this play would have been to go low. This would have been a poor choice.

You are right here, but you fail to mention why. Going low is a cheap shot. Take out the guy's knees? That is beyond cheap...that is Rodney Harrison cheap.

A hitter has a small window in which he can hit the receiver, much like a strike zone. Going hard below the waist is wrong and rightfully so. We are talking about shattered bones if JH delivers that hat to the leg area.

Above the shoulders is also a no-no as that is aiming for the head. Once again it is quite justifiable that the hit be delivered within this zone.

Finally, three more criteria to be followed....





1) Receiver should not be in the air reaching up for an overthrown ball - that would make him defenseless.

2) Hit must not be delievered before the ball arrives.

3) Body should not be launched head first at the receiver. When running it is natural that a hunched over player's head arrive first, but he should not leave his feet and launch head first.


Harrison leads with his forearm, looks like he glances off the shoulder first and does so after the ball has been contacted by the receiver. Could it have drawn a flag? Maybe. Could it be fineable? Possibly. They fine a lot of H2H hits these days regardless of intent only because they cause injury. Suspension? Don't be ridiculous.

Good points. I agree. But, I did not "fail" to say "why" going low was wrong....

"Harrison's only other choice in this play would have been to go low. This would have been a poor choice. The defender in this situation must try to separate the receiver from the ball. This is his job. Going low would have been to ignore an opportunity to nullify a completion, and he would have risked missing the receiver altogether. " (from the email)

You're right, poor choice of words on my part...should have said that I'm expanding on what you said to include the cheap shot factor of going low.[/quote:3l0ogepi]

No problem. Totally agree with your amplification.

ALLD
10-20-2010, 02:57 PM
I think the throwback uniforms are clouding the judgement of the NFL commissioner. The refs saw it right, but after review the league screws it up- after review they get it wrong!