Better Game in the Super Bowl (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

I was going to make this a poll, but I think Parker would easily win (as he should). But I do think the performances of the two players is a lot closer than what a poll would show.

Both players had terrible games with the exception of one good play they made. Here are the two players' numbers minus their one good play.

Willie Parker

9 rushes

18 yards

2.0 ypa

0 touchdowns

Jerramy Stevens

2-9-0

These stats are somewhat bias because it shows Parker having 9 bad carries and there is no representation for Stevens 3 or 4 drops.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

It's not close. Stevens was awful and Parker made perhaps the most pivotal play in the game.

Stevens was benched for Ryan Hannam, for God's sake. He had the worst Super Bowl of any player on either team.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Given the Seahawks' loss on the scoreboard, the refereeing controversy is the best thing that could've happened to Stevens, because no one is remembering the dropped passes that could've extended drives for the Seahawks.

Especially the one over the middle that landed right in his arms and would've given them a first down near the 10 yard line. The Seahawks got nothing out of that drive.

 

[BlueOnion]

It's not close. Stevens was awful and Parker made perhaps the most pivotal play in the game.

Stevens was benched for Ryan Hannam, for God's sake. He had the worst Super Bowl of any player on either team.

I agree Parker had a better game. But I don't think it was all that more impressive than the game Stevens had. And if we want to point out that Stevens came out of the game for Hannam, then the question begs to be asked why Parker (the starter) had 10 carries and Bettis (the backup\short yardage guy) had 14 carries?

 

[BlueOnion]

Especially the one over the middle that landed right in his arms and would've given them a first down near the 10 yard line. The Seahawks got nothing out of that drive.

If the phantom holding call is not called, Stevens scores one touchdown and makes a second big catch at the 2 and a second potential Seattle touchdown.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Especially the one over the middle that landed right in his arms and would've given them a first down near the 10 yard line.  The Seahawks got nothing out of that drive.

If the phantom holding call is not called, Stevens scores one touchdown and makes a second big catch at the 2 and a second potential Seattle touchdown.

Of course, if Locklear doesn't grab Haggans' shoulder with his right arm from the side, the phantom holding call isn't called.The point is that Stevens' 3 drops were huge momentum killers.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

It's not close.  Stevens was awful and Parker made perhaps the most pivotal play in the game.

Stevens was benched for Ryan Hannam, for God's sake.  He had the worst Super Bowl of any player on either team.

I agree Parker had a better game. But I don't think it was all that more impressive than the game Stevens had. And if we want to point out that Stevens came out of the game for Hannam, then the question begs to be asked why Parker (the starter) had 10 carries and Bettis (the backup\short yardage guy) had 14 carries?

Parker and Bettis almost always split carries. Whoever is having more success is going to get more looks. It also depends on the situation - Bettis got a lot of his carries late, when the Steelers needed the hammer in there to get first downs. Add to this that it was his final game in front of his home crowd, and he was bound to get a lot of carries. I was shocked he didn't start. Stevens is their pass-catching TE. When he is replaced by the blocking TE in passing situations, as he was, that's a BENCHING.Bottom line : Parker had almost 100 yards and a TD on those 10 carries he had (9.4 ypc average), including the longest run from scrimmage in Super Bowl history. Stevens caught a TD pass, but dropped 3 crucial passes and got benched for the 3rd string TE.

Any comparison here is absurd.

 

[BlueOnion]

The point is that Stevens' 3 drops were huge momentum killers.

Yes, Stevens 3 drops were huge momentum killers. But so were Parker's 9 putrid carries for 18 yards; which is my point.

 

[CrossEyed]

The point is that Stevens' 3 drops were huge momentum killers.

Yes, Stevens 3 drops were huge momentum killers. But so were Parker's 9 putrid carries for 18 yards; which is my point.

Much of the reason for Parker's 9 for 18 was very good Seatle run D. There really weren't any holes. Stevens has no reason for his 3 drops, other than he has lousy hands.

 

[kupcho1]

The point is that Stevens' 3 drops were huge momentum killers.

Yes, Stevens 3 drops were huge momentum killers. But so were Parker's 9 putrid carries for 18 yards; which is my point.

Much of the reason for Parker's 9 for 18 was very good Seatle run D. There really weren't any holes. Stevens has no reason for his 3 drops, other than he has lousy hands.

The only way you can make the analogy work is if Parker had gaping holes to run through but tripped and fell down untouched.

 

[jurb26]

Ummm, Parker easy.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Blue Onion, you never stop do you?

 

[BlueOnion]

Blue Onion, you never stop do you?

People read what they want to read. I even stated above that Parker had a better game in the Super Bowl. I am merely asking 'how much better', which looking at the numbers seems to be a very fair question.

 

[jetpack]

The point is that Stevens' 3 drops were huge momentum killers.

Yes, Stevens 3 drops were huge momentum killers. But so were Parker's 9 putrid carries for 18 yards; which is my point.

I would say the big difference is that Stevens was more self-inflicted bad play, whereas Parkers is more due to the Seahawks defense against the steeler rush. So, while I wouldn't say their "play" was close - Stevens clearly played worse given both's respective opportunities - their net effectiveness in terms of positive yardage plays was close as you point out. I think your observation is a great one because it focuses attention towards what I think many many on this board and media have missed - this was a very good defensive battle. Did it affect people's expectations of the offenses? YES. People want to see glitz and beauty. They got alot of punching in the mouth from both teams. The Seahawks totally flustered the Steelers for the first quarter and a half. The Steelers confused Hasselbeck for nearly all of the 3rd and 4th. This contributed to drops, 1 yard gains, sacks, INTs, and mental mistakes by receivers on both sides. Shame people won't look much at that.

 

[BlueOnion]

I would say the big difference is that Stevens was more self-inflicted bad play, whereas Parkers is more due to the Seahawks defense against the steeler rush. So, while I wouldn't say their "play" was close - Stevens clearly played worse given both's respective opportunities - their net effectiveness in terms of positive yardage plays was close as you point out.

I agree and this was very evident watching the game; immediately after I would consider this question absurd. But after further review, Parker was wildly ineffective with the exception of one play and by midway through the 3rd quarter Cowher had Parker buried on the bench. If Cowher thought the problem was lack of holes, then Parker should have stayed in. As Evilgrin pointed out, there very well are some other logical reasons; this would not be the first time Bettis was brought in to 'close a game' and Bettis had a great story and giving him some extra playing time would have been well deserved.