Starkey: James Harrison, come on down!
TribLIVE Sports Videos
Are the Steelers really desperate enough to bring James Harrison back?
We both know the answer to that question.
If this team had any semblance of depth at outside linebacker — that is, an oxygen-exchanging humanoid other than Chris Carter — I'd say it was a bad idea.
If their depth chart didn't have more holes than Augusta National, I'd laugh at the notion.
If their defense wasn't coming off something other than a hugely embarrassing season in which it surrendered 55 points and 610 yards in a single game, I'd say forget about it.
But they are riddled with holes. They have no depth. And their defense stunk. So how could it hurt to sign Harrison to a veteran-minimum deal? The man did some decent work in Cincinnati even though he played only 35 percent of the snaps and fit into the Bengals' 4-3 scheme about as well as Casey Hampton would fit in a tutu.
Harrison, you might have heard, expressed interest in returning to Pittsburgh during an NFL Network interview last week. The Steelers should take the cue. They could use a spare pass rusher. If Harrison shows up with nothing left, then by all means cut him (it wouldn't be the first time) at minimal cost. No harm, no foul.
Best case, Harrison becomes the defensive version of a late-stage Jerome Bettis, a Steelers legend willing to play a small but critical role in his final act. For Bettis, it was as a short-yardage and late-game battering ram. For Harrison, it could be as a situational (and late-game) pass rusher and maybe a short-yardage defender.
This is a low-risk proposition for a desperate team, one that is watching the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos lap the AFC in a barrage of offseason moves. Given their largely self-made cap issues, nobody thought the Steelers would do as much as they've done (retain Jason Worilds, sign a $25 million deal with Mike Mitchell, add Lance Moore). But it pales in comparison to what the AFC powers are doing.
Harrison turns 36 in May. He wouldn't be competing for a starting job, although it's worth noting that in about 250 fewer snaps, he had twice as many sacks (two) as Jarvis Jones. Some might worry that he can't play special teams anymore (he never could long-snap). They shouldn't worry so much. Lots of guys can play special teams.
Harrison's locker-room presence and workout habits wouldn't hurt on a defense that is getting younger, although the Steelers don't need a strength-and-conditioning coach. They need help tackling quarterbacks. Harrison showed in Cincinnati that he still can play. That is what people who covered the team tell me, and there is statistical evidence to back the assertion.
Take these numbers any way you like, but the people at ProFootballFocus.com rated Harrison as the Bengals' second-best linebacker last season with a grade of 8.4, behind only Vontaze Burfict. Bengals coaches had Harrison with eight quarterback pressures, and he tied for the team lead with four “stuffs” — a stat defined by sportingcharts.com as “the defense denying a running play at or before the line of scrimmage” usually in jumbo-package situations (to paraphrase Mike Tomlin, you people have way too much time on your hands). For comparison sake, Troy Polamalu led the Steelers with six stuffs.
None of which is to suggest Harrison was a high-impact player or would be here. But he wasn't the useless shell of a man some have portrayed him as, either.
At minuscule risk, the Steelers should kick the tires. If Harrison kicks back, you'll know it's the right move.
Joe Starkey co-hosts a show 2 to 6 p.m. weekdays on 93.7 FM. Reach him at email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Penguins confident Pouliot will be healthy, ready for camp
- Former longtime Steelers publicist Kiely dies
- FSU star QB Winston working to improve on, off field
- Ukraine conflict, disappointing earnings reports weigh on stocks
- Penn State football team savors cultural experience
- Trio holds up Penn couple at gunpoint in home
- Judge reaffirms Texas’ ‘Robin Hood’ system of school funding unconstitutional
- Facebook fans fancy ‘I’m So Greensburg’
- Pirates’ Cole growing in 1st full season
- AFL-CIO’s Trumka urges action to push the political left to polls
- Not enough primary-care doctors? Try Missouri’s plan