NFL writer Elliot Harrison recently wrote a list of the top five biggest plays of the 2000s to celebrate NFL network's "decade's month". The problem with this list is that it doesn't feature Santonio Holmes SB catch or James Harrison's SB runback. Something like a top five list is in itself "click bait" but the design of this article comes off almost as if the writer wrote it just for the sake of being different. Elliot's reasoning for why he didn't put these plays in his list might be one of the saddest excuses ever put in a sports article.
Elliot's reasoning for not featuring the Holmes's catch was because the Steelers were only down by three and that this somehow takes away from the play. He compares it to Dwight Clark's catch putting the 49ers ahead of the cowboys after being down by six. While I do acknowledge that "the catch" is put in higher regard than Holmes's catch in NFL lore, Holmes's catch is put in a high regard for a lot more reasons than just the scoreboard like Elliot presumes. Unlike "the catch", Holmes caught that ball in the SB to actually win the SB and it solidified Holmes winning the SB MVP. I could also make the case that the play itself is more impressive than "the catch" when one actually watches the play. Be it Holmes's tiptoe stance to stay in bounds or Ben being able to angle it over three Cardinal defenders. As for Elliot's three point argument, even though the Steelers could've kicked a FG to tie it up, they still needed a TD to actually win the game. It should also be pointed out that this is the 2000s, not the 80s. Why even talk about "the catch" in the first place when you're not even supposed to be comparing it to that?
Elliot's reasoning for not including Harrison's runback is probably even worse because........well....... he doesn't give one. He acknowledges that Harrison's runback was a bigger play than Holmes's catch to him but doesn't actually put it on the list and says it "falls just shy". I'm sorry but you're telling me that the biggest play in SB history doesn't even make the list for it's own decade "just because"?
The saddest part is the list itself:
5. Ben's tackle in 2005 against Colts. This was a huge play but the problem is that this is the only Steeler related play on this list. Would you really put this ahead of the other two plays? Of Harrison's runback?
4. Trey Junkin's mishap in 2002 WC. Really? This is more well known for being a referee mishap than a big play. The 49ers made one of the greatest comebacks in NFL history but this is the play that stands out?
3. The "He did WHAAATTT???!!!!!" packers-Vikings play during Monday football. That's right folks. A regular season play is supposedly bigger than two of the greatest SB plays ever because of....... a sportscaster call. Apparently, Elliot thinks it's a big deal because this game supposedly changed who got home field advantage for the Vikings who went on to get blown in the playoffs. Cause that's as big as winning the SB apparently.
2. The Helmet catch. The sad part is that this play is the only SB play in the list. Apparently playoff wins and reg season wins are "bigger" than SB wins. This is probably the only play I agree with being here on the list.
1. The Tuck Rule. I nearly gagged when I saw this. The Tuck rule. Of all things, you put the TUCK RULE? This wasn't even a play. It was a review. The play itself was just another sack fumble. I'm sorry but if your dynasty is kickstarted by a referee mishap, then that's not exactly a legendary dynasty.
I really struggle to understand what Elliot's definition of "Biggest" is. What exactly is bigger than the SB? You are looking for big plays but you only feature one SB play? I was just really frustrated by this guys logic. It was clear that Elliot Harrison didn't want there to be too many Steeler plays on his list so he just made up an excuse to not have them. This is like having a greatest receiver of all time list without Jerry Rice.