Andy Benoit :Final Super Bowl XLIX film study

ausbacker said:

Great. Jump outside, play catch with some kids and reenact the play at full speed. It seems fairly simple to do from the benefit of comfort and with no pressure attached to the situation.

Sure, we all would like players to do this or to do that but **** me, do some of you have unrealistic expectations for the moment.

It's a split second decision being made at speed. It is not a simple task, no matter how well coached.

Click to expand...

You just PROVED why it should be muscle memory.

Muscle memory should be "Go for the ball" not "Oh it looks like it may be rolling around so I will take my eyes off and raise my arms to get out of the way while I leap over him".

The problem is that he overthought it and made a judgement on a split second play.

You don't understand that.

shmessy said:

He could have tried to swat the ball instead of making like a hurdler.

He leaped over Kearse because he thought the play was OVER.

That was a mental assumption he should not have made. You NEVER give up on a play - - especially one that crucial

Click to expand...

Except in the NFL, defenders are required to give up on plays and flagged on a weekly basis when they don't. Specifically, defensive backs who make contact with WRs who left their feet to catch a ball or who hit one lying on the ground are almost always hit with 15 yards.

It might be absurd and ridiculous and it still in retrospect be the wrong play by Harmon but there is some NFL specific context to it. Those rules exist and you can bet DBs are coached to avoid those penalties.

dhamz said:

Except in the NFL, defenders are required to give up on plays and flagged on a weekly basis when they don't. Specifically, defensive backs who make contact with WRs who left their feet to catch a ball or who hit one lying on the ground are almost always hit with 15 yards.

It might be absurd and ridiculous and it still in retrospect be the wrong play by Harmon but there is some NFL specific context to it. Those rules exist and you can bet DBs are coached to avoid those penalties.

Click to expand...

I hear ya, Dhamz.

But there's a difference between launching yourself and reaching for the ball.

Watch the play again. His helmet turns up and away from the play. He literally took his eye off the ball and the player. He gave up on the play. There is a difference between being careful and giving up on the play.

Once again, I like Harmon and I think he is developing into a very good safety for the Pats. This was not a good moment, however. I hope he learns from it.

RayClay said:

Run that play over a few times. Harmon would have needed to be superman, or have thrusters in his hands and feet to have positioned himself to reverse his momentum and flip backward in mid air to play that ball without landing all over the receiver and getting an obvious penalty.

Even then, he would have needed to know where and how high that last bounce would be.

Click to expand...

This is some major BS. He screwed up. No one is suggesting he light up Kearse, but he should have been a ball hawk and gone after the ball. What was more improbable Kearse’s circus catch or him plucking it out of the air as it hovered tantalizingly midair? Both improbable right? But one player kept playing the ball and one chose to purposely avoid getting involved in the play? There’s no risk of penalty if he goes for the ball. Throwing in him lighting up Kearse is a straw man. There’s no excuse for the way he played that ball. Look at it again, he wasn’t going full tilt and unable to control his actions. He ****y footed and hopped over Kearse thinking the play was over. He should have played the fu----- ball.

captain stone said:

Duhron Harmon should've dove for the ball, not for Kearse, and should've had his arms extended.
That ball was waiting to be intercepted.

If the Pats had lost, Butler would've felt like he had let his teammates down, and that would've been
a DAMN SHAME, because he was completely blameless. What Harmon did was inexcusable, and had
we lost, unforgivable.

Click to expand...

Of course you're right. Those talking about 15 yard penalty for lighting up Kearse are purposely being obtuse.

shmessy said:

He could have tried to swat the ball instead of making like a hurdler.

He leaped over Kearse because he thought the play was OVER.

That was a mental assumption he should not have made. You NEVER give up on a play - - especially one that crucial. DB's consistently are taught to swat at footballs until they hear the whistle. While he leaped, he actually raised his arms. That's because he assumed the play was over. That was a mental error that will most definitely (if it hasn't already) be addressed by Belichick and Flores.

I love Duron Harmon and believe he is a possible future starter for this team, but that was not his best moment. It is ironic that Butler (who had great coverage on the play and, I believe, actually tipped the ball near its high point) has been publicly blaming himself for that.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. This is an honest assessment of what happened.

RayClay said:

Run that play over a few times. Harmon would have needed to be superman, or have thrusters in his hands and feet to have positioned himself to reverse his momentum and flip backward in mid air to play that ball without landing all over the receiver and getting an obvious penalty.

Even then, he would have needed to know where and how high that last bounce would be.

Click to expand...

So if Harmon had caught the ball and gotten both feet down on the receiver, and not the actual field, is that an interception?

mb6592 said:

This is some major BS. He screwed up. No one is suggesting he light up Kearse, but he should have been a ball hawk and gone after the ball. What was more improbable Kearse’s circus catch or him plucking it out of the air as it hovered tantalizingly midair? Both improbable right? But one player kept playing the ball and one chose to purposely avoid getting involved in the play? There’s no risk of penalty if he goes for the ball. Throwing in him lighting up Kearse is a straw man. There’s no excuse for the way he played that ball. Look at it again, he wasn’t going full tilt and unable to control his actions. He ***** footed and hopped over Kearse thinking the play was over. He should have played the fu----- ball.

Click to expand...

Watch the play from different angles. harmon would have had to do a back flip and completely change his momentum (he was headed out of bounds, not near the ball) in mid air, meaning he would have needed retro rockets to reverse his momentum in mid air.

The play is available on NBC from enough angles that I know by your argument, you're going from what you thought you saw in memory.

The Gr8est said:

So if Harmon had caught the ball and gotten both feet down on the receiver, and not the actual field, is that an interception?

Click to expand...

It's a moot point.

I've watched it again, this time rerunning an angle that was not the first shown.

I did read superman comics when i was young and I guess he could fly and change direction whenever he wanted.

I say that because, with the momentum of running all across the field, Harmon would have had to do a move in mid air that is humanely impossible. He tiptoed to avoid tripping over Kearse, the was in mid air going toward the sideline, not Kearse. In midair, there isn't anyway to completely change the direction your momentum.

People are victims of an illusion of depth perception. The first shot seems to indicate Harmon is going right over where the ball is. the side view shows he's a yard or so away, in mid air, going in a direction toward the sideline, not toward the ball.

mb6592 said:

This is some major BS. He screwed up. No one is suggesting he light up Kearse, but he should have been a ball hawk and gone after the ball. What was more improbable Kearse’s circus catch or him plucking it out of the air as it hovered tantalizingly midair? Both improbable right? But one player kept playing the ball and one chose to purposely avoid getting involved in the play? There’s no risk of penalty if he goes for the ball. Throwing in him lighting up Kearse is a straw man. There’s no excuse for the way he played that ball. Look at it again, he wasn’t going full tilt and unable to control his actions. He ***** footed and hopped over Kearse thinking the play was over. He should have played the fu----- ball.

Click to expand...

Kearse's catch was improbable, but hardly impossible. lucky bonces within his grasp. He could have caught it many ways.

What you wanted harmon to do was against the laws of physics based on where he was, his momentum and being in midair.

RayClay said:

Watch the play from different angles. harmon would have had to do a back flip and completely change his momentum (he was headed out of bounds, not near the ball) in mid air, meaning he would have needed retro rockets to reverse his momentum in mid air.

The play is available on NBC from enough angles that I know by your argument, you're going from what you thought you saw in memory.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're looking at, but from this vantage point he had plenty of opportunity to make a play on the ball:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/1/7961431/jermaine-kearse-catch-seahawks-super-bowl-omg

Maybe he was too scared to get a penalty (not completely illogical in today's ticky-tacky NFL), but that's no way to play defense if you want to win a championship.

shmessy said:

You just PROVED why it should be muscle memory.

Muscle memory should be "Go for the ball" not "Oh it looks like it may be rolling around so I will take my eyes off and raise my arms to get out of the way while I leap over him".

The problem is that he overthought it and made a judgement on a split second play.

You don't understand that.

Click to expand...

What an utterly ridiculous position to hold. It leads me to the conclusion that you have never played sport to a high level and experienced the pressure of the moment.

mb6592 said:

Not sure what you're looking at, but from this vantage point he had plenty of opportunity to make a play on the ball:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/1/7961431/jermaine-kearse-catch-seahawks-super-bowl-omg

Maybe he was too scared to get a penalty (not completely illogical in today's ticky-tacky NFL), but that's no way to play defense if you want to win a championship.

Click to expand...

The problem you and @shmessy are running in to is neither of you are giving any consideration to game speed. @shmessy thinks it's a simple case of training muscle memory. Apparently Coach Belichick can coach his Safeties to run across the field and break up a circus catch where their teammate had good position and more often than not, the play goes dead. I know he's the second coming but c'mon man.

It is truly remarkable that some factions of Patsfans are making it out to be an easy play and something that could be easily coached against. The reality suggests otherwise.

I was livid at Brady's 2nd interception then you rewatch the play and realise it was nowhere near as bad as your first impression may have you believe. There's a handful of LBs in the NFL who make that play just like there would probably be a handful of DBs capable of making the play you two are suggesting could be made with ease.

mb6592 said:

Not sure what you're looking at, but from this vantage point he had plenty of opportunity to make a play on the ball:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/2/1/7961431/jermaine-kearse-catch-seahawks-super-bowl-omg

Maybe he was too scared to get a penalty (not completely illogical in today's ticky-tacky NFL), but that's no way to play defense if you want to win a championship.

Click to expand...

You understand That he's running at full speed in a different direction, then goes airborne, right? If you want to believe what you see in camera angles that flatten the depth perception, that there's a point where he can shift his body in mid air and intercept the ball instead of landing a couple yards past the sideline, i can't convince you otherwise.

I've got the game and there's an angle from the side that shows how much distance there is and where his momentum is going.

There are three angles in the game tape. The angle that would show exactly how far awat would be one in the middle of the field, which of course there isn't. watch the three angles and you can see he had no chance to make that play, he was going in a different direction before it even bounced up.

Maybe there's a blimp cam take which would make it indisputable. Sideline cameras all are at an angle that eliminates depth.

RayClay said:

You understand That he's running at full speed in a different direction, then goes airborne, right? If you want to believe what you see in camera angles that flatten the depth perception, that there's a point where he can shift his body in mid air and intercept the ball instead of landing a couple yards past the sideline, i can't convince you otherwise.

I've got the game and there's an angle from the side that shows how much distance there is and where his momentum is going.

Click to expand...

This is a different angle.



3:03-3:07

and then slo mo from 3:16-3;24

Both show clearly (the slo mo even more clearly) that Harmon slowed down when he saw the FIRST TIP and then jumped over. His decision was made BEFORE the first tip even bounced down.

You are arguing about changing directions in mid air - - that's not the point. Harmon gave up on the ball BEFORE he jumped. His stride slows two steps before the jump. It's not a mid-air discussion at all.

And BTW, he was NOT running in a "different direction". He had a great angle and was going straight for the play. This was not a Steve Gregory or Tavon Wilson angle. His angle was perfect. He simply took his eyes off the ball (clear from the video - - he's is NOT looking down at it, but ahead deep behind the sideline. He just didn't finish the job.

shmessy said:

This is a different angle.



3:03-3:07

and then slo mo from 3:16-3;24

Both show clearly (the slo mo even more clearly) that Harmon slowed down when he saw the FIRST TIP and then jumped over. His decision was made before the first tip even came down.

You are arguing changing directions in mid air - - that's not the point. Harmon gave up on the ball BEFORE he jumped. It's not a mid-air discussion at all.

And BTW, he was NOT running in a "different direction". he was going straight for the play.

Click to expand...

If he had slowed down, why was he a couple yards out of bounds when he managed to stop his momentum? He didn't speed up while he was in the air, did he?

He was in the air traveling away at a 90 degree angle.

RayClay said:

If he had slowed down, why was he a couple yards out of bounds when he managed to stop his momentum? He didn't speed up while he was in the air, did he?

Click to expand...

Did I say he slowed to a stop?

"A couple of yards out of bounds" - - a person can fall over and be a couple of yards out of bounds.

He had sprinted to get in perfect angle position, he slowed when he saw it being tipped and jumped.

And you DO understand why he was jumping, right? It's because he was RIGHT OVER the guy juggling the ball! Harmon wasn't doing calisthenics.

Look, it's all there on the video.

shmessy said:

This is a different angle.



3:03-3:07

and then slo mo from 3:16-3;24

Both show clearly (the slo mo even more clearly) that Harmon slowed down when he saw the FIRST TIP and then jumped over. His decision was made BEFORE the first tip even bounced down.

You are arguing about changing directions in mid air - - that's not the point. Harmon gave up on the ball BEFORE he jumped. His stride slows two steps before the jump. It's not a mid-air discussion at all.

And BTW, he was NOT running in a "different direction". He had a great angle and was going straight for the play. This was not a Steve Gregory or Tavon Wilson angle. His angle was perfect. He just didn't finish the job.

Click to expand...

You have a sideline camera on a play happening directly along the sideline. When the ball's in the air (3:21) and Harmon's there he is directly between The ball and the camera. That distance could be 1 foot or 8 feet and it would look pretty much the same in a 2 dimensional picture.

It's the worst possible angle if you want to eliminate the depth perception illusion.

RayClay said:

You have a sideline camera on a play happening directly along the sideline. When the ball's in the air (3:21) and Harmon's there he is directly between The ball and the camera. That distance could be 1 foot or 8 feet and it would look pretty much the same in a 2 dimensional picture.

It's the worst possible angle if you want to eliminate the depth perception illusion.

Click to expand...

He jumped over a guy juggling a ball. He jumped over him for a reason. Because he was right over him while he was juggling and Harmon clearly wasn't looking at the ball (something you are not addressing, but is clear from the videos - - just look at the helmet angle). The guy took his eye off the ball.

Obviously we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

At least they won the game.

shmessy said:

Did I say he slowed to a stop?

"A couple of yards out of bounds" - - a person can fall over and be a couple of yards out of bounds.

He had sprinted to get in perfect angle position, he slowed when he saw it being tipped and jumped.

And you DO understand why he was jumping, right? It's because he was RIGHT OVER the guy juggling the ball! Harmon wasn't doing calisthenics.

Look, it's all there on the video.

Click to expand...

No, it's not all there in the video. You're throwing out selective comments and spurious rationale in an attempt to convince yourself that you're putting forward a sound argument. Frankly, the further you develop this train of thought, the more absurd it appears.

That split second Harmon has to diagnose and execute this apparently simple play isn't a simple as you would have us believe @shmessy.