Pondering Her Percy wrote:I was simply providing the link to basically try and end the argument. You say logical, good faith discussion yet you sit there calling what I am saying "excuses" and that I "think I know what I'm talking about but I don't" when literally nobody is agreeing with you. By me saying "someone" is just nitpicking. I wasn't going to throw your name all over the board and call you out. I meant nothing by it and was keeping it as civil as possible. As for the "forming my opinion, don't trouble me with facts" garbage....I've told you how I felt about the pass and its pretty darn similar to everyone else on here which is OUR opinion ...
It's actually quite different from what others are saying . As far as I can tell, you are the only one claiming the ball was out in front of Johnson and catchable for that reason. The other people saying it was catchable seem to be saying he could have extended upward to make the catch after coming out of his break. Both the video and still shots clearly show that the ball was never out in front of Johnson. That's not a matter of speculation or opinion and it's not a subjective point of view. It's evident on film.
As for what everyone else thinks; most seem to agree that the pass was high, even though we disagree on the exact nature of the route.
... and what facts are you even providing??!!!
Actual visual evidence of what I've described.
That you "think" you know what route he was running when you have no clue what the play call was??
I'm not claiming to know the play
call. Regardless of what was called, we can see the route Johnson actually ran. That's on film. I'm not sure why it's a sticking point since every angle of the play shows the pass was high. It would have been high on a comeback route as well as on a down and out. That's not where the ball is supposed to be thrown on either of those routes. I contend it was a down and out because Johnson ran an L-shaped route and after his break, he stayed almost parallel to the hashmarks, which isn't how a comeback route is typically run (on that route, the receiver literally comes back toward the line of scrimmage, usually toward the QB, which is clearly not what Johnson did).
That you "think" you know where the ball should have been placed when you didn't even have a clear view from the field??
I've seen video of the play from 4 different angles: broadcast standard, isolation replay on Johnson, end zone all-22 and side view all-22. I can clearly follow the trajectory of the ball on all 4 of those, although it's harder to see on the side view. On top of all that, it's football 101 that the ball is not supposed to be thrown over the receiver's head on any of the routes in question. On an out route, the idea is to hit the receiver on the numbers or to throw it lower and away, so it can't be intercepted. Throwing it high is the last thing you want to do, for obvious reasons. On a comeback route, the ball should be thrown on the numbers.
That you "think" it wasn't a catchable ball when a 6'2 WR is basically bent over touching his toes, so in turn, you have no way to tell if it was or not??
I've said it might have been catchable but "catchable " does not = "good pass".
That you "think" the LB had a better shot at it than Johnson did??
That's self-evident. All you have to do is look. The LB's hand gets quite near the ball as it passes. Johnson's hands never get near it and it's directly above him, which means it was thrown behind him since he's in motion from left to right. It's right there on film and the screen shots. All you have to do is look.
....point is, there aren't any facts. There is nothing but speculation from both sides of the argument.
That's simply not true. There's visual evidence of exactly what occurred on the play. That's factual information, not speculation.
I'll happily drop this now but honestly, I'm open-minded and if I'm wrong about any of the above, if I've described the play inaccurately, either the way the route was run or the placement of the pass being high and somewhat behind the receiver, I'd genuinely appreciate it if someone could show me the contrary evidence on film (here or via PM). From the start, my objective was to gain a clear understanding what happened on the play and to provide visual evidence from the film for those who don't have access to it. That's it.
Norv is really crafty!