ATHLETE INTELLIGENCESTUDY 001
REVIEWED FOOTAGEP
KM01
SIDELINE LEADERSHIP / QUARTERBACK

Kyler MurrayARIZONA

What does Murray do—and what does the other person do next?

15reviewed windows
14 sideline + 1 field
05source games
15 / 15 windows
01 / WHO DOES WHAT, WITH WHOM

The interaction map

MURRAY · OBSERVED ACTION · INTERACTION PARTNEROBSERVED EXCHANGE / NOT CAUSAL
Drag nodes · ⌘/ctrl + scroll to zoom
Select a moment to see its actual exchange. Links show observations; not causal influence.
02 / RADIAL EVENT TIMELINE

Inside the exchange.

VIDEO REVIEW
M14TEN ’2502:08–02:30
05.51116.522Both in view: 0.0–1.0s (approx. observed)Both in view: 3.0–5.0s (approx. observed)Both in view: 6.0–22.0s (approx. observed)Murray addresses: 1.0–4.0s (approx. observed)Murray addresses: 9.0–12.0s (approx. observed)Murray addresses: 20.0–22.0s (approx. observed)Other person speaks: 4.0–6.0s (approx. observed)Other person speaks: 12.0–14.0s (approx. observed)Returned contact: 3.5–5.0s (approx. observed)Returned contact: 9.0–10.0s (approx. observed)Returned contact: 20.0–22.0s (approx. observed)Cut / blocked view: 1.0–3.0s (approx. observed)Cut / blocked view: 5.0–6.0s (approx. observed)0.0sREVIEWED CLIP1 active evidence track
00.0 / 22s

Actual source window · approximate coding (±1s). Empty tracks mean no event established. Cuts interrupt observation.

03 / EVIDENCE ACROSS GAMES

Every moment has a source.

Reviewed start Reviewed window Brush to isolate a range
00:0001:0002:0003:0004:0005:0006:0007:00LAC2022M01 · 00:19 · A bench greeting gets a hand backM02 · 01:33 · Praise while moving through a crowded benchHOU2023M03 · 00:52 · Teammates welcome Murray after the touchdownM04 · 01:09 · The defender starts; Murray answersLAC2024M05 · 01:41 · A bench comment after the recovered interceptionM06 · 02:11 · Murray asks the coach about a runM07 · 02:54 · A touchdown return becomes a chain of greetingsM15 · 05:03 · A clock instruction gets clarification and confirmationNYJ2024M08 · 01:58 · A bench greeting, then applause toward the fieldM09 · 02:42 · The coach asks; Murray explains his readM10 · 05:20 · A late-game self-assessment with no isolated replyM11 · 05:55 · Teammate-led banter about the running backTEN2025M12 · 00:28 · A very short pregame greetingM13 · 01:17 · Specific praise, but the recipient’s reply is hidden02:08M14 · 02:08 · Personal praise gets an explicit teammate replyTIME BRUSH
Source-video time · not game time14 sideline windows + M15 on-field comparator. Source time is not elapsed game time.
REVIEWED EVIDENCE / M14After a touchdown
TEN2025

Personal praise gets an explicit teammate reply

02:08—02:30 / Jones (#17), Carter + other teammates
This 22-second montage contains several interactions. Jones answers Murray during a close greeting. Later, Murray addresses Carter by name and praises his running; Carter responds with agreement and an intention to continue. Murray then moves on to greet others.
OBSERVED RESPONSE

Both a spoken acknowledgment and physical greeting are evidenced. Carter’s reply is visible as a burned-in speaker caption around 02:20; it is missing from the downloadable caption track.

VISIBILITYBoth sides intermittently visibleEVIDENCE LIMITMultiple recipients + two edits; not one 22s exchange
Review notes and source correction

Original research: Murray showing positive behavior after a touchdown, from 02:08 to 02:30; the longest window flagged in the notes. (02:08)

After reviewing: The longest supplied segment contains different recipients and camera cuts. Removed the synthetic sustained-exchange duration.

Scope: sideline. Descriptive confidence: High. Interpretation: The clearest post-score example here links specific praise to a specific reply. It supports reinforcing this behavior, but not claiming it outperforms other forms of engagement.

FINDING / SPECIFIC FEEDBACK

Specific praise. An identifiable reply.

Murray praises Carter’s running by name; Carter gives a spoken acknowledgment. That is a traceable two-way exchange—not a response inferred from a smile or a generic celebration.

Current assessmentM14 · Titans 02:17–02:22. A useful example to reinforce; not proof of superiority.
PiloteerVANTAGE / OBSERVATION OVER ASSERTIONSIDELINE STUDY · 001
EVIDENCE STANDARD / 001
01Question
02Observation
03Baseline
04Evidence quality
05Assessment
06Action

What was actually reviewed

All five sources scanned at 10-second intervals with complete downloadable captions. Fourteen supplied candidate windows and four additional context windows examined at 1-second intervals; six key exchanges checked at 0.5-second intervals; two more greeting windows received targeted full-resolution checks. One additional on-field comparator retained.

How observations were coded

Visual annotations use approximate source seconds (typically ±1 s). Source speech attribution uses caption context and burned-in speaker labels. No response-latency or elapsed game-time estimate is reported. Single AI-assisted visual frame and caption review; no independent second coder or inter-rater reliability estimate.

What the charts mean

The graph and chord diagram count reviewed windows, not leadership strength. The radial and linear tracks show source-linked annotations. The event distribution uses actual coded event starts with no invented samples or reaction-time estimates. M15 is an on-field comparator and is excluded from the sideline event distribution.

What the review cannot establish

Edited team-produced highlights; selected positive moments, incomplete views, audio omissions, no continuous failure baseline and no matched longitudinal sample. These are descriptive observations and coaching hypotheses, not psychological diagnoses or causal performance findings.

Speaker identification

Names are used only where a visible jersey or burned-in speaker label supports them. Woolfork’s coach role is corroborated by the official 2024 staff article.

Cardinals: Woolfork’s quarterbacks role, Jan 2024

Cardinals: Carter on the 2024 practice squad