The 2014 NFL Playoffs Thread [Archive] - Page 2

cricket

01-20-15, 03:50 PM

I would have thought someone would have already said something about those footballs. :lol:

I understand very little about sports betting, but I realize part has to deal with how the books want the money played. However, how can this line be what it is after Seattle played like that and New England destroyed Indy?

The football deflation issue is rather silly. The referees check the balls before each game and handle the balls before each play. The Colts get hammered and now they're worried about how much air was in the football; pretty lame. I don't know if there was at least 12.5 PSI in the ball or not, but it does slowly deflate during use, and in cold weather. Honestly, who cares? Just a couple weeks ago, Aaron Rodgers said publicly that he inflates the balls over what the NFL allows, and just leaves it up to the referees to catch him. Does that mean that his career and the Packer's last Superbowl should be called into question? I don't think so, but when anything involves the Patriots, all of the big mouth bashers come out of the woodwork.

As far as the Superbowl line goes, I was surprised that the Patriots were not an underdog. After digging a little deeper, I came to find out that they were the underdog until the very end of this last game. Public overreaction to one blowout caused a lot of money to go their way, resulting in the current pick em. It's sort of ridiculous, as either Seattle or Green Bay would've also had their way with Indy.

Yoda

01-20-15, 04:16 PM

So...if the investigation concludes that the Patriots deliberately deflated balls to try to gain an edge, is that cheating?

cricket

01-20-15, 04:30 PM

I don't know, it really seems so ticky tac. You know, teams and players do things; if someone thinks that their team is 100% guilt free, they're naive. I wouldn't worry about the amount of pressure in a ball no matter what the team. My question is, if the Patriots are found to be guilty and considered as cheats, does it only apply to them as usual?

rauldc14

01-20-15, 04:58 PM

Yoda

01-20-15, 04:58 PM

You know, teams and players do things; if someone thinks that their team is 100% guilt free, they're naive.
Yes, that hypothetical person is very naive. And made of straw.

I wouldn't worry about the amount of pressure in a ball no matter what the team.
So...it wouldn't be cheating?

My question is, if the Patriots are found to be guilty and considered as cheats, does it only apply to them as usual?
So if they're found guilty, your position is going to be that a lot of other teams probably do it? If so, then you must think that already, yes?

Camo

01-20-15, 04:59 PM

Before the playoffs started i said i doubt anyone will get past the Packers or Seahawks so i feel like the NFC Championship was the true superbowl, then again i may have spoke too soon looking at how the Pats dismantled the Colts. I only started following the NFL shortly before the Playoffs last year and instantly took to Peyton Manning, so this was pretty much the worst SB for me; well lesser of two evils and all. GO PATS!!! :p

Still all credit to Brady first QB to reach 6 Superbowls :up: .

Yoda

01-20-15, 05:00 PM

What I can't wait to see if how the AFC shakes out after Brady and Manning retire. In the past 12 years only 4 quarterbacks from the AFC hahave made the Superbowl. Brady, Manning, Big Ben, and Flacco once.
Luck is the obvious choice.

A tiny part of me wants to believe that Ben being several years younger than Manning and Brady means he might stick around (and play at a high level) long enough to really reap some rewards once they call it a career. But given how often he's been hit, that's pretty questionable.

cricket

01-20-15, 05:08 PM

Yes, that hypothetical person is very naive. And made of straw.

So...it wouldn't be cheating?

So if they're found guilty, your position is going to be that a lot of other teams probably do it? If so, then you must think that already, yes?

I think it's meaningless, and I wouldn't call it cheating. How about you? Is Aaron Rodgers a cheater? You don't need to know the results of the Patriots investigation to have an opinion on that.

Yoda

01-20-15, 05:29 PM

I think it's meaningless, and I wouldn't call it cheating.
Breaking the rules to try to gain an advantage isn't cheating? Heck, what is, then?

It sounds like you're talking about this in terms of the legitimacy of the team's victory, IE: you don't think it helped them win. That may be, but since when does cheating have to be effective to be wrong? It's ethically wrong to break the rules to try to gain an advantage even if you're mistaken about it providing you with an advantage. You don't cease to be a thief if you find out later the money you stole was counterfeit, for example.

How about you? Is Aaron Rodgers a cheater? You don't need to know the results of the Patriots investigation to have an opinion on that.
If he consistently inflates balls beyond the legal limit and gets away with it, then yes, of course he's a cheater.

This would have to be actually proven, however. At the moment all we have is a secondhand remark (not even a quote), which is several magnitudes of order less significant than an official investigation. Which parallels the Spygate discussion, by the way, wherein other fans are asked to give the same weight to unsubstantiated rumors and anecdotes as they do to irrefutable evidence.

cricket

01-20-15, 05:46 PM

I'm driving so have to be brief. I think I just look at cheating in professional sports differently. Players and teams do what they can get away with. If they get caught, there's a penalty on or off the field. Cheating is a strong word that I don't think applies to every rule violation in professional sports.

doubledenim

01-20-15, 05:59 PM

If we are being honest, the main reason I logged in this past weekend was to follow cricket and Yoda.

Having no clue whatsoever, my gut says Pats +7 (I really want to say 10 :suspicious:). Green Bay just didn't look good, while Seattle needed a lifetime of luck to beat em'.

Yoda

01-20-15, 06:27 PM

Do not make this site the reason you crash and die. DON'T PUT THAT EVIL ON ME RICKY BOBBY.

Anyway, I don't think every rule violating deserves the word "cheating," either, but I think consistently breaking the rules to gain an advantage has to qualify if the word is to have any meaning. If you have a more idiosyncratic definition of the word, I'd be curious to hear it.

cricket

01-20-15, 06:43 PM

I think there's a lot of grey area. If an offensive lineman deliberately holds a defensive lineman for a whole game because the referee isn't calling it, that's consistently breaking the rules to get an advantage. I wouldn't call it cheating; I think it's on the referees to stop it. I don't think Aaron Rodgers is a cheater; the referees check the balls before every game, so as far as I'm concerned, it's on them. The referees checked the balls before the Patriots game, and declared them fit for the game. They were then put away until game time as per usual.

Yoda

01-20-15, 06:48 PM

You've only listed things that you don't think qualify as cheating. What does?

seanc

01-20-15, 07:00 PM

I get what your saying Cricket. There are degrees. I don't find this story to be a big deal, but if they are doing it they bring it upon themselves. The bigger picture to me is that you seem to think everyone likes to point fingers at the Patriots. Welcome to the club, it is lonely at the top. As a Yankee fan I have been arguing that their financial practices aren't the end of baseball as we know it for twenty years. The thing is Steinbrenner brought much of that on himself with his attitude and pratices. Same here with Belichick. He acts above it all, including the NFL. He wants everyone to hate him and his team. He gets what he asks for. Maybe its not fair, but like most everyone outside of NE, I don't care. He and that team are easy to hate.

cricket

01-20-15, 07:01 PM

It's a good question; I'm not sure how I feel about that in professional football. Us fans have such a different outlook than the players and organizations. It's a win at all costs league with so much money involved. That in and of itself changes the rules of fair play.

Yoda

01-20-15, 07:14 PM

cricket

01-20-15, 07:21 PM

You're right Sean, I hate the Yankees, only because they've been great for so long. The Patriots were America's darling on their way to their first Superbowl win. The average fan hates a winner when it's not their own, and just like love, it can be blind.

cricket

01-20-15, 07:24 PM

The fact that teams will do anything to win is precisely why the rules are necessary. Rules are needed proportional to the importance the participants place on winning.

Anyway, my point is that there's a difference between saying something doesn't qualify as cheating and saying you don't even think there is such a thing.

You're right, but in a league like the NFL, I kind of feel that just about anything is fair game to try, and it's up to whoever enforces the rules to do just that.

Erasmus Folly

01-20-15, 08:12 PM

I know we're talking football but I'd like to put my two cents in with an analogy from baseball (although I don't follow it as much as I use to). Back in 1983 the Kansas City Royals were playing the New York Yankees and with KC trailing the Yankees 4-3 in the top of the 9th when the following happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbEHAsZxRYo

IMO Brett broke the rules but did not cheat, which was the conclusion of the American League President who overruled the decision of the umpire. (If you watch the video, at the end the announcer says the bat was taken away by Gaylord Perry, who was a notorious spitballer, which in his case is cheating.) Thus the distinction is, if an individual player can be in violation of a rule, but if they do not intend to gain an unfair advantage then there is no cheating.
But if a team breaks a rule there is an implied conclusion that they are attempting to gain an unfair advantage which is cheating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident

seanc

01-20-15, 08:15 PM

Why break a rule if you don't think it gives you an advantage? I think there are degrees here but all the things mentioned in the thread are cheating in the truest sense of the word.

cricket

01-20-15, 08:35 PM

As I read more about it, I am even more confident that what the Patriots did resulting in spygate, did not give them an unfair advantage. I'll get back to this.

Erasmus Folly

01-20-15, 09:24 PM

Why break a rule if you don't think it gives you an advantage? I think there are degrees here but all the things mentioned in the thread are cheating in the truest sense of the word.
The key point is that if you break a rule inadvertently or technically without the intention of gaining an unfair advantage then its not cheating.

If the Patriots (or any team for that matter) tried to push the envelope and hoped that nobody would notice, then that is cheating. They always could ask the NFL league office if they wanted to try something questionable,which a head coach who knows the NFL's rules inside out, would certainly be aware of.

cricket

01-20-15, 09:47 PM

This is a must read for anyone who thinks the Patriots cheated a few years ago.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/199345-the-truth-about-spygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity

cricket

01-20-15, 09:54 PM

Misconceptions-

Stealing signals is illegal- it's not and never has been.

The Patriots were sneaky about it- far from it; they did it in plain view for the whole world to see.

They used the tapes during the game they were taping-no, and it's not something that they were ever accused of.

They gained an advantage by videotaping signals-no, videotaping is allowed in many instances, and using videotape is just a matter of convenience. Without videotape, it's perfectly legal to steal signals the old fashioned way.

Yoda

01-21-15, 11:04 AM

Misconceptions-

Stealing signals is illegal- it's not and never has been.
I dunno who in this thread is supposed to be under this misconception. To the contrary, it's the team's defenders that imply this by quoting guys like Cowher saying "everyone did it" without revealing (or noticing?) that they're not talking about video.

They used the tapes during the game they were taping-no, and it's not something that they were ever accused of.
How can you say "no" to this, as if it were established fact? You have no way to know if it's true or not. This is probably one of the main reasons the taping is illegal, by the way: because it'd be almost impossible to prove whether or not someone used it during the game.

Also, are you suggesting that it would be wrong if they did?

They gained an advantage by videotaping signals-no, videotaping is allowed in many instances, and using videotape is just a matter of convenience. Without videotape, it's perfectly legal to steal signals the old fashioned way.
Something that is convenient saves work. You don't think having less work to do on the sidelines is an advantage? You don't think having one more assistant coach free is an advantage? It is literally impossible to say something is "convenient" but not advantageous.

Yoda

01-21-15, 11:26 AM

cricket

01-21-15, 11:53 AM

I dunno who in this thread is supposed to be under this misconception. To the contrary, it's the team's defenders that imply this by quoting guys like Cowher saying "everyone did it" without revealing (or noticing?) that they're not talking about video.

How can you say "no" to this, as if it were established fact? You have no way to know if it's true or not. This is probably one of the main reasons the taping is illegal, by the way: because it'd be almost impossible to prove whether or not someone used it during the game.

Also, are you suggesting that it would be wrong if they did?

Something that is convenient saves work. You don't think having less work to do on the sidelines is an advantage? You don't think having one more assistant coach free is an advantage? It is literally impossible to say something is "convenient" but not advantageous.

It is legal to videotape opposing teams signals, but it's restricted as to where you do it from.

As far as using film during the game they were taping, they were never accused of it. You say there's no way of knowing if it's true that they didn't do it, but then that's no different then not knowing if anyone else did it. There was an extensive investigation, and they were never accused of doing it.

Sure, anything convenient saves work, but whether or not they videotape the Jets signals or write them down, they have a long time to do what they need to do with them, and unlimited resources to use.

cricket

01-21-15, 11:56 AM

Meanwhile, as most of you have probably heard, sources from the NFL are saying that 11 of the 12 footballs in question were deflated by a significant margin (http://espn.go.com/boston/story/_/id/12202450/nfl-says-new-england-patriots-had-inflated-footballs-afc-championship-game)--too much, it sounds like, to have been incidental. This isn't official yet, though these kinds of reports usually end up being confirmed shortly afterwards. Either way, we should know within a few days.

This really sucks.

This does suck as it takes away from the upcoming game. It'll be interested to see how it plays out. If the NFL proves that they deflated the balls during the game(I guess it would have to be the ballboy?), they will pay a steep penalty.

Yoda

01-21-15, 12:13 PM

It is legal to videotape opposing teams signals, but it's restricted as to where you do it from.
I'm not sure this is true. I assume you're basing this on the rule which says "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." In other words, you're taking this to mean that locations other than these three are legal, right? But there's a related rule which seems to rule this out, which states that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited." We know they make exceptions for shooting the scoreboard, but I've yet to find any exceptions for taping opposing signals.

As far as using film during the game they were taping, they were never accused of it. You say there's no way of knowing if it's true that they didn't do it, but then that's no different then not knowing if anyone else did it.
Of course it's different: in the Patriots' case, we have proof they taped it in the first place. In the case of "anyone else," we don't even have that. Therefore, we have more reason to believe it in their case.

But even if you treat these as the same, that still wouldn't be a basis for simply saying "no," as if the idea had been proven wrong. When you write a post correcting "misconceptions" and just flat-out contradict them, you're implying some kind of basis in fact, not just an opinion about an unknowable thing.

Sure, anything convenient saves work, but whether or not they videotape the Jets signals or write them down, they have a long time to do what they need to do with them, and unlimited resources to use.
Exactly: they have lots of time between games, but they have precious little time during games. So it's advantageous to free up time during games. That's why it's different.

It's also different because (and I mentioned this earlier), there's simply no comparison between handwritten notes and video. Video is complete and perfect. A person taking notes will inevitably miss things, to say nothing of simply being available during the game. No court in the world treats eyewitness testimony as being analogous to being caught on video.

jiraffejustin

01-21-15, 12:18 PM

I bet the Patriots would have only won by four touchdowns if they didn't deflate those balls.

seanc

01-21-15, 12:18 PM

Were they not disciplined for taping practices, which is against the rules? We are a few years removed from it but I thought they taped Rams practices. Then they had draft pick taken away for it. Am I recalling this incorrectly?

Yoda

01-21-15, 12:19 PM

It'll be interested to see how it plays out. If the NFL proves that they deflated the balls during the game(I guess it would have to be the ballboy?), they will pay a steep penalty.
Yeah, they say there's a minimum fine, but if they're found guilty of this, it's draft picks again. Not sure how high.

What I'd be really curious about (though we'll never know this) is whether or not the penalty would have been different if the game had been closer, or whether the fact that they likely would've won anyway will help them out a bit.

seanc

01-21-15, 12:19 PM

I bet the Patriots would have only won by four touchdowns if they didn't deflate those balls.

I said something similar to my buddy yesterday. Change the score to 35-7.

Sedai

01-21-15, 12:20 PM

“Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game and everybody attempted to do that. We had people that always tried to steal signals,” said Cowher, whose 2004 team won 16 consecutive games before losing to the Patriots in the AFC title game. “What happened when we lost that game is they outplayed us. It had nothing to do with stealing signals or cheating or anything else.” - Coach Cowher

RE: Spygate - Nothing to see here.

Go Pats!

Yoda

01-21-15, 12:21 PM

cricket

01-21-15, 12:28 PM

For example, it is legal to use videotaping equipment in the pressbox, and that's not the only place it's legal.

As far as your other points, they just simply were never accused of using the tapes during the game so these points are moot.

I've done a lot of research on spygate the last couple days and I've come to the conclusion that the rule violation was a secondary matter. This became a pissing match between the commissioner and Belichick. I've heard and read from many reliable sources about the rule change in 2006. You've said that you knew of no such rule. I would say that technically you're correct, but there's grey area, and I think this is the root of the whole problem. Everyone who videotaped before 2006 from the sidelines, and it's well known that it was widespread, were well within the rules. The memo the commissioner sent in 2006 added to the rule that's in the NFL constitution, in effect changing the rule. Belichick ignored the memo and continued to do what he did all along. When there's a rule change in the NFL, it's supposed to go before the rules committee. Belichick was defiant and continued to videotape from the sidelines in front of everybody, thus challenging the commissioner, and that's a fight that he lost. Now I understand why Jimmy Johnson said this was all about a camera angle, and why Bill Cowher said Belichick got in trouble because he was arrogant. The spygate scandal was less about stealing signals than it was about Belichick not confirming to what the commissioner wanted.

Sedai

01-21-15, 12:44 PM

That was quoted earlier. And you--just like cricket--left out the part where he indicated he wasn't talking about video.

I can only conclude there's some technical problem with that article that stops people from pasting the entire quote that only affects ISPs in Boston. Someone should look into that. :p

Oh no...it isn't just us! Here is the entire article on ESPN:

ESPN article (http://espn.go.com/blog/pittsburgh-steelers/post/_/id/4294/cowher-dismisses-impact-of-spygate)

He mentions the video a bit higher up in the article, but the crux of his comments are intact - everyone was doing it, and it's a non-issue.

Seriously - if anyone is questioning the elite skills of both Brady and Coach Bill, they/you have very little ground to stand on.

cricket

01-21-15, 12:47 PM

This is from the memo that the commissioner sent to all the coaches and general managers in 2006-

Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game. All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.

There's something in that memo that is not in the NFL rulebook, and that is the prevention of videotaping from the sidelines. Belichick challenged the commissioner's authority on this for the whole world to see, and he lost. Belichick is a great coach and a real intelligent guy, but he's a ballbuster too, and it cost him.

Yoda

01-21-15, 12:50 PM

Oh no...it isn't just us! Here is the entire article on ESPN:

ESPN article (http://espn.go.com/blog/pittsburgh-steelers/post/_/id/4294/cowher-dismisses-impact-of-spygate)

He mentions the video a bit higher up in the article, but the crux of his comments are intact - everyone was doing it, and it's a non-issue.

Seriously - if anyone is questioning the elite skills of both Brady and Coach Bill, they/you have very little ground to stand on.
No, the ESPN article has the important part: "They got caught doing it with a camera." That's the part that gets conveniently left out when fans quote him, because it shows that he's not talking about "everyone" doing the same thing the Patriots did. The crux of his comments are that everyone was doing it one way (the way everyone has always agreed is fine), and the Patriots got caught doing it another.

Also, as far as I can tell nobody here is questioning that Brady and Belichik are really good at their jobs. We don't have to choose between "everything they did is invalidated" and "it's a non-issue." That's a false dichotomy.

cricket

01-21-15, 01:13 PM

They got caught doing it with a camera, which is legal, but on the sidelines, which is against the memo, after the memo was sent out, while it was still not illegal in the NFL constitution of by-laws. Belichick gained nothing by doing this so he should've just cooperated, but the NFL screwed this up too.

Sedai

01-21-15, 02:49 PM

Here's another good read:

Bleacher Report - Spygate and Promoting Parity (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/199345-the-truth-about-spygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity)

Sedai

01-21-15, 03:15 PM

Yoda

01-21-15, 04:09 PM

Game balls are tested indoors the day before the game in a controlled environment

There was a 43 degree temperature change in the 24 hours before the game with a significant drop on barometric pressure

At least 2 officials handled each ball every play in the first half of the game

At halftime the balls were checked for PSI, found to be low and then were reinflated to regulation

2nd half score was 28 - 0.

End of discussion
That would be the end of the discussion if the discussion were "did the Patriots win because they cheated?" But it isn't, and I think I've seen literally zero people suggest this.

The actual discussion is about whether or not they cheated, which is an ethical/character question that the score has nothing to do with.

Yoda

01-21-15, 04:14 PM

For example, it is legal to use videotaping equipment in the pressbox, and that's not the only place it's legal.
They got caught doing it with a camera, which is legal
How can that be squared with "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field"? That's from the Game Operations Manual, not the memo, and it seems to clearly prohibit the practice on its own.

As far as your other points, they just simply were never accused of using the tapes during the game so these points are moot.
I don't see how. You specifically said they didn't do it. More than that, you said it while writing some kind of "set the record straight" post. This implies you'll be correcting things with facts, not contradicting them with opinions about unknowable things.

Erasmus Folly

01-21-15, 04:27 PM

I think this whole controversy about the DEFLATEGATE story is in fact geographical. Anybody west of Worchester and south of Providence knows its cheating.

cricket

01-21-15, 04:29 PM

How can that be squared with "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field"? That's from the Game Operations Manual, not the memo, and it seems to clearly prohibit the practice on its own.

I honestly don't know what you're missing. That's telling where the devices are illegal, but they are legal in other places.

I don't see how. You specifically said they didn't do it. More than that, you said it while writing some kind of "set the record straight" post. This implies you'll be correcting things with facts, not contradicting them with opinions about unknowable things.

How can I back this up with facts when what you're talking about just doesn't exist? You're making the accusation, so it's you who needs to come up with facts.

cricket

01-21-15, 04:31 PM

I quoted screwy again

Yoda

01-21-15, 04:31 PM

I think this whole controversy about the DEFLATEGATE story is in fact geographical. Anybody west of Worchester and south of Providence knows its cheating.
It is a little hard not to notice that the two defenders in this thread are both from Boston, yeah. ;) But I think the more telling thing is that the vast majority of arguments have little to do with the issue itself. There's personal swipes, false dichotomies, total non-sequiturs, and seizing on scattered anecdotes as if they were equivalent to proof (or league-wide practice). That's just not the way people argue when they're persuaded by the evidence, rather than working backwards from some preexisting allegiance.

Yoda

01-21-15, 04:36 PM

I honestly don't know what you're missing. That's telling where the devices are illegal, but they are legal in other places.
Whoops, I forgot to mention this part: "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." That would seem to preclude all of it, no?

Also, you said earlier that that taping on the sidelines was "against the memo" but not against the rules. Are you contending that the sidelines isn't encompassed by the phrase "the field" in the rule I quoted? Because that would be...kinda wacky.

How can I back this up with facts when what you're talking about just doesn't exist? You're making the accusation, so it's you who needs to come up with facts.
:skeptical: Where did I do that? I haven't accused the Patriots of using the footage in the same game. I said we have no idea. But you explicitly said they didn't. That means you're making the positive claim that requires facts. I'm only pointing out that you can't say "false" or "no" to something when you don't know either way.

cricket

01-21-15, 04:40 PM

I think this whole controversy about the DEFLATEGATE story is in fact geographical. Anybody west of Worchester and south of Providence knows its cheating.

Aren't you a Seahawks fan? The same Seahawks that have had a league leading 5 players suspended for using performance enhancing drugs since 2010? This is the NFL; every team is guilty of something. If you don't believe it, ask the Tooth Fairy.

cricket

01-21-15, 04:46 PM

Whoops, I forgot to mention this part: "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." That would seem to preclude all of it, no?

You can videotape from the pressbox.

Also, you said earlier that that taping on the sidelines was "against the memo" but not against the rules. Are you contending that the sidelines isn't encompassed by the phrase "the field" in the rule I quoted? Because that would be...kinda wacky.

That may seem wacky, I'm not saying it isn't, but the sidelines is not the field.

:skeptical: Where did I do that? I haven't accused the Patriots of using the footage in the same game. I said we have no idea. But you explicitly said they didn't. That means you're making the positive claim that requires facts. I'm only pointing out that you can't say "false" or "no" to something when you don't know either way.

Well yea you say you have no idea but you can say that about anything. They haven't been accused by anybody. Call it what you want; assumption, hypothesis, whatever, it just isn't an issue.

Erasmus Folly

01-21-15, 04:53 PM

cricket

01-21-15, 05:02 PM

The sad thing about all this is that Tom Brady is a great QB, in fact he is truly one of the NFL's elite QBs. If the investigation shows that the balls were deflated by the Patriots I don't see how it is possible that Brady was unaware of the deflated balls and approved of it. That means he cheated and that is sad.

(P.S. The NFL must bring this investigation to a conclusion quickly and before the Super Bowl. They can't continue to let this fester.)

I think you may be right; this may have nothing to do with Belichick. My thing is just the same as I've said before, I have a hard time calling players from any teams cheaters. The culture of the NFL is just something the average fan can't understand.

Sedai

01-21-15, 05:07 PM

I am from Arizona! I only live in Boston...

How did the Pats cheat again? Don't the refs check the ball on every single down, and then place the ball themselves? Sounds like these refs need to be investigated...

The Patriots have the best organization, the best coach, and all the best players. Also - you guys know I am a Green Bay Packers fan, right?

Need proof?

I present exhibit A:

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/10446336_10204071070126876_4882456099599499221_o.jpg

Aha!! That is one confirmed Green Bay Packers shirt on one Sedai the Mod!

Would any self-respecting Pats fan ever don such an item? I think not, good sirs!

Now that my lack of bias has been proven, let's get back to how the Pats are the best team in the AFC... ;)

Erasmus Folly

01-21-15, 05:43 PM

"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove a thing." - Bart Simpson

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/content/pictures/bart/BartSimpson26.gif

doubledenim

01-21-15, 08:29 PM

Belichick is preparing for a second career in NASCAR.

rauldc14

01-21-15, 08:34 PM

+ rep for the Packer shirt, Sedai!

Erasmus Folly

01-22-15, 12:16 AM

Aren't you a Seahawks fan? The same Seahawks that have had a league leading 5 players suspended for using performance enhancing drugs since 2010? This is the NFL; every team is guilty of something. If you don't believe it, ask the Tooth Fairy.
Yes I am and if it was up to me players who are found to be in violation of the League's restrictions in these matters would be kicked of the team.

(P.S. Which is probably why I'm not the General Manager. :facepalm:)

cricket

01-22-15, 08:59 AM

Yes I am and if it was up to me players who are found to be in violation of the League's restrictions in these matters would be kicked of the team.

(P.S. Which is probably why I'm not the General Manager. :facepalm:)

I agree with you in spirit, but we wouldn't have an NFL. There's other Seahawks players that use them, and there's players on every team that use them. I would also think it's safe to say that the coaches aren't in the dark about this either.

Yoda

01-22-15, 11:01 AM

That may seem wacky, I'm not saying it isn't, but the sidelines is not the field.
I think this is a pretty tortured reading, but no matter, because it still can't be reconciled with "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." The sidelines are not enclosed and don't have a roof, so what they were doing was against the rules before the memo.

Well yea you say you have no idea but you can say that about anything. They haven't been accused by anybody. Call it what you want; assumption, hypothesis, whatever, it just isn't an issue.
Well, what you call it kinda makes a big difference, yeah? If you'd called it speculation, I'd have actually agreed with you. But if you say "no" or "false" in a post where you're supposed to be clearing up "misconceptions," that's different. There's an argumentative inflation going on where the initial declarations always end up being a lot larger than the underlying facts.

cricket

01-22-15, 11:16 AM

I think this is a pretty tortured reading, but no matter, because it still can't be reconciled with "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." The sidelines are not enclosed and don't have a roof, so what they were doing was against the rules before the memo.

That's in the memo, not the rulebook.

Well, what you call it kinda makes a big difference, yeah? If you'd called it speculation, I'd have actually agreed with you. But if you say "no" or "false" in a post where you're supposed to be clearing up "misconceptions," that's different. There's an argumentative inflation going on where the initial declarations always end up being a lot larger than the underlying facts.

I still don't understand what you're trying to convince anybody of. You're just talking about something they weren't accused of.

Captain Spaulding

01-22-15, 11:27 AM

I deflated my balls this morning.

Yoda

01-22-15, 11:30 AM

That's in the memo, not the rulebook.
No sir; it's in the Game Operations Manual. Page 105, per this source (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap).

I still don't understand what you're trying to convince anybody of. You're just talking about something they weren't accused of.
I'm not talking about something they weren't accused of: I'm talking about your response to the idea, which was "no." There's a distinction between saying something is speculation and saying it's false. It's confusing "we don't have proof it happened" for "therefore we have proof it didn't."

cricket

01-22-15, 11:49 AM

No sir; it's in the Game Operations Manual. Page 105, per this source (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d802456c2/printable/belichick-speaks-with-goodell-apologizes-for-videotape-flap).

That is from page A105-A106 of the league's Policy Manual for Members Clubs Volume II: Game Operations 2007 edition.

I'm not talking about something they weren't accused of: I'm talking about your response to the idea, which was "no." There's a distinction between saying something is speculation and saying it's false. It's confusing "we don't have proof it happened" for "therefore we have proof it didn't."

That's fine if you want to look at it that way, but that's like saying you don't know for sure if I'm a murderer because there's no proof that I'm not.

Yoda

01-22-15, 12:37 PM

That is from page A105-A106 of the league's Policy Manual for Members Clubs Volume II: Game Operations 2007 edition.
Which can't be changed without a vote, yes? I've been unable to find any mention or record of any vote change to this effect. If there was none, then the rule was there before the memo.

That's fine if you want to look at it that way, but that's like saying you don't know for sure if I'm a murderer because there's no proof that I'm not.
It's more like me saying, because there's no proof you are, we've proved you aren't.

This may sound subtle, but this is what people do to puff up arguments: they tweak them around the margins and shift the burden of proof. There is a huge difference between "no proof of X" and "proof X didn't happen." And while you make think this is incidental, if it actually were it wouldn't always happen in this one direction. ;)

cricket

01-22-15, 01:04 PM

Which can't be changed without a vote, yes? I've been unable to find any mention or record of any vote change to this effect. If there was none, then the rule was there before the memo.

It's more like me saying, because there's no proof you are, we've proved you aren't.

This may sound subtle, but this is what people do to puff up arguments: they tweak them around the margins and shift the burden of proof. There is a huge difference between "no proof of X" and "proof X didn't happen." And while you make think this is incidental, if it actually were it wouldn't always happen in this one direction. ;)

First paragraph-This is what spygate was all about, the rules being changed without going through the usual channels, and Belichick being defiant about it. This is everything.

Paragraph 2-I understand what you're saying, but to me it's just word games.

Yoda

01-22-15, 01:19 PM

First paragraph-This is what spygate was all about, the rules being changed without going through the usual channels, and Belichick being defiant about it. This is everything.
No no, that's confusing two different things.

The first issue is whether or not the memo is actually supported by the rules, or is expanding beyond them without going through the usual channels. This is at least arguable (though I'm pretty sure the bylaws give the NFL latitude to clarify anything ambiguous).

The second issue--and the one we're talking about now--is whether or not taping on the sidelines was against the rules even before the memo was sent out. The rules say the cameras have to be enclosed. So either they changed these at some point in the rule book (When? Do you have any evidence of this?), or else they were already in there, in which case what the Pats did was against the rules the whole time, memo or not.

Paragraph 2-I understand what you're saying, but to me it's just word games.
I don't really know what this means, since I'm the one arguing against these kinds of word games.

cricket

01-22-15, 01:29 PM

Yoda

01-22-15, 01:44 PM

With the confusion of the rules and how they were changed is where you're getting everything right. They always operated within the NFL rulebook, but they ignored the memo, which made changes to the rules. As far as that 2007 edition handbook, I don't know how that came to be, but it was after the fact anyway.
Let's try this another way, then: are you aware of any evidence whatsoever that this rule did not exist prior to 2007? I can't find any.

The commissioner has been quoted as saying, and I'm paraphrasing because I didn't save it, The Patriots did not gain an advantage.
Hmm, I'd really like to see this. I certainly can't say he didn't, but I don't recall seeing anything like this in any of the articles I've read. Not that it changes the ethical questions, mind you.

We were talking about the word totality earlier. You seemed to believe that it meant the videotaping since 2000. I say it concerns the videotaping since 2006 when the memo was sent out.
But that simply doesn't fit the facts. These statements came out after Matt Walsh supplied tapes dating back to 2000, long after the punishment. The league said no additional punishment was required because the tapes were "consistent with what the Patriots had admitted they had been doing" and "consistent with what we already knew." If they already knew about it when they issued the punishment, that means it's by definition included in the "totality" of their offenses. How else could this possibly be read? How can it be only about 2006 when the tapes go back further, and they specifically said they already knew about all of it?

Erasmus Folly

01-22-15, 01:46 PM

Look, I am from Seattle and I support the Seahawks all the way. I want them to beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. I have no reason to like the Patriots but it has nothing to do with any of these 'supposed' incidents of 'cheating'. (I do not like them because of a vicious tackle they made on QB John Elway way back when I lived in Denver and was a Bronco fan more than 20 years ago.)

All teams and many players break and bend the rules. It is as old as sport itself and includes football, baseball, cricket, soccer, hockey, basketball, tennis, boxing, javelin and discus throwing and every sport you can think of back to the original Olympic games 2,000 years ago and beyond. Hell it probably includes curling as well.

That's just part of human nature and being a human being, part of being alive.

Before each football game, the referees go into each locker room to check on the 12 game balls that are given to each team, that they are new and unscuffed and are at the correct pressure between 12.5 and 13.5 psi. They then pat down some players at random to make sure their jerseys are not coated with silicone to make it more difficult to tackle them. ??? Silicon?? Players will try anything to get an advantage. Pass receivers used to wear gobs of stick-um on their hands to grab passed balls before that was outlawed.

Of all that I have read or heard on the subject of videotaping or ball deflating, I can find nobody who is a player or coach, current or past, that thinks that the Patriots should be singled out, that these practices give any significant advantage to a team or that their truly excellent achievements in the game should be in anyway be diminished. Many teams and players are 'guilty' of the same practices.

From what I've read as regards to Spygate, that the only reason the Jets head coach reported the videotaping to the NFL in the first place was not so much that they were doing it but that they were doing it in his stadium.

He later stated "I didn't think it was any kind of significant advantage, but I wasn't going to give them the convenience of doing it in our stadium, and I wanted to shut it down. But there was no intent to get the league involved. There was no intent to have the landslide that it has become"

I think that is significant. Because of the world we now live in, with cameras, microphones, the internet, 24 hr. 'breaking news', the demand of reporters to find anything to create a mega-story masquerading as investigative journalism, what would never have been reported on or barely mentioned in the past is now blown way out of proportion.

If you have an absolutist version of the world we live in, where any sin or violation of the rules that allows for no mercy, than I suppose that the Patriots or any team found guilty of these practices must suffer the maximum penalty allowed. The NFL is under enough pressure already as it is and must appear to be Pure, after all.

Personally, I would like them to drop the whole thing, which of course will never happen.

I hope it will be a great game - Seahawks vs. Patriots, and may the best team win! (And a Tip of the Hat to Cricket.) :)

Erasmus Folly

01-22-15, 01:53 PM

And yes Yoda, A Tip of the Hat to you too. This has been some lively reading and I think your arguments are very logical, but I really think you were missing the point of what Cricket was trying to get across. Just my opinion.:)

cricket

01-22-15, 01:57 PM

E Folly-great post

Regarding Yoda's post

I believe totality means since the memo was sent in 2006, because I'm saying they were within the rules before then.

I've also had a hard time finding the original rules. I've seen them and heard them, but I can't find them.

I posted this link a couple days ago and it has some interesting facts.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/199345-the-truth-about-spygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity

Yoda

01-22-15, 02:23 PM

I believe totality means since the memo was sent in 2006, because I'm saying they were within the rules before then.
The phrase was "totality of the team's videotaping actions." Not of the team's "infractions" or something else which could maybe be read differently. Also, the quote in question even specifically mentions pre-2006 taping in the same sentence:

Goodell explained that the league's penalty against the Patriots early last season was for the totality of the team's videotaping actions, and that coach Bill Belichick acknowledged he had videotaped opposing signals since the start of his Patriots head coaching career.

I've also had a hard time finding the original rules. I've seen them and heard them, but I can't find them.
I can't either. So if we have no evidence that they were changed, where does the idea that they were come from?

I posted this link a couple days ago and it has some interesting facts.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/199345-the-truth-about-spygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity
Yeah, I read it last week. Seds posted it too. ;) I'm pretty sure everything in there has been covered preemptively (in part because I read it earlier and assumed it would be posted at some point).

cricket

01-22-15, 02:33 PM

The phrase was "totality of the team's videotaping actions." Not of the team's "infractions" or something else which could maybe be read differently. Also, the quote in question even specifically mentions pre-2006 taping in the same sentence:

But it doesn't specificaly say they were being punished for pre 2006.

I can't either. So if we have no evidence that they were changed, where does the idea that they were come from?

The memo misquotes and adds to the original rules. Whether or not anyone considers this an actual rule change is a matter of point of view, and I believe the root of the entire problem.

Yeah, I read it last week. Seds posted it too. ;) I'm pretty sure everything in there has been covered preemptively (in part because I read it earlier and assumed it would be posted at some point).

The whole thing was a crapshow

cricket

01-22-15, 02:43 PM

Unless I'm just missing it, I see Seds posted an article, but a different one.

Yoda

01-22-15, 02:46 PM

But it doesn't specificaly say they were being punished for pre 2006.
It absolutely does. They say they knew about the pre-2006 videotapes, and that they were punished for the "totality" of videotaping. The only way to interpret this differently is to ignore one of those two statements.

The memo misquotes and adds to the original rules. Whether or not anyone considers this an actual rule change is a matter of point of view, and I believe the root of the entire problem.
Again, I'm not talking about the memo. I acknowledge that whether or not that constitutes a rule change is at least debatable.

I'm talking about the actual rule book, which also disallows what they did. What evidence is there that the rule book was changed? And if you're not aware of any, then where does the idea come from?

The whole thing was a crapshow
On that, we agree. ;) The competitiveness of the league is pretty ugly in practice. Whether or not that can or should be rectified is arguable.

Yoda

01-22-15, 02:47 PM

Unless I'm just missing it, I see Seds posted an article, but a different one.
He posted it here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1242467#post1242467).

cricket

01-22-15, 03:02 PM

Take another peek at that article, because it touches on the rule differences a little bit. The original rule doesn't say anything about sidelines or that thing about a roof overhead.

I think the commissioner used the word totality to cover his bases, because it was not handled well by the NFL. I've never seen a word like that used in a situation like this. When doling out punishment, it should be more specific.

Erasmus Folly

01-22-15, 04:15 PM

Looking for NFL Rules for 2007? 0r 2006?

Official Rules of the National Football League 2007 (Official Rules of the NFL) (Official Rules of the NFL)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1600780288/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=
http://i43.tower.com/images/mm107269903/official-rules-national-football-league-2007-triumph-books-paperback-cover-art.jpg
at $ 0.01 + $3.99 shipping from Blue Cloud Books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aag/main/ref=olp_merch_name_2?ie=UTF8&asin=1600780288&isAmazonFulfilled=0&seller=A2QVWT0ESGUXPH)

2006 Official Playing Rules of the National Football League (Official Rules of the NFL)
http://www.amazon.com/Official-Playing-National-Football-League/dp/1572439041/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421956652&sr=1-1&keywords=Official+Rules+of+the+NFL+2006

http://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/products/bmmg/books/P9781572439047.JPG
at $0.01 +$3.99 shipping from Blue Cloud Books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aag/main/ref=olp_merch_name_3?ie=UTF8&asin=1572439041&isAmazonFulfilled=0&seller=A2QVWT0ESGUXPH)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--8KRPVqZzYc/TeZt_8zyDxI/AAAAAAAADow/o7c6LOH3ZAI/s1600/charliefootballlucy1978.jpg

Sedai

01-22-15, 04:32 PM

Now people are going after the hawks, stating they lined up 6 on one side for the onside kick.

I think this ALL needs to go away...

Meanwhile: Brady goes on in 2 minutes...

Erasmus Folly

01-22-15, 04:33 PM

Tom Brady is speaking live on CNN in a couple of minutes.

Sedai

01-22-15, 04:47 PM

I will say this...Bill looked visibly distressed at his conference. This is a guy you can NEVER get a read on. Like, ever. I would think he would have to be under a tremendous amount of pressure, or that he is dealing with the possibility of some extremely dire consequences in regards to his career. Time will tell.

Sedai

01-22-15, 04:51 PM

Here we go - now I am seeing article headers in regards to the Super Bowl:

"Deflatriots vs the Cheathawks"

Seriously??

Yoda

01-22-15, 04:55 PM

Take another peek at that article, because it touches on the rule differences a little bit. The original rule doesn't say anything about sidelines or that thing about a roof overhead.
I'm pretty certain you're misreading the article, then. It quotes the rules the same way I do: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." It goes on to try to dismiss this by theorizing that the motive for the rule is convenience, rather than restriction, but that's expanding on the written rules just as much as the memo.

The rule says all locations have to have that, and the sidelines don't have that. Ergo, the sidelines aren't allowed. And neither of us can find any evidence that the rules were changed. You're free to think the whole thing is overblown anyway, but I don't see any basis for the claim that things were changed up on them.

I think the commissioner used the word totality to cover his bases, because it was not handled well by the NFL. I've never seen a word like that used in a situation like this. When doling out punishment, it should be more specific.
"I knew about all this" and "they were punished for all of it" seems pretty specific to me. You are, of course, free to speculate that he said these things without meaning it, but that's what he said.

This shouldn't be hard to believe even without the commissioner saying otherwise, either, because the punishment they received is far more commensurate with years of systematic taping than just one incident.

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:02 PM

Now people are going after the hawks, stating they lined up 6 on one side for the onside kick.
Yeah, I saw this. The rules only require at least 4 on each side, however. It was legal (http://www.fieldgulls.com/2015/1/22/7871903/seahawks-onside-kick-formation-illegal-seadderall-cheathawks).

I will say this...Bill looked visibly distressed at his conference. This is a guy you can NEVER get a read on. Like, ever. I would think he would have to be under a tremendous amount of pressure, or that he is dealing with the possibility of some extremely dire consequences in regards to his career. Time will tell.
I don't think there's much threat to him in terms of tangible consequences, IE: suspension or banning or anything like that. I think he's distressed because he's thinking about his legacy, and knows that a second rule-breaking scandal is going to make some of the perceptions about him impossible to shake.

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:06 PM

Brady thing moved back a bit; 10 more minutes, I hear.

Anyone else find the way this is coming out really weird? Belichik on his own, then Brady on his own?

cricket

01-22-15, 05:06 PM

I'm reading something different from that article; those quotes from what I see are from the memo or the 2007 edition. I'm seeing it touch on how it all differs from the actual rulebook.

cricket

01-22-15, 05:08 PM

Brady thing moved back a bit; 10 more minutes, I hear.

Anyone else find the way this is coming out really weird? Belichik on his own, then Brady on his own?

It appears weird but it must be calculated, I would think.

Erasmus Folly

01-22-15, 05:09 PM

Brady thing moved back a bit; 10 more minutes, I hear.

Anyone else find the way this is coming out really weird? Belichik on his own, then Brady on his own?
Back when I was a kid in elementary school we were taught to "duck and cover".:)

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:14 PM

I'm reading something different from that article; those quotes from what I see are from the memo or the 2007 edition. I'm seeing it touch on how it all differs from the actual rulebook.
It touches on how some of it differs, yes--but not all. It doesn't dispute the "enclosed" rule. Which is, indeed, from the 2007 edition. But as I said earlier, if you're contending that this rule is new to the 2007 edition, then there should be some evidence to that effect. Otherwise there's no basis from which to claim it, yeah?

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:24 PM

Brady categorically denies.

Now I dunno how this ends. It falls on some ball boy? Because I was ready to believe the temperature was responsible a lot more than I'd accept that some ball boy did this without anyone telling him to.

Sedai

01-22-15, 05:28 PM

cricket

01-22-15, 05:28 PM

It touches on how some of it differs, yes--but not all. It doesn't dispute the "enclosed" rule. Which is, indeed, from the 2007 edition. But as I said earlier, if you're contending that this rule is new to the 2007 edition, then there should be some evidence to that effect. Otherwise there's no basis from which to claim it, yeah?

I wish I could copy and paste some of this, but I'll quote one paragraph from the article-

"The rule mentions only three spots where teams can't use video equipment during games-the coaches' booth, the locker room, and the field. No rule bars teams from recording signals as long as they locate their cameras properly."

When they talk about the rule in that paragraph, they're referring to the official rulebook.

Later on, the memo would add sidelines to the equation, and also the room with a roof.

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:32 PM

I wish I could copy and paste some of this, but I'll quote one paragraph from the article-

"The rule mentions only three spots where teams can't use video equipment during games-the coaches' booth, the locker room, and the field. No rule bars teams from recording signals as long as they locate their cameras properly."

When they talk about the rule in that paragraph, they're referring to the official rulebook.
Aye, but they're talking about a different rule: the one that lists locations. Not the one that requires enclosures.

Later on, the memo would add sidelines to the equation, and also the room with a roof.
The memo is the one that expands the rule with specifics about coaching signals and sidelines, but not the roof part. The article agrees that that part is from the rule book. It disputes the motives of the rule, but not that it's part of the rules.

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:34 PM

Well, if it was 11 of 12 balls - could equipment failure be to blame? A gauge that was out of adjustment on the air pump used to fill the balls, perhaps? Wasn't there something to do with ball temp and inflation at a Vikes game in the past couple years? I thought they got a warning or something at the time...
Yeah, there've been scattered incidents of teams being warned. I think the other one I heard about was about trying to warm them up, though, rather than deflating them.

Weather seemed like the most likely explanation to me, too, but I heard (secondhand--I haven't verified it) that the Colts' balls weren't deflated, which would pretty much rule that out.

There are certainly possibilities other than cheating, though a good chunk of them were ruled out by the 11-of-12 thing, and another chunk would be ruled out if it's true that the Colts' balls were properly inflated.

cricket

01-22-15, 05:38 PM

The roof part is a rule in the 2007 edition of whatever that is; that's not something that's in the original rule, according to everything I've read about the rule or heard about it, and I've read the rule before, and it only declares those 3 locations illegal, that I referenced earlier.

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:41 PM

cricket

01-22-15, 05:48 PM

What do you mean by "original rule"?

We've established it was in the rules in 2007, but what evidence is there that this was new to 2007, as you claim, rather than an existing rule? That's what I'm asking.

I'll try to find somewhere where it's more clear tonight, but that paragraph I quoted touches on the original rule.

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:51 PM

Here's the paragraph you quoted:

"The rule mentions only three spots where teams can't use video equipment during games-the coaches' booth, the locker room, and the field. No rule bars teams from recording signals as long as they locate their cameras properly."
There's nothing there about the roof either way. It says "the rule" in reference to the part about the three places you can't do it, but that's a different stipulation.

Erasmus Folly

01-22-15, 05:53 PM

Well I believe Tom Brady at his press conference. I think he was honest and handled himself well.

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:53 PM

Meanwhile, press conference is over. Lots of fluff, of course, and the press was asking lots of goofy questions by the end. The main takeaway: Brady denies it.

No idea what to believe, but the one thing I don't believe is the stuff he said about not being able to notice if balls are deflated. That doesn't really jibe with what he's said about preferring them that way. Mark Brunell was just on ESPN pretty worked up about it, says there's no way a professional QB wouldn't notice (or wouldn't care) about such a thing. Bettis and Dawkins both found this implausible, as well.

Worth noting that this isn't the same thing as saying he did it. Just that it's difficult to believe he didn't notice the difference.

Sedai

01-22-15, 05:55 PM

I am guessing ol Bill has to sit in the booth next season, the Pats fire all the ball boys for posterity's sake, and a few fines are handed out.

RE: Brady - I feel like this guy is WAY to high profile to be able to wander around deflating balls personally, btw...

Yoda

01-22-15, 05:59 PM

cricket

01-22-15, 06:01 PM

Here's the paragraph you quoted:

There's nothing there about the roof either way. It says "the rule" in reference to the part about the three places you can't do it, but that's a different stipulation.

Yea, you're right, I'm not sure about the roof part, but I am sure about the sidelines part.

Sedai

01-22-15, 06:39 PM

Wow! "In the booth" meaning out as coach? That'd really shock me.

I don't think anyone specific gets in trouble. It's easy to prove the balls were deflated, and deflated more than something like weather would explain, but it's probably incredibly hard to pin that on any particular person. They might punish the team as a whole, though.

Aikman feels the punishment should be harsher than the saints bounty punishment, which is what got me thinking along those lines. Then again, I think that's *********, as air pressure in a ball doesn't compare to paying players to physically injure opposing players. Alas, we seem to live in an absurd world, and I wouldn't put it past the league to take Spygate into consideration when deciding a punishment, if it happens.

So...punish the team...draft picks?

doubledenim

01-22-15, 06:53 PM

Brady's body language didn't read like a guy being honest.

cricket

01-22-15, 07:13 PM

Brady's body language didn't read like a guy being honest.

I was kind of thinking that, but it's also the first time in his career that he's been attacked that way. That could account for his nervous way.

teeter_g

01-22-15, 07:16 PM

cricket

01-22-15, 07:22 PM

cricket

01-22-15, 08:48 PM

As far as this ball deflation story goes-

I believed Bill Belichick when he said he had no knowledge of any of this, in large part because of what I heard Matt Hasselbeck say yesterday. If Brady does in fact use underinflated balls, I think it's quite possible that Belichick could be aware of it through secondhand conversation. If that were to be the case, I do not think it's something he should admit, as a coach cannot rat out his players like that.

I thought that Tom Brady was honest at his press conference, but I thought he danced around a couple questions. I believe he is honest and plays with integrity, and I believe that he believes that. I think it is possible that he knows the balls were not at proper psi, and never thought for a second that it was close to a big deal. I think many quarterbacks mess with the balls, but if you get caught, a penalty should be imposed. The commissioner has to save face and set an example. I've found it kind of interesting that many recent quarterbacks have spoken out in support of Brady, and some older ones have spoken against him. From what I understand, the referees used to be the only ones who had access to the balls, and I believe they switched to ballboys early in the 2000's. This would indicate to me a possible reason why the older quarterbacks don't like this scandal. They may not have had the easy opportunity to doctor the ball, so it may not have been something that was common. It seems that quarterbacks who have played since there was access to the balls have said this is meaningless because everybody does it. I don't believe everybody does it, but I would say it is very common. In this case, I think it's possible, although not likely, that the referees did not check the ball properly before the game. With all of the cameras at the game, I wonder where the opportunity is to change the ball once they are given to the teams on the sidelines a couple minutes before the game. That doesn't mean it's not possible, as there's usually a way to do anything. If this scandal involved another team, I wouldn't care in the least. Because of the team and the time of the year, this story is being way overblown. I'm very curious to see how it all turns out; at this point, I have no clue.

Powdered Water

01-22-15, 09:27 PM

I don't really care about all this to be honest, but this song from our long time Twisted tune artist here in Seattle is terrific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSwxRxvFRwI

cricket

01-22-15, 09:42 PM

That's great PW, I'm going to spread that around out here.:laugh:

Erasmus Folly

01-22-15, 11:29 PM

Okay, this thread is about football and currently the discussion is about Tom Brady. However, this is still a forum regarding movies and this whole tête-à-tête reminded me of one of my favorite movies. It is not about football and it is not a comment one way or another about his or the Patriots quilt or innocence, but I thought I'd offer it as a worth while film to watch:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_boxshots/602-88a1df590edb6e746bbde9723ca9a78c/357_box_348x490_original.jpg

The Fallen Idol by Carol Reed (1948)

VFN

01-23-15, 01:48 AM

https://18karatreggae.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/belicheat.jpg

Sedai

01-23-15, 09:49 AM

The things that they should do to them and the things that they will do to them are completely different. The Patriots should not be allowed to play in the Super Bowl, but they will. I think that they should punish Belichick they way that they punished Sean Payton and suspend him without pay for a season, but will they? Probably not.

Ridiculous.

I would like to hear your equivocation thoughts on why paying players to physically injure other players with violence somehow equates to some footballs being a tad under pressure. Then, sit and think for a minute that you somehow, absurdly, consider these to be equal infractions. I am wondering if during this process, even just for a second, you realize how tremendously ridiculous this stance is.

Just to summarize: You are equating putting other players in the hospital with violence with a football being a pound or two under pressure. Please think about for a second.

Then, read this article, that completely slays that idea, as well as the people propagating that idea.

This is an example of someone making sense (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nfls-pre-super-bowl-hypocrisy-is-totally-deflating-2015-01-22)

Just in case I wasn't clear, I think your stance on the punishment in regards to this issue is completely ridiculous.

And another thing! Why is the guy that allegedly started all this in the first place, now saying that he didn't notice anything wrong with the football (http://www.wcvb.com/sports/colts-jackson-says-he-noticed-nothing-wrong-with-football/30870712?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=WCVB%20Channel%205%20Boston%20-%20wcvb5&linkId=11908235) when he caught the interception?

seanc

01-23-15, 09:56 AM

I agree with you Sedai. However do Patriots fans understand why people feel this way about Belichick? Anytime he is asked a serious questions he dismisses it as if a child were pestering him. He comes across as the biggest douche in sports. I understand this is probably not the case but it is why fans of other teams react so strongly to him. The pattern is becoming he skirts rules that seem silly to him under tge guise of gamesmanship. Then he acts incredulous that anyone would be so bold as to question his eminence. Surely Patriot fans see this.

Sedai

01-23-15, 10:00 AM

Yoda

01-23-15, 10:11 AM

The Bountygate/Deflategate comparison kinda makes me think of the Pete Rose Hall of Fame stuff. One of the arguments there is that there are people in the Hall who've done a lot worse, like Ty Cobb. The counterargument is that the league isn't society's police, and that it's supposed to treat threats to the integrity of the game more seriously than anything else--even things that we'd all agree make someone a worse person, for example.

I still wouldn't put them side by side, either, but it's worth pointing out that the league's concern is and should be punishing based on the threat to the game itself, not to how morally reprehensible the act is. Though they dabble in that, too, occasionally (to great controversy).

VFN

01-23-15, 10:26 AM

"According to Jay Glazer (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/did-ravens-tip-off-colts-about-patriots-deflating-balls--021046443.html) of Fox Sports, the Indianapolis Colts were tipped off by the Baltimore Ravens before the AFC championship game about the Patriots possibly altering the air pressure in their footballs. The Ravens lost to the Patriots in a divisional playoff game the week before.....

"There was another story, from ESPN's Adam Schefter, that the Colts thought the Patriots had also under-inflated footballs during a regular-season meeting on Nov. 16. According to Schefter, Colts safety Mike Adams had two interceptions, and gave both balls to the Colts' equipment manager to save. Both times, sources told Schefter, there were concerns the balls were under-inflated."

Yoda

01-23-15, 10:36 AM

I was going to post this article yesterday, but it was so popular the server crashed: The New England Patriots Prevention of Fumbles is Nearly Impossible (http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/?p=2932). The premise is that, statistically, the team has an absolutely insane record of fumble prevention. Quote:

One can CLEARLY SEE the Patriots, visually, are off the chart. There is no other team even close to being near to their rate of 187 offensive plays (passes+rushes+sacks) per fumble. The league average is 105 plays/fumble. Most teams are within 21 plays of that number.

I spoke with a data scientist who I know from work on the NFLproject.com website, and sent him the data. He said:

Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten over this period, once in 16,233.77 instances”.

Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. Which in other words, it’s very unlikely that it’s a coincidence.

I actually went back and researched 5 year periods for the entire NFL over the last 25 years. The Patriots ratio of 187 plays to 1 fumble is the BEST of ANY team in the NFL for ANY 5 year span of time over the last 25 years. Not was it just the best, it wasn’t close:
A couple obvious arguments in response could be that they're just really good at coaching for fumble prevention, and/or they've stocked their team with guys who are great at protecting the ball. There are some issues with both of these explanations, but they're technically possible.

Anyway, just worth pointing out since it's a very thorough analysis that shows the deflation issue may go well beyond what we've been assuming.

Sedai

01-23-15, 10:41 AM

Not sure how second and third-hand comments from sports writers rank when compared to the guy the league claimed originally complained about pressure saying he never said anything of the kind. Jackson was directly involved in the incident, and has first-hand knowledge of exactly what happened, because he was there. Jay Glazer was stuffing his face with taco pie sitting on his couch watching the game, just like the rest of us. Except Yoda - he had Italian that night.

Back to the issue of deflection - any thoughts on this?

seanc

01-23-15, 10:44 AM

Dude...WE feel this way about Belichick! The guy is a troll - he just also happens to be an evil genius that runs our team. Come across as the biggest douche in sports? He IS the biggest douche in sports. He drives everyone here mad. Mad, I tell you! Notice I never draft any Pats for my fantasy team? Bill is a big reason. We never know anything about the team, injuries, or a game plan on any given week.

We totally see this.

EDIT: Sadly...and what's most troubling to me, is how it seems that the longer this goes on, and the more the NFL focuses on it, the more this seems like a big deflection job in regards to much, much more serious issues facing the league. When you consider the concussion issue, Ray Rice, AP, and a slew of other, more serious problems the league has become subsumed in, one has to stop looking at people like ol Bill, Brady, Jackson, or perhaps the Colts in general, then turning our eyes on people much higher up in the chain of command in the NFL itself. Deflategate is JUST the thing they would be looking for to draw attention away from players beating their wives and children, don't ya think?

I think why these things keep happening to the Patriots is actually very simple. People don't mind turning them in because of the reasons we talked about with Belichik. That is why we get the but everyone is doing it answers. Everyone probably is but the Patriots are being investigated because they get turned in. I think Goodell has proved he is much more interested in the NFL's image than he is catching bad guys. He want to be an authoritarian when the spotlight is shined on him. He is all too happy to sweep things under the rug when he thinks people aren't paying attention though. I expect draft picks to be the penalty again.

Yoda

01-23-15, 10:46 AM

Couple of possible explanations for Jackson walking this back. First, simple confusion; maybe he tosses the ball to an equipment trainer who thinks he's telling him to check it out, but he wasn't. Second, maybe he did hand it over for that reason but doesn't like the idea that he's now the "whistleblower," since a lot of NFL players would be sensitive about going after other players--even on other teams. Either way, who noticed it isn't too important, now that we know it happened.

Re: deflection. I dunno, I tend to think these scandals are just piling on top of one another, rather than supplanting each other. I don't have to pick and choose what to be outraged about: I think cheating is terrible and I think Ray Rice's behavior (and the league's handling of it) are terrible, too.

Sedai

01-23-15, 10:56 AM

Just to clarify, my comments on sports writers weren't in response to Yoda's fumble post, which I just saw, but instead in response to VFN's post about Glazer.

RE: fumbles - It's the coaching and focus on ball security that is a big part of Belichick's style. Ridley fumbled? He is benched immediately, and spends the next practice week doing ball security drills. Fumbles again? He loses his job for 5 weeks, working on ball security the entire time. They pick up guys like Blount and the law firm (Green-Ellis) who almost never fumble, as well.

cricket

01-23-15, 10:56 AM

I was going to post this article yesterday, but it was so popular the server crashed: The New England Patriots Prevention of Fumbles is Nearly Impossible (http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/?p=2932). The premise is that, statistically, the team has an absolutely insane record of fumble prevention. Quote:

A couple obvious arguments in response could be that they're just really good at coaching for fumble prevention, and/or they've stocked their team with guys who are great at protecting the ball. There are some issues with both of these explanations, but they're technically possible.

Anyway, just worth pointing out since it's a very thorough analysis that shows the deflation issue may go well beyond what we've been assuming.

This is something that's been brought up out here, and it's a point worth bringing up. On the other hand, as anybody who watches all Patriots games can tell you, Belichick is unmercifully harsh on running backs. If a back fumbles, he is benched and put in the doghouse, and it doesn't matter who he is. Their backs most certainly have an intense fear of fumbling; whether or not that fear actually helps them concentrate better and hold on to the ball, I don't think anybody can answer that. Nothing to do with fumbling, but an example of how hard Belichick can be is Jonas Gray. About 2 months ago, Gray ran for 200 yards in a game. Unfortunately for Gray, he was late for practice one day the following week. He was benched for a couple games, and has barely seen the field since.

VFN

01-23-15, 10:57 AM

Maybe the Colts felt they needed a plausible reason to request a ball check so they used the interception. And if lower pressure does tend to make fumbling less likely then the "tough on fumbling" defense fails.

seanc

01-23-15, 11:01 AM

Second, maybe he did hand it over for that reason but doesn't like the idea that he's now the "whistleblower," since a lot of NFL players would be sensitive about going after other players--even on other teams. Either way, who noticed it isn't too important, now that we know it happened.

This was my first thought. Sports are very masculine. Most of us idiots don't want to be "that guy".

Yoda

01-23-15, 11:02 AM

Re: Belichik being hard on running backs. As a fantasy owner, I can tell you he's far from the only coach who's like this! I've seen Kubiak bench Arian Foster for fumbling. Tom Coughlin's notorious for it, if I recall correctly, as well.

Anyway, even assuming he's harsher than most (and that this actually works as a motivational tool to begin with), that probably wouldn't explain a glaring historical outlier. At least not by itself.

Re: picking up guys who don't fumble. Green-Ellis actually looks like an argument the other way: he never fumbled in four years with the Pats and he's fumbled five times in two years since he left.

cricket

01-23-15, 11:21 AM

The Pats are known as using the running back by committee formula, and they stick with the guy who doesn't fumble. I wouldn't say that any of this is impossible, but I feel that a couple pounds of psi is just so minute, that I don't think it makes a difference. It is difficult enough to pick out which football out of 2 has more psi without a gauge, unless you're looking for it. These guys have big hands and are incredibly strong; I think it's a concentration issue.

VFN

01-23-15, 11:22 AM

Not sure how second and third-hand comments from sports writers rank when compared to the guy the league claimed originally complained about pressure saying he never said anything of the kind. Jackson was directly involved in the incident, and has first-hand knowledge of exactly what happened, because he was there. Jay Glazer was stuffing his face with taco pie sitting on his couch watching the game, just like the rest of us. Except Yoda - he had Italian that night.

Maybe the league got it wrong, was misinformed or purposely misled.

VFN

01-23-15, 11:24 AM

I wouldn't say that any of this is impossible, but I feel that a couple pounds of psi is just so minute, that I don't think it makes a difference.

But pressure may be important; that's something that needs to be known.

seanc

01-23-15, 11:32 AM

Reporter: Coach, why do you think your team has such a low fumble ratio?

Belichick: I don't have an explanation for that.

cricket

01-23-15, 11:37 AM

Reporter: Coach, what went wrong against the Giants?

Bill: We didn't play good enough.

Reporter: What specifically could you have done better?

Bill: I've already answered that question the best I could.

Sedai

01-23-15, 11:39 AM

"Yeah" - Marshawn Lynch

VFN

01-23-15, 11:42 AM

Marshawn Lynch must have some special issues.

seanc

01-23-15, 11:43 AM

New 30 For 30 idea. A very intimate sit down between Belichick and Lynch. Who will talk first. Tune in Tuesday evening.

seanc

01-23-15, 11:45 AM

Lynch drives me crazy. Too much social anxiety to answer a single question all year but more than willing to grab his junk in front of millions.

VFN

01-23-15, 11:50 AM

I've always thought Belichick's press conference demeanor was a product of his utter disdain for the media.

seanc

01-23-15, 11:55 AM

I've always thought Belichick's press conference demeanor was a product of his utter disdain for the media.

From what I have read it is. Is this an excuse though, my guess is others have just as much disdain. Act like a normal human being, its not like he is being subjected to torture. Its why I have no sympathy for him in these situations, he brings it on himself. The media is his pipeline to fans. I know it is a cliche but the dude is getting paid millions to do what he loves. One of the requirements is to not crap down the pipeline, but he does anyway.

VFN

01-23-15, 12:09 PM

Yeah, he should probably grow up.

Aikman on Deflategate: (http://nypost.com/2015/01/22/aikman-on-deflategate-brady-knew-and-belichick-should-burn/)

"It’s obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this,” Aikman told the station, according to the Dallas Morning News.

“I know going back to when I played, they’ve loosened up the rules in terms of what each team is able to do with the footballs coming into the game. Used to, the home team provided all the balls. And now, each team brings their footballs the way they like them and break ‘em in. Used to you couldn’t break them in. So for the balls to be deflated, that doesn’t happen unless the quarterback wants that to happen, I can assure you of that. Now the question becomes: Did Bill Belichick know about it.”

cricket

01-23-15, 12:14 PM

Yesterday I quoted "former" NFL quarterback Matt Hasselbeck. I'm listening to him now on the radio and was shocked to hear he's the back-up QB for the Colts. I thought he was out of the league long ago lol.

teeter_g

01-23-15, 12:22 PM

Former NFL quarterback Matt Hasselbeck said yesterday that Bill Belichick would have nothing to do with this incident. The events of today support what he said. Punish Belichick why?

Because it isn't the first time they have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

cricket

01-23-15, 12:25 PM

Because it isn't the first time they have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

There is no "they".

Sedai

01-23-15, 12:45 PM

Because it isn't the first time they have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

Oh, have they released recent news that he was responsible? Or do we just have some speculation by Troy Aikman?

Aikman (AKA - The NFL shill) says the punishment should be "historic?"

Where was old Troy when players were knocking their wives out in an elevator? Historic punishment for a ball having too little air in it?

The good that comes out of this is that we know exactly where all that air went - it's in Troy Aikman's head.

VFN

01-23-15, 01:23 PM

Oh, have they released recent news that he was responsible? Or do we just have some speculation by Troy Aikman?

Aikman (AKA - The NFL shill) says the punishment should be "historic?"

Where was old Troy when players were knocking their wives out in an elevator? Historic punishment for a ball having too little air in it?

The good that comes out of this is that we know exactly where all that air went - it's in Troy Aikman's head.

Troy's an expert on QBing and all that entails not domestic violence.

Yoda

01-23-15, 01:27 PM

Also, it works both ways: how many arguments earlier in this thread about Spygate involved citing former players or coaches as experts who we should defer to (in the cases where they actually defended the practice, rather than made some reference to some other form of misconduct)? In this case, quite a few players are saying they don't find these statements credible. And former players seem almost unanimous in their conclusion that Brady must have at least noticed the balls were deflated, even if most of them don't think he necessarily caused it.

Live by the appeal to authority, die by the appeal to authority.

VFN

01-23-15, 01:28 PM

Here's what Seattle should blast from the sidelines. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rb13ksYO0s

VFN

01-23-15, 01:41 PM

If Brady likes his balls at a particular pressure, lobbied to have the rules changed so he could, plays with them day in and day out at that level, is it believable that he wouldn't notice a pressure drop? Perhaps the answer is yes which is precisely why he reduces the pressure in the cold: Because a cold ball feels more inflated than it really is.

Yoda

01-23-15, 01:50 PM

Something else I'm not sure anyone has pointed out yet. The fumble outlier stuff? Starts in 2007.

When did Brady and Manning lobby for the right to choose and handle their own footballs? 2006.

VFN

01-23-15, 01:51 PM

Something else I'm not sure anyone has pointed out yet. The fumble outlier stuff? Starts in 2007.

When did Brady and Manning lobby for the right to choose and handle their own footballs? 2006.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP3MuUTmXNk

cricket

01-23-15, 02:38 PM

Sedai

01-23-15, 03:01 PM

Ah, the amount of runs per game WOULD come into play, especially if the Pats are logging in about 20 total RB touches while other teams log 32. I would have to check stats.

RE: Aikman - I'm sorry, but how does being an Ex-QB make this guy able to comment on what punishment should be handed down? Straw man argument.

teeter_g

01-23-15, 03:10 PM

Anyway. It should be a great game. GO SEAHAWKS!

Sedai

01-23-15, 03:12 PM

Yeah, you know what? I am with Teeter G!

Go Pats! Go Hawks! Let's have a great game!

Meanwhile: Here is some fun stuff to deflate the tension a bit. :D

The Culprit Has Been Found (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153069571942682&fref=nf)

VFN

01-23-15, 03:19 PM

RE: Aikman - I'm sorry, but how does being an Ex-QB make this guy able to comment on what punishment should be handed down? Straw man argument.

I'm not sure anyone's an authority on punishment, but he can give his opinion just like anyone else.

VFN

01-23-15, 03:21 PM

Meanwhile: Here is some fun stuff to deflate the tension a bit. :D

The Culprit Has Been Found (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153069571942682&fref=nf)

Funny.

Sedai

01-23-15, 03:32 PM

I'm not sure anyone's an authority on punishment, but he can give his opinion just like anyone else.

He sure can, and then I will crap all over it.

Did I mention I hate the Cowboys? ;)

VFN

01-23-15, 03:59 PM

He sure can, and then I will crap all over it.

Did I mention I hate the Cowboys? ;)

Kinda' figured that.

rauldc14

01-23-15, 04:12 PM

I am sick of deflategate. Let's bring on next season already.

Erasmus Folly

01-23-15, 04:37 PM

I am sick of deflategate. Let's bring on next season already.
I agree. I was going to post a long analysis of everything in regards to deflate-gate as I see it, but then I said the hell with it. Let's just have a great game and may the best team win. Go Seahawks!

(P.S. I will offer a prediction though. Before the start of next season Goodell will be gone.)

Sedai

01-23-15, 04:50 PM

Yes, let's!

I think we can all agree that, if the Pats win OR lose, they just won't live this down...

A victory for the Pats and they are a bunch of cheatyfaces. A loss, and they just can't win without cheating.

Yoda

01-23-15, 05:00 PM

RE: Aikman - I'm sorry, but how does being an Ex-QB make this guy able to comment on what punishment should be handed down? Straw man argument.
I was referring to the part of the quote where he says he thinks Brady knew.

I'm not sure if he's qualified to comment on that, either, but player and coach testimony was good enough to defend the Pats, so it should be good enough to condemn them, too.

I am sick of deflategate. Let's bring on next season already.
+2 rep on this post. 2 Pats fans in the thread.

Math checks out. ;)

cricket

01-23-15, 05:07 PM

+2 rep on this post. 2 Pats fans in the thread.

Math checks out. ;)

Not this Pats fan, not thinking of next year yet.

Sedai

01-23-15, 05:10 PM

*Bans Yoda*

doubledenim

01-23-15, 09:30 PM

(P.S. I will offer a prediction though. Before the start of next season Goodell will be gone.)

http://i.imgur.com/pfe7hXo.png

Erasmus Folly

01-23-15, 10:24 PM

I am sick of deflategate. Let's bring on next season already.

+2 rep on this post. 2 Pats fans in the thread.
Math checks out. ;)
I agree. I was going to post a long analysis of everything in regards to deflate-gate as I see it, but then I said the hell with it. Let's just have a great game and may the best team win. Go Seahawks!

I am not a Pats fan and one of those + reps is from me. :yup:

Erasmus Folly

01-24-15, 02:24 PM

In the spirit of anticipation for a great game next Sunday I thought it might be fun to take a trip down memory lane. From this morning's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/sports/before-the-bowl-was-super.html?action=click&contentCollection=Pro%20Football&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/sports/before-the-bowl-was-super.html?action=click&contentCollection=Pro%20Football&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article&abt=0002&abg=0)

Monkeypunch

01-24-15, 02:38 PM

This whole deflategate thing is stupid. But it does let people talk about "handling balls" a lot on TV and the radio, which makes me laugh like the small child I am...Sports radio owes me a new cup of coffee.

Yoda

01-25-15, 09:54 PM

Regarding the Patriot's running back's fumble story, I think anything is possible at this point, but I think this is a long stretch.

Besides the Pat's harsh discipline with their running backs, I think you have to look at their overall offensive philosophy. More often then not, they rely on the passing game to move the ball. On another team, it would be of much more importance for the running back to move the chains, but on the Patriots, gaining yards is of lesser importance for the backs. Extreme discipline with the running backs on a passing oriented team is an unusual combination, and most likey the key to the back's success at holding into the ball. Also, the running backs are far from the only players on the Patriots to handle the ball. The Patriot's wide receivers fumble at a rate on par with the rest of the league.
But they're not the only team to bench backs who fumble, or utilize a committee, or pass a whole lot more than they run.

I don't think people appreciate how massive (or improbable) this kind of historical outlier is. It's not that they're good at it, or even the best: it's that they're the best by a lot over a very long period of time. This can't be handwaved away with coaching, especially when none of those techniques are unique to the team. And really, what're we supposed to believe? That they cracked some sort of fumble code and they did so shortly after they were given the ability to play with their own footballs? There's no universal motivator, and only so many ways to hold a ball. And that's one doozy of a coincidence.

It isn't personnel, either: the follow-up analysis (http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/new-england-patriots-fumble-more-often-when-playing-for-other-teams) shows that their players start fumbling more when they leave the team (more than they did even before joining, which is exactly what you'd expect if they got complacent using softer footballs). So...it's not the players. And if it were an actual technique they wouldn't suddenly forget it. So what's left?

VFN

01-25-15, 10:09 PM

I don't think people appreciate how massive (or improbable) this kind of historical outlier is.

If minimum pressure lowers the fumble rate and Brady's the only QB who keeps his ball at that level then there's no issue.

Yoda

01-25-15, 10:17 PM

I don't follow what you mean.

VFN

01-25-15, 10:28 PM

That the lowered fumble rate may be the product of a legal pressure.

cricket

01-25-15, 11:48 PM

But they're not the only team to bench backs who fumble, or utilize a committee, or pass a whole lot more than they run.

Yes, a lot of teams do some of those things, but who else does all of those things? And why do their wide receivers fumble on par with the rest of the league while using the same ball? Another thing, you never know which back is going to start for N.E.; they don't use a featured back like most teams. A fresh player is less likely to make mistakes like fumbling. This whole theory is a long stretch.

cricket

01-25-15, 11:58 PM

And another thing; the stats you are looking at are for fumbles lost, not fumbles. There's a difference, and the statistics reflect that.

VFN

01-26-15, 03:13 AM

I don't follow what you mean.

Think I was unclear so...The problem with the fumble statistics is that, as far as I know, no relationship has been proven between pressure and fumbling. As such, the legal minimum, which Brady likes, may be the reason behind the Pats' low fumble rate. However, if there were QBs who also liked a minimum ball but whose teams didn't have a similar rate, that would suggest, all other things being essentially equal, that Brady uses a ball less than the legal minimum, that he's been cheating for years.

Yoda

01-26-15, 10:19 AM

Think I was unclear so...The problem with the fumble statistics is that, as far as I know, no relationship has been proven between pressure and fumbling. As such, the legal minimum, which Brady likes, may be the reason behind the Pats' low fumble rate. However, if there were QBs who also liked a minimum ball but whose teams didn't have a similar rate, that would suggest, all other things being essentially equal, that Brady uses a ball less than the legal minimum, that he's been cheating for years.
Ah, now I understand.

This is technically possible, but to be true we have to believe a lot of other things, like:

1) That there's a dramatic difference in fumbles even within the legal range.
2) That the NFL has somehow not realized this, even when presumably performing tests to determine that range in the first place.
3) That the other teams in the NFL haven't realized it.
4) That the fact that they were deflated well beyond this point in the AFC Championship Game is essentially a coincidence.

I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the range is there to allow for normal variation, but it would be pretty amazing if the legal end of the scale produced historically great results compared to the middle or high end of it.

Yoda

01-26-15, 10:28 AM

Yes, a lot of teams do some of those things, but who else does all of those things?
Well, not even the Patriots, actually. They don't throw dramatically more than others: last year they were below average in run/pass ratio and they were just above average this year. Nor are they necessarily as harsh on fumblers as has been suggested: the article I linked to lists lots of examples of players getting more carries than others despite having higher fumbling rates.

Also, what's the argument? That doing one or two of these things has no significant effect on fumbles, but all three create a magical situation where the benefits skyrocket into historical territory?

And why do their wide receivers fumble on par with the rest of the league while using the same ball?
I can think of a couple of reasons, but first, what's the source on this?

Another thing, you never know which back is going to start for N.E.; they don't use a featured back like most teams. A fresh player is less likely to make mistakes like fumbling.
Is that based in any actual evidence, or is it one of those things that just sounds like it could be true?

This whole theory is a long stretch.
I think the stretch is shrugging off a massive statistical aberration with references to well-known coaching and player rotation techniques.

And you're saying the rule change happening shortly before this started is a coincidence, yes?

Yoda

01-26-15, 10:36 AM

And another thing; the stats you are looking at are for fumbles lost, not fumbles. There's a difference, and the statistics reflect that.
Hmmm, I picked a few players at random from the table and it looks like it's showing fumbles.

EDIT: The Wall Street Journal's picked up on the story (http://www.wsj.com/articles/patriots-always-keep-a-tight-grip-on-the-ball-1422054846).

cricket

01-26-15, 12:22 PM

You're talking about historical significance but they don't even lead the league in least fumbles the last 5 years.

Yoda

01-26-15, 12:25 PM

Assuming the source (which I'd like to see), total fumbles is going to reflect total plays run more than ball security. A ratio of plays to fumbles is the more apt statistic.

Also, given that this is an historical comparison and fumbles are still relatively rare from week to week, the mutli-season trends are what makes this significant. Lots of flukey stuff can happen in a given year: when it happens over 8 years, that's different. And when it happens over 8 years immediately after a rule change related to it and the team's just been found doing this very thing, that's really different.

cricket

01-26-15, 12:44 PM

You're too in love with stats; I hope you actually watch the games. Either way, fumbles lost is a meaningless stat in regard to this argument. Atlanta has led the league in fumbles the past 5 years. That's in the bottom chart of that article by that stat geek.

cricket

01-26-15, 12:52 PM

Games are not played on paper; stats don't tell you a whole lot. You're talking about run/pass ratio, but that doesn't take into account situational play, why teams run and why teams pass. Why don't other teams bench fumblers? Maybe they're one of the highest paid players on the team. The more you worry about stats, the less you know about the game that's played on the field.

Yoda

01-26-15, 12:54 PM

You're too in love with stats; I hope you actually watch the games.
Stats are a written record of what happens, dude. If you want to know whether or not something is unusual historically, this is how you know.

Either way, fumbles lost is a meaningless stat in regard to this argument.
The author looked at both (http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-prevention-of-fumbles-is-nearly-impossible).

Atlanta has led the league in fumbles the past 5 years. That's in the bottom chart of that article by that stat geek.
Yeah, because they play indoors. There's a sharp difference in fumbles between indoor and outdoor teams: the Pats are better than most indoor teams and way better than any outdoor team.

Yoda

01-26-15, 01:00 PM

Ah yes, I figured it was only a matter of time until we got to the "stat geek" stuff. :rolleyes: Next up: a reference to how the guy probably lives in his mom's basement/hasn't kissed a girl.

Games are not played on paper; stats don't tell you a whole lot.
Why don't you try to turn this into a specific argument? We're looking at how often teams fumble when they run plays. Are you suggesting that writing this down when it happens doesn't tell us how often it happens?

You're talking about run/pass ratio, but that doesn't take into account situational play, why teams run and why teams pass.
Again, turn this into an argument: what about a given play's situation would change the relevance of how frequently the team fumbles?

The more you worry about stats, the less you know about the game that's played on the field.
This is something people say when the stats contradict them. And the more you disregard stats, the more you open the door to subjective interpretation. Which, surprise surprise, almost always ends up falling in line with what people already believed/wanted to believe.

cricket

01-26-15, 01:01 PM

Yes, but some outdoor team has to lead the league, and the point is that when another team is ahead of them, it's not so amazing anymore. I know stats are a written record, but stats will tell you a running back is the best because he has the highest average yards per carry. Stats do not take situations into account. Anybody who knows the game will tell you this.

cricket

01-26-15, 01:04 PM

There's so much that goes into this that stats don't tell you. For instance, a player is less likey to fumble when he is only in there to protect the ball and run out the clock, than he is when he's fighting for yards when he needs a first down. Forget the stats; they're useless.

Yoda

01-26-15, 01:12 PM

There's so much that goes into this that stats don't tell you.
Does the stat "fumbles" tell us how good a team is at not fumbling? That's the question. This isn't some advanced formula, nor is it a referendum on the total straw man of whether "stats tell you everything" (which nobody has claimed).

For instance, a player is less likey to fumble when he is only in there to protect the ball and run out the clock, than he is when he's fighting for yards when he needs a first down.
That's the whole point of using five-year averages: because there's enough data in them that they can't be swung by things like this.

Forget the stats; they're useless.
I'll just let this speak for itself.

cricket

01-26-15, 01:19 PM

Does the stat "fumbles" tell us how good a team is at not fumbling? That's the question. This isn't some advanced formula, nor is it a referendum on the total straw man of whether "stats tell you everything" (which nobody has claimed).

It does not tell the whole story, but it does say that Atlanta has fumbled less than the Patriots the past 5 years.

That's the whole point of using five-year averages: because there's enough data in them that they can't be swung by things like this.

The stats still do not take into account situational football and gameplanning.

I'll just let this speak for itself.

You need to watch and understand the sport.

Yoda

01-26-15, 02:15 PM

It does not tell the whole story, but it does say that Atlanta has fumbled less than the Patriots the past 5 years.
Because they're an indoor team. Indoor teams consistently fumble less often than outdoor teams. Unless you think this is a massive coincidence, then outdoor teams are the proper comparison. And the Pats fumble way way way less than other outdoor teams (and even less than most indoor teams).

The stats still do not take into account situational football and gameplanning.
This is vague to the point of meaninglessness (which I imagine is the idea: it could be used to brush off any inconvenient fact). In your YPC average example, we can easily pinpoint what the conclusion is missing: the quality of the offensive line (among other things). Similarly, if there's something about "gameplanning" that would explain such a massive difference, what is it?

To this point, you've mentioned only plays late in the game where the team wants to run out the clock (and will therefore presumably focus on ball security at the expense of yardage). So...if I produce a version of the same stat that lets us exclude late-game rushes, and it shows the same result, you'd accept that? Because it kinda feels like it would just change your reason for disagreeing.

You need to watch and understand the sport.
I guess if I watched more games (by the way, kudos on psychically knowing how often I watch football) I'd suddenly understand why the number of times a team fumbles isn't a good measure of their ball security. Instead I spend all that time making out with my calculator.

cricket

01-26-15, 02:20 PM

It doesn't matter how you shake this, if you know the NFL, then you know not to put much stock in to stats. Do you believe they hold on to the ball well because they underinflate the football? You must if you believe in all these stats. I don't, and there's no possible way you can convince me otherwise, and I believe this because I watch the games.

Yoda

01-26-15, 02:29 PM

It doesn't matter how you shake this, if you know the NFL, then you know not to put much stock in to stats.
Nonsense. Lots of people watch a lot of football without coming to the ridiculous conclusion that stats are useless. The guys at Football Outsiders (WARNING: GEEKS) watch tons more football than either of us.

And it's worth noting that you keep trying to turn this into a question about "stats" collectively. Probably because straw men about how "stats aren't everything" sound a lot better than making a specific argument, like "the number of times a team fumbles over five years doesn't tell us how well they hold onto the ball."

Do you believe they hold on to the ball well because they underinflate the football?
I'm not positive (I'd like more information), but I think it's a far more likely explanation than all the flimsy alternatives being presented.

there's no possible way you can convince me otherwise
Exactly. It's an unfalsifiable belief.

and I believe this because I watch the games like the Patriots.
Fixed. ;)

cricket

01-26-15, 02:44 PM

I gave you a lot of reasons why they hold onto the ball well, and I've seen it played out while I watch the games. You want to look at a diagram and believe something else, that's your prerogative. By the way, they fumbled 3 times against Baltimore, losing none.

And another thing, all these people on TV with 2 footballs guessing which one has more psi look like fools. While playing the game you don't have another football to compare it to. They should be on the field guessing how much psi is in one ball.

Yoda

01-26-15, 02:57 PM

I gave you a lot of reasons why they hold onto the ball well
Most of which don't fit the data. Also, did you give me any reasons they suddenly started holding onto the ball better after the rule changed?

and I've seen it played out while I watch the games
What does this even mean? That you know, in the back of your mind, how often the team fumbles compared to other teams you don't even watch? That from watching all the games you have an innate sense of what frequency of fumbles are attributable to what thing?

Seriously, try to turn these vague platitudes into an actual position, and we'll see how it sounds.

You want to look at a diagram and believe something else, that's your prerogative.
"A diagram" = the literal number of times they've fumbled.

It's kinda noticeable how you keep trying to rephrase this to be more complicated than it actually is. This isn't a complicated formula. This is counting.

By the way, they fumbled 3 times against Baltimore, losing none.
And they fumbled zero times against Indy, the game where we know the balls were deflated. Neither of which is a more significant fact than five years' worth of data.

Also, you do understand that "stats" are just what you just said, but with more games, right?

cricket

01-26-15, 03:43 PM

Most of which don't fit the data. Also, did you give me any reasons they suddenly started holding onto the ball better after the rule changed?

There are a lot of things that data can't show you, which is why I don't trust data. When was the rule change and does it coincide with the Patriots becoming a passing team?

What does this even mean? That you know, in the back of your mind, how often the team fumbles compared to other teams you don't even watch? That from watching all the games you have an innate sense of what frequency of fumbles are attributable to what thing?

Seriously, try to turn these vague platitudes into an actual position, and we'll see how it sounds.

It's how teams go about their gameplan and how they play situational football. You cannot find this on the statsheet. You have to see the games.

"A diagram" = the literal number of times they've fumbled.

It's kinda noticeable how you keep trying to rephrase this to be more complicated than it actually is. This isn't a complicated formula. This is counting.

Again, you're talking stats, stats do not tell the whole story. It is much more complicated than you're seeing. You're going by stats only. I see the stats, and they make sense to me due to what I see on the field.

And they fumbled zero times against Indy, the game where we know the balls were deflated. Neither of which is a more significant fact than five years' worth of data.

The balls were properly inflated in the second half when they played better.

Also, you do understand that "stats" are just what you just said, but with more games, right?

You seem to be under the assumption that I'm not objective because I like the Pats. That would be a false assumption. As I've said before, I've bet against them way more than I've bet them, foolishly.

Yoda

01-26-15, 04:07 PM

There are a lot of things that data can't show you, which is why I don't trust data.
And there are things it can show you, like how often a team fumbles.

When was the rule change and does it coincide with the Patriots becoming a passing team?
Tell me when you consider them to have become "a passing team," and I'll look. That is, if you're now willing to entertain stats, and won't just brush the result off as "useless" if it doesn't conform to your opinions.

It's how teams go about their gameplan and how they play situational football. You cannot find this on the statsheet. You have to see the games.
This doesn't reply to what I asked at all, so I'll repeat it: are you claiming that watching the games gives you a sense of how often the team fumbles compared to other teams (which you presumably do not watch)? Are you claiming it gives you a firm standing from which to declare which fumbles are the result of situation, and more than that, which fumbles don't take place because of other factors? Because that's the implication of what you're saying.

It is much more complicated than you're seeing. You're going by stats only. I see the stats, and they make sense to me due to what I see on the field.
Here's the main problem with this kind of response: if you can make some vague references to your personal experience watching the games to dismiss hard data, then you've given yourself a license to believe anything you want, no matter what. That belief forms a protective bubble around all your opinions that never exposes them to the threat of being contradicted by reality.

You seem to be under the assumption that I'm not objective because I like the Pats. That would be a false assumption. As I've said before, I've bet against them way more than I've bet them, foolishly.
That certainly shows that you don't engage in mindless optimism. But that's just one way in which fans often fail to be objective. Another is in defending them from accusations, which is the more relevant one for our purposes. Lots of fans defend their team in kneejerk, unobjective ways that have nothing to do with how well they think they'll play. Like this one.

Erasmus Folly

01-26-15, 04:10 PM

Advisory for cricket. Get out of Boston and go to Phoenix. :D
http://rlv.zcache.com/funny_football_cartoon_holding_a_beer_mug_photosculpture-rdec3b3900d194d2f8789cda89f3412ea_x7saw_8byvr_512.jpg

cricket

01-26-15, 04:11 PM

That chart with the best 5 year periods over the last 25 years- The Patriots are on it 5 times. Look a little closer and you'll notice the Colts are on it 7 times. Quarterbacks normally lead their teams in fumbles. But guess what? Brady and Manning get sacked much less than the average quarterback; less sacks equals less fumbles. On top of that, they're 2 quarterbacks who throw a lot of passes, and they are not scrambling quarterbacks.

VFN

01-26-15, 05:21 PM

I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the range is there to allow for normal variation, but it would be pretty amazing if the legal end of the scale produced historically great results compared to the middle or high end of it.

I haven't followed this closely but a true understanding of the effects different pressures can have seems critical here. And the range allowed may be about ball flight not ball security.

Sedai

01-26-15, 05:26 PM

http://gridironrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/beat_dead_horse2.jpg

Yoda

01-26-15, 05:27 PM

That chart with the best 5 year periods over the last 25 years- The Patriots are on it 5 times. Look a little closer and you'll notice the Colts are on it 7 times.
Yes: they're an indoor team. You have to go all the way down to 17th to find a non-Patriot outdoors team.

Quarterbacks normally lead their teams in fumbles. But guess what? Brady and Manning get sacked much less than the average quarterback; less sacks equals less fumbles. On top of that, they're 2 quarterbacks who throw a lot of passes, and they are not scrambling quarterbacks.
So if I could show you that Brady fumbles significantly less than other QBs even when sacked, that would convince you?

Also, it's not really clear if you're okay with using statistics or not. When they don't fit your conclusions, they're "useless" and you "don't trust them." But then you turn around and make a stat-based argument like this one. So what's the deal?

cricket

01-26-15, 05:50 PM

cricket

01-26-15, 05:56 PM

So if I could show you that Brady fumbles significantly less than other QBs even when sacked, that would convince you?

Convince me of what? That would be making my point.

And let's stop talking about historical numbers. You're only talking about the last 25 years. You were trying to argue that they were historically far and ahead of every other team, but you're not going back very far, and now suddenly they don't even lead the league in fumbles the last 5 years, they're just the best outdoor team.

Yoda

01-26-15, 06:02 PM

No stats are going to tell the whole story because there's stats inside other stats. I've given you multiple football reasons why the the Patriots fumble less than other teams. Pass protection is another one.
When you say QBs fumble more, that's a stat. When you say the Patriots protect QBs better, that's a stat. So what criteria do you use for deciding which stats to cite and which ones to ignore, other than the criteria of whether or not they support the conclusion you've already arrived at?

Convince me of what? That would be making my point.
No it wouldn't: you said the team fumbles less because QBs fumble a lot and the Pats protect their QB well ("less sacks equals less fumbles"). But if Brady fumbles less even as a percentage of the times he's sacked, then that explanation wouldn't work.

And let's stop talking about historical numbers. You're only talking about the last 25 years. You were trying to argue that they were historically far and ahead of every other team, but you're not going back very far, and now suddenly they don't even lead the league in fumbles the last 5 years, they're just the best outdoor team.
Because indoor teams always fumble less. Again, unless you want to argue that this is a coincidence, then other outdoor teams is the only sensible comparison.

As for 25 years: why, would it convince you if it held over 40? 50? Or would that just lead us right back to "stats are useless"?

cricket

01-26-15, 06:16 PM

When you say QBs fumble more, that's a stat. When you say the Patriots protect QBs better, that's a stat. So what criteria do you use for deciding which stats to cite and which ones to ignore, other than the criteria of whether or not they support the conclusion you've already arrived at?

I didn't look up any stats; I'm going by what I've seen watching games for over 35 years, and I haven't always been a Patriots fan. I give you actual football reasons and you disregard them; if I give stats, I'm giving in. Sounds a little one way to me.

No it wouldn't: you said the team fumbles less because QBs fumble a lot and the Pats protect their QB well ("less sacks equals less fumbles"). But if Brady fumbles less even as a percentage of the times he's sacked, then that explanation wouldn't work.

Why not? If that's the position that fumbles more than any other, and Brady protects the ball better than average, that is a significant reason why they would fumble less than other teams.

Because indoor teams always fumble less. Again, unless you want to argue that this is a coincidence, then other outdoor teams is the only sensible comparison.

But in your original argument you conveniently left this out completely.

As for 25 years: why, would it convince you if it held over 40? 50? Or would that just lead us right back to "stats are useless"?

I just wouldn't throw the word historical out giving the impression that it's more than it really is.

cricket

01-26-15, 06:30 PM

I don't think there's been a coach/quarterback tandem together longer than Belichick/Brady. Consistency in personnel translates to consistency on the field.

Yoda

01-26-15, 06:40 PM

I didn't look up any stats; I'm going by what I've seen watching games for over 35 years, and I haven't always been a Patriots fan.
It doesn't matter if you looked it up. The point is that we know whether or not it's true because we've written it down, and we can use the resulting stat to draw conclusions. Saying QBs fumble more as part of an argument is no different than saying that outdoor teams fumble more as part of an argument.

I give you actual football reasons and you disregard them; if I give stats, I'm giving in. Sounds a little one way to me.
They weren't disregarded, every single one of them was addressed head on: most were contradicted by the data (like the idea it's just the personnel, or a technique). The only ones that weren't were the ones it's literally impossible to prove or disprove with data. Like the idea that Belichik found a special way to motivate players to be insanely good at not fumbling immediately after a related rule change that doesn't work on them after they leave the team.

Why not? If that's the position that fumbles more than any other, and Brady protects the ball better than average, that is a significant reason why they would fumble less than other teams.
Well, first off, this is a different argument than you made, which was "less sacks means less fumbles" (that's a quote, by the way (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1245935#post1245935)). You said nothing there about ball protection.

Second, why would this explain anything? The whole point is that he protects the ball better--that the whole team does, even when accounting for things like pass protection, pass frequency, etc.

But in your original argument you conveniently left this out completely.
If I were trying to hide this, I wouldn't have specifically linked to the source so anyone could see for themselves. Also, you say "conveniently" as if this would weaken the argument. But again, unless you want to argue that indoor teams don't have a major inherent fumble advantage, then it doesn't.

Yoda

01-26-15, 06:42 PM

I don't think there's been a coach/quarterback tandem together longer than Belichick/Brady. Consistency in personnel translates to consistency on the field.
And that special relationship is so amazing and contagious that it makes everyone else on the team fumble less?

cricket

01-26-15, 06:46 PM

And that special relationship is so amazing and contagious that it makes everyone else on the team fumble less?

You consistently have a quarterback who protects the ball and a coach that is extra hard on backs fumbling. Other teams don't have that, and that means something.

cricket

01-26-15, 06:55 PM

Less sacks do mean less fumbles and then ball protection is an additional factor. It's all relevant.

It seems at this point that you've lost focus, that you're more concerned with trying to prove something about stats. I've seen every Patriots game from the last 15 years, and that's not even half of the games I've watched over that time span. I've given you multiple reasons why the Patriots fumble less than other teams, real football reasons that mean something on the field. You try to debunk these reasons with stats, but stats do not tell the whole story. I'm telling you what I see on the field, and you're telling me what you see on paper. Games aren't played on paper. You should give a team credit when they deserve it as I always do with other teams.

Yoda

01-26-15, 07:29 PM

Yeah, again, nobody said stats tell us everything, and nobody's making any claims predicated on the idea that they do. You can stop boxing that particular shadow.

But stats do tell us lots of things. For example, if stats show us that Patriot players fumble more when they leave the team, that means they don't achieve their ball security by singling out players who are good at it. If the stats show us that they have similar success both when passing the ball more or less, then that means that doesn't explain it, either.

These are facts, used to inform conclusions. They support some conclusions and rule out others, a reality which is in no way addressed or changed by glib non-sequiturs about how "games aren't played on paper."

VFN

01-26-15, 07:32 PM

It seems at this point that you've lost focus

How do you explain the Patriots' balls being deflated but not the Colts?

Yoda

01-26-15, 07:35 PM

You'd know how if you watched the games. Games aren't played with air pumps.

cricket

01-26-15, 07:36 PM

I never believed the part about picking up players who don't fumble. I think that has very little to do with it. I believe it's about offensive philosophy, coaching, keeping players fresh, prioritizing, protecting the position that's most apt to fumble, and having a player at that position protect the ball.

VFN

01-26-15, 07:42 PM

I never believed the part about picking up players who don't fumble. I think that has very little to do with it.

How do you explain the deflation for the Pats but not the Colts?

cricket

01-26-15, 07:43 PM

How do you explain the Patriots' balls being deflated but not the Colts?

That's the million dollar question. I'm not sure we've gotten any official conclusion from the league on any if this. Now I'm hearing reports that most of the footballs weren't as low as initially reported. We don't know for sure if the referees used a gauge before game time. We don't know if the Patriots balls and the Colts balls were kept in the same place for the two hours before the game. If the Pats set their balls to 12.5 and the Colt's at 13.5, do they lose pressure at the same rate. Did a ballboy do something? Who knows, it's all speculation at this point. I agree with Jon Gruden when he says he can't believe the commotion over this. I haven't played competitively since high school, but I don't think a little bit of psi makes any difference during a game. And I have normal sized hands; these guys have gigantic hands, I just don't think it's a big deal.

Yoda

01-26-15, 08:13 PM

How do you explain the fumble improvement coinciding with the rule change?

VFN

01-26-15, 08:15 PM

That's the million dollar question. I'm not sure we've gotten any official conclusion from the league on any if this. Now I'm hearing reports that most of the footballs weren't as low as initially reported. We don't know for sure if the referees used a gauge before game time. We don't know if the Patriots balls and the Colts balls were kept in the same place for the two hours before the game. If the Pats set their balls to 12.5 and the Colt's at 13.5, do they lose pressure at the same rate. Did a ballboy do something? Who knows, it's all speculation at this point.

Your suspicions aren't at all aroused by deflation of just one teams' balls?

cricket

01-26-15, 08:35 PM

How do you explain the fumble improvement coinciding with the rule change?

I'm not exactly familiar with that; I think around 2006 or so the visiting or home team were now able to supply their own balls, something like that?

cricket

01-26-15, 08:38 PM

Your suspicions aren't at all aroused by deflation of just one teams' balls?

Supposedly they were all under 12.5 but to what extent, nobody seems to know for sure. Air pressure is a funny thing. I took my wife's car to the gas station a couple weeks ago because she complained that the tire pressure light was on. By the time I got there, it was off.

VFN

01-26-15, 09:31 PM

Supposedly they were all under 12.5 but to what extent, nobody seems to know for sure. Air pressure is a funny thing. I took my wife's car to the gas station a couple weeks ago because she complained that the tire pressure light was on. By the time I got there, it was off.

Just saw the Belichick press conference from a few days ago. He says his tests show that the way they prepare their balls before they're given to officials for a pregame pressure check artificially raises their pressure about 1 lb. They then lose that pound over time by reestablishing an equilibrium. As such, weather notwithstanding, Patriot balls will show deflation as a game transpires.

cricket

01-26-15, 09:47 PM

VFN

01-26-15, 09:59 PM

There are definitely variables as to why a ball can lose pressure, and also get it back. The question is why were they different than the Colt's balls. There are several legitimate reasons as to why they could be different, but are these the reasons why they were.

If the Colts prepare their balls differently than the Pats so they don't become artificially inflated that would be an answer. Seems to me the league has more than enough resources to conduct tests with all possible variables.

Yoda

01-27-15, 10:11 AM

I'm not exactly familiar with that; I think around 2006 or so the visiting or home team were now able to supply their own balls, something like that?
They were permitted to select and manage their own balls. The fumbled improved the very next season.

This would seem to be a pretty massive coincidence.

cricket

01-27-15, 05:51 PM

Brady's 6th full season was 2006; in those 6 seasons, he had double figures in fumbles 4 times, but never did it again afterwards. Brady learning pocket awareness would seem to be a big key.

Yoda

01-27-15, 06:00 PM

That would still be a coincidence, that his "pocket awareness" happened to improve dramatically that exact year. And almost all at once (as opposed to gradual improvement), no less.

And we're talking about the entire team's fumble rate improving from that point on, not just Brady's.

cricket

01-27-15, 06:14 PM

Well he averaged 10 fumbles a year prior and 5 fumbles a year after. 5 fumbles makes a dramatic difference in your team's yearly fumble statistics.

Even getting by all these stats, I don't believe a small amount of air pressure helps you prevent fumbling anyway, and obviously it doesn't help the quarterback not fumble as they fumble because of a lack of pocket awareness.

Yoda

01-27-15, 06:19 PM

So...that's a yes? It's a coincidence?

cricket

01-27-15, 06:26 PM

You could look at it either way if you like, and I believe you can find coincidence in anything if you look deep enough. I think there's football reasons for everything that happens that's football related. Teams and players try to improve in many areas, and often do.

Yoda

01-27-15, 06:39 PM

What they don't do is improve suddenly, to an unprecedented degree, immediately after a rule change. That's not the kind of coincidence you can find "in anything."

cricket

01-27-15, 06:43 PM

You could also say it's a coincidence that Spygate happened then. You can also say it's a coincidence that they had an undefeated regular season in 2007. It's all meaningless to me.

You can put it any way you like, I don't by your theory in any way.

cricket

01-27-15, 06:48 PM

And it's only unprecedented in the last 25 years, and furthermore by an outdoor team. By that reasoning, any time a team leads the league in anything from a 25 year period, it's unprecedented.

Yoda

01-27-15, 06:49 PM

You could also say it's a coincidence that Spygate happened then.
You can also say it's a coincidence that they had an undefeated regular season in 2007.
I don't see how either of these are coincidences, nor how either being a coincidence would in any way help your position.

You can put it any way you like, I don't by your theory in any way.
Er, yeah, I've gathered. ;) You're obviously impossible to convince, even hypothetically. So I'm left to ask questions to reveal the extent to which your disagreement is rooted in faith and rationalizations, rather than facts.

Yoda

01-27-15, 06:52 PM

And it's only unprecedented in the last 25 years, and furthermore by an outdoor team. By that reasoning, any time a team leads the league in anything from a 25 year period, it's unprecedented.
The fact that you say suggests you either didn't read any of the articles in question, or else didn't understand why the claims were significant.

No, the reasoning is not that any team that leads the league in something is unusual and unprecedented. That would be silly, because somebody has to. What they don't have to do is lead by a massive degree. Out of nowhere. Right after a potentially related rule change.

In other words, this isn't "man, what are the odds of that guy winning the lottery?" Again, somebody has to. This is more "man, what are the odds of that guy winning the lottery twice right after he got a job working at the lottery commission?"

cricket

01-27-15, 06:57 PM

Yea, I don't see how or why you try to convince somebody of something when they don't buy your theory in any way. Please don't try to claim that you're giving me facts; you're simply giving me stats, with no facts behind the cause for them.

Yoda

01-27-15, 07:05 PM

Please don't try to claim that you're giving me facts; you're simply giving me stats, with no facts behind the cause for them.
Stats are facts, dude. If the stats say Brady fumbled 10 times in a year, that's a fact. We have to apply deduction and interpretation to them, to be sure, but that's true of all facts.

You can disagree with what I'm saying, but pretty much all of my arguments are based on things we actually know: we actually know how often the Patriots are fumbling. We actually know how this compares to comparable teams. Etc.

Your arguments are based on subjective experience and opinion: you say it's the coaching. You say it's the game situations. You say you can tell just from watching the games. You say it's explained by things that cannot be independently verified. Right or wrong, these aren't fact-based arguments.

cricket

01-27-15, 07:17 PM

Stats are facts, but you're talking about cause for the stat, in which you have no facts for said cause.

Yoda

01-27-15, 07:26 PM

That's not quite true. We certainly don't have one single fact that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, why the team has improved so dramatically. But we do have lots of facts that rule out some explanations, and require people to believe in increasingly improbable or convenient things to explain the situation.

I can't technically prove that the team didn't just magically become far and away the best outdoor fumbling team by a massive margin out of nowhere. But I can use facts to show that you have to accept a major coincidence to think that. And I can point out that all the verifiable explanations for it don't fit the facts. And I can show that all the remaining explanations are conveniently based on subjective experience and can't be independently verified.

Whether or not that will convince anyone--or even raise their suspicions--will depend on how reasonable they are and/or how emotionally invested they are in one answer or the other. I can't control that part--I can only point out the implications of their beliefs.