The 2014 NFL Playoffs Thread

[Yoda]

So the rule change was in place in 2006 when The Patriots fumbled 27 times, which is a high number, and more then their opponents. You're argument was based on a sudden turn around immediately after the rule change, but that isn't the case. They've been consistently great at holding onto the ball since 2007, but not every individual year.
The argument is not that they were bad and got good. The argument is that they were pretty good and somehow still got way way better. It'd actually be way less suspicious if they went from bad to good.

They did indeed fumble 27 times in 2006. That was good for 8th. The very next year, after the rule change? They nearly cut that in half, to 14. Tied for #1 in the league. With an indoor team, naturally.

[Yoda]

And you say you have lots of facts that rule out some explanations; what are those?
The facts rule out the explanation that it's about personnel (I realize this wasn't your suggestion).

The facts rule out that it's just due to passing frequency.

The facts rule out that it's due to a decrease in sacks.

Just off the top of my head.

[Fabulous]

I don't mean to interrupt the flow of the debate, but I'll never forget the day the NFL cheated the Raiders, my team, in the Tuck Rule. Ever since that game, the two franchises have gone in the complete opposite direction. The beginning of Brady's dominance, and an era of failure for the Raiders. Since the Tuck game and Brady's rise to prominence, we now know of a few questionable methods of action from them. It only makes me wonder if these accusations are true or not, and if they are, how much of an edge did it really give them?

Oddly enough, I will probably be rooting for them in the Super Bowl. As much as I despise their organization, there is something about the Seahawks players and staff, as well as their fans, that just rub me the wrong way.

[VFN]

The argument is not that they were bad and got good. The argument is that they were pretty good and got insanely good.

They did indeed fumble 27 times in 2006. That was good for 8th. The very next year, after the rule change? They nearly cut that in half, to 14. Tied for #1 in the league. With an indoor team, naturally.

The Pats have already conceded that their balls are overly deflated, at least for a while, due to how they prepare them. (We don't know if they knew and relied on that or whether that's even true.) We don't know at what point deflation aids in holding the ball. We don't know if other teams kept their pressure at the low end like the Pats. We need to know more to diagnose the statistics.

[Yoda]

The Pats have already conceded that their balls are overly deflated, at least for a while, due to how they prepare them. (We don't know if they knew and relied on that or whether that's even true.) We don't know at what point deflation aids in holding the ball. We don't know if other teams kept their pressure at the low end like the Pats. We need to know more to diagnose the statistics.
Totally agree. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to pretend this isn't even cause for suspicion. We definitely need more information, however.

[VFN]

I don't mean to interrupt the flow of the debate, but I'll never forget the day the NFL cheated the Raiders, my team, in the Tuck Rule. Ever since that game, the two franchises have gone in the complete opposite direction.

Didn't the Raiders make it to the SB against Tampa after that?

[VFN]

Totally agree. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to pretend this isn't even cause for suspicion. We definitely need more information, however.

Well, what do you expect from a Pats fan. C'mon.

[Fabulous]

Didn't the Raiders make it to the SB against Tampa after that?

Yes, and they got destroyed at the hands of Chucky himself. Their quick descent began after that SB loss. But the game in general marked the beginning of the Brady/Belicheat era and it created the first early crack that lead to Oakland's downfall.

[cricket]

They did indeed fumble 27 times in 2006. That was good for 8th. The very next year, after the rule change? They nearly cut that in half, to 14. Tied for #1 in the league. With an indoor team, naturally.

I don't know where you're getting that from. 27 is a high number, and that number was tied for 9th most in the league in 2006. There's page after page in this thread of you saying that immediately after the rule change, they started holding onto the ball, and how it's an amazing coincidence. It didn't happen that way.

[Fabulous]

I don't know where you're getting that from. 27 is a high number, and that number was tied for 9th most in the league in 2006. There's page after page in this thread of you saying that immediately after the rule change, they started holding onto the ball, and how it's an amazing coincidence. It didn't happen that way.

Going from 9th to 1st while cutting the total in half. That's excellent improvement...

[cricket]

The facts rule out the explanation that it's about personnel (I realize this wasn't your suggestion).

The facts rule out that it's just due to passing frequency.

The facts rule out that it's due to a decrease in sacks.

Just off the top of my head.

Run/pass ratio is an example of why some stats don't tell the whole story. What's more important is when they run, and why. This is something you can't see on paper.

[cricket]

Going from 9th to 1st while cutting the total in half. That's excellent improvement...

But they weren't 9th, they were 9th worst. Yes, that's a great improvement, but the point is that it didn't happen the year after the rule change.

[Powdered Water]

Are they still playing Sunday?

[Fabulous]

But they weren't 9th, they were 9th worst. Yes, that's a great improvement, but the point is that it didn't happen the year after the rule change.

9th worst to tied for the best? That's an even greater improvement. ;)

[cricket]

I don't mean to interrupt the flow of the debate, but I'll never forget the day the NFL cheated the Raiders, my team, in the Tuck Rule. Ever since that game, the two franchises have gone in the complete opposite direction. The beginning of Brady's dominance, and an era of failure for the Raiders. Since the Tuck game and Brady's rise to prominence, we now know of a few questionable methods of action from them. It only makes me wonder if these accusations are true or not, and if they are, how much of an edge did it really give them?

Oddly enough, I will probably be rooting for them in the Super Bowl. As much as I despise their organization, there is something about the Seahawks players and staff, as well as their fans, that just rub me the wrong way.

The tuck rule was a bad rule that the referees applied correctly. The NFL rightfully changed the rule the following offseason.

[cricket]

9th worst to tied for the best? That's an even greater improvement. ;)

You're completely missing the point.

[Fabulous]

You're completely missing the point.

That they went from being pretty terrible at fumbling the ball to tied for best in the league, the season after a new rule is implemented? Coincidence or not, when it comes to the Patriots you just never know... :cage:

[Fabulous]

The tuck rule was a bad rule that the referees applied correctly. The NFL rightfully changed the rule the following offseason.

It was a bad rule that should never have been implemented in the first place. Like Ray Lewis and many other defenders say, if I hit you and you let go of the ball, that's a fumble. Who cares about stupid arm motion or trying to tuck the ball, you fumbled the ball. At least that's what a still bitter Raiders fan has to say about it. :p

[Fabulous]

Are they still playing Sunday?

Yes. They will be beating the Seahawks if you care to tune in. :jules:

[cricket]

Yes, and they got destroyed at the hands of Chucky himself. Their quick descent began after that SB loss. But the game in general marked the beginning of the Brady/Belicheat era and it created the first early crack that lead to Oakland's downfall.

I don't think it was the game that swung the future for those two franchises. I think it was who the quarterbacks were, and where they were at in their careers.

Calling Belichick "Belicheat" is dumb. If you're cheating, you don't do it right in front of the whole world, including the commissioner. The Patriots thought they were within the rules. The commissioner disagreed. Calling them cheaters is rather ignorant.

[Powdered Water]

I think we need a moderator in this thread.

[Fabulous]

I don't think it was the game that swung the future for those two franchises. I think it was who the quarterbacks were, and where they were at in their careers.

Calling Belichick "Belicheat" is dumb. If you're cheating, you don't do it right in front of the whole world, including the commissioner. The Patriots thought they were within the rules. The commissioner disagreed. Calling them cheaters is rather ignorant.

Rich Gannon being older didn't help his cause, but the nail in the coffin was the season after the SB loss when Tony Siragusa destoryed Gannon's collarbone.

[cricket]

That they went from being pretty terrible at fumbling the ball to tied for best in the league, the season after a new rule is implemented? Coincidence or not, when it comes to the Patriots you just never know... :cage:

You see what I'm saying is that when they were 9th worst, that was after the rule change.

[Fabulous]

You see what I'm saying is that when they were 9th worst, that was after the rule change.

If that's true then my apologies, I must have misread...

[Yoda]

You didn't misread it: the rule change happened between 2006 and 2007. Which means the dramatic increase came right after.

[cricket]

What are you saying, that the rule change didn't start until the 2007 season? All the articles I read said that teams started using their own balls during the 2006 season. I'll try to find a link.

[Yoda]

Yup, that's what I'm saying. It's easy to get confused on this point because most of the articles say "in 2006" to refer to the lobbying for the rule change, rather than the change itself.

[cricket]

Here's just 1 article that says that teams started using their own balls in 2006.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/why_tom_brady_and_other_nfl_quarterbacks_should_be_able_to_do_whatever_they.html

This guy with the data chart must have his head up his ass. He first tried making a case using fumbles lost, which is a useless stat for this argument. Here is another article debunking another theory of his-

http://soshcentral.com/football-science/football-statistics/2015/01/27/fumbling-data-truth-patriots-fumble-rate/

[cricket]

Keep in mind, the 2006 season would end in 2007, so there's a lot that happens in a year before football season starts.

[Yoda]

Here's just 1 article that says that teams started using their own balls in 2006.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/why_tom_brady_and_other_nfl_quarterbacks_should_be_able_to_do_whatever_they.html
It doesn't say that, though: it says "in 2006 the NFL even allowed." This is when they approved the change, not when in went in effect.

Kinda awkward phrasing, but every other source I can find is clearer on this point. For example this one (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/stats_show_the_new_england_patriots_became_nearly_fumble_proof_after_a_2006.2.html) (same site as yours), and this one (http://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7906127/patriots-deflate-fumble-stats). Others available on request, but you get the idea.

Here is another article debunking another theory of his-
Did you read that? Because it doesn't "debunk" his theory; at most it claims that the difference is less extreme. And even then, it's only about what certain players did after leaving the team--it's not at all disputing that the team as a whole saw a dramatic difference after the rule change.

[cricket]

Did you read that? Because it doesn't "debunk" his theory; at most it claims that the difference is less extreme. And even then, it's only about what certain players did after leaving the team--it's not at all disputing that the team as a whole saw a dramatic difference after the rule change.

All I'm saying about this is that his data is often flawed. Just the fact that he tried using fumbles lost as a stat shows that he will mislead to make his case.

[cricket]

It doesn't say that, though: it says "in 2006 the NFL even allowed." This is when they approved the change, not when in went in effect.

Kinda awkward phrasing, but every other source I can find is clearer on this point. For example this one (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/stats_show_the_new_england_patriots_became_nearly_fumble_proof_after_a_2006.2.html) (same site as yours), and this one (http://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7906127/patriots-deflate-fumble-stats). Others available on request, but you get the idea.

You're cutting off the quote in the article I linked to. The full quote is "in 2006 the NFL even allowed quarterbacks to use their own balls".

The first article you linked to, I couldn't pull the whole thing up on my phone. I did see it was written by Warren Sharp, so I automatically discount it.

The second one you linked to simply references another article(pointed out by Sharp) that simply states the rule was lobbied for in 2006. In doesn't say when it went into effect. Players can lobby for something in 2006, while the 2005 season is still going.

[cricket]

This article says that the QBs petitioned the NFL for the rule change in 2006 during the offseason. The offseason could only mean before the 2006 NFL season began. It also says that the rule change went into effect that year.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/nfl/colts/2015/01/26/peyton-manning-was-colts-qb-when-he-paved-way-for-deflategate/22355219/

[cricket]

Here is an article from November, 2006, The New York Times, after the rule change went into effect-

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/sports/football/03football.html?_r=0

[cricket]

As you can see, Jason Sharp has misled with data, and he has misled with words.

In the 9 years since the rule change, the Patriots have been consistently good at holding onto the ball, but they have only been the best 2 times in that span. They are also the only team in that span to have the same coach and quarterback, and that's what leads to consistency on the field.

[Yoda]

Hmm, I've got a bunch of articles still suggesting otherwise--but let's assume those ones are wrong, since a handful are at least ambiguous. And Wikipedia annoyingly doesn't list this under 2006 or 2007's rule changes. So let's say 2006 happened after, since that seems more likely now.

First thing's first: It really doesn't matter if Sharp has a bias or not. If bias excluded anyone from contributing to a discussion about this issue, you'd have to drop out completely. :p You can't dismiss facts by going after the man showing them to you. That's a logical fallacy so common it has its own name. Nobody's asking you to trust the guy. Quite the opposite: I've been encouraging you to take the data seriously and actually engage with it the whole time, though you've been consistently looking for ways to write everything off. First by dismissing the entire concept of statistics, now by going after the source.

Now, back to the data:

In the 9 years since the rule change, the Patriots have been consistently good at holding onto the ball, but they have only been the best 2 times in that span.
This is more cherry-picked than anything Sharp did, dude. Yes, they were #1 twice...which is incredible all by itself! For two reasons. First, because that's all teams--not just outdoor ones. Second, because fumbles are rare and very random at times, so it's very easy for good ball protection teams to have bad years, and bad ones to have good ones. That's why you have to look at long-term trends. It's the only way to smooth out the randomness of rare events and small sample sizes.

Second, when they weren't #1, they were almost always very close. Belichik's teams never even cracked the top 5 before the rule change. One year after, they did it six years in a row and seven out of eight. That is ridiculous, especially for a team that was basically average beforehand.

They are also the only team in that span to have the same coach and quarterback, and that's what leads to consistency on the field.
Yet another explanation that can't be verified in any way. Also, how is it "consistent" to become better all at once? Why wouldn't it happen gradually?

[Yoda]

Two other things:

First, tell me honestly: are you reading the articles in question? Because you've said a few things that suggests you aren't, and it would be pretty crappy to expect me to explain or defend things you can't be bothered to read.

Second, are we arguing stats, or not? Because I'm totally happy to have a serious discussion about what stats do and do not imply, and how to interpret them. But at the moment it seems like we talk stats if they look good for the Pats, but the moment they don't everything gets swept back into the "I know what I see in the games" black box that is capable of eating up and ignoring any inconvenient piece of data.

[Powdered Water]

This isn't a serious discussion. You just won't let it go is all.

[cricket]

Forget any other articles you have seen; the NY Times article was written in Nov. of 2006.

Warren Sharp initially based his "data" on the(irrelevant to this argument) stat for fumbles lost. He later updated his "data" after he was alerted of this error.

Warren Sharp fooled you, and others, by convincing you that the rule change was not in effect in 2006.

He has misled you and fooled you. If you continue to point to his "data", I have no choice but to assume you are either stubborn or naive.

I have given you many football reasons as to why the Patriots are great at holding on to the football, reasons that you can't find in "data".

The more someone talks about "data", the less I think they know about football. I have no "data" to prove that, only common sense.

[Yoda]

"I watch the games and know football" is a magic phrase that you can use to ignore any fact. That should give you pause. It's a big red flag when someone's opinions are conveniently protected from all possibility of contradiction.

Data is a record of stuff that happened. It's silly to pretend it's some kind of alchemy, or mutually exclusive from understanding the game. The guys at Football Outsiders watch way more (and know more about) football than either of us and they're knee deep in the data. Give them a read sometime. Expand your horizons.

Don't believe me? Test yourself sometime. Make a bunch of predictions and put them alongside theirs. Then ignore the results because the results are data and data's just nerd stuff for people who don't know football, or something.

[cricket]

I know that some stats mean something, but I also know that stats can't measure everything that happens on the football field.

None of this changes the fact that you have continuously argued(based on Warren Sharp) that the rule was not in effect in 2006. That has been proven to be wrong, and nothing can change that.

[Yoda]

I know that some stats mean something, but I also know that stats can't measure everything that happens on the football field.
Literally nobody said they could. And literally zero arguments in this thread are based on the idea that they can.

None of this changes the fact that you have continuously argued(based on Warren Sharp) that the rule was not in effect in 2006. That has been proven to be wrong, and nothing can change that.
Indeed. What hasn't been proven wrong is that the Pats were incredibly average before the rule change and got insanely good shortly after, and all at once, too. They never finished in the top 5 before and did so almost every year--including a ridiculous 6 straight--afterwards.

[cricket]

I unerstand that, but the Patriots team of 2007 was different in many ways than years previous, and as I've said, Brady's average yearly fumble totals were cut in half after 2006. That is very significant.

[Yoda]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! :)

Brady's fumble totals cut in half. Very relevant piece of data. But how does that support one theory over another? If the theory is that the ball is easier to hold onto deflated, then you would expect his fumble total to go down just like everyone else's, yes? So we can't draw any conclusions from that alone.

[cricket]

A quarterback doesn't fumble because of how hard he can or can't squeeze the football. He fumbles because of how aware he is of the pass rush, how willing he is to throw the ball away, etc. Data can't measure that, but it should be easy to understand that, and he's not at all a running quarterback.

[Yoda]

How willing he is to throw the ball away would be reflected in sacks, wouldn't it? If it doesn't result in a significantly lower sack rate, then there's no reason to think it would explain the decrease in fumbles.

It seems pretty obvious that fumbles are a product of both--being aware of the pass rush will determine how often he's hit without having time to brace for the impact (otherwise you'd just use the sack rate to measure it), but if the ball is pressurized it's also more likely to pop out when he's hit. They both matter. What we don't know is how much one matters compared to the other.

But let's say this is all true. Brady's fumble difference would account for some of the improvement, but certainly not all. That would mean your claim is that Brady suddenly got much better at pocket awareness at the exact same time the rest of the team got much better at general ball protection, right?

[cricket]

There's no way to prove or disprove reasons for any of this. The only thing that I can say with total confidence is that this whole argument was based on the fact that there was a sudden turn-around immediately after the rule change. That has turned out to be false. It would seem futile and pointless to go on from there, when the whole original argument has been proven faulty.

[Yoda]

That's simply not true: the argument was that they got much better all of a sudden. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. The idea that it happened the exact year, rather than just very shortly after, came up much later. That would certainly make the coincidence bigger, but it was never the "whole original argument."

[cricket]

You believed the rule change happened after the 2006 season because that's what the article led you to believe. Yes, the Patriots were greatly improved from the 2007 season and beyond, but you can't pretend the 2006 season never happened. The whole premise is that the rule change affected the Patriots fumbling stats, yet they weren't improved the year after the rule change. If you have such a strong desire to pinpoint why a team improved in a certain area, my suggestion would be to dig deeper.

[Yoda]

To be clear, you're actually arguing they they improved in two areas simultaneously: that Brady suddenly got much better at pocket awareness (and that this is the dominant factor in fumbling, as opposed to how easy the ball is to grip) and that the team as a whole got much better at holding onto the ball at the same time.

Anyway, the argument is that it happened suddenly, to a huge degree, and all at once. Not impossible, but definitely unusual. You can't admit that this is at least weird? Weird enough to wonder about, particularly in light of the deflated balls they were caught using? Weird enough not to instantly dismiss every piece of evidence presented as totally meaningless, apparently without even looking at it?

If you can't admit that, won't even give that inch, then I'll just throw in the towel now.

[Sedai]

Speaking of stats:

https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/10920118_641815699257502_7000758409003755593_o.jpg

[cricket]

Teams and players improve on things, and when you have the same leaders on and off the field, it's easier to keep these improvements consistent. They're the only team to have those same leaders throughout this time period, and these types of things happen in all sports. I just cannot discount the season after the rule change. This theory is based on the rule changing, then the Patriots waiting one year before they suddenly started deflating footballs, directly leading to less fumbling. I don't buy that for a second.

[Yoda]

"Keep improvements consistent" would suggest gradual change, not a sudden, dramatic one. That's kinda the whole point.

I said I'd throw in the towel if you refused to move an inch, and you refuse to move an inch. Absolutely nothing weird about this sudden change. Totally meaningless. Nothing to see here, geeks. You know what you know and ain't no number gonna tell you different.

But no hard feelings. All I'll say in conclusion is that I hope you open your mind to things like stats a bit more. I promise you it will only enhance--not diminish--your knowledge of, and appreciation for, the game.

[cricket]

I'm quite familiar with stats, but this ain't fantasy football. I know very well what stats are relevant, which aren't, and what on the football field can't be measured by them.

[Yoda]

Sounds like you've got it all figured out, man.

Okay then.

http://cdn.hark.com/images/000/996/892/996892/original.jpg

[cricket]

Take Warren Sharp for instance, an obvious stat geek. In his article he came up with the stats for lost fumbles. The problem is that fumbles lost is the wrong stat for his argument. He actually had to be made aware of this, and edit in a chart for total fumbles. The dude proved that he doesn't know the game. You even referenced the false stat in your original post relating to this article, and left out the supposedly relevant one. That's a guy who's surfing his computer for data, but then proves his lack of real football knowledge.

[Yoda]

You're really determined to keep arguing? Okay.

No, when I first referenced his article I thought that was fumbles, not fumbles lost. Why? Because he used the word "fumbles." I wouldn't have referenced it otherwise. The idea that I didn't understand the distinction, or why it's important, is completely absurd.

Also absurd: pretending this random guy can be used as a stand-in for all statistical analysis, and that you therefore having nothing to learn from anyone. Apparently you already utilize stats the perfect amount. Nevermind that lots of geeky stat types watch way more game film than both of us combined.

But hey, if you wanna take on stat geeks and demonstrate your "real football knowledge," it's pretty easy to do. Put your offseason projections up against the geeky nerds at Football Outsiders. You should mop the floor with those dweebs according to...well, you.

[Sedai]

So, what's the criteria for having "real football knowledge?" I mean, how is it quantified? This question is for Cricket, btw...

[cricket]

That last remark in my last post was directed at Sharp, not Yoda, so I apologize if it wasn't clear.

I don't think you can quantify having football knowledge, but I think you can spot it when someone lacks it, and that's what I see from Warren Sharp.

[Sleezy]

Lol. "I know it when I see it" is not an argument.

[cricket]

Lol. "I know it when I see it" is not an argument.

It is if you've followed the thread and know the error that Warren Sharp made. It's there for anybody to see.

[Devostator]

so are we just going to pretend that the Pats are not going to be punished at all?

[cricket]

so are we just going to pretend that the Pats are not going to be punished at all?

The story has been so blown out of proportion that the NFL may have to do something just to save face. I don't think that the NFL will find any evidence that the Patriots tampered with the footballs. The problem is that they don't need any, and can do what they want. They don't need a smoking gun, and there is no due process. The commissioner may have more to lose than the Patriots in this situation, and my guess is that there will be some sort of penalty levied after the Superbowl, quite possibly unfairly.

Meanwhile, ESPN sports scientist John Brenkus was on the radio today. He disputed Bill Belichick's experiments on footballs relating to weather, but also stated his belief that the difference in psi would result in no advantage for the Patriots. This is the belief that I have had all along. It has also been widely reported that the difference in psi would result in a difference of 2 pounds in the weight of the football. This misinformation has been so widely reported, that even major publications such as The New Yorker have copied it. This may help explain the wide range of opinions on the matter.

Here is the link to his interview-

http://media.weei.com/device/mobile/a/101369606/espn-sport-science-john-brenkus-talks-deflate-gate-1-28-14.htm

[Yoda]

It is if you've followed the thread and know the error that Warren Sharp made. It's there for anybody to see.
Yeah, but the question was about how you know in general. It's another conclusion based on subjective experience.

Also, isn't Sharp a professional handicapper? He may be right or wrong (or biased) but it seems kinda nuts to say he "doesn't know football."

[rauldc14]

Is this a playoff thread or a deflategate thread? I've heard very little about the actual game :p

[Yoda]

If they didn't want people getting distracted by all sorts of stuff surrounding the game they shouldn't have given us a whole second week to kill time waiting for it.

[rauldc14]

We only had a week off in between. I mean we had the Pro Bowl. Everyone loves the Pro Bowl!

[cricket]

Yeah, but the question was about how you know in general. It's another conclusion based on subjective experience.

Also, isn't Sharp a professional handicapper? He may be right or wrong (or biased) but it seems kinda nuts to say he "doesn't know football."

I say he doesn't know football because all the work he did in his original analysis was based on fumbles lost, which is meaningless. It actually had to be pointed out to the fraud that he needed to do his work all over again.

Professional handicapper? Does that mean he's a tout too? Those slugs are a dime a dozen-no respect for those pieces of crap who prey on the suckers of the world.

I thought it was a little off that Sharp decided to completely eliminate dome teams from his analysis, so I looked into it a little further. While many people blindly take his data as fact, some have began to question his methodology, and correctly suggest that numbers can, and sometimes do lie. Here are a couple articles that have recently come out challenging Sharp's findings. As a matter of fair disclosure, one of them is written by a admitted Patriots fan. Either way, good points are made-

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

http://www.drewfustin.com/2015/01/27/patriots-fumble-comments/

[Yoda]

Fumbles lost isn't meaningless, it's just not as good as fumbles. And the argument that it's meaningless is one of those geeky stat-based arguments about how fumbles recovered tends to regress to the mean, by the way.

Regardless, his initial use of that stat could just as well be evidence of bias. Or a simple failure to notice which one he was sorting a data table by (which would explain why he called it "fumbles").

Both are much more likely explanations than the idea that a professional handicapper doesn't know the game. Nor does whether or not he's a "slug" or a "piece of crap" have anything to do with his level of knowledge.

[cricket]

No matter how you slice it, he did all the work and than had to do it all again, and he needed someone to point out his mistake. And being a "professional handicapper" is nothing special. You don't even have to watch the games to "handicap". Successful betting is less about knowing football and more about knowing line movement.

[Yoda]

So, professional handicappers and advanced analysis guys don't know football, but you do because you have "real football knowledge," and you can just tell when someone doesn't.

Alrighty.

[cricket]

No, I didn't say those things. I'm saying that having those labels doesn't mean that they know football, although that's what they would like you believe. As far as Sharp goes, I think his mistake speaks volumes about him individually. I also never claimed that I'm an expert on the NFL, but I know a few things.

So, what do you think of those articles? Still take Sharp's analysis as fact?

[Yoda]

No, I didn't say those things. I'm saying that having those labels doesn't mean that they know football, although that's what they would like you believe. As far as Sharp goes, I think his mistake speaks volumes about him individually. I also never claimed that I'm an expert on the NFL, but I know a few things.
You claimed you "know very well what stats are relevant, which aren't" and could tell when someone didn't know football. You also said everyone who talks a lot about data doesn't know football.

So, what do you think of those articles? Still take Sharp's analysis as fact?
Dude, if you thought I ever took Sharp's analysis as "fact," then you simply aren't paying attention.

It also makes me wonder whether or not you're reading these things. I've asked this a few times, and it's kind of conspicuous that you never answer. I'm guessing no, that you didn't/don't, because you've decided you already know all you need to, right? You already know "which stats are relevant, which aren't."

I would love to have a serious discussion about what the data do and do not say. That's literally what I've been trying to do the whole time. But you're clearly not interested in that. Any fact that doesn't jibe with the conclusion gets rationalized away with a completely subjective opinion based on how you just "know football."

Arguing data with someone who's willing to throw the entire concept under the bus at any moment is pointless.

[cricket]

I feel like you're trying to make this about other things than what I have been focused on. My whole point in this whole thing is that Warren Sharp's analysis is flawed, that his stats are not facts. My beef is with him.

[seanc]

I really don't know how to feel about all this and don't want to feed the fire. However something about this is really bothering me, it make the whole thing smell fishy, and I don't think anyone has mentioned. Taking Belicick and Brady out of the equation because they obviously have stake in all this. There have been a lot of players, coaches, both current and former who have weighed in on the subject. Some are telling us that they are very particular about the balls they use. Who touches them and when and the like. Then there are a bunch who are saying they had no clue about these rules and are shocked that this is an issue. These two competing comments are baffling to me because they are so at odds with each other. It just doesn't make sense to me that there would be two vastly different thoughts on something like this at the professional level.

This is just my gut talking so take it for what its worth. I think most everyone knew that people have been messing with the balls for years but it is just now blowing up because someone blew the whistle. I have a feeling there a lot of guilty lying parties here. In that way it reminds me of steroids in baseball, the only way it reminds me of that, so no one go nuts on me. Everyone was fine with what was going on until someone wasn't. Then everyone had the who me look on their face. I say just make the rules what they should be, make sure someone is enforcing those rules, move on. It worked in baseball it will work here.

[cricket]

I would tend to agree with you, Sean.

[Yoda]

I feel like you're trying to make this about other things than what I have been focused on. My whole point in this whole thing is that Warren Sharp's analysis is flawed, that his stats are not facts. My beef is with him.
Yes, I am making it about other things, because your "beef" with this one dude is irrelevant. He could be the most biased, dishonest, fire-breathing Pats hater in the world. That has nothing to do with how we analyze (yes, and critique) the data he presents.

The whole point of using data is that you can study it independent of someone's personality, because biased people are not automatically wrong and objective people are not automatically right. You should assume everyone is biased and study it for yourself. This is why I almost laughed out loud when you asked me if "still took his analysis as fact." If that's what you think being a "stat geek" means, then no wonder you have such a low opinion of it.

I can go on, but I have no interest in playing a rigged game. Once you declared that you already knew which stats matter and which didn't, there was no point in continuing. You can't have a discussion about data with someone who's given themselves license to trump any piece of it with their self-credentialed Real Football Knowledge card.

[Yoda]

Great points, sean. Aaron Schatz said recently (Pats fan and stats geek, by the way) that he thinks "everybody's been driving 70 and the Pats got caught going 85." Which I think is pretty likely. If everybody cheats sometimes, or a little, the team that gets caught is usually gonna be the one doing it more often and more obviously than the others.

There's another angle, too, which is that everybody doing something is still different than one team doing everything. For example, maybe a third of the teams tweak the air pressure, and maybe a third used to tape signals, but maybe nobody else did both, or did both all the time, etc. That would fit both with the idea that other teams break rules and explain why the Pats have been in the crosshairs.

[cricket]

I don't even know what point you're trying to make. My point is simply that Warren Sharp's data is off. And as far as stat geeks go, a stat geek could know football, but being a stat geek doesn't mean you do. I don't think that's an especially keen observation on my part. As far as Sharp goes, I don't see how a guy that really knows football could go out and base his entire argument on the wrong stat.

[VFN]

Just read (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12243379/1970s-new-york-knicks-used-deflate-ball) that Phil Jackson said in '86 that his 70s Knicks team deflated the basketball:

"Less air pressure slowed down fast-break teams, helped the Knicks clear the boards -- since the ball wouldn't carom as far off the rim -- and didn't hinder the flow of New York's offense, which relied more on passing than dribbling.

"Jackson, who is now president of the Knicks, said the team carried around inflation needles to let air out of the ball."

[seanc]

Just read (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12243379/1970s-new-york-knicks-used-deflate-ball) that Phil Jackson said in '86 that his 70s Knicks team deflated the basketball:

"Less air pressure slowed down fast-break teams, helped the Knicks clear the boards -- since the ball wouldn't carom as far off the rim -- and didn't hinder the flow of New York's offense, which relied more on passing than dribbling.

"Jackson, who is now president of the Knicks, said the team carried around inflation needles to let air out of the ball."

I'm ready to jump on the band wagon of this explains the Bull's success and he left that out of his statement if you are.:D

[Camo]

That Knicks team was unreal, I just watched the 1970 finals Game 7 on YouTube the other day.

[VFN]

I may actually miss the game this year which would be a first. I have no rooting interest and don't like anyone on either team.

[cricket]

NFL with no proof of pregame psi-

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/nfl-didnt-log-the-psi-of-each-patriots-football/

This is good news for the Patriots, as besides the NFL not having proof of the pregame psi, it lends creedence to the theory that the footballs were not checked with a gauge, but rather just given a feel test.


Joe Montana-

"If you want to see the game played with the best, everybody has a different grip, everybody likes a different feel," Montana said. "You know where it all began? The kickers. Where this rule came from were the kickers. The kickers many years ago did so much to the ball that it looked so differently that (the league) decided we're going to take (the kicking balls) right out of the box.
"Now if you look at the ball, they let you doctor the ball more than anything. The ball's not even the same color as it is when it comes out of the box, so what's the difference in the air pressure?"

[Erasmus Folly]

I am just hoping for a great Super Bowl as I have said before and tried to stay away from too much analysis on Deflate Gate. I also happen to be something of a science geek so when I read the following article in this morning's New York Times, I thought I'd post it for what it's worth; I like the following quote from the story - “The fact that the word ‘physics’ appears in the sports pages is something that I wouldn’t have expected,” said Rocky Kolb, dean of physical sciences at the University of Chicago, “so that makes me happy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/sports/football/deflation-experiments-show-patriots-may-have-science-on-their-side-after-all.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0


http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/01/30/sports/PHYSICS3/PHYSICS3-articleLarge.jpg

[cricket]

I heard about that report this morning. It is now starting to look that it's not only possible, but probable, that the balls deflated due to weather conditions.

What about the Colt's balls? Maybe the NFL is investigating the wrong team? Now, I'm just saying that for the heck of it because I have never believed that any of this would make a difference in a game. But, maybe Andrew Luck is like Aaron Rodgers, and likes his ball overinflated? Maybe the Colts did everything possible during the first half to keep their balls warm and dry, like many teams do. They are a dome team after all. And how much time elapsed between weighing the Patriots balls and Colt's balls at halftime? The psi does start to go back to normal when put back into it's normal atmosphere. I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it's starting to look more likely that the Patriots have done nothing wrong.

One more point about Warren Sharp's analysis. His theory was that the Pats became nearly fumble proof from 2007 on, due to the use of deflated footballs. When throwing the ball, the ball travels through the air better with more psi. Now, as I've said, I don't think the psi makes a difference either way on the field. But, if he believes that the psi makes such a huge difference in fumbling, wouldn't it theoretically make a significant difference in the passing game? In 2007, Tom Brady had one of the greatest seasons for a QB in NFL history, at the time breaking Dan Marino's touchdow pass record. Sharp's theory suggests that Brady had this breakthrough season using a deflated football. That would seem to be far from logical.

[cricket]

Looking forward to a great game today.

The Game

It's no secret what the blueprint is to slow down the Seattle Seahawk's offense. Slow down their running game and put Russell Wilson into obvious passing situations. This has long been the defensive gameplan against many NFL teams, but it is especially true with Seattle's punishing ground game, Wilson's strengths and weaknesses throwing the ball, and the Pat's strength in the secondary. Their last game against Green Bay was very telling when down in the fourth quarter, they continued to run the ball. This is unusual in the current NFL. There has been some talk in New England of the Patriot's past success against Marshawn Lynch, but I don't know if that would mean anything now. That was when he played for an inferior team with an inferior offensive line.*

It is very difficult to predict the Patriot's offensive gameplan. You can't even predict from game to game who they will start in the backfield. Against stellar defenses such as Baltimore's and Detroit's, they spread it out and strongly featured the pass. The difference is that those teams have dominating defensive lines, but can be taken advantage of in the secondary. You neutralize a top defensive line by getting the ball out of there quickly. Seattle is a great all around defense, but their strength is in the secondary. Their defense is fast and athletic, and they are good enough to keep the Pats in check no matter how they attack. Some believe that to take away defensive speed, the offense should use misdirection, screens, play action, etc. You still need to mix that in, but those types of plays are more to exploit a lack of discipline. If Seattle plays disciplined defense, those plays allow Seattle to take full advantage of their speed in pursuit of the ball. You need to attack a fast defense; go right at them, put them on their heels, and neutralize that speed.

The Coaches

I remember Pete Carroll during his time coaching New England. He was in an almost impossible situation following Bill Parcells, and he was probably not quite ready for the NFL, in over his head. He had trouble gaining the respect of the players and the fans. He seemed to grow substantially in the following years at USC. During his years there, I watched a TV special about how he works with inner-city teens, and I gained great respect for the man. He seems to have found a home in Seattle, and he would appear to be a great coach for that team. His great enthusiasm was made for those young, aggressive players. I am happy for his success.

Bill Belichick gets a bad rap across the country. Part of it is his doing for his public demeanor, but nobody could argue his success. He is precise, calculated, and focuses solely on the task at hand. During the offseason, he will sometimes give more relaxed interviews, allowing his personality to show through. If he does this more in the future, people will start to look at him in a different light. The players believe in him, and will do anything for him. You never hear an ex-player of his speaking a negative word about him. That means something.

Seattle's keys to victory

Start strong!

If Seattle starts the way they did against the Packers, this game will be over by halftime. The Pack played scared; the Patriots will not, and if they get the chance, they will go for blood.

Pressure Brady

It doesn't matter how good your secondary is; if you give a quality NFL quarterback time to throw, he will pick you apart.

Mix it up

There is something to be said about imposing your will on the other team. Teams like to do what they do best, and make the other team stop them. But if Seattle struggles at all, they shouldn't be afraid to try some different things, a hurry up spread offense just for an example. Using an offense like this doesn't mean you have to change up your play selection; it's just about giving the defense a different look.

New England's keys to victory

Protect the ball!

This is true for any team in any game, but it's especially true against the Seahawks. They really know how to attack that ball, and the whole team feeds off it.

Keep Wilson in check

No, not Russell Wilson, that goes without saying. I'm talking about the tight end, Luke Wilson. The Pat's defense has been vulnerable covering that position this year, and Wilson is a *good one. The Seattle QB trusts him in big situations, and the guy often delivers. The Pat's could play great defense on 1st and 2nd down, but if Wilson starts beating them consistently on 3rd down, the Pat's will have to alter their gameplan.

Jamie Collins

Collins is a future star for the Patriot's at linebacker. He is athletic, intelligent, and can make plays all over the field. Becoming that star in this game would go a long way toward a Patriot victory.*

Intangibles

Motivation and emotion play an enormous role in football. True, in the Super Bowl, both teams should have plenty of this, but it doesn't always seem to play out that way. Seattle won last year, but they've still struggled a little bit in these playoffs. They have been talking a little trash, and it appears that they may be a little overconfident. They're a young team that should be a contender for years to come, and they know this. The Patriots don't have the same window of opportunity. Tom Brady doesn't have as many great years left, and because of this, I think they are the more desperate team. I think that deflate gate was the best thing to happen to the Patriots. When a team goes through something like this, they tend to come together even stronger. In the last 10 to 15 years, the Patriots have played some of their best football when things seemed to be against them. The whole world seems to be against them now, and it would seem that they have a lot to prove.

In conclusion

Two weeks ago, I couldn't make up my mind as to who I thought would win this game. Due to the events of the last 2 weeks, I now look for the Patriots to come out on top in this Super Bowl. I have nothing but respect for this Seahawk's team, but I believe Tom Brady wakes up in the morning with an unprecedented 4 Super Bowl victories in 6 appearances.

[VFN]

But, if he believes that the psi makes such a huge difference in fumbling, wouldn't it theoretically make a significant difference in the passing game? In 2007, Tom Brady had one of the greatest seasons for a QB in NFL history, at the time breaking Dan Marino's touchdow pass record. Sharp's theory suggests that Brady had this breakthrough season using a deflated football. That would seem to be far from logical.

Maybe a slightly deflated ball increases accuracy or benefits a passer in other ways, We don't know until the subject is studied in depth. And whether the Pats win or not, they'll always be the Pats with an asterisk, a cloud of suspicion over their success. I'd feel badly about that if I thought Belichick and crew were actually clean.

[cricket]

They won't actually have an asterisk; it will just be in some people's minds, but you can do that with a whole lot of Super Bowl winners.

Supposedly, it was proven by the ESPN scientist that an NFL pass arrives to the WR slower when the ball is deflated, but it is so minute that it hardly makes a difference. Personally, I don't feel that throwing a ball that has a weight difference less than that of a dollar bill would make any difference.

[VFN]

They won't actually have an asterisk; it will just be in some people's minds, but you can do that with a whole lot of Super Bowl winners.

Supposedly, it was proven by the ESPN scientist that an NFL pass arrives to the WR slower when the ball is deflated, but it is so minute that it hardly makes a difference. Personally, I don't feel that throwing a ball that has a weight difference less than that of a dollar bill would make any difference.

Of course they won't have an actual asterisk, but it doesn't matter: They're a tainted team for many--probably most. And again, we don't know enough on the subject or the true state of the Pats' footballs through the years to draw any conclusions at the moment, and we may never know the real story.

[cricket]

Those people should do their research then, so that they could understand how many team's have "tainted" success. Those who single out the Patriots are simply ignorant.

[rauldc14]

I'm going to say 17-13 New England. A low scoring, boring game that will be close but boring.

[cricket]

That sounds like a close, hard fought, defensive battle. That's very exciting!

[VFN]

Those people should do their research then, so that they could understand how many team's have "tainted" success. Those who single out the Patriots are simply ignorant.

I'll take that as a concession that the Pats don't play fairly.

[cricket]

No, based on what I've seen, the Patriote play more fair, or at least as fair, as any team in the league. The problem is that they're a high profile team that has had incredible success. With that comes hate and jealousy.

[seanc]

Great write up cricket. I won't even ding you for taking a pot shot at my hapless Bills. Talk about a drive by. ;)

I can't remember a Super Bowl that I thought was more of a toss up. That has made pretty excited about it. Its funny how the events of the last two weeks are looked at as a disadvantage for the Patriots to everyone but Patriot's fans. I personally don't think it will make a lick of difference. Players don't need motivation to get pumped up for a Super Bowl. It should be plain to anyone that has ever watched one that nerves run high the first couple possesions and then the game settles down as that becomes the only concentration. There really hasn't been an exception to this that I can think of.

Go Seahawks! Not because of any loyalty but because Go Patriots will never be words uttered by this Bills fan.

[cricket]

The point is, why would anyone single out the Patriots, whether deflate gate is valid or not, but ignore the Seahawk's recent problems with player steroid suspensions, which is a much larger issue. It seems that a lot of people look at these things very one sided.

[teeter_g]

Todays the day! Go Seahawks!!

[seanc]

The point is, why would anyone single out the Patriots, whether deflate gate is valid or not, but ignore the Seahawk's recent problems with player steroid suspensions, which is a much larger issue. It seems that a lot of people look at these things very one sided.

Because of suspensions.

[cricket]

You're right Sean, but even when the Bills are bad, they play tough and I respect them for that.

As far as motivation goes, there will be different opinions, and I can see the argument for both sides.

[cricket]

For whatever reason, my icons are gone for quoting and repping.

Sean, what do you mean because of suspensions?

[seanc]

If people get caught and punished things are pretty quickly forgotten. Especially if people come clean after. Its when people think something is being hidden or they are blatantly being lied to that these things hang on.

Need proof. Name five people in baseball that haven't come clean about steroid use, easy. Now name five that got caught and immediately came clean, probably can't.

[cricket]

I would say you make a good point about how the general public looks at these things, although often times when these players get caught doing something, it's cut and dry with no room for denial.

[seanc]

Not an invalid argument, but lots of guys caught using steroids have tried to deflect blame to doctors, cream, and ignorance. I just don't see how someone as smart as Belichik doesn't see how his attitude and answers to allegatons makes everything worse. If he continues to misdirect these things will never go away. Not because of some kind of anti-patriot bias but because of an anti-bs bias.

[cricket]

I would agree with that; I think Belichick's public demeanor rub's a lot of people the wrong way, and especially people in the media who are responsible for most of the information that the public is privy to.

[seanc]

You don't have to answer this on the Patriots big day, we can go into it another time if you want. You and Sedai have both stated that Belichick's demeanor is a problem. Do you think he is an honest guy?

If its not obvious, I think he is full of it most of the time. Doesn't mean I wouldn't want him coaching my team though.

[AdamUpBxtch]

First super bowl i'll be watching mainly for the commercials, never thought i'd be saying that but i just did

[cricket]

Sean, you never know, but I have no reason to believe he is dishonest. He's a perfectionist, and some of the things he learned about presentation were from Bill Parcells. Take Spygate, if you're trying to do something sneaky and cheat, you don't do it in frnot of the other team, the commissioner, and the whole rest of the world. He thought he was within the rules, and this is something that he has talked about.

[VFN]

He thought he was within the rules, and this is something that he has talked about.

Hahahaha, good one. This reminds me, I have a bridge you may be interested in.

[cricket]

When you do something right in front of everyone with no effort to hide it, what does that tell you?

[VFN]

When you do something right in front of everyone with no effort to hide it, what does that tell you?

That you're arrogant and brazen.

[cricket]

I believe that the coach was defiant, but there is enough gray area to suggest that he at least at a point.

[Powdered Water]

Not sure if the Pats wanted to play a road game today, but I think that's what they're gonna get. The 12's are fired up!

[Erasmus Folly]

The Waiting is over! May all controversies vanish into "The Dust of History!". Go Seahawks!

http://www.sports-logos-screensavers.com/user/Seattle_Seahawks_2012b.jpg

[rauldc14]

Ah, the '12s. As in 2012 they jumped on the bandwagon :p

[Sexy Celebrity]

I'm tempted to open a Super Bowl Commentary Thread. Should I or is everyone just gonna chat in here?

I think I won't open one now.

[cricket]

It's a good idea SC, but personally, I'll be too focuses on the game.

[cricket]

It's a classic!

[Erasmus Folly]

!!!!!!!!!!!

[seanc]

Great first half but boy does that Seattle defense need to tighten up. So glad Carrol took that last shot at the end zone. I was screaming at Colinsworth, as I often do.

[Yoda]

What.

[The Gunslinger45]

WOW!

[The Gunslinger45]

Who the hell made that play call?!?

[Sexy Celebrity]

Did the Patriots win? That was my prediction.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Are they fighting? They look like they're fighting.

[Powdered Water]

Wow. What a shocking call there. Horrible. Hats off to the pats. What game. I thought for sure Lynch would puond it in there.

[The Gunslinger45]

Hell of an ending.

[Erasmus Folly]

:bawling::bawling::bawling:

[cricket]

Congrats to the Seahawks and their fans on a great season!

They should be a powerhouse team for years to come.

[seanc]

Congrats Cricket and Sedai. If I was a Seahawk fan I would be losing my mind. I really have no dog in the fight and almost did. Great Super Bowl.

[seanc]

No PSI talk until game is over. I am so ready for everbody to shut up already.

[Sexy Celebrity]

GO CRICKET! I had a feeling they'd win because it was your team.

[The Gunslinger45]

I was just happy for a good and memorable game.

[teeter_g]

So they cheated their way to the Super Bowl and then won because of a bad call by the Seahawks? Wow. I hate the Patriots. And Robert Craft sounds like a drunk idiot.

[Erasmus Folly]

I don't think I'm far wrong in saying that this was the most shocking end to a Super Bowl EVER! Boo Hoo! :bawling:

[False Writer]

IMO Brady should not have been the MVP. Two interceptions with his defense bailing him out at the last second and they still give it to him... What an insult to Montana.

[Camo]

I didn't watch it, but congrats Patriots, and Brady. I wanted the Pats to win even though i don't really like either team, wouldn't have picked them to reach nevermind win the SB this year. Also unlucky Seahawks, as Cricket said it's pretty clear they'll be one of the top teams in the NFL for the forseeable future.

[Camo]

So they cheated their way to the Super Bowl and then won because of a bad call by the Seahawks? Wow. I hate the Patriots. And Robert Craft sounds like a drunk idiot.

How did they cheat themselves to the superbowl? Genuine quetion, did they do something during the game or are you referring to deflategate?

[Sedai]

Oh hells yes!!!

We are all still going crazy over here...

[donniedarko]

I'll take Worse Super Bowl play calls for 500, Alex

https://thegoodgreatsby.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/jeopardy-alex-trebek-e1311861466147.jpg

[Sedai]

Trip out on this:

Video Game Accurately Predicts Super Bowl (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/02/01/madden-nfl-15-predicts-super-bowl-patriots-victory-right-down-to-the-score/)

[VFN]

Seattle probably needed just one stop to win the game and couldn't do it

Seattle got lucky and shouldn't have been down by the goal line to begin with

Seattle got lucky against the Packers and shouldn't have been in the SB to begin with

The game may've come down to the two injuries Seattle suffered

Take away Wilson's legs and you're essentially left with the QB who threw the losing pick

Even with two picks Brady is better than anyone on the field and Belicheat may be no better than his Cleveland days without him

Over time, this 4th SB win by Brady will add damage to the legacy of Manning his contemporary.

It had some suspense but I didn't find it a great game to watch

The melee at the end couldn't have summed up the year the NFL had any better

[jiraffejustin]

I'll take Worse Super Bowl play calls for 500, Alex

https://thegoodgreatsby.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/jeopardy-alex-trebek-e1311861466147.jpg

There's probably a bunch of worse play calls in this game. Seriously. Marshawn hadn't really had much success in goal line situations. One out of five for the game, which is only 20%. What's wrong with taking a high percentage pass play on the goal line? I think this is just a situation where a good play call was beaten by an even better read and reaction. That kid made a hell of a play to even get there in time, otherwise we are talking about how brilliant a play call that was.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

http://i.imgur.com/zRqsJD5.gif

[Camo]

Hopefully a few of you get as excited about the Nba Playfoffs as much as you did here. J.J Watt was by far the most intersting thing about the NFL Season imo. The NBA MVP, race so far this season has been outstanding; i'm personally rooting for Curry but feel that Harden deserves it most, and Anthony Davis is second despite his teams record.

Still Go Thunder!!!

[VFN]

There's probably a bunch of worse play calls in this game. Seriously. Marshawn hadn't really had much success in goal line situations. One out of five for the game, which is only 20%. What's wrong with taking a high percentage pass play on the goal line? I think this is just a situation where a good play call was beaten by an even better read and reaction. That kid made a hell of a play to even get there in time, otherwise we are talking about how brilliant a play call that was.

Are we sure Wilson and/or the receiver executed the play without flaw?

[jiraffejustin]

Are we sure Wilson and/or the receiver executed the play without flaw?

I don't want to say the play was flawlessly ran, because it ended in an interception. I can't imagine that receiver being able to do much more though. I think that kid, Malcolm, deserves a ton of credit though. Somebody like Richard Sherman would receive a lot of credit for a pass that drops in his lap, but I think most people are looking to blame the Seahawks instead of giving this guy his due. And he made a ridiculously good play. If you watch the replay, he read the play from the beginning and jumped it just at the right time, maintained possession of the ball despite the contact, and ended the game.

[Loner]

I think this article sums it up.

Seahawks lost because of the worst call in Super Bowl history (http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2025601887_brewer02xml.html)

[jiraffejustin]

http://i.imgur.com/zRqsJD5.gif

I know that this is supposed to be funny, and usually, I guess I might find it to be funny...but, man, I actually feel really bad.

[jiraffejustin]

I'll say it one last time: It wasn't a bad call. That play usually works. If it doesn't work, it's usually just incomplete, not picked off. And to get to the ball, the defender usually has to go through the receiver, which would usually draw a PI.

Marshawn wasn't that successful in short yardage plays all game, so it's not that surprising that they tried something else. I just wish that for once a bad play call that miraculously works out would be called out for being a bad play call, and a good play call that didn't work out would be called as such. Instead we see the result and then automatically call it a bad play call. Just because better play calls existed, it doesn't mean that this was a bad play call. If you catch them off guard and score a cheap one, you win the game. If the pass is broken up, you get another shot. It would take a ridiculous play by a defender to force a turnover, and that's what happened. I think the play with the lowest chance of happening happened.

[Erasmus Folly]

Unfortunately in the spirit of full disclosure I have to report this morning's Seattle Times front page:


http://www.nicaraguaexpeditions.com/articles/images/the_seattle_times_logo.gif

http://seattletimes.com/html/home/index.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/home/index.html)

http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2015/02/01/2025601766.jpg (http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawks/2025601887_brewer02xml.html)

[Kaplan]

I'll say it one last time: It wasn't a bad call. That play usually works. If it doesn't work, it's usually just incomplete, not picked off. And to get to the ball, the defender usually has to go through the receiver, which would usually draw a PI.

Marshawn wasn't that successful in short yardage plays all game, so it's not that surprising that they tried something else. I just wish that for once a bad play call that miraculously works out would be called out for being a bad play call, and a good play call that didn't work out would be called as such. Instead we see the result and then automatically call it a bad play call. Just because better play calls existed, it doesn't mean that this was a bad play call. If you catch them off guard and score a cheap one, you win the game. If you the pass is broken up, you get another shot. It would take a ridiculous play by a defender to force a turnover, and that's what happened. I think the play with the lowest chance of happening happened.

I can't agree with you here. Throwing right over the middle from the 1 yard line is dangerous. If your receiver doesn't make the catch, too many bad things can happen. The ball can be tipped, the ball can be deflected, the ball can bounce off the receiver's hands, and there's just too many defenders in that area for the offense to get away with any of those things happening. And that's not counting what actually did happen. Seattle couldn't get away with three running plays, because they only had one timeout, but you call a bootleg or toss it high in the corner of the end zone or something. And whatever stats you're throwing out about Lynch's production doesn't mean anything. You give it him and you let him run over people in the most crucial moment of the game, as he'd been running over people all game. The guy's a beast. Give him a chance to win the game for you. He almost got in on the first down play.

But whatever, just my opinion.

[Sedai]

It had some suspense but I didn't find it a great game to watch


/facepalm

[Yoda]

Last minutes of the game:

Belichik: "Take all the time you need. We've got plenty of Super Bowls."
Carroll: "No no, we won last year. You take it, I insist."

[VFN]

I tend to agree with Kaplan. Throw a fade, or another pass play, that can't be intercepted then try to run in it in.

[doubledenim]

In other news...

Warren Sapp was arrested on charges of soliciting prostitution in the early morning following the Super Bowl. Seahawks coach Pete Carroll was apparently involved in a related incident.

The story goes that Carroll was approached by a woman of the night. Said entrepreneur apparently asked Carroll if he was interested in a date. Carrol allegedly responded, "No thanks, I'll pass."

[cricket]

Regarding the pass play on the Seahawk's last drive, I have to agree with Jiraffe. The Pats had 2 timeouts; they could've let Lynch get in on the first play, or used their timeouts, allowing Brady time to get into field goal position to tie the game. The reason they didn't, is because time was an issue for Seattle. If Lynch doesn't get in on 2nd down, which is extremely possible with the Patriots goal line defense, they're left with 2 plays and about 16 seconds after they use their last time-out. In this situation, Seattle has to throw the ball on 3rd down, when the Pats have the defense to be ready for it. If they don't throw it on 3rd down, they run a serious risk of not getting a 4th down play off, and at the very least, having to go balls out and winging it. An incomplete pass on 2nd down would've preserved their time-out, and allowed them to do anything they wanted on 3rd and 4th down. They needed to throw the ball on 2nd or 3rd down; why not do it on the down when it's least expected, and the Pats are going balls out against the run. Teams do this all the time; it's only because of the final result that people are questioning it. It took an absolutely phenomenal defensive play by the DB to win the game. Not only do I not think it was a bad call, I think it was the best call.

As far as Warren Sapp goes, this couldn't have happened to a better guy. He has been a top of the line ahole for many years.

I was surprised to learn today that the Patriots are the youngest team to ever win a Super Bowl.

[rauldc14]

The bad call need not be justified. Yes, yes I know, run it in and there is 25 seconds. But the chances of getting 45 yards in 25 seconds is much more slim than running the clock down and winning.

[cricket]

But what you're talking about is how the Patriots played the final minute, not Seattle.

[Loner]

The NFL sucks and needs to get their crap together.

The owners are more concerned about sucking every dollar out of fans and taxpayers pockets than the integrity of the game. Why do they have a tax exempt status?

The rules are a joke. Some players' safety rules changes I can agree with. Leading with the crown of the helmet for example. But they have gone too far. It looks like a glorified two hand touch game now. Hitting a defenseless player? Please! If a wide receiver goes over the middle and gets blasted that's football. Roughing the quarterback? What's next, a bright red do-not-hit jersey like in practice? The NFL has skewed the rules so much in the offenses favor that defenses have no choice but attack the quarterback, but nicely. Pass interference is ridiculous. So a corner grabs a receiver and that warrants a 50 yard penalty?

If players are concerned with concussions they should play another sport. Don't act naive. If you weigh 230 pounds and run a 4.6 forty and collide with someone the same size running towards what do you think will happen?

I probably watched about 10 hours of football this year. Mostly because I live in the Seattle area and my in-laws come over to watch the playoffs on my big screen TV. Usually, I go shopping during Seahawks games or something else. I've got better things to do than watch The NFL's lame, watered down product.

[doubledenim]

The NFL sucks and needs to get their crap together.


Good luck with that. Record ratings and record revenues won't lead to too much change.

Something I noticed and may have missed. Why with all this hoopla about concussions and whatnot, did nobody throw a flag on Chancellor's helmet to helmet hit on Edelman? I feel like I'm missing something.

[VFN]

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-57708-Superbowl-49-Pete-Carroll-logi-OoT8.jpeg

[Sedai]

The League has NOTHING - Time for an apology (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/hurley-failed-deflategate-accusations-means-its-time-for-irsay-pagano-to-be-banned-from-nfl/[/url)

[Powdered Water]

Can't get that link to work Mike. I hadn't heard that anything definitive was coming out today though so fill me in. Anywho. I gotta hand it to Pete. He's still sticking to his guns and it might just work. Most of the guys from the team are still saying the right things. I'm down for a rematch next year. And next year hopefully there won't be three of the Legion that will playing the game when they should be having surgery. Sheesh. I know Earl Thomas is tough, but damn dude. You're crazy tough.

[VFN]

Can't get that link to work Mike.

Hit the link again and type "hurley deflategate" in the upper right search box. The first hit will bring you to the article. Or just hit this (http://boston.cbslocal.com/search/?q=hurley+deflategate) and it's the first hit.

[Powdered Water]

OK fine. I still don't see an article that says the league has nothing.

[Sedai]

The article got pulled. It was kind of a satire piece, where he turned the tables on a couple of Indy writers by taking their quotes and turning them around on Indy, accusing them of deflating the ONE ball that was apparently 2 PSI under, which was of course the ball Indy had their hands on due to the interception.

The whole angle of the first half of the article was "If they will call for Bill to be fired without evidence, I will call for them to be fired without evidence."

The whole "the league has nothing" stems from the fact that Kraft hit the podium and demanded an apology from Goodell. The writer took that as an indicator that the league can't have much and, coupled with the fact that the ball pressures weren't actually ever tested (you knew that bit, right?), that no one had any info with which to create accusations, so they just came out of thin air to create talking points and distractions for two weeks, which was exactly what happened if in fact there isn;t any official record of ball pressures taken at any time.

So now it's looking like only one ball came under fire - the one that passed through Indy's hands and was THEN checked. Is there concrete evidence that this happened? Of course not, which was the writer's point in the first place.

[Powdered Water]

Oh is that right? I thought a few league sources reported that the balls were checked. Ah well... just not sure some really damaging thing is going to happen that will get Belechick fired for this. I hope he stays there forever. But who knows, maybe the report comes out and its too damning to keep him around.

[cricket]

Former San Fancisco 49er Charles Haley said that, despite no evidence of wrongdoing, Tom Brady's championships are "tainted". If anyone knows anything about Charles Haley, then they know that he's not exactly known for his words of wisdom.

Former 49er great Jerry Rice was also critical of the Patriots. Rice also admitted to using stickum, which is against the rules. Ok, Jerry.

In case anyone forgot, the 49ers got in trouble for violating the rules regarding the NFL salary cap, allowing them to have players on their roster that they shouldn't have had.

Some of these guys just shouldn't talk.