TheBillsWillRiseAgain
-
Posts
1,185 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TheBillsWillRiseAgain
-
-
He's claiming that the massive improvement of the Patriots' fumble numbers between '01-'06 and '07-'14 and their crazy plays-per-fumble numbers were directly caused by Brady getting sacked less/scrambling less. Yet Peyton Manning has been sacked much less than Brady and has scrambled less than him over that time period, yet the Broncos don't appear as an outlier on the graphs form the study.
-
Yeah this dude totally sounds like he has an anxiety disorder and he's not just being a dick:
http://thebiglead.com/2015/01/27/marshawn-lynch-at-media-day-im-here-so-i-wont-get-fined/
-
?? - if you add in Brady's rushes and compare that with Manning's, the possession numbers are a wash. Brady doesn't take many sacks - he's hardly Matthew Stafford or Michael Vick. The sack differential between the two is basically a rounding error.
I think the argument is settled, but feel free to disagree.
Wait what? Manning has averaged 16.7 sacks a season between 2007 and 2014. Brady has averaged 26. That's a rounding error?
-
The Pats fumbled 16 times on 1068 offensive plays in 2014, and had 217 incompletions (841 chances to fumble) - 1.86 percent. The Broncos fumbled 17 times on 1067 plays and had 208 incompletions (859 chances to fumble) - 1.97 percent. That's statistically insignificant.
The Pats fumbled 27 times on 1130 offensive plays in 2013 and had 248 incompletions (882 chances to fumble) - 3.06 percent. The Broncos fumbled 32 times on 1154 plays and had 208 incompletions (946 chances to fumble) - 3.38 percent. Again, the difference is miniscule.
The Pats fumbled 14 times on 1191 plays in 2012 and had 225 incompletions (966 chances to fumble) - 1.44 percent. The Broncos fumbled 22 times on 1090 plays and had 186 imcompletions (904 chances to fumble) - 2.43 percent.
The 2012 disparity is significant. HOWEVER, five of the Broncos fumbles were by their returner, Trindon Holliday, who had a disastrous season. Take away those 5 fumbles (they're the kickoff balls, which fall outside of this discussion) and the numbers are a lot closer (1.88 percent for Denver). The differences in 2013 and 2014 are truly statistically insignificant.
But let's look at 2009 - a good year for the Colts. The Pats fumbled 17 on 1066 plays and had 202 incompletions (864 chances to fumble) - 1.97 percent. The Colts fumbled 11 times on 980 plays and had 199 incompletions (781 opportunities to fumble) -- 1.41 percent.
Basically, the numbers are the same. I'm happy to dig deeper over the years. But I think the point is largely proven. Manning-led and Brady-led teams hardly ever fumble.
So in every example you just gave the Broncos fumble more than the Patriots despite Manning being sacked less than Brady? Doesn't that completely negate your theory that the massive improvement in fumble stats from 2007 onward was due to Brady getting sacked less?
-
Does this prove without a shadow of a doubt they've been deflating balls since 2007? No. But it sure as hell looks extremely suspicious that they just so happen to start having a drastic reduction in fumbles the same year that a rule that Brady pushed for gets passed. A rule that allows them to prep their own balls, which would allow them to purposely deflate balls which is what they're now being accused of doing.
The timing matches up perfectly. Brady being one of the main proponents of the rule change matches up perfectly. Suspiciously low fumble numbers and suspiciously high cold weather passing numbers match up perfectly. The accusations by the NFL right now matches up with all that. The science matches up with disproving the explanation given by Bellichick. You have to be looking pretty hard for a reason to find the Patriots innocent to not come to the conclusion that it's very likely they cheated.
-
This sums it up nicely...
http://dailyleak.org/2015/01/marshawn-lynch-sues-nfl-over-failure-to-recognize-disorder/
hahaha
-
He has social anxiety disorder?
-
Nobody is doubting they contributed. Just that they could never be the only contribution to those numbers.
-
Bill Bellichick certainly isn't the only coach in the league to pull or drop players for fumbling.
It's not like players are lax with ball control on other teams just because "My coach won't get as mad as Bill Bellichick would get."
-
When a man can be hated for saying nothing, what is the motivation to speak? The idea is for him to play out his role as the inarticulate thug/ athlete and be used by the media as a spectacle. The man obviously just wants to win the Super Bowl and be left alone. Considering who the Seahawks are about to play, I say let Lynch do what ever makes him happy.
He's hated for more than that. He ran over some chick in Buffalo. Turned down a team invitation to the whitehouse because he just wanted to "relax on the couch at home," and sat at the Espys in a hoodie texting through the whole thing. He's just a cocky punk.
-
I've disliked Lynch since he was a Bill. He got infinitely worse when he found success with Seattle. The guy acts like the biggest tool imaginable. I don't care how much crap I'd get for saying this: I wouldn't want Lynch back in Buffalo even if he would come here.
-
Not sure what study you guys are talking about, in terms of backlash its hard to have backlash if the story supports public opinion.
-
Because no one's ever repeated an inaccurate, flawed, bull **** story before.
Not without backlash. I don't see anyone else complaining that the study is flawed except you guys.
-
Pretty odd that you have the likes of the Wall Street Journal, Huffpost, and other news organizations posting that article if it's so flawed.
-
It's pretty simple. The QB virtually always leads the team in fumbles. They fumble less if they rush less and get sacked less. Also, dome teams throw more than outdoor teams on average. There are exceptions: the Broncos under Manning and the Pats under Brady. That's because their passing games are so good. Neither qb runs much and neither qb gets sacked much. On a significant portion of their plays, plays end in incompletions given that they throw so much. In baseball, that's called a "true outcome" (like a K, a homer, or a walk)-nothing can change the play. It bears repeating that since 2007 or so, the Pats have become a pass first team. The Broncos under Manning are also a pass first team. The key, though, is limiting sacks and limiting QB runs. Both teams do.
Then why are the Patriots' fumble numbers so much better than the Broncos'?
-
Over his career, Manning fumbles on 10.6 percent of plays in which he rushes or is sacked; Brady fumbles at an 11.2 percent rate. Manning's teams have great fumble numbers too. Why? Not because of a dome. It's because he's really good at avoiding sacks and because he's on teams that have a higher pass/run ratio than other league teams.
How are you quantifying the advantage of playing in a dome and determining that's not a big reason the Broncos have good fumble numbers?
-
LOL, if it was such a nearly impossible rate then why hasnt anyone discussed it before? Has anyone even given thought to the fact that if you fumble BB will yank you and you will barely play the rest of the game, if at all? Not only that, you may lose your job for weeks or for good, especially at RB. If you are a Pat and want to play, you don't fumble...period.
People are grossly exaggerating the impact it has on fumbles.
Why would anyone think to look at Patriots fumble statistics that closely before they got caught cheating?
-
Oh please. This ties DIRECTLY to the QB's fumbling rate, which is in turn tied directly to the sack rate. Turns out that outlier - 2013 - was the one year that Brady was over 5 percent sack rate in the entire period of 2007 to the present. Just crappy analysis all around. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm. As Brady's fumble rate went down, so did the team's over the years. And I don't think a soft ball would have ANYTHING to do with preventing strip-sack fumbles. Basically: fewer sacks and fewer QB running plays = fewer QB fumbles. And NO ONE fumbles more than a QB. A higher percentage of passes vs. rushes/sacks also results in fewer fumbles. From 2007-2014, the Pats have an exceptionally high pass/run ratio (on the order of 610 passes/450 rushes) per season except for 2008 (Cassell's season). From 2001-06, the run percentage was a lot higher, and in 2004 they even ran it more than they passed it. The data is all here. You just have to look. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/
Seriously -- can we lay this craptastic meme to bed?
In 2014, Manning fumbled 6 times and Brady fumbled 6 times. NE fumbled 16 times overall and Denver 17 times. What's the connection? Winning teams with QBs who get rid of the ball quickly and don't run with it. Pretty freaking simple.
Uh, Brady only averaged 7 more scramble attempts PER YEAR from 2001-2006 compared to 2007-2014 and 7 more sacks PER YEAR in '01-'06 compared to '07 to '14. Are you trying to tell me that an increase of less than 0.5 scrambles and an increase of less than 0.5 sacks per game could cause that much of a statistical anomaly?
-
That's about as damning as you can get. Clearly shows a DRASTIC change in 2007.
-
That looks like an updated study from the one that was posted last week. Thanks for posting.
-
If you read my posts, you would know I am not saying the gauge was off. Peter King stated all 24 balls tested correctly post game. What we are to assume based on so called leaked reports, is that the Colts balls were checked pre game and post game. I have yet to see a story stating they had their 12 checked at half time too. Pats on the other hand were checked pre game, in game, and post game.
So my question is, if the Pats checked out pre game and post game correctly, just like the Colts...then we need to know if the Pats balls had any more air put in them or not at halftime and if they checked the Colts balls too then. Assuming Peter King is right, then the answers to those questions will determine if that info helps or hurts the Pats case.
And its funny and awesome you brought that Aliens guy up...this is very much like his show. On that show, they speculate on stuff and most of the "experts" on there draw absolute conclusions every episode that it was Aliens despite having no concrete info. I totally believe in Aliens and find the show interesting, but they are over the top on a lot of the stuff they say were for certain aliens lol.
Oh I know, I didn't necessarily mean you were using that excuse, just that it's another one Pats fans are using since the weather excuse was proven wrong. Nothing short of actual video showing someone deflating the balls will convince them the team cheated.
-
I love that guy.
-
I liked him a lot in preseason. Would've liked to kept him on.
-
I can't think of a better gift to ring in the 2015 year.
Patriots locker room attendant implicated in Deflate gate
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
So let me get this straight: The drastic improvement from the 2007 season onward weren't a result of the rule change that Brady pushed for that just so happen to have went into effect that year, but rather because Tom Brady got sacked less and scrambled less than he did before, but Peyton Manning who has much lower sack and scramble numbers than Brady doesn't benefit with lower fumble numbers the way Brady does because he has bad hands?
wtf are you talking about? You just posted a comparison of the two going back like 3 years and in every single case the team(Broncos) who was sacked less and scrambled less fumbled MORE than the Patriots. I can post the numbers again if you'd like. Every single year the Broncos had more fumbles per offensive non-incompletion snap than the Patriots did.
Do you not see you're contradicting yourself?