dave mcbride Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Consider it a lifetime achievement award. Very funny!
Kirby Jackson Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/tom-brady-talking-about-balls-the-supercut-1681225270
Beerball Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 He said during middle of the game //heat of battle he couldn't tell the difference, that makes sense to me Really? I would suppose the exact opposite.
NoSaint Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/tom-brady-talking-about-balls-the-supercut-1681225270 ha! Ive enjoyed deadspins coverage of this, as theyve atleast been willing to give it a little levity instead of the teary eyed mark brunell on espn.
Jobu Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 If you look at the author's "updated" analysis at the bottom, he discredits the whole enterprise. http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/?p=2932 I think you need to read the whole update. If we do, I can produce a chart identical to the one at the very top which looked ONLY at fumbles lost. This one looks at ALL fumbles, whether lost or recovered. I think the point still remains
plenzmd1 Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 ha! Ive enjoyed deadspins coverage of this, as theyve atleast been willing to give it a little levity instead of the teary eyed mark brunell on espn. Doing a bunch of desk work today and have EEI on in the background, Bruneel coming up next...should be interesting.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 ha! Ive enjoyed deadspins coverage of this, as theyve atleast been willing to give it a little levity instead of the teary eyed mark brunell on espn. A friend just sent me that on twitter and I spit my coffee all over my computer.
zow2 Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 I actually liked Brady's line "this isn't ISIS, no one is dying here". I probably would've said that myself had i been in his situation.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 I actually liked Brady's line "this isn't ISIS, no one is dying here". I probably would've said that myself had i been in his situation. because he's an NFL goes radio silent regarding #DeflateGate Early in the life of #DeflateGate, the process had more leaks than a guy on the brink of 50 who drank too much water too close to going to bed.
Beerball Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 I probably would've said that myself had i been in his situation. The likelihood of you standing in front of national media caught in a cheating scandal after the AFC title game is very, very remote.
dave mcbride Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) I think you need to read the whole update. I did. Importantly, their fumble percentage is now in the band of "normal." That matters because other factors start to weigh in -- like cutting / benching guys who fumble, which is what the Patriots do, and preventing sacks (a prime cause of fumbles). I'm not saying that they don't work with deflated balls. Rather, I'm saying that their fumble record -- which, again, is at the high end of normal -- can be attributed in part to the fact that they've had a QB who takes very few sacks (a lifetime sack rate of under 5 percent, which is very good; it was 3.5 percent this year) and doesn't lose fumbles as a result. Also, they go after players who hold onto the ball. They're notorious for benching fumblers. I think everyone here knows that. And hey, they also have ridiculously low INT percentage (2.0 percent over Brady's career - http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm). Are deflated footballs the cause of that too, or is Brady just good, like Aaron Rodgers (who has an infinitesimal 1.6 percent INT rate)? I'm not saying that those balls weren't deflated, and presumably they're deflated because the QB likes it that way. But they're also a very good team that really prioritizes turnover prevention. Call me crazy for thinking that. Edited January 23, 2015 by dave mcbride
zow2 Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 The likelihood of you standing in front of national media caught in a cheating scandal after the AFC title game is very, very remote. Ya think? thanks for making that clear.
Jobu Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 I did. Importantly, their fumble percentage is now in the band of "normal." That matters because other factors start to weigh in -- like cutting / benching guys who fumble, which is what the Patriots do, and preventing sacks (a prime cause of fumbles). I'm not saying that they don't work with deflated balls. Rather, I'm saying that their fumble record -- which, again, is at the high end of normal -- can be attributed in part to the fact that they've had a QB who takes very few sacks (a lifetime sack rate of under 5 percent, which is very good; it was 3.5 percent this year) and doesn't lose fumbles as a result. Also, they go after players who hold onto the ball. They're notorious for benching fumblers. I think everyone here knows that. I'm not saying that those balls weren't deflated, and presumably they're deflated because the QB likes it that way. But they're also a very good team that really prioritizes turnover prevention. Call me crazy for thinking that. They are only in the band of normal with Dome teams. The discrepancy with outdoor teams remains.
Beerball Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Ya think? thanks for making that clear. just responding to your post, sorry if I ruffled your feathers.
NoSaint Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 The likelihood of you standing in front of national media caught in a cheating scandal after the AFC title game is very, very remote. so you are saying there is a chance?
dave mcbride Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) They are only in the band of normal with Dome teams. The discrepancy with outdoor teams remains. They're also very, very good. And the dome stadium issue is a canard. Why do dome stadium teams fumble less? Why are the Cards near the bottom, and why are the Rams and Cowboys in the bottom half? Indeed why are the bad teams near the bottom? Why are teams with QBs who fumble a lot because of sacks near the bottom? The only consistently good team near the bottom is Philly, but they of course had Michael Vick - a human fumbling machine - for 1.5 seasons. I think it's a bs analysis. Edited January 23, 2015 by dave mcbride
NoSaint Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 They're also very, very good. And the dome stadium issue is a canard. Why do dome stadium teams fumble less? Why are the Cards near the bottom? Indeed why are the bad teams near the bottom? Why are teams with QBs who fumble a lot because of sacks near the bottom? I think it's a bs analysis. its at best VERY superficial and doesnt address a lot of basic questions. that his initial analysis was focused on lost fumbles and not total fumbles seems to underscore that he hasnt considered the full variables and instead saw a result that excited him and ran with it. its interesting, and id be curious to see someone more qualified do some real crunching on the topic, but this is very limited in its actual takeaway for the guy to be presenting it as strongly as he is.
BRH Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Early in the life of #DeflateGate, the process had more leaks than a guy on the brink of 50 who drank too much water too close to going to bed. Hey!
eball Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 They're also very, very good. And the dome stadium issue is a canard. Why do dome stadium teams fumble less? Why are the Cards near the bottom, and why are the Rams and Cowboys in the bottom half? Indeed why are the bad teams near the bottom? Why are teams with QBs who fumble a lot because of sacks near the bottom? I think it's a bs analysis. An anonymous commenter to the study who registered under the name "gisellesazz" agrees with you.
Recommended Posts