Jobu 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. Cards and Cowboys both played outdoors for a period of time in the span of that analysis. It's obvious why outdoor team's would fumble more. You have the elements in play. Sharp's stuff is all over the net, some pretty reputable sources use him.
NoSaint Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 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. right - that focus could be part of the "patriot way" a qb that is secure with the ball, a couple big TEs and a surehanded guy in welker.... maybe they genuinely have some stuff in place that helps account a bit for the spread in game planning, training and/or scouting
dhg Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 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. Hey! 50? Really? Thanks.....
Mr. WEO Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 I was hoping this post would be the one to roll it into 100 pages...
NoSaint Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Cards and Cowboys both played outdoors for a period of time in the span of that analysis. It's obvious why outdoor team's would fumble more. You have the elements in play. Sharp's stuff is all over the net, some pretty reputable sources use him. how many poor weather games did the cards really get compared to today? they have average home temps consistently of like 50-90 and under an inch of rain a month during the season.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Hey! Hey! 50? Really? Thanks..... Don't shoot the messenger!!! I was hoping this post would be the one to roll it into 100 pages... almost there
snafu 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. 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. So maybe eventually all the blame comes down on one of the Running Backs. That way, Brady's not caught in a lie and the team loses only one of that group. That's the way I see it going. It also could explain why the league hadn't spoken to Brady before yesterday.
dave mcbride Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 An anonymous commenter to the study who registered under the name "gisellesazz" agrees with you. Please don't confuse me with being a Pats fan. I can't stand them. But for better or worse, I've assumed the role of debunker of some of the more incredible theories floating around regarding the Pats. They don't need to cheat in every conceivable way to qualify as loathsome. I guess someone has to play this role. It may as well be me.
Pneumonic Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 So maybe eventually all the blame comes down on one of the Running Backs. That way, Brady's not caught in a lie and the team loses only one of that group. That's the way I see it going. It also could explain why the league hadn't spoken to Brady before yesterday. The blame will be placed on whoever did it ... IF someone did it.
MarkAF43 Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Please don't confuse me with being a Pats fan. I can't stand them. But for better or worse, I've assumed the role of debunker of some of the more incredible theories floating around regarding the Pats. They don't need to cheat in every conceivable way to qualify as loathsome. I guess someone has to play this role. It may as well be me. They probably don't. However they've raised enough suspicion to ever make anything they ever do seem legit. Doubt is a B!tch to get past, and they've lost the benefit of the doubt with most NFL fans.
dave mcbride Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 They probably don't. However they've raised enough suspicion to ever make anything they ever do seem legit. Doubt is a B!tch to get past, and they've lost the benefit of the doubt with most NFL fans. True, but that doesn't absolve critics of abandoning rationality.
BRH Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 They probably don't. However they've raised enough suspicion to ever make anything they ever do seem legit. Doubt is a B!tch to get past, and they've lost the benefit of the doubt with most NFL fans. This. The stain is enough for me at this point. Even if they wouldn't trade their trophies for a clean image (and of course they wouldn't), you know how much it chaps them to hear that they haven't won a ring on the up and up, and now they never will.
Ozymandius Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) The ISIS comparison was perhaps revealing. With ISIS, you have unequivocal immorality taking place. Did Brady basically let slip that something immoral also occurred with the Patriots, and he's only arguing about the scale of the immorality? If Brady had an un-guilty conscience and legitimately did not know how the balls were deflated (i.e. it's all a mystery to him), wouldn't the appropriate "in the news" comparison be the mysterious Malaysian Air plane disappearance? Comparing it to ISIS instead is kind of like admitting guilt. Edited January 23, 2015 by Ozymandius
MarkAF43 Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 True, but that doesn't absolve critics of abandoning rationality. I think some folks are taking it to extremes, but I think for some of the people trying to take the other side of it are also taking it to an extreme (not singling you out), just more of an overall view. To me they've lost any credibility and everything they've done, I'll now look and wonder how they managed to do it, and I think a lot of NFL fans have the right to feel that way.
NoSaint Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Please don't confuse me with being a Pats fan. I can't stand them. But for better or worse, I've assumed the role of debunker of some of the more incredible theories floating around regarding the Pats. They don't need to cheat in every conceivable way to qualify as loathsome. I guess someone has to play this role. It may as well be me. kind of how i feel. its nice to have some of the counterpoint. atleast then when we complain about what happens, we arent complaining about ridiculous stuff if theres some balance to the discussion. i feel like enough people have pitchforks, that i dont need to grab one myself.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) The blame will be placed on whoever did it ... IF someone did it. if it wasn't approved by the Cheatriots then someone did something to sabotage the Putz? ONLY the NE balls were under pressure. Tom says he hand picked the 24 balls prior to the game. The 12 chosen were "perfect" Edited January 23, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever
GG Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/tom-brady-talking-about-balls-the-supercut-1681225270 Talk about a perfect marketing opportunity for Gilette's Flexball
NoSaint Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 The ISIS comparison was perhaps revealing. With ISIS, you have unequivocal immorality taking place. Did Brady basically let slip that something immoral also occurred with the Patriots, and he's only arguing about the scale of the immorality? If Brady had an un-guilty conscience and legitimately did not know how the balls were deflated (i.e. it's all a mystery to him), wouldn't the appropriate "in the news" comparison be the mysterious Malaysian Air plane disappearance? Comparing it to ISIS instead is kind of like admitting guilt. we had people comparing them to nazis..... i think he was trying to make light of how far some have run with it is all
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 The ISIS comparison was perhaps revealing. Comparing it to ISIS instead is kind of like admitting guilt.
snafu Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 The blame will be placed on whoever did it ... IF someone did it. There will be blame. At this point it is inevitable. To the league it doesn't matter who gets it as long as it dies down as soon as possible from this point forward. The delay is in the back room discussions between the owners and Goodell to formulate a plan about the blame and the penalties and making the Super Bowl "legitimate". I might be sounding like a kook, but that's the reality of it.
Recommended Posts