ddaryl Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 or maybe BB decided 5 years ago he would part ways with players who fumble. more likely they are cheaters
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 or maybe BB decided 5 years ago he would part ways with players who fumble. or maybe the data now goes back to 2007, the EXACT year when teams could start playing with their own footballs...prior to that, with the genius BB at the helm, the Pats were right there in the middle of pack. I know,, a minor coincidink... http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 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."
papazoid Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 more likely they are cheaters no doubt in my mind they cheated. just like there is no doubt in my mind that coaching emphasis, playing time and player personnel decisions have contributed to low turnovers.
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Nobody is doubting they contributed. Just that they could never be the only contribution to those numbers.
Alphadawg7 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) So guys stop fumbling because BB gets mad? They go back and forth to other teams and fumble more because Mike Tomlin is a nice guy? And NE magically give carries to guys off the street and they fumble less? Lol, is that what I said? No. I said that when you won't have a job if you fumble, even once, you are likely to protect the ball more. Its not like guys fumble because they just drop the ball while running...the ball gets knocked out and almost always because the carrier didn't have the ball secured. And I didn't say they grab guys off the street and by default those guys don't fumble as much...I didn't even say anything close to that lol. I said, guys who fumble don't have jobs in NE, they are cut. And they will keep cutting or benching guys until they find someone who won't fumble the ball. Therefore, the guys who suit up are not guys who typically have ball control issues like Murray, Hillman, or any other RB who seems to fumble too often. Its really not that complicated to understand what I said. No need to twist or exaggerate it Edited January 27, 2015 by Alphadawg7
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 no doubt in my mind they cheated. just like there is no doubt in my mind that coaching emphasis, playing time and player personnel decisions have contributed to low turnovers. And that just so happened to coincide with the rules on the balls being changed...i am trying to be fair in this whole discussion, and freely admit I am taking this guy at his word that the numbers are correct...but thats a big coincidence no?
papazoid Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Lol, is that what I said? No. I said that when you won't have a job if you fumble, even once, you are likely to protect the ball more. Its not like guys fumble because they just drop the ball while running...the ball gets knocked out and almost always because the carrier didn't have the ball secured. And I didn't say they grab guys off the street and by default those guys don't fumble as much...I didn't even say anything close to that lol. I said, guys who fumble don't have jobs in NE, they are cut. And they will keep cutting or benching guys until they find someone who won't fumble the ball. Therefore, the guys who suit up are not guys who typically have ball control issues like Murray, Hillman, or any other RB who seems to fumble too often. Its really not that complicated to understand what I said. No need to twist or exaggerate it what he said
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Lol, is that what I said? No. I said that when you won't have a job if you fumble, even once, you are likely to protect the ball more. Its not like guys fumble because they just drop the ball while running...the ball gets knocked out and almost always because the carrier didn't have the ball secured. And I didn't say they grab guys off the street and by default those guys don't fumble as much...I didn't even say anything close to that lol. I said, guys who fumble don't have jobs in NE, they are cut. And they will keep cutting or benching guys until they find someone who won't fumble the ball. Therefore, the guys who suit up are not guys who typically have ball control issues like Murray, Hillman, or any other RB who seems to fumble too often. Its really not that complicated How do you explain the difference in fumble rates for the Pats 2000-2006, and then 2007-2104... if 2000-2006 were with a different coach...then i think you could attribute to BB. But he has been there the whole time. Ball rules were changed in 2007. I am not saying correlation is causation...but damn thats some fishy stuff no? Edited January 27, 2015 by plenzmd1
4merper4mer Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Lol, is that what I said? No. I said that when you won't have a job if you fumble, even once, you are likely to protect the ball more. Its not like guys fumble because they just drop the ball while running...the ball gets knocked out and almost always because the carrier didn't have the ball secured. And I didn't say they grab guys off the street and by default those guys don't fumble as much...I didn't even say anything close to that lol. I said, guys who fumble don't have jobs in NE, they are cut. And they will keep cutting or benching guys until they find someone who won't fumble the ball. Therefore, the guys who suit up are not guys who typically have ball control issues like Murray, Hillman, or any other RB who seems to fumble too often. Its really not that complicated to understand what I said. No need to twist or exaggerate it So as they dump guy after guy for fumbling how are they able to find players that are unemployed yet will fumble so little that the team is a statistical outlier in the fumbling category? Do they have a secret cache of running backs and wide receivers that only they know about that they can dip into? Do other teams just try to collect players that will fumble a lot to make the game more exciting? Edited January 27, 2015 by 4merper4mer
papazoid Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 So as they dump guy after guy for fumbling how are they able to find players that are unemployed yet will fumble so little that the team is a statistical outlier in the fumbling category? Do they have a secret cache of running backs and wide receivers that only they know about that they can dip into? must be that crack analytics department...
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 must be that crack analytics department... you going to address the discrepancy pre rule change- vs post- rule change vis a vis fumbling rates for the Pats?
papazoid Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 you going to address the discrepancy pre rule change- vs post- rule change vis a vis fumbling rates for the Pats? scott pioli departs and BB takes over 53 man roster
BRH Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 scott pioli departs and BB takes over 53 man roster And that also explains why the Patriots "won" three SBs with Pioli in control of the roster and none since, no doubt. Maybe Belichick knows how much harder it is to fumble with his balls - heh huh heh - and that's why he's more likely to cut people who do.
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 scott pioli departs and BB takes over 53 man roster HAHA....thats good. Quick quote i found about his tenure with the Pats. He and Belichick split the duties usually held by a general manager on most other NFL teams, though Belichick had the final say.
MattM Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 scott pioli departs and BB takes over 53 man roster How does that explain differential fumbling rates for the same players when they play on different teams? For ex., BJGE fumbled like a million times more with Cinci than the Pats*. On a related topic, with hindsight am I the only one wondering if a deflated football is why Brady didn't fumble when Jerry Hughes perfectly tomahawk chopped him at home this year? Looked to me like a perfect play that usually results in a fumble, but Brady held onto it. I remember thinking "wow, great presence/awareness" at the time, but maybe there was more at play there.
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Then why are the Patriots' fumble numbers so much better than the Broncos'? 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. Edited January 27, 2015 by dave mcbride
papazoid Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 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. 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. therefore, peyton is a cheater.....(sarcasm)
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 And one further note: With this whole fumbles argument, all the "statistical analysis" I'm seeing is that on a season-by-season basis the Patriots rate of fumbling became a serious statistical outlier after the away team got to control their own footballs in 2007. (E.g. http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007). That's a very shallow analysis. The hypothesis is that the Patriots benefited from being in control of their own footballs during away games. Comparing seasonal fumble statistics doesn't prove that. If anyone wants to demonstrate there was a true benefit to the Pats using their own balls, compare the rates of fumbling between home and away games before 2007, then compare then after. If home vs. away fumbles are very different before 2007, then very similar afterwards, THEN there's some confirmation that the statistical outlier is more than just random dumb luck. Good post. It also doesn't separate out fumbles in the kicking game or fumbles that occur after defensive picks/fumble recoveries (which do of course happen). The kicking game fumbles should not factor in because the balls aren't at issue.
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Not without backlash. I don't see anyone else complaining that the study is flawed except you guys. I didn't complain, I gave very specific reasons why it's flawed, and direction how to fix it. Until then, it's bull ****. And yes, I am smarter than the Journal and Huffington Post. Particularly the HuffPaint.
Recommended Posts