Alphadawg7 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 (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. Well that about wraps it up folks...pretty safe to say you can move on from these fumble conspiracy theories. And like I said before, the impact the PSI has on the game is being so grossly exaggerated and blown way out of proportion. Good teams generally are good at protecting the ball...which is usually a large part of why they are good. Not because they have less PSI
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 therefore, peyton is a cheater.....(sarcasm) Peyton has been suspiciously silent throughout all of this though. It was him and Brady together who got the rule changed after 2006 ..
TheBillsWillRiseAgain 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 (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?
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Great Post Dave...i had not considered the incompletions, and neither had the guy at Sharp. Did his play counts though include kicks? I am not sure. And i had not considered what Tom had pointed out either, as i consider him an idiot and dont trust a word he says...but think he could be right for the first time. Better than papazoids explanation Edited January 27, 2015 by plenzmd1
GG 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. Chances are that the guys who are posting the articles, even in the major news outlets don't understand the statistical flaws.
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) 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? ?? - 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. Also, the Broncos apparently don't cut or exile to football Siberia guys who fumble a lot. They stuck with a fumble-prone McGahee in 2012 until he got hurt. He would never have lasted in NE. I think the argument is settled, but feel free to disagree. Edited January 27, 2015 by dave mcbride
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) ?? - 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. HAHA..okay BB...I am now done talking about the subject! BTW, have you sent that analysis to him? If not, i would gladly do it and ask for a public explanation Edited January 27, 2015 by plenzmd1
papazoid Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Great Post Dave...i had not considered the incompletions, and neither had the guy at Sharp. Did his play counts though include kicks? I am not sure. And i had not considered what Tom had pointed out either, as i consider him an idiot and dont trust a word he says...but think he could be right for the first time. Better than papazoids explanation apology accepted.....laffin
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 ?? - 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?
4merper4mer Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 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. Can you explain why a QB would have positive or negative impact on why someone fumbled a ball.....unless the player was the QB himself?
papazoid Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Peyton has been suspiciously silent throughout all of this though. It was him and Brady together who got the rule changed after 2006 .. more proof he's guilty
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 apology accepted.....laffin I am right cause i say i am right...and oy yea...what he said!
Kelly the Dog Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Can you explain why a QB would have positive or negative impact on why someone fumbled a ball.....unless the player was the QB himself? Actually yes. A lot of fumbles are botched handoffs and often they will award the fumble to the QB rather than the RB because he never really controlled the ball, regardless of whose "fault" it is, which is sometimes one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. FWIW, I don't think the fumbles issue means anything. It's possible it helps slightly, the ball deflated I mean. Hoodwink does insist his players not fumble and takes them out if they do. I'm sure he looks for guys that don't. And puts extra emphasis on it.
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited January 27, 2015 by TheBillsWillRiseAgain
4merper4mer Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Actually yes. A lot of fumbles are botched handoffs and often they will award the fumble to the QB rather than the RB because he never really controlled the ball, regardless of whose "fault" it is, which is sometimes one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. FWIW, I don't think the fumbles issue means anything. It's possible it helps slightly, the ball deflated I mean. Hoodwink does insist his players not fumble and takes them out if they do. I'm sure he looks for guys that don't. And puts extra emphasis on it. Fair enough on the first point but those outlying number really are lying out there.....far.
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Wait what? Manning has averaged 16.7 sacks a season between 2007 and 2014. Brady has averaged 26. That's a rounding error? ?? - Brady fumbled 37 times and Manning 31. Brady fumbled MORE, not an equivalent number of times to Manning. Brady fumbled 20.33 percent per sack; Manning fumbled 26.5 percent. Brady has run it more, but I'm betting just about all of the fumbles for both of them came on the sacks. That's how it generally happens in the NFL. At this point, maybe Brady is just better at holding the ball and avoiding strip sacks? That's certainly what my eyes tell me - Peyton does get stripped. Regardless, Manning's teams really don't fumble more than Brady's. 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. That's because the graph is BS!! It doesn't deal with incompletions - which are, in baseball parlance, true outcomes. It also doesn't deal with kick-play fumbles. Look at my post above about Manning-led and Brady-led TEAMS and also factor in what happens to fumblers on New England. Think hard about that last point. Edited January 27, 2015 by dave mcbride
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 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?
plenzmd1 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) papazoid just sent me this link.... http://drewfustin.com/2015/01/27/patriots-fumble-comments/ Now, maybe Tom and other smart guys understand this article, I really do not understand some of the statiscal equations.... but i found it interesting none the less. Seems like Sharp is getting less and less credibility...that cant be good for business Edited January 27, 2015 by plenzmd1
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 And i had not considered what Tom had pointed out either, as i consider him an idiot and dont trust a word he says...but think he could be right for the first time. How can you not consider that? "Let's lump all the games together to see if they cheated in some!" What sort of a moron doesn't see that? And I'm the idiot. Sure.
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) 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? This has NEVER been about QB fumbles specifically -- it's been about fumbles in general. I think it's safe to presume that no one is arguing that softer balls prevent strip sacks (it would be a foolish argument). In theory, such balls are intended to help RBs and other ball carriers. The fact of the matter, however, is that QBs virtually always lead their teams in fumbles because of blindside sacks, taking too long to get rid of the ball, and wild scrambles -- not because of qb sneaks, which is what most of Brady's runs are. Consequently, such fumbles have to be factored into the total. But neither Brady nor Manning is a fumbler. They're careful with the ball. The times they do fumble represent the inevitable outcomes of an occupational hazard. Their teams don't fumble much collectively as a consequence. Also, you seem to not be getting my point about statistical insignificance. 0.019 is greater than 0.015. But it's an insignificant difference. I suggest looking at the bad team fumble and sack rates. Look at the Jets, for instance. Look at Washington. Alternatively, look at Seattle. They fumble a lot more, and it has nothing to do with the ball difference. It's because their QBs are careless with the ball, hold onto it too long, scramble wildly a lot, and/or have bad pocket sense. Comparing Brady and Manning on the fumbling front is like comparing Godzilla vs. Mothra. They're outliers because they're really, really good at avoiding sacks and taking care of the ball. Edited January 27, 2015 by dave mcbride
Recommended Posts