Kirby Jackson Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure how it is that much different than PEDs. PEDs give an individual a competitive advantage but they do not turn someone like me into a Pro Bowl player. It takes a guy that might be an 89 on a scale of 1-100 and make him a 93. That seems to be similar to the deflated balls. It helps with throwing, catching and preventing fumbles. It isn't going to all of a sudden make Trent Edwards Peyton Manning but it does provide a little edge. Corked bats and spit balls are also good analogies. I prefer PEDs though because the deflated balls have a few different advantages instead of just one (ie the ball travels further). On a side not, how often would Stevan Ridley fumble with regular footballs?!? Edited May 11, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
NoSaint Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) Could depend on a lot of things. Say they played the Tennessee away (had 5 forced fumbles last year) and played Philly at home (had 26 FF's last year). Quality of opponent I guess you could call it. As funny as it may be, weather could also play a factor. Even if the ball is softer, in cold weather conditions, you are cold, the ball is cold and hard. Just some theories. Can't prove any of them but theories none the less.fair enough, and why i threw it out there. i know it seems like im sticking up for them with some devils advocate posts, but this point im genuinely very curious about and enjoy hearing the theories. i looked at the stats dating back to 2006, to mirror peter kings look at the passing stats dating back to the rule change -- fumble stats has been such a hot topic on here. youd think that nearly a decade would account for quality of opponent issues, i peeked at plays/game and it was a little higher at home but didnt seem high enough to close the gap heck, even over an 8 game road vs home schedule, youd think 1-2 cold games at home, and a chance of those happening on the road too so there were times it was flat, and a few the were 2-3 fumble gaps between the two, but some that were pretty substantial gaps skewing towards fumbling at home. it was never more road fumbles though. Edited May 11, 2015 by NoSaint
The Wiz Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 fair enough, and why i threw it out there. i know it seems like im sticking up for them with some devils advocate posts, but this point im genuinely very curious about and enjoy hearing the theories. i looked at the stats dating back to 2006, to mirror peter kings look at the passing stats dating back to the rule change -- fumble stats has been such a hot topic on here. youd think that nearly a decade would account for quality of opponent issues, i peeked at plays/game and it was a little higher at home but didnt seem high enough to close the gap heck, even over an 8 game road vs home schedule, youd think 1-2 cold games at home, and a chance of those happening on the road too so there were times it was flat, and a few the were 2-3 fumble gaps between the two, but some that were pretty substantial gaps skewing towards fumbling at home. it was never more road fumbles though. Well the Bills haven't really been relevant for over a decade so there's that. The difference between home and away could also be a question of who fumbled. Say they fumble more at home because the ball is deflated but most of the fumbles are caused by the RB's. Maybe they don't handle the ball as well when it's softer. When they hold it high and tight it's just not tight enough. When they are on the road and play with a properly inflated ball they get a better hold when carrying it. Again, just another theory as to the discrepancy.
Dibs Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 fair enough, and why i threw it out there. i know it seems like im sticking up for them with some devils advocate posts, but this point im genuinely very curious about and enjoy hearing the theories. i looked at the stats dating back to 2006, to mirror peter kings look at the passing stats dating back to the rule change -- as its been such a hot topic on here. youd think that nearly a decade would account for quality of opponent issues, i peeked at plays/game and it was a little higher at home but didnt seem high enough to close the gap heck, even over an 8 game road vs home schedule, youd think 1-2 cold games at home, and a chance of those happening on the road too so there were times it was flat, and a few the were 2-3 fumble gaps between the two, but some that were pretty substantial gaps skewing towards fumbling at home. it was never more road fumbles though. Wasn't the rule change to enable away teams to bring their own balls....thus the Pats were then able to deflate the away balls too? All things being equal, that should see both home and away being of similar fumble stats since the rule change....but things are not equal as a percent of Patriot away games are played without the weather factoring(in domes)....so this should theoretically see a slightly higher fumble rate at home compared to away.
The Wiz Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Wasn't the rule change to enable away teams to bring their own balls....thus the Pats were then able to deflate the away balls too? All things being equal, that should see both home and away being of similar fumble stats since the rule change....but things are not equal as a percent of Patriot away games are played without the weather factoring(in domes)....so this should theoretically see a slightly higher fumble rate at home compared to away. They were able to bring their own but reports say that "the deflator" rarely, in fact almost never, traveled with the team. So unless someone else was doing it they might not have been cheating on the road.
Dibs Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 They were able to bring their own but reports say that "the deflator" rarely, in fact almost never, traveled with the team. So unless someone else was doing it they might not have been cheating on the road. With a cynical guess I would say he only travelled to bad weather games...like Buffalo.
ko12010 Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Is cheating really so much a part of modern day culture that so many people can look at a blatant case such as this and be content with a slap on the wrist type penalty of a 1-4 week suspension? I don't know about anybody else, but I was raised to be honest, work for my achievements, and not to cheat. IMO any first offense premeditated cheating should get a one yead ban, regardless as to what exact level of actual benefit the cheating achieved. Second offenses should be a lifetime ban. Same here. I played collegiate golf and some pro events, and throughout my 13-14 years of playing I had innumerable chances to 'cheat' when no one was looking. Take a favorable drop, better lie, heck, even 'find' a lost ball in the woods or by the OB line. I know many of my playing competitors did these things, but I just wouldn't have been able to live with myself, even though I wasn't that good and no one gave a rat's ass about how I did in that particular event.
NoSaint Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Wasn't the rule change to enable away teams to bring their own balls....thus the Pats were then able to deflate the away balls too? All things being equal, that should see both home and away being of similar fumble stats since the rule change....but things are not equal as a percent of Patriot away games are played without the weather factoring(in domes)....so this should theoretically see a slightly higher fumble rate at home compared to away. they bring their own, but they do not have the ball boy on hand to alter them post-inspection - correct? and the stats ranged from flat to .9 more fumbles per game. they arent playing THAT many more games in snow at home. weather is only a factor in so many. there may have been seasons that it shook out that they played worse weather on the road (but im not cross referencing 2007 weather reports against their schedule)
Mango Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 while i generally agree that the nfl has done a terrible job here, i also think weighing the balls post game with an automatic loss on the table is silly too. it seems the answer is either A) dont care how they are prepped B) have a neutral league employee handle them and be responsible for any touch up needed during the game (ie once turned in, team employees dont touch them again) is it possible this is a myth too? bradys passing stats are roughly the same home vs road, and the pats fumble more at home, where they have more access. I agree with both your points either/or work for me. It was merely an idea if the NFL continues to insist on teams handling the balls post measuring, what the reproductions are of they are in fact tampered with. What that punishment is I have no idea, the rowing example was just what other sports due that measure equipment before and after competition.
NoSaint Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Well the Bills haven't really been relevant for over a decade so there's that. The difference between home and away could also be a question of who fumbled. Say they fumble more at home because the ball is deflated but most of the fumbles are caused by the RB's. Maybe they don't handle the ball as well when it's softer. When they hold it high and tight it's just not tight enough. When they are on the road and play with a properly inflated ball they get a better hold when carrying it. Again, just another theory as to the discrepancy. 1) but they get us home and road! Ha! 2) that could be an issue but itd run counter to what a lot of posters think. thats kind of why i am curious to figure out more on the topic. i know we wont get far spitballing like this but its possible that it was a mythical advantage instead of a real one (plenty of nfl teams are way off on what they believe true) or it wasnt as widespread as we think, or.... i dont know what the explanation would be. as a one off, or if it was inconsistent, i wouldnt put much further thought, but the site i looked at had an equal/lower fumble rate on the road for a decade - which stuck out as odd. I agree with both your points either/or work for me. It was merely an idea if the NFL continues to insist on teams handling the balls post measuring, what the reproductions are of they are in fact tampered with. What that punishment is I have no idea, the rowing example was just what other sports due that measure equipment before and after competition. makes sense, i was just thinking out loud on how to apply to football, and struggled getting past those easy solutions instead of opening up to post game measurements and punishments when they cant seem to reliably measure in the first place.
Malazan Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 I can see how this topic didn't fit into the existing threads on it.
Fan in San Diego Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 This is exactly it. I was listening to Sirius NFL radio this morning; Poppa and Toomer were talking about the Browns and Falcons and nobody making demands for their cheating. They totally are missing your (our?) point. It's not that the Pats** keep winning, it is the conscious effort to beat the rules. If the Falcons or Browns stood up at the podium and preached their innocence, we as NFL fans would be beating the same drum. This isn't about the W-L, or competitive advantage anymore. It's the organizational bribery and to and general skeevey-ness to go around the league to break the rules. With all the coach the NFL brings in, it's odd to me that they don't have neutral employees at every game in the home teams AV booth (Colts/Falcons), or handling the game equipment. They should. Or similar to rowing at the World Champs, all boat classes have a minimum weight. You weigh in pre race, add weight if need be. Then if you win a medal, first thing when you get back to the dock is you put your boat back on the scale. If it's under weight, disqualified. Happened in the Semi-final at the 2010 national championships here too. The athlete wasn't allowed to race the final. Weigh the balls before and after. If they are off by a significant margin, automatic loss, fine, loss of draft lick. Whatever, doesn't matter. But for high stakes, big money sport, the level of control lies too much on the honor system. I agree with you. The Patriots have for a long time done sketchy things. I listen to the NFL radio station on Sirius. Pat Kirwan said there is a an extra ref at every game in case a ref gets injured in the game. Let that spare refs handle the balls. He has nothing to do anyways, make that his job.
PlayoffsPlease Posted May 11, 2015 Author Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) This "pattern" business is nonsense. Its like saying that chan gailey's propensity for running and getting away with illegal pick plays should be combined with not reporting mario williams' injury, which should combined with suspinsions that greg williams as a bills coach encouraged bounties. Going back to the original analogy. Perry probably threw a spitter in 100% of the games he ptiched the last 10 years of his career. There is a rule in place regarding football inflation rates, with a described penalty of a modest fine, because it is truly not a big deal issue. Edited May 11, 2015 by PlayoffsPlease
hondo in seattle Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Is cheating really so much a part of modern day culture that so many people can look at a blatant case such as this and be content with a slap on the wrist type penalty of a 1-4 week suspension? I don't know about anybody else, but I was raised to be honest, work for my achievements, and not to cheat. IMO any first offense premeditated cheating should get a one yead ban, regardless as to what exact level of actual benefit the cheating achieved. Second offenses should be a lifetime ban. Great perspective!
JESSEFEFFER Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Better analogy would be a PGA golfer that had illegal golf balls that could be driven and extra 20 yards and then had them doctored up to make them look legal using some counterfeit markings. It takes it to another level when something is done to make something that has the appearance of legality but it has been altered by some sort of subterfuge followed by a coverup.
SCD Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Why does there need to be an analogy? Like Cowturd with his window tint analogy; these have no bearing on the events that actually occurred. Tom's dirty, Bill is dirty, Kraft is dirty. The Pats* are making the league look terrible. My analogy is - this is a solied toilet bowl. Somebody's gotta clean this schitt.
Thunderstealer Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 The fumbling statistics from 2007 to present day lead me to believe it is not a myth and there is certainly an advantage they have gained. Once the ball is customized to a players preference, it's no longer an NFL licensed ball-- It's now something different.
judman Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 Their success coupled with the "Who, me?" aspect reeks of Lance Armstrong.
johnwalter Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 It is tough to draw perfect analogies, but I think the factors to consider in making an analogy are: 1) degree of competitive advantage gained 2) degree of regulation 3) degree of concealment and deception I think 3 is the key here. If the Pats get nailed, I suspect it will be more for the cover-up/obstruction-of-justice than for the actual deflating.
Lurker Posted May 11, 2015 Posted May 11, 2015 They were able to bring their own but reports say that "the deflator" rarely, in fact almost never, traveled with the team. So unless someone else was doing it they might not have been cheating on the road. Why couldn't Jastremski--who did travel to games--be the the road deflator? He's worked full-time for the Pats as an "equipment assistant" for 14 years--and odds are, he was the original guy to do it, before delegating the home games to McNally in recent years...
Recommended Posts