stevestojan Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I have to say, Goodell is a genius. He delays this report until the NFL calendar is at its deadest thus guaranteeing media over saturation and the NFL on the headline of every sports and non sporting media outlet. He gets to look tough and impartial by suspending an NFL champ after a very serious and official independent review. He publicly spanks his purported puppet master, Kraft. This is why this man clears 30-40 million a year. The NBA and the NHL are in the thick of the playoffs but, that's all page 2 (or 3 for the NHL) stuff right now---it is all NFL, all the time. Nominee for top ten smartest posts in TBD History?
truth on hold Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) it said investigator. i just think it would be a silly rule to dole out full year suspensions based on that. go ahead and fine them just like they would for criticizing a ref Players cheat all the time on the field and try to get away with it. Almost never get suspended for it. So a suspension for brady of any kind seems excessive. Fines for cheating like illegal hits generally are in the low 5 figures. So a million is outrageous. And if its a team fine, then a million is double spygates $500k. Imo...and i would most football analysts ....knowing a teams signals is a far greater advantage than a little air in the ball. Again another excessive fine. Furthermore how are the doling out team fines when they've failed to implicate the head coach or owner? Do teams get fined when a player is fined for an illegal hit? So not only is the fine unjustified and excessive, but so is the loss of picks. Edited May 13, 2015 by JTSP
bladiebla Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 4 Superbowls, caught cheating to get 2 of them... I'm going to come out and say it... They also cheated on the other 2, they just didn't get caught doing it.
ALF Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 A Jets fan has a good nick name for Tom Brady , " Tom Shady " I like it
Ouijaman Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Players cheat all the time on the field and try to get away with it. Almost never get suspended for it. So a suspension for brady of any kind seems excessive. Fines for cheating like illegal hits generally are in the low 5 figures. So a million is outrageous. And if its a team fine, then a million is double spygates $500k. Imo...and i would most football analysts ....knowing a teams signals is a far greater advantage than a little air in the ball. Again another excessive fine. Furthermore how are the doling out team fines when they've failed to implicate the head coach or owner? Do teams get fined when a player is fined for an illegal hit? So not only is the fine unjustified and excessive, but so is the loss of picks.We're talking about conspiracy and intent to cheat, lying and obstruction. Whether PSI had any effect on the outcome of games is irrelevant; correlation to other perceived cheating is irrelevant. That having been said, the last time there was a conspiracy to commit illegal hits (NO) two coaches were out a year and several players punished far more than Brady will be - and that was for participation only, not for orchestrating the conspiracy.
PromoTheRobot Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Pats** now promoting cheating like they are proud. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/12/patriots-take-to-twitter-to-say-they-have-tom-bradys-back/ If you have a Twitter account, time to update your photo with that pic with "CHEATS" written across it.
May Day 10 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 If it wasn't a big deal, The Patriots and Brady wouldn't go to those lengths to let air out of the footballs.
PromoTheRobot Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 If it wasn't a big deal, The Patriots and Brady wouldn't go to those lengths to let air out of the footballs. Or cover it up.
NoSaint Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 If it wasn't a big deal, The Patriots and Brady wouldn't go to those lengths to let air out of the footballs. are you kidding? these are guys that dedicate 22 hrs a day on the off chance that they catch any tiny little detail, many of which dont matter. ironically football guys are also the type that often misjudge the true impact of their decisions. while it could be a big deal, to say that just the act of participating is proof that it must be largely impactful is simply not truth.
truth on hold Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 We're talking about conspiracy and intent to cheat, lying and obstruction. Whether PSI had any effect on the outcome of games is irrelevant; correlation to other perceived cheating is irrelevant. That having been said, the last time there was a conspiracy to commit illegal hits (NO) two coaches were out a year and several players punished far more than Brady will be - and that was for participation only, not for orchestrating the conspiracy. Unless there's proof of BB's or BK's involvement or knowledge -- Ive yet to even see an allegation -- this is a false comparison. In NO, Greg Williams was central to it as he was dishing out the cash, and Payton was aware of it and did nothing to stop it
starrymessenger Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Here is some research of why the Pats win more games. They win the turnover battle and they do it by deflating the ball to make it easier to hold onto and to grip. This team is just the poster child for the biggest cheats in sports ever. The real deal on fumbles according to Sharp: The league average from 2010 to 2014 was 50 plays per fumble. For indoor teams, the average was 55 plays per fumble. For outdoor teams, excluding the Patriots, the average was 46 plays per fumble. The Patriots averaged 73 plays per fumble, almost 60 percent more than outdoor teams and almost 50 percent more than the league average the past five years. Maybe the Patriots just target players who are particularly good at holding onto the ball? Its easy to think that during the offseason and in the draft room, Belichick and friends are scouting players who have a knack for not fumbling. However, Michael Salfino of the Wall Street Journal looked at Patriots players who, since 2010, have logged significant minutes on other teams to compare fumbles rates. His findings: Additionally, according to Stats, LLC, the six players who have played extensively for the Patriots and other teams in this span all fumbled far less frequently wearing the New England uniform. Including recovered fumbles, Danny Amendola, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Danny Woodhead, Wes Welker, Brandon LaFell and LeGarrette Blount have lost the ball eight times in 1,482 touches for the Patriots since 2010, or once every 185.3 times. For their other teams, they fumbled 22 times in 1,701 touches (once every 77.3). So it cant be merely personnel, right? For example, Green-Ellis didnt fumble once in 501 touches for the Patriots since 2010. However, during his next two years with the Cincinnati Bengals he fumbled five times in 524 touches. Likewise, Amendola hasnt fumbled once in 82 touches with the Patriots, yet had three fumbles in 162 touches with Ram since 2010. During the same time, Woodhead saw his plays-per-fumble decrease from 171 with the Patriots to just 86 with the Chargers. Blount fumbled every 51.8 plays with the Buccaneers and Steelers, but only every 73 plays with New England. Yet while Welker only lost the ball every 166 touches with the Patriots, he is still yet to fumble (in 122 touches so far) with the Broncos. And LaFell has actually seen his plays-per-fumble decrease to 76 with the Patriots, from 86.5 with the Panthers. While it isnt universal for every individual player, Salfinos larger finding still stands: in the past five years, players fumble significantly less on the Patriots than they do when playing for other teams. Since his initial report, Sharp wrote a supplemental post showing that from 2007-2014, individual Patriots players with more than 300 touches fumbled once every 107 touches, versus every 67 touches when playing for other teams. So it isnt strictly personnel. Could it be the coaching? Despite Stevan Ridley earning a reputation for being fumble-prone, the stats dont seem to show that he fumbles at a rate particularly higher than league averages. In fact, since 2010, only one team in the league had a better rate: The Atlanta Falcons, who play in a dome, fumbled only once every 80 plays. Besides the Patriots, no other team in the league broke 70 and no other outdoor team had a better rate than 55. Compared to the average fumble rate for the 31 other teams in the league, per touch Ridley actually has a better chance of holding on. That hasnt, however, stopped him from being benchedmultiple timesfor fumbling. Perhaps Belichick has particularly high standards for his players. And we know turnovers are a statistic that Belichick has focused on in the past. Its not very realistic that it is something he regularly drills in practice and emphasizes, even if it means benching his running back. Does this apparent strictness from the coach explain the Patriots collective tight grip on the football? Perhaps Belichick has just groomed his team into a statistical anomaly when it comes to fumble rate? Or perhaps something else has been in the works. As Sharp speculates, maybe theyve invented a revolutionary in-house way to protect the ball or they design plays that dont put players in the position to fumble. Or maybe its the ball. The Patriots have held the best plays per fumble rate since 2007. Sharp also points out this is the first year the Patriots started outperforming in wet weather games. After going 0-2 in 2006, New England has gone an unprecedented 14-1 in Tom Brady wet weather home games (compared to 51-9 in dry weather home games). According to ProFootballReference.com, from 2001 to 2006, Brady averaged 9.8 fumbles per season. From 2007 to 2014, his fumbles per season decreased to 5.3. Interestingly, one other thing changed the season prior to 2007: the rules. In 2006, Brady and Peyton Manning successfully lobbied the league to allow road team offenses to bring their own balls, breaking from the rule in which the home team provided all 24 balls. You may have heard of this rule change recently in the news again. Ultimately, the anomaly of the Patriots superior fumble avoidance doesnt prove anything, besides a distinct advantage on their opponents. But whether its coaching, play design or PSI, its certainly no coincidence. Great post. My guess is that it's the balls (meaning a conspiracy was afoot that had much more probable impact on game results than whatever advantage they got in the passing game). We should be able to better understand this "statistical anomaly" now that the game balls will no longer be under inflated. Edited May 13, 2015 by starrymessenger
Ouijaman Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Unless there's proof of BB's or BK's involvement or knowledge -- Ive yet to even see an allegation -- this is a false comparison. In NO, Greg Williams was central to it as he was dishing out the cash, and Payton was aware of it and did nothing to stop it Obstruction is proof of obstruction.
plenzmd1 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Great post. My guess is that it's the balls (meaning a conspiracy was afoot that had much more probable impact on game results than whatever advantage they got in the passing game). We should be able to better understand this "statistical anomaly" now that the game balls will no longer be under inflated. That Sharp study has been widely panned and discredited....I don't remember why or the math and science behind it. But just a heads up
NoSaint Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 That Sharp study has been widely panned and discredited....I don't remember why or the math and science behind it. But just a heads up if im recalling correctly, it seemed a few times he had situations where "he found what he was looking for" if that makes sense as a phrase. that what he came across may have been generally accurate still, but there were some jumps and twists that probably were not ideal to get to the conclusion, and a few spots he may have oversold the data.... that said, you may still end up more or less correct even if methods are a bit off ideal.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Honest legal question here, because I honestly don't know. The Wells report was an independent investigation, which from what I've seen relies heavily on voluntary information and outside scientific testing. However, if Brady does indeed file a lawsuit (which they seem serious about now), wouldn't the NFL be able to subpoena the two equipment managers to testify, along with Brady's phone...the full thing now, not just printouts of texts?
4merper4mer Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Honest legal question here, because I honestly don't know. The Wells report was an independent investigation, which from what I've seen relies heavily on voluntary information and outside scientific testing. However, if Brady does indeed file a lawsuit (which they seem serious about now), wouldn't the NFL be able to subpoena the two equipment managers to testify, along with Brady's phone...the full thing now, not just printouts of texts? The question I've been wondering about is why, by this time, wouldn't Br*dy have gone all "Hiillary's e-mail server" on his phone. Edited May 13, 2015 by 4merper4mer
thebandit27 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Honest legal question here, because I honestly don't know. The Wells report was an independent investigation, which from what I've seen relies heavily on voluntary information and outside scientific testing. However, if Brady does indeed file a lawsuit (which they seem serious about now), wouldn't the NFL be able to subpoena the two equipment managers to testify, along with Brady's phone...the full thing now, not just printouts of texts? I believe that's the case, yeah.
webtoe Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 That Sharp study has been widely panned and discredited....I don't remember why or the math and science behind it. But just a heads up Actually 538 took a serious look at it, and after initially panning it found the findings were significant. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivethirtyeight-dissects-the-deflategate-report/
plenzmd1 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Actually 538 took a serious look at it, and after initially panning it found the findings were significant. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivethirtyeight-dissects-the-deflategate-report/ I remember reading that as well now...good catch
Dibs Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Actually 538 took a serious look at it, and after initially panning it found the findings were significant. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fivethirtyeight-dissects-the-deflategate-report/ There are many coincidences in life. It seems that many are willing to accept the correlation of Brady petitioning for the rule change regarding game balls....Brady being caught orchestrating systematic deflation of game balls.....and the anomolously low fumble rate statistics for the Pats since the rule change as being coincidence. I for one don't see it as coincidental.
Recommended Posts