If the 90's Bills cheated twice and won 4SB would you be ok

[mikemac2001]

I wouldn't

*

[Chef Jim]

Cheating is bad, real bad and I hate it. However having said that I hate getting caught even more.

[Best Player Available]

100%, I would rather lose with integrity than win with dishonesty.

^^^^ this. And, Cheating is for losers and the morally weak. football is simply a game I would hope my team sees it the same way. Marv's teams seemed to have integrity on the field and had no need to cheat. Got to respect that. I think if Ryan succeeds it will be the same case.

That Said I have cheated.And will continue to pay the price sometimes heavily. i cheat on speed limits in rural areas out west when I can open it up.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Best Player Available

[Mr. WEO]

^^^^ this. And, Cheating is for losers and the morally weak. football is simply a game I would hope my team sees it the same way. Marv's teams seemed to have integrity on the field and had no need to cheat. Got to respect that. I think if Ryan succeeds it will be the same case.

That Said I have cheated.And will continue to pay the price sometimes heavily. i cheat on speed limits in rural areas out west when I can open it up.

 

Marv claimed he had the best defensive signal stealers in the league.

[17 Josh Allen]

that's very funny about Marv.

[Dr. Fong]

Cheating? Sure why not? Some of you guys are acting like we're talking about murdering someone or beating your girlfriend. Gaining an advantage outside of the rules is just fine as long as you're good with facing the consequences if you get caught.

[switz1610]

I think it is kind of a cop out to have the opinion that "you'd rather lose than win by cheating". Given the fact that we've done so much losing in the last 15 years, it's a pretty easy stance to take.

 

Personally, I'd be more appalled if we cheated and lost.

[dubs]

Cheating is never OK.

I don't care how "small" the infraction is.

 

What is the point of watching professional sports if the teams aren't on the same playing field?

I would be sick to my stomach if the Bills won the Super Bowl, then found out they broke the rules to do it. I would never watch the NFL again.

 

I've heard some people DEFEND Brady by saying that Aaron Rodgers is doctoring the ball too, or that Jerry Rice used stickum years ago.

If that's the case, they should suspend Rodgers too. And it should seriously raise questions about the legitimacy of Rice's receiving records.

Absolutely, 100% agree.

 

I wouldn't ok if the Bills cheated to win. It would be such a punch in the gut and frankly I'd probably stop following the Bills for a while.

 

It's sad how much standards have deteriorated in this country. Cheating is never ok and defeats the entire purpose of playing the game.

[Best Player Available]

Marv claimed he had the best defensive signal stealers in the league.

not going to bite man. That is not cheating except in your world. On the field that is fair game you know In some sports it a religion ( i use that word very loosely). BTW every team in the league knew what Marv's Bills were doing, and what plays they were running, since they had so few of them. they simply could not stop them. but, You also know that

 

 

Sorry about your team getting their butts handed to them they deserve it. You know it. Your arguing for the sake of arguing gets tiresome.Especially since you are wrong more than right. Tony Stewart ring a bell? You looked like a fool on that one and others.

 

You do your research well though.Of course,

To suit your narrative right or wrong. At times I do enjoy your sparring but not on this topic.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

Come on, ask a tough question.

[dubs]

In my mind, the aftermath of getting caught cheating is too detrimental to ever make it worth it. Reasonable people can debate whether or not it made a difference or how much of a difference the cheating made. In the NFL, however, the difference between winning and losing is so small that the cheating will always leave a doubt. It's impossible to say that videotaping and deflating balls didn't make an impact. It's also reasonable to infer the possibility that the Pats have been doing other things that are cheating that could have had an impact.

 

Once you get to that place, it's easy to doubt the validity of those titles, even if nothing can be proved. In my mind, that makes winning a title less appealing that losing one.

Edited May 12, 2015 by dubs

[Beef Jerky]

Well Bills fans would say "We didnt cheat" just like Pats fans do.

[BillsInMaine]

If the 90's Bills cheated twice and won 4 Super Bowls would you be ok with it. Meaning they did the exact same thing as the Pats and did Spygate and deflate gate. So If the Bills had spied on the Giants

in the week leading up to Super Bowl 25 and the Bills knew the plays of the Giants and then won Super Bowl 25 just like the Pats did to the Rams ( Alleged ). Would you have been ok with that. Then if Kelly had used a deflated ball for years and the Bills we're the team that fumbled the ball the least and we're so far ahead of everyone else in the league in that stat. Would you be ok with that kind of cheating that it allowed the Bills to go on and win 4 straight Super Bowls.

 

My answer is I would rather keep it just the way it went down. The Bills played with heart and made a region proud. The 90's Bills were football warriors and they never cheated and have there reputations intact thats worth more then any Super bowl title in my opinion.

 

what do you have to say about the topic

Bills Fan.

 

Please chime in

I agree with you 100%. My integrity is all I have.

Edited May 13, 2015 by BillsInMaine

[Mr. WEO]

not going to bite man. That is not cheating except in your world. On the field that is fair game you know In some sports it a religion ( i use that word very loosely). BTW every team in the league knew what Marv's Bills were doing, and what plays they were running, since they had so few of them. they simply could not stop them. but, You also know that

 

 

Sorry about your team getting their butts handed to them they deserve it. You know it. Your arguing for the sake of arguing gets tiresome.Especially since you are wrong more than right. Tony Stewart ring a bell? You looked like a fool on that one and others.

 

You do your research well though.Of course,

To suit your narrative right or wrong. At times I do enjoy your sparring but not on this topic.

 

Oh come on man, don't lay down like that!

 

And most posters brings research or evidence to support their argument. Then you are free to do the same to dispute it. That's how it works...

 

Or you can simply say "pats fan".

[17 Josh Allen]

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.

[timtebow15]

I understand the comparison with scuffing the ball in baseball or throwing a splitter but there is a big difference. Using a deflated ball affects every single play. Also, turnovers are a huge factor in football and I think this is the reason the Pats have been consistently winning the turnover battle.

 

A little gamesmanship or stealing signals because the opponent is stupid enough to let you figure them out is one thing but purposely cheating and then lying about the cheating and acting like the Pats do? Let me just say if the Bills did that I wouldn't be a fan of the team any more. I can't figure out why Pats fans still like Brady? I'd be done with him for a hundred reasons including lying to his team and the world about his involvement.

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.

Can't say it any better than this! I don't see why everyone does understand the significance of what they have been doing!

[papazoid]

ya know what's just as bad as cheating.....(PWI) Playing While Intoxicated.

 

the 90's bills bills cheated themselves and their fans.

[1B4IDie]

Just get the ring. I'm not going to get my panties in a twist if they stole opponents signals or took some air out of a ball.

Just get that Lombardi Trophy.

[8-8 Forever?]

If the 90's Bills cheated twice and won 4 Super Bowls would you be ok with it. Meaning they did the exact same thing as the Pats and did Spygate and deflate gate. So If the Bills had spied on the Giants

in the week leading up to Super Bowl 25 and the Bills knew the plays of the Giants and then won Super Bowl 25 just like the Pats did to the Rams ( Alleged ). Would you have been ok with that. Then if Kelly had used a deflated ball for years and the Bills we're the team that fumbled the ball the least and we're so far ahead of everyone else in the league in that stat. Would you be ok with that kind of cheating that it allowed the Bills to go on and win 4 straight Super Bowls.

 

My answer is I would rather keep it just the way it went down. The Bills played with heart and made a region proud. The 90's Bills were football warriors and they never cheated and have there reputations intact thats worth more then any Super bowl title in my opinion

 

what do you have to say about the topic

Bills Fan.

 

Please chime in

they could have played with nerf balls ; lets face it, the franchise was completely embarrassed in all but the Giants game, and I would argue the Giants totally exposed the Bills small-ball D with the smashmouth running game in that one as well. the Dallas games were just dreadful unwatchable with the giveaways, and the Skins just killed 'em. so if you think those teams make me proud to be a Bills fan, you're crazy. they branded the franchise as losers for 25 years. Let's just look forward shall we?

[nucci]

If the 90's Bills cheated twice and won 4 Super Bowls would you be ok with it. Meaning they did the exact same thing as the Pats and did Spygate and deflate gate. So If the Bills had spied on the Giants

in the week leading up to Super Bowl 25 and the Bills knew the plays of the Giants and then won Super Bowl 25 just like the Pats did to the Rams ( Alleged ). Would you have been ok with that. Then if Kelly had used a deflated ball for years and the Bills we're the team that fumbled the ball the least and we're so far ahead of everyone else in the league in that stat. Would you be ok with that kind of cheating that it allowed the Bills to go on and win 4 straight Super Bowls.

 

My answer is I would rather keep it just the way it went down. The Bills played with heart and made a region proud. The 90's Bills were football warriors and they never cheated and have there reputations intact thats worth more then any Super bowl title in my opinion.

 

what do you have to say about the topic

Bills Fan.

 

Please chime in

So 4 SB wins but only cheating twice? That means 2 are not tarnished...yeah I'm ok with it