|Elflocko| Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 BJGE had 0 fumbles on 902 possesions as a Patriot, and then 5 on 524 possessions as a Bengal. Coincidence? :39: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alleycat Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 BJGE had 0 fumbles on 902 possesions as a Patriot, and then 5 on 524 possessions as a Bengal. Coincidence? That coupled with the above statistical analysis is pretty damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 It's almost as if King Roger's NFL is corrupt and rotten as fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 I don't think the fumble analysis is especially convincing. Certain positions and players are more fumble prone than others. Certainly total fumbles rather than fumbles lost should be used for analysis as it's pretty random who recovers a ball once it's on the ground. But QBs tend to fumble a lot, with inexperience QBs more prone to fumbles than vets. Brady (or Peyton Manning) doesn't take many hits so he fumbles less than Bortles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 That doesn't make sense, because when ineligible players lineup eligible, the MUST report every play even if it's consecutive plays. Seems to me the opposite would be true also. I imagine Dungy knows the rule. He used to be on the competition committee which makes or changes the rules. According to him when Vereen, wearing an eligible receiver number, reported ineligible, he would have had to leave the field for a play or had play stopped for a timeout in order to switch to an eligible position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 I don't think the fumble analysis is especially convincing. Certain positions and players are more fumble prone than others. Certainly total fumbles rather than fumbles lost should be used for analysis as it's pretty random who recovers a ball once it's on the ground. But QBs tend to fumble a lot, with inexperience QBs more prone to fumbles than vets. Brady (or Peyton Manning) doesn't take many hits so he fumbles less than Bortles. Look at it again. New England is off the charts, there's no accounting for it through "randomness" or rookie QB's or whatever. Every team was evaluated based on the same criteria and the Pats stick out like a sore thumb. Of course, that's just because they're so much better than everyone else, right? TeamsLikeThePatriots, Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 The league has only announced that they checked the Patriots balls ingame once this season. The Pats were caught with 12 illegal balls and 11 of the 12 at 10.5 psi or less. Given that they've been caught cheating 100% of the time they were checked, I think it's entirely reasonable to think they cheated in other games where they weren't checked. A softer ball certainly could have been the difference in the Ravens game. It's also worth noting that Tony Dungy pointed out that when using their eligible/ineligible substitution game vs the Ravens, Shane Vereen reported ineligible then didn't leave the field before lining up at an eligible position on the next play. That should have been a 15 yard penalty rather than a completed pass but the officials were confused and missed it. Eh, still an assumption. Look at it again. New England is off the charts, there's no accounting for it through "randomness" or rookie QB's or whatever. Every team was evaluated based on the same criteria and the Pats stick out like a sore thumb. Of course, that's just because they're so much better than everyone else, right? TeamsLikeThePatriots, Amen. Well they are better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Eh, still an assumption. Well they are better. At getting away with cheating? Definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 At getting away with cheating? Definitely. Sure. Just remember throwing deflated balls has a downside too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 The league has only announced that they checked the Patriots balls ingame once this season. The Pats were caught with 12 illegal balls and 11 of the 12 at 10.5 psi or less. Given that they've been caught cheating 100% of the time they were checked, I think it's entirely reasonable to think they cheated in other games where they weren't checked. A softer ball certainly could have been the difference in the Ravens game. It's also worth noting that Tony Dungy pointed out that when using their eligible/ineligible substitution game vs the Ravens, Shane Vereen reported ineligible then didn't leave the field before lining up at an eligible position on the next play. That should have been a 15 yard penalty rather than a completed pass but the officials were confused and missed it. Wrong. To this point the cause of the deflated balls has not been confirmed. So at this point it's not given they cheated. The only thing we know that balls were noted below the regulation at half in a 38 point victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 No one thinks that. They just think bellichecks a cheating asshole and if he did this now why wouldn't he do it last week when they barely won. Weston speaks for an entire country, lol Explain polls that have 80% thinking Pats shouldn't be in the Super Bowl.Pats are best team in the AFC, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeds Orange Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 A case can't be made when you start off with pure speculation. Who's to say? Lol. I think the Colts cheated to beat us in the playoffs, who's to say they didn't? Has evidence been presented that the Colts cheated? It's not like I pulled the Patriots story out of thin air. There is no speculation that New England cheated. The question (or one of them) is about how things might have turned out if they had not. I don't think it takes much making of a case to accept that they may have turned out differently. I said "what's to say" because, well, there's no way to prove anything. That doesn't mean there's not a good chance it's so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Sure. Just remember throwing deflated balls has a downside too. Yeah. don't care. When they routinely ignore the rules the victories don't mean anything AFAIC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeds Orange Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Wrong. To this point the cause of the deflated balls has not been confirmed. So at this point it's not given they cheated. The only thing we know that balls were noted below the regulation at half in a 38 point victory. You're demanding hard and fast DNA evidence when there's a pile of circumstantial evidence lying around. Can the Patriots be sanctioned based on circumstantial evidence? Maybe not. But in the court of public opinion, the burden of proof is not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Bellicheck came out defiantly acting annoyed and pissed. Which means they've reveiwed all the video they could find and they don't think the NFL has anything on tape to use against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scharm Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 You're demanding hard and fast DNA evidence when there's a pile of circumstantial evidence lying around. Can the Patriots be sanctioned based on circumstantial evidence? Maybe not. But in the court of public opinion, the burden of proof is not the same. Public opinion means shit when there is a scoreboard. Throwing deflated balls isn't a big deal in a 38 point win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Aaron Hernandez's team of lawyers issued a statement today admitting they had planned on using the same "My Cousin Vinny" defense strategy that Billicheat used. The statement claimed the defense team had no plans to mention Mona Lisa Vito by name, but their whole strategy for defending Hernandez is built around repeating the phrase..."Your honor, everything that guy just said is crap." Actress Marisa Tomei could not be reached for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Ben Volin @BenVolin 25m25 minutes ago Column: Patriots have taken all the heat for #DeflateGate but inside Gillette all eyes are looking at Harbaugh/Pagano http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/24/ravens-coach-john-harbaugh-sounds-like-man-pleading-for-forgiveness-over-deflategate/nomWQem0ynWFfq4RG27QHP/story.html … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Bill Nye says Bill Belichick made no sense http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/25/bill-nye-says-bill-belichick-made-no-sense/?utm_network=facebook&utm_post=3354919&utm_source=FB%20-%20SNF%20on%20NBC&utm_tags= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeds Orange Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Public opinion means shit when there is a scoreboard. Throwing deflated balls isn't a big deal in a 38 point win. Nowhere did I say that public opinion was going to change the outcome of that game. Nowhere. But I would think public opinion means quite a bit on a public forum where people express their opinions. Look, it's naive to think it hasn't been going on for a long time. I think the research posted earlier in this thread bears it out. But ignore it if you must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Look at it again. New England is off the charts, there's no accounting for it through "randomness" or rookie QB's or whatever. Every team was evaluated based on the same criteria and the Pats stick out like a sore thumb. Of course, that's just because they're so much better than everyone else, right? TeamsLikeThePatriots, Amen. That's my point. It isn't random but also might not be due to underinflated balls being easier to grip. It could easily be other factors such as QB experience, RBs who are careless, etc. The comparison shouldn't be team vs team but rather players fumble rates as members of the Pats compared to the same players time on other teams. BJGE famously held on to the ball as a Pat. He had some fumbles as a Bengal. Do the same thing for other Patriot ball handlers who have played for other teams (Amendola, Blount, etc) and see how big the difference is and if it's statistically significant based on the sample size. When using the team vs team chart it doesn't tell us much since we already knew that the Broncos high fumble rate isn't due to Manning but to Hillman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Eh, still an assumption. Well they are better. Ok, making no assumptions we can accurately say that the Patriots cheated 100% of the games in which their balls were re-checked. Their opponent's footballs in the same game under the same environmental conditions were 100% legal. It doesn't matter which Patriots team employee let the air out of the balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 Bellicheat's latest press conference: Bellicheat: "I barely know what a football is." NFL Media: "Sounds good, let's wait six weeks and see what the league investigation turns up." These so called media members could actually do some reporting themselves. Like investigate things, use sources, write stuff. For instance, find out who takes possession of the footballs after the officials check them. Then find out where he goes with the footballs. Find out if he's ever out of the public eye with the footballs. Basically establish a chain of custody. Then when you know who had the balls, go find that guy and ask him if he let air out of the ball. These reporters act like the Patriots organization is the North Korean government, and there is no possibility of even trying to find anything out. The league isn't going to do an investigation, they're going to cover it up. The less reporting done now, the easier it is for the NFL to cover it up later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uniwildcat38 Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 That's my point. It isn't random but also might not be due to underinflated balls being easier to grip. It could easily be other factors such as QB experience, RBs who are careless, etc. The comparison shouldn't be team vs team but rather players fumble rates as members of the Pats compared to the same players time on other teams. BJGE famously held on to the ball as a Pat. He had some fumbles as a Bengal. Do the same thing for other Patriot ball handlers who have played for other teams (Amendola, Blount, etc) and see how big the difference is and if it's statistically significant based on the sample size. When using the team vs team chart it doesn't tell us much since we already knew that the Broncos high fumble rate isn't due to Manning but to Hillman. I tried to do this yesterday, and the results are interesting - in almost every case the player fumbled less often as a Patriot. Disclaimer: The fumble stats on nfl.com include kick and punt returns, whereas for the number of plays I've used rushes plus receptions as I couldn't easily find the number of return plays. For eac player I've listed their plays, fumbles and plays per fumble as a Pat and then the same figures combined across all other teams they played for. Blount 219 3 73; 518 10 52 Amendola 82 0 infinite; 208 10 21 Woodhead 342 2 171; 225 2 112.5 Welker 691 11 63; 218 9 24 (this leaves out 4 fumbles from his rookie season when he had no touches on offense) Lloyd 74 0 infinite; 326 3 109 Green-Ellis 902 0 infinite; 524 5 105 Branch 352 2 176; 205 1 205 Taylor 110 1 110; 2714 26 104 Maroney 622 5 124; 40 1 40 Morris 383 4 96; 519 8 65 Moss 261 5 52; 746 11 68 So only Moss and Branch were slighly worse as a Pat. Everyone else was slightly to much, much better. Also a couple of specials cases. Kevin Faulk only played for the Pats but pre 2007 he had 23 fumbles in 908 plays (1 every 39 plays) and from 2007 on he had just 2 in 387 plays. Similarly Brady pre 2007 (counting only sacks and rushes as plays) had 59 fumbles 421 plays (7.1) and since then has 36 in 413 plays (11.5). That could be just him maturing as a player, but I've looked at other qbs who've played at least 10 years, and none of them show that sort of large change at that point in their career. It's still very much circumstantial evidence, but it does suggest that there is something about playing for the Pats that reduces fumble rates, and as it doesn't seem to carry over when players move on it doesn't look like it's a technique issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonBlade Posted January 26, 2015 Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 During Sunday's Seahawks arrival news conference at the Arizona Grand Resort, Sherman added fuel on the Deflategate controversy when asked if the perception of the Patriots is that they try to get as close to the line as they can without trying to cross over. "The perception is the reality," Sherman said. "It is what it is. Their resume speaks for itself. Their past is what their past is. Their present is what their present is. And will they be punished? Probably not. "Not as long as (Patriots owner) Robert Kraft and Roger Goodell are still taking pictures at their respective houses. "He was just at Kraft's house last week for the AFC Championship. You talk about conflicts of interest. But as long as that happens it won't affect them at all." Nice to see it's not only Joe Public who realise what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.