Alphadawg7
-
Posts
24,294 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Alphadawg7
-
-
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 29m29 minutes ago
My article on deflated footballs, with new details on the elderly game-day operator & what happened to the balls http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000466783/article/more-details-on-the-investigation-of-patriots-deflated-footballs
">> Eleven of the 12 footballs used in the first half were judged by the officials to be under the minimum of 12.5 PSI, but just one was two pounds under. Many of them were just a few ticks under the minimum.
>> Many of the footballs used in the AFC title game, which all have Walt Anderson's initials on them, were returned to circulation among the rest of the Patriots game-day footballs. Because Anderson was the referee for two other Patriots games this season, there are more than 30 footballs with his initials in the team's possession. It appears the league has the football D'Qwell Jackson intercepted and took to the sidelines to ultimately hand over to his equipment staff."
Weird, I recall being flamed by a certain poster for pointing out that we don't know the real information and that reports keep contradicting themselves. Now another report suggests that this is far less serious and even suggests that intentional cheating may not be the culprit here.
We still don't know what's real and what's not, but the more info that comes out seems to suggest that people need to calm down lol.
But keep telling me that no reports have been wrong yet. Oh the horror, maybe the Pats didn't cheat to beat us and we really just sucked the last decade and a half.
If the Pats are proven innocent, this still won't die, it will just be blamed on a cover up because the NFL let this balloon out of control and the media and fans ran with it.
-
No more posting after "visiting Mr. Jameson."
Ha...This
-
Then , why call them the best ever and defend them so vehemently?
Im not defending them...I am providing reason into this storm of over exaggeration of what happened. I am a football fan, a very big football fan. Just because a team is a division rival doesn't mean I am going to over exaggerate and go on a witch hunt because it makes me feel good for my team sucking for a decade and a half. The Pats beat us because they are better...period. I am not going to manufacture data to somehow discredit what they have accomplished just because they are in my division.
Its that simple. The alleged infraction had no impact on them being in the SB...lots of teams, if not all, do it and many other things to the footballs. Its the NFLs fault for both letting this story get so exaggerated and out of hand and to have even occurred in the first place. If it was such a difference maker, the rules would not be so relaxed and loosely enforced. ITs been going on at every level of football since the game existed. But because it was the Pats (even though it had no impact on the game in hand, in fact they played more dominant with the fully inflated balls) its now Armageddon.
Its all good, to each their own...I get why people want this to be so much more...I am just not that guy. I try to stay as unbiased as I can and evaluate the information for what it is or isn't, not what I want it to be. If hard evidence shows intentional manipulation outside the rules, they should be penalized and deserved to be penalized for the incident. But given so many past and present players have stated that its commonplace, how they penalize them will be tricky as it really isn't that big of a deal and they aren't the only guilty party.
We just agree to disagree...no big deal
-
It's like wicked haaard to ignore the gushing praise over the defense of your home town team .. The head scratcher for me is why not just post with yer homies on the pats board instead of defending the actions a rival that was convicted of actually taping the bills teams signals and it's obvious to all here except you and watkins that your Heros are tainted again and again trying to game the rules instead of actually competing on the field ..
So your response to facts is to call me a Pats fan. Priceless.
F the Pats, but the level of exaggeration, skewed with hunt stats, and conspiracy theories about this has reached epic levels.
-
Having been inspired by fellow posters(mainly NoSaint and Dave Mcbride), I thought I would have a closer look at QB Fumble Per Sack rates from a larger sample of QBs. The reasons for doing this are to see if Brady's FPS improvements were an aberration, or if indeed there were other QBs who had similar improvements after the 2006 season......and also after their first 6 seasons(the number of years played by Brady prior to 2007).
This is a very simplistic study as QB fumbles will not always directly correlate to QB sacks. QB scrambles and miscommunication between QB and Center can add non-sack related fumbles......but it should give a decent basic view.
Below are the Fumble Per Sack rates.
(Numbers indicate how many sacks each QB takes per fumble. Numbers used are for total fumbles. I also limited results to QBs who had at least 3 good seasons prior to 2007 or 3 good seasons after 2006.)
Brady
Overall: 3.8, Pre-2007: 3.1, Post-2006: 5.1
P. Manning
Overall: 3.9, Pre-2007: 3.8, Post-2006: 4.0
Brees
Overall: 3.5, Pre-2007: 3.4, Post-2006: 3.6
E. Manning
Overall: 3.3, Pre-2007: 3.1, Post-2006: 3.3
Roethisberger
Overall: 5.4, Pre-2007: 11.0, Post-2006: 4.6
McNabb
Overall: 4.3, Pre-2007: 4.5, Post-2006: 4.1
Favre
Overall: 3.2, Pre-2007: 3.1, Post-2006: 3.6
Warner
Overall: 2.5, Pre-2007: 2.8, Post-2006: 2.1
As one can see, Brady is the only one with a significant improvement post-2006....and the only one with any major variance at all apart from Big Ben who seemed to be fumble proof in his first 3 seasons(2004-2006).
As 2006 was Brady's 6th season, I thought I would have a further look at some QBs first 6 good seasons compared to the rest of their careers. This will address the point that Dave brought up earlier that QBs could very well improve their fumble rate as they gained more experience.
Brady
Overall: 3.8, First 6 seasons: 3.1, Post 6th season: 5.1
P.Manning
Overall: 3.9, First 6 seasons: 3.8, Post 6th season: 3.9
Brees
Overall: 3.5, First 6 seasons: 3.1, Post 6th season: 4.0
E. Manning
Overall: 3.3, First 6 seasons: 2.9, Post 6th season: 3.8
Roethisberger
Overall: 5.4, First 6 seasons: 6.2, Post 6th season: 4.5
McNabb
Overall: 4.3, First 6 seasons: 4.7, Post 6th season: 4.0
Favre
Overall: 3.2, First 6 seasons: 3.3, Post 6th season: 3.1
Rivers
Overall: 3.7, First 6 seasons: 3.3, Post 6th season: 4.4
Cutler
Overall: 3.4, First 6 seasons: 3.2, Post 6th season: 3.8
The numbers seem to somewhat support Dave Mcbride's view. Though Brady still has a statistically anomalous improvement of 2.0, many of the QBs improved their FPS rate after their first 6 seasons. Rivers had the second highest with a 1.1 improvement, and Brees and E.Manning had a 0.9 improvement. Roethisberger again was an aberration in the reverse having a 1.7 regression.
Out of the 9 QBs looked at here, 5 had FPS rate improvement of above 0.5, with only 2 having a regression of greater than 0.5.
I honestly think that this is all rather inconclusive as it is possible that Brady's improvement after 2006 might well have simply been a statistical anomaly akin to that of Roethisberger's. The difference between the two however is that one really has no logical reasons as to why Big Ben didn't fumble much early in his career.......but with Brady we have the deflategate, gameball rule change and team fumble stats to supply an unsavory reason as to why his fumble rate improved so much at that point in his career.
For interest sake, here are all the QBs I looked at, and their career fumble rates in order from best to worst.
(I was very surprised by some of the results on this list.)
Rogers: 5.2
Orton: 5.0
A.Smith: 4.0
Roethisberger: 4.5
McNabb: 4.3
Palmer: 4.2
Flacco: 4.0
Romo: 4.0
P.Manning: 3.9
Brady: 3.8
Rivers: 3.7
Brees: 3.5
Cutler: 3.4
E.Manning: 3.3
Favre: 3.2
Warner: 2.5
Honestly, I am pretty over this conversation, but I will just point out the obvious that for whatever reason you can't seem to understand.
Pre 2007 he played 6 years. 2007 to present 7 years (8th one he was hurt).
Guess what is included in those first 6 years? His first 3 years in the league. Guess whats included in the 7 years post 2007? The greatest QB of our generation playing in the prime of his career with some of the most talented offenses the league has ever seen in both talent and stats, including an excellent O Line.
So do you think its fair to use your sack rate, which includes a lesser Tom Brady at the start of his career with lesser talent on the offense those first 3 years against the 7 years of the prime of his career with IMMENSELY more talent around him? To be fair, thats a trick question because there is only one answer...its not fair. And if you think it is, then you are just on a witch hunt. I have already showed you how Welker fixed his punt and kick return fumbles in NE (those are the other teams balls, not ones that could be manipulated by the team) yet you refuse to believe coaching can fix fumbling. That tells me you probably haven't played the game. Tiki Barber is one of many who fixed fumbling issues. Its factual, and no amount of preaching that it isn't is going to change the fact that fumbling can be improved through coaching and emphasis.
This is why you have skewed and flawed data as not all is even close to being equal in the skill level of Tom nor the talent level of the offensive players around him in your two sample groups. To ignore the SIGNIFICANT difference in a young QB maturing and figuring the game out and a front office loading the team with talent like Moss, Welker, Gronk, Mankins and OL in general is grossly negligent in this discussion. And Brady fumbled a lot his first 3 years.
But, to each their own...we will have to agree to disagree.
-
I see they're already prepping the excuses for when the Pats get crushed on Sunday. Tom Brady had a cold!
Ha...man I hope they lose
-
It could be....but it didn't happen with Cassel or Manning.....and I'd bet that it wouldn't happen with most QBs to the extent it is with Brady. I could run some stats on it but I doubt it would make a difference in this discussion.
You state a softer ball would not help against strip sacks as a fact. Apart from the concept that one would really want to know what percent of sack/fumbles typically come from strip sacks.....I do not subscribe to your point of view. On the instant of player impact the QB would naturally(in most cases) grip down on the ball. If that ball has a little more give, that could be difference between a fumble and bringing the ball in. Sure, there are some that it would make no difference due to the nature of the hit....but many (some?) would make a difference IMO.
I know not why so many people here are forcing excuses at this situation. I understand playing devil's advocate.....and anyone who has followed my posting throughout the years knows that I like to have ample facts before drawing some sort of conclusion......but everything pretty much points in the one direction on this topic and the counter arguments are more like possible excuses rather than reasons for why it isn't so.
How can you say it didn't get better with Cassel...Cassels first 2 years 7 fumbles, 14 fumbles. Year 3 he had just 3 fumbles. How is 3 not better than 7 or 14, and that was in KC? in fact, he would never fumble more than he did his first 2 years again ever in his career.
Wes Welker improved his fumbling in NE...on Kick and Punt returns which uses the opponents ball, not the NE ball. He had 11 fumbled returns in 3 years in Miami, then only 5 in 6 years in NE. HE went from almost 4 a year to less than 1 a year in NE. That 100% had nothing to do with the football because again, its the opponents ball, not NE's ball that he receives in punt and kick returns...plus its a K ball.
Brady fumbled one time in the 2 years sandwhiched around Cassel (2007 and 2009). Just once. Cassel fumbled 7 times in 2008 alone. Brady also got sacked only 37 times in 2 years combined, and Cassel 47 times that one year. If you can't see the ELITE difference in the two players, I don't know what to tell you. Brady doesn't fumble much, and he's also pretty good at avoiding pressure in the pocket.
2007, the offense went from mediocre talent to the most talented in the League. The level of overall talent on that team, Bradys continue growth as a QB, the changing offensive schemes, etc are significant factors.
You also keep ignoring that Peyton led teams fumble at a similar rate illustrating that the Pats fumbling isn't an abnormally...unless you are prepared to implicate Peyton on this too for deflating. Peyton is the one who spear headed the change along with Brady...in fact, Aaron Rodgers credits Peyton Manning for the rule change, not Brady.
-
Well I guess Peyton Manning cheats too...because 1. Peyton is the one who spear headed this rule change, other QBs including Aaron Rogers have already credited Manning, not Brady, with this change. 2. Manning teams fumble at a comparable rate to Brady led teams.
Therefore, Manning also deflates footballs.
And the most annoying thing about this study is that it doesn't break down the other 31 teams individually...so its comparing one teams rate with an average of the rest of the league which is stupid and skewed. If you take 32 individuals, then compare the best individual to the average of the other 31, there is going to be a big discreprency, especially if the the lower tier is significantly worse.
This study does not show NE as an abnormally because we don't know if any other teams have reasonably similar fumble rates. If 3 teams have a similar fumble rate, then the conclusion that its just the Patriots and must be cheating can't be concluded unless you assume they all cheat. Furthermore, we already know that Peyton led teams fumble at a similar rate a the Pats, in fact the difference is barely noticeable.
-
Yes, it seems apparent that you are not following what I am saying.
The number of fumbles is not as important as the rate one fumbles. If one only gets sacked 10 times but fumbles 5 times, this would be a worse fumble rate than someone getting sacked 100 times and fumbling 30 times.
I assume you follow what YPA(Yards Per Attempt) means. This is the same concept but it is Fumbles Per Sack.
As the time in question is the pre-2007/post-2006, one can compare the percentage times that Patriot QBs fumbled per sack.
To make it simpler to digest I will base things on every 100 sacks....
For every 100 sacks,
Pre-2007
Tom Brady fumbled(coughed up the ball) 32 times.
For every 100 sacks,
Post-2006
Tom Brady fumbled(coughed up the ball) 20 times.
For every 100 sacks,
Pre-2007(and post Patriots)
Matt Cassel fumbled(coughed up the ball) 30 times.
For every 100 sacks,
Post-2006(with Patriots)
Mat Cassel fumbled(coughed up the ball) 17 times.
Both Brady and Cassel had a much lower fumble rate per sack while on the Patriots after the 2006 season.
Again, you are ignoring so many variables though, that all matter.
1. Sample size for NE is 1 year as he only got playing time one season.
2. His number of fumbles from sacks of 5 in NE is tied for the most fumbles he had from sacks in any of year of his career.
3. No one person fumbles the same each year. He had 14 in one year in KC alone followed by 3 in KC the next year.
4. The team he ran in NE was coming off the greatest offensive season in the history of football. The team he joined was clearly a massive down grade as an offensive unit.
5. The variance is minor in your sack rates.
6. Cassel clearly didn't fumble less in NE, he fumbled 7 times. Thats not a small number.
To say, using one season in NE compared to 7 seasons on other teams is not in any way an accurate barometer of sample size. And the NE season he still had a bad year fumbling of 7 fumbles. To now draw the conclusion that he is helped in NE to fumble less often is a false assumption and conclusion. And to also disregards the other significant factors above further dilutes the conclusion.
I get what you are doing, and I respect the work you put in...I am just saying the data is flawed for all the reasons I said above and misleading. As far as Brady goes, the offense he commanded in 2007 was light years better than offense he had in 2006 or any year prior to that. It was at the time the most dominant offense in all time and went on to be a top offense for years to come, even under Cassel it was still pretty good. Ignoring the massive increase in talent, production, and efficiency is a mistake.
-
I was using QB runs plus sacks......but if you want to simply use sacks(and there is a good argument that runs are misleading as many of them result in QB slides)....here they are:
Source:
NFL.com player stats Cassel(http://www.nfl.com/p...562/careerstats)
NFL.com player stats Brady(http://www.nfl.com/p...211/careerstats)
Matt Cassel fumble rates pre-2007 with Patriots and post Patriots(2009+)
135 sacks
40 fumbles (1 in 3.8...29.6%)
15 fumbles lost (1 in 9...11.1%)
Matt Cassel fumble rates with Patriots(2007+2008):
47 sacks
8 fumbles (1 in 5.9...17%)
4 fumbles lost (1 in 11.8...8.5%)
Tom Brady fumble rate pre-2007
182 sacks
59 fumbles (1 in 3.1...32.4%)
25 fumbles lost (1 in 7.3...13.7%)
Tom Brady fumble rates 2007+
182 sacks
36 fumbles (1 in 5.1...19.8%)
15 fumbles lost (1 in 12.1...8.2%)
Again Cassel had a mainly a lower fumble percent per sack than Brady.......but that really isn't the important point.
The important point is that both Brady's and Cassel's fumble rate was drastically reduced since 2007(on Patriots).
How do you explain this?
For interest sake, here is P.Manning's equivalent stats:
Source:
NFL.com player stats Cassel(http://www.nfl.com/player/peytonmanning/2501863/careerstats)
Manning fumble rate pre-2007
170 sacks
45 fumbles (1 in 3.8...26.5%)
16 fumbles lost (1 in 10.6...9.4%)
Manning fumble rates 2007+
117 sacks
29 fumbles (1 in 4...24.8%)
12 fumbles lost (1 in 9.8...10.3%)
As one can see, Mannings fumble percentages remained relatively constant comparing pre-2007 with post-2006. Insignificant decrease in fumbles post-2006, but an insignificant increase in fumbles lost post-2006.
Both Brady and Cassel had significant decreases in fumbles and fumbles lost post-2006. Again, how do you explain this?
Come on, lets not start using skewed facts. Second your stats are wrong...you are assuming sacks caused the fumbles, but they are grossly inaccurate. For instance, Cassels 14 fumbles in KC in 2009, only 5 were from sacks...9 were from rushing fumbles. You counted them all as fumbles from sacks, but 64% of them came from rushing the football instead of sacks in just that year alone.
Cassel played one year for the Pats, he sat the rest of the time. With the Pats he fumbled 7 times and was sacked 47 times. 5 of those fumbles were from sacks, 2 from rushing.
Brady fumbled once in 2 years surrounding the one year that Cassel played. Brady didn't fumble, Cassel does.
And lets look at Cassel, in the very next year as the starter in KC, Cassel fumbled 5 times on sacks, and 9 times on runs for a total of 14. Clearly, he has ball security issues...7 with the pats and 14 in his second year in the NFL and second year of football since High School. He lost an Elite offense, an Elite coach, and went to an inferior team...do you think maybe thats why he fumbled more?
Then in his next year in KC he cut his fumbles down to only THREE total. So he fumbled 7 times in NE, then 14 the next year in KC, then only 3 in his 2nd year in KC. So did KC start deflating balls then too, because that was less than half the fumbles he had in NE?
So your stats are already incorrect as you counted them all together and created a stat against sacks even though sacks didn't cause many of Cassels fumbles. Then you over look the one insane year where Cassel fumbled 9 times just rushing the football.
Facts are...1 year in NE as starter 7 fumbles...he only ever fumbled more than this once in any season in his career. So how can he fumble less in NE?
-
I think Moore is worth exploring in FA. He currently doesn't have a chance to start in Miami as Tannehill doesn't miss games, even when hurt. He's making 4mill/yr because he's valuable to the Fish and is a former starter. He knows the division well. At the very least I think he could be good vet backup, similar to Orton. Thoughts?
@DolfansNYC: Dolphins free-agent profile: QB Matt Moore http://t.co/aOyEdrbcbq#Dolphins
I like him and my friends who are Dolphins fan would actually prefer he starts over Tannehill. I think he could be a good option to compete at the QB spot to be a starter or backup. I think he's an upgrade to Orton personally, so would be a good guy to come in and compete with EJ and a great backup if EJ beat him out.
-
Wondering where ESPN is getting its Welker stats from, because pro football reference has totally different set of fumbleitis
And the whole thing about Brady being the best operator in the pocket is also up for a big debate, considering the allegations of Pats* tampering with the helmet and radio transmissions.
Probably from the NFL who also have him with zero fumbles with Mia and Den and 7 with NE. I don't know what weird site that is, but every major news site, including NFL.com has him at 6 career fumbles receiving and all were in NE, none with Den or Mia. Here is the NFLs website...same stats.
http://www.nfl.com/player/weswelker/2505790/careerstats
Also, as I originally pointed out, Welker has 18 additional career fumbles as a kick returner and punt returner. Most of which occurred in Mia during his first 3 years in the league. Those fumbles have no impact on the inflation of the ball because on a kick or punt return, the ball being received is not his own teams ball, its the ball from the opposing team and its their K ball. And therefore are 100% irrelevent in this discussion.
And in fact, he vastly reduced his fumbling on kick/punt returns with Patriots...which further illustrates he got better as a player at fumbling by being in NE and being coached on how to secure the ball. It could not be from deflated footballs because those footballs belong to the OTHER team and are K balls.
I mentioned Welker because you did. Welker was included in a study of six Pats** fumbling stats done by the Wall Street Journal. Collectively, he, Amendola, Green-Ellis, Woodhead, LaFell and Blount "have lost the ball 8 times in 1,482 touches for the Pats** since 2010, or once every 185.3 times. For their other teams, they fumbled 22 times in 1,701 touches (once every 77.3).
Care to explain?
WSJ reporting of Pats** curious non-QB fumble stats
No offense, but I don't care what a writer incorrectly wrote...facts are facts, what do you want me to explain? The article is clearly wrong.
He has 7 fumbles with Pats on offense, and Zero with Den and Mia. Case closed, click and count for yourself. This isn't even debatable, its 100% fact.
http://www.nfl.com/player/weswelker/2505790/careerstats
UPDATE: He actually has SEVEN fumbles with the Pats and NONE with DEN and MIA...forgot the one rushing fumble in NE. 7 fumbles with NE, 0 with DEN and Mia.
-
Where are you getting that Cassel fumbles less than Brady? Cassel fumbled 7 times in NE when Brady was out. Brady fumbled 1 time in the 2 years surrounding it...ONCE.
2007 - Brady sacked 21 times, 1 fumble.
2008 - Cassell sacked 47 times, 7 fumbles
2009 - Brady sacked 16 times, 0 fumbles.
Brady was sacked 37 times in TWO years, 1 fumble behind the same line that Cassel got sacked 47 times and with 7 fumbles in one year.
So what are you talking about?
-
Quite likely true......but what do you think explains the fact that he fumbled substantially less times per hit after 2006.....or that Matt Cassel's numbers followed suit and actually fumbled less times per hit than Brady did?
Hits on the QB don't just equate to fumbles...everyone is different, everyone has different way of holding the ball, everyone has different size hands, etc. Its not black and white.
Furthermore, the offense Brady ran from 2007 was one of the best offenses in history and since then has been among the best in the league most years. Its immensely more talented than what he had 2000-2006. Better teams protect the ball, its also why they are usually better teams. And it didn't massively drop in one year, it gradually kept going down...which coincides with the offense getting better and having more talent.
And again, the stats are very close to the same fumble rates of Peyton Mannings team. So to single out the Pats makes no sense in that regard.
-
Yes, now you're getting it...sort of. Good mention of Welker - he was one of the six who fumbled twice as often when not in a Pats** uniform as he did when in one.
Ahhh, so you are one of those guys who makes things up are you...weird, his career stats of him playing 4 years not with the Pats...2 in Miami and 2 in Denver....suggest otherwise.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/5941/wes-welker
Lets see, as a WR he has ZERO...again ZERO fumbles outside of NE. Not one fumble as a WR in Denver or Miami in 4 years. He had SIX with NE.
Not sure where you went to school, but at my school Zero is not more than 6 and its certainly not "twice as often". So how can he fumble twice as often away from NE when he's never fumbled a single time away from NE in his entire career? lol
On a side note: He has 11 fumbles as a returner outside NE and another 5 as a returner with NE. However, returners don't return balls that his QB uses, they returns the ball of the other team and its a K ball. So they have no relevance in this discussion as he would not have been returning a "deflated" ball as it was the opposing teams ball and their K ball on top of that.
So actually, Welker is significant evidence that the Pats are better at teaching ball control, because Welker cut his fumbles down big time in the return game once he got to NE.
-
Tom Brady: 2007 sacked 21 times
Matt Cassell: 2008 sacked 47 times, tied for most in league behind same line
Tom Brady: 2009 sacked 16 times.
Its pretty damn clear that Brady is a large reason why they don't turn the ball over as much in both INTs and Fumbles. He clearly, without a shadow of a doubt takes substantially less hits because of his skill. He is considered one of the best operators inside the pocket of all time for a reason.
And the most annoying thing here is this so called dramatic turn is being attributed to the ball and ignoring its the same year they added Randy Moss and Welker and they went off like no other team in history. If you think that was because of the ball and not because of 2 of the greatest players of all time in Moss and Brady, not to mention one of the most productive WRs of this generation in Welker then I don't know what to tell you. Stats already proved that the difference in the Pats and Manning led teams is negligible at best.
The truth of the matter is that pre 2007, the NE offense was made up of marginal talent at best outside of Brady. 2007 and on that team for the most part has at a high level of talent on the offense, and at times, Elite levels of talent. BB became stricter and has no patience for guys who turn the ball over either.
But if I go by what you guys say then the conclusion is that Peyton Manning cheats too because his team fumbles at a very similar rate. That bastard.
-
Posted this in other threads....can see it best placed here....
"""""
I think that the "Patriots don't get sacked much" devil's advocate argument for the reason that they have an extremely low fumble percentage is fair.....so I thought I would crunch some numbers and see what happens....
Below are Tom Brady's and Matt Cassel's numbers through their careers.
I have decided to use the combined sack and rush numbers as those were the plays where the QB theoretically has to hold onto the ball.
Source:
NFL.com player stats Cassel(http://www.nfl.com/p...562/careerstats)
NFL.com player stats Brady(http://www.nfl.com/p...211/careerstats)
Matt Cassel fumble rates with Patriots(2007+2008):
124 plays
8 fumbles (1 in 15.5)
4 fumbles lost (1 in 31)
Matt Cassel fumble rates pre-2007 with Patriots and post Patriots(2009+)
305 plays
40 fumbles (1 in 7.6)
15 fumbles lost (1 in 20.3)
Tom Brady fumble rates 2007+
413 plays
36 fumbles (1 in 11.5)
15 fumbles lost (1 in 27.5)
Tom Brady fumble rate pre-2007
421 plays
59 fumbles (1 in 7.1)
25 fumbles lost (1 in 16.9)
It looks like there is a clear reduction in the fumble rate for the Patriots QBs after the 2006 season.
"""""
You mean in 2007 when they added Randy Moss and Welker and broke all the offensive records...but I guess having immensely more talent had nothing to do with it, must be the balls
-
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
-
So guys stop fumbling because BB gets mad? They go back and forth to other teams and fumble more because Mike Tomlin is a nice guy? And NE magically give carries to guys off the street and they fumble less?
Lol, is that what I said? No. I said that when you won't have a job if you fumble, even once, you are likely to protect the ball more. Its not like guys fumble because they just drop the ball while running...the ball gets knocked out and almost always because the carrier didn't have the ball secured.
And I didn't say they grab guys off the street and by default those guys don't fumble as much...I didn't even say anything close to that lol. I said, guys who fumble don't have jobs in NE, they are cut. And they will keep cutting or benching guys until they find someone who won't fumble the ball. Therefore, the guys who suit up are not guys who typically have ball control issues like Murray, Hillman, or any other RB who seems to fumble too often.
Its really not that complicated to understand what I said. No need to twist or exaggerate it
-
Gotcha, thanks
One thing about this fumble issue...Has anyone taken into account that the Pats players literally carry every ball like its their last? You can run for 4 TDs one day and be gone the next...see Jonas Grey and several other Pats players. Unless you are elite like Gronk or Brady, if you fumble not only will you likely not play much, if at all, the rest of the game, but you also may not play again.
Its a different mentality in NE and ball control is enforced there like no other team in the NFL. The closest other example is Tom Coughlin, but even he goes back to guy usually the next week. If you fumble in NE, you may not play again. I would imagine that it has an impact on how their guys protect the ball, not to mention, guys who can't protect the ball don't normally play in NE.
I would say that is a significant factor in ball control in NE, more so than any PSI theories.
When you said "the reports were false, just like all the other leaks", I took that to mean all reports. Since you have continually downplayed every major report, that also sounds like all have been false. Your rebuttal of the Ravens is just flat wrong, and I showed you specifically why, and yet you continually keep saying it.
I will stop. Neither of us is going to chance the other's mind. Good luck on your madman theories.
-
Not without backlash. I don't see anyone else complaining that the study is flawed except you guys.
Not sure what study you guys are talking about, in terms of backlash its hard to have backlash if the story supports public opinion...and they are guilty in the court of public opinion.
Personally, I just want this to end conclusively so it can be moved on from...I doubt it will, and have even less faith that it will conclude prior to the game. The impact it had is non existent on the game in question, especially since they played better with properly inflated balls.
However, if proven guilty, the NFL has to take action. I don't think the action is as severe as what people are screaming for as the offense isn't nearly as serious as this has turned into, especially given the other Star QB of the NFC championship game, Aaron Rodgers, apparently said he likes to try and beat the system by over inflating them and seeing if the refs catch it and deflate them. Its clearly a preference issue more than an impactful advantage. Guys like Peyton Manning have petitioned and won with the NFL to have more control over their teams game footballs.
Given the wide range of hand size, grip strength, etc I feel the allowable range is too narrow. That being said, if they deliberately broke a rule or pushed the envelope too far, then action should be taken. I personally think a hefty fine is sufficient, but wouldnt be against losing a 4th round draft pick as well.
-
No, your problem was you were continually making statements that were not true, like there were no reports from the league (when there were), there were no reports of the Colts balls being checked at halftime (when there were lots), all reports have been "proven false" (which was not true), that reports said the Ravens were involves in two games (no, that was the Colts, which was true), that it was just some guy on twitter (when it was the ex-Head of the Referees), etc. There were more, too. Just because you didn't read them don't deny they exist. That's what people were jumping on you for.
lmao...I never once said all reports were proven false, man you are delusional. I said multiple reports were proven wrong/inaccurate and there were some that contradict others and most were still not proven or disproven. For instance...how can both reports be true: 11 balls were 2 PSI off...followed by 1 ball was 2 PSI off and the others not nearly as off. They can't both be true...there fore one is 100% for sure wrong, and they both could be wrong, but they both can't be correct. Dude seriously...
And the initial reports were that D'Qwell said the ball felt funny after the INT and thats how this came up...he flat out stated that was not true and that he just wanted to keep a souvenir and noticed nothing about the ball. There were reports that the Ravens felt there was something wrong with the balls and suspected the Pats...Yet Harbaugh categorically denied ever having any suspicion of foul play, manipulation, of anything of their kicking balls.
So stop already...I NEVER once said ALL reports...I have never even stated more than those...I said that multiple reports have either been wrong, inaccurate or contradict other reports. And I asked if there was any NFL official response specifically about the half time inflation of the balls multiple times. I have said all along, I just want to see what the NFL knows and I was unaware of that statement, and despite me asking multiple times if that information had been confirmed by the NFL, no one said it was, including you.
-
Was he like this in Buffalo?
CBF
Nobody cared about Buffalo when he was in Buffalo and never cared if they talked to him
-
The guy who said it is the former HEAD OF OFFICIALS for the NFL. You have claimed no knowledge or wrongly reported stories and a dozen times I gave links showing you you're wrong. Every time.
If you don't want to believe the story, don't. That's fine. But don't post stuff that isn't true, and then deny it isn't true, like saying there aren't any reports of Colts balls being checked at halftime. There are reports all over. I simply googled Colts deflated halftime and all kinds of stories came up from different legit sources.
Great, there is an NFL statement confirming that, and that was all I ever asked and until now it was not provided. All i got back were twitter reports from you and others which have been all over the place and I don't trust.
Below is my exact post from earlier. I specifically said that my comments were solely directed to the information in the post, and that if true it makes sense however nothing in the post mentioned that. I even stated I had not had a chance to read Peter Kings post and in other posts asked if we know for sure or not the balls were inflated. Since then, all I was shown was twitter comments, not an official NFL statement. And all I said all along is that I just want to see what is confirmed by the NFL before the information can be analyzed. So thank you for finally showing me the NFL statement, thats all I wanted to see.
My post from earlier:
But thats not what it says in his post...says nothing about them being inflated again at half time by the refs in what he posted. If that is true, then I see where comments come from and makes sense what he is saying. So if that was also stated, its not in that post I responded too. Like I said, I only responded to what the poster posted as I have not yet seen the Peter King article myself.
The Seahawks did something i did not think possible
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by Alphadawg7
Sherman flashed the score and made it obvious by pointing to the score board. Let's not make something into something it's not again