Patriots locker room attendant implicated in Deflate gate

[dave mcbride]

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

 

Classic non-factoring of ST fumbles, which should not count in this calculus.

Pretty sure every coach in the league places a huge emphasis on ball security. There's only so much emphasis and practice you can do in ball security before doing that much more doesn't make a difference. We're talking about one of the most basic principles of football that players learn when they're in peewee football. Do the patriots invent some secret way to hold a ball or something?

Yes. They cut or seriously bench players who fumble a lot. The Cowboys let Demarcus Murray fumble away and keep feeding him the ball. The Bills did the same with Travis Henry. The evidence is right there in front of you.

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?

As I said earlier, qb fumbles don't really apply to this whole debate about whether a soft ball causes fewer fumbles or not. Qbs fumble because of strip sacks and the like -- they are not holding onto the ball for dear life. The more aware qbs like Brady fumble less; the Rob Johnsons of the world fumble more. It's actually irrelevant if you think about it, but it is important when adding up total fumbles. In any case, only a fool would argue that qb fumbles are indicative of anything about the ball. They almost always fumble because of blindside hits and the like, not runs up the middle a la Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis. Also, to reiterate, comparing manning and brady is like comparing godzilla and mothra. Take a look at the randall cunninghams and matthew staffords of the world.

 

Little known fact: Orton, who was good at going fetal, and manuel combined for 4 total fumbles this season.

 

Edited January 28, 2015 by dave mcbride

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

There are other teams that bench or cut players that fumble.

[PromoTheRobot]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/12-footballs-in-the-bathroom-for-science-389954627708

 

Can it be done in 90 seconds?

[dave mcbride]

There are other teams that bench or cut players that fumble.

Name them. And name a team that is as notorious as NE. The only team I can think of is the 1992-93 Cowboys. No one else. The reason is because the pats view players as interchangeable, replaceable parts, not precious commodities outside of a couple of positions.

Edited January 28, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Dibs]

As I said earlier, qb fumbles don't really apply to this whole debate about whether a soft ball causes fewer fumbles or not. Qbs fumble because of strip sacks and the like -- they are not holding onto the ball for dear life. It's actually irrelevant if you think about it, but it is important when adding up total fumbles. In any case, only a fool would argue that qb fumbles are indicative of anything about the ball. They almost always fumble because of blindside hits and the like, not runs up the middle a la Ben Jarvis Green-Ellis.

 

I guess I must be a fool then.

 

It certainly is strange how Brady went from fumbling 1 in every 3 sacks to fumbling 1 in every 5 sacks post 2006.

 

Many people espouse the concept that QBs with large hands tend to fumble less. At the time of impact the automatic gripping of the football would be a little more effective than somebody with smaller hands......similarly it would be a little bit more effective if the ball had a little bit more give in it.

 

No.....ignore all that, I'm just a fool.

[dave mcbride]

I guess I must be a fool then.

It certainly is strange how Brady went from fumbling 1 in every 3 sacks to fumbling 1 in every 5 sacks post 2006.

Many people espouse the concept that QBs with large hands tend to fumble less. At the time of impact the automatic gripping of the football would be a little more effective than somebody with smaller hands......similarly it would be a little bit more effective if the ball had a little bit more give in it.

No.....ignore all that, I'm just a fool.

Could it possible be that he got better at ball security -- you know, improved his pocket awareness over time? It does in fact happen, you know. Regardless, a softer ball ain't gonna help you on a strip sack.

[Dibs]

Could it possible be that he got better at ball security -- you know, improved his pocket awareness over time? It does in fact happen, you know. Regardless, a softer ball ain't gonna help you on a strip sack.

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.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Dibs

[papazoid]

Pretty sure every coach in the league places a huge emphasis on ball security. There's only so much emphasis and practice you can do in ball security before doing that much more doesn't make a difference. We're talking about one of the most basic principles of football that players learn when they're in peewee football. Do the patriots invent some secret way to hold a ball or something?

''Our message has been the same here from Day 1 that ball security is of the highest priority for anybody that handles the ball,'' Belichick said in a conference call with reporters on Friday. ''There can be no mistake about that message. That message has been delivered ad nauseam.''

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Belichick-Ball-security-is-the-highest-priority-40523667

[1B4IDie]

The kid that took a pee is Bill BELLICHEAT's Son!!!!

WTF!

No wonder they came out so hard in defense

[Dibs]

''Our message has been the same here from Day 1 that ball security is of the highest priority for anybody that handles the ball,'' Belichick said in a conference call with reporters on Friday. ''There can be no mistake about that message. That message has been delivered ad nauseam.''

 

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Belichick-Ball-security-is-the-highest-priority-40523667

But that highest priority ball security seemed to only have an effect compared to the rest of the league after 2006.

[reddogblitz]

Peyton has been suspiciously silent throughout all of this though. It was him and Brady together who got the rule changed after 2006 ..

 

Be careful what you ask for.

[BillnutinHouston]

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.

 

Agree. It really is bizarre. I would hope that the apologists at least recognize and lament the fact that the Pats** have forever lost the benefit of the doubt in the court of public opinion based on their history of aggressively pushing the ethical limits of the game. Their "end justifies the means" philosophy may be effective but it certainly isn't attractive to the vast majority of fans.

The kid that took a pee is Bill BELLICHEAT's Son!!!! WTF! No wonder they came out so hard in defense

 

Fact or speculation?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

The kid that took a pee is Bill BELLICHEAT's Son!!!! WTF! No wonder they came out so hard in defense

got link?

[l< j]

We don't have to prove that it mattered or had an impact on their winning %ages. They got caught tampering with equipment. End of story. It doesn't matter if stats show it was a big deal or not.

 

The rules say they can't do it. They did it. It's part of a pattern. Make them pay. Draft picks + fine.

 

It also doesn't matter which individual did it. The organization is unable to police itselfand that starts with Belichick. Ball boys don't do anything without instructions. And nothing that man does wastes time or energy. Make the organization pay and maybe their actions will begin to match their rhetoric about playing fair and staying far away from anything resembling cheating.

 

The discussion about advantages and fumbling rates is a distraction.

 

kj

[NoSaint]

We don't have to prove that it mattered or had an impact on their winning %ages. They got caught tampering with equipment. End of story. It doesn't matter if stats show it was a big deal or not.

 

The rules say they can't do it. They did it. It's part of a pattern. Make them pay. Draft picks + fine.

 

It also doesn't matter which individual did it. The organization is unable to police itselfand that starts with Belichick. Ball boys don't do anything without instructions. And nothing that man does wastes time or energy. Make the organization pay and maybe their actions will begin to match their rhetoric about playing fair and staying far away from anything resembling cheating.

 

The discussion about advantages and fumbling rates is a distraction.

 

kj

well, its also part of how you settle on how big of a fine and how many draft picks, and if suspensions are needed, etc.... penalties relate to the nature of the infraction.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I can't believe you guys don't buy the "lone wolf ball boy" story.

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

Here's a question for you guys:

Do you think the league will wait until after the Superbowl to announce their findings? I'd be very surprised if they didn't already know pretty much what they're going to say by now. Does waiting until after the bowl hurt or help the game? On one hand if they're innocent, you'd think they'd want to announce it before the game so people won't look at the match as a game tainted by one side being cheaters, but on the other hand if they DO have definitive proof the Pats cheated they'd probably wait until after the bowl for the same reason.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Here's a question for you guys:

 

Do you think the league will wait until after the Superbowl to announce their findings? I'd be very surprised if they didn't already know pretty much what they're going to say by now. Does waiting until after the bowl hurt or help the game? On one hand if they're innocent, you'd think they'd want to announce it before the game so people won't look at the match as a game tainted by one side being cheaters, but on the other hand if they DO have definitive proof the Pats cheated they'd probably wait until after the bowl for the same reason.

 

I'm not sure they've interviewed enough ball boys yet. There are probably retired former ball boys from NFL Europe on the input radar.

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

I heard the last ball boy wouldn't say anything other than "I'm just here so I won't get fined."

[papazoid]

Here's a question for you guys:

 

Do you think the league will wait until after the Superbowl to announce their findings? I'd be very surprised if they didn't already know pretty much what they're going to say by now. Does waiting until after the bowl hurt or help the game? On one hand if they're innocent, you'd think they'd want to announce it before the game so people won't look at the match as a game tainted by one side being cheaters, but on the other hand if they DO have definitive proof the Pats cheated they'd probably wait until after the bowl for the same reason.

 

absolutely wait til after SB. in fact, we will be lucky if the league concludes it's findings by Feb 15th.