Kelly the Dog Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So someone posting on twitter is now fact? Again, I said I need to know if this happened...lots of these twitter reports have been contradicting themselves, or inaccurate. How many times do I have to repeat that? Over and over again with you I have stated that none of the speculation or leaked reports have been confirmed. And once again, all I am saying is that we need to know the accurate answers to those questions...its that simple. I am not saying they did or did not, I am stating I am skeptical at all these leaked reports being accurate. I am also skeptical that with such a serious and tight investigation, that so much is being leaked to the press when the NFL has said absolutely nothing. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strive_for_five_guy Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So someone posting on twitter is now fact? Again, I said I need to know if this happened...lots of these twitter reports have been contradicting themselves, or inaccurate. How many times do I have to repeat that? Over and over again with you I have stated that none of the speculation or leaked reports have been confirmed. And once again, all I am saying is that we need to know the accurate answers to those questions...its that simple. I am not saying they did or did not, I am stating I am skeptical at all these leaked reports being accurate. I am also skeptical that with such a serious and tight investigation, that so much is being leaked to the press when the NFL has said absolutely nothing. This is incorrect. The NFL has made the following statement, which is more than nothing. The statement confirms that the Patriot balls were deflated at halftime according to the gauge which you have speculated was broken, and more air was put into the balls. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/23/nfl-issues-statement-on-deflategate-investigation/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 PS - Aaron Rodgers fumbled 13 times to Brady's 6 in 2014. Rodgers had a sack rate of 8.65. Brady's was 3.5. Stop the fumble theory madness!!! And how does Aaron Rodgers like his footballs again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Simple - just look and see other security footage and see if he goes into the bathroom after getting the balls each game. That is enough evidence of a pattern of wrongdoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Uh, Brady only averaged 7 more scramble attempts PER YEAR from 2001-2006 compared to 2007-2014 and 7 more sacks PER YEAR in '01-'06 compared to '07 to '14. Are you trying to tell me that an increase of less than 0.5 scrambles and an increase of less than 0.5 sacks per game could cause that much of a statistical anomaly? Here are the fumble totals and the fumble percentage data over his career. I think the first three seasons can be explained away by the fact that he was young. After that, it's pretty consistent, although he gets progressively better until the last couple of seasons. What's key is that there are so few runs and relatively few sacks per pass play in comparison to other teams. 2001 - 9 percent sack rate (41 sacks), 36 rushes, and 13 fumbles - 13 out of 77 - 16.8 percent 2002 - 4.9 percent sack rate (31 sacks), 42 rushes, 11 fumbles - 11 out of 73 - 15.1 percent 2003 - 5.7 percent sack rate (32 sacks), 42 rushes, 13 fumbles - 13 out of 74 - 17.6 percent 2004 - 5.2 percent sack rate (26 sacks), 43 rushes, 7 fumbles - 7 out of 69 - 10.1 percent 2005 - 4.7 percent sack rate (26 sacks), 27 rushes, 4 fumbles - 4 out of 53 - 7.5 percent 2006 - 4.8 percent sack rate (26 sacks), 49 rushes, and 12 fumbles - 12 out of 75 - 16 percent 2007 - 3.5 percent sack rate (21 sacks), 37 rushes, and 6 fumbles - 6 out of 58 - 10.3 percent 2008 - NA 2009 - 2.8 percent sack rate (16 sacks), 29 rushes, and 4 fumbles - 4 out of 45 - 8.9 percent 2010 - 4.8 percent sack rate (25 sacks), 31 rushes, and 3 fumbles - 3 out of 56 - 5.4 percent 2011 - 5.0 percent sack rate (32 sacks), 43 rushes, and 6 fumbles - 6 out of 75 - 8 percent 2012 - 4.1 percent sack rate (27 sacks), 23 rushes, and 2 fumbles - 2 out of 50 - 4 percent 2013 - 6 percent sack rate (40 sacks), 32 rushes, and 10 fumbles - 10 out of 72 - 13.9 percent 2014 - 3.5 percent sack rate (21 sacks), 36 rushes, and 6 fumbles - 6 out of 57 - 10.5 percent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Also, Payton Manning fumbles significantly less as both a percentage and in terms of total numbers than Brady. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm None of that explains such a huge gap in the fumble charts from that study. Not even close. That chart is BS - go to the pages in the 90s where people discussed this at length and with data. The Pats are in the high range of normal. The dome stadium thing argument is a canard in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 How does this deflection of the topic onto QB sacks address the fact that non-QBs (the six highlighted in the linked article) fumbled half as often while wearing the Pats** uniform as they did for other teams? Analyst: "Patriots Fumble at a 'Nearly Impossible' Rate" LOL, if it was such a nearly impossible rate then why hasnt anyone discussed it before? Has anyone even given thought to the fact that if you fumble BB will yank you and you will barely play the rest of the game, if at all? Not only that, you may lose your job for weeks or for good, especially at RB. If you are a Pat and want to play, you don't fumble...period. People are grossly exaggerating the impact it has on fumbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Ha, awesome. And yes, I joke with her about her language all the time. I said the language is proof they love beer so much because they must form their words while hammered and slurring 3 or 4 words into one lol. I dont understand whey they made so many ridiculously long words. I am trying to learn it though as a surprise for her and her family when they come visit this summer. They all speak english too except her step dads english isn't that good and her 5 year old nephew only speaks German. Using Rosetta Stone...so we will see how that works out lol. Cant even imagine how anyone could play Scrabble in German, you would need a 5 foot square board and 5 times the tiles lol. I always hated the verb structure. Hated it. I remember times in college, I'd read a sentence, get to the end of it and see five goddamn verbs, and by the time I figured out which verb was doing what to what, I'd forgotten the rest of the sentence and had to start over. Of course, in college they're not teaching you conversational German, they're teaching you to read incomprehensible **** like Kafka (who I swear was only "Kafkaesque" because he wrote in German), so you're getting the most difficult grammar imaginable. Still better than Arabic. I tried teaching myself Arabic a while back. It made me realize why so many Arabs are terrorists: It's a beautiful script (I have a folio from an illuminated 14th-century Koran from Herat, it's absolutely gorgeous), but three weeks of just trying to figure out the damned alphabet made me want to go out and kill someone. Friggin' Japanese was easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Also, Payton Manning fumbles significantly less as both a percentage and in terms of total numbers than Brady. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00.htm That chart is BS - go to the pages in the 90s where people discussed this at length and with data. The Pats are in the high range of normal. The dome stadium thing argument is a canard in any case. Over his career, Manning fumbles on 10.6 percent of plays in which he rushes or is sacked; Brady fumbles at an 11.2 percent rate. Manning's teams have great fumble numbers too. Why? Not because of a dome. It's because he's really good at avoiding sacks and because he's on teams that have a higher pass/run ratio than other league teams. Edited January 27, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 And how does Aaron Rodgers like his footballs again? "Like beach balls apparently." - Matt Stafford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 People are grossly exaggerating the impact it has on fumbles. Maybe, maybe not. People are grossly simplifying and over-analyzing one single statistical measure, though. I'd wager that, while lower pressure does make the ball easier to hold, HOW you hold the ball is a much, much bigger factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 LOL, if it was such a nearly impossible rate then why hasnt anyone discussed it before? Has anyone even given thought to the fact that if you fumble BB will yank you and you will barely play the rest of the game, if at all? Not only that, you may lose your job for weeks or for good, especially at RB. If you are a Pat and want to play, you don't fumble...period. People are grossly exaggerating the impact it has on fumbles. Why would anyone think to look at Patriots fumble statistics that closely before they got caught cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Maybe, maybe not. People are grossly simplifying and over-analyzing one single statistical measure, though. I'd wager that, while lower pressure does make the ball easier to hold, HOW you hold the ball is a much, much bigger factor. Yes, agreed on all accounts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Over his career, Manning fumbles on 10.6 percent of plays in which he rushes or is sacked; Brady fumbles at an 11.2 percent rate. Manning's teams have great fumble numbers too. Why? Not because of a dome. It's because he's really good at avoiding sacks and because he's on teams that have a higher pass/run ratio than other league teams. How are you quantifying the advantage of playing in a dome and determining that's not a big reason the Broncos have good fumble numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) How are you quantifying the advantage of playing in a dome and determining that's not a big reason the Broncos have good fumble numbers? It's pretty simple. The QB virtually always leads the team in fumbles. They fumble less if they rush less and get sacked less. Also, dome teams throw more than outdoor teams on average. There are exceptions: the Broncos under Manning and the Pats under Brady. That's because their passing games are so good. Neither qb runs much and neither qb gets sacked much. On a significant portion of their plays, plays end in incompletions given that they throw so much. In baseball, that's called a "true outcome" (like a K, a homer, or a walk)-nothing can change the play. It bears repeating that since 2007 or so, the Pats have become a pass first team. The Broncos under Manning are also a pass first team. The key, though, is limiting sacks and limiting QB runs. Both teams do. Edited January 27, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Maybe, maybe not. People are grossly simplifying and over-analyzing one single statistical measure, though. I'd wager that, while lower pressure does make the ball easier to hold, HOW you hold the ball is a much, much bigger factor. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's pretty simple. The QB virtually always leads the team in fumbles. They fumble less if they rush less and get sacked less. Also, dome teams throw more than outdoor teams on average. There are exceptions: the Broncos under Manning and the Pats under Brady. That's because their passing games are so good. Neither qb runs much and neither qb gets sacked much. On a significant portion of their plays, plays end in incompletions given that they throw so much. In baseball, that's called a "true outcome" (like a K, a homer, or a walk)-nothing can change the play. It bears repeating that since 2007 or so, the Pats have become a pass first team. The Broncos under Manning are also a pass first team. The key, though, is limiting sacks and limiting QB runs. Both teams do. Then why are the Patriots' fumble numbers so much better than the Broncos'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The Patriots* are totally innocent of any wrongdoing, and this was all trumped up by the NFL to ruin their image right before the Super Bowl. THAT sounds ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts