TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 That looks like an updated study from the one that was posted last week. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Are you German Tom? My girl is German and I am secretly learning it right now and I actually knew that word despite I barely know anything in German yet hahahah. Go Rosetta Stone! lol German ancestry - I have great-grandparents on both sides were immigrants (father's side, I've managed to track them back to Bavaria. Mother's I have no idea.) Also took a year and half of German in college. And I've read so much Germany-related military history that I've kept up with it to a small degree. German's a horrible language. The verb is always the second word in the sentence...unless it's a compound verb, or a complex sentence with multiple verbs, in which case one verb is the second word of the sentence and all the other verbs get tacked on at the end. And then if that's not incomprehensible enough, you can take all the words and mash them together into one new compound word. There's a reason the Germans abbreviate every damn thing (e.g. "RLM," rather than writing out "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" (literally, "Kingdom's ministry of travelling by air.") (Side note, I'm also distantly related to Jaques Cartier - something like a ninth cousin, eight times removed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 That's about as damning as you can get. Clearly shows a DRASTIC change in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Are you German Tom? Well, on PPP, Tom has "kinda" been called German before......................................... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The one question that I haven't seen answered yet by all these reports is if the 12th ball (the one not deflated) was their kickoff ball. I don't know how anyone would be able to even have a doubt there was foul play if that was confirmed (even though most don't doubt it now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Well, on PPP, Tom has "kinda" been called German before......................................... . Not Zee N word I hope?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The one question that I haven't seen answered yet by all these reports is if the 12th ball (the one not deflated) was their kickoff ball. I don't know how anyone would be able to even have a doubt there was foul play if that was confirmed (even though most don't doubt it now). That's not really in question. The kicking balls are kept separately. They would have had to take one ball out of the kicking bag, put it with the regular balls, take a regular ball to the kicking bag, then do that all again, and make sure the one ball they were using for kicking was the one they changed the air on. If they weren't doing it to help the kicking game then that wouldn't have been necessary at all. This had nothing to do with the kicking game, although, that said, they could have done the same thing to the kicking balls. Perhaps, for example, they wanted a deflated ball to punt when they were inside the opponents territory so it wouldn't bounce or travel as far and landed inside the 10 easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The one question that I haven't seen answered yet by all these reports is if the 12th ball (the one not deflated) was their kickoff ball. I don't know how anyone would be able to even have a doubt there was foul play if that was confirmed (even though most don't doubt it now). This keeps coming up. There is an entirely different set of balls used specifically for the kicking game, including kickoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Can you deflate 11 balls in 90 seconds? That is the amount of time the dude was in the bathroom. If this is all the NFL has to go on then there isn't a story here anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 This keeps coming up. There is an entirely different set of balls used specifically for the kicking game, including kickoffs. Well that's news to me. I was under the impression that they designated a kicking ball from the set of 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Has this been posted? Pretty damning evidence of chicanery from 2007 on.http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007 Oh please. This ties DIRECTLY to the QB's fumbling rate, which is in turn tied directly to the sack rate. Turns out that outlier - 2013 - was the one year that Brady was over 5 percent sack rate in the entire period of 2007 to the present. Just crappy analysis all around. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm. As Brady's fumble rate went down, so did the team's over the years. And I don't think a soft ball would have ANYTHING to do with preventing strip-sack fumbles. Basically: fewer sacks and fewer QB running plays = fewer QB fumbles. And NO ONE fumbles more than a QB. A higher percentage of passes vs. rushes/sacks also results in fewer fumbles. From 2007-2014, the Pats have an exceptionally high pass/run ratio (on the order of 610 passes/450 rushes) per season except for 2008 (Cassell's season). From 2001-06, the run percentage was a lot higher, and in 2004 they even ran it more than they passed it. The data is all here. You just have to look. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/ Seriously -- can we lay this craptastic meme to bed? In 2014, Manning fumbled 6 times and Brady fumbled 6 times. NE fumbled 16 times overall and Denver 17 times. What's the connection? Winning teams with QBs who get rid of the ball quickly and don't run with it. Pretty freaking simple. Jets QBs fumbled it 13 times and Russell Wilson fumbled it 13 times. Again, there's a reason, and it ain't deflated balls. Edited January 27, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Can you deflate 11 balls in 90 seconds? That is the amount of time the dude was in the bathroom. If this is all the NFL has to go on then there isn't a story here anymore. The balls were deliberately altered.....................no matter where or how long.................it IS a story. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The one question that I haven't seen answered yet by all these reports is if the 12th ball (the one not deflated) was their kickoff ball. I don't know how anyone would be able to even have a doubt there was foul play if that was confirmed (even though most don't doubt it now). The 12th ball was deflated, just not as much as the other 11. The 11 as usually referenced refer to the balls that were 2 lbs under. There are periodic links in the hundreds of pages of threads to article(s) which explained this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Can you deflate 11 balls in 90 seconds? That is the amount of time the dude was in the bathroom. If this is all the NFL has to go on then there isn't a story here anymore. It was brought up earlier, but the first thing I thought of (if that's really where the balls were deflated of course) is that there was another person in the bathroom waiting to help. Not difficult to do, especially if you're presuming they went into the bathroom to do it because they knew there weren't cameras there. If they were avoiding cameras, it wouldn't be hard to have someone go in twenty minutes earlier and stay in there twenty minutes after the ball boy left. Of course, if you really want to make it fun, the "second deflator" could have been smuggled in and out of the bathroom via the air ducts like Die Hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Can you deflate 11 balls in 90 seconds? That is the amount of time the dude was in the bathroom. If this is all the NFL has to go on then there isn't a story here anymore. I could do it in about 15 or 20 seconds. Of course, that would involve deflating them all to zero by sticking them with a knife... It was brought up earlier, but the first thing I thought of (if that's really where the balls were deflated of course) is that there was another person in the bathroom waiting to help. Not difficult to do, especially if you're presuming they went into the bathroom to do it because they knew there weren't cameras there. If they were avoiding cameras, it wouldn't be hard to have someone go in twenty minutes earlier and stay in there twenty minutes after the ball boy left. Of course, if you really want to make it fun, the "second deflator" could have been smuggled in and out of the bathroom via the air ducts like Die Hard. Okay, now we're turning a 90-second security video of a guy taking a piss into the Zapruder film. I think we've vaulted the squalus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBillsWillRiseAgain Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Oh please. This ties DIRECTLY to the QB's fumbling rate, which is in turn tied directly to the sack rate. Turns out that outlier - 2013 - was the one year that Brady was over 5 percent sack rate in the entire period of 2007 to the present. Just crappy analysis all around. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm. As Brady's fumble rate went down, so did the team's over the years. And I don't think a soft ball would have ANYTHING to do with preventing strip-sack fumbles. Basically: fewer sacks and fewer QB running plays = fewer QB fumbles. And NO ONE fumbles more than a QB. A higher percentage of passes vs. rushes/sacks also results in fewer fumbles. From 2007-2014, the Pats have an exceptionally high pass/run ratio (on the order of 610 passes/450 rushes) per season except for 2008 (Cassell's season). From 2001-06, the run percentage was a lot higher, and in 2004 they even ran it more than they passed it. The data is all here. You just have to look. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/ Seriously -- can we lay this craptastic meme to bed? In 2014, Manning fumbled 6 times and Brady fumbled 6 times. NE fumbled 16 times overall and Denver 17 times. What's the connection? Winning teams with QBs who get rid of the ball quickly and don't run with it. Pretty freaking simple. 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? Edited January 27, 2015 by TheBillsWillRiseAgain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) It's been reported all over that the Colts balls were checked the same way at the half. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/21/report-nfl-planned-to-inspect-patriots-football-before-dqwell-jackson-interception/ http://deadspin.com/report-nfl-was-aware-of-patriots-deflation-allegations-1680914291 So someone posting on twitter is now fact? No offense, but this is the last time I am going to say this because for some reason you can't seem to get what I am saying. We don't know if they checked the balls or not, we don't even know how many balls or by how much they were off. Several stories contradict each other and some have shown to be inaccurate. I am saying we need official answers to those questions before we can determine the significance of Peter King said, assuming Peter King is even correct about all 24 balls testing correctly post game. Its that simple...if you want to believe all the so called leaked stories as fact, so be it, thats fine. I am of the stance that I need to know the facts before we can dissect the information...and the funny thing is that we don't even know if the information is accurate from Peter King, he's been wrong before, just like everyone breaking and leaking stories has. Some more than others. 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. Edited January 27, 2015 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Oh please. This ties DIRECTLY to the QB's fumbling rate, which is in turn tied directly to the sack rate. Turns out that outlier - 2013 - was the one year that Brady was over 5 percent sack rate in the entire period of 2007 to the present. Just crappy analysis all around. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm. As Brady's fumble rate went down, so did the team's over the years. And I don't think a soft ball would have ANYTHING to do with preventing strip-sack fumbles. Basically: fewer sacks and fewer QB running plays = fewer QB fumbles. And NO ONE fumbles more than a QB. A higher percentage of passes vs. rushes/sacks also results in fewer fumbles. From 2007-2014, the Pats have an exceptionally high pass/run ratio (on the order of 610 passes/450 rushes) per season except for 2008 (Cassell's season). From 2001-06, the run percentage was a lot higher, and in 2004 they even ran it more than they passed it. The data is all here. You just have to look. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/ Seriously -- can we lay this craptastic meme to bed? In 2014, Manning fumbled 6 times and Brady fumbled 6 times. NE fumbled 16 times overall and Denver 17 times. What's the connection? Winning teams with QBs who get rid of the ball quickly and don't run with it. Pretty freaking simple. Jets QBs fumbled it 13 times and Russell Wilson fumbled it 13 times. Again, there's a reason, and it ain't deflated balls. 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!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Oh please. This ties DIRECTLY to the QB's fumbling rate, which is in turn tied directly to the sack rate. Turns out that outlier - 2013 - was the one year that Brady was over 5 percent sack rate in the entire period of 2007 to the present. Just crappy analysis all around. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm. As Brady's fumble rate went down, so did the team's over the years. And I don't think a soft ball would have ANYTHING to do with preventing strip-sack fumbles. Basically: fewer sacks and fewer QB running plays = fewer QB fumbles. And NO ONE fumbles more than a QB. A higher percentage of passes vs. rushes/sacks also results in fewer fumbles. From 2007-2014, the Pats have an exceptionally high pass/run ratio (on the order of 610 passes/450 rushes) per season except for 2008 (Cassell's season). From 2001-06, the run percentage was a lot higher, and in 2004 they even ran it more than they passed it. The data is all here. You just have to look. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/ Seriously -- can we lay this craptastic meme to bed? In 2014, Manning fumbled 6 times and Brady fumbled 6 times. NE fumbled 16 times overall and Denver 17 times. What's the connection? Winning teams with QBs who get rid of the ball quickly and don't run with it. Pretty freaking simple. Jets QBs fumbled it 13 times and Russell Wilson fumbled it 13 times. Again, there's a reason, and it ain't deflated balls. 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 German ancestry - I have great-grandparents on both sides were immigrants (father's side, I've managed to track them back to Bavaria. Mother's I have no idea.) Also took a year and half of German in college. And I've read so much Germany-related military history that I've kept up with it to a small degree. German's a horrible language. The verb is always the second word in the sentence...unless it's a compound verb, or a complex sentence with multiple verbs, in which case one verb is the second word of the sentence and all the other verbs get tacked on at the end. And then if that's not incomprehensible enough, you can take all the words and mash them together into one new compound word. There's a reason the Germans abbreviate every damn thing (e.g. "RLM," rather than writing out "Reichsluftfahrtministerium" (literally, "Kingdom's ministry of travelling by air.") (Side note, I'm also distantly related to Jaques Cartier - something like a ninth cousin, eight times removed.) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts