BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 4 Colts balls isn't a large enough sample size to be valid. As for Pats balls. http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/06/probably-doesnt-cut-it-wells-report-damns-investigators-more-than-patriots/ ... No. The 4 Colts balls lost an average of 0.47 PSI in the same conditions. (0.47, 0.47, 0.27, and 0.65 respectively) Of the 11 Pats* balls, only 2 were reasonably close to that. One had a drop of 0.42, another had a drop of 0.72 (which is close enough to 0.65 for me to admit). The average PSI drop in the Pats* balls was 1.20 and only 3 of their balls lost less than 1 PSI, over double what the Colts balls lost. If you want to argue sample size I will give the Pats* the benefit of the doubt. If their absolute best 4 were chosen they lost an average of 0.79, which is a 68% increase over the Colts balls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drifter Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 So my take away from all this is, the Pats have yet to win a Super Bowl without a cheating scandal attached to it. Quite a legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 ... 4 Pats balls are not a large enough sample size either, especially when their are, apparently, no protocols followed wrt to taking said measurements. It's folly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 4 Pats balls are not a large enough sample size either, especially when their are, apparently, no protocols followed wrt to taking said measurements. It's folly. Right, it's folly that no matter how you slice it, with the best case scenario for the Pats* their balls still lost significantly more air than the Colts, and more than can be accounted for by weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 And Rex goes vanilla! Don't blame him @mikerodak: Rex on Deflategate: "Obviously that's a league issue. When they determine whatever it is if anything, then maybe I'll have some focus on it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I apologize for not wanting to go through 52 pages of posts to see whether this has been linked, but you can go to the following site to download the report: http://nflcommunications.com/2015/05/06/ted-wells-report/ Last night, I read about 65 pages of the report before going to bed. I plan on reading the rest over the weekend. For those of you who have not read it, you may want to do so. It is very interesting. Two initial observations: 1) Based on the information on the report, I agree with the report's conclusions re Brady. 2) Given the heads up that the NFL and the game day official (Anderson) received from the Colts regarding the Pats' deflation of footballs, I am very surprised that Anderson did NOT take PSI measurements of the footballs just before game time. A bit of background, the Colts GM (Grigson) had informed the league (based on reports of the Colts' equipment guy (Sullivan) that it was common knowledge that the Pats used deflated footballs and wanted to make sure that the Colts were protected (as most of you probably know). Anderson personally measured the PSI of the footballs in the officials locker room about two hours prior to the game as is customary. Anderson told the investigators that the balls went missing and that for the first time in 19 years he was unable to locate the balls and that he did not give permission to anyone to remove the balls. Apparently, the protocol is that the game official escorts the balls to the field. This time, as we now know, McNally (Pats employee) took the balls to the field without permission and made his detour to a bathroom near the field with the balls and had enough time to deflate them. Apparently, Anderson and others were very concerned when the balls went missing. Based on this background, I am shocked that Anderson did not measure the PSI right then and there when the balls re-appeared. I am guessing that Anderson was more concerned about not delaying the kickoff any further because of the television broadcast.. Looking back, Anderson should have measured the PSI given the Colts' concern, the heads up that the NFL and he received, and to document whether there was a difference in the PSI in the interim. Also, my guess is if McNally (Pats employee) previously had deflated Pats' footballs in prior games, he did so right in the officials' locker room after the officials had measured the balls and were out on the field when the players were warming up. Apparently, the protocol was to leave the footballs in the officials' locker room while the officials were on the field during warm ups. There is an area in the officials' locker that is concealed enough to do this. McNally, however, could not have used the officials' locker prior to this game do this, because there were a lot of people from the league etc. that were using the locker room to hang out. He probably panicked and decided to take the footballs to the bathroom near the field. McNally could not come up with a good explanation as to why he did not just use the bathroom in the officials' locker room. He also said that he used the urinal in the other bathroom even though that bathroom does not have a urinal. Anyway, these are just some preliminary thoughts regarding the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Right, it's folly that no matter how you slice it, with the best case scenario for the Pats* their balls still lost significantly more air than the Colts, and more than can be accounted for by weather. http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/06/probably-doesnt-cut-it-wells-report-damns-investigators-more-than-patriots/ “Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime, however, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law,” the report reads. But the fact that by at least one or the other referee’s measurement, the air pressure of eight of eleven balls fell to expected levels undermines the verdict of “probable” guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Dog: Re point #1: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/05/07/wells-report-deflategate-patriots-andrew-brandt/ Thanks for that. Good read. That guy Brant is a consistently good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) reading that last post long post... for some reason i wondered if anderson is being honest about the "1st time in 19 years" thing, if its widely known the pats have been doing this in league circles and that is the process they use to accomplish it and we are supposing theyve done this upwards of 5 years potentially. think its the first time it happened, first time he even cared to look, or just a lie? and then of course the obvious follow up a few of you asked regarding why he wouldnt check the balls out again given he had warning and thought it was weird. Edited May 8, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Right, it's folly that no matter how you slice it, with the best case scenario for the Pats* their balls still lost significantly more air than the Colts, and more than can be accounted for by weather. It's the protocol, DUUUHHHH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/06/probably-doesnt-cut-it-wells-report-damns-investigators-more-than-patriots/ “Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime, however, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law,” the report reads. But the fact that by at least one or the other referee’s measurement, the air pressure of eight of eleven balls fell to expected levels undermines the verdict of “probable” guilt. If the referee's are incompetent, as you have claimed in this thread, then why are you hinging your argument on the measurement of just one referee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/06/probably-doesnt-cut-it-wells-report-damns-investigators-more-than-patriots/ “Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime, however, were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law,” the report reads. But the fact that by at least one or the other referee’s measurement, the air pressure of eight of eleven balls fell to expected levels undermines the verdict of “probable” guilt. Breitbart??? Seriously? Why not the Weekly World News? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 The Wiz, I didn't, I'll have to check that out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Kiko go Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) And this may be what it all boils down to in the end. An issue of the non submission of text messages rather than of actual ball pressure shenanigans, What a lovely world we now live in. My point is that Yee's claims that Brady or his attorneys were justified in refusing to turn over his responsive communications lack merit, which calls into question the reason for Brady's refusal to cooperate. But yes, independent of any wrongdoing related to deflation of the footballs, he may be punished for failing to cooperate with a league investigation into possible rule violations, which he agreed to do as part of his status as a player in this league. Do you object to him being punished for failing to cooperate with the investigation? Edited May 8, 2015 by Go Kiko go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 The flaws are seemingly many but the (fatal) flaw is we have no clear evidence of the starting PSI points of the footballs. All we have is the recollection of a ref who, as I have pointed out, functioned with highly questionable competency in this matter. Since we have no clear evidence of the starting PSI's the final PSI's matter little without an established comparable reference. I would also be interested in knowing if proper measurement testing protocol was followed by the refs in question. In particular, if they performed a R&R and employed a capable measurement system that ensured the tolerance isn't consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. This information doesn't appear in the Well's report that I can see. So this is post 921 that states your protocol issues. Can you elaborate on it for me so I have the opportunity deflect the empty gun you are throwing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richNjoisy Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Some rumors are stating a decision (punishment) could be issued as early as today. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/08/report-deflategate-punishment-could-come-this-afternoon/ My prediction is 4 game suspension. I believe 8 is the appropriate punishment but 4 is going to cause a huge uproar in an area near to a place called Boston (and in all Bostonian-leaning individuals). All others are those that see reality. BTW, I can't wait to see Tom fly in the nifty black helicopter again. I thought Jesus would be stepping out of it, or the Pope. But it was Tom. Close....real close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 If the referee's are incompetent, as you have claimed in this thread, then why are you hinging your argument on the measurement of just one referee? My noting of Anderson was simply because of the ease with which he provided for my argument. One ref or 10 refs .... it doesn't matter if they all follow an incompetent measurement protocol that relies upon their recollection abilities and not noted documentation. Breitbart??? Seriously? Why not the Weekly World News? You disagree with his #'s? So this is post 921 that states your protocol issues. Can you elaborate on it for me so I have the opportunity deflect the empty gun you are throwing? ...... that only points to a couple of the equipment protocols however. Other procedural concerns I express in later posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 My noting of Anderson was simply because of the ease with which he provided for my argument. One ref or 10 refs .... it doesn't matter if they all follow an incompetent measurement protocol that relies upon their recollection abilities and not noted documentation. You disagree with his #'s? Why do you think they measure them twice, instead of just once? Basing his argument on one reading instead of the average is a fatal flaw. I could use his exact same logic and math, but the other gauge, and state that only 3 of the balls fell to the range of 11.52 - 11.32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 The Wiz, I didn't, I'll have to check that out Most of the good stuff is in hour 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 ...... that only points to a couple of the equipment protocols however. Other procedural concerns I express in later posts. I assume you have specific protocols in mind. So rather than me asking for the numbers of the later posts could you just quickly state the protocols you have in mind? I feel like Wells asking for Brady's text messages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts