Clippers of Nfl Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 Maybe he'll bring his own needle? LMAO on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Fumbling is the point he is making. and the problem is he keeps saying FUMBLES but quoting the stats for FUMBLES LOST to make it sound even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 And let the hot air out of Rex? No way. the boo radleys very nice Brave Captain.....but this is like pretending Ortiz has been on the juice we choose to ignore it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 and the problem is he keeps saying FUMBLES but quoting the stats for FUMBLES LOST to make it sound even worse. What's wrong with you dude? I argued both categories. They are fumbling more AND losing more. You need to re-read my posts. That's not what Im doing. I cant be doing that. Since they are looking bad in both categories. They have fumbled 3 times. 3 x 8 = 24 They are losing more too. Lost 2. 2*8 =16 So AT THIS POINT they are on pace to fumble 24 times. They fumbled 13 times last year. So YES on pace to fumble 11 more times than last year. That's worse. And they are on pace to LOSE 16 fumbles. They lost 2 so far. That's horrible. In 2 games they have already lost half of all lost fumbles from an entire season. That too is worse. When you're wrong, just shhh. My disclaimer for the 100th time. The only problem with this thread is that it MAY be too early. So there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 What's wrong with you dude? I argued both categories. They are fumbling more AND losing more. You need to re-read my posts. That's not what Im doing. I cant be doing that. Since they are looking bad in both categories. They have fumbled 3 times. 3 x 8 = 24 They are losing more too. Lost 2. 2*8 =16 So AT THIS POINT they are on pace to fumble 24 times. They fumbled 13 times last year. So YES on pace to fumble 11 more times than last year. That's worse. And they are on pace to LOSE 16 fumbles. They lost 2 so far. That's horrible. In 2 games they have already lost half of all lost fumbles from an entire season. That too is worse. When you're wrong, just shhh. My disclaimer for the 100th time. The only problem with this thread is that it MAY be too early. So there. right but in the post i was commenting on (which is the comment he replied to) you said "if they fumble two more times theyve matched last years total" which is not true, and makes it sound MUCH more skewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 right but in the post i was commenting on (which is the comment he replied to) you said "if they fumble two more times theyve matched last years total" which is not true, and makes it sound MUCH more skewed. If they lose 2 more times early in the season, their LOST category will look bad. (Same as last year bla bla bla) I'll be the family guy evil monkey pointing at the pats. They are on pace for that in just 2 games. So we will see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dopey Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 So is your theory that deflated fumbled footballs are easier for the offense to recover?Did you read the op's 1st post? If you did, this question you ask is pretty stupid. Ohhhh, sarcasm?! My bad.and the problem is he keeps saying FUMBLES but quoting the stats for FUMBLES LOST to make it sound even worse.Stop it, if you read the 1st post you would know what the debate really is. I know you read the 1st one, so you know what he is referring to. Do you also correct someone who uses to instead of too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 (edited) Last year the pats* fumbled 13 times, but only lost 4. An entire season This year the pats* have fumbled 3 times, and lost 2. In 2 weeks! On pace for an average season of 24 fumbles with 16 lost. What excuse will the pats* have? Oh god...here we go. Lets see, 2 fumbles were by the same guy Dion, who is NEW to the team. The other was a strip sack that no amount of PSI, glue, tape, etc would help. So, I am not seeing the connection to PSI in those 3 fumbles. Especially since 2 are by a guy who has 3 fumbles in 73 career carries. Must be the PSI lol. Edited September 25, 2015 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 Oh god...here we go. Lets see, 2 fumbles were by the same guy Dion, who is NEW to the team. The other was a strip sack that no amount of PSI, glue, tape, etc would help. So, I am not seeing the connection to PSI in those 3 fumbles. Especially since 2 are by a guy who has 3 fumbles in 73 career carries. Must be the PSI lol. Why are you using Dion as an excuse AS IF THE FUMBLES DIDNT OCCUR? C'mon guys. What the heck? Maybe a little early to tell. But so far the stat line, NOT THE freaking PLAYER. The overall stat line is not helping the pats* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Why are you using Dion as an excuse AS IF THE FUMBLES DIDNT OCCUR? C'mon guys. What the heck? Maybe a little early to tell. But so far the stat line, NOT THE freaking PLAYER. The overall stat line is not helping the pats* they are using it like theres the chance dion is the issue not the ball. you know, cause that very well might be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 they are using it like theres the chance dion is the issue not the ball. you know, cause that very well might be the case. But in years past, typically players who fumbled twice in 2 games would never see the field again for the Pats*. I find it interesting that Dion hasn't been reprimanded by big bad Belichick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 they are using it like theres the chance dion is the issue not the ball. you know, cause that very well might be the case. There is also a chance that they are fumbling more because the ball is finally correct air pressure. Why find any excuse to help the pats*? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 This thread is utterly preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Boston Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 the boo radleys very nice Brave Captain.....but this is like pretending Ortiz has been on the juice we choose to ignore it I really don't care about baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 This thread is utterly preposterous. I like a little utterly preposterous now and again. and its just for fun anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 I was sweating a little earlier... I thought a math quiz was going to pop up! No one told me there would be a test! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 There is also a chance that they are fumbling more because the ball is finally correct air pressure. Why find any excuse to help the pats*? Weird...Welker fumbled at the highest rates in his career with the Patriots. No fumbles as a WR for Denver or Miami. Weird that it doesn't support your so well thought out conclusions that the PSI makes it nearly impossible to fumble. I mean by your logic, Welker should have fumbled at least a half dozen times in Denver yet never did. Or maybe, the kid who has 3 fumbles in his first 72 carries and is small to begin with just isn't very good at holding onto the football? This has nothing to do with defending the pats...its facing reality or trying to paint an over the top story in the name of sensationalism and slander. I hate the Pats, but I still prefer to swim in the waters of reality versus mythical wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strive_for_five_guy Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 Did you read the op's 1st post? If you did, this question you ask is pretty stupid. Ohhhh, sarcasm?! My bad. Stop it, if you read the 1st post you would know what the debate really is. I know you read the 1st one, so you know what he is referring to. Do you also correct someone who uses to instead of too? Is the OP's theory that the evidence in the Pats first two games shows that deflated footballs make it harder for lost fumbles to be recovered? Or that the deflated footballs are fumbled more? Both? Or is he not trying to make any argument, just stating facts? From later posts, it is sounding like the OP is theorizing both, but I didn't ask for your input on the OP's intentions. While the sample size is way too small to make any conclusions on any theory, it is still interesting to consider the theories out there, lmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 Weird...Welker fumbled at the highest rates in his career with the Patriots. No fumbles as a WR for Denver or Miami. Weird that it doesn't support your so well thought out conclusions that the PSI makes it nearly impossible to fumble. I mean by your logic, Welker should have fumbled at least a half dozen times in Denver yet never did. Or maybe, the kid who has 3 fumbles in his first 72 carries and is small to begin with just isn't very good at holding onto the football? This has nothing to do with defending the pats...its facing reality or trying to paint an over the top story in the name of sensationalism and slander. I hate the Pats, but I still prefer to swim in the waters of reality versus mythical wishes. Actually the author of the original study looked more broadly at fumbling patterns for Pats* in other places and found they fumbled at a much higher rate elsewhere than in NE*, which you'd know if you followed this story closely. Using Welker is kind of cherry picking in such case. I certainly have no desire to offer up an excuse for those guys, but one guy can skew a season. Hasn't the same guy fumbled twice? Is the third fumble the brady strip sack? If so, besides having less than 2 PSI in the ball and a hand full of stick'um (ala Orlando Jones in The Replacements), i don't think there was any stopping that fumble! On the strip sack point, do you mean like the very similar tomahawk chop sack by Hughes at home last October that Brady did in fact hold onto? That play was the first thing I thought of when Deflategate broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 They are 2-0 and just kicked our ass what does it matter?They fumbled twice. When was the last time they fumbled once, much less twice, in a game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts