Lets Ponder the Patriots Deflationgate Issue

[Miller]

I want to know what the values really were. If it was 1 psi, that's kind of interesting.

Some sites have broken out the ideal gas laws and come up with varying drops in PSI. Regardless of what the number is, I think it's kind of interesting. On a cold day it's mathematically possible that any ball inflated to 12.5 psi is actually out of range at kick off.

Right! BTW, I wasn't talking about people on his site. Just more or less the media and people screaming across the country.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...s_lose_an_insanely_low_number_of_fumbles.html

What's interesting is BenJarvus Green-Ellis never had a fumble in 557 touches for the Patriots. With the Bengals, he had 5 fumbles in 517 touches.

Hmmmmmm....






YR

 

[Rogah]

First off you are the one attacking everyone for their opinion on this so back off. Where in my reply, or the post I was referring to in it, did I state the patriots were guilty? Oh that's right I did not. All I did was show you facts:

Fact 1: You attacked a chart someone posted and said you independently verified that the Patriots had 108 fumbles in 5 years according to Pro football reference. I showed year by year that it was only 81. So yes I question your bias when you inflate numbers to prove a point.

Yes I was mistaken and here's why:

I went to pro-football reference.com and checked the numbers. I counted Brady's fumbles plus the rushing/receiving fumbles. I figured that would cover the QB's, RB's and WR's (I might miss something quirky like when a defensive or special teams member fumbles, but those would be negligible). However, PFR.com puts the QB in "rushing/receiving" so I inadvertently was counting Tom Brady twice. I apologize for the factual error, which was entirely accidental.

However, let the record show that I didn't make up an entire chart based on the results of my findings. Furthermore, my 108 number was still closer to the actual total than the graph's number of 33.

Fact 2: You said the chart was wrong because it said the patriots only had 33 fumbles and you magically came up with 108. I provided a link and told you the 33 was fumbles lost not fumbles.

Well that right there should set off alarm bells in any impartial individual's head. If the theory is that deflated footballs help a player maintain possesion, then why in the world are you only looking at "fumbles lost" instead of "total fumbles."

I stated the chart difficult to read because it was labelled wrong.

Oh, so you believe the conclusions of everything the guy says (since it fits your agenda) even though he can't get something as simple as a chart label correct.

That's like believing the conclusions of a mathematician who starts his thesis by informing us all 1 + 1 = 3.

 

[Miller]

You mean the same reports that came from the same people that told us that Marinelli was headed to Tampa Bay?

I understand of holding off judgment, but people jumping to conclusions comes with the territory when you have blatantly cheated before.

And it doesn't help matters that:

1. Brady claimed he doesn't even touch the footballs which is something that every QB, even those that like Brady, do not believe. I think that is what brought Brunell almost to tears...he admires Brady and then Brady said he doesn't even touch the footballs which is something that the QB's will tell you just isn't true.


2. That Belichick claimed he didn't touch the footballs and had no knowledge of them and put the blame on Brady's doorstep. Then Belichick does another impromptu press conference and says that he has handled footballs in the name of research. That's a classic case of somebody lying and trying to cover their tracks.


I do believe in that you're innocent until proven guilty, even if it is not a court of law. Obviously, this is not a court of law type of case. So, our judgment can only go as this story develops over time. And so far, I believe that the Patriots are lying because:

a) They've cheated before
b) They've lied about cheating before (on multiple occasions)
c) They are being accused of deflating footballs when the Colts' balls were not deflated
d) No NFL QB or former NFL QB believes Brady
e) Belichick's comments are typical of somebody lying and trying to cover their own tracks (let's face it, based on SpyGate, the guy is bad at lying).

And we have a Super Bowl that is about to get underway, so it's a bit of a time sensitive subject that leads to time sensitive conclusions.







YR

First of all I appreciate the thought into your post an understand where you are coming from. But there are some points that I respectfully disagree with and that I don't find right.

1) The Patriots, as far as I know, did cheat for Spygate, but didn't hide it. Belichick and others admitted from Day 1 that the videotaped signals. They only said others did it too. As far as everything I read there was never proof they video taped the SB practice. No taps or anything.

2) The Patriots have kept winning since then and besides some formations people are mad about which are legal, what is their history of cheating besides Spygate?

3) There are plenty of QBs who don't think Brady is lying. Dan Marino and Joe Theisman to name two. Both said they couldn't tell the difference in balls and that in t heat of a game you wouldn't notice if a ball was off, especially in the rain.

4) I think you are mischaracterizing both men's press conferences. Brady obviously touches the balls because he said he likes them at 12.5 psi. They also scrub them down, etc. He said he doesn't touch them once he pick his balls and then sends them to he refs and NFL. Considering they then have them until 10 minutes before the game, that sounds reasonable. I've also heard many,many pros say that most coaches have nothing to do with the balls and that its always a QB or ball boy that deals with this game day minutae.

Again, I doesn't mean nothing is wrong but I think people have can bat s#$% crazy over something they don't know much about and if it was any other team they would have moved along. Heck, Belichick was still arguing Spygate an discussing video taping signals in front of 80000 people at the other presser. Part of me agrees its a witch hunt. I'm glad the NFL is going all out because I want to know what is found before wagging a finger.

 

[Deep_South]

Well that right there should set off alarm bells in any impartial individual's head. If the theory is that deflated footballs help a player maintain possesion, then why in the world are you only looking at "fumbles lost" instead of "total fumbles."

Yeah, I felt exactly the same way when seeing that "fumbles lost" was supposed to prove anything with regard to cheating with deflated footballs, and I think it is fair to assume that is what the chart was all about. I agree that "just plain fumbles" is where one would want to look, although without knowing if or when the Patriots started playing with deflated balls, I'm not sure what conclusion could be reached.

 

[irishline]

However, let the record show that I didn't make up an entire chart based on the results of my findings. Furthermore, my 108 number was still closer to the actual total than the graph's number of 33.

The graph actually uses fumbles lost, he labelled it wrong. So no your 108 is not closer, in fact it was not even the number the graph is based on. I gave you the link because he states that in the update and then creates a chart based on total fumbles. The chart is accurate for all teams in fumbles lost just the label was incorrect.

Again, the chart was correct and no your 108 was actually closer to the charts number because he used fumbles lost though our it for all teams.

Well that right there should set off alarm bells in any impartial individual's head. If the theory is that deflated footballs help a player maintain possesion, then why in the world are you only looking at "fumbles lost" instead of "total fumbles."
Oh, so you believe the conclusions of everything the guy says (since it fits your agenda) even though he can't get something as simple as a chart label correct.

And you couldn't even get the number of fumbles right. That right there tells you what? That mistakes can be made, however it this case he corrected it just as you just did. So using your logic did you get the number of fumbles wrong because it fits your agenda? Adding 5 numbers is as simple as labelling a chart (they weren't even 3 digit numbers). See this can work both ways really.

I do agree with you on the fumbles lost versus total fumbles though. However, in his new chart that uses total fumbles there isn't much difference in the results. It just increases the amount of plays per fumble for indoor teams a bit.

That's like believing the conclusions of a mathematician who starts his thesis by informing us all 1 + 1 = 3.

I understand discrete mathematics and its principles. I am not going to even dignify that with an answer because in this case you know how stupid and ridiculous that notion is.

 

[Rockport]

I read a stat that the Patriots has the lowest fumble rating in the NFL. Compared to the Cowboys which I believe is probably one of the highest fumble ratings in the league. Thus its safe to assume that this wasn't a one time occurrence and that it helped them with their fumbling issue or the lack of it there of.

Now go back to the Green Bay where Murray fumbled the ball. If we would have cheated maybe and quite possibly Murray holds onto that ball and scores on a TD to put Dallas ahead and makes it much harder for Green Bay to win.

If that happened and found out that Dallas cheated and it affected the game, would you all be okay with that?

Honestly, I wouldn't. I would be ashamed that my team cheated and that it affected us because Murray's fumble problems were solved by deflating the balls, making it easier for him to hold onto it.

Thus I believe Patriots should be punished severely. Worst than what the Saints got. I say 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounds and their coach banned for a year from talking the players.

Saints didn't cheat. Yet got punished. Patriots cheated and they've done it before. Thus they should be punished accordingly.

Let's don't.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Following rules just for the sake of following rules is BS.

LOL! ... classic, ... can't believe anyone said that.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Why is this a safe assumption?

What do the Cowboys' fumbles have to do with anything in terms of making this a safe assumption?

Its would be safe to assume that our chances of beating Green Bay would go up dramatically if Murray didn't fumble the ball. That the reason for him not fumbling was because of the ball was deflated and enabled him to have a better grip.

The Patriots have the lowest fumble rating in the NFL at almost 2 to 1. They play outdoors and I don't think its a coincident that having deflated balls helps them from preventing fumbles.

Thus if we hypothetically deflated the balls like the Patriots, we would have a much greater chance of being in the Superbowl. Thats what cheating gets you.

 

[Hoofbite]

Its would be safe to assume that our chances of beating Green Bay would go up dramatically if Murray didn't fumble the ball. That the reason for him not fumbling was because of the ball was deflated and enabled him to have a better grip.

The Patriots have the lowest fumble rating in the NFL at almost 2 to 1. They play outdoors and I don't think its a coincident that having deflated balls helps them from preventing fumbles.

Thus if we hypothetically deflated the balls like the Patriots, we would have a much greater chance of being in the Superbowl. Thats what cheating gets you.

You compared the Patriots to the Cowboys and it looks like you're saying that because of the Cowboys fumbling issues it's safe to assume the Patriots have been deflating balls for much longer than one game.

I'm just not certain how the Cowboys have anything to do with it.

 

[WV Cowboy]

You compared the Patriots to the Cowboys and it looks like you're saying that because of the Cowboys fumbling issues it's safe to assume the Patriots have been deflating balls for much longer than one game.

I'm just not certain how the Cowboys have anything to do with it.

I think he is just saying that if we cheated by deflating balls, and consequently fumbled less, maybe Murray would not have fumbled against GB and we would have won.

I think that's what he meant.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

1) The Patriots, as far as I know, did cheat for Spygate, but didn't hide it. Belichick and others admitted from Day 1 that the videotaped signals. They only said others did it too. As far as everything I read there was never proof they video taped the SB practice. No taps or anything.

That's actually incorrect.

They lied that they ever taped anybody.

When they were caught in that lie they admitted to it, but said they only did it 'a few times.'

When they were caught in that lie, they copped to it and said 'we only taped defensive signals'

When they were caught in that lie, they started to admit to it but placed the blame on 'rogue' cameramen overzealous in their work.

When Matt Walsh, a former cameraman, wanted to come forth and tell the league that these directions came from Belichick, Belichick claimed he 'couldn't spot Walsh out of a lineup' despite the fact that they were standing side-by-side in 3 separate team photos.

Futhermore, Walsh initially wanted to come forward, but was afraid that the Patriots would come after him with a lawsuit. And he was right...the Patriots did want to come after him with a lawsuit, but the league..forced by Arlen Specter, had to give Walsh amnesty.

And the Patriots still did what they could thru the media to besmirch Walsh's name.

2) The Patriots have kept winning since then and besides some formations people are mad about which are legal, what is their history of cheating besides Spygate?

The formations thing doesn't bother me. The league has to straighten that out. It only bothers me that the league is slow to act on something that is breaking the *spirit* of the rule. But, that's not cheating.

The SpyGate cheating could possibly go beyond stealing signals as there are questions of them tapping into the audio signals. But, we'll never quite know because the league destroyed the evidence.

Obviously, the Patriots are a talented team and Belichick is not a bad coach. But, SpyGate is about as serious and deep rooted of a way to cheat as one can get. So the precedent of them cheating at all costs is there and I'm not sure what is to make us believe they didn't cheat here.

Let's say Bernie Madoff gets out of prison and then forms a successful business out of prison. But years down the road he's involved in an eBay scam worth $80k. I just have a hard time believing that any person would reasonably say 'there is no reason to assume that is involved in this scam.'

I still want the full evidence, but I'm extremely skeptical.

3) There are plenty of QBs who don't think Brady is lying. Dan Marino and Joe Theisman to name two. Both said they couldn't tell the difference in balls and that in t heat of a game you wouldn't notice if a ball was off, especially in the rain.

That's not what Brady was saying.

He was saying that he doesn't even manipulate the balls at all. That is where no QB that I have heard of believes him.

4) I think you are mischaracterizing both men's press conferences. Brady obviously touches the balls because he said he likes them at 12.5 psi. They also scrub them down, etc. He said he doesn't touch them once he pick his balls and then sends them to he refs and NFL. Considering they then have them until 10 minutes before the game, that sounds reasonable. I've also heard many,many pros say that most coaches have nothing to do with the balls and that its always a QB or ball boy that deals with this game day minutae.

I agree with the coaches having nothing to do with the balls.

At first, I originally thought that Belichick probably had nothing to do with it.

And Belichick basically said I have nothing to do with the balls, ask Tom Brady.

And now Belichick is saying that yeah they've studied the footballs and he is now an expert on ball properties. And this just happens to coincide with 2007 when Warren Sharp shoes that from a mathematical perspective, the Patriots are not fumbling the ball at a statistically impossible rate.

Or how about BenJarvus Green-Ellis who never fumbled in 557 touches with New England and goes to Cincinnati and has 5 fumbles in 519 touches?

It's like the cops that love to allow the perps to talk because if they do, eventually they'll shoot themselves in the foot.

The more Belichick and Brady talk, the less credible their stories (plural) become.

And now I believe that Belichick knew darn well to under-inflate the ball and it would explain their statistically impossible fumble rate.






YR

 

[JoeKing]

LOL! ... classic, ... can't believe anyone said that.

What purpose does a rule serve if it doesn't effect the completion in the game. The Colts have already stated the deflated ball did not effect the game. So we apparently have a rule that serves no purpose other than to test the ability for it to be followed. That's the BS I am calling out.

 

[WV Cowboy]

What purpose does a rule serve if it doesn't effect the completion in the game. The Colts have already stated the deflated ball did not effect the game. So we apparently have a rule that serves no purpose other than to test the ability for it to be followed. That's the BS I am calling out.

Just because it did not impact this particular game does not mean that it couldn't impact the outcome of a much closer, or a 'one score' game.

Perhaps a fumble, an incomplete pass, a dropped punt, ... any of which could affect the outcome of a close game, or OT game.

Every rule does not apply to every situation.

 

[JoeKing]

Just because it did not impact this particular game does not mean that it couldn't impact the outcome of a much closer, or a 'one score' game.

Perhaps a fumble, an incomplete pass, a dropped punt, ... any of which could affect the outcome of a close game, or OT game.

Every rule does not apply to every situation.

Then give me an example of this in play in an actual game and not the hypothetical you blather about. The outcry from this incident is way overblown.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Wilson footballs doesn't believe Belichick's explanation either: http://www.boston.com/sports/column..._wilson_doesnt_seem_to_buy_belichicks_sc.html





YR

 

[WV Cowboy]

Then give me an example of this in play in an actual game and not the hypothetical you blather about. The outcry from this incident is way overblown.

If you would have read my 'hypothetical blather' you would have seen three things that could happen as a result of footballs being below acceptable inflation levels.
Any one of which could impact the outcome of a close football game.
That is why they have rules dictating acceptable inflation levels, .. so nobody can gain an advantage.

I was not referencing whether it was overblown or not, so I'm not concerned that you feel that way.

 

[JoeKing]

If you would have read my 'hypothetical blather' you would have seen three things that could happen as a result of footballs being below acceptable inflation levels.
Any one of which could impact the outcome of a close football game.
That is why they have rules dictating acceptable inflation levels, .. so nobody can gain an advantage.

I was not referencing whether it was overblown or not, so I'm not concerned that you feel that way.

Trust me, I read your dribble about what could happen and it's all hypothetical. The balls have been tampered with for years but you can't give me one example where it actually made a difference.

 

[Hoofbite]

http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...s_lose_an_insanely_low_number_of_fumbles.html

I'm not even sure what the guy is trying to say. They lose fewer fumbles from deflated balls, but don't benefit to the same extent when it comes to fumbling in general? Or they do benefit, but you just have to remove all the indoor teams who's fumbling is on par with the Patriots to see it?

Even if there was a benefit to deflated balls, why would anyone look at fumbles lost when the defense would presumably be able to get the exact same benefit in terms of being able to recover the fumble? If a deflated ball is easier to grab for one team, it's easier to grab for the other.

 

[ConstantReboot]

You compared the Patriots to the Cowboys and it looks like you're saying that because of the Cowboys fumbling issues it's safe to assume the Patriots have been deflating balls for much longer than one game.

I'm just not certain how the Cowboys have anything to do with it.

Someone replied which is what I meant. My apologies for not being clear.