Please Explain This To Me About Brady

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
Bountygate went on for a long time, Spygate was resolved in 4 days without even investigating Matt Walsh and his eight tapes, among many other things. This affair, they haven't even talked to a single player, but have gotten alleged forensics experts.

It's a joke and cover-up.
 

fgoodwin

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
642
They officially said ignorance is no excuse even though he wasn't directly involved.

Good point; should we assume the same would apply to Belichick if it is proven that someone on the New England sideline underinflated the balls?
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
Good point; should we assume the same would apply to Belichick if it is proven that someone on the New England sideline underinflated the balls?

The irony is that Brady the week before, in his ineligible receiver comment, was like maybe they should read the rules or something to the effect. He laughed the ball issue off when it first became so big. Now he's fumbling over his tongue. Bellichek said the same thing about the formation, telling people to read the NFL rules. When he was caught in Spygate, he was like he misunderstood the rules.

BB has feasted off the image that he controls everything down to every detail. The NFL pushes that image too. Now suddenly we are suppose to believe that somebody putside the organization chain of command deflated 11 of 12 balls in a game that was rainy and cold and the Pats ran forty times in that game? Do people honestly think that the Patriots weren't trying to protect from TOs?
 

Rogah

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,473
Reaction score
793
Because BB has cheated before and it has to do with the integrity of the actual game play.
OK this is the 2nd offense for the Patriots, so what should happen? A first offense for the "crime" gives a letter of warning. What should a 2nd offense be? 1 year suspension for coach, 1 year suspension for QB, forfeit all victories form the past season, and loss of 3 1st round draft picks?
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
I've already disproven that chart.

But I'm sure the Patriots lack of fumbling has nothing to do with the fact that the coach pretty much benches any RB or WR who fumbles. Nah, that couldn't be it.

Lol, disproven...

So the Patriots bench every player that fumbles to the extent of over 100 plus series a game, meaning around two games worth of plays....
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
OK this is the 2nd offense for the Patriots, so what should happen? A first offense for the "crime" gives a letter of warning. What should a 2nd offense be? 1 year suspension for coach, 1 year suspension for QB, forfeit all victories form the past season, and loss of 3 1st round draft picks?

2nd offense for what? Spying and than cheating to prevent turning the ball over? How about first telling us what
Matt Walsh's tapes showed so we can make a real and honest judgment?
 

Rogah

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,473
Reaction score
793
Lol, disproven...
That's right. Tom Brady has fumbled 27 times since 2010 and the team total is 108. Go to pro-football-reference yourself if you don't believe me. I mean, the stat doesn't even make sense to any knowledgeable football fan. 6 fumbles per season over a 5 year span???
So the Patriots bench every player that fumbles to the extent of over 100 plus series a game, meaning around two games worth of plays....
I didn't say every player, I said every RB and WR. The quarterback is responsible for roughly 25% of those fumbles and he certainly doesn't get benched. But ya, as for the rest of 'em, fumbling is not a good thing to do if you want to have playing time in a Bill Belichick backfield.
 

Rogah

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,473
Reaction score
793
2nd offense for what?
That's an excellent question. The haters are calling this a "second offense" for the Patriots. You'll have to ask them why they are so enamored with that term.
Spying and than cheating to prevent turning the ball over? How about first telling us what
Matt Walsh's tapes showed so we can make a real and honest judgment?
See, you're proving that you really don't care about the facts of this particular situation.

Everytime someone brings up Spygate when discussing the current situation proves that what they really want is to use the current situation as an excuse to further punish the Patriots for something that happened 7 years ago. That's just not the way any sort of legitimate system of justice works. People can and do get punished more severly when they have priors, but a speeding ticket is still just a speeding ticket.

Haters gonna hate! I drink your tears. :laugh:
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
That's an excellent question. The haters are calling this a "second offense" for the Patriots. You'll have to ask them why they are so enamored with that term.
See, you're proving that you really don't care about the facts of this particular situation.

Everytime someone brings up Spygate when discussing the current situation proves that what they really want is to use the current situation as an excuse to further punish the Patriots for something that happened 7 years ago. That's just not the way any sort of legitimate system of justice works. People can and do get punished more severly when they have priors, but a speeding ticket is still just a speeding ticket.

Haters gonna hate! I drink your tears. :laugh:

So basically we should just ignore his second offense is what your saying?

I guess your "disproval" of the anomaly of lack of fumbling going back to 2007 in regards to the Patriots should be swept aside too, because one should just consider them in the context of this one time they got 'caught' according to you...
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
That's right. Tom Brady has fumbled 27 times since 2010 and the team total is 108. Go to pro-football-reference yourself if you don't believe me. I mean, the stat doesn't even make sense to any knowledgeable football fan. 6 fumbles per season over a 5 year span???
I didn't say every player, I said every RB and WR. The quarterback is responsible for roughly 25% of those fumbles and he certainly doesn't get benched. But ya, as for the rest of 'em, fumbling is not a good thing to do if you want to have playing time in a Bill Belichick backfield.

How does the stat not make sense and what does your argument disprove? The Pats fumble the ball way less on offense than the rest of the league by a STATISTICALLY significant margin, by even two fumbles a game and have been doing these numbers for multiple years.

180 snaps per game or 100, whatever you chose, that's Between one or two worth of fumbles a game, which you claim is constantly prevented by benching players evert game, which never happens.

Whether it's Brady or somebody else, they are fumbling less, much less.

You haven't disproven anything.
 
Last edited:

Rogah

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,473
Reaction score
793
So basically we should just ignore his second offense is what your saying?
No what I'm saying is that if a guy robs a bank and goes to jail for 5 years and then gets out and then 7 years later he gets caught speeding, the judge doesn't say "you robbed a bank 5 years ago so your punishment for speeding is you're going back to jail for 5 more years."

I guess your "disproval" of the anomaly of lack of fumbling going back to 2007 in regards to the Patriots should be swept aside too, because one should just consider them in the context of this one time they got 'caught' according to you...
What anomaly? I saw a line graph with inaccurate statistics. 33 fumbles for the entire team in 5 years? People actually believe that's an accurate statistic??
 

Rogah

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,473
Reaction score
793
How does the stat not make sense
33 fumbles for an entire team in a 5 year period simply does not make sense. It sounded too unrealistic and I did not believe it. I know some people believe "If it's on the internet then it must be true) but ya see, I am not a dullard who believes everything he reads on the internet. If something seems suspicious to me, I usually verify it independently before i believe it.

Sure enough I checked pro football reference.com and they say the Patriots fumbled 108 times since 2010, not 33.

33 =/= 108.
You haven't disproven anything.
And that chart proves absolutely nothing.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
33 fumbles for an entire team in a 5 year period simply does not make sense. It sounded too unrealistic and I did not believe it. I know some people believe "If it's on the internet then it must be true) but ya see, I am not a dullard who believes everything he reads on the internet. If something seems suspicious to me, I usually verify it independently before i believe it.

Sure enough I checked pro football reference.com and they say the Patriots fumbled 108 times since 2010, not 33.

33 =/= 108.
And that chart proves absolutely nothing.

The guy only used LOST fumbles for that first chart. He went back and did another chart for ALL FUMBLES, which he should have used in the first place. Recovering the fumble is random and not related to the inflation issue.

It was bad for the Pats, but not as drastic as the first chart.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
No what I'm saying is that if a guy robs a bank and goes to jail for 5 years and then gets out and then 7 years later he gets caught speeding, the judge doesn't say "you robbed a bank 5 years ago so your punishment for speeding is you're going back to jail for 5 more years."

What anomaly? I saw a line graph with inaccurate statistics. 33 fumbles for the entire team in 5 years? People actually believe that's an accurate statistic??

So basically if a guy gets caught for PEDs once and gets caught again, his past behaviors shouldn't be looked at?

So essentially you admit you don't understand the statistics and point of it?
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
The guy only used LOST fumbles for that first chart. He went back and did another chart for ALL FUMBLES, which he should have used in the first place. Recovering the fumble is random and not related to the inflation issue.

It was bad for the Pats, but not as drastic as the first chart.

It's obvious he is not reading the actual charts. The writer specifically stated he went back and charted for total fumbles because people asked him too.

And even if it wasn't as drastic, it still was drastic overall for the Patriots way far ahead of the rest of the league.

One can potentiall argue potentially less bouncy balls are easier to recover anyways, because they don't bounce as much. Thus, arguing from the perspective of fumbles recovered can reveal another trend.

Either way, both measurements are statistically relevant.
 

WPBCowboysFan

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,265
Reaction score
6,532
If Belichick deserves to be suspended for soft balls, someone deserves to be dropped in boiling oil for the Dez ruling.

Whether Belicheat deserves anything or not is irrelevant to what is deserved for the Dez ruling, and the hot oil is fitting.
 

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,965
Reaction score
37,488
Bellicheat was clearly flustered in today's PC. It was pretty hilarious seeing how mad he was.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
It's obvious he is not reading the actual charts. The writer specifically stated he went back and charted for total fumbles because people asked him too.

And even if it wasn't as drastic, it still was drastic overall for the Patriots way far ahead of the rest of the league.

One can potentiall argue potentially less bouncy balls are easier to recover anyways, because they don't bounce as much. Thus, arguing from the perspective of fumbles recovered can reveal another trend.

Either way, both measurements are statistically relevant.

Especially when you consider that NE plays outdoors and the other top fumbling teams were all dome teams. After 2006 when Brady made a big deal about preparing the footballs, he has gone 14-1 in bad weather games.
 
Top