Wells Conclusion: Guilty

[Rogah]

Once again, several of the denizens of this forum gets their facts wrong.

The rule change to which you refer was implemented prior to the 2006 season, not 2007. But that doesn't fit the narrative that NE's fumble rate dropped as soon as the new rule was put in place, so people keep saying 2007.

Furthermore, it is clear you people don't understand what the rule change was. Under the old rule, home teams would break in and prepare all game balls. However, since QBs like to prepare their own game balls, the rules were changed so the road team could bring their own balls to the game. So this rule change only affected half the games a team played in. It wasn't some radical shift in gameday operations. It was the league saying "from now on teams can bring their own balls on the road instead of having to use whatever the home team gives them."

If you think about it, it makes sense (which is why every single QB in the league supported it). Do you want the Giants' ball boy preparing Tony Romo's game balls in the next trip to East Rutherford, NJ? Or would you rather he brought his own?

I know you hate having facts get in the way of some good ole' fashioned ranting and raving, so carry on.

 

[Hoofbite]

This chart is incredibly interesting. Ever since Brady pushed for road teams to be able to bring their own footballs (remember Romo's fumble in Seattle?), these are the fumble rates per play for road teams since.

NOTICE HOW NEW ENGLAND'S FUMBLE RATE WENT WAY DOWN COMPARED TO THE LEAGUE AVERAGE. The result of manipulating the psi on the footballs? Before this, New England was pretty comparable to everybody else's fumble rate.

The chart looks damning, but Sharp's analysis is severely flawed.

1. His initial comparisons didn't include dome teams. That's not wrong as long as the stats back it up, but he never even quantified the difference in fumbles between dome teams and outdoor teams. He basically just assumed that outdoor environments lead to fumbles and said nothing about whether or not the difference is actually significant. The difference isn't much. I looked and, IIRC, it was about 1.1 fumble per season. The difference however was smaller when you account for the next issue I have with his stats.

2. His comparisons didn't mention anything about the effect of quality of the QB. QBs fumble more than any other player on the field. When I looked at his claims, I'm pretty sure that both the Chargers and Ravens were right in the neighborhood of the Patriots after accounting for QB fumbles. Rivers and Flacco fumble more than Brady. Not all QBs are made equal, and not all QBs fumble at the same rate. Peyton Manning fumbles a hell of a lot loss than Jay Cutler. Is it the dome, or is it the fact that Peyton is a hell of a better than Cutler? Probably the latter.

When you eliminate dome teams from the comparison, you eliminate the most readily comparable QB from the mix. You eliminate Peyton Manning. You also eliminate Matt Ryan, who happens to be exceptionally good at protecting the football. These two teams would be comparable to the Patriots in his metrics IF they were included. They weren't included because dome teams were assumed to benefit. The problem with this assumption is that Atlanta's benefit came after they ditched Mike Vick and the bums they had playing QB, and Indy's dome advantage ended when Peyton Manning went to Denver. Off the top of my head, the difference between indoor and outdoor teams after excluding Manning, Ryan, and Brady is about 0.6 fumbles per season.

Whatever benefit dome teams receive, it hasn't been there in Indy since Manning left. Luck is fumble machine. He fumbles 10 times per season. Would he fumble more outside? Whatever benefit they receive wasn't there before Matt Ryan was a Falcon. Why did a bunch of no-names fumble more than Ryan? They don't get the dome benefit?

Compare Indy to the league average. Compare Atlanta to the league average. Account for the lead-footed Phillip Rivers and the Chargers are on par with the Patriots. Account for Joe Flacco and the Ravens are on par with the Patriots.

The league average is based largely on subpar QB play. Most QBs are pretty bad. Average QBs are still significantly worse than Brady, Manning, Romo, and others. FWIW, Romo has reduced his fumbles significantly since moving "indoors". At Texas Stadium he was fumbling a lot. At Cowboy's stadium, he's cut that number down. Does that mean the hole in the roof caused Romo to fumble more often, or do successful professionals make an effort to fix their flaws.

His analysis started with a conclusion and worked backwards. Indoor teams may benefit, but the difference is likely insignificant. It definitely doesn't outweigh the difference between QB quality. What now? We just call good QBs cheaters because they don't screw up as much as the rest of the league?

 

[Tabascocat]

I don't feel confident that the right punishment will be given................

 

[muck4doo]

Once again, several of the denizens of this forum gets their facts wrong.

The rule change to which you refer was implemented prior to the 2006 season, not 2007. But that doesn't fit the narrative that NE's fumble rate dropped as soon as the new rule was put in place, so people keep saying 2007.

Furthermore, it is clear you people don't understand what the rule change was. Under the old rule, home teams would break in and prepare all game balls. However, since QBs like to prepare their own game balls, the rules were changed so the road team could bring their own balls to the game. So this rule change only affected half the games a team played in. It wasn't some radical shift in gameday operations. It was the league saying "from now on teams can bring their own balls on the road instead of having to use whatever the home team gives them."

If you think about it, it makes sense (which is why every single QB in the league supported it). Do you want the Giants' ball boy preparing Tony Romo's game balls in the next trip to East Rutherford, NJ? Or would you rather he brought his own?

I know you hate having facts get in the way of some good ole' fashioned ranting and raving, so carry on.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

so it was true...

so complex for something so simple but yet having so much impact and yet so much advantage for so little advantage

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ-b-ELJRiw

 

[BoysFan4ever]

Let's see I woke up this am & the Pats were still a bunch of lying cheating dirtbags.

Still have their to the death defenders on here even though if ever a team was scum it'd be that organization.

 

[MichaelValentino]

After reading Rogah's and Hoofbite's posts I realize I now would not have posted what I did or I would have added more qualifiers to my comments had I looked into the development of the chart instead of taking it at face value. [Rogah, FWIW, you will recall that when I posted my comments and made ball pressure calculations back in January I did qualify my comments on the condition that "if Mortensen's initial report was accurate" and even said that if the pressure losses were not as significant as first reported the entire "deflategate" thing was likely much ado about nothing.)

Apparently, the rule change, whenever it came into effect, accounts for road games only. That does matter. However, if a team runs 900-1000 offensive plays in a season that still accounts for roughly 450-500 plays, give or take (assuming number of plays in road games approx. equal to those in home games - this certainly can vary for exceptionally poor road vs. home teams). I am not sure if the statistics include ST plays - fumbles on PR and KR units. However, those fumbles would occur while the "K" balls were in use and these balls would not be in the possession of each team as would their offensive game balls. Hoofbite said the analysis did not include domed teams. If true, I have several questions concerning that but will leave it for now. My understanding is that domed teams receive a smaller allotment of game balls (which makes sense since weather is not a factor in those games).

In my post I did have some conditional and qualifying comments:

"Pre 2007, the difference could be accounted for by better coaching (during the Belichick era the Patriots have had one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL) which emphasizes ball protection better than most other teams. Even with the outlier of 2005, there could have been other NFL teams with more touches per fumble than NE. It would be interesting to see how the other top ball protection teams fared compared to NE both prior to and after the change.

Some of the difference, pre 2007, could be accounted for by play calling (% run plays vs. % pass plays), level of pass protection (i.e., more sacks probably directly correlate to more QB fumbles), the strength of defenses within a given division (e.g., would Cleveland be more prone to lower ball protection stats having to face very physical defenses with strong front sevens in Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati as opposed to an NFC South or AFC South team facing less imposing defenses?) and quality/style of running backs.

However, post 2006, the plots are so drastically different that the above variables simply do not seem able to account for the difference in fumble rate. Even taking out year 2010 (+69; +168%), which seems to be an anamoly, NE is so far above the rest of the league that the data must raise flags. The only oddity in the 8-year plot is year 2013 in which NE fell below the NFL average. Otherwise, the Patriots were better by a margin ranging from +20 (+45.5%) to +41 (+83.7%), excluding 2010.

Those results are too statistically-significant to dismiss to coaching, % of run plays, opposing defenses and RBs.

What would be helpful in assessing this graph is to see how the top three teams beside NE fared from 2007-2014; to plot Tom Brady's % completion and QB rating year-by-year; and to track the fumble rate for RBs who have left the Patriots since 2007 to see if there is any difference in their ball security stats with NE as compared to their new teams, as well as tracking the ball security stats of backs who have left other teams to join NE since 2007. If backs have left the Patriots and seen their stats come down more to the league-wide average or if backs have seen much better performance - as statistically significant as the post 2006 plot - since leaving other teams and joining NE, the theory that under-inflated balls accounts for the difference would seem to hold water."

In any event I've said all I care to say about the graph/regarding this thread.

I'm more interested in the signing of Collins and further development of the O-line; how Jones will do at FS if he doesn't compete for a starting corner position; the development of Lawrence and Gregory as edge rushers; who will play 1-tech next to Crawford; and the pursuit (or non-pursuit) of Adrian Peterson. Things are looking bright in Big D.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

If backs have left the Patriots and seen their stats come down more to the league-wide average or if backs have seen much better performance - as statistically significant as the post 2006 plot - since leaving other teams and joining NE, the theory that under-inflated balls accounts for the difference would seem to hold water."

They have. Benjarvus Green-Ellis is a perfect example. Never fumbled in New England,

Never.

Goes to Cincy and fumbles at the league average rate.

IIRC, Sharp got the idea to do the research based on players like Green-Ellis who went from not fumbling to fumbling after they left New England.

Certainly, Sharp's work isn't infallible as Brian Burke pointed out. But as Burke also pointed out, there's still a dramatic change. Especially for an outdoor team and especially for an outdoor team that plays often in cold crappy conditions like in New England, Buffalo and NY.

The same people that are questioning the effect of the deflated footballs were the same people that swore up and down that the Patriots could not have possibly tampered with the footballs and came up with every lame excuse as to how the Patriots footballs were far more underinflated compared to the Colts' footballs. Tough to take them with any credibility and say 'we should trust them now because now they are right.' at this juncture considering all of the junk science and biases they used to claim their points beforehand.





YR

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Let's see I woke up this am & the Pats were still a bunch of lying cheating dirtbags.

Still have their to the death defenders on here even though if ever a team was scum it'd be that organization.

Dont expect any of that to change

 

[BoysFan4ever]

I hope the next time NE cheats it's over something that has no science behind it...my finger hurts from scrolling thru all that & my eyes cross when I try to read all that.

They need to do something different.

 

[erod]

The chart looks damning, but Sharp's analysis is severely flawed.

1. His initial comparisons didn't include dome teams. That's not wrong as long as the stats back it up, but he never even quantified the difference in fumbles between dome teams and outdoor teams. He basically just assumed that outdoor environments lead to fumbles and said nothing about whether or not the difference is actually significant. The difference isn't much. I looked and, IIRC, it was about 1.1 fumble per season. The difference however was smaller when you account for the next issue I have with his stats.

2. His comparisons didn't mention anything about the effect of quality of the QB. QBs fumble more than any other player on the field. When I looked at his claims, I'm pretty sure that both the Chargers and Ravens were right in the neighborhood of the Patriots after accounting for QB fumbles. Rivers and Flacco fumble more than Brady. Not all QBs are made equal, and not all QBs fumble at the same rate. Peyton Manning fumbles a hell of a lot loss than Jay Cutler. Is it the dome, or is it the fact that Peyton is a hell of a better than Cutler? Probably the latter.

When you eliminate dome teams from the comparison, you eliminate the most readily comparable QB from the mix. You eliminate Peyton Manning. You also eliminate Matt Ryan, who happens to be exceptionally good at protecting the football. These two teams would be comparable to the Patriots in his metrics IF they were included. They weren't included because dome teams were assumed to benefit. The problem with this assumption is that Atlanta's benefit came after they ditched Mike Vick and the bums they had playing QB, and Indy's dome advantage ended when Peyton Manning went to Denver. Off the top of my head, the difference between indoor and outdoor teams after excluding Manning, Ryan, and Brady is about 0.6 fumbles per season.

Whatever benefit dome teams receive, it hasn't been there in Indy since Manning left. Luck is fumble machine. He fumbles 10 times per season. Would he fumble more outside? Whatever benefit they receive wasn't there before Matt Ryan was a Falcon. Why did a bunch of no-names fumble more than Ryan? They don't get the dome benefit?

Compare Indy to the league average. Compare Atlanta to the league average. Account for the lead-footed Phillip Rivers and the Chargers are on par with the Patriots. Account for Joe Flacco and the Ravens are on par with the Patriots.

The league average is based largely on subpar QB play. Most QBs are pretty bad. Average QBs are still significantly worse than Brady, Manning, Romo, and others. FWIW, Romo has reduced his fumbles significantly since moving "indoors". At Texas Stadium he was fumbling a lot. At Cowboy's stadium, he's cut that number down. Does that mean the hole in the roof caused Romo to fumble more often, or do successful professionals make an effort to fix their flaws.

His analysis started with a conclusion and worked backwards. Indoor teams may benefit, but the difference is likely insignificant. It definitely doesn't outweigh the difference between QB quality. What now? We just call good QBs cheaters because they don't screw up as much as the rest of the league?

But Brady is the before and after constant. Look how New England's fumbles alone changed after the rule, when other teams' didn't.

And I know you've felt a slightly deflated football before. It's MUCH easier to grip with finger pressure than a pumped-up football. That benefits the entire team, not just Brady, and that's how they got caught. When opponents intercepted or picked up a football, some noticed the difference in the grip they had on it.

 

[erod]

After reading Rogah's and Hoofbite's posts I realize I now would not have posted what I did or I would have added more qualifiers to my comments had I looked into the development of the chart instead of taking it at face value. [Rogah, FWIW, you will recall that when I posted my comments and made ball pressure calculations back in January I did qualify my comments on the condition that "if Mortensen's initial report was accurate" and even said that if the pressure losses were not as significant as first reported the entire "deflategate" thing was likely much ado about nothing.)

Apparently, the rule change, whenever it came into effect, accounts for road games only. That does matter. However, if a team runs 900-1000 offensive plays in a season that still accounts for roughly 450-500 plays, give or take (assuming number of plays in road games approx. equal to those in home games - this certainly can vary for exceptionally poor road vs. home teams). I am not sure if the statistics include ST plays - fumbles on PR and KR units. However, those fumbles would occur while the "K" balls were in use and these balls would not be in the possession of each team as would their offensive game balls. Hoofbite said the analysis did not include domed teams. If true, I have several questions concerning that but will leave it for now. My understanding is that domed teams receive a smaller allotment of game balls (which makes sense since weather is not a factor in those games).

In my post I did have some conditional and qualifying comments:

"Pre 2007, the difference could be accounted for by better coaching (during the Belichick era the Patriots have had one of the best coaching staffs in the NFL) which emphasizes ball protection better than most other teams. Even with the outlier of 2005, there could have been other NFL teams with more touches per fumble than NE. It would be interesting to see how the other top ball protection teams fared compared to NE both prior to and after the change.

Some of the difference, pre 2007, could be accounted for by play calling (% run plays vs. % pass plays), level of pass protection (i.e., more sacks probably directly correlate to more QB fumbles), the strength of defenses within a given division (e.g., would Cleveland be more prone to lower ball protection stats having to face very physical defenses with strong front sevens in Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cincinnati as opposed to an NFC South or AFC South team facing less imposing defenses?) and quality/style of running backs.

However, post 2006, the plots are so drastically different that the above variables simply do not seem able to account for the difference in fumble rate. Even taking out year 2010 (+69; +168%), which seems to be an anamoly, NE is so far above the rest of the league that the data must raise flags. The only oddity in the 8-year plot is year 2013 in which NE fell below the NFL average. Otherwise, the Patriots were better by a margin ranging from +20 (+45.5%) to +41 (+83.7%), excluding 2010.

Those results are too statistically-significant to dismiss to coaching, % of run plays, opposing defenses and RBs.

What would be helpful in assessing this graph is to see how the top three teams beside NE fared from 2007-2014; to plot Tom Brady's % completion and QB rating year-by-year; and to track the fumble rate for RBs who have left the Patriots since 2007 to see if there is any difference in their ball security stats with NE as compared to their new teams, as well as tracking the ball security stats of backs who have left other teams to join NE since 2007. If backs have left the Patriots and seen their stats come down more to the league-wide average or if backs have seen much better performance - as statistically significant as the post 2006 plot - since leaving other teams and joining NE, the theory that under-inflated balls accounts for the difference would seem to hold water."

In any event I've said all I care to say about the graph/regarding this thread.

I'm more interested in the signing of Collins and further development of the O-line; how Jones will do at FS if he doesn't compete for a starting corner position; the development of Lawrence and Gregory as edge rushers; who will play 1-tech next to Crawford; and the pursuit (or non-pursuit) of Adrian Peterson. Things are looking bright in Big D.

Rogah, please.

So Belichick started coaching ball security right about the time the rule was changed? He didn't care before? Only New England drafts players that hold on to the ball? New England magically found the key to ball security overnight? That's weak.

Face it, they're busted. They cheated. Again. They were fined and lost draft picks for Spygate, and it's about to come down again. The league can't afford having it's fans think the games are being manipulated. The integrity of its games is something the NFL takes seriously, unlike some other leagues.

And what's really bad is the seedy nature of it, the lying afterward, and the cover-up thereafter.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

And I know you've felt a slightly deflated football before. It's MUCH easier to grip with finger pressure than a pumped-up football. That benefits the entire team, not just Brady, and that's how they got caught. When opponents intercepted or picked up a football, some noticed the difference in the grip they had on it.

In fact, they reported that when Mike Adams had intercepted the pass he thought the ball felt extra tacky, like some sort of substance was put on the ball..





YR

 

[cowboyeric8]

https://www.facebook.com/NFL.Shannon.Sharpe/videos/704991282940028/

Shannon Sharpe gets it

 

[ragman]

Brady is currently scheduled to make a public appearance at some college on stage with Jim Gray tonight. I don't know if they are going to cancel, but I would be very interested in hearing what he has to say about the whole thing.

In that appearance, didn't Gray ask Brady if he had read the Wells Report, and Brady said no? I think Tom's nose grew a couple of inches with that one.

 

[ragman]

The Miami Herald newspaper is saying that a year long suspension is not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

In that appearance, didn't Gray ask Brady if he had read the Wells Report, and Brady said no? I think Tom's nose grew a couple of inches with that one.

So he's lying about lying?

Tom!

 

[Rogah]

The chart looks damning, but Sharp's analysis is severely flawed.

Saying it is "severely flawed" is the understatement of the century. I took 5 minutes of my valuable time and looked up fumbles per team. Fact is the Patriots are good, but they are not so incredibly great that it defies all logic and comprehension. It's an amazing coincidence that teams with good QB's fumble less than teams with bad QB's, so I decided to see how Brady and Manning stack up against each other since the rule change of 2006. I know some people in this forum hate facts, but here are the FACTS:

From 2006-2014, the Patriots fumbled 148 times and the Colts fumbled 155. Obviously the Patriots are better, but not so much so that it defies statistical logic.

If we take away the year Brady was injured and the year Manning was injured from the above, the Patriots fumbled 131 times and the Colts fumbled 131 times. Wow! What a statistical anomaly!! Obviously the Patriots are cheating!!!

As we all know, Manning did not play for the Colts all that time, so let's compare the sample from 2006-2014 for Manning-led teams and Brady-led teams. Each of those QB's played 8 seasons during that 9 year timeframe. The Brady-led teams fumbled 131 times. The Manning-led teams fumbled 130 times.

So based on the above, can someone please explain how the Patriots' fumbles are so incredibly low as to defy statistical logic???

 

[erod]

Here's betting Brady gets a long enough suspension to make sure he's back to play Dallas.

 

[erod]

Saying it is "severely flawed" is the understatement of the century. I took 5 minutes of my valuable time and looked up fumbles per team. Fact is the Patriots are good, but they are not so incredibly great that it defies all logic and comprehension. It's an amazing coincidence that teams with good QB's fumble less than teams with bad QB's, so I decided to see how Brady and Manning stack up against each other since the rule change of 2006. I know some people in this forum hate facts, but here are the FACTS:

From 2006-2014, the Patriots fumbled 148 times and the Colts fumbled 155. Obviously the Patriots are better, but not so much so that it defies statistical logic.

If we take away the year Brady was injured and the year Manning was injured from the above, the Patriots fumbled 131 times and the Colts fumbled 131 times. Wow! What a statistical anomaly!! Obviously the Patriots are cheating!!!

As we all know, Manning did not play for the Colts all that time, so let's compare the sample from 2006-2014 for Manning-led teams and Brady-led teams. Each of those QB's played 8 seasons during that 9 year timeframe. The Brady-led teams fumbled 131 times. The Manning-led teams fumbled 130 times.

So based on the above, can someone please explain how the Patriots' fumbles are so incredibly low as to defy statistical logic???

So why did New England fumble so much less after the rule change than before?