NFL 2014

[Granite]

It does, because in your delusion, you somehow think Brady is incapable of lying.

His personal life has zero bearing on the field, we don't know the details, and you root for a rapist.

Anyone up for getting back on track?

 

[Town Heretic]

Much like Kravitz's unnamed source. We know now it wasn't Jackson. So who dropped the dime?

I don't know. I don't know if Jackson is telling the truth either, but then it doesn't impact the fact of it. It's a little like the who on the other side of it. I'd like to know/doesn't change anything.

Which they overlooked.

No, that's the allegation of the unnamed source. It hasn't been backed, factually.

...The success Brady and Belichick have enjoyed, and that you've previously praised, has been exactly that. I can't and won't apologize for a team being consistently good.

No reason to. And I've been clear prior and a post ago that I consider Bill and Tom among the best at what they do, historically. I'm not running with people who have emotional investment and want to alter the fact of things with it. But I'm also not going to fail to consider that if what those numbers indicate turns out to be a pattern that it's been an unfair advantage, even if it didn't get them a single ring, only helped raise the likelihood they'd be in the best position to advance to one. And those numbers are just...I don't know how to explain them giving the Pats the benefit of the doubt.

At the absolute worst time available.

Or at the time it was most needed given one advantage had been taken and this one is much, much, much less likely to be caught. Heck, if true it took a number of years and a lot of suspicion raising before anyone managed to think of the angle.

By the way: If the New York Jets alone had ever suspected something funny with the footballs, you can't tell me they would've hesitated to go to the league immediately.

I think that's true. But it's one of those things that was rife for the abuse and unlikely to be checked. I think it took people looking for anything to find it. It's both novel and elegant as rules skirting goes. Very, very smart if true and the cumulative impact is the only way to see it.

So for all these years, and the lost Cassel season, and the opportunities everyone had to say "Hey coach, I think they're up to something," nobody--including their hated division rival--ever once said a peep? That's some kind of lucky streak.

It isn't enough to be suspicious, which a number of teams have been over the years.

Or, everyone knows the magician is fooling them, but for the trick to fail you have to figure out how. That's a different animal entirely.

 

[Granite]

I don't know. I don't know if Jackson is telling the truth either, but then it doesn't impact the fact of it.

So you think he might be lying when he said as a defensive player he wouldn't be able to tell if a ball is under-inflated. Color me unsurprised.

No reason to. And I've been clear prior and a post ago that I consider Bill and Tom among the best at what they do, historically. I'm not running with people who have emotional investment and want to alter the fact of things with it. But I'm also not going to fail to consider that if what those numbers indicate turns out to be a pattern that it's been an unfair advantage, even if it didn't get them a single ring, only helped raise the likelihood they'd be in the best position to advance to one. And those numbers are just...I don't know how to explain them giving the Pats the benefit of the doubt.

So the only explanation for sustained success in the NFL, from now on, is simply: "They must be cheating."

And you think I'm cynical.

Or at the time it was most needed given one advantage had been taken and this one is much, much, much less likely to be caught.

Except by rival teams and players who actually have opportunity to handle those same balls, tip off the league, and so forth. To say nothing of a division rival head coach openly dedicated to bringing you down.

Whatever you say.

Heck, if true it took a number of years and a lot of suspicion raising before anyone managed to think of the angle.

This is getting ridiculous. "Well it sure took somebody a long time but after they advanced to the Super Bowl--again--we finally figured it out."

I think that's true. But it's one of those things that was rife for the abuse and unlikely to be checked. I think it took people looking for anything to find it. It's both novel and elegant as rules skirting goes.

So this is the first team to ever pull this stunt, or the first team to get caught. Either Belichick's a genius or he's kind of an idiot, given that you think he's a cheater who keeps getting caught. (Oh, right; but you also think he's somehow good at his job, too.)

It isn't enough to be suspicious, which a number of teams have been over the years.

Who? Are the boobirds just now coming out of the woodwork? Again, convenient. Sure took their sweet time. One would think they'd cry foul immediately.

Or, everyone knows the magician is fooling them, but for the trick to fail you have to figure out how. That's a different animal entirely.

TH, a few more days of this you'll be in OJ Land, or David Icke territory. Or something else I can't imagine.

 

[tetelestai]

His personal life has zero bearing on the field, we don't know the details, and you root for a rapist.

Anyone up for getting back on track?

"It’s obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this" - Troy Aikman

"11 of 12 balls under-inflated can anyone spell cheating!!!" - Jerry Rice

"I did not believe what Tom Brady had to say" - Mark Brunell

“That would have to be driven by the quarterback, that’s something that wouldn’t be driven by a coach or just the equipment guy. Nobody, not even the head coach, would do anything to a football unilaterally, such as adjust the amount of pressure in a ball, without the quarterback not knowing. It would have to be the quarterback’s idea.” - John Madden

 

[Granite]

"It’s obvious that Tom Brady had something to do with this" - Troy Aikman

"11 of 12 balls under-inflated can anyone spell cheating!!!" - Jerry Rice

"I did not believe what Tom Brady had to say" - Mark Brunell

“That would have to be driven by the quarterback, that’s something that wouldn’t be driven by a coach or just the equipment guy. Nobody, not even the head coach, would do anything to a football unilaterally, such as adjust the amount of pressure in a ball, without the quarterback not knowing. It would have to be the quarterback’s idea.” - John Madden

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, doesn't really mean a thing.

And if I were Brunell looking at Brady's career I'd cry too.:chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

So you think he might be lying when he said as a defensive player he wouldn't be able to tell if a ball is under-inflated. Color me unsurprised.

I hadn't seen anything more than a headline denial. I don't have any particular reason to doubt him, just said I didn't know and that it doesn't matter. Still doesn't.

So the only explanation for sustained success in the NFL, from now on, is simply: "They must be cheating."

No and I never suggested anything like that.

What I have referenced, other than my regard for the principles and owner as among the best at their respective trades, is the Pat's have been caught cheating once. A very serious thing. And I've noted that if the statistically challenging facts I referenced sustain this inflation bit as a habit it indicates an edge that in the playoffs' rare end of the pool isn't something to easily dismiss.

It doesn't taint the Steelers, the Niners or any team that doesn't have a challenge on how they arrived at their rings. But this, absent an explanation that clears them, coupled with the prior bad act and the statistical anomaly I spoke to would, I believe, taint this dynasty and to a lesser extent it's qb.

And you think I'm cynical.

I think you tend to be, but suspend it entire when it comes to your team. It's frustrating to deal with, but I actually like it in a fan.

Except by rival teams and players who actually have opportunity to handle those same balls, tip off the league, and so forth.

Well, no. Mostly the team balls are handled, outside of interceptions or fumbles (and then for a few celebratory moments absent historic value) by the Pats. Out side of a qb I'm not sure who handles it enough to have that degree of sensitivity on the point unless they're looking for it.

Like I said, as potential cheats go that would be a brilliant one.

This is getting ridiculous. "Well it sure took somebody a long time but after they advanced to the Super Bowl--again--we finally figured it out."

Like I said, everyone can know the magician is fooling them but most can't figure it out. And in this case we have people who don't KNOW they're being cheated or how, only suspect.

You know who might have figured it out? Harbaugh. Wouldn't surprise me if he's in the mix.

So this is the first team to ever pull this stunt, or the first team to get caught. Either Belichick's a genius or he's kind of an idiot, given that you think he's a cheater who keeps getting caught. (Oh, right; but you also think he's somehow good at his job, too.)

I know he's one of the sharpest minds the game has and has had. I also know he's cheated. And given he's only been caught once (this one won't likely fall on him) over a very long and successful career, I'd say he's far from an idiot by any metric.

And I'm not even necessarily laying this at his feet, though it feels more like a thing he might have considered in the wake of Tom noting his preference and experimenting with the impact in a practice situation. Remember, he's admitted to making things as difficult in practice environments as he can. What if that same consideration ran in a different direction?

Who? Are the boobirds just now coming out of the woodwork? Again, convenient. Sure took their sweet time. One would think they'd cry foul immediately.

The Rams, the Ravens, the Panthers organizations, for starters. Some have been complaining for years. Marshall Faulk hasn't been shy about it. And it's one thing to suspect (a number wondering post Spy-gate just how straight up their competitions were) and another thing to prove.

TH, a few more days of this you'll be in OJ Land, or David Icke territory. Or something else I can't imagine.

Nah. I'm sticking to the first facts on the principle point. Else, a reasonable speculation on the other. I'm not claiming to know about the fumbles. I just can't find another way of seeing it that makes much sense. As the statistician noted, it's remarkable. It's also historically unprecedented.

Or, said the guy who thinks Brunell is jealous? Aikman unhappy with his career and taking it out on Brady too? lain:

 

[tetelestai]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, doesn't really mean a thing.

And if I were Brunell looking at Brady's career I'd cry too.:chuckle:

If it makes you feel any better, Terry Bradshaw said all this "deflategate" talk is going to make Tom Brady play one of the best games of his life in the Super Bowl.

BTW, Terry Bradshaw has a pretty good track record for predicting outcomes of Super Bowls.

 

[resodko]

are they gonna make 'em play with a nerf football?

 

[tetelestai]

And if I were Brunell looking at Brady's career I'd cry too.:chuckle:

It is kinda funny when ESPN refers to Brunell as "won a Super Bowl ring with the Saints"

 

[Granite]

I hadn't seen anything more than a headline denial. I don't have any particular reason to doubt him, just said I didn't know and that it doesn't matter. Still doesn't.

Except that as the source of the kerfuffle it was laid at his feet till he denied it. I smell a rat.

What I have referenced, other than my regard for the principles and owner as among the best at their respective trades, is the Pat's have been caught cheating once. A very serious thing. And I've noted that if the statistically challenging facts I referenced sustain this inflation bit as a habit it indicates an edge that in the playoffs' rare end of the pool isn't something to easily dismiss.

Except that by this rationale, cheating failed them twice, on the biggest stage, against the same team no less. One would think old Darth Hoodie would've thought of a new wrinkle of sorts after that previous business in Glendale.

It doesn't taint the Steelers, the Niners or any team that doesn't have a challenge on how they arrived at their rings. But this, absent an explanation that clears them, coupled with the prior bad act and the statistical anomaly I spoke to would, I believe, taint this dynasty and to a lesser extent it's qb.

Steelers and steroids, maybe. And an "anomaly" is proof of no guilt. Unless 16-0 (or 18-1 if you prefer, and I know a lot of you do) is also "proof" of something rotten since it hadn't been done before. What other records, as outliers, are now deemed suspicious simply because they're just that?

While we're on the subject of the "anomaly," as you call it: Are we to believe Matt Cassel and Tom Brady both have the same preferences when it comes to gripping the football? That'd be another rather interesting coincidence.

Well, no. Mostly the team balls are handled, outside of interceptions or fumbles (and then for a few celebratory moments absent historic value) by the Pats. Out side of a qb I'm not sure who handles it enough to have that degree of sensitivity on the point unless they're looking for it.

Good enough points to lead back to a question: Where did the league get the idea something funky was going on?

Like I said, everyone can know the magician is fooling them but most can't figure it out.

"They beat us 45-3 on MNF. Well, they must've cheated. Our bad for not solving this mystery."

Give me a break.

You know who might have figured it out? Harbaugh. Wouldn't surprise me if he's in the mix.

Poisoning the well wouldn't surprise me, no. Certainly not after he was out coached and embarrassed in a game in his heart of hearts he knows his team had every chance to win until the very last minutes.

I know he's one of the sharpest minds the game has and has had. I also know he's cheated. And given he's only been caught once (this one won't likely fall on him) over a very long and successful career, I'd say he's far from an idiot by any metric.

While we're at this, when did he stop beating his girlfriend?

And I'm not even necessarily laying this at his feet, though it feels more like a thing he might have considered in the wake of Tom noting his preference and experimenting with the impact in a practice situation.

So it either took until 2007 (when this "anomaly" of yours crops up) or 2011 (when Brady mentioned in passing his preference on local radio) for Belichick to concoct this scheme. Well, great. Which is it? Or did Brady note his preference sooner in his career and they just got around to monkeying with the footballs after he'd been their starter for six seasons?

Remember, he's admitted to making things as difficult in practice environments as he can. What if that same consideration ran in a different direction?

We can what if ourselves all day.

The Rams, the Ravens, the Panthers organizations, for starters.

:rotfl:

Gee. Can't imagine why.

Some have been complaining for years. Marshall Faulk hasn't been shy about it.

About never shutting up about Spygate? Darn straight he's never stopped complaining.

Nah. I'm sticking to the first facts on the principle point. Else, a reasonable speculation on the other. I'm not claiming to know about the fumbles. I just can't find another way of seeing it that makes much sense.

I see that "good coaching," "talent," and "benching players who fumble" doesn't cut any ice here.

 

[Granite]

As for the "anomaly" itself, there are several rebuttals to the way the author sliced and diced his data, starting here.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

 

[tetelestai]

101 players were drafted before Johnny Unitas, 195 players were drafted before Terrell Davis, 198 players were drafted before Tom Brady, and 199 players were drafted before Bart Starr.

 

[Town Heretic]

As for the "anomaly" itself, there are several rebuttals to the way the author sliced and diced his data, starting here.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

Thanks. I should have caught the axis choice, though even with that adjustment it's a significant deviation, just not quite the same drama. And I think the authors miss it a bit when they note the Pats are good in any number of statistical looks. That's a way of moving the point. So I'm curious about their agenda, though I like the window.

I also find the "data scientist" walk around curious. They never name the fellow, inferring some suspicious source and leaving the inference that the site doesn't name him. They lay down on that a bit. But it does name the fellow and doing that instead of the dance around would have given a very different impression. In short, the authors seem determined to infer the first is agenda driven seems to have one of their own.

As if to confirm it, in response to the still significantly above league play the authors try another tactic, move the point a bit. Could Brady simply be that good? Well, no. Rogers and a few others playing better at the position haven't driven that metric. Then the authors deep end with sarcasm that attempts to devolve the whole point into absurdity.

But not even their own actual numbers do that. At best they posit a better scale and a mitigation, not a rebuttal of the underlying point. And then, while suggesting the reader look at another look at fumbles by Burke they note Burke himself used the same fumble per play metric examination that the author dislikes. And it makes you wonder why that is? They suggest it's likely an attempt to inflate the difference earlier, but with Burke? It's now "overly broad". Or maybe it's a better way to see a thing distinguished thinly, but importantly?

The authors then isolate to provide a number that's less dramatic, but don't stipulate a few things of importance in their examination, even within the narrowing. For instance, they note Detroit, a dome team, had the second most fumbles in the league, appearing to run contrary to Burke and the other author's point. Of course, first they're narrowly isolating on one position and one rb, essentially. And then they fail to note where those happened, which is rather important given half the games are played out of doors and some in fairly inclimate weather.

In short, it appears everyone is playing a little loose. I'm going to take a dive into the data myself at some point and see where it leads, using as broad a metric as I can and breaking down along position and weather. It might take a while, but I love this sort of thing.

 

[Town Heretic]

Except that as the source of the kerfuffle it was laid at his feet till he denied it. I smell a rat.

It's odd and I'd like to know how that came about.

Except that by this rationale, cheating failed them twice, on the biggest stage, against the same team no less.

You think everyone who speeds thinks they're going to get caught? Really clever people least of all and if the second and larger speculation is true they weren't caught over a long period and haven't exactly been skewered this time. Most things boil down to risk/benefit in the end.

Steelers and steroids, maybe.

Almost any team in a certain period and steroids, likely. But catching makes a difference.

And an "anomaly" is proof of no guilt.

Absolutely. It's at best an invitation to examination and a cause to wonder.

Unless 16-0 (or 18-1 if you prefer, and I know a lot of you do) is also "proof" of something rotten since it hadn't been done before. What other records, as outliers, are now deemed suspicious simply because they're just that?

No, I think when you see a dramatic difference that sustains for no apparent reason it's reasonable to wonder though. And no matter what metric you use that's what happened with the Pats.

While we're on the subject of the "anomaly," as you call it: Are we to believe Matt Cassel and Tom Brady both have the same preferences when it comes to gripping the football? That'd be another rather interesting coincidence.

I don't think so, but as the rebuttal you provided notes, a year is not a period of years. But Cassel had the reigns before the shift.

Good enough points to lead back to a question: Where did the league get the idea something funky was going on?

I'd like to know that one too.

"They beat us 45-3 on MNF. Well, they must've cheated. Our bad for not solving this mystery."

Not what I'm saying at all. But a team cheats once (at least) when it matters, you're a rube if you don't wonder going in.

Poisoning the well wouldn't surprise me, no. Certainly not after he was out coached and embarrassed in a game in his heart of hearts he knows his team had every chance to win until the very last minutes.

See, I liked the play, but I don't think he was out coached, except in the sense that you could say that about any really good game. And that one was a really good contest. Close in about any way you can name it.

While we're at this, when did he stop beating his girlfriend?

No, only deflating your "he'd have to be an idiot to cheat" business.

So it either took until 2007 (when this "anomaly" of yours crops up) or 2011 (when Brady mentioned in passing his preference on local radio) for Belichick to concoct this scheme. Well, great. Which is it?

If true it doesn't matter what day or month. Sometime in the year when it began or prior. Assuming he had anything to do with it and it wasn't a simple, happy accident owing to someone else's looking for an edge or comfort.

Or did Brady note his preference sooner in his career and they just got around to monkeying with the footballs after he'd been their starter for six seasons?

When you're winning without a new angle you don't need it. Or maybe whoever did it simply didn't think of it until things got tighter. I don't know.

Gee. Can't imagine why.

You don't have to imagine. One of the teams on that list we know was cheated outright. The rest (as I imagine anyone) who lost an important game began to wonder.

About never shutting up about Spygate? Darn straight he's never stopped complaining.

A legitimate Super Bowl winner suspects you cheated him out of another ring and set up a foundation for a dynasty that might be an invention to eclipse it. Of course he's still on it.

I see that "good coaching," "talent," and "benching players who fumble" doesn't cut any ice here.

I've given ample lauding on the points, have said the team that might undo them was beaten by talent, not tricks. But it doesn't perfume the point and the point is troubling. Where it leads, if it leads anywhere, will be important for league and Pats history.

And I don't like it. If it's true it will mar some of my favorites and, I think, needlessly in the long run. But those rings. Those early, three point rings and the fight to get them...and the shadow they cast, that might not last.

 

[Granite]

Bottom line it appears Burke played fast and loose with the data in order to come up with a sensational clickbait headline and, naturally, the media tripped over themselves falling for it. It's not science and it's not junk, but it's close to something that stinks.

 

[Eeset]

I think it is all theater. The whole NFL, all the games, the drama. It is just better orchestrated than professional wrestling. :mock: modern day Roman circus

 

[Town Heretic]

Bottom line it appears Burke played fast and loose with the data in order to come up with a sensational clickbait headline and, naturally, the media tripped over themselves falling for it. It's not science and it's not junk, but it's close to something that stinks.

Burke was the other fellow, the fellow your fellows liked. You mean what's his face, the first guy...and I think you're wrong, though your fellow did have a few points worth considering and it did impact the drama.

Anyway, on to the game? Did you see the latest Lynch fiasco/interview/farce?

I don't see how one sentence, non responsive remarks in parody of an answer to actual questions satisfies the intent of media access. Something to be looked at with the players association. That or do away with media requirements...or find a way to incentivize real cooperation.

 

[Arsenios]

Burke was the other fellow, the fellow your fellows liked. You mean what's his face, the first guy...and I think you're wrong, though your fellow did have a few points worth considering and it did impact the drama.

Anyway, on to the game? Did you see the latest Lynch fiasco/interview/farce?

I don't see how one sentence, non responsive remarks in parody of an answer to actual questions satisfies the intent of media access. Something to be looked at with the players association. That or do away with media requirements...or find a way to incentivize real cooperation.

A half-million dollar per incident spanking seems draconian-esque for a guy who simply does not want to talk to the press...

I say flog the press...

They think they are entitled to people...??

Lynch is a strange talent - Leave him be...

Arsenios

 

[chrysostom]

I think it is all theater. The whole NFL, all the games, the drama. It is just better orchestrated than professional wrestling. :mock: modern day Roman circus

we are being entertained
that is for sure
so
how else are you going to sell beer and pepsi?

 

[tetelestai]

how else are you going to sell beer and pepsi?

At last years Super Bowl, it was $16.00 for a draft beer.

It was $6.00 for a Pepsi.

All that money must go to pay the quarterbacks.