OT: NFL Playoffs Thread

[Jacoby4HOF66]

Either way if you get caught you get penalized. Organization wide cheating is much more severe and hence why Richard Sherman won't cost the Seahawks a 1st round pick if he gets caught holding.

But it was more than just Richard Sherman. It was the entire SEA secondary (at least), and their coaches:

The Seahawks didn't respond to requests for comment, but defensive coordinator Dan Quinn said earlier this season that the Seattle coaches educate their players on what type of interference plays are being called around the league.

"We challenge and we play at the line and we like that style," he said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579310500005285822

Doesn't that get close to the "organizational" level?

 

[Ajax1995]

I will reserve my final opinion until all facts are known.

I find that a completely irresponsible position to take in these rush to judgement times...

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

I find that a completely irresponsible position to take in these rush to judgement times...

I'd like to think I've always been open minded, and willing to reserve judegment on things like this, but the Duke Lacrosse case really opened my eyes to what happens when people rush to judgement. Ever since then I have been more vigilant about jumping to conclusions.

 

[BobRouse]

But it was more than just Richard Sherman. It was the entire SEA secondary (at least), and their coaches:



http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303754404579310500005285822

Doesn't that get close to the "organizational" level?

Holding, pass interference etc all have a good deal of subjective decision making involved.

There is no gray area when it comes to taping opposition practices and deflating balls.

There is a big difference. That's why players get suspended for PEDs and not face mask penalties

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

Holding, pass interference etc all have a good deal of subjective decision making involved.

There is no gray area when it comes to taping opposition practices and deflating balls.

There is a big difference. That's why players get suspended for PEDs and not face mask penalties

So long as you equate deflating footballs with PED's there is no use debating this with you. Get some perspective and I will be game.

 

[g00n]

Playing physical and letting the refs choose to flag or not flag isn't the same as trying to sneak illegal balls onto the field. One is an in-game tactic subject to normal penalization and the other is deceptively altering the most fundamental object in the game. It's like the difference between a catcher framing a pitch in the strike zone to get the call and a pitcher scuffing the ball to get more break.

Plus, what Seattle did as a legal-but-subject-to-penalty gameplan last year has no bearing on what the Patriots may or may not be doing. Seattle doesn't have to be a team full of nuns for the Patriots to be wrong.

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

Playing physical and letting the refs choose to flag or not flag isn't the same as trying to sneak illegal balls onto the field. One is an in-game tactic subject to normal penalization and the other is deceptively altering the most fundamental object in the game. It's like the difference between a catcher framing a pitch in the strike zone to get the call and a pitcher scuffing the ball to get more break.

Plus, what Seattle did as a legal-but-subject-to-penalty gameplan last year has no bearing on what the Patriots may or may not be doing. Seattle doesn't have to be a team full of nuns for the Patriots to be wrong.

SEA, as a team, took the stance that they knew NFL Ref's wouldn't call every PI/Holding call, for fear of getting roasted in the media and by their NFL bosses, so as a team they purposely broke the rules. We aren't talking about a scrub DB committing PI once or twice in a game because he got beat by a better athlete. The entire defense (players and coaches) chose to cheat as a strategy, and they won a SB as a result. They looked for the line and they crossed it whenever they could. If NE did what they are accused of, in regards to deflating balls, I don't see the difference.

 

[g00n]

SEA, as a team, took the stance that they knew NFL Ref's wouldn't call every PI/Holding call, for fear of getting roasted in the media and by their NFL bosses, so as a team they purposely broke the rules. We aren't talking about a scrub DB committing PI once or twice in a game because he got beat by a better athlete. The entire defense (players and coaches) chose to cheat as a strategy, and they won a SB as a result. They looked for the line and they crossed it whenever they could. If NE did what they are accused of, in regards to deflating balls, I don't see the difference.

All the refs had to do was call PI every time the Seahawks broke the rule. Seattle would have stopped. That's on the refs. And again, that's a tactic within the game that amounts to an intentional foul in basketball or some simlar in-game infraction. It isn't even close to the same thing as secretly using illegal balls, which is a sanctionable offense and not a flagged penalty because it's so outside the spirit and rules of the game.

Did the Patriots blatantly use illegal balls and challenge the refs to infract them on every play? Because that's the only way this comparison comes close to working. In fact, I have heard Pats fans make the excuse that a ref handles the ball on every play and would have had ample opportunity to notice a flat ball and remove it from the game. Why doesn't that same excuse hold for the Seahawks? Why not blame the refs there, too?

What Seattle did last year has nothing to do with this.

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

What Seattle did last year has nothing to do with this.

Sure it does. If we are going to nitpick the psi in a football then everything is fair game. SEA and their blatant effort to break in game rules. Joe Gibbs and his phantom injury's to hide talented young players on IR. Brad Johnson going behind the NFL's back to get 100 brand new balls scuffed up so his sweaty hands can grip it. Eli Manning and his equipment guy with their elaborate process to take a brand new football and make it feel "10 years old". O-lineman holding on every play of every game. The doors magically opening at the Meadowlands when an opponent attempts a FG. Pumped in crowd noise. Its all fair game.

 

[g00n]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/08/usc-fined-deflated-game-balls/1691303/

USC caught doing the exact same thing 2 years ago. Ballboy fired, says nobody told him to do it. Sure.

 

[ALLCAPSALLTHETIME]

The Deflatriots have been caught red handed but will likely only get a slap on the wrist. What else is new...

Been a Seahawks fan since around 1981. It sure is nice to see them gunning for a second straight Superb Owl win.

Should be a good game but I think the Seahawks will win. Great defense and running game and Wilson should bounce back nicely. If the Deflatriots stack the line to stop Lynch, Wilson should be able to carve up the #17th ranked pass defense. Revis can't do it all by himself and Browner is just average, IMHO.

The defense should do fine against the Deflatriot offense. Blount will get some yards but eventually his quitter attitude will kick in when things don't go his way. Bam Bam Kam will lower the boom a few times and soften up the Deflatriot receivers. The Seahawks really miss Mebane and Hill. If they were healthy and playing, they'd be able to get some pressure up the middle and really give Brady a rough day. As it is, the D should be able to hold the fort.

Go Hawks!

 

[Jacoby4HOF66]

Mike an Mike had Dan Marino on this morning and asked him about deflategate. He said it didn't affect the outcome of the AFC Championship game, that he trusts that Brady wouldn't do something like this deliberately, that NFL QB's have always been individually particular about the type of footballs they've thrown (Marino included). Finally, when asked what are the benefits of throwing an underinflated ball, he said its easier to throw in bad weather. That's all he said, he could of slammed Brady, Belichick and NE like his old HC Shula did, but he didn't.

And that's where I am on this until hard evidence comes to light that proves otherwise. It didn't affect the outcome of the game and Brady gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BobRouse]

Wethog

How do you explain the fumble disparity since 2007? Those numbers are WAY out of range and hard to ignore.

They discussed that report on Around The Horn last night and everyone unanimously agreed that somethings

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007

Do you think this is just a big coincidence?

 

[Ajax1995]

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007

The comments below this 'article' are interesting. Plenty of people apparently find the data incredibly flawed.

I guess any organization that had a nice multiple year stretch of fumbling significantly less than normal must have been cheating. I mean there is absolutely no other possible explanation...

 

[BobRouse]

The comments below this 'article' are interesting. Plenty of people apparently find the data incredibly flawed.

I guess any organization that had a nice multiple year stretch of fumbling significantly less than normal must have been cheating. I mean there is absolutely no other possible explanation...

Well an organization that has been caught cheating before loses the benefit of the doubt do they not?

 

[Ajax1995]

Well an organization that has been caught cheating before loses the benefit of the doubt do they not?

Not necessarily IMO. But by all means continue with the rush to judgement and using graphs of apparently very incomplete and inaccurate data to support your 'hands up don't shoot' position...

 

[g00n]

Not necessarily IMO. But by all means continue with the rush to judgement and using graphs of apparently very incomplete and inaccurate data to support your 'hands up don't shoot' position...

He removed some factors and compared similar teams playing in similar conditions. Hockey analytics tease out data like this all the time. What's the problem? Some comments from random people disagree? It doesn't mean he's wrong or the data is bad. Some of the commenters even added to the points made with more analysis. As for the detractors, I'm sure none of them are Pats fans (like the guy with the Patriots sb champ avatar), and comments on public articles are never full of cranks.

 

[Ajax1995]

He removed some factors and compared similar teams playing in similar conditions.

He cherry picked his data. He made assumptions that just aren't true because not doing that wouldn't 'prove' his point. He already knew where he wanted to get to and tailored his data to fit his conclusion. That's BS and you know it.

 

[HunterSThompson]

He cherry picked his data. He made assumptions that just aren't true because not doing that wouldn't 'prove' his point. He already knew where he wanted to get to and tailored his data to fit his conclusion. That's BS and you know it.

What did he remove? I am seriously asking.

 

[g00n]

He cherry picked his data. He made assumptions that just aren't true because not doing that wouldn't 'prove' his point. He already knew where he wanted to get to and tailored his data to fit his conclusion. That's BS and you know it.

Actually, no. What I said is what I meant.

Do you think adding the dome teams back in changes the data? That dome teams fumble THAT much more than non-dome teams (who are playing in bad weather while dome teams have half their games in perfect conditions)?

If there's little change before and after 2007 among the same teams who played in the same conditions, and it's unbelievably drastic for ONE team, then something is off. It doesn't matter if the dome teams are included or not...there is still a spike that the other teams, who are more comparable, did not see.

And like I said, this is no different than what's done in analytics when you try to compare like situations, or adjust for zone starts, etc.

 

[HunterSThompson]

Actually, no. What I said is what I meant.

Do you think adding the dome teams back in changes the data? That dome teams fumble THAT much more than non-dome teams (who are playing in bad weather while dome teams have half their games in perfect conditions)?

If there's little change before and after 2007 among the same teams who played in the same conditions, and it's unbelievably drastic for ONE team, then something is off. It doesn't matter if the dome teams are included or not...there is still a spike that the other teams, who are more comparable, did not see.

And like I said, this is no different than what's done in analytics when you try to compare like situations, or adjust for zone starts, etc.

I hate agreeing so much, but I have to. Removing variables is almost always better than leaving them in.

 

[Ajax1995]

What did he remove? I am seriously asking.

Every game played by a team that plays its home games in a dome, even the ones not played in a dome, and yet included every game a team that doesn't play its home games in a dome's games in a dome.

Guy who wrote 'article' - Team X plays 8 games a year in a dome and that has to be the reason they didn't fumble a lot so I am removing them from my data.

Obvious questions - Yeah but what about the games they didn't play in a dome? Did they fumble more, less, the same when not playing in a dome?

Guy who wrote the 'article' - I'm not even going to look...

More obvious questions - What about when non dome teams play in domes? Do they fumble more, less, the same?

Guy who wrote the 'article' - Again, I'm not even going to look...

Even more obvious questions - Team Y plays in a dome and they did fumble a lot. What's up with that?

Guy who wrote the 'article' - Lalala I'm not listening, lalala...

Sure dome teams play 8 games a year in a dome but they also play 8 not in a dome, and yes I am aware a dome team could play a road game in a dome also but you get my point. If we are talking about 5 plus year stretches that is still a significant number of games not played in a dome. You can't throw those out just because you don't fit your narrative.

And my understanding is that while yes teams fumble less in controlled conditions it is not such a significant amount that it is even remotely close to warranting tossing the games out let alone all the games played by teams that only play half their games there. but even if you did want to throw out games in a dome you need to do that for everyone. The fact that a home team's game in a dome doesn't count but the visiting team in the same exact game does is simply absurd.

The data is just flawed. It wasn't I'm going to pull together the data and see what it says. It was I know what I want the data to say now how can I make it do that.

 

[g00n]

Every game played by a team that plays its home games in a dome, even the ones not played in a dome, and yet included every game a team that doesn't play its home games in a dome's games in a dome.

Guy who wrote 'article' - Team X plays 8 games a year in a dome and that has to be the reason they didn't fumble a lot so I am removing them from my data.

Obvious questions - Yeah but what about the games they didn't play in a dome? Did they fumble more, less, the same when not playing in a dome?

Guy who wrote the 'article' - I'm not even going to look...

More obvious questions - What about when non dome teams play in domes? Do they fumble more, less, the same?

Guy who wrote the 'article' - Again, I'm not even going to look...

Even more obvious questions - Team Y plays in a dome and they did fumble a lot. What's up with that?

Guy who wrote the 'article' - Lalala I'm not listening, lalala...

Sure dome teams play 8 games a year in a dome but they also play 8 not in a dome, and yes I am aware a dome team could play a road game in a dome also but you get my point. If we are talking about 5 plus year stretches that is still a significant number of games not played in a dome. You can't throw those out just because you don't fit your narrative.

And my understanding is that while yes teams fumble less in controlled conditions it is not such a significant amount that it is even remotely close to warranting tossing the games out let alone all the games played by teams that only play half their games there. but even if you did want to throw out games in a dome you need to do that for everyone. The fact that a home team's game in a dome doesn't count but the visiting team in the same exact game does is simply absurd.

The data is just flawed. It wasn't I'm going to pull together the data and see what it says. It was I know what I want the data to say now how can I make it do that.

This is just protestation to the removal of some games that may not even have an effect on the results.

And again, you're ignoring the fact that teams playing games in similar conditions a similar number of times saw one pattern while ONE team saw a massive, statistically unlikely change at a key time. It simply does not matter that the dome teams were left out in that context, or even what they did. Your complaint is they didn't use all the games from all the teams when there's plenty of good data comparing the most similar teams. It does not change the fact that what the Patriots did was a massive anomaly among like teams.

 

[g00n]

And what kind of data would be missing to invalidate the results in the analysis? We'd need to see a similar, massive drop in fumbles from dome teams after 2007. Is there any reason to suspect something like that other than, say, deflating footballs?

 

[sycamore]

The Deflatriots, Bill Bellicheat, Tom Gravy and Robert Krap are all going down this Sunday. End communication.