I disagree. I want more data. The demarcation line for this 'analysis' is a rule that only effected the road teams. I want to know how the entire league's fumble stats changed from that date on and I 100% want to know how home and away fumble stats changed for everyone.
OT: NFL Playoffs Thread
- Thread starter AlexBrovechkin8
- Start date
I disagree. I want more data. The demarcation line for this 'analysis' is a rule that only effected the road teams. I want to know how the entire league's fumble stats changed from that date on and I 100% want to know how home and away fumble stats changed for everyone.
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 30,673
- 14,840
The rule affected home and away teams both because you no longer provided balls for the away team in a mixed pool of footballs. Prior to 2007 you couldn't be sure of getting only the deflated balls, after 2007 you could.
Do you really think you're going to find that dome teams fumble stats were outside of the league trend like the Patriots? If you do think that, all I can tell you is write the author of the study and ask him about it.
I can't find all the data and I can't do it by touches but between '07-'14 the Pats fumbled, not lost but just put it on the ground, .9875 times per game. During the same time the Falcons fumbled .9625 times per game. In the previous 4 seasons, I apologize but that is as far back as I can find this data, the Pats fumbled 1.475 times per game and the Falcons fumbled 1.45 times per game. The Falcons decreased their fumbling 33.6% and the Pats 33.1%.
I know it isn't the exact same stat or encompassing the exact same time period but it is the best I can do at this time.
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 30,673
- 14,840
Like you said, that's not per touch. It also includes the 2013 season where the Pats had two outlier games that accounted for enough fumbles to bring them back to league average.
Did you check the other dome teams or just the Falcons? What if the dome teams are closer to the Pats rate of fumbling, but the teams that play in bad weather aren't? How does that disprove the theory that the Pats are increasing their chance of holding on to the ball in bad weather, and then possibly coming closer to dome team fumble rates because of it?
Like I said, adding in the dome team data doesn't really change the point here. If all the dome teams fumble at a low rate and the Patriots are the only non-dome team fumbling at dome rates despite weather, it still looks bad for the Pats.
Ok here is the data for the dome teams, I may have missed one but whatever.
Colts went from 1.2 to 1.0875 for a 9.4% decrease
Saints went from 1.625 to 1.1625 for a 28.5% decrease
Lions went from 1.2 to 1.5625 for a 30.2% increase
Rams went from 1.575 to 1.375 for a 12.7% decrease
Cards went from 1.85 to 1.6125 for a 12.8% decrease
Vikings went from 1.7 to 1.35 for a 20.6% decrease
So having gone through these numbers dome teams do not fumble less or if they do it isn't in any way significant IMO. And no I am not doing this for the rest of the league. And that the Pats improvement in ball protection wasn't so far out there that it was exceedingly unlikely without 'cheating' as the Falcons improvement was even better, though I guess maybe they were cheating also...
Jacoby4HOF66
Pull my finger
- Mar 13, 2009
- 30,522
- 7,726
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 30,673
- 14,840
What rule is he talking about? The 100 year old air pressure rule that defines the game ball, or the rule from 2007?
Montana's more important comments had to do with his assessment that IF the balls were deflated then Brady certainly would have ordered it. Also remarked that he and Aikman wondered why they didn't think of doing that. lol
What? There is a big difference between knowing about it, as in gripping the ball and knowing it might not be 12.5, and ordering it IMO.
BobRouse
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2009
- 10,144
- 373
Well here is what I'm comfortable knowing:
1. There is a rule about the balls being at a certain level of pressure and Brady definitely likes it a certain bit.
2. Someone from the Patriots payroll manipulated the balls. Who remains to be seen but it was in their team's custody when it happened.
3. The Patriots are repeat offenders. They have shown a willingness to circumvent established rules in the past and got heavily fined and had to forfeit a 1st rounder due to this.
So:
There is a rule+someone from the payroll of the Pats was invloved in deflation+repeat offenders
Agreed that is most likely the case. But I'm willing to wait until the investigation is completed before deciding that is definitely what happened.
And if the equipment guy did do it I want to know if he did it on his own accord or if someone higher up asked him to do it. IMO what kind of penalty is imposed should go up quite a bit if it is determined to be the latter.
sycamore
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2010
- 5,072
- 1,076
Are we giving our picks yet? This is an interesting matchup -- a young, very athletic team against the an older, savvy won. As badly as the Seahawks played against Green Bay, I like them to win. Firstly, Deflategate has to take a bit of a toll on the Patriots. The Seahawks have close to zero media attention on them the last two weeks, the Pats have had a ton of it 2) Brady has a history of blowing it against aggressive defences in the pressure playoff games (eg. the last 2 SB losses against the Giants).
BrooklynCapsFan
No more choking!
I don't think it's going to be much of a game. Seattle is a damn good team. But then again, I don't bet on football for a reason.
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 30,673
- 14,840
Going back to the illegal formation accusations, NFL says Pats TD in Colts game used an illegal formation:
http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/nfl-says-solder-touchdown-play-was-illegal
I have to say I can't recall a postseason where there were so many issues with the rules and controversial plays.
http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/nfl-says-solder-touchdown-play-was-illegal
I have to say I can't recall a postseason where there were so many issues with the rules and controversial plays.
Seattle is going to stomp the Pats, thereby ending all intrigue. Packers blew it, Hawks will dominate again. Probably win by 10-17 pts. Say 38-22.
Jacoby4HOF66
Pull my finger
- Mar 13, 2009
- 30,522
- 7,726
Ty to Darrell Bevel for not running Lynch on 2nd and goal.
Great game no matter who won. Sure beats the SB's when I was growing up during that NFC winning streak blowouts.
So much for football PSI.
Great game no matter who won. Sure beats the SB's when I was growing up during that NFC winning streak blowouts.
So much for football PSI.
Cush
Registered User
Marshall
A ribbon reflector
Dumbest coach call in Super Bowl history. Hate the Pats, but Carroll earned every bit of it.
Hubris at it's highest.
Hubris at it's highest.
Cush
Registered User
Jacoby4HOF66
Pull my finger
- Mar 13, 2009
- 30,522
- 7,726
Cush
Registered User
NobodyBeatsTheWiz
Happy now?
Worst play call in Super Bowl history?
And I'd sure as **** be sore loser against that bunch of cheaters.
And I'd sure as **** be sore loser against that bunch of cheaters.
Jacoby4HOF66
Pull my finger
- Mar 13, 2009
- 30,522
- 7,726
Came back from 10 down against the best defense in the league, with properly inflated balls no less. Not bad for a bunch of cheaters.
NobodyBeatsTheWiz
Happy now?
Came back from 10 down against the best defense in the league, with properly inflated balls no less. Not bad for a bunch of cheaters.
You serious? They have an established pattern of bending and breaking the rules. If there's any team that deserves to win a Super Bowl the least, it's the New England Patriots. They stopped Seattle's previous drive on a defensive pass interference that went uncalled and the "winning" TD was a blatant push off.
