:freak:
NFL 2014
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
- Status
:freak:
Exactly!
Patriot's fans want to believe that somehow the Patriot's balls lost air pressure because of the alleged cold weather, while the Colt's balls didn't lose air pressure because of the cold weather.
Like I said, Patriot's fans are in denial.
Why would we do that?
And they'd be justifiably outraged were they animal lovers and someone produced then killed a unicorn.
lain:And that's enough for the league to act upon. It's called agency. If you sue and you're not sure who in a company you're suing personally you place a letter to stand for the unknown agent of the corporation. So we don't know who X(s) is/are but we have the injury and the imputed agency by virtue of obligation within the rules.
There's literally no way I'm aware of for that statement to be true, supra.
Two lbs of pressure reduction isn't going to be produced that way. Literally can't happen.
Some do. And some winners cheat. Heck, football is rife with people trying to find competitive advantages. Sometimes they cross the line doing it. The Pats have a history with that crossing on it. This is so subtle absent a growing suspicion and near paranoia among the Pats opponents it's unlikely it would ever have been discovered were it habitual, which other data I've noted might lead one to believe.
I think Bill's gaming of the rules in a clever, Saban like defeat of the Ravens was a tipping point and led to unparalleled scrutiny by others, possibly including the league office. And I suspect other metrics coming to the forefront, like the fumbling bit I noted, have fueled the league wide suspicion that New England's near unprecedented success might have less than unprecedented origins, historically.
Last edited:
Quincy
New member
That's the thing, the Colts could have pumped them up to the max expecting the footballs to contract while the Pats didn't. At half time, no one would have noticed anything about the Colts equipment. Let's say the Colts footballs lost 1 or 1 1/2 PSI, it wouldn't have mattered so nothing was made of it. Besides, losing a couple PSI negligible. You can google Joe Theismann talks deflate gate if you need legit confirmation on that.
Sorry you guys but this is the lamest sports scandal, perhaps ever. The outcome of the game wouldn't have changed regardless whether the cause was tampering or equipment failure.
My point is that I don't think they even saw that sort of deflation in Indy's balls.
Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both should have retired last year.
Instead, they are going to be known forever as "The Choker & The Cheater"
Instead, they are going to be known forever as "The Choker & The Cheater"
No, it isn't (see: other aspects of habitual underinflating and the impact on wrs and rbs, as per the last five year, historic distinction in fumbling by the Pats.
Absurd.
Only by idiots and people who substitute irrational bias for fact. Both are, regardless of Peyton's teams and Brady's coach, two of the greatest to play and both have had terrific seasons. Manning's was simply shortened by injuries he never should have attempted to play through.
Quincy
New member
A football loses some PSI immediately after inflation, if you couple that with being left out in cold weather for some time before game and during the first half, then the equipment could lose some inflation.
Football is a game of getting the open hand, by any means. In high school, I was instructed in the ways of hiding a hold, hiding clipping the knees and many other techniques we'd use to get an upper hand. In the pros they do all that and more, from not keeping their turf up to par to who knows what.
I agree, he is an expert of manipulating the rules but there's nothing wrong with that. Cheating involves having an advantage that is clearly against the rules, something that your opponent can't do. It puts them in a direct disadvantage. The Colts could have done the same thing the Pats did here but didn't. It's not like it would have made a difference in who won the game anyways. It's not like football is a gentleman's sport, like golf or chess.
And where's the league's culpability in this? CBS Boston is reporting the balls were inspected and approved by the refs below league-mandated levels.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/01/...ee-inspection-just-under-allowable-psi-level/
Or do the refs get a pass on this too? So far they're the only ones we know of with direct culpability, in this case, incompetence.
What's "darn peculiar" in your book is a) good coaching and b) poor stat crunching in someone else's. Did the guy factor in dropped passes as well, or did he even consider recovered fumbles? Something else to keep in mind: Running backs who fumble are benched immediately by Belichick for the remainder of the game. It is the surest way to get yourself in the doghouse (short of maybe being thirty seconds late for a practice).
What makes more sense: That the very same year they're busted for Spygate and under more scrutiny than ever before, their head coach responds with yet another dirty trick, or, that they're a very good, talented, and well-coached team?
And if they've been pulling this ball-deflation business since 2007 we're only just now hearing about it? Brady throws picks, sorry to say, and fumbles are indeed recovered by their opponents. Not one player, not one ref, ever raised a red flag until just now, when Belichick embarrassed a conference rival and then beat the snot out of the Colts on the way to the Super Bowl?
Gee. What timing indeed.
Only by complete and total idiots such as Steelers fans, but I repeat myself.:loser:
Only a complete sphincter would keep bringing Brady's personal life as though it had any bearing on anything football related whatsoever.
How many rapes you think your QB's gotten away with, if we're going there?
Quincy
New member
It may create issues for some players, sure. It didn't have an impact on who won the game, though.
Some unnamed source in Boston makes that claim, it gets on radio and is discussed by another Boston media outlet and it means what?
All we know is the league has said the balls were measured and then remeasured and there was a discrepancy between the two that constituted a rules violation.
He considered the same metric across teams. I have a link in my first posting on it. You should give it a look.
Sure. He acknowledged and the numbers back the Pats have a lower than league average most years prior to that jump. But then 2006 and from then on the difference is just historically unprecedented. They have the first, second, fifth and sixth best years in that regard in that five year run. And I'm talking compared to the history of the league. Prior to that their best was 71st and before that 127th.
Given no one thought to check and given it's something that's proving a bit hard to nail down and easy to defend for many, I'd say it seems reasonable that he found a new edge and that it translated demonstrably into a clear possession advantage.
I won't say I know it, but as with that statistician, I will say it's one of the darndest, unlikely, sustained and immediate jumps I can recall seeing in numbers.
No, they would have won anyway and should have been confident of the fact going in, which makes me more inclined to suspect it was a habit with them.
And if it was how many games did it influence? That dramatic impact on possession could have meant the edge in getting home field advantage in who knows how many seasons? And that was a killer for their chief rival, a dome team that played iffy in poor weather.
Or, once you establish that rules are violated it opens the door and taints all sorts of things that matter, even if a game doesn't.
All this said, I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for the CBS station out of Boston and the phantom source to be right and the league wrong, though even if Boston is right the Pats were presenting balls they knew were underinflated.
Why do you do that, exactly?
Much like Kravitz's unnamed source. We know now it wasn't Jackson. So who dropped the dime?
Which they overlooked.
Already told you I read the article, TH.
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.
At the absolute worst time available.
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. 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.
Probably not but look at it this way.....
Lets assume Brady likes the balls under inflated. That seems to be a reasonable conclusion.
Why does he like the balls that way?
Maybe in cold weather he has a hard time holding on to a ball that is the proper inflation.
Andrew Luck might not have that same problem.
Why should Brady get any advantage at all merely because he has tiny, feminine hands?
Just a thought
It does, because in your delusion, you somehow think Brady is incapable of lying.
Why do you keep insisting that 51 degree weather is "cold weather"?
- Status