Jump to content

Deflagate Will Have MAJOR impact on NE's level of play this year


JohnnyLV

Recommended Posts

AFCEastFan ... What are your thoughts on these fumble stats?

2010-2014 Regular season fumbles from NE & Their opponents for Rushing & Receiving

Totals

NE fumbles - 36

Opp fumbles - 72

 

Honestly, I have no idea except that I do not believe that it is random.  It could certainly be something illegal (e.g. caking the balls in stick-um during the games or, yes, even systematically deflating footballs, although as I suggested in my response to EM31, I have no idea why they would not be doing these things pre-2006 as well, when the statistical anomalies did not exist).  It also could be something innocuous, like the dramatic shift in the Patriots offensive philosophy which happened in 2007, at a time when they had the personnel to successfully execute that philosophy.  

 

In either case, the reason for the discrepancies is not that the Patriots are practicing ball security harder than other teams -- that is the BS rhetoric of the patsfans.com crowd.  But it IS because the Patriots are clearly doing something during the games that other teams are not doing.  Whether that something is legal or illegal, I do not know.  

 

I do believe if the Patriots were accomplishing it legally, however, the fumble rates would normalize if the Patriots replaced Tom Brady with, say, Andy Dalton and Rob Gronkowski with, say, Jermaine Gresham, even if they continued to use balls at the same psi that Brady uses.  If Brady gets suspended for the 4 games and Gronk suffered a major injury in preseason, then Jimmy G and Scott Chandler would give us a much better sense of what this would look like.  Unfortunately, if this actually happened and the fumble rates did regress toward the mean, people like me might say "see, it's because the Patriots can no longer run the offense with the personnel that helped them to reduce fumbles" and others might say "see, it's because the Patriots can't use deflated balls anymore" . . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Honestly, I have no idea except that I do not believe that it is random.  It could certainly be something illegal (e.g. caking the balls in stick-um during the games or, yes, even systematically deflating footballs, although as I suggested in my response to EM31, I have no idea why they would not be doing these things pre-2006 as well, when the statistical anomalies did not exist).  It also could be something innocuous, like the dramatic shift in the Patriots offensive philosophy which happened in 2007, at a time when they had the personnel to successfully execute that philosophy.  

 

In either case, the reason for the discrepancies is not that the Patriots are practicing ball security harder than other teams -- that is the BS rhetoric of the patsfans.com crowd.  But it IS because the Patriots are clearly doing something during the games that other teams are not doing.  Whether that something is legal or illegal, I do not know.  

 

I do believe if the Patriots were accomplishing it legally, however, the fumble rates would normalize if the Patriots replaced Tom Brady with, say, Andy Dalton and Rob Gronkowski with, say, Jermaine Gresham, even if they continued to use balls at the same psi that Brady uses.  If Brady gets suspended for the 4 games and Gronk suffered a major injury in preseason, then Jimmy G and Scott Chandler would give us a much better sense of what this would look like.  Unfortunately, if this actually happened and the fumble rates did regress toward the mean, people like me might say "see, it's because the Patriots can no longer run the offense with the personnel that helped them to reduce fumbles" and others might say "see, it's because the Patriots can't use deflated balls anymore" . . . .

Well stated response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna tell you something I noticed and someone else did too, and we even spoke about it more than once. BEFORE the flats got busted.

 

When, the rare occurence they fumble, the ball just drops dead on the ground, never bounces, and theree is ALWAYS an O-lineman dropping onto a dead stationary ball. 

 

Now we know why. Because THEIR balls have been flat for years, therefore, they will not make a funny bounce or roll like a fully inflated football. 

 

Go figure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly do you think was going on post-2006 that was not going on before then?  Are you suggesting that the Patriots post-2006 gave the officials bags of deflated footballs and assumed that they wouldn't be properly inspected?  Otherwise, what difference does the rule change make?

 

As far as I'm aware, there is nothing McNally or the Patriots were alleged to have done to deflate the footballs post-2006 that they could not have done pre-2007, because both of the alleged deflation methods -- McNally absconding with the balls after they were inspected (which Anderson and Blakeman both testified had never before happened in their history as officials) or someone on the Patriots sideline hiding a needle and deflating the balls during the game -- can be accomplished regardless of whether the Patriots have a pre-game right to "prepare" the balls.  

 

I can promise you that if there was any tangible value to deflating footballs, Belichick would have thought of it (and done it) long before 2006.  So at the very least I think you are creating a link between the rule change and the Patriots' fumble stats that simply does not exist.  

 

Honestly I thought the rules changes post 2006 included each team "taking care of" (WINK WINK) its own footballs between inspection and the game.  Pre-2007 they all came from the same pile administered by the refs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what else is different?

Light is gone. As is Mankins, Koppen and Neal.

That is a one sack increase, I would say he is about par for the course.

On par with strip sacks. But far below "par" for RB/WR fumbles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If you correct for the faulty assumptions exponent made, 8 of 11 balls are above the relevant threshold:

 

http://deadspin.com/here-is-the-transcript-from-tom-bradys-appeal-hearing-1722113452

 

Granted, this is an expert witness for the NFLPA, and I haven't been crunching the numbers myself, but his reasoning is sound, and it certainly sheds a little more light on why Ted Wells chose to use a firm that once claimed that secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer to do the analysis, rather than the Physics Department of an Ivy League university.

They have video of the deflator taking the bag of balls into the bathroom, then putting them back. Wake up man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got those number of fumbles handy ... Would be interesting to see the exact numbers again without the whole song & dance surrounding it

 

Follow the link previously provided. 

 

Tate's numbers are added (35 touches with 11 fumbles) to the table. 

 

He did not fumble on his receptions/runs, but as a kick-off/punt returner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the link previously provided. 

 

Tate's numbers are added (35 touches with 11 fumbles) to the table. 

 

He did not fumble on his receptions/runs, but as a kick-off/punt returner.

Appreciate the reply ... I went to ESPN.com & pulled them

2010-2014 Regular season fumbles from NE & Their opponents for Rushing & Receiving

Totals

NE fumbles - 36

Opp fumbles - 72

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...