dallas can never get a good coach until jones kicks it because nobody good wants to deal with him.
I think that’s a hard disagree for me. This isn’t the Washington job—Lots of good coaches would be lining up for Dallas given the opportunity.
I believe Jerry is the only owner GM in the league. He might not be as terrible to work for as Dan Snyder, but he's still way more hands on than your typical owner.
Absolutely. But I don’t think there’s any indication that it means Dallas won’t ever get a good coach. With Washington, there’s lots of indications that coaches are passing on that job. With Dallas, there’s no actual indication any coach would pass it up. Sure, maybe some would (has there actually been any reports of anyone?), but they’ll get Lincoln Riley or Urban Meyer or some assistant. Jerry is clearly fiercely loyal these days and has given Garrett way more rope than many owners would have, which is a plus. He’s also clearly willing to spend. It’s a job where success can make you a legend.
Unless there’s this trove of reporting that no coach wants the Dallas job that I’ve missed, I disagree with the notion that they’ll never get a good coach because they don’t want to deal with him.
Now, you can maybe make the argument that they’ll never get a good coach because Jerry won’t actually hire someone good because he’s selecting for coaches that won’t push back on him or whatever and they’ll end up with a bad coach. I’m not sure I buy it, but it’s possible. I just don’t think that you can say no good coach will want the job.
I think it's more that many highly sought after coaches are going to demand some say in the GM process. Off the top of my head, I believe Gruden, Belichick, Carroll and Shannahan are all coaches that wanted to have control of personnel as part of their head coach position.
There's probably plenty of good coaches that will take the job, but it might be less likely that an established coach with multiple HC offers will take it if they think they can have more power elsewhere.
Yeah I can totally see some coaches that wouldn’t want the job. I was responding to “dallas can never get a good coach” because of Jones. I just don’t agree with that.
They can’t have any coach they might want. Some won’t want to coach under him. Hell, some good coaches might not want the spotlight of Dallas in general, but I absolutely think there are good coaches who will take that job.
Also, someone called this Bengalzi and it's a shame reporters are using Signalgate because it's a much better name.
This is true, but there's a methodology for scandal names.
Benghazi was a battle that went south and people died, but as far as scandals go it was a nothingburger. Watergate was a single break-in at an upscale Washington hotel, but as scandals go was very real.
If you -ghazi something, you're saying it's fake. (This works doubly well linguistically because of the slang fugazi.) If you -gate something, you're signaling (aha) that it's real.
(So yes I'm saying that people that supported Brady and the Patriots during the last time they got caught doing something should have tried calling it Deflateghazi.)
Also, someone called this Bengalzi and it's a shame reporters are using Signalgate because it's a much better name.
This is true, but there's a methodology for scandal names.
Benghazi was a battle that went south and people died, but as far as scandals go it was a nothingburger. Watergate was a single break-in at an upscale Washington hotel, but as scandals go was very real.
If you -ghazi something, you're saying it's fake. (This works doubly well linguistically because of the slang fugazi.) If you -gate something, you're signaling (aha) that it's real.
(So yes I'm saying that people that supported Brady and the Patriots during the last time they got caught doing something should have tried calling it Deflateghazi.)
Considering how -gate has been used, I'm pretty sure any association with actual scandal has long since passed and all that's left is a tired, over-used meme that painfully unimaginative reporters keep using because it's all they know how to do.
Also, someone called this Bengalzi and it's a shame reporters are using Signalgate because it's a much better name.
This is true, but there's a methodology for scandal names.
Benghazi was a battle that went south and people died, but as far as scandals go it was a nothingburger. Watergate was a single break-in at an upscale Washington hotel, but as scandals go was very real.
If you -ghazi something, you're saying it's fake. (This works doubly well linguistically because of the slang fugazi.) If you -gate something, you're signaling (aha) that it's real.
(So yes I'm saying that people that supported Brady and the Patriots during the last time they got caught doing something should have tried calling it Deflateghazi.)
People were pushing ballghazi just because "-gate" feels old and worn out
It's the fucking Bengals, man! How fucking insecure or addicted to cheating do you have to be to feel like you need to cheat against the fucking Bengals?!?
It's the fucking Bengals, man! How fucking insecure or addicted to cheating do you have to be to feel like you need to cheat against the fucking Bengals?!?
It's the fucking Bengals, man! How fucking insecure or addicted to cheating do you have to be to feel like you need to cheat against the fucking Bengals?!?
Cheating really is the Patriot way.
I mean, they probably cheat this way against every team. They just got caught doing it against the Bengals. Because the Patriots are the cheatingest bunch of cheaters who ever cheated.
It's the fucking Bengals, man! How fucking insecure or addicted to cheating do you have to be to feel like you need to cheat against the fucking Bengals?!?
Cheating really is the Patriot way.
Yes this is my thought. If they are willing to pull this crap when prepping for the damn bengals then it's just cheating all the way down. This is up there with russian curlers caught doping. No reason to do it other than you are just so used to cheating you can't stop.
idk if they're so brazen as to get press access or whatever from the home team to do this I would imagine that if they've done this repeatedly it will come out sooner rather than later. Other teams have no reason to sit on that sort of info.
idk if they're so brazen as to get press access or whatever from the home team to do this I would imagine that if they've done this repeatedly it will come out sooner rather than later. Other teams have no reason to sit on that sort of info.
Eh protect the shield. Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft have a lot of power in the NFL, and I could see them appealing to members to keep quiet about one of the premier teams in the league cheating their way to victory. Like the baseball juicing scandal hurt the whole sport even when it was a select group of guys doing it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Imma start by saying that the Pats are morons for not avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. That said:
They alerted the home team that they were filming, and were doing it in the open.
There's no indication they did this against the Ravens or Chiefs - the two teams they'd most likely need the advantage against.
Teams rarely use signals any more, they can call in plays via headset. Filming would be huge risk with almost no reward.
The Patriots haven't been repeatedly caught cheating, they've been repeatedly caught up in bullshit: The story about them filming the Rams was a lie, and was retracted and apologized for. Ballghazi was more easily explained by physics than malfeasance. The tuck rule was the right call and Brady gets less roughing calls than Cam Newton. The only real scandal in the Brady era was when they were filming from the sidelines, and it wasn't that they were filming, it was they were doing it from the wrong place, which they immediately owned up to.
Even Tony Dungy is defending us, and he hates our ass.
Meh. The Tuck is dodgy and likely should have been a fumble.
Tuck was a dumb rule called correctly. We had got bit by it earlier in the year against the Jets. Also the ball was knocked loose by a head slap, which should have been a 15 yard penalty against Woodson.
Imma start by saying that the Pats are morons for not avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. That said:
They alerted the home team that they were filming, and were doing it in the open.
There's no indication they did this against the Ravens or Chiefs - the two teams they'd most likely need the advantage against.
Teams rarely use signals any more, they can call in plays via headset. Filming would be huge risk with almost no reward.
The Patriots haven't been repeatedly caught cheating, they've been repeatedly caught up in bullshit: The story about them filming the Rams was a lie, and was retracted and apologized for. Ballghazi was more easily explained by physics than malfeasance. The tuck rule was the right call and Brady gets less roughing calls than Cam Newton. The only real scandal in the Brady era was when they were filming from the sidelines, and it wasn't that they were filming, it was they were doing it from the wrong place, which they immediately owned up to.
Even Tony Dungy is defending us, and he hates our ass.
1) That they were filming in the open is simply their excuse to make it seem OK.
2) they probably did it va those teams as well
3) since the tape contains video of coaches signallying plays it seems pretty unlikely to suggest that this doesnt happen.
4) the pats have repeatedly been caught cheating. Filming from the wrong place is cheating because different angles and distances produce different ability to see signals
5) the pats almost certainly did deflate the balls intentionally and its unlikely that the result was from temperature. (Why did, for example, this temperature differential not effect the other team?). There is also pretty clear statistical evidence that the pats fumble rates are outside bounds*
*there were a few articles that said more or less the opposite but these well... lied to you. Doing a normality check with your supposedly out of bounds data left in should fail if the data is indeed unlikely. So saying that this is evidence that the distribution isnt normal and so the pats data wasnt an outlier is... well it’s lying
The Pats run a gish-gallop of scandals so regularly now that not even ESPN gives a shit about it anymore. I'm sure the league will forget this even happened by next weekend.
Imma start by saying that the Pats are morons for not avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. That said:
They alerted the home team that they were filming, and were doing it in the open.
There's no indication they did this against the Ravens or Chiefs - the two teams they'd most likely need the advantage against.
Teams rarely use signals any more, they can call in plays via headset. Filming would be huge risk with almost no reward.
The Patriots haven't been repeatedly caught cheating, they've been repeatedly caught up in bullshit: The story about them filming the Rams was a lie, and was retracted and apologized for. Ballghazi was more easily explained by physics than malfeasance. The tuck rule was the right call and Brady gets less roughing calls than Cam Newton. The only real scandal in the Brady era was when they were filming from the sidelines, and it wasn't that they were filming, it was they were doing it from the wrong place, which they immediately owned up to.
Even Tony Dungy is defending us, and he hates our ass.
1) That they were filming in the open is simply their excuse to make it seem OK.
2) they probably did it va those teams as well
3) since the tape contains video of coaches signallying plays it seems pretty unlikely to suggest that this doesnt happen.
4) the pats have repeatedly been caught cheating. Filming from the wrong place is cheating because different angles and distances produce different ability to see signals
5) the pats almost certainly did deflate the balls intentionally and its unlikely that the result was from temperature. (Why did, for example, this temperature differential not effect the other team?). There is also pretty clear statistical evidence that the pats fumble rates are outside bounds*
*there were a few articles that said more or less the opposite but these well... lied to you. Doing a normality check with your supposedly out of bounds data left in should fail if the data is indeed unlikely. So saying that this is evidence that the distribution isnt normal and so the pats data wasnt an outlier is... well it’s lying
Didn’t their fumble rate go down the year after deflategate though? When the NFL was watching extra closely and changed the ball handling procedures?
I’m sure they did it, but I’m not sure the fumble rate is the smoking gun. Honestly, if the lower pressure balls is some secret to making your team awesome, I say let everyone do it.
Imma start by saying that the Pats are morons for not avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. That said:
They alerted the home team that they were filming, and were doing it in the open.
There's no indication they did this against the Ravens or Chiefs - the two teams they'd most likely need the advantage against.
Teams rarely use signals any more, they can call in plays via headset. Filming would be huge risk with almost no reward.
The Patriots haven't been repeatedly caught cheating, they've been repeatedly caught up in bullshit: The story about them filming the Rams was a lie, and was retracted and apologized for. Ballghazi was more easily explained by physics than malfeasance. The tuck rule was the right call and Brady gets less roughing calls than Cam Newton. The only real scandal in the Brady era was when they were filming from the sidelines, and it wasn't that they were filming, it was they were doing it from the wrong place, which they immediately owned up to.
Even Tony Dungy is defending us, and he hates our ass.
1) That they were filming in the open is simply their excuse to make it seem OK.
2) they probably did it va those teams as well
3) since the tape contains video of coaches signallying plays it seems pretty unlikely to suggest that this doesnt happen.
4) the pats have repeatedly been caught cheating. Filming from the wrong place is cheating because different angles and distances produce different ability to see signals
5) the pats almost certainly did deflate the balls intentionally and its unlikely that the result was from temperature. (Why did, for example, this temperature differential not effect the other team?). There is also pretty clear statistical evidence that the pats fumble rates are outside bounds*
*there were a few articles that said more or less the opposite but these well... lied to you. Doing a normality check with your supposedly out of bounds data left in should fail if the data is indeed unlikely. So saying that this is evidence that the distribution isnt normal and so the pats data wasnt an outlier is... well it’s lying
Didn’t their fumble rate go down the year after deflategate though? When the NFL was watching extra closely and changed the ball handling procedures?
I’m sure they did it, but I’m not sure the fumble rate is the smoking gun. Honestly, if the lower pressure balls is some secret to making your team awesome, I say let everyone do it.
Baseball absolutely had juiced balls all regular season this year, as a result many more home runs were hit, something which many people correlate with higher entertainment value.
If only the Yankees had managed to have these juiced baseballs and were found out, all of New England would have had a collective stroke
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
People try to contort themselves into the Patriots being cheaters because it excuses being the most dominant dynasty in the history of the sport during the period that it should be hardest to win consistently. They're not even the most recent team to be caught in a signal taping infraction and no one gave a shit because it wasn't the Patriots.
Ed
Hell I have video of the Patriots and Chiefs sidelines from last week on my phone. It is nonsense
Imma start by saying that the Pats are morons for not avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. That said:
They alerted the home team that they were filming, and were doing it in the open.
There's no indication they did this against the Ravens or Chiefs - the two teams they'd most likely need the advantage against.
Teams rarely use signals any more, they can call in plays via headset. Filming would be huge risk with almost no reward.
The Patriots haven't been repeatedly caught cheating, they've been repeatedly caught up in bullshit: The story about them filming the Rams was a lie, and was retracted and apologized for. Ballghazi was more easily explained by physics than malfeasance. The tuck rule was the right call and Brady gets less roughing calls than Cam Newton. The only real scandal in the Brady era was when they were filming from the sidelines, and it wasn't that they were filming, it was they were doing it from the wrong place, which they immediately owned up to.
Even Tony Dungy is defending us, and he hates our ass.
1) That they were filming in the open is simply their excuse to make it seem OK.
2) they probably did it va those teams as well
3) since the tape contains video of coaches signallying plays it seems pretty unlikely to suggest that this doesnt happen.
4) the pats have repeatedly been caught cheating. Filming from the wrong place is cheating because different angles and distances produce different ability to see signals
5) the pats almost certainly did deflate the balls intentionally and its unlikely that the result was from temperature. (Why did, for example, this temperature differential not effect the other team?). There is also pretty clear statistical evidence that the pats fumble rates are outside bounds*
*there were a few articles that said more or less the opposite but these well... lied to you. Doing a normality check with your supposedly out of bounds data left in should fail if the data is indeed unlikely. So saying that this is evidence that the distribution isnt normal and so the pats data wasnt an outlier is... well it’s lying
Didn’t their fumble rate go down the year after deflategate though? When the NFL was watching extra closely and changed the ball handling procedures?
I’m sure they did it, but I’m not sure the fumble rate is the smoking gun. Honestly, if the lower pressure balls is some secret to making your team awesome, I say let everyone do it.
The smoking gun is catching them having deflated the balls. The fumble rate being unlikely is just evidence.
If you were pre-disposed to hating New England, then anything short of strapping the team to a rocket and firing it into the sun was always going to be a dissapointment.
Imma start by saying that the Pats are morons for not avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. That said:
They alerted the home team that they were filming, and were doing it in the open.
There's no indication they did this against the Ravens or Chiefs - the two teams they'd most likely need the advantage against.
Teams rarely use signals any more, they can call in plays via headset. Filming would be huge risk with almost no reward.
The Patriots haven't been repeatedly caught cheating, they've been repeatedly caught up in bullshit: The story about them filming the Rams was a lie, and was retracted and apologized for. Ballghazi was more easily explained by physics than malfeasance. The tuck rule was the right call and Brady gets less roughing calls than Cam Newton. The only real scandal in the Brady era was when they were filming from the sidelines, and it wasn't that they were filming, it was they were doing it from the wrong place, which they immediately owned up to.
Even Tony Dungy is defending us, and he hates our ass.
1) That they were filming in the open is simply their excuse to make it seem OK.
2) they probably did it va those teams as well
3) since the tape contains video of coaches signallying plays it seems pretty unlikely to suggest that this doesnt happen.
4) the pats have repeatedly been caught cheating. Filming from the wrong place is cheating because different angles and distances produce different ability to see signals
5) the pats almost certainly did deflate the balls intentionally and its unlikely that the result was from temperature. (Why did, for example, this temperature differential not effect the other team?). There is also pretty clear statistical evidence that the pats fumble rates are outside bounds*
*there were a few articles that said more or less the opposite but these well... lied to you. Doing a normality check with your supposedly out of bounds data left in should fail if the data is indeed unlikely. So saying that this is evidence that the distribution isnt normal and so the pats data wasnt an outlier is... well it’s lying
Didn’t their fumble rate go down the year after deflategate though? When the NFL was watching extra closely and changed the ball handling procedures?
I’m sure they did it, but I’m not sure the fumble rate is the smoking gun. Honestly, if the lower pressure balls is some secret to making your team awesome, I say let everyone do it.
The smoking gun is catching them having deflated the balls. The fumble rate being unlikely is just evidence.
Okay I thought you were saying that they did it to achieve a lower fumble rate, which didn’t seem to fit with the next season’s results. Either that or the Pats were using stickum.
I'm going to ascribe to "it's not the crime, it's the cover up" I'm much more interested in how the Pats react, and how the league handles the whole thing, then whether or not the Pats actually did or could have gained anything useful from the footage.
Imma start by saying that the Pats are morons for not avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. That said:
They alerted the home team that they were filming, and were doing it in the open.
There's no indication they did this against the Ravens or Chiefs - the two teams they'd most likely need the advantage against.
Teams rarely use signals any more, they can call in plays via headset. Filming would be huge risk with almost no reward.
The Patriots haven't been repeatedly caught cheating, they've been repeatedly caught up in bullshit: The story about them filming the Rams was a lie, and was retracted and apologized for. Ballghazi was more easily explained by physics than malfeasance. The tuck rule was the right call and Brady gets less roughing calls than Cam Newton. The only real scandal in the Brady era was when they were filming from the sidelines, and it wasn't that they were filming, it was they were doing it from the wrong place, which they immediately owned up to.
Even Tony Dungy is defending us, and he hates our ass.
1) That they were filming in the open is simply their excuse to make it seem OK.
2) they probably did it va those teams as well
3) since the tape contains video of coaches signallying plays it seems pretty unlikely to suggest that this doesnt happen.
4) the pats have repeatedly been caught cheating. Filming from the wrong place is cheating because different angles and distances produce different ability to see signals
5) the pats almost certainly did deflate the balls intentionally and its unlikely that the result was from temperature. (Why did, for example, this temperature differential not effect the other team?). There is also pretty clear statistical evidence that the pats fumble rates are outside bounds*
*there were a few articles that said more or less the opposite but these well... lied to you. Doing a normality check with your supposedly out of bounds data left in should fail if the data is indeed unlikely. So saying that this is evidence that the distribution isnt normal and so the pats data wasnt an outlier is... well it’s lying
Didn’t their fumble rate go down the year after deflategate though? When the NFL was watching extra closely and changed the ball handling procedures?
I’m sure they did it, but I’m not sure the fumble rate is the smoking gun. Honestly, if the lower pressure balls is some secret to making your team awesome, I say let everyone do it.
The smoking gun is catching them having deflated the balls. The fumble rate being unlikely is just evidence.
Okay I thought you were saying that they did it to achieve a lower fumble rate, which didn’t seem to fit with the next season’s results. Either that or the Pats were using stickum.
They did not do it for that reason they did it because its easier to pass and catch. Brady likes less inflated balls. Fumble rate would be a side effect (the easier the ball is to grip the harder it is to knock free)
Single season fumble rates were never particularly strange so “next year they were also good at fumbles” isnt a great argument. It was the 10 year stretch that was uncommon. It was uncommon even if you just wanted to find whether or not a single stretch like that would occur for any team over any ten years in the entire existsnce of the NFL. (IIRC the end probability was something like “if you ran 100 iterations of the lifetime of the NFL you would expect to see any single team have a streak like that in about 5-10% of full league plays”
Imma start by saying that the Pats are morons for not avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. That said:
They alerted the home team that they were filming, and were doing it in the open.
There's no indication they did this against the Ravens or Chiefs - the two teams they'd most likely need the advantage against.
Teams rarely use signals any more, they can call in plays via headset. Filming would be huge risk with almost no reward.
The Patriots haven't been repeatedly caught cheating, they've been repeatedly caught up in bullshit: The story about them filming the Rams was a lie, and was retracted and apologized for. Ballghazi was more easily explained by physics than malfeasance. The tuck rule was the right call and Brady gets less roughing calls than Cam Newton. The only real scandal in the Brady era was when they were filming from the sidelines, and it wasn't that they were filming, it was they were doing it from the wrong place, which they immediately owned up to.
Even Tony Dungy is defending us, and he hates our ass.
1) That they were filming in the open is simply their excuse to make it seem OK.
2) they probably did it va those teams as well
3) since the tape contains video of coaches signallying plays it seems pretty unlikely to suggest that this doesnt happen.
4) the pats have repeatedly been caught cheating. Filming from the wrong place is cheating because different angles and distances produce different ability to see signals
5) the pats almost certainly did deflate the balls intentionally and its unlikely that the result was from temperature. (Why did, for example, this temperature differential not effect the other team?). There is also pretty clear statistical evidence that the pats fumble rates are outside bounds*
*there were a few articles that said more or less the opposite but these well... lied to you. Doing a normality check with your supposedly out of bounds data left in should fail if the data is indeed unlikely. So saying that this is evidence that the distribution isnt normal and so the pats data wasnt an outlier is... well it’s lying
Didn’t their fumble rate go down the year after deflategate though? When the NFL was watching extra closely and changed the ball handling procedures?
I’m sure they did it, but I’m not sure the fumble rate is the smoking gun. Honestly, if the lower pressure balls is some secret to making your team awesome, I say let everyone do it.
The smoking gun is catching them having deflated the balls. The fumble rate being unlikely is just evidence.
Okay I thought you were saying that they did it to achieve a lower fumble rate, which didn’t seem to fit with the next season’s results. Either that or the Pats were using stickum.
They did not do it for that reason they did it because its easier to pass and catch. Brady likes less inflated balls. Fumble rate would be a side effect (the easier the ball is to grip the harder it is to knock free)
Single season fumble rates were never particularly strange so “next year they were also good at fumbles” isnt a great argument. It was the 10 year stretch that was uncommon. It was uncommon even if you just wanted to find whether or not a single stretch like that would occur for any team over any ten years in the entire existsnce of the NFL. (IIRC the end probability was something like “if you ran 100 iterations of the lifetime of the NFL you would expect to see any single team have a streak like that in about 5-10% of full league plays”
So similar to the analysis of DiMaggio’s streak, except far more likely.
Look, they were clearly underinflating balls. We have enough evidence to conclude that without even setting foot into the statistical analysis of Patriots.
I’m just not convinced that it gave enough of an advantage to matter. The fumble rate analysis is interesting, but all I’m finding is the analysis you mentioned, and information about the next season. I’ll go look to see if I can find more seasons of data.
I am really just working on remberance of doing it ages ago. I dont really care to rehash the statistical argument (not the least of which because the majority of people who wrote about it dont understand it)
Re: dimaggios streak. Yes the conclusion from the analysis is that dimaggio is an outlier. If we had evidence that dimaggio was cheating in a way that would make him less likely to miss games the unlikelyhood of the streak would be evidence in support of that. The same one from the pats data.
Posts
Yeah I can totally see some coaches that wouldn’t want the job. I was responding to “dallas can never get a good coach” because of Jones. I just don’t agree with that.
They can’t have any coach they might want. Some won’t want to coach under him. Hell, some good coaches might not want the spotlight of Dallas in general, but I absolutely think there are good coaches who will take that job.
Washington is in a much worse situation.
All of them, just to be sure.
This is true, but there's a methodology for scandal names.
Benghazi was a battle that went south and people died, but as far as scandals go it was a nothingburger. Watergate was a single break-in at an upscale Washington hotel, but as scandals go was very real.
If you -ghazi something, you're saying it's fake. (This works doubly well linguistically because of the slang fugazi.) If you -gate something, you're signaling (aha) that it's real.
(So yes I'm saying that people that supported Brady and the Patriots during the last time they got caught doing something should have tried calling it Deflateghazi.)
Considering how -gate has been used, I'm pretty sure any association with actual scandal has long since passed and all that's left is a tired, over-used meme that painfully unimaginative reporters keep using because it's all they know how to do.
People were pushing ballghazi just because "-gate" feels old and worn out
Cheating really is the Patriot way.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Honestly it’s commitment to excellence
Only losers half-ass at cheating
I mean, they probably cheat this way against every team. They just got caught doing it against the Bengals. Because the Patriots are the cheatingest bunch of cheaters who ever cheated.
Yes this is my thought. If they are willing to pull this crap when prepping for the damn bengals then it's just cheating all the way down. This is up there with russian curlers caught doping. No reason to do it other than you are just so used to cheating you can't stop.
Eh protect the shield. Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft have a lot of power in the NFL, and I could see them appealing to members to keep quiet about one of the premier teams in the league cheating their way to victory. Like the baseball juicing scandal hurt the whole sport even when it was a select group of guys doing it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Tuck was a dumb rule called correctly. We had got bit by it earlier in the year against the Jets. Also the ball was knocked loose by a head slap, which should have been a 15 yard penalty against Woodson.
1) That they were filming in the open is simply their excuse to make it seem OK.
2) they probably did it va those teams as well
3) since the tape contains video of coaches signallying plays it seems pretty unlikely to suggest that this doesnt happen.
4) the pats have repeatedly been caught cheating. Filming from the wrong place is cheating because different angles and distances produce different ability to see signals
5) the pats almost certainly did deflate the balls intentionally and its unlikely that the result was from temperature. (Why did, for example, this temperature differential not effect the other team?). There is also pretty clear statistical evidence that the pats fumble rates are outside bounds*
*there were a few articles that said more or less the opposite but these well... lied to you. Doing a normality check with your supposedly out of bounds data left in should fail if the data is indeed unlikely. So saying that this is evidence that the distribution isnt normal and so the pats data wasnt an outlier is... well it’s lying
Didn’t their fumble rate go down the year after deflategate though? When the NFL was watching extra closely and changed the ball handling procedures?
I’m sure they did it, but I’m not sure the fumble rate is the smoking gun. Honestly, if the lower pressure balls is some secret to making your team awesome, I say let everyone do it.
Baseball absolutely had juiced balls all regular season this year, as a result many more home runs were hit, something which many people correlate with higher entertainment value.
If only the Yankees had managed to have these juiced baseballs and were found out, all of New England would have had a collective stroke
Come Overwatch with meeeee
People try to contort themselves into the Patriots being cheaters because it excuses being the most dominant dynasty in the history of the sport during the period that it should be hardest to win consistently. They're not even the most recent team to be caught in a signal taping infraction and no one gave a shit because it wasn't the Patriots.
Ed
Hell I have video of the Patriots and Chiefs sidelines from last week on my phone. It is nonsense
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
wow.
the shock.
The smoking gun is catching them having deflated the balls. The fumble rate being unlikely is just evidence.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Okay I thought you were saying that they did it to achieve a lower fumble rate, which didn’t seem to fit with the next season’s results. Either that or the Pats were using stickum.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cap5DMdW8AAVDqV.png
I just hope the Bengals troll the shit out of the Pats.
I’d play this on a loop.
They did not do it for that reason they did it because its easier to pass and catch. Brady likes less inflated balls. Fumble rate would be a side effect (the easier the ball is to grip the harder it is to knock free)
Single season fumble rates were never particularly strange so “next year they were also good at fumbles” isnt a great argument. It was the 10 year stretch that was uncommon. It was uncommon even if you just wanted to find whether or not a single stretch like that would occur for any team over any ten years in the entire existsnce of the NFL. (IIRC the end probability was something like “if you ran 100 iterations of the lifetime of the NFL you would expect to see any single team have a streak like that in about 5-10% of full league plays”
So similar to the analysis of DiMaggio’s streak, except far more likely.
Look, they were clearly underinflating balls. We have enough evidence to conclude that without even setting foot into the statistical analysis of Patriots.
I’m just not convinced that it gave enough of an advantage to matter. The fumble rate analysis is interesting, but all I’m finding is the analysis you mentioned, and information about the next season. I’ll go look to see if I can find more seasons of data.
Re: dimaggios streak. Yes the conclusion from the analysis is that dimaggio is an outlier. If we had evidence that dimaggio was cheating in a way that would make him less likely to miss games the unlikelyhood of the streak would be evidence in support of that. The same one from the pats data.