caused the pressure to elevate so the officials didn't know, and then it went back down due to the elements. Wouldn't the Pats have had to underinflate the ball originally for it to return to that level in the end?
And why did they not drop after the refs re-inflated them at halftime?
Read this today.My question is why same conditions didn't affect balls used by Colts. Physics on Patriots' Side - ( New Window )
not only the Colts balls but how did it mysteriously only effect 11 of the 12 Patriots balls.
No, science is not the reason for this...unless you want it to be then you ignore all the reasons why it doesn't explain it and proclaim victory. Like Pats fans have.
Read this today.My question is why same conditions didn't affect balls used by Colts. Physics on Patriots' Side - ( New Window )
Problem with that argument in the link. The balls were measured at halftime when they were found to be 2 lbs under. That article says to wait for 5 hours outside (2 hours prior to gametime, 3 hours of gametime) and have the temp at the end of the game as a reference. It is ignoring the fact that these balls dropped 2 lbs in under 3 1/2 hours, which would never be long enough to account for 2 lbs
They're going to air up the ball boy to 13.5 psi Â
There was a lot of scientific bluster from Belichick, none of which explained why 11 of his 12 balls weren’t in compliance but all 12 of the Colts’ were.
he says their process changes the pressure... but THEN it is given to the officials to inflate. So whatever they do BEFORE the balls is checked by the official would not affect the final pressure.
He goes 80,000 people saw the signals. So...that justifies filming it and analyzing it? Then he goes everyone was doing it. I'm sure Goodell wasn't happy with that.
The point is, BB still doesn't really believe he was doing anything wrong.
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it.
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it
My understanding is that film equipment on the sideline was legal and common. Filming the opposing teams's sideline was the illegal part.
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it
My understanding is that film equipment on the sideline was legal and common. Filming the opposing teams's sideline was the illegal part.
Thanks Bluepepper......I'm somewhat surprised.
Whatever the truth of the matter of the underinflated balls Â
I had to admire BB's smoothness, his unflappability, his articulate delivery, without the benefit of reading a teleprompter or notes, his gaze directly at the reporters, quickness on his feet.
His claim during the press conference of "we don't even come close to cheating, or pushing the rules" takes away any excuse if this is found to be the way he did it
This whole "controversy" is "A Tempest In A Teapot". Â
The Pats won be 38 pts.!
The league is as much to blame as anybody.
Game officials have caused more injustice in game results than any coach or player could possibly do.
because they cheated, but didn't to because they were better than the opponent, eh it's "much ado about nothing" or the media creating it.
I've read that in addition to the Colts complaining about this during the regular season game in New England the Ravens also complained about this in the divisional game (a 4pt loss).
The league should view this more seriously than "they won by 38 points, the deflated balls had no impact on the outcome, let's move on" idiot approach.
I'm not suggesting any crazy penalty or punishment, but it's not as simple or meaningless as some make it out to be.
read the articles about the Patriots lack of fumbling and don't tell me Belichick creates a culture that doesn't tolerate fumbling. That is statistically more than unlikely.
the league has a legit integrity problem, that I think they will address after the SB.
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
Said on the other fumble thread. BenJarvus Green Ellis had 5 fumbles once he played in Cincinnati. When he played for the Pats with slightly more touches he had zero!
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
RE: Well looking at that Graph regarding fumbles Â
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
RE: You know the most interesting thing to me..... Â
He goes 80,000 people saw the signals. So...that justifies filming it and analyzing it? Then he goes everyone was doing it. I'm sure Goodell wasn't happy with that.
The point is, BB still doesn't really believe he was doing anything wrong.
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it.
The Giants also record their opponent's signals, but instead of using a videographer, they have a guy in the stands describing the signals on audiotape. In other words, "stealing" signals isn't forbidden, it is only the use of recording them on video which is against the rules. Which in my mind, makes it a technical violation.
RE: RE: Well looking at that Graph regarding fumbles Â
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
RE: RE: RE: Well looking at that Graph regarding fumbles Â
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
I'm not sure why my point makes no sense to you. The Patriots have also gone to three times as many Super Bowls as any other team over the past 15 years, is that also a statistical impossibility according to you? Was it a statistical impossibility when Tiki went from being one of the biggest fumblers in the league to one of the most secure ball-handlers in the league or did coaching have something to do with it?
p.s.-- What's your theory on these so-called statistical anomalies? Divine intervention? Belichick made a deal with the devil? Both?
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
Thank you! You have framed the real question. Were the consequences "unintended"
On a side note Bill Nye "the science guy" on GMA said "What he said didn't make any sense"
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
Sounded like he said they didn't do it on purpose, but that's the process they go through. Did they know the PSI would drop below the legal standard? Likely, however going 65 in a 35 and not knowing the limit still gets a massive ticket.
Did they know the PSI would drop below the legal standard? Likely, however going 65 in a 35 and not knowing the limit still gets a massive ticket.
a) I don't know that it is "likely" that they knew the process they followed would drop the PSI below the allowable standard, because that presumes that PSI is something they paid attention to. Until it became an issue, why would they bother to measure the PSI themselves? That's the job of the officials. All Belichick cared about was that his QB was happy with the footballs and all Brady cared about was that it felt right.
b)Doing 65 in a 35 may get you a massive ticket, but doing 45 in a 35 gets you off with just a warning.
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
The only way the balls could have dropped that much pressure was if they used heated air. there is no other scientific explanation if you take BB at his word that they never let air out. Of course this then would mean he lied in the presser when he claimed they do not attempt any sort of gamesmanship and would never try to circumvent the rules
RE: RE: RE: RE: Well looking at that Graph regarding fumbles Â
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
I'm not sure why my point makes no sense to you. The Patriots have also gone to three times as many Super Bowls as any other team over the past 15 years, is that also a statistical impossibility according to you? Was it a statistical impossibility when Tiki went from being one of the biggest fumblers in the league to one of the most secure ball-handlers in the league or did coaching have something to do with it?
p.s.-- What's your theory on these so-called statistical anomalies? Divine intervention? Belichick made a deal with the devil? Both?
Simple math Einstein, the odds of getting to the SB are 1 out of 16, the odds of them achieving almost double the rate of fumbles to carries for 7 straight years is something like 1 out of 16.5K.
On top of that the biggest variable to the fumble rate would be weather, one of the worse areas for weather is where the Pats play. The single biggest variable for getting to the Sb is the teams in your division. Pats play in one of the historically easiest football divisions.
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
Anyone catch Heath Evans take on the NFL Network Â
Sometimes the science and even Bill's verbage [sic] was hard for me to follow. I'm listening to him and I'm thinking about the creation theory versus evolution. You've got a scientist that used the same science to prove creation as the other. You can have a same scientist who studied at the same school would say no, he's wrong and another one would say he's right.
...what? (That's the closed captioning transcript. If you follow along, you can see that the captioner tried to make sense of what Evans was saying, and then finally sort of gave up.)
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
I'm just giving examples of things that would qualify as statistical anomalies if all things were equal. But all things are not equal. So if you look inside the reasons why Belichick coached teams go to the Super Bowl at a rate outside of one standard deviation from the mean and you look at the reasons why Belichick coached teams fumble the ball so infrequently compared to the rest of the league and why Tiki Barber was able to reverse his history of fumbling, you will see that the explanation lies in superior coaching.
And why did they not drop after the refs re-inflated them at halftime?
Physics on Patriots' Side - ( New Window )
not only the Colts balls but how did it mysteriously only effect 11 of the 12 Patriots balls.
No, science is not the reason for this...unless you want it to be then you ignore all the reasons why it doesn't explain it and proclaim victory. Like Pats fans have.
And why not? The officiating in the NFL is constantly challenged for their judgement. So they shouldn't be carved out as the potential problem...
Problem with that argument in the link. The balls were measured at halftime when they were found to be 2 lbs under. That article says to wait for 5 hours outside (2 hours prior to gametime, 3 hours of gametime) and have the temp at the end of the game as a reference. It is ignoring the fact that these balls dropped 2 lbs in under 3 1/2 hours, which would never be long enough to account for 2 lbs
He goes 80,000 people saw the signals. So...that justifies filming it and analyzing it? Then he goes everyone was doing it. I'm sure Goodell wasn't happy with that.
The point is, BB still doesn't really believe he was doing anything wrong.
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it.
My understanding is that film equipment on the sideline was legal and common. Filming the opposing teams's sideline was the illegal part.
Quote:
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it
My understanding is that film equipment on the sideline was legal and common. Filming the opposing teams's sideline was the illegal part.
Thanks Bluepepper......I'm somewhat surprised.
A virtuoso performance is what I saw.
:-)
I didn't know what the hell he was talking about (a NASCAR commentator?)
Montana, you are right - he is poking the media in the eye.
In comment 12107753 BGaff said:
The league is as much to blame as anybody.
Game officials have caused more injustice in game results than any coach or player could possibly do.
Jay Bilas on ESPN re: Bill Belichick's press conference today: "The only thing he didn't say was 'Live from New York, it's Saturday night!'"
I've read that in addition to the Colts complaining about this during the regular season game in New England the Ravens also complained about this in the divisional game (a 4pt loss).
The league should view this more seriously than "they won by 38 points, the deflated balls had no impact on the outcome, let's move on" idiot approach.
I'm not suggesting any crazy penalty or punishment, but it's not as simple or meaningless as some make it out to be.
read the articles about the Patriots lack of fumbling and don't tell me Belichick creates a culture that doesn't tolerate fumbling. That is statistically more than unlikely.
the league has a legit integrity problem, that I think they will address after the SB.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
LOL!
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
He goes 80,000 people saw the signals. So...that justifies filming it and analyzing it? Then he goes everyone was doing it. I'm sure Goodell wasn't happy with that.
The point is, BB still doesn't really believe he was doing anything wrong.
My question is, was having film equipment on the sideline illegal during that time (like cell phones are now). I'm betting it was, and from that perspective, it was common knowledge you shouldn't be doing it.
Quote:
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
Quote:
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Quote:
In comment 12108029 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
p.s.-- What's your theory on these so-called statistical anomalies? Divine intervention? Belichick made a deal with the devil? Both?
Quote:
But Bill sounds like he's admitting they cheated. He says the process they use (seemingly forever) artificially inflates the PSI and when it gets in the field it drops back down.
When the last question was asked (about going forward) he seemed to say that was the BIG question. Whether they would be allowed to continue doing what they have been - since it is seemingly designed to give the ref a false PSI reading.
No, he is saying that the perfectly legitimate process that they followed had the unintended consequence of a lower than allowable gametime PSI under certain conditions. If the NFL wants to modify the football preparation procedures to avoid discrepancies at gametime, that is their decision to make, but under the current guidelines, everything they did was legitimate. It wasn't as if the preparation was designed to circumvent the rules, the preparation was designed to make the feel of the ball right for Tom Brady.
Thank you! You have framed the real question. Were the consequences "unintended"
On a side note Bill Nye "the science guy" on GMA said "What he said didn't make any sense"
Quote:
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
Sounded like he said they didn't do it on purpose, but that's the process they go through. Did they know the PSI would drop below the legal standard? Likely, however going 65 in a 35 and not knowing the limit still gets a massive ticket.
a) I don't know that it is "likely" that they knew the process they followed would drop the PSI below the allowable standard, because that presumes that PSI is something they paid attention to. Until it became an issue, why would they bother to measure the PSI themselves? That's the job of the officials. All Belichick cared about was that his QB was happy with the footballs and all Brady cared about was that it felt right.
b)Doing 65 in a 35 may get you a massive ticket, but doing 45 in a 35 gets you off with just a warning.
Quote:
How would using heated air for the intent of dropping PSI be an unintended consequence?
Point me to where Belichick says they used "heated air for the intent of dropping PSI". My understanding of what he is saying is that Brady gives the balls a rub down in an effort to create the perfect feel for him and that this process has the added and unintended effect of raising the PSI at the time they are handed off to the officials (only to have it lose PSI when they are under field conditions).
The only way the balls could have dropped that much pressure was if they used heated air. there is no other scientific explanation if you take BB at his word that they never let air out. Of course this then would mean he lied in the presser when he claimed they do not attempt any sort of gamesmanship and would never try to circumvent the rules
Quote:
In comment 12108223 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 12108029 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Since 2007 they have achieved a statistical anomaly every year with regards to not fumbling.
It's only a statistical anomaly if all things are equal, but they are not. The number of trips to Super Bowls and Conference Championships by Belichick coached teams is also an anomaly. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he is a helluva football coach!
p.s.-- Some players fumble a lot and some hardly ever fumble, but nobody calls that a statistical anomaly. Was it just a coincidence that Tiki Barber's fumbles were dramatically reduced after he was coached differently or did coaching have something to do with it?
Its almost double the total of any other team. Your point makes no sense in comparison to the statistical facts
I'm not sure why my point makes no sense to you. The Patriots have also gone to three times as many Super Bowls as any other team over the past 15 years, is that also a statistical impossibility according to you? Was it a statistical impossibility when Tiki went from being one of the biggest fumblers in the league to one of the most secure ball-handlers in the league or did coaching have something to do with it?
p.s.-- What's your theory on these so-called statistical anomalies? Divine intervention? Belichick made a deal with the devil? Both?
Simple math Einstein, the odds of getting to the SB are 1 out of 16, the odds of them achieving almost double the rate of fumbles to carries for 7 straight years is something like 1 out of 16.5K.
On top of that the biggest variable to the fumble rate would be weather, one of the worse areas for weather is where the Pats play. The single biggest variable for getting to the Sb is the teams in your division. Pats play in one of the historically easiest football divisions.
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
Quote:
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
...what? (That's the closed captioning transcript. If you follow along, you can see that the captioner tried to make sense of what Evans was saying, and then finally sort of gave up.)
link. - ( New Window )
the only question is what happens next.
we will get to watch their fumble/attempt rate next year and see if there is a correction.
I'm glad we're not in their division or conference. If I were a Steelers or Ravens fan I'd be sick to my stomach.
Quote:
Quote:
So when you say them getting to the SB is just as much an anomaly as 7 straight years of double fumble rate, you could not be further wrong
Except for the fact that that's not what I said. I said they were both statistical anomalies, not that they were equal anomalies.
p.s.-- If you would rather believe that God is on their side, that's your prerogative, I prefer to believe that it's great coaching.
lol..WTF? "God on their side"? Your the one that decided to pull out of your ass this theory of them "Going to the SB" is a comparable statistical anomaly. You tried to use it to justify the absurd fumble rate they have by attempting to correlate it as "Great coaching". Now your back-crawling on it because itsobviously is nowhere near the same, while still trying to use the "Great coach" smokescreen, this is so typical of you Milton
Gimme a break.
Everybody jumping on the Pats, really, are embarrassing themselves.
I don't care if they cheated, they beat the fucking Philadelphia Eagles, so there.