conspiracy thread dedicated to ridiculousness

The Brad Johnson, while certainly troubling is different for a couple of reasons:

1. Both teams used the same footballs. So scuffing up the footballs in an effort to improve the feel of the ball would help both QBs.

2. The balls weren't deflated.

3. Scuffing up the balls to improve their feel is a common practice for all teams and is not against the rules. Brady talked about that in his press conference yesterday.

 

That wasn't always the case. Not sure about the Bucs Superbowl that Johnson played in, but I know that for most of the Superbowl era, teams used the same ball. It wasn't that long ago that changed.


As far as the part about "altering the football being altering the football" that AJM mentione, that isn't true at all. QBs are allowed access to the footballs prior to the game to work them in. They don't have to throw brand new, out of the box, footballs. They can scuff them, rub them, squeeze and even adjust the pressure in them as long as the pressure is within the league specs and the refs approve of them before the game. The one thing they can't do is alter the inflation above or below the specs AFTER the refs have already approved them for play.

That is what the Patriots did and that is why they are in trouble.

 

He never said he likes them over the league regulated 13.5 psi, just that he likes them on the high end of the spectrum. Besides, the point to deflating the balls is to have a better grip, especially in bad weather, and to make it easier to catch. While the difference may be nominal, in this game of such small margins, that nominal difference could mean the difference between winning and losing.

 

Not sure about the '12 SB but in the Johnson story both guys were using the same footballs and both were concerned prior to the game about the footballs being slick. Johnson's move helped both QBs and since that time the QBs are now allowed to practice with the balls to eliminate that problem.

The two situations are polar opposites.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bucs/...o-have-footballs-altered-before-sb-37/2214490

 

Yeah, one thing I was going to point out about the Brad Johnson thing is that I'm sure I read that he stated that Ganon approved of his actions as they two had spoken about it previously.

 

For those curious about Super Bowl 47, here's proof showing 2 different team balls. Around 1:44

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/vide...ly_Start/eed28a8d-db88-4ad8-94bd-29c30ad86ad5

 

before I'm on the job, I like to give my undercarriage a bit of a how's your father

 

I don't want to put words in beloved brother AJMs mouth but I'm pretty sure he was just kidding around here at this point.

If not, report to the stockade at once AJM. Captain Firehalo is waiting with the bullwhip.

 

I had been thinking this was the year the NFL conned us into thinking that the Patriots we're no longer villains.....but it seems now that they are comfortable with the Patriots being life long villains. as a guy on local radio just said this controversy is great for the NFL and Super Bowl ratings. Everyone in America is talking about it. Go figure. They sure know how to market their product in the NFL

 

in the NFL nobody can say what a catch is anymore and thats fine but this however THIS PSI STUFF is a big deal......

 

No shit!! Lmao

 

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/01/23/deflated-patriots-statistically-impossible-fumble-record/

 

This is definitely the "find" story of the deflategate saga so far. GREAT FIND Beach. I'm going to post it below for anyone too lazy to click on the link. I'm sure Belichick, the consummate micromanager of all things related to his team and football in general, just had no idea about how deflating balls could lead to the statistically mind-bogglingly improbable result below.

AJM - give this a read.



Deflated - The Statistically Impossible Patriots Fumble Record

by
J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS

"Patriots partisans are deflating the deflation controversy by arguing that their impermissible deflation of the footballs wasn?t what allowed them to beat an overmatched Colts team. Perhaps. But a new statistical analysis reveals that if it weren?t for deflation of the footballs, the Patriots might not have even been playing a series of home playoff games as the top seed. Careful analytics reveal that suddenly in 2007, a strange and statistically impossible phenomena began to occur at Patriots games.

Sharp Football Analysis has a statistical analysis that backs up the conclusions of football legends Fran Tarkenton and Jerome Bettis: the Patriots? success over the last decade is due in some (or large) part to cheating. This is bad news for the NFL and for fans of every team that has been on the losing end of Patriot schemes, particularly the Pittsburgh Steelers, who were denied multiple trips to the Super Bowl by the Patriots in AFC Championship games during the height of the first Patriot videotape cheating scandal.


Sharp Football Analysis analysis looked at the rate of fumbles by the Patriots offense over the last decade. The analysis had a number of shocking conclusions. First, the Patriots fumble only at a rate of once every 187 offensive snaps. As Sharp?s puts it, this is literally off the charts. It is a statistical outlier right from a statistics textbook.

a

Sharp Football Analysis:

One can CLEARLY SEE the Patriots, visually, are off the chart. There is no other team even close to being near to their rate of 187 offensive plays (passes+rushes+sacks) per fumble. The league average is 105 plays/fumble. Most teams are within 21 plays of that number.

The odds of such a statistical distribution were calculated at one in 16,233. That?s a comma, not a decimal. Sixteen thousand two hundred and thirty three to one.

Patriots partisans might crow ? well, what good does deflating a football do? Simple. It creates angles on a football that didn?t exist when playing by the rules and allows a runner, passer, center, and, most importantly, a quarterback to better grip the ball. With the avoidance of turnovers being so central to winning football, a deflated football helps you win.

But it gets worse for Brady and the Patriots. Sharp Football Analysis was able to trace the emergence of this phenomena to a bright-line date: 2007. Starting in 2007, the Patriots suddenly began to hold onto the football at a statistical rate likely to occur 1 time in 16,233. A rational person might conclude this is the moment when someone on the Patriots cooked up the scheme to illegally deflate the ball:

As you can see, the Patriots won their Super Bowls having a below average rate of fumbles lost given today?s average of 105 plays/game. But in 2007, something happened to propel them to a much better rate (you?ll remember, that just so happened to be the same year they went 16-0 in the regular season). But even looking at these numbers, its clear how insane the 187 number is: they are almost running 100 MORE plays without a single fumble as compared to the 2002-2006 period when they won 2 of their 3 Super Bowls.

To further illustrate how these numbers are astonishing, the below graphics lay out clearly how far off the Patriots are from the rest of the league. Its evident to the eye how far removed they are from the norm. Whether we look at a histogram laying it out, where the Patriots and their 187 plays/fumble is far from the ?bell shaped curve?:

When you consider that the Patriots play in cold, messy weather much of the season, having an advantage that visiting teams do not have creates even further separation from the rest of the NFL on game day in New England. The Pats have performed like a domed team in the worst of conditions.

sSharp Football Analysis answers the inevitable Patriots partisans:

Could the Patriots be so good that they just defy the numbers? As my friend theorized: Perhaps they?ve invented a revolutionary in-house way to protect the ball, or perhaps they?ve intentionally stocked their skill positions with players who don?t have a propensity to fumble. Or perhaps still, they call plays which intentionally result in a lower percentage of fumbles. Or maybe its just that they play with deflated footballs on offense. ? But regardless of what, specifically, is causing these numbers, the fact remains: this is an extremely abnormal occurrence and is NOT simply random fluctuation.

Unlike Barry Bonds and other baseball cheaters, Brady and Bill Belichick are certain to wind up in the Hall of Fame someday. But they?ll never be able to escape from the data that will follow them there.

[Update: in response to the comment below -- each team in the NFL uses their own chosen balls while on offense. Sometimes these balls even have the logo of the team on them. Thus, the advantage would NOT flow both ways.]"

 

I don't know that it would be possible, btw, to construct from scratch a more hated team in the NFL than the Patriots.........- this hero / villain model really helps promote games regardless of the NFL becoming increasingly crooked. Even Tony Dungy, a man of great reputation, threw out there the idea of cheating to counteract how NE cheats (b/c the NFL isn't catching NE's cheating)! Take a look below.


"Dungy: NFL needs to restrict New England?s substitution game

Posted by Mike Florio on January 23, 2015, 9:29 PM EST
Dungy
Getty Images
Lost amid the furor over #DeflateGate is New England?s newfound penchant for playing the ineligible-eligible receiver game. Whether it?s a player wearing an ineligible number reporting as an eligible receiver or a player wearing an eligible number reporting as an ineligible receiver, the Patriots have begun aggressively using the tactic in an obvious effort to confuse defenses regarding who will be running a pass route and who won?t be.

?The NFL is going to have to do something about the Patriots? ineligible-eligible substitution game,? former NFL head coach and current NBC Sports analyst Tony Dungy told PFT by email on Friday. ?It is nothing but an intent to deceive and they are doing it very well. They?re reporting so fast and going so quickly the defense can?t respond. In fact, the officials can?t keep up.?

Dungy believes the officials missed a pair of penalties with this maneuver during the postseason.

?In the Baltimore game, [Shane] Vereen reported as ineligible several times,? Dungy explained. ?If he stays in the game he must report again and continue to be ineligible. He must come out of the game for one play or there has to be a time out for him to play as an eligible receiver. On the touchdown drive Vereen played one play as ineligible and then played the next play in an eligible position. There should have been a penalty.?

The officials also may have missed a penalty in the game against the Colts, according to Dungy.

?[Nate] Solder reported as eligible correctly but [receiver Brandon] LaFell lined up on the line of scrimmage as if Solder was a tackle,? Dungy said. ?There should have been a penalty for illegal formation.?

The problem is that the Patriots often are taking a legal maneuver and combining it with a hurry-up offense to confuse both the defense and the officials. At field level, the audio from the referee?s microphone isn?t as clear as it is for folks in the seats or who are watching the game at home. Along with the overall confusion that arises when a team tries to snap the ball quickly, it becomes too much for a defense to fairly process ? which is one of the reasons New England does it.

In Dungy?s view, it?s no different than making quick personnel changes in a no-huddle attack or using extra players in the huddle who run off the field seconds before the snap. The defense needs to have a fair chance to know who they?ll be facing, and until the NFL stops the Patriots from deliberately confusing defenses and rushing to the line to snap the ball, the only way to combat the scheme will be for defenses to bend a rule or two of their own.

Dungy said that, if he were coaching the Seahawks, he?d reluctantly tell the players to fake defensive injuries in the Super Bowl to counter New England?s tactic.

?It?s something I?m totally against doing but I would certainly tell my players to do it rather than have the NFL issue an apology the next day after we lost a Super Bowl,? Dungy said, adding he would do it only as a last resort.

The fact that Dungy would even consider that approach proves how strongly he feels about a tactic he believes the NFL should prevent the Patriots from utilizing in Super Bowl XLIX.

UPDATE 1/24/15 7:42 a.m. ET: Coach Dungy has reconsidered his position for dealing with the substitution ploy. ?I apologize for suggesting an illegal tactic to counteract this,? Dungy said via email. ?That is not the way to handle it. The proper thing is to address it in the offseason with the Competition Committee. I?m sure that will be done by the coaches but I?m sorry for my comments that weren?t well thought out.?"

 

I want to make sure everyone sees this article......above:

 

But what did they do, AJM. Again, scuffing them, rubbing them, working them in is all legal. The ONLY thing not legal is deflating them (or inflating them) below (or above) the legal limit.

You can't just say that "altering balls is altering balls" because that isn't true. Some things are legal and some aren't.

And yes, it wouldn't as big an issue with another team, but it would still be an issue. The Patriots get no quarter in this case because of their history. And that is absolutely the right thing.

 

Rules are rules and your not supposed to break them. Brad Johnson deflated balls and even paid people to deflate them and where did that get him? Was he one of the greatest ever? Is he going in the HOF? How much does it really help? I can understand the fumble issue in Bum's post and the stats for carrying the ball would make it easier to hold onto. But you still need talent to play in the NFL. This is almost like a player getting into trouble a 2nd time and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

i personally think it's likely the patriots broke some rules.

however - when u have a solid case against someone, there should be no neeed to embellish it with nonsense.

interesting that the packers, who admittedly like the balls inflated to the max legal pressure (notice i am NOT accusing them of any wrongdoing here), and play at the north pole, have the 6th best rate of fumbles.

statistically impossible, in this case, is nonsense. unlikely? sure. not impossible. i have a hard time trusting someone who makes that claim, because it tells me they want a particular outcome from their evidence, and might very well make other distortions along the way and feel entitled to do so.

he could have characterized the data in several different ways and the point would have still stood. instead, he chose hyperbole.

 

Brad Johnson never said a word about air pressure. He said he and Gannon (the opposing QB) were concerned about the balls being slippery because back then they made you play with them right out of the box. It was a different era, a different set of procedures and it doesn't even remotely compare. Both QBs benefited by his actions, his actions being scuffing the balls up which the NFL now allows (so QBs don't have to play with them right out of the box).