LedRush Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 So let me see if I get this. You posted stats about Brady's relatively poor performance throwing the ball more than 20 yards. But that has never been a strength of his. He's going to his 6th Super Bowl. And this arises in the context of suggesting that he, or someone acting at his direction, intentionally deflated the game balls during the AFC Championship. Which would make it harder to throw the deep ball. The team the Patriots are playing in the Super Bowl has a good pass rush, and good defensive backs, at least when they're healthy. The teams that have beaten them this year did so on the ground. In the AFC Championship, the Patriots starting tail back rushed for 148 yards. With all that said, why is that statistic you posted important to this game? Damned quote string limits... First of all, who said that a slightly deflated ball would make it harder to throw. It would be easier to grip.and though it may not fly as far, it should be more on target. It's germane to this topic because without a viable deep threat Seattle can load the box and take away some of the short passing game that NE does best and their DBs can better help with the run... Drew Bledsoe actually talked about this. He said that a deflated ball might make sense if you had a QB with small hands. He said that's not the case with Brady. So you're left with a ball that doesn't travel as well. So Brady likes balls that don't meet league requirements despite the fact that they don't give him an advantage, and Bledsoe knows what is better for Brady more than Brady does. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 So let me see if I get this. You posted stats about Brady's relatively poor performance throwing the ball more than 20 yards. But that has never been a strength of his. He's going to his 6th Super Bowl. And this arises in the context of suggesting that he, or someone acting at his direction, intentionally deflated the game balls during the AFC Championship. Which would make it harder to throw the deep ball. The team the Patriots are playing in the Super Bowl has a good pass rush, and good defensive backs, at least when they're healthy. The teams that have beaten them this year did so on the ground. In the AFC Championship, the Patriots starting tail back rushed for 148 yards. With all that said, why is that statistic you posted important to this game? Damned quote string limits... First of all, who said that a slightly deflated ball would make it harder to throw. It would be easier to grip.and though it may not fly as far, it should be more on target. It's germane to this topic because without a viable deep threat Seattle can load the box and take away some of the short passing game that NE does best and their DBs can better help with the run... Drew Bledsoe actually talked about this. He said that a deflated ball might make sense if you had a QB with small hands. He said that's not the case with Brady. So you're left with a ball that doesn't travel as well. So Brady likes balls that don't meet league requirements despite the fact that they don't give him an advantage, and Bledsoe knows what is better for Brady more than Brady does. I would think Brady derives an advantage from having balls he's comfortable throwing, no? Just like Aaron Rodgers does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedRush Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 So let me see if I get this. You posted stats about Brady's relatively poor performance throwing the ball more than 20 yards. But that has never been a strength of his. He's going to his 6th Super Bowl. And this arises in the context of suggesting that he, or someone acting at his direction, intentionally deflated the game balls during the AFC Championship. Which would make it harder to throw the deep ball. The team the Patriots are playing in the Super Bowl has a good pass rush, and good defensive backs, at least when they're healthy. The teams that have beaten them this year did so on the ground. In the AFC Championship, the Patriots starting tail back rushed for 148 yards. With all that said, why is that statistic you posted important to this game? Damned quote string limits... First of all, who said that a slightly deflated ball would make it harder to throw. It would be easier to grip.and though it may not fly as far, it should be more on target. It's germane to this topic because without a viable deep threat Seattle can load the box and take away some of the short passing game that NE does best and their DBs can better help with the run... Drew Bledsoe actually talked about this. He said that a deflated ball might make sense if you had a QB with small hands. He said that's not the case with Brady. So you're left with a ball that doesn't travel as well. So Brady likes balls that don't meet league requirements despite the fact that they don't give him an advantage, and Bledsoe knows what is better for Brady more than Brady does. I would think Brady derives an advantage from having balls he's comfortable throwing, no? Just like Aaron Rodgers does. Yes, which is why Bledsoe's comments don't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weakly Criminal Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 True patriots do whatever is necessary to win. Rules (or laws) be damned. This is the message. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g under p Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 A different spin on those statistics being bandied about. http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710/+kylenw For those of you are into such statistics and this whole SHRINKAGE nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 A different spin on those statistics being bandied about. http://regressing.de...1805710/ kylenw For those of you are into such statistics and this whole SHRINKAGE nonsense.Spin is the key word there. A lot of criticism of the way things are presented, and a little bit of analysis, combined with a fair helping of straw. The only criticism that holds up here is the use of Brandon Tate's stats in the data if indeed he is right about including special teams stats. And only then not for the reason he cites (the use of a K ball instead of an offensive ball) but because there is (likely) a difference between the rates of fumbles on returns vs those on regular offensive plays (which is not necessarily a function of the ball but of the type of play it is.) Just an example: 2. 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble 3. 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble Here, the author curiously ranks the Patriots #2 and the Colts #3, despite the fact that the teams appear to have the same number of plays per fumble (156). Unless they ran the same number of plays (very unlikely) there is a difference between the rate to x number of decimal places meaning one of the teams IS number two and one is number three. If you're going to criticize others for their presentation and lack of clarity, don't pull this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutman Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 A different spin on those statistics being bandied about. http://regressing.de...1805710/ kylenw For those of you are into such statistics and this whole SHRINKAGE nonsense.Spin is the key word there. A lot of criticism of the way things are presented, and a little bit of analysis, combined with a fair helping of straw. The only criticism that holds up here is the use of Brandon Tate's stats in the data if indeed he is right about including special teams stats. And only then not for the reason he cites (the use of a K ball instead of an offensive ball) but because there is (likely) a difference between the rates of fumbles on returns vs those on regular offensive plays (which is not necessarily a function of the ball but of the type of play it is.) Just an example: 2. 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble 3. 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble Here, the author curiously ranks the Patriots #2 and the Colts #3, despite the fact that the teams appear to have the same number of plays per fumble (156). Unless they ran the same number of plays (very unlikely) there is a difference between the rate to x number of decimal places meaning one of the teams IS number two and one is number three. If you're going to criticize others for their presentation and lack of clarity, don't pull this crap. Just go admire my Raiders jacket!!! :codger: :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 A different spin on those statistics being bandied about. http://regressing.de...1805710/ kylenw For those of you are into such statistics and this whole SHRINKAGE nonsense.Spin is the key word there. A lot of criticism of the way things are presented, and a little bit of analysis, combined with a fair helping of straw. The only criticism that holds up here is the use of Brandon Tate's stats in the data if indeed he is right about including special teams stats. And only then not for the reason he cites (the use of a K ball instead of an offensive ball) but because there is (likely) a difference between the rates of fumbles on returns vs those on regular offensive plays (which is not necessarily a function of the ball but of the type of play it is.) Just an example: 2. 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble 3. 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble Here, the author curiously ranks the Patriots #2 and the Colts #3, despite the fact that the teams appear to have the same number of plays per fumble (156). Unless they ran the same number of plays (very unlikely) there is a difference between the rate to x number of decimal places meaning one of the teams IS number two and one is number three. If you're going to criticize others for their presentation and lack of clarity, don't pull this crap. Just go admire my Raiders jacket!!! :codger: :PI would admire it but... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 At least there's the play at #7... :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/0ap2000000113870/Top-Ten-Controversial-Calls-Suger-Bear-penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g under p Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 A different spin on those statistics being bandied about. http://regressing.de...1805710/ kylenw For those of you are into such statistics and this whole SHRINKAGE nonsense.Spin is the key word there. A lot of criticism of the way things are presented, and a little bit of analysis, combined with a fair helping of straw. The only criticism that holds up here is the use of Brandon Tate's stats in the data if indeed he is right about including special teams stats. And only then not for the reason he cites (the use of a K ball instead of an offensive ball) but because there is (likely) a difference between the rates of fumbles on returns vs those on regular offensive plays (which is not necessarily a function of the ball but of the type of play it is.) Just an example: 2. 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble 3. 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble Here, the author curiously ranks the Patriots #2 and the Colts #3, despite the fact that the teams appear to have the same number of plays per fumble (156). Unless they ran the same number of plays (very unlikely) there is a difference between the rate to x number of decimal places meaning one of the teams IS number two and one is number three. If you're going to criticize others for their presentation and lack of clarity, don't pull this crap. IF is right because I'm not here to critique or criticize a sole. I could care less what you present or how you present it because I believe this whole shrinkage business is pure nonsense and a foolish distraction. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutman Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 A different spin on those statistics being bandied about. http://regressing.de...1805710/ kylenw For those of you are into such statistics and this whole SHRINKAGE nonsense.Spin is the key word there. A lot of criticism of the way things are presented, and a little bit of analysis, combined with a fair helping of straw. The only criticism that holds up here is the use of Brandon Tate's stats in the data if indeed he is right about including special teams stats. And only then not for the reason he cites (the use of a K ball instead of an offensive ball) but because there is (likely) a difference between the rates of fumbles on returns vs those on regular offensive plays (which is not necessarily a function of the ball but of the type of play it is.) Just an example: 2. 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble 3. 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble Here, the author curiously ranks the Patriots #2 and the Colts #3, despite the fact that the teams appear to have the same number of plays per fumble (156). Unless they ran the same number of plays (very unlikely) there is a difference between the rate to x number of decimal places meaning one of the teams IS number two and one is number three. If you're going to criticize others for their presentation and lack of clarity, don't pull this crap. Just go admire my Raiders jacket!!! :codger: :PI would admire it but... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g5cSsuh4xE A different spin on those statistics being bandied about. http://regressing.de...1805710/ kylenw For those of you are into such statistics and this whole SHRINKAGE nonsense.Spin is the key word there. A lot of criticism of the way things are presented, and a little bit of analysis, combined with a fair helping of straw. The only criticism that holds up here is the use of Brandon Tate's stats in the data if indeed he is right about including special teams stats. And only then not for the reason he cites (the use of a K ball instead of an offensive ball) but because there is (likely) a difference between the rates of fumbles on returns vs those on regular offensive plays (which is not necessarily a function of the ball but of the type of play it is.) Just an example: 2. 2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble 3. 2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble Here, the author curiously ranks the Patriots #2 and the Colts #3, despite the fact that the teams appear to have the same number of plays per fumble (156). Unless they ran the same number of plays (very unlikely) there is a difference between the rate to x number of decimal places meaning one of the teams IS number two and one is number three. If you're going to criticize others for their presentation and lack of clarity, don't pull this crap. Just go admire my Raiders jacket!!! :codger: :PI would admire it but... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g5cSsuh4xE That was bittersweet :7up: We lost to the Steelers at home the following week. :madra: :madra: :madra: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidcrystalcompass Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Patriots 24Seahawks 20 Mark it down................ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g under p Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 "I squeezed them wicked HAAARD!" LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g under p Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Don't tell me guys don't have fun even with a game of the magnitude of the Super Bowl on the horizon....LOL! Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g under p Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 For some reason I don't think this game will be close either a blowout by the Seahawks or a blowout by the Patriots. That said I believe a sleeping giant has been awakened with the Shrinkage/DEFLATEGATE nonsense. PATRIOTS.....48 SEAHAWKS....10 I would go with a shutout but if the 85' Patriots could score against that MIGHTY Bears DEFENSE then the Seahawks will get a score in this 49th SB. The Patriots defense is better than most of us think, I'm confident of this. I hope for a good game either way. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 We bitter Raider Fans are taking over this thread! TROLL TIME BABY! THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS SUCK THREAD!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g under p Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 My name is Earle, you are in for a bad night then try some honey and sweeten up things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 My name is Earle, you are in for a bad night then try some honey and sweeten up things. Hahaha! I hope you are horrible in predictions!! Signed, Winnie The Pooh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 My name is Earle, you are in for a bad night then try some honey and sweeten up things. Hahaha! I hope you are horrible in predictions!! Signed, Winnie The PoohWell, one thing we know for certain is that, if the Patriots do manage to win, their fans will react with the same class and grace their favorite organization is known for. Maybe they'll even demand apologies from all the fans that picked against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g under p Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 My name is Earle, you are in for a bad night then try some honey and sweeten up things. Hahaha! I hope you are horrible in predictions!! Signed, Winnie The PoohWell, one thing we know for certain is that, if the Patriots do manage to win, their fans will react with the same class and grace their favorite organization is known for. Maybe they'll even demand apologies from all the fans that picked against them. Since you appear to know.....what is their favorite organization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 My name is Earle, you are in for a bad night then try some honey and sweeten up things. Hahaha! I hope you are horrible in predictions!! Signed, Winnie The PoohWell, one thing we know for certain is that, if the Patriots do manage to win, their fans will react with the same class and grace their favorite organization is known for. Maybe they'll even demand apologies from all the fans that picked against them. Since you appear to know.....what is their favorite organization?Uhhh, the team they root for, maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutman Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 We bitter Raider Fans are taking over this thread! TROLL TIME BABY! THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS SUCK THREAD!!! Don't include me!!! :boo hiss: Pete Carroll sucks and so do the Seahawks :boo hiss: You should know better. :madra: :D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g under p Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 GRONK is a riot it seems he was born to play football......appears he played some hockey like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick N. Backer Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 My name is Earle, you are in for a bad night then try some honey and sweeten up things. Hahaha! I hope you are horrible in predictions!! Signed, Winnie The PoohWell, one thing we know for certain is that, if the Patriots do manage to win, their fans will react with the same class and grace their favorite organization is known for. Maybe they'll even demand apologies from all the fans that picked against them. How rich. This reminds me of a great scene from the movie School Ties. The headmaster of a prep school is being somewhat condescending to a Jewish student who the school has only accepted because he is a good football player. Quoting the Bible, the headmaster says "I seem to recall something about the meek inheriting the Earth" when the student isn't as deferential to him as the headmaster would like him to be (the headmaster asks him if it was worth breaking a tradition, a religious one, for a football game, to which the student responds "Yours or mine" referring to a tradition of excluding Jews from the school). "And I wonder how meek they'll be when they do." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughedatbytime Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 My name is Earle, you are in for a bad night then try some honey and sweeten up things. Hahaha! I hope you are horrible in predictions!! Signed, Winnie The PoohWell, one thing we know for certain is that, if the Patriots do manage to win, their fans will react with the same class and grace their favorite organization is known for. Maybe they'll even demand apologies from all the fans that picked against them. How rich. This reminds me of a great scene from the movie School Ties. The headmaster of a prep school is being somewhat condescending to a Jewish student who the school has only accepted because he is a good football player. Quoting the Bible, the headmaster says "I seem to recall something about the meek inheriting the Earth" when the student isn't as deferential to him as the headmaster would like him to be (the headmaster asks him if it was worth breaking a tradition, a religious one, for a football game, to which the student responds "Yours or mine" referring to a tradition of excluding Jews from the school). "And I wonder how meek they'll be when they do."Maybe I'm obtuse, but I've read this three times and I'm not sure what it has to do with this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now