Golden Boy Tom Brady suspended four games

[LedRush]

http://news.yahoo.co...WQDBHNlYwNzcg--

 

That argument didn't go well for A-Rod.

[LedRush]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Anyway, we have extremely strong evidence that the Pats deflated the balls after the refs checked them, and we have strong evidence (and pure common sense) that Brady knew about what was going on. That's all that is needed. The efficacy of the cheating doesn't matter. Oh, and we know Brady and the Pats obstructed the investigation, so that's not at issue.

[troutman]

http://news.yahoo.co...WQDBHNlYwNzcg--

 

That argument didn't go well for A-Rod.

 

Apples & Oranges

[troutman]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Anyway, we have extremely strong evidence that the Pats deflated the balls after the refs checked them, and we have strong evidence (and pure common sense) that Brady knew about what was going on. That's all that is needed. The efficacy of the cheating doesn't matter. Oh, and we know Brady and the Pats obstructed the investigation, so that's not at issue.

 

What strong evidence?

 

That the league allows both teams to choose there own balls? There lies the problem!!

Edited May 16, 2015 by troutman

[Ancient Ways]

I just find this whole thing silly,

 

Seems to me the league is splitting hairs. Is this really that big of a deal? Again, the league is at fault for allowing teams to use there own footballs.

 

It's not any deal if you're looking at the impact on play on the field. As I said above, after they got "caught" the Patriots' offense put up 28 points in one half against the Colts' and 28 points against arguably the best defense since either the 2000 Ravens or the 1985 Bears.

 

This is the huge deception. Although the Pats destroyed the Colts, they barely beat the Ravens the week before, and got the home field by one game. There is no reason to think they didn't cheat on a regular basis since Brady was vocal with the NFL years ago to get custody of game balls on game day. We will never know of course, because their word is worth dirt.

 

Passing is tough to prove the level of advantage the Pats illegally gained thru the years. What is easy to prove is their lack of fumbling.

 

During the "ball custody era" (2007-current) the Pats fumbling was off the charts lower than the rest of the league. The rest of the league, the gap between each team was 1-5 % points per gap. The Pats, since 2007, were about 15-20% lower than the nearest team. To be fair Pats fans and sympathizes, let's recognize the difference between the stats of a good team, and a statistical anomaly. It's not like they had one HOF RB during that era, they've had a merry go round of RBs, that happen to be HOF non fumblers when they play for BellyCheat, and not elite in this stat when they play elsewhere. This is Off the charts, a statistical anomaly.

 

That folks, is the statistical smoking gun. Hello Rick!

 

Hi Gabe.

 

Here you go.

 

PS - Eddie Munster didn't grow up to be Billy Idol either. :)

 

http://regressing.de...-mos-1681805710

I don't see how the statistical analysis is relevant. I don't care if they got an advantage or not. The issue is if they were violating rules willfully.

 

It makes a difference because apparently the league's rules provide for at least a $25,000 fine for having a ball less than 12.5 psi or more than 13.5 psi. The Patriots were found having balls that were below 12.5 psi, but none of the referees who touched them during the first half or D'Qwell Jackson, who intercepted one, noticed anything was unusual about them. My own view is that Walt Anderson is lying. The refs don't measure the balls before the game. The feel them. As long as the ball "feels" about right, the refs don't really care what the specific psi is. And since the Patriots employees' texts are the principal piece of evidence against them, you must believe that after a game in 2014 against the Jets a Patriots' ball was measured with a gauge at 16 psi. IMO, because the refs just pumped up a ball they thought seemed too pliant, and even going 2.5 psi over the limit wasn't something they could feel.

 

Why does all this matter? Because Brady was suspended for 4 games (twice as many as Rice was originally suspended), the Patriots were fined $1 million, and they lost a first and fourth round draft choice. For, at worst, willfully violating a rule in a way that didn't affect play on the field. The penalty is a joke, IMO. You want to argue that at least means that the league could slap them as hard as they want, fine. But this is like banning a player for half a season for wearing Puma cleats.

I've already stated the penalty being levied for this is curious and I can't jump on the bandwagon since my own teams QB admits to using a doctored football when they won the Super Bowl. Comment is only directed at the analysis. Doesn't matter if they had an advantage. If they broke rules then they broke rules. Penalty or guilt should not be based on stat analysis, only evidence. Penalty is so severe, imo, because of team history.

[laughedatbytime]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

[Presto-digitation]

We will see. Too bad he had to put a blemish on things. Completely unnecessary. The team least needing to cheat chronically does so. Sad. Good thing a great player is not also above the rules, however. If this was a shit quarterback for the Jags everyone would let him hang. Cheating is cheating. The suspension is essentially a PED type suspension. Very fair.

 

What is your take on MLB pitchers doctoring the ball? The longest suspension is about 10 games or .96% of a season, not 25% of a season.

 

What is the suspension if the pitcher and the team (which has cheated before) obstruct an investigation? Also, how prevalent is the issue?

 

I hadn't heard, yet, it was for not cooperating when I posted that. It isn't prevalent but neither was deflating a football before now. The suspension for obstructing makes much more sense to me. For the record I am a 9ers fan, not a Pat's fan although I do like Brady as a QB. It's unfortunate that he did this or allowed this to happen. This will definitely tarnish his legacy.

 

The way I understand the rule is that the home team supplies the balls for the game. Don't both teams get to use the deflated balls?

 

My point on the prevalence is that there are no other examples I know of where a team has taken the balls after they have been inspected and altered them. This is a unique instance of cheating, unlike a pitcher doctoring the ball. And I think one of the biggest factors in the penalty is that the Patriots did not make McNally available for a second interview with Wells (the first one was done before certain texts like "the deflator" and not "going to ESPN" were found) and not allowing a search of Brady's phone even if the investigators never touched the phone...they even offered to take Brady's agent's word that what was provided to investigators (even if Brady's agent merely read them to investigators) was all the relevant information. Another reason for the harshness which has largely been ignored is the conclusion that the practice had been going on for some time, at least through the 2014 season.

 

And RNB is right, both teams don't use the deflated balls. Each team gets 12 of their own. IIRC, 9 of the 12 Patriots balls were deflated 1-2 psi too low, while none of the Colts balls tested were non-compliant.

 

I don't think you're right about the Colts' balls. I think one of the two gauges used (at halftime?) recorded that 3 out of 4 of the Colts balls were under 12.5 psi, although admittedly less than the Patriots'.

 

You're right that one of the gauges used at halftime found 3 of the Colts' balls slightly under inflated (I think the most underinflated was 0.35 psi). However, all the balls were deemed compliant and none had air added to them as they were compliant on at least one of the gauges. None of the Pats balls were compliant on either of the gauges, so air was added to all of them.

 

How can a ball under 12.5 psi be compliant? The league can't have it both ways.

 

Because it wasn't demonstrated that it was under 12.5, unlike all 12 of of the Pats' balls which were clearly so.

 

The balls were measured using a pressure gauge supplied by the league. How can it not be demonstrated a ball measured under 12.5 psi was under 12.5 psi?

 

You're not seriously asking that, are you? It's already been answered a few times, so I wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse because you think it drives home some point. If you are, just make the point. But please, try and remember the facts when you do. All the facts.

 

I am.. Can you answer it please? Please don't tell me that the gauges may not have been calibrated properly. If that's your answer, since you've said elsewhere you think the evidence here could meet the criminal burden of proof, PM DPR and ask him how DUI cases go when the government says the breathalyzer may not have been accurate.

 

I'm not sure why you don't see the inconsistency in the position you keep putting forward. Either balls being under 12.5 psi is a serious act of cheating, that shakes the very foundation of the game, and any deviation from that standard is unacceptable, or the psi of game balls is not really a big deal. If that's the case, stop talking about it as if Brady were Shula in 1982 letting the field get soaked to slow the Jets down or the late 90s Yankees popping PEDs like sunflower seeds. But then you're left arguing that Brady's real crime is obstructing an investigation into an unimportant matter. I know why you don't want to do that.

 

Because the Colts balls were not underinflated, as I've described in detail above. Also, there is no indication that the Colts altered the balls after the refs inspected them. Or obstructed an investigation. Also, your false dichotomy is quite false...why and how the balls fall under 12.5 is obviously extremely important.

 

Why? If, in the end, the air pressure of the balls really isn't a big deal, what difference does it make how they got that way?

 

Well that is your opinion. However the league makes refs check this every single game and mandates an acceptable range, so clearly the organization that actually runs the sport disagrees that it's no big deal. Your opinion is completely irrelevant. I am not sure what the complex mystery to all of this is for some people. :D

[laughedatbytime]

We will see. Too bad he had to put a blemish on things. Completely unnecessary. The team least needing to cheat chronically does so. Sad. Good thing a great player is not also above the rules, however. If this was a shit quarterback for the Jags everyone would let him hang. Cheating is cheating. The suspension is essentially a PED type suspension. Very fair.

 

What is your take on MLB pitchers doctoring the ball? The longest suspension is about 10 games or .96% of a season, not 25% of a season.

 

What is the suspension if the pitcher and the team (which has cheated before) obstruct an investigation? Also, how prevalent is the issue?

 

I hadn't heard, yet, it was for not cooperating when I posted that. It isn't prevalent but neither was deflating a football before now. The suspension for obstructing makes much more sense to me. For the record I am a 9ers fan, not a Pat's fan although I do like Brady as a QB. It's unfortunate that he did this or allowed this to happen. This will definitely tarnish his legacy.

 

The way I understand the rule is that the home team supplies the balls for the game. Don't both teams get to use the deflated balls?

 

My point on the prevalence is that there are no other examples I know of where a team has taken the balls after they have been inspected and altered them. This is a unique instance of cheating, unlike a pitcher doctoring the ball. And I think one of the biggest factors in the penalty is that the Patriots did not make McNally available for a second interview with Wells (the first one was done before certain texts like "the deflator" and not "going to ESPN" were found) and not allowing a search of Brady's phone even if the investigators never touched the phone...they even offered to take Brady's agent's word that what was provided to investigators (even if Brady's agent merely read them to investigators) was all the relevant information. Another reason for the harshness which has largely been ignored is the conclusion that the practice had been going on for some time, at least through the 2014 season.

 

And RNB is right, both teams don't use the deflated balls. Each team gets 12 of their own. IIRC, 9 of the 12 Patriots balls were deflated 1-2 psi too low, while none of the Colts balls tested were non-compliant.

 

I don't think you're right about the Colts' balls. I think one of the two gauges used (at halftime?) recorded that 3 out of 4 of the Colts balls were under 12.5 psi, although admittedly less than the Patriots'.

 

You're right that one of the gauges used at halftime found 3 of the Colts' balls slightly under inflated (I think the most underinflated was 0.35 psi). However, all the balls were deemed compliant and none had air added to them as they were compliant on at least one of the gauges. None of the Pats balls were compliant on either of the gauges, so air was added to all of them.

 

How can a ball under 12.5 psi be compliant? The league can't have it both ways.

 

Because it wasn't demonstrated that it was under 12.5, unlike all 12 of of the Pats' balls which were clearly so.

 

The balls were measured using a pressure gauge supplied by the league. How can it not be demonstrated a ball measured under 12.5 psi was under 12.5 psi?

 

You're not seriously asking that, are you? It's already been answered a few times, so I wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse because you think it drives home some point. If you are, just make the point. But please, try and remember the facts when you do. All the facts.

 

I am.. Can you answer it please? Please don't tell me that the gauges may not have been calibrated properly. If that's your answer, since you've said elsewhere you think the evidence here could meet the criminal burden of proof, PM DPR and ask him how DUI cases go when the government says the breathalyzer may not have been accurate.

 

I'm not sure why you don't see the inconsistency in the position you keep putting forward. Either balls being under 12.5 psi is a serious act of cheating, that shakes the very foundation of the game, and any deviation from that standard is unacceptable, or the psi of game balls is not really a big deal. If that's the case, stop talking about it as if Brady were Shula in 1982 letting the field get soaked to slow the Jets down or the late 90s Yankees popping PEDs like sunflower seeds. But then you're left arguing that Brady's real crime is obstructing an investigation into an unimportant matter. I know why you don't want to do that.

 

Because the Colts balls were not underinflated, as I've described in detail above. Also, there is no indication that the Colts altered the balls after the refs inspected them. Or obstructed an investigation. Also, your false dichotomy is quite false...why and how the balls fall under 12.5 is obviously extremely important.

 

Why? If, in the end, the air pressure of the balls really isn't a big deal, what difference does it make how they got that way?

 

Well that is your opinion. However the league makes refs check this every single game and mandates an acceptable range, so clearly the organization that actually runs the sport disagrees that it's no big deal. Your opinion is completely irrelevant. I am not sure what the complex mystery to all of this is for some people. :D(

I don't know what's funnier about RNB's post:

 

1) That he's arguing that someone would obstruct an investigation into an "unimportant" matter...just think about that for a minute...

2) That he's complaining about teams altering field conditions which apply to both teams...cough...Mark Henderson...cough, or

3) That he's complaining about teams winning championships with the aid of PED's (now batting for the Boston Red Sox, number 24...or is it number 34?)

[troutman]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof. Off topic, but do you know who the back up QB is?

[laughedatbytime]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof. Off topic, but do you know who the back up QB is?

Jimmy Garoffalo, 2nd year QB from Eastern Illinois. Strong arm. Not necessarily important for that offense though.

[LedRush]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

Exactly. Just because you can, within the rules, alter the balls within a certain set of parameters, doesn't excuse you from taking the balls after the refs examine them, and then alter them to make them non compliant. And then lie about it and obstruct an investigation.

[LedRush]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof.

 

Stronger proof? The league got far more than they needed to meet the burden of proof.

[LedRush]

http://news.yahoo.co...WQDBHNlYwNzcg--

 

That argument didn't go well for A-Rod.

 

Apples & Oranges

 

Indeed. A-Rod had a much better argument that he should be able to call the Commissioner than Brady has.

[laughedatbytime]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof. Off topic, but do you know who the back up QB is?

A different level in what way? It was circumventing the rules to gain a competitive advantage. Both statistical records show that the individual performance was clearly superior after the rule breaking (Bonds in 1999, Brady in 2007) than prior to it.

[troutman]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof.

 

Stronger proof? The league got far more than they needed to meet the burden of proof.

 

How so?

 

I just read this. Should be interesting.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_DEFLATED_FOOTBALLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-16-17-59-35

[troutman]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof. Off topic, but do you know who the back up QB is?

A different level in what way? It was circumventing the rules to gain a competitive advantage. Both statistical records show that the individual performance was clearly superior after the rule breaking (Bonds in 1999, Brady in 2007) than prior to it.

 

 

Well for me at least,

 

 

Drugs vs. so called deflated footballs are not on the same level.

[laughedatbytime]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof. Off topic, but do you know who the back up QB is?

A different level in what way? It was circumventing the rules to gain a competitive advantage. Both statistical records show that the individual performance was clearly superior after the rule breaking (Bonds in 1999, Brady in 2007) than prior to it.

 

 

Well for me at least,

 

 

Drugs vs. so called deflated footballs are not on the same level.

In what way? Effect on play? Damage to the offender? Impact on young people of the example set?

[LedRush]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof.

 

Stronger proof? The league got far more than they needed to meet the burden of proof.

 

How so?

 

I just read this. Should be interesting.

 

http://hosted.ap.org...-05-16-17-59-35

 

Because the video, text messages, and science point to no other reasonable conclusion?

[troutman]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof. Off topic, but do you know who the back up QB is?

A different level in what way? It was circumventing the rules to gain a competitive advantage. Both statistical records show that the individual performance was clearly superior after the rule breaking (Bonds in 1999, Brady in 2007) than prior to it.

 

 

Well for me at least,

 

 

Drugs vs. so called deflated footballs are not on the same level.

In what way? Effect on play? Damage to the offender? Impact on young people of the example set?

 

You make a great point,

 

I just feel the current deflate gate charge doesn't rise to what Bonds or any other player has done as far as using illegal drugs.

[troutman]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof.

 

Stronger proof? The league got far more than they needed to meet the burden of proof.

 

How so?

 

I just read this. Should be interesting.

 

http://hosted.ap.org...-05-16-17-59-35

 

Because the video, text messages, and science point to no other reasonable conclusion?

 

As far as what I have read or heard,

 

They did not find any messages that Brady posted saying he was involved in deflating the balls. Unless you have info. that I don't. What science and reasonable conclusion? Thats just speculation on the league's part.

[LedRush]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof.

 

Stronger proof? The league got far more than they needed to meet the burden of proof.

 

How so?

 

I just read this. Should be interesting.

 

http://hosted.ap.org...-05-16-17-59-35

 

Because the video, text messages, and science point to no other reasonable conclusion?

 

As far as what I have read or heard,

 

They did not find any messages that Brady posted saying he was involved in deflating the balls. Unless you have info. that I don't. What science and reasonable conclusion? Thats just speculation on the league's part.

 

It is not mere speculation.

[laughedatbytime]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof. Off topic, but do you know who the back up QB is?

A different level in what way? It was circumventing the rules to gain a competitive advantage. Both statistical records show that the individual performance was clearly superior after the rule breaking (Bonds in 1999, Brady in 2007) than prior to it.

 

 

Well for me at least,

 

 

Drugs vs. so called deflated footballs are not on the same level.

In what way? Effect on play? Damage to the offender? Impact on young people of the example set?

 

You make a great point,

 

I just feel the current deflate gate charge doesn't rise to what Bonds or any other player has done as far as using illegal drugs.

I think of the three things I mentioned the only one that bothers me is the first, that a team gets an unfair advantage from cheating. If someone wants to do harm to their body that's their business and I think parents should be able to explain to their kids the dangers of steroids. But the games need to be played on a level playing field, and that's where there's no real difference.

[troutman]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof.

 

Stronger proof? The league got far more than they needed to meet the burden of proof.

 

How so?

 

I just read this. Should be interesting.

 

http://hosted.ap.org...-05-16-17-59-35

 

Because the video, text messages, and science point to no other reasonable conclusion?

 

As far as what I have read or heard,

 

They did not find any messages that Brady posted saying he was involved in deflating the balls. Unless you have info. that I don't. What science and reasonable conclusion? Thats just speculation on the league's part.

 

It is not mere speculation.

 

Sure it is,

 

The league investigator didn't find any hard proof. Just speculation that Brady must have been directly involved. I see no proof of that at this point.

[troutman]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof. Off topic, but do you know who the back up QB is?

A different level in what way? It was circumventing the rules to gain a competitive advantage. Both statistical records show that the individual performance was clearly superior after the rule breaking (Bonds in 1999, Brady in 2007) than prior to it.

 

 

Well for me at least,

 

 

Drugs vs. so called deflated footballs are not on the same level.

In what way? Effect on play? Damage to the offender? Impact on young people of the example set?

 

You make a great point,

 

I just feel the current deflate gate charge doesn't rise to what Bonds or any other player has done as far as using illegal drugs.

I think of the three things I mentioned the only one that bothers me is the first, that a team gets an unfair advantage from cheating. If someone wants to do harm to their body that's their business and I think parents should be able to explain to their kids the dangers of steroids. But the games need to be played on a level playing field, and that's where there's no real difference.

 

I totally agree,

 

Like I posted before. If the league can find some real proof that Brady was directly involved then I have no problem with the punishment. In the end though, the league has brought this on them selves. Same balls for both teams.

[laughedatbytime]

One thing that isn't covered in the stats "takedown" by the nutty professor from Connecticut.

 

Brady (pre deflation era 2001-06): 9.8 fumbles per year (per 16 games) 1.9% of dropbacks (3061 total)

Brady (deflation era 2007-15): 5.3 fumbles per year 0.9% of dropbacks (4107 total)

 

Brady (pre deflation era): 2.55% int pct

Brady (deflation era): 1.58% int pct

 

So Brady fumbled twice as often with regular balls as opposed to deflated balls per dropback and was intercepted 1.6 times as often.

 

But the ball pressure didn't matter.

 

OK,

 

But that does not prove any thing. Don't get me wrong. I have no love for the guy. I just want to see some "hard proof" thats all.

What constitutes hard proof to you? And what do you think needs to be "proven" (a standard far beyond what's required by the way)?

 

 

The numbers show a clear delineation of personal performance between the pre-deflation and deflation eras. If you want to parse them further they're all available at http://www.pro-footb.../B/BradTo00.htm

 

The numbers do not prove any thing,

 

Just because they have declined proves nothing as far as hard proof. Maybe he has just gotten better as time goes by.

Coincident with the time when he fell into an advantage in terms of the equipment he was using.

 

But this is just a coincidence, I'm sure. Just like Barry Bonds' power surge was just the product of getting better as time went by.

 

Come on,

 

Barry Bonds? Any way, like I have posted before. I blame the league for allowing both teams to have there own choice of balls. It falls on them regardless of the intent. They are just looking for a fall guy to cover up for there stupid rules.

Other than an emoticon, do you have rationale why Bonds' situation is any different in a meaningful way than Brady's?

 

I completely agree about the league not allowing teams to have their own choice of balls, and access to the balls before game time. That in no way detracts from the Patriots responsibility to follow the rules.

 

 

Were talking steroids vs so called deflated footballs. Sure, cheating is cheating but on a completely different level. BTW, this is still an on going case. I have no problem with him getting what he deserves if there is some stronger proof.

 

Stronger proof? The league got far more than they needed to meet the burden of proof.

 

How so?

 

I just read this. Should be interesting.

 

http://hosted.ap.org...-05-16-17-59-35

 

Because the video, text messages, and science point to no other reasonable conclusion?

 

As far as what I have read or heard,

 

They did not find any messages that Brady posted saying he was involved in deflating the balls. Unless you have info. that I don't. What science and reasonable conclusion? Thats just speculation on the league's part.

 

It is not mere speculation.

 

Sure it is,

 

The league investigator didn't find any hard proof. Just speculation that Brady must have been directly involved. I see no proof of that at this point.

Assuming you're married, if you found text messages from your wife to her friends thanking them for their help in covering up her infidelity, would you demand hard proof (whatever that might be) before you acted?