Pats accused of under inflating game balls against the Colts (MOD WARNING #457)

DecStone

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is the problem - some people claim that the Pats have been doing this for years and it is the reason for their dramatic reduction in turnovers.


An example from this article outlines that Kevin Faulk had 23 fumbles in his first six NFL seasons and then 2 fumbles in the next five years (after NFL teams were given control over the footballs).

Another example of a different possible advantage:

And with Brady, one now legitimately wonders, exactly how long has he been cheating, and how much has he gained from it? Hmmmm. Prior to the 2006 season, the NFL stipulated that the home team supplied all of the game's footballs. But after much lobbying by a quarterback group that included Brady, the rules were changed to allow each team to supply its own balls, which would have enabled him to have the balls deflated, making them easier to handle.

Before that rule took effect, in Brady's five seasons as a full-time starter, only once did he throw for as many as 4,000 yards, and never did he throw as many as 30 touchdown passes.
But after that rule change , he became the statistics monster that he remains today, throwing for more than 4,000 yards in six of the ensuing eight seasons, with at least 30 touchdown passes in five of those years.
Coincidence? You decide. After Monday, there is a chance that the pages of NFL history have decided already.

j8wk2feszrnpao

D9Male

Yeah, lads. I don't buy the conspiracy. It is clear (to me) that Brady and the Pats cheated. I wouldn't be going trying to question all of their historical results though.

j8wk2feszrnpao

D9Male wrote: »

Yeah, lads. I don't buy the conspiracy. It is clear (to me) that Brady and the Pats cheated. I wouldn't be going trying to question all of their historical results though.

I don't have any problem with someone believing the Pats cheated, it is their opinion and they are entitled to it.
The Wells report just failed to actually prove anything, which I was disappointed with, cause I knew it was going to lead to continued speculation on the issue.

As for the pre 2006 stuff and then ball rule changes. I mean, come on. In 2007 Brady was given Welker and Moss, and people are questioning why he starts hitting big numbers.

Knex*

Its not really remarkable for a QB to improve after his fourth season onwards in the league.

I wouldn't be looking back with Captain Hindsight with a big sceptical head on me anyway, that's for sure. Its Tom Brady, for God sake.

JCTO

Yet again with the conspiracies over the lack of fumbles. This is what I wrote before

JCTO wrote: »

Those bringing up the lack of fumbling. Seriously get a grip and stop believing every conspiracy. I coach amateur football where fumbling is high and my RBs had a very low fumble rate in comparison to the rest of the league. All about drilling ball security into the back. Absolutely nothing to do with the lack of air in a ball.

If you honestly think that a couple of psi taken out of a ball is helping ball security you are totally naive. I love how someone runs numbers and then everyone starts latching on to and say oh it must be because of the balls.

nerd69

JCTO wrote: »

Yet again with the conspiracies over the lack of fumbles. This is what I wrote before



If you honestly think that a couple of psi taken out of a ball is helping ball security you are totally naive. I love how someone runs numbers and then everyone starts latching on to and say oh it must be because of the balls.

no a few psi could definitely help with ball security your going to contact slightly more of the ball that makes a huge difference i just dont believe theres any evidence for it in this case

eagle eye

DecStone wrote: »

Another example of a different possible advantage:

And whoever came up with that rubbish probably only started watching the NFL around 2010 or so.

He doesn't seem to know about the rule change that brought pass inteference from defensive backs into play and change the game forever more after that.

The league was for the most part balanced in favour of the running game up until the change in defensive pass interference calls. As soon as it became clear that defensive backs were going to be punished all the time it became a pass first league and the stats went through the roof for QB's as regards yardage.

DecStone

eagle eye wrote: »

And whoever came up with that rubbish probably only started watching the NFL around 2010 or so.

He doesn't seem to know about the rule change that brought pass inteference from defensive backs into play and change the game forever more after that.

He's hardly a newcomer. It's Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times.


But anyway his stats date to some years prior to the 2010 rule change.

Blured

Patriots coming out fighting

http://wellsreportcontext.com/

nerd69

farve says its not cheating

I don't think by any stretch, in my opinion, that Tom was cheating. It sounds crazy. Historically, there's been stealing of signs—and that goes to baseball and football. Just whatever advantage you could get. Lester Hayes putting Stickum on his arms for the (Oakland) Raiders. Pine tar. It's just endless, the advantages that players would try to get.

I don't know if Tom can honestly say he has completed more passes because of it. I think more than anything, it helped with the grip based on conditions. Not every game. And would other players do it? Sure, I have no reason to think otherwise.

eagle eye

DecStone wrote: »

He's hardly a newcomer. It's Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times.


But anyway his stats date to some years prior to the 2010 rule change.

2010 rule change? It happened a few years before then. I just picked 2010 as a random year well after the PI calls became commonplace.

eagle eye

Blured wrote: »

Patriots coming out fighting

http://wellsreportcontext.com/

Now this report seems a lot better but just like the NFL(Wells) report was always going to be pro the league and anti-Patriots, this one is the exact opposite.

Knex*

Was there even a rule change as such, or just that the interpretation changed and the likes of PI was called more? Always thought it was the latter.

I know roughing the passer changed around 06, but don't know was there anything new, per se, brought in around early mid 00's that changed it all.

Alfred Borden

Are they serious? Wow

phatkev

Blured wrote: »

Patriots coming out fighting

http://wellsreportcontext.com/

So the Pats Deflator was threatening to go to ESPN to tell them about him losing weight?

nerd69

Raf32 wrote: »

Are they serious? Wow

indeed and he was threatening to go to espn as a weight loss expert

JCTO

nerd69 wrote: »

no a few psi could definitely help with ball security your going to contact slightly more of the ball that makes a huge difference i just dont believe theres any evidence for it in this case

As someone who has used NFL footballs I am telling you the amount of PSI that was missing from the Pats footballs would do very little for ball security. I have talked with a lot of coaches and players and most agree whether they like the Pats that it played no role in ball security. How you drill players and coach players has a bigger affect. Even NFL Backs get sloppy when it comes to ball security.

No scientific reason put behind the accusation other than someone running numbers saying the numbers make it look like it helped. If anyone buys into it they should really go and buy a Real NFL football and pump it up to 12.5 carry it around then deflate it it to 10.whatever and see if it makes a difference. I can tell you it doesn't.

Alfred Borden

phatkev wrote: »

So the Pats Deflator was threatening to go to ESPN to tell them about him losing weight?

At least come up with a good lie if your gonna lie.

Knex*

Weightgate

nerd69

JCTO wrote: »

As someone who has used NFL footballs I am telling you the amount of PSI that was missing from the Pats footballs would do very little for ball security. I have talked with a lot of coaches and players and most agree whether they like the Pats that it played no role in ball security. How you drill players and coach players has a bigger affect. Even NFL Backs get sloppy when it comes to ball security.

ok you seem to have a lot of experience so il agree with you i personally have found that if I'm tucking a football that has a tiny big of give under my arm its going nowhere because I'm able to hold the ends with my fingers and the front of my elbow but it means more of the ball is touching my forearm but perhaps your right

JCTO

I laughed hard at the weight excuse. Come on I hope Pats fans don't buy into also. Worst excuse ever.

Knex*

Eli Manning, and he could well have been trolling, said since the deflategate stuff he's tried out balls at different pressures, and has stated there's a noticeable difference with a lower PI.

JCTO

Knex. wrote: »

Eli Manning, and he could well have been trolling, said since the deflategate stuff he's tried out balls at different pressures, and has stated there's a noticeable difference with a lower PI.

What PSI did he test though? Besides it would be noticeable for QBs depending on what PSI they are used to holding especially if they are used to a ball over 12.5. Aaron Rodgers said once he likes it what over 13? He definitely would notice a different. Almost sure Eli likes the ball inflated to near capacity also. But for Backs it wont make a huge difference in the sense those are claiming. Remember Backs and QBs hold very different areas of the ball.

nerd69

Knex. wrote: »

Eli Manning, and he could well have been trolling, said since the deflategate stuff he's tried out balls at different pressures, and has stated there's a noticeable difference with a lower PI.

must....... not........tease

nerd69

JCTO wrote: »

What PSI did he test though? Besides it would be noticeable for QBs depending on what PSI they are used to holding. But for Backs it wont make a huge difference in the sense those are claiming. Remember Backs and QBs hold very different areas of the ball.

i agree 100% with the qbs but there where a lot of people on this thread saying that nobody could ever notice without a gauge

JCTO

nerd69 wrote: »

i agree 100% with the qbs but there where a lot of people on this thread saying that nobody could ever notice without a gauge

Oh yeah I know. For the regular Joe it may not seem like a big deal but for guys who are used to using the ball day in, day out it would be especially QBs. Honestly you could debate that issue all day though. It is one of these things it really depends on what the person feels is a dramatic difference really.

SameOleJay

Raf32 wrote: »

Are they serious? Wow

Mother of god.

DecStone

SameOleJay wrote: »

Mother of god.

Is she involved too?

DecStone

Knex. wrote: »

Eli Manning, and he could well have been trolling, said since the deflategate stuff he's tried out balls at different pressures, and has stated there's a noticeable difference with a lower PI.

The Mannings are always cautious...

Eli Manning wasn’t happy at all to hear the news that his friend, Tom Brady was suspended by the NFL in the wake of DeflateGate.

Then again, the Giants quarterback said, rules are rules.
“I don’t like to see anybody get suspended, I don’t like to see anybody get in trouble, so in no way am I glad to see this happen,” Manning said, moments after the news was announced. “I think it is about integrity and you have to follow the rules. So if someone’s breaking rules I understand they’re going to get punished.”

Manning said that since the DeflateGate story broke he’s played around with underinflated footballs “just to see what it feels like, how much a difference it was.”
His conclusion? “Yeah, there is a difference,” he said. “A noticeable difference.”

But is there an advantage in throwing a deflated football? Manning wouldn’t go quite that far.
"Well, there’s a difference. Whether there’s an advantage or not that’s all dependent on what a quarterback likes or what it’s like in cold weather or when it’s wet,” Manning said. “There’s other factors into it, so I’m not sure.”