Hopefully we hurt Brady enough to effect today's outcome.

It's also not JUST the fumble rate, but why guys change only during their tenure in NE. If there was some super secret technique being taught in NE, then guys who leave NE should still retain their newfound ability to not fumble.

But they don't.

 

A good question to find an answer to, would be if the entire NFL fumble rate has dropped since 07, because teams are using "worn in" footballs that are easier to grip, and prior to that they were using brand new footballs which are more slippery.

Also, JD did point out that the Pats have a low fumble rate this year(14), and doing a little checking, it is nearly identical to last year(13), and in 2013 the Pats were in the lower half of the league(24), so either they weren't deflating or deflated balls don't help with fumbles.

 

2 things;

1) Do you have stats to back up the claim that players fumble less when they are on the Pats?

2) They definitely weren't deflating this year, yet the fumble rate was at the top of the league again.

 

I only gave it a quick look so I may have missed something, but I found Green-Ellis and Blount.

Blount fumbled every 51.8 touches out of NE / 97.5 with NE
Green-Ellis fumbled every 105 touches out of NE / never fumbled in 527 touches with NE

Ridley and Maroney were sent packing after 4 fumbles in a season and had combined 1 fumble elsewhere (with limited sample size in both cases). Woodhead has fumbled 1 time since leaving as well. Everybody else looks consistent, though I'm eyeballing.

 

If I remember the stats correctly most of the rest of the teams saw a slight decrease in fumbling rate. The abnormality with the Patriots is that they suddenly jumped from closer-to-average before 2007 to well below from 2007. At least that's how I remember the stats.

So if worn-in footballs help, it seems like the Pats found a way to make by far the most of it.

 

I pray. I PRAY, that you're not using the flawed analysis from the Sharp website still.

I PRAY!!!!

Okay, this is the Sharp Analysis (aka, dull disanalysis) argument:



See anything funny there? How does Brandon Tate, have 1 fumble for every 3 touches? He touched the ball 35 times, and had 11 fumbles. You see, in your rush to hate the Patriots, you don't even stop to sniff any bull****.

What Sharp did, was count the number of touches Tate had as a receiver or running back, and then look the number of fumbles he had, and called it a day. What Mr. Sharp Analysis failed to detect, was this extreme outlier which warranted further investigation. all 11 fumbles for Brandon Tate were on Special Teams. No coach would allow a player to have a fumble for ever 3 touches. It's absurd.

Just correcting that one mistake. Not even going through to see if he messed up with any of the other ones, just that ONE mistake, pushes the after-Patriots fumble rate to 1 per 100 touches, not significantly different than per 1 per 105 touches.

So, ready to concede this portion yet, and admit you believed faulty analysis, or shall we continue.

You can check, within 2 seconds, Tate's fumble numbers here and see he only had one, as a runner or receiver, while with the Bengals.

http://www.nfl.com/player/brandontate/81306/careerstats

I don't even have to explain why you don't count special team fumble rates here, since they use the K balls (damn, I explained it).

 

So...he didn't actually fumble then?

 

Are they giving you gift baskets or something? Again, you barely post in the mains unless its to **** on Thill or felate the Pats.

 

Or Mr. Belichick started having a zero tolerance for fumbles. When you bench a fumbler, their fumble rate is removed from the scenario. Steven Ridley ran for 1,263 yards, and 12 TDs. He was benched in game #1 of the very next season because he fumbled. Lucky for him, Vereen also hurt his hand that same game, or Ridley would have sat on the bench. I know, because I drafted him in a league and was pissed. He had his carries cut in half that next year, and that's why the 2013 numbers are so much worse because of Ridley, he had 4 fumbles himself that year and that's unacceptable. But losing Vereen in 2013 forced Bill to use him somewhat, but finally signing Blount so Ridley had his carries reduced yet he still fumbled 4 times. Ridley is the only guy they have in the past few years with a fumble problem. This past year they had 1 fumble from all of the running backs. Players know, unless your name is Tom or Gronk, you fumble you get benched. It's that simple.

 

Unlike you I care about truth and accuracy. Dogging the Pats just because they're better to me, is pathetic.

Look, I'm posting the truth about an issue, and you have an issue only because it's the Patriots. You'd rather live in a sheltered world full of lies because it makes you feel better. I rather beat them on the field, and not make stuff up off of it just so I feel better about my team. If someone posts something wrong about the Patriots, the Jets, The Chargers, the Seahawks, whoever, I will correct them if they are wrong. Period.

Again, you would sit there and believe Brandon Tate fumbled once every 3 times he touched a ball. And when I correct that, it's "you're fellating the Patriots."

You don't want the truth. You can't handle the truth.

 

Did you look at the link to his stats?

http://www.nfl.com/player/brandontate/81306/careerstats

His numbers actually increased after leaving the Patriots. He had 1 fumble as a runner or receiver in NE, and ZERO at Cincy.

 

I don't give two ****s, 3 ****s or 4 damns if its the Pats or not. I don't like cheaters. They are the Lance Armstrong of football and you literally cannot stop yourself from cupping their deflated balls.

Again, you ignore the texts and video, because you're literally groveling at the feet of your masters because you see the W/L column and you couldn't care less about anything other than that.

---------------

I made a low blow about your profession. I deleted it. I'm sorry I said it.

 

A die-hard Pats fan I know made the same argument last year. I asked him whether he had any evidence Belichick started doing that from 2007. He couldn't provide it after some googling.

If you can show Belichick started implementing that policy (of benching those who fumble) from 2007, then that will definitely become my preferred explanation. But if there's no evidence for that, then I have to assume the policy was in place before 2007.

 

Nor was was he the first or only coach to do that. Its not a valid explanation.

 

Well that's the shadow of a doubt I needed. Case closed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

First, show me real, not flawed stats of fumbles from pre and post 2007. Not from Sharp Analysis.

 

So...those 11 fumbles didn't happen?

 

Ahhhahahaha!!

That's so funny.

 

Like your 11 fumbles that don't exist because they were on returns?

 

I can't independently verify Burke's data, but I haven't found anything suspicious. He shows actual numbers from 2010-2014 and graphs for averages for the NFL vs. NE from 1999-2014. Note that he uses only offensive fumbles:
http://www.advancedfootballanalytic...ral/224-the-patriots-have-great-ball-security

And here he simply does linear regression (fit a line) on all offensive fumbles from 2000-2014 and looks at deviations from what is expected, and offers up possible interpretations. In this link he doesn't carve things up by outdoor vs. indoor etc..
http://www.advancedfootballanalytic...ysis/team-analysis/227-a-look-at-ne-s-fumbles

 

For those that are saying the fumbles are a product of deflated balls, can you explain this years Pats?

There was no deflating this year, and again they are at the top of the league in fumble rate, so this throws a big old wooden shoe in those mechanisms.

 

Not on offense no. I can't tell if you're being obtuse, but the fumble rate was proof of deflation by the pats. The teams don't control the K balls they use on all special teams so that's why you don't see special teams stats in the faulty fumble rates.

But a mistake was made and they included Tate's 11 special team fumbles, but divided it by his 35 touches on offense. If you don't see the fault in that well ... There's no helping you.

 

But he fumbled, correct?

 

Yeah the deflation issue is becoming more and more tenuous (regarding the fumbling stats), certainly in part because of what you just said. But there's no question Belichick did something the others haven't been doing since 2007. What that is.. is the question.

 

Nope. Zero fumbles on offense while with the bengals

His fumble rate with the bengals is 1 fumble per infinity.

 

Hypothesizing on the answer, as you suggest, I have an interesting possible theory, Tiki Barber had a fumbling problem, the offseason prior to 2004 he changed the way he held the ball in an attempt to cut down his fumbles, he had 8 or 9 fumbles in each of the previous 4 seasons, but in his next/last 3 seasons he had 9 total, 5, 1 and 3.

So suppose that NE emphasizes that style(I have no idea, just spitballing here), and combine that with the banishings that King BB hands out to the fumbling knaves(that I do know about), and the combination of technique and fear could be a possible reason.

Just a theory though.

 

If I had been been taking a drink when I read "1 fumble per infinity", I'd have been drying out my keyboard.

 

Yeah, I think the difficult part of coming up with a good explanation is why things got better from 2007. Like I told jdang307, I'd prefer to believe it's just Belichick being a good coach. But what explains 2007? Personally I think it has to be related to the rule change somehow, but how I don't know. Anyway, as you say it's worth speculating about.

 

A lot of teams experienced high improvement after 2007. I'm on my way to Denver ... For snowboarding not the game lol. But if I have time I'll dig the numbers up. It's buried deep in one of these threads

 

Perhaps we did have more to do with the Pats downfall. The fact that we knocked them out of a home field advantage was probably huge and makes this season just a little more bearable.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...-short-road/M4fzWGccTAbMt3rB1NQ6MP/story.html

 

Pats had a tablet malfunction too in the 1st half.. hmmm

Karma?

 

I never seen Brady so physically abused like yesterday, even worse than the whooping the Giants gave him on those super bowls. The Broncos left him bruised, hobbled and literally bloody, dripping down his left arm yesterday. I loved it.

 

I know Goodell had a good time watching Brady get destroyed yesterday, as did I.

 

Like i said in the playoff thread before the game was even played, Goodell has been working behind the scenes all the details and evidence of deflategate. He will not lose, he doesnt like to lose, and hes been waiting for the Patriots season to end to put it out in the public from secondary media. Just wait for it, deadspin or something will release details soon. Last thing Goodell wanted was a distraction after so much with AP, Rice and Hardy, but after the super bowl is over, wouldnt shock me one bit to see deflategate stuff to re-emerge.

 

Now Tom Terrific sure isn't going to have the ball-managers fix up the balls... for a RB now is he. Haha.

 

Tommy boy is home nursing his vagina.

 

Only in defense of the Patriots are fumbles not fumbles.