Merged: Ahahaha. Once a cheat, always a cheat / DeflateGate

Arrogant and self-righteous people act that way all the time. My guess is Bill is quite the narcissist.

 

or this is all on brady.?

 

LOL at Belichick comparing the balls deflating to how you start your car and the tire light comes on after the car sat overnight. LMAO. The chances of a DOZEN brand new tires simultaneously losing air overnight is IMPOSSIBLE, let alone occuring in 2 hours. Who the hell does he think he's kidding?!

yes yes, somehow it was only New Englands football that deflated, meanwhile Indy's remained exactly the same. Brady must have some kind of Herculean grip to squeeze that much air out of those things, eh.

 

Dont forget, Gronk spikes the ball too lol They talk to us as if we are fools.

 

There are a bunch of football fans I'd love to sell some bridges to. Most of them are in the Northeast.

 

Why do it? Preference? Psychological? No different than stupid superstitions. There's no evidence anyone did anything wrong. And the fumble numbers prove nothing. Nothing. It could be a product of BB being the best coach in the NFL (best in NFL history, IMO) and demanding proper ball security. Or individual player performance. Ricky Williams is going to fumble more than Emmitt Smith. Doesn't mean Dallas/Smith is cheating.


This thread is nothing but Dolphin fans hating their daddy.

 

Wow.

 

double post

 

My reaction to 27+ pages dedicated to footballs being a little bit softer than normal. Science has proven that under inflated footballs offer no advantage. So what is the problem? Nothing to see here. Rabble, Rabble, Rabble!

 

Science has not proven anything in that regard.

- We have common sense telling us they wouldn't have done it unless it gave an advantage because of the penalty involved.
- We have history showing that organization cheats
- We have fumble numbers showing the same team that under inflates the ball to get a better grip also has drastically low fumbles per play.

Your rebuttal to those things......"nope, they are just coached better."

 

You can keep pretending that a slightly deflated ball is a trivial issue that wouldn't create any sort of significant advantage. Doesn't make it true. The fumble numbers and Brady being well above all other top QBs in cold weather are certainly highly questionnable and downright fishy. Don't know how you can argue otherwise. Every offensive coach in the NFL ranks ball security as one of their top priorities. Belicheat likely isn't prioritizing it any more than the next coach

And the evidence is also in the 11 balls that were 2 pounds under the legal limit, so I really don't know what you're talking about there.

Just because there isn't a video of a ball boy sticking a pin in the ball doesn't mean it didn't happen.

While we're at it, why don't we defend filming oppositions walkthroughs during Superbowl week

 

It's pretty much over and after the press conference today I think Belichick was being pretty damn honest about what he knew which was nothing, that team is giving them access to everything including security cameras.

I am starting to believe they knew nothing about it.

The internet forums will continue to hate but football will move on with or without their approval. Time for Super Bowl, if they win it will be fair and square.

 

Keep your fantasies to yourself.

 

Even if that was so, it still doesnt change the fact that they are a classless organization that lacks integrity for the game and are proven cheaters.

 

Stockholm Syndrome is a thing. If we're going to go ahead and use metaphors that express New England's dominance in the East (which is a real thing, regardless of cheating, etc.), then Stockholm Syndrome is going to manifest in about 8% of Dolphin fans. I think the number might be a little higher.

 

Possibly. I just don't see how one or both aren't involved.

 

Not true.

From my link:

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

 

- Yes, NE cheated. Spygate (I really hate the suffix gate...) was real. Spygate likely played a role in them winning not one, but three championships. Since then? They've still won more games than anyone else and have gone to three superbowls. Tell me another team better coached than the NE Patriots.

- Is it cheating if under inflated footballs offer no advantage, outside of QB preference?

- Your fumble numbers prove what you want them to. It's evidence of nothing.

[video=youtube;VZ_S8F3mKFE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ_S8F3mKFE[/video]

 

As most knowledgeable football fans know, just ask one if you don't believe me, is that turnover ratios are nearly the number one predictor of whether or not a team wins or loses.

Statistics show that in the NFL, teams with positive turnover ratios have a significantly higher probability of winning. Over the past five full seasons, clubs with more takeaways than giveaways have a combined 810-220-2 (.786) record.


http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/nfl-teams-that-win-turnover-battle-have-72-17-record/26247/

 

I think it's more likely that the NFL allows players to work over the ball before the game. Prior to that, the footballs used in game were brand new from the factory. This was an issue for a number of reasons, namely the chalky residue on the footballs that made them slick. Peyton Manning talked about that at length when the rule change was made, for which he spearheaded.

Referencing BB's 36-44 record is a pathetic excuse to **** on his ability to coach. Especially in the era for which he has dominated like no other. And yet, people on this MB are questioning why I'm calling sour grapes on this message board...

 

That Sports Science segment was really thorough. I definitely wondered how many millimeters that guy could indent the football using a strange glove, and there it was; my prayers were answered.

 

lmao, thanks for the laugh DPlus!

 

Personally, I don't question Belichick's ability to coach. He has the resume. To me, that makes all his scheming and cheating even more ridiculous.

I'm curious to see if the refs finally learn how to handle their "ineligible receiver" gambit next week. If not, someone needs to be fired.

 

I'm glad you responded to that. I thought for a minute that I was the only one that didn't understand why he posted that POS video. Clark disputes statistical science and then touts the "grip" of certain men as some proof. To what I have no idea. lol

 

I never suggested turnovers didn't matter. I'm suggesting that NE doesn't turn the ball over for a variety of reasons. Until someone presents evidence that under inflating footballs offers a remarkable advantage on grip, the argument doesn't fly. One Millimeter @ 10 PSI is not a remarkable advantage.

 

Two scientists say that "deflate-gate" isn't entirely hot air.
"Deflating the ball does give a team an advantage," says materials scientist Ainissa Ramirez, the author of Newton's Football, a book about the science of football. Ramirez says the slightly softer football improves the grip.
"Particularly during that game which was very rainy, it's hard to hold the ball, it's hard to catch the ball," she says. "So by making it a little softer, it's easier to catch the ball."
John Eric Goff, a physicist at Lynchburg College in Virginia and author of Gold Medal Physics, agrees. However, underinflating a ball also carries a slight disadvantage:
"If you reduce the mass of the ball, which happens if you let a little bit of air out, the ball can decelerate faster when you throw it," he says. And that means it won't go as far on each throw.
On balance, Ramirez and Goff agree, grippiness trumps the mass problem.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ts-say-the-nfls-deflate-gate-isnt-all-hot-air

 

Do you have any relevant information to add? Something we can see? Something quantifiable? Or do you just want to keep on crying w/o adding anything relevant to the conversation?

 

Two CNN sports reporters did a test on 4 footballs. One inflated to 10.5, one 11.5, one 12.5, and one 13.5. They blindfolded one of the guys and he was able to pick out which one was which just by squeezing them. The guy who wasn't blindfolded said, "So, John (or whatever the reporters name was) can tell the difference between these footballs but Brady can't?" It was great. I'm trying to find the link.

 

I don't care what "dozens" of former players think. I care about statistical evidence. Show me statistical evidence of how much an under inflated ball improves grip to give a remarkable advantage. So far, the only statistical information available is about 1 millimeter. And the grip improve by 1.5% for holding onto the ball. 1.5% doesn't explain the pats holding onto the ball remarkably better than anyone else... So there must be another explanation. They're better coached in the toughest conditions possible. Which is the biggest part of why they win more than anyone else pre or post spygate.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d-other-ex-players-crushed-tom-brady-on-espn/

 

I just showed you, but you claimed it meant nothing. So, do you want statistical evidence or not? lol

 

Two scientists say that "deflate-gate" isn't entirely hot air.
"Deflating the ball does give a team an advantage," says materials scientist Ainissa Ramirez, the author of Newton's Football, a book about the science of football. Ramirez says the slightly softer football improves the grip.
"Particularly during that game which was very rainy, it's hard to hold the ball, it's hard to catch the ball," she says. "So by making it a little softer, it's easier to catch the ball."
John Eric Goff, a physicist at Lynchburg College in Virginia and author of Gold Medal Physics, agrees. However, underinflating a ball also carries a slight disadvantage:
"If you reduce the mass of the ball, which happens if you let a little bit of air out, the ball can decelerate faster when you throw it," he says. And that means it won't go as far on each throw.
On balance, Ramirez and Goff agree, grippiness trumps the mass problem.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...nt-all-hot-air

 

I don't think Clark Kent is really Superman.... lol

 

What? where? Some guy on TV squeezing the ball and saying, "yeah, it's better! I guess..." Or the post you made about vague physics professors saying, "yup, there's an advantage?" Well no ****... What is the specific advantage?

I want HARD NUMBERS. Hard numbers that correlate to NE's lack of fumbles to under inflated balls. The number right now stands at 1.5% extra grip. That is not a significant enough difference to explain the differential.

I feel like I'm watching "Loose Change." 9/11 was an inside job people!!!! Here are some vague references that speak to our beliefs!