|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lakers 71-72
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 5059
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Basketball Fan wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | What I dislike about this is the misdirection. Belichick is behind this and Brady is the fall guy. (Yes, I dislike Brady.)
What the narrative has been twisted into is that Brady cheated and Belichick almost became the fall guy. This meme is backed up by the league now that Belichick is "cleared" of this. BS!
Clearly Brady isn't effected by the bails having less pressure. Is he on record stating he prefers softer balls? Yes. But before he started deflating when it was allowed by the league in 2006, he was throwing the ball well.
So, what's behind this? It's about ball control. Running backs fumble less when the ball is soft. I played running back. I know this.
Belichick approached Brady and asked Brady how little air can we use in the ball while keeping up passing accuracy.
Belichick is continuously looking for an advantage..through cheating or any means. What greater advantage can a team have than to fumble less and still have your quarterback throwing accurately?
After the rule change in 2006, suddenly the Patriots fumbled less than they had during their Super Bowl wins in the early part of the millennium. |
This sounds very plausible but what about the texts where Brady refers to the guy as the "Deflator" wouldn't Bill be the one asking him to do this? |
Running with my hypothesis if Belichick sold Brady on this, he probably gave him oversight as well since he'd have to determine whether a ball difficult to fumble is more importantly, able to be thrown accurately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24761
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting this is very plausible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24761
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2015 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/11/19/brady-faces-deflategate-questions-avoids-them/
| Quote: | Brady faces #DeflateGate questions, avoids them
On May 7, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady said that he would provide his reaction to the Ted Wells #DeflateGate report “hopefully soon.” More than six months later, Brady still hasn’t.
In the interim, Brady gave lengthy testimony at his internal appeal hearing, during which he resisted admitting what the evidence makes obvious: Once Brady became aware that the minimum allowable air pressure in footballs is 12.5 PSI, he instructed the equipment staff to inflate the balls to 12.5 PSI not because it was a random number that popped into his head but because he prefers the balls to have less air instead of more.
He agreed last month to submit to an interview with GQ magazine, a supposed no-holds-barred, face-to-face session with Chuck Klosterman that morphed two days before the sit-down into a one-hour conversation — which became once it began a discussion with a limit of 45 minutes due to Brady’s schedule.
The entire article can be seen here. When Brady was asked about #DeflateGate, he clammed up.
“I’ve had those questions for eight months and I’ve answered them, you know, multiple times for many different people,” Brady said after initially declining to address whether he disagrees with the conclusion that he was “generally aware” of a scheme to deflate footballs.
As Klosterman notes, Brady really hasn’t answered those questions. Beyond the painfully awkward are-you-a-cheater?-I-don’t-believe-so press conference that happened four days after the AFC title game (and that in fairness to Brady occurred at a time when the league had leaked blatantly false information about the PSI readings to ESPN, putting the entire Patriots organization on the defensive), Brady hasn’t really said all that much to anyone in the media.
From a P.R. perspective, it’s not the best move. From a legal perspective, it’s smart to say nothing more than what he has already said while being interviewed by Ted Wells or testifying before Roger Goodell.
“I’m not talking about [the ‘general awareness’ allegation], because there’s still ongoing litigation,” Brady told Klosterman. “It has nothing to do with the personal question that you’re trying to ask, or the answer you’re trying to get. I’m not talking about anything as it relates to what’s happened over the last eight months. I’ve dealt with those questions for eight months. It’s something that — obviously I wish that we were talking about something different. But like I said, it’s still going on right now. And there’s nothing more that I really want to add to the subject. It’s been debated and talked about, especially in Boston, for a long time.”
The interview didn’t last much longer, because Klosterman kept asking the question to the point (some will say) of badgering Brady. Brady, who is much better at playing football than talking about football or pretty much anything else, tried multiple times to explain that he has no interest in discussing the subject now, especially since litigation is still ongoing.
What’s amazing is that anyone from Brady’s camp or the Patriots allowed the GQ interview to even happen. At a time when Brady does the bare minimum when it comes to weekly media availability (once during the week and once after each game) to a press corps smart enough to devote their limited access to questions he’ll actually answer, the fact that Brady would submit to any interview that he can’t control (e.g., with the team’s official website . . . EXCLUSIVE!) isn’t just surprising — it’s shocking.
Bottom line? Folks who already think Brady cheated will conclude he came off poorly in the interview. Folks who already think he didn’t cheat will conclude Klosterman came off as a huge jerk.
Still, when the litigation is finally over, Brady needs to sit down for a frank, candid interview — not with Jim Gray or a co-worker at the Patriots or Bill Simmons or a mainstream, non-football journalist who doesn’t fully appreciate the entire range of facts and nuances of the case but someone who would be able to ask meaningful questions with probing follow-ups in order to get to the one thing that has remained elusive since the AFC title game: The truth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | What I dislike about this is the misdirection. Belichick is behind this and Brady is the fall guy. (Yes, I dislike Brady.)
What the narrative has been twisted into is that Brady cheated and Belichick almost became the fall guy. This meme is backed up by the league now that Belichick is "cleared" of this. BS!
Clearly Brady isn't effected by the bails having less pressure. Is he on record stating he prefers softer balls? Yes. But before he started deflating when it was allowed by the league in 2006, he was throwing the ball well.
So, what's behind this? It's about ball control. Running backs fumble less when the ball is soft. I played running back. I know this.
Belichick approached Brady and asked Brady how little air can we use in the ball while keeping up passing accuracy.
Belichick is continuously looking for an advantage..through cheating or any means. What greater advantage can a team have than to fumble less and still have your quarterback throwing accurately?
After the rule change in 2006, suddenly the Patriots fumbled less than they had during their Super Bowl wins in the early part of the millennium. |
This sounds very plausible but what about the texts where Brady refers to the guy as the "Deflator" wouldn't Bill be the one asking him to do this? |
Running with my hypothesis if Belichick sold Brady on this, he probably gave him oversight as well since he'd have to determine whether a ball difficult to fumble is more importantly, able to be thrown accurately. |
Stunning. Guess what? The Patriots (once again) are among the leaders in fewest fumbles, in spite of the fact they changed RBs and have a porous, make-shift offensive line. By your line of reasoning, they are still deflating the footballs rather than emphasizing protection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brady must be smiling. All this hoopla and the Pats are undefeated.
If he loses the appeal it will be well after he retires.
If they go 16 0, win the Super Bowl, Brady will have won on all fronts.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30679
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | Brady must be smiling. All this hoopla and the Pats are undefeated.
If he looses the appeal it will be well after he retires.
If they go 16 0, win the Super Bowl, Brady will have won on all fronts. |
He'll probably get the MVP too... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24761
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jonnybravo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Brady must be smiling. All this hoopla and the Pats are undefeated.
If he looses the appeal it will be well after he retires.
If they go 16 0, win the Super Bowl, Brady will have won on all fronts. |
He'll probably get the MVP too... |
I'd be surprised because these MVP awards are all about politics and the NFL doesn't want to give it to Brady if they don't have to considering he sued them a few months ago.
I think Cam Newton will get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers 71-72
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 5059
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | What I dislike about this is the misdirection. Belichick is behind this and Brady is the fall guy. (Yes, I dislike Brady.)
What the narrative has been twisted into is that Brady cheated and Belichick almost became the fall guy. This meme is backed up by the league now that Belichick is "cleared" of this. BS!
Clearly Brady isn't effected by the bails having less pressure. Is he on record stating he prefers softer balls? Yes. But before he started deflating when it was allowed by the league in 2006, he was throwing the ball well.
So, what's behind this? It's about ball control. Running backs fumble less when the ball is soft. I played running back. I know this.
Belichick approached Brady and asked Brady how little air can we use in the ball while keeping up passing accuracy.
Belichick is continuously looking for an advantage..through cheating or any means. What greater advantage can a team have than to fumble less and still have your quarterback throwing accurately?
After the rule change in 2006, suddenly the Patriots fumbled less than they had during their Super Bowl wins in the early part of the millennium. |
This sounds very plausible but what about the texts where Brady refers to the guy as the "Deflator" wouldn't Bill be the one asking him to do this? |
Running with my hypothesis if Belichick sold Brady on this, he probably gave him oversight as well since he'd have to determine whether a ball difficult to fumble is more importantly, able to be thrown accurately. |
Stunning. Guess what? The Patriots (once again) are among the leaders in fewest fumbles, in spite of the fact they changed RBs and have a porous, make-shift offensive line. By your line of reasoning, they are still deflating the footballs rather than emphasizing protection. |
How do you explain falling out of the average of league fumbles from 2000-2006? They weren't the leaders in fewest fumbles during that stretch. Suddenly they rarely fumbled from 2006-2014, a streak that coincides with the rule change?
Explain, don't declaim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | What I dislike about this is the misdirection. Belichick is behind this and Brady is the fall guy. (Yes, I dislike Brady.)
What the narrative has been twisted into is that Brady cheated and Belichick almost became the fall guy. This meme is backed up by the league now that Belichick is "cleared" of this. BS!
Clearly Brady isn't effected by the bails having less pressure. Is he on record stating he prefers softer balls? Yes. But before he started deflating when it was allowed by the league in 2006, he was throwing the ball well.
So, what's behind this? It's about ball control. Running backs fumble less when the ball is soft. I played running back. I know this.
Belichick approached Brady and asked Brady how little air can we use in the ball while keeping up passing accuracy.
Belichick is continuously looking for an advantage..through cheating or any means. What greater advantage can a team have than to fumble less and still have your quarterback throwing accurately?
After the rule change in 2006, suddenly the Patriots fumbled less than they had during their Super Bowl wins in the early part of the millennium. |
This sounds very plausible but what about the texts where Brady refers to the guy as the "Deflator" wouldn't Bill be the one asking him to do this? |
Running with my hypothesis if Belichick sold Brady on this, he probably gave him oversight as well since he'd have to determine whether a ball difficult to fumble is more importantly, able to be thrown accurately. |
Stunning. Guess what? The Patriots (once again) are among the leaders in fewest fumbles, in spite of the fact they changed RBs and have a porous, make-shift offensive line. By your line of reasoning, they are still deflating the footballs rather than emphasizing protection. |
How do you explain falling out of the average of league fumbles from 2000-2006? They weren't the leaders in fewest fumbles during that stretch. Suddenly they rarely fumbled from 2006-2014, a streak that coincides with the rule change?
Explain, don't declaim. |
Nothing to declaim, you're the one using weak, inductive reasoning as evidence. If you want to play RB for Bill Belichick, you better protect the ball at all costs. That's why they dropped Ridley, despite some very good YPC numbers, and why they kept Blount as he's far from a breakaway runner, but great at not coughing up the football. Look at Shane Vereen, who now plays for NYG. Do you see him suddenly fumbling? No, NE places a high priority on RBs who do not turnover the ball... AND they rely heavily on a passing attack, which in turn also creates fewer fumbles than more balanced or ground-oriented offenses. The whole "NE deflated footballs because they didn't fumble" is just an Internet myth using weak, inductive reasoning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Basketball Fan wrote: | | jonnybravo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Brady must be smiling. All this hoopla and the Pats are undefeated.
If he looses the appeal it will be well after he retires.
If they go 16 0, win the Super Bowl, Brady will have won on all fronts. |
He'll probably get the MVP too... |
I'd be surprised because these MVP awards are all about politics and the NFL doesn't want to give it to Brady if they don't have to considering he sued them a few months ago.
I think Cam Newton will get it. |
Nah, Cams busy getting his daps.
In case there are some in the forum who don't know, daps is not just a dance, it's street for getting props.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24761
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | jonnybravo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Brady must be smiling. All this hoopla and the Pats are undefeated.
If he looses the appeal it will be well after he retires.
If they go 16 0, win the Super Bowl, Brady will have won on all fronts. |
He'll probably get the MVP too... |
I'd be surprised because these MVP awards are all about politics and the NFL doesn't want to give it to Brady if they don't have to considering he sued them a few months ago.
I think Cam Newton will get it. |
Nah, Cams busy getting his daps.
In case there are some in the forum who don't know, daps is not just a dance, it's street for getting props. |
Again these things are politicized popularity contests then again seeing as how the media votes for it I could see Brady getting it since the media still likes him.
Even more than Cam Newton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Basketball Fan wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | jonnybravo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | Brady must be smiling. All this hoopla and the Pats are undefeated.
If he looses the appeal it will be well after he retires.
If they go 16 0, win the Super Bowl, Brady will have won on all fronts. |
He'll probably get the MVP too... |
I'd be surprised because these MVP awards are all about politics and the NFL doesn't want to give it to Brady if they don't have to considering he sued them a few months ago.
I think Cam Newton will get it. |
Nah, Cams busy getting his daps.
In case there are some in the forum who don't know, daps is not just a dance, it's street for getting props. |
Again these things are politicized popularity contests then again seeing as how the media votes for it I could see Brady getting it since the media still likes him.
Even more than Cam Newton |
You have a point. Watching First Take and other sports shows. Some don't like him doing his dap dance. He said if they don't want him to do it, keep him out of the end zone.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24761
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually agree with Cam Newton here and I don't care for him either but its really laughable to say he's a thug etc.
Now if they think he's a tool that I would agree with but that's about as far as it goes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers 71-72
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 5059
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | What I dislike about this is the misdirection. Belichick is behind this and Brady is the fall guy. (Yes, I dislike Brady.)
What the narrative has been twisted into is that Brady cheated and Belichick almost became the fall guy. This meme is backed up by the league now that Belichick is "cleared" of this. BS!
Clearly Brady isn't effected by the bails having less pressure. Is he on record stating he prefers softer balls? Yes. But before he started deflating when it was allowed by the league in 2006, he was throwing the ball well.
So, what's behind this? It's about ball control. Running backs fumble less when the ball is soft. I played running back. I know this.
Belichick approached Brady and asked Brady how little air can we use in the ball while keeping up passing accuracy.
Belichick is continuously looking for an advantage..through cheating or any means. What greater advantage can a team have than to fumble less and still have your quarterback throwing accurately?
After the rule change in 2006, suddenly the Patriots fumbled less than they had during their Super Bowl wins in the early part of the millennium. |
This sounds very plausible but what about the texts where Brady refers to the guy as the "Deflator" wouldn't Bill be the one asking him to do this? |
Running with my hypothesis if Belichick sold Brady on this, he probably gave him oversight as well since he'd have to determine whether a ball difficult to fumble is more importantly, able to be thrown accurately. |
Stunning. Guess what? The Patriots (once again) are among the leaders in fewest fumbles, in spite of the fact they changed RBs and have a porous, make-shift offensive line. By your line of reasoning, they are still deflating the footballs rather than emphasizing protection. |
How do you explain falling out of the average of league fumbles from 2000-2006? They weren't the leaders in fewest fumbles during that stretch. Suddenly they rarely fumbled from 2006-2014, a streak that coincides with the rule change?
Explain, don't declaim. |
Nothing to declaim, you're the one using weak, inductive reasoning as evidence. If you want to play RB for Bill Belichick, you better protect the ball at all costs. That's why they dropped Ridley, despite some very good YPC numbers, and why they kept Blount as he's far from a breakaway runner, but great at not coughing up the football. Look at Shane Vereen, who now plays for NYG. Do you see him suddenly fumbling? No, NE places a high priority on RBs who do not turnover the ball... AND they rely heavily on a passing attack, which in turn also creates fewer fumbles than more balanced or ground-oriented offenses. The whole "NE deflated footballs because they didn't fumble" is just an Internet myth using weak, inductive reasoning. |
Weak, inductive reasoning? As opposed to strong, deductive reasoning? So, an individual, Bill Belichick, through his very essence is the middle term where the major term is ball possession and running back is the minor term?
Right! It's completely illogical to reason deductively through particulars, i.e., individuals, i.e., singular subjects who cannot share their natures in their very concrete particularity. Anyone who knows logic, and especially the ones who declaim other people for not using logic, KNOWS THIS.
So, as much as you'd like to dream that through the essence of Belichickism no running back or receiver ever fumbles, they do. And they did during the universal, predicable of several instances tenure of the universal Bill Belichick from 2000-2006. Did universal Bill Belichick fail to pick non fumbling running backs and receivers from 2000-2006? Well, they were fumbling at that time within the league average.
So, keep the arrogant declamations out of this thread. Stop defending the cheaters. Logic defies their outlying stats. No deduction's going to counter FACTS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can drastically decline fumbles with good coaching.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Basketball Fan wrote: | I actually agree with Cam Newton here and I don't care for him either but its really laughable to say he's a thug etc.
Now if they think he's a tool that I would agree with but that's about as far as it goes. |
Those calling Cam a thug because he does a dap dance after he scores, think about this.
Notice the sign sign when some NBA players makes a 3 pointer. It's a Crip sign. Are they thugs?
Last edited by jodeke on Mon Nov 23, 2015 7:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | You can drastically decline fumbles with good coaching. |
Correct. And within the pro game, you can reduce fumbles by drafting or signing free agent players who do not cough up the football. It escapes me on how some people use Internet meme logic and find this a mystery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2015 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Had a friend, played RB for the Los Angeles Rams, late 50's, early 60's, Tommy Wilson (Touchdown Tommy) who had fumblitis. He'd break though a hole and be off on a long run. When he was hit he had a reputation for fumbling. Defensive players knew his weakness and went after the ball. He did all he could but never beat the weakness.
He fought to get benefits for NFL retirees. Passed of colon cancer.
You can be taught to concentrate on proper cradling of the ball. It helps but it's not a cure all. I believe some players are fumble prone.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | What I dislike about this is the misdirection. Belichick is behind this and Brady is the fall guy. (Yes, I dislike Brady.)
What the narrative has been twisted into is that Brady cheated and Belichick almost became the fall guy. This meme is backed up by the league now that Belichick is "cleared" of this. BS!
Clearly Brady isn't effected by the bails having less pressure. Is he on record stating he prefers softer balls? Yes. But before he started deflating when it was allowed by the league in 2006, he was throwing the ball well.
So, what's behind this? It's about ball control. Running backs fumble less when the ball is soft. I played running back. I know this.
Belichick approached Brady and asked Brady how little air can we use in the ball while keeping up passing accuracy.
Belichick is continuously looking for an advantage..through cheating or any means. What greater advantage can a team have than to fumble less and still have your quarterback throwing accurately?
After the rule change in 2006, suddenly the Patriots fumbled less than they had during their Super Bowl wins in the early part of the millennium. |
This sounds very plausible but what about the texts where Brady refers to the guy as the "Deflator" wouldn't Bill be the one asking him to do this? |
Running with my hypothesis if Belichick sold Brady on this, he probably gave him oversight as well since he'd have to determine whether a ball difficult to fumble is more importantly, able to be thrown accurately. |
Stunning. Guess what? The Patriots (once again) are among the leaders in fewest fumbles, in spite of the fact they changed RBs and have a porous, make-shift offensive line. By your line of reasoning, they are still deflating the footballs rather than emphasizing protection. |
How do you explain falling out of the average of league fumbles from 2000-2006? They weren't the leaders in fewest fumbles during that stretch. Suddenly they rarely fumbled from 2006-2014, a streak that coincides with the rule change?
Explain, don't declaim. |
Nothing to declaim, you're the one using weak, inductive reasoning as evidence. If you want to play RB for Bill Belichick, you better protect the ball at all costs. That's why they dropped Ridley, despite some very good YPC numbers, and why they kept Blount as he's far from a breakaway runner, but great at not coughing up the football. Look at Shane Vereen, who now plays for NYG. Do you see him suddenly fumbling? No, NE places a high priority on RBs who do not turnover the ball... AND they rely heavily on a passing attack, which in turn also creates fewer fumbles than more balanced or ground-oriented offenses. The whole "NE deflated footballs because they didn't fumble" is just an Internet myth using weak, inductive reasoning. |
Weak, inductive reasoning? As opposed to strong, deductive reasoning? So, an individual, Bill Belichick, through his very essence is the middle term where the major term is ball possession and running back is the minor term?
Right! It's completely illogical to reason deductively through particulars, i.e., individuals, i.e., singular subjects who cannot share their natures in their very concrete particularity. Anyone who knows logic, and especially the ones who declaim other people for not using logic, KNOWS THIS.
So, as much as you'd like to dream that through the essence of Belichickism no running back or receiver ever fumbles, they do. And they did during the universal, predicable of several instances tenure of the universal Bill Belichick from 2000-2006. Did universal Bill Belichick fail to pick non fumbling running backs and receivers from 2000-2006? Well, they were fumbling at that time within the league average.
So, keep the arrogant declamations out of this thread. Stop defending the cheaters. Logic defies their outlying stats. No deduction's going to counter FACTS. |
Yes, you are using inductive reasoning. Sadly, you don't even realize how you've utilized inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. Let me help you:
| Quote: | | Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Inductive reasoning when used correctly can at times lead you to a possible conclusion, but never a definite conclusion. It can also lead you to erroneous conclusions, particularly the way you used the statistical results. Statistical results would be strong if the inputs (number of fumbles) were indeed all random results, in other words fumbles were just a single cause. That simply isn't the case in football, and in particular pro football where a coach and GM select skilled players who have a very low propensity to fumble (via draft of free agent signings) and coach or discipline players who do not protect the footballs (which Belichick is known for). If fumbling was indeed a random event influenced solely by a single factor (deflation), then coaches and GMs would disregard fumbles altogether as they would either be acts of God or something nefarious, which clearly isn't the case in the NFL (though it sure seems to be within the limitations of your logic skills).
Arrogance? You seem to be struggling with word choice. The product of arrogance is believing that you have answers, rather than being humble or intellectual honest enough to realize that definitive answers to not necessarily exist, particularly when information is incomplete. You are by that definition very arrogant, as you have embraced that Tom Brady cheated based on weak inductive reasoning. For the record, you are also mistaken that I find Brady innocent... search within the archives, and you will find that I was suspicious of Brady, but at the same time I never found enough evidence to convince me that Brady deflated footballs or had knowledge of deflated footballs. The investigatory process was deeply flawed, which corrupted the findings. Never once have I stated that Brady was innocent, but rather there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him probable of guilt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers 71-72
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 5059
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | What I dislike about this is the misdirection. Belichick is behind this and Brady is the fall guy. (Yes, I dislike Brady.)
What the narrative has been twisted into is that Brady cheated and Belichick almost became the fall guy. This meme is backed up by the league now that Belichick is "cleared" of this. BS!
Clearly Brady isn't effected by the bails having less pressure. Is he on record stating he prefers softer balls? Yes. But before he started deflating when it was allowed by the league in 2006, he was throwing the ball well.
So, what's behind this? It's about ball control. Running backs fumble less when the ball is soft. I played running back. I know this.
Belichick approached Brady and asked Brady how little air can we use in the ball while keeping up passing accuracy.
Belichick is continuously looking for an advantage..through cheating or any means. What greater advantage can a team have than to fumble less and still have your quarterback throwing accurately?
After the rule change in 2006, suddenly the Patriots fumbled less than they had during their Super Bowl wins in the early part of the millennium. |
This sounds very plausible but what about the texts where Brady refers to the guy as the "Deflator" wouldn't Bill be the one asking him to do this? |
Running with my hypothesis if Belichick sold Brady on this, he probably gave him oversight as well since he'd have to determine whether a ball difficult to fumble is more importantly, able to be thrown accurately. |
Stunning. Guess what? The Patriots (once again) are among the leaders in fewest fumbles, in spite of the fact they changed RBs and have a porous, make-shift offensive line. By your line of reasoning, they are still deflating the footballs rather than emphasizing protection. |
How do you explain falling out of the average of league fumbles from 2000-2006? They weren't the leaders in fewest fumbles during that stretch. Suddenly they rarely fumbled from 2006-2014, a streak that coincides with the rule change?
Explain, don't declaim. |
Nothing to declaim, you're the one using weak, inductive reasoning as evidence. If you want to play RB for Bill Belichick, you better protect the ball at all costs. That's why they dropped Ridley, despite some very good YPC numbers, and why they kept Blount as he's far from a breakaway runner, but great at not coughing up the football. Look at Shane Vereen, who now plays for NYG. Do you see him suddenly fumbling? No, NE places a high priority on RBs who do not turnover the ball... AND they rely heavily on a passing attack, which in turn also creates fewer fumbles than more balanced or ground-oriented offenses. The whole "NE deflated footballs because they didn't fumble" is just an Internet myth using weak, inductive reasoning. |
Weak, inductive reasoning? As opposed to strong, deductive reasoning? So, an individual, Bill Belichick, through his very essence is the middle term where the major term is ball possession and running back is the minor term?
Right! It's completely illogical to reason deductively through particulars, i.e., individuals, i.e., singular subjects who cannot share their natures in their very concrete particularity. Anyone who knows logic, and especially the ones who declaim other people for not using logic, KNOWS THIS.
So, as much as you'd like to dream that through the essence of Belichickism no running back or receiver ever fumbles, they do. And they did during the universal, predicable of several instances tenure of the universal Bill Belichick from 2000-2006. Did universal Bill Belichick fail to pick non fumbling running backs and receivers from 2000-2006? Well, they were fumbling at that time within the league average.
So, keep the arrogant declamations out of this thread. Stop defending the cheaters. Logic defies their outlying stats. No deduction's going to counter FACTS. |
Yes, you are using inductive reasoning. Sadly, you don't even realize how you've utilized inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. Let me help you:
| Quote: | | Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Inductive reasoning when used correctly can at times lead you to a possible conclusion, but never a definite conclusion. It can also lead you to erroneous conclusions, particularly the way you used the statistical results. Statistical results would be strong if the inputs (number of fumbles) were indeed all random results, in other words fumbles were just a single cause. That simply isn't the case in football, and in particular pro football where a coach and GM select skilled players who have a very low propensity to fumble (via draft of free agent signings) and coach or discipline players who do not protect the footballs (which Belichick is known for). If fumbling was indeed a random event influenced solely by a single factor (deflation), then coaches and GMs would disregard fumbles altogether as they would either be acts of God or something nefarious, which clearly isn't the case in the NFL (though it sure seems to be within the limitations of your logic skills).
Arrogance? You seem to be struggling with word choice. The product of arrogance is believing that you have answers, rather than being humble or intellectual honest enough to realize that definitive answers to not necessarily exist, particularly when information is incomplete. You are by that definition very arrogant, as you have embraced that Tom Brady cheated based on weak inductive reasoning. For the record, you are also mistaken that I find Brady innocent... search within the archives, and you will find that I was suspicious of Brady, but at the same time I never found enough evidence to convince me that Brady deflated footballs or had knowledge of deflated footballs. The investigatory process was deeply flawed, which corrupted the findings. Never once have I stated that Brady was innocent, but rather there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him probable of guilt. |
Yeah, your response missed the mark. I never denied using inductive logic. The only other alternative is deductive logic which won't yield a valid revelation, conclusion, because we are talking about particulars...individual human beings that don't have universal natures by the very fact they are particular.
So, I don't know what point you're trying to make.
So, since no one can reason deductively since it a avails no knowledge applicable here, then you, I and every other poster are cornered into using induction.
That means we at the mercy of facts...facts you don't have to back up your assertion that the Patriots suddenly found themselves in the situation of lying outside of league averages for fumbles from 2006-2014. That is implicit in your line of reasoning, it matters not if you said such when negating this fact affirms the thesis.
You used one season, 2015, as your trump card. That's one season versus 14 seasons. Hardly something I'd be beating my chest over.
I bring up the arrogance thing due to your snide original comment where you said "by your line of reasoning" and then put out a straw man I never concocted.
I'll stick with logic. You can keep up the snide comments if you like.
But you have yet to explain...there's that word again...why the Patriots were in the league average in fumbles from 2000-2006, then the rule change came in 2006 and immediately they barely fumbled. Deflated footballs are easy to maintain possession of.
I see no point in responding to future points if you don't offer an explanation for this fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers 71-72
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 5059
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2015 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | This chart is jaw-dropping, and the visual perfectly depicts what happened. From a more technical perspective, John Candido, a data scientist at ZestFinance who is a colleague of mine over at the NFLproject.com website and was also involved in the development of this research, comments:
Based on the assumption that plays per fumble follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten since 2007 once in 5,842 instances.
Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0001711874 probability to win. In other words, it’s very unlikely that results this abnormal are only due to the endogenous nature of the game.
While these data do not prove the Patriots deflated footballs starting in 2007, we know they were interested in gaining control of their own footballs in 2006. (This is something I found out after I performed the first two analyses, both of which independently found that something changed starting in 2007.) |
[url=http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/01/stats_show_the_new_england_patriots_became_nearly_fumble_proof_after_a_2006.single.html][/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32752
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | | Basketball Fan wrote: | | Lakers 71-72 wrote: | What I dislike about this is the misdirection. Belichick is behind this and Brady is the fall guy. (Yes, I dislike Brady.)
What the narrative has been twisted into is that Brady cheated and Belichick almost became the fall guy. This meme is backed up by the league now that Belichick is "cleared" of this. BS!
Clearly Brady isn't effected by the bails having less pressure. Is he on record stating he prefers softer balls? Yes. But before he started deflating when it was allowed by the league in 2006, he was throwing the ball well.
So, what's behind this? It's about ball control. Running backs fumble less when the ball is soft. I played running back. I know this.
Belichick approached Brady and asked Brady how little air can we use in the ball while keeping up passing accuracy.
Belichick is continuously looking for an advantage..through cheating or any means. What greater advantage can a team have than to fumble less and still have your quarterback throwing accurately?
After the rule change in 2006, suddenly the Patriots fumbled less than they had during their Super Bowl wins in the early part of the millennium. |
This sounds very plausible but what about the texts where Brady refers to the guy as the "Deflator" wouldn't Bill be the one asking him to do this? |
Running with my hypothesis if Belichick sold Brady on this, he probably gave him oversight as well since he'd have to determine whether a ball difficult to fumble is more importantly, able to be thrown accurately. |
Stunning. Guess what? The Patriots (once again) are among the leaders in fewest fumbles, in spite of the fact they changed RBs and have a porous, make-shift offensive line. By your line of reasoning, they are still deflating the footballs rather than emphasizing protection. |
How do you explain falling out of the average of league fumbles from 2000-2006? They weren't the leaders in fewest fumbles during that stretch. Suddenly they rarely fumbled from 2006-2014, a streak that coincides with the rule change?
Explain, don't declaim. |
Nothing to declaim, you're the one using weak, inductive reasoning as evidence. If you want to play RB for Bill Belichick, you better protect the ball at all costs. That's why they dropped Ridley, despite some very good YPC numbers, and why they kept Blount as he's far from a breakaway runner, but great at not coughing up the football. Look at Shane Vereen, who now plays for NYG. Do you see him suddenly fumbling? No, NE places a high priority on RBs who do not turnover the ball... AND they rely heavily on a passing attack, which in turn also creates fewer fumbles than more balanced or ground-oriented offenses. The whole "NE deflated footballs because they didn't fumble" is just an Internet myth using weak, inductive reasoning. |
Weak, inductive reasoning? As opposed to strong, deductive reasoning? So, an individual, Bill Belichick, through his very essence is the middle term where the major term is ball possession and running back is the minor term?
Right! It's completely illogical to reason deductively through particulars, i.e., individuals, i.e., singular subjects who cannot share their natures in their very concrete particularity. Anyone who knows logic, and especially the ones who declaim other people for not using logic, KNOWS THIS.
So, as much as you'd like to dream that through the essence of Belichickism no running back or receiver ever fumbles, they do. And they did during the universal, predicable of several instances tenure of the universal Bill Belichick from 2000-2006. Did universal Bill Belichick fail to pick non fumbling running backs and receivers from 2000-2006? Well, they were fumbling at that time within the league average.
So, keep the arrogant declamations out of this thread. Stop defending the cheaters. Logic defies their outlying stats. No deduction's going to counter FACTS. |
Yes, you are using inductive reasoning. Sadly, you don't even realize how you've utilized inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. Let me help you:
| Quote: | | Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Inductive reasoning when used correctly can at times lead you to a possible conclusion, but never a definite conclusion. It can also lead you to erroneous conclusions, particularly the way you used the statistical results. Statistical results would be strong if the inputs (number of fumbles) were indeed all random results, in other words fumbles were just a single cause. That simply isn't the case in football, and in particular pro football where a coach and GM select skilled players who have a very low propensity to fumble (via draft of free agent signings) and coach or discipline players who do not protect the footballs (which Belichick is known for). If fumbling was indeed a random event influenced solely by a single factor (deflation), then coaches and GMs would disregard fumbles altogether as they would either be acts of God or something nefarious, which clearly isn't the case in the NFL (though it sure seems to be within the limitations of your logic skills).
Arrogance? You seem to be struggling with word choice. The product of arrogance is believing that you have answers, rather than being humble or intellectual honest enough to realize that definitive answers to not necessarily exist, particularly when information is incomplete. You are by that definition very arrogant, as you have embraced that Tom Brady cheated based on weak inductive reasoning. For the record, you are also mistaken that I find Brady innocent... search within the archives, and you will find that I was suspicious of Brady, but at the same time I never found enough evidence to convince me that Brady deflated footballs or had knowledge of deflated footballs. The investigatory process was deeply flawed, which corrupted the findings. Never once have I stated that Brady was innocent, but rather there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him probable of guilt. |
Yeah, your response missed the mark. I never denied using inductive logic. The only other alternative is deductive logic which won't yield a valid revelation, conclusion, because we are talking about particulars...individual human beings that don't have universal natures by the very fact they are particular.
So, I don't know what point you're trying to make.
So, since no one can reason deductively since it a avails no knowledge applicable here, then you, I and every other poster are cornered into using induction.
That means we at the mercy of facts...facts you don't have to back up your assertion that the Patriots suddenly found themselves in the situation of lying outside of league averages for fumbles from 2006-2014. That is implicit in your line of reasoning, it matters not if you said such when negating this fact affirms the thesis.
You used one season, 2015, as your trump card. That's one season versus 14 seasons. Hardly something I'd be beating my chest over.
I bring up the arrogance thing due to your snide original comment where you said "by your line of reasoning" and then put out a straw man I never concocted.
I'll stick with logic. You can keep up the snide comments if you like.
But you have yet to explain...there's that word again...why the Patriots were in the league average in fumbles from 2000-2006, then the rule change came in 2006 and immediately they barely fumbled. Deflated footballs are easy to maintain possession of.
I see no point in responding to future points if you don't offer an explanation for this fact. |
Then you simply lack the intelligence to understand inductive reasoning. You've used a simple causal factor (lack of fumbles are evidence of deflated footballs, as they are the only causal factor).
| Quote: |
Causal inference
A causal inference draws a conclusion about a causal connection based on the conditions of the occurrence of an effect. Premises about the correlation of two things can indicate a causal relationship between them, but additional factors must be confirmed to establish the exact form of the causal relationship. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Statistical_syllogism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67620
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^^^^^^
CAT FIGHT Pssssst 
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
