NFL 2014

[George Anderson]

It's such an advantage to catch a deflated ball that, wow, I can't believe more defenders don't intercept him.

Unless you want to argue it's only easier for one side to catch...

Yes but throwing a deflated ball is much easier to throw resulting in more accuracy and fewer interceptions.

[Dom Heffner]

Your question is based on a false premise. His interception rate is not necessarily correlated to "ease of catching the ball." There are other factors involved, which I guess are so obvious that I assumed you were attempting to be sarcastic/satirical, but then it started looking like you are just using faulty logic to ask a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question. Perry Mason you are not.

Again- stop it with the personal stuff. Please. Instead of talking about me, make an argument.

So Tom Brady's success is attributed to the ease of his wide receiver catching a deflated ball, but for the defender, it plays no part?

The uproar is that it makes a ball easier to catch. So does it only make it easier for one side?

[traderumor]

Again- stop it with the personal stuff. Please. Instead of talking about me, make an argument.

So Tom Brady's success is attributed to the ease of his wide receiver catching a deflated ball, but for the defender, it plays no part?

The uproar is that it makes a ball easier to catch. So does it only make it easier for one side?Pointing out your flawed logic by demonstrating your flawed logic is not "personal stuff." But let me reword so you cannot mistakenly accuse me of ad hominem: "based on the argumentation in this thread, your arguments do not remind me of Perry Mason."

Anyhow, since it is apparently not obvious to you, a ball has to get into a defender's hand for him to pick it, or not pick it. Also, db's are often defenders and receivers for a reason. I imagine "attempts" are available for defenders somewhere in the data age. You are treating this issue as if its an even distribution between reception and interception attempts. Have you considered factors such as accuracy, average yards per completion, ability to read defenses, ability to not "force" throws, etc., that determine an int. rate? That is what I'm getting at. Hence, the reference to using flawed logic. Or you are just being coy. Not sure at this point.

[Dom Heffner]

Pointing out your flawed logic by demonstrating your flawed logic is not "personal stuff." But let me reword so you cannot mistakenly accuse me of ad hominem: "based on the argumentation in this thread, your arguments do not remind me of Perry Mason."

Anyhow, since it is apparently not obvious to you, a ball has to get into a defender's hand for him to pick it, or not pick it. Also, db's are often defenders and receivers for a reason. I imagine "attempts" are available for defenders somewhere in the data age. You are treating this issue as if its an even distribution between reception and interception attempts. Have you considered factors such as accuracy, average yards per completion, ability to read defenses, ability to not "force" throws, etc., that determine an int. rate? That is what I'm getting at. Hence, the reference to using flawed logic. Or you are just being coy. Not sure at this point.

The logic is that a deflated ball makes it easier to catch.

I don't think it is a jump in logic to ask only for one side? I am aware of other factors. We can take them into account. But to suggest that a guy is throwing a football that is somehow easier to catch and that's only working for his receivers seems off.

By the way- nothing personal, but you're no Hemingway with the writing.

Not personal, just tossing it out there.

[traderumor]

The logic is that a deflated ball makes it easier to catch.

I don't think it is a jump in logic to ask only for one side? I am aware of other factors. We can take them into account. But to suggest that a guy is throwing a football that is somehow easier to catch and that's only working for his receivers seems off.

By the way- nothing personal, but you're no Hemingway with the writing.

Not personal, just tossing it out there.

I'm aware of the logic, but that logical point would assume "all things being equal," and that was my point...they clearly are not. A lot of factors influence that int. rate, not just "ball ease of catchability factor." So your point is trivial at best, in a "yea, so?" kind of way. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.

On another note, I think "you're no Socrates" is the relevant dig there.

[Dom Heffner]

I'm aware of the logic, but that logical point would assume "all things being equal," and that was my point...they clearly are not. A lot of factors influence that int. rate, not just "ball ease of catchability factor." So your point is trivial at best, in a "yea, so?" kind of way. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.

On another note, I think "you're no Socrates" is the relevant dig there.

I don't think Socrates is very smart, so it wouldn't have worked anyway.

I wasn't criticizing your logic, I was criticizing your prose.

Awful. But don't take that personal.

[traderumor]

I don't think Socrates is very smart, so it wouldn't have worked anyway.

I wasn't criticizing your logic, I was criticizing your prose.

Awful. But don't take that personal.I wasn't attempting to write prose, but I assume you were attempting to be logical, or make what you thought was a logical point. Now its a personal attack to point out a person's flawed logic? I'll apologize for the smart alec Perry Mason comment, but don't you think that is a stretch for accusing someone of personally attacking you (not the Perry Mason comment, but pointing out a person's flawed argument, or accusation thereof.)

[Beltway]

Saw this posted on another site:

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
I read that as well. That's as convincing of an argument as I've seen. The only thing that surprises me is that no other teams seem to have done this. Then again, maybe they've tried and failed. Maybe New England is simply better at cheating.

[Dom Heffner]

I wasn't attempting to write prose, but I assume you were attempting to be logical, or make what you thought was a logical point. Now its a personal attack to point out a person's flawed logic? I'll apologize for the smart alec Perry Mason comment, but don't you think that is a stretch for accusing someone of personally attacking you?

Attack the point then. "You're no Perry Mason" is a personal comment. You don't need to apologize, I was just asking to stop because it gets in the way.

I'm just wondering if a deflated ball is much easier to catch, then why isn't easier for the defender. Brady is accurate, that doesn't mean everything he throws goes right to the receiver. I would think his picks would go up if it really made a negligible difference.

[757690]

I heard his ball boy buddies said he got "Maggie's drawers"- he wasn't any good. Average man would be lucky to deflate 7 balls. Here 11 of 12 are perfectly to Brady's liking? That dog don't hunt.

We're not talking about fully deflating the footballs, just letting a little air out of each one. With the right tool, that takes around 3 seconds a ball. Less if you have had practice. And I would be surprised if this was his first time.

[kaldaniels]

We're not talking about fully deflating the footballs, just letting a little air out of each one. With the right tool, that takes around 3 seconds a ball. Less if you have had practice. And I would be surprised if this was his first time.

Yep. A random internet dude claiming to be a mechanical engineer in the deadspin comments said it would be no big deal at all to design a device with an air needle, that when inserted into a football would rapidly drop the psi to a preset pressure in 2-3 seconds. I don't think this whole thing is a huge deal...but I don't think you can say, "there's no way it could have been done in 90 seconds".

[Bob Sheed]

I'm just wondering if a deflated ball is much easier to catch, then why isn't easier for the defender. Brady is accurate, that doesn't mean everything he throws goes right to the receiver. I would think his picks would go up if it really made a negligible difference.



Debating to what degree a deflated football helps Brady, is missing the point entirely.

The rule is there for a reason. And the rule was broken.

That being said, the premise that defense has as much to gain as the offense from a deflated football, is pretty flimsy to say the least:
1. Increased QB accuracy not taken into account
2. DBs are not ideal pass catchers otherwise they would be WRs. So the advantage is not equal there either.

The Patriots got caught cheating. Again. Goddell needs to lay the smack down. But he won't, because he is buddies with Kraft. That's how you get this far into this "serious" NFL investigation without them so much as asking Brady a single question about it.

[Razor Shines]

We're not talking about fully deflating the footballs, just letting a little air out of each one. With the right tool, that takes around 3 seconds a ball. Less if you have had practice. And I would be surprised if this was his first time.

All I get is a serious response for my adaptation of Walter Matthau from JFK weighing in on the subject?

[Dom Heffner]

Debating to what degree a deflated football helps Brady, is missing the point entirely.

The rule is there for a reason. And the rule was broken.

That being said, the premise that defense has as much to gain as the offense from a deflated football, is pretty flimsy to say the least:
1. Increased QB accuracy not taken into account
2. DBs are not ideal pass catchers otherwise they would be WRs. So the advantage is not equal there either.

The Patriots got caught cheating. Again. Goddell needs to lay the smack down. But he won't, because he is buddies with Kraft. That's how you get this far into this "serious" NFL investigation without them so much as asking Brady a single question about it.

You have no proof the rule was broken. CBS reported tonight that the refs approved their footballs without the needle.

So they approved the deflated balls they are investigating.


One thing that has been reported this last week, as we’ve been learning about how footballs are treated before a game is that before every game, a referee measured with a pressure gauge each football to see if the pressure in each one is between 12.5 and 13.5 PSI.

But that apparently isn’t always the case. As a matter of fact, from what I’ve been told, many times the refs don’t test the pressure of each ball with a gauge at all. Sometimes refs hold the ball, squeeze it, briefly inspect it, then sign off on it. Next ball. It’s never been a problem before. This is apparently a well known fact in the NFL.

Now according to my sources, The Patriots turned in their footballs to the ref at a pressure just below the allowable PSI.

If it’s a situation where the refs DID use a gauge, the refs would see the balls were under inflated, and inflate them to the proper size. But in this case, the balls were approved and given back to the Patriots under-inflated.

Thus, the under-inflated balls. The Patriots, according to my sources, played with league approved deflated balls.

[Razor Shines]

Yep. A random internet dude claiming to be a mechanical engineer in the deadspin comments said it would be no big deal at all to design a device with an air needle, that when inserted into a football would rapidly drop the psi to a preset pressure in 2-3 seconds. I don't think this whole thing is a huge deal...but I don't think you can say, "there's no way it could have been done in 90 seconds".

With a Carcano bolt action sports needle?

[bigredmechanism]

How many of the fumbles counted in this study were on special teams? Is there a way to find this out?

I ask because those fumbles can be thrown out of the data set immediately if we are insinuating that the deflated balls are a factor in a lack of fumbles, since the balls used for special teams are K Balls that the league holds. It's bad data.

[SultanOfSwing]

Saw this posted on another site:

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007

More sensation.

Easily debunked:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710



Is Belicheck smarter than Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

http://www.avclub.com/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-bungles-science-deflate-gate-s-214373

[Chip R]

New allegations against the Pats that don't have anything to do with Deflategate

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-other-patriots-conspiracy-theory--legarrett-blount-s-scheme-to-reunite-with-bill-belichick-233502306-nfl.html

[Slyder]

I've said for a while that I have NO respect for the Patriots because I have seen them for a while as an NFL creation, propped up on lies.

[Beltway]

More sensation.

Easily debunked:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710
After wasting too much time reading through pointless complaints about things like capital letters and "data scientists", I do see that it's a pretty good rebuttal. It would have been nice if the author got to the meat of the argument sooner. The article could have been cut in half.



Is Belicheck smarter than Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

http://www.avclub.com/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-bungles-science-deflate-gate-s-214373
Obviously he is. If anyone is ever wrong about anything, that means they're dumber than everyone on the planet who didn't get it wrong. Applying the transitive property, every single human is the dumbest human on the planet.

[SultanOfSwing]

After wasting too much time reading through pointless complaints about things like capital letters and "data scientists", I do see that it's a pretty good rebuttal. It would have been nice if the author got to the meat of the argument sooner. The article could have been cut in half.



Obviously he is. If anyone is ever wrong about anything, that means they're dumber than everyone on the planet who didn't get it wrong. Applying the transitive property, every single human is the dumbest human on the planet.

I was joking on the last comment. I'm sorry it wasn't more obvious. I like Tyson and apparently he owned up to his mistake later.

[Beltway]

I was joking on the last comment. I'm sorry it wasn't more obvious. I like Tyson and apparently he owned up to his mistake later.
You can never be sure on the internet. I thought it could have been a joke or it could have been anti-intellectual.

[Caveat Emperor]

I've said for a while that I have NO respect for the Patriots because I have seen them for a while as an NFL creation, propped up on lies.

And the best quarterback of his generation.

[Tom Servo]

And the best quarterback of his generation.
Ditto for the coach, who's run in New England is pretty incredible, taped defensive signals or not. His teams have won 10 or more games every single season since 2003.

http://i.imgur.com/7VChvBz.png
http://i.imgur.com/brN3THf.png

[BuckeyeRed27]

Ditto for the coach, who's run in New England is pretty incredible, taped defensive signals or not. His teams have won 10 or more games every single season since 2003.

http://i.imgur.com/7VChvBz.png
http://i.imgur.com/brN3THf.png

I wish the Bengals cheated this well.

[BernieCarbo]

Is Belicheck smarter than Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

http://www.avclub.com/article/neil-degrasse-tyson-bungles-science-deflate-gate-s-214373

The thing is, the mistakes that Tyson made wouldn't be made by an average entry level engineer. The stuff we are talking about were covered in Physics 101. Obviously he's a bright guy, but if he doesn't think the weather conditions in NE that day couldn't have legitimately dropped the pressure by 2 PSI, I don't know what to say. There are a lot of contributing factors that are a thousand times more likely than some kid releasing pressure on a dozen footballs in the bathroom in 90 seconds.

[Dom Heffner]

Ditto for the coach, who's run in New England is pretty incredible, taped defensive signals or not. His teams have won 10 or more games every single season since 2003.

http://i.imgur.com/7VChvBz.png
http://i.imgur.com/brN3THf.png

I would really like to have seen all Goodell had on them , though. There were also reports of them using a different radio frequency to communicate to Brady under 15 seconds before the play clock ran out.

[757690]

Ditto for the coach, who's run in New England is pretty incredible, taped defensive signals or not. His teams have won 10 or more games every single season since 2003.

http://i.imgur.com/7VChvBz.png
http://i.imgur.com/brN3THf.png

Here's my issue. If Belicheck was willing to spy on other teams, and change the pressure of game footballs, what else was he cheating at? It seems he has no limit to the extent that he will cheat to win. All of the Pat's victories under him are forever suspect, in my opinion.

[757690]

Call me crazy, but I think it would be better for the Pats if they lost this weekend.

If they win, no one outside of Boston will consider them the legitimate Super Bowl Champions. This championship will forever be marred by their cheating. This Super Bowl will be remembered the same way the 1919 World Series is remembered, as a case where we don't know if the best team really won. This will be a huge black eye forever for the Patriot organization.

If they lose, the cheating will be an amusing side story. People won't care, because it only affected who went to the Super Bowl, not who won. I really think losing is a better option for them in the long term.

[Dom Heffner]

Call me crazy, but I think it would be better for the Pats if they lost this weekend.

If they win, no one outside of Boston will consider them the legitimate Super Bowl Champions. This championship will forever be marred by their cheating. This Super Bowl will be remembered the same way the 1919 World Series is remembered, as a case where we don't know if the best team really won. This will be a huge black eye forever for the Patriot organization.

If they lose, the cheating will be an amusing side story. People won't care, because it only affected who went to the Super Bowl, not who won. I really think losing is a better option for them in the long term.

The NFL approved their footballs at a lower PSI, according to reports. Is it cheating if the refs don't inspect them at the inspection?

That tells me this is something they just don't really care about. They were very "angry," yet their referees apparently didn't even stick the football.

Now- if the radio frequency stuff is true....that is absolutely cheating. Like, beyond anything acceptable cheating.

Thanks to Roger Goodell, we'll never know.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Call me crazy, but I think it would be better for the Pats if they lost this weekend.

If they win, no one outside of Boston will consider them the legitimate Super Bowl Champions. This championship will forever be marred by their cheating. This Super Bowl will be remembered the same way the 1919 World Series is remembered, as a case where we don't know if the best team really won. This will be a huge black eye forever for the Patriot organization.

If they lose, the cheating will be an amusing side story. People won't care, because it only affected who went to the Super Bowl, not who won. I really think losing is a better option for them in the long term.

I think there is a difference between maybe deflating footballs (which may or may not be an actual advantage) and actually intentionally fixing a game, but that's just me.

[Beltway]

The thing is, the mistakes that Tyson made wouldn't be made by an average entry level engineer. The stuff we are talking about were covered in Physics 101. Obviously he's a bright guy, but if he doesn't think the weather conditions in NE that day couldn't have legitimately dropped the pressure by 2 PSI, I don't know what to say. There are a lot of contributing factors that are a thousand times more likely than some kid releasing pressure on a dozen footballs in the bathroom in 90 seconds.
It was outside of his area of expertise. He's an astrophysicist, not a mechanical engineer. It wouldn't surprise me if he hadn't dealt with the issue of gauge pressures since he took "Physics 101", more than 30 years ago.

[blumj]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzKMcYCYIKM

[BernieCarbo]

It was outside of his area of expertise. He's an astrophysicist, not a mechanical engineer. It wouldn't surprise me if he hadn't dealt with the issue of gauge pressures since he took "Physics 101", more than 30 years ago.

Then he shouldn't have offered an analysis and said, "Sorry, I'm an astrophysicist, and the Ideal Gas Law is outside of my realm of expertise." Instead he actually sat down and ran calculations about stuff he didn't understand and said BB was wrong.

[Beltway]

Then he shouldn't have offered an analysis and said, "Sorry, I'm an astrophysicist, and the Ideal Gas Law is outside of my realm of expertise." Instead he actually sat down and ran calculations about stuff he didn't understand and said BB was wrong.
I'm certain you've never made an incorrect statement, so you are in a perfect position to judge.

[757690]

Then he shouldn't have offered an analysis and said, "Sorry, I'm an astrophysicist, and the Ideal Gas Law is outside of my realm of expertise." Instead he actually sat down and ran calculations about stuff he didn't understand and said BB was wrong.

And yet, when he did the correct calculations, he discovered that Belicheck was still wrong.

[Caveat Emperor]

The NFL approved their footballs at a lower PSI, according to reports. Is it cheating if the refs don't inspect them at the inspection?

That tells me this is something they just don't really care about. They were very "angry," yet their referees apparently didn't even stick the football.

Now- if the radio frequency stuff is true....that is absolutely cheating. Like, beyond anything acceptable cheating.

Thanks to Roger Goodell, we'll never know.

I feel like the radio frequency thing would've been really easy to determine and very hard to hide.

[BernieCarbo]

And yet, when he did the correct calculations, he discovered that Belicheck was still wrong.

Actually, he wasn't. If you run the calculations and take all of the environmental variations into consideration, a football that was inflated indoors can lose 2 PSI after sitting outside in a cold rain.

[757690]

Actually, he wasn't. If you run the calculations and take all of the environmental variations into consideration, a football that was inflated indoors can lose 2 PSI after sitting outside in a cold rain.

According to Tyson's new calculations, and this guy's calculations, that is incorrect.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=57868

The only way for that to be true, is if the NFL inflated 11 of the 12 footballs with heated air, heated up to 90 degrees F, and inflated the 12th one, and the 12 Colt footballs with room temperature air. The most that natural environment could have been responsible for was 1.2 PSI.

Maybe Tyson and this guys are mistaken with these calculations as well, and you can point their mistakes out. But if they are correct, they show that Belicheck was mistaken.

[Dom Heffner]

According to Tyson's new calculations, and this guy's calculations, that is incorrect.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=57868

The only way for that to be true, is if the NFL inflated 11 of the 12 footballs with heated air, heated up to 90 degrees F, and inflated the 12th one, and the 12 Colt footballs with room temperature air. The most that natural environment could have been responsible for was 1.2 PSI.

Maybe Tyson and this guys are mistaken with these calculations as well, and you can point their mistakes out. But if they are correct, they show that Belicheck was mistaken.

And their calculations don't mean anything because the Pats could have under-inflated the balls and the refs could have approved of them that way.

And then once they are measured, they'll be lower die to the temperature difference.

Just not a big deal regardless.

[757690]

And their calculations don't mean anything because the Pats could have under-inflated the balls and the refs could have approved of them that way.

And then once they are measured, they'll be lower die to the temperature difference.

Just not a big deal regardless.

I disagree that it's not a big deal, however, you are correct about the NFL's negligence in this matter. They never logged the weight of the footballs. This whole incident is an embarrassment to everyone involved.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/nfl-didnt-log-the-psi-of-each-patriots-football/


NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino confirmed today that the NFL didn’t log the exact PSI of each football. According to Blandino, when officials inspect footballs to see if they’re properly inflated, they simply approve them or disapprove them.

[BuckeyeRed27]

I disagree that it's not a big deal, however, you are correct about the NFL's negligence in this matter. They never logged the weight of the footballs. This whole incident is an embarrassment to everyone involved.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/29/nfl-didnt-log-the-psi-of-each-patriots-football/

And that is the end of the story. Well it should be at least.

[Kingspoint]

From Rotoworld w/ Rotoworld comments:

The Dolphins were reportedly high on Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema before hiring Joe Philbin in 2012, but the sides disagreed on whether Russell Wilson could be an NFL starter.

Per ace beat writer Armando Salguero, Ross was high on Bielema for the head-coaching job, but Bielema and the personnel department led by ex-GM Jeff Ireland hit a wall when Bielema suggested the Dolphins draft Wilson in the second round. Bielema allegedly even promised the Dolphins a Super Bowl within five years if they took Wilson, who was Bielema's quarterback at Wisconsin. "They all looked at me like, 'You can't say that.," Bielema said. "That's the difference between college and pro. He's undersized. He can't throw.' I was like, 'OK, all right,' and I honestly, that day, kind of pulled myself out of it." Ross ultimately convinced Ireland to draft Ryan Tannehill with the No. 8 overall pick. Wilson went to Seattle in the third round.

Source: Miami Herald

[BernieCarbo]

According to Tyson's new calculations, and this guy's calculations, that is incorrect.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=57868

The only way for that to be true, is if the NFL inflated 11 of the 12 footballs with heated air, heated up to 90 degrees F, and inflated the 12th one, and the 12 Colt footballs with room temperature air. The most that natural environment could have been responsible for was 1.2 PSI.

Maybe Tyson and this guys are mistaken with these calculations as well, and you can point their mistakes out. But if they are correct, they show that Belicheck was mistaken.

Nothing wrong with the math- they just aren't taking all of the variables into consideration.

What are they using for a compressed air source? Plant air from the stadium? A little compressor that you keep in your trunk? A compressor like in your garage? It doesn't take long for the discharge air to warm up beyond ambient temperature, so the balls could have easily been inflated with, say, 80-90 degree air.

When is this done? These balls aren't taken out of a box and handed to the refs- they are usually used during practice, and are usually buffed before the game with a motorized buffing machine. If an attendant had been conditioning them before they inflated them fully to hand to the refs, then the inside air temp could have been higher.

Then, you have stuff like the evaporative cooling effect and thermal conductivity when the ball is exposed to the outside elements. Even the humidity of the air inside the ball can have a slight effect.

Lastly, when the refs said the balls were 2 psi under the limit, what gauge did they use? How precise is it? What is the full scale error? Maybe it was 1.6 psi or 2.5 in reality. We don't know that, because until now no one really cared about it to the point that even the refs don' actually measure them.

So, I guess this is why astrophysicists should be deferring to mechanical and process control engineers that have an understanding of materials. I think journalists with a 6th grade understanding of math should at least ask some experts in this stuff before they call someone a cheater and liar and harp on some schmuck who went to take a leak before he went outside to stand around for three hours.

[757690]

Nothing wrong with the math- they just aren't taking all of the variables into consideration.

What are they using for a compressed air source? Plant air from the stadium? A little compressor that you keep in your trunk? A compressor like in your garage? It doesn't take long for the discharge air to warm up beyond ambient temperature, so the balls could have easily been inflated with, say, 80-90 degree air.

When is this done? These balls aren't taken out of a box and handed to the refs- they are usually used during practice, and are usually buffed before the game with a motorized buffing machine. If an attendant had been conditioning them before they inflated them fully to hand to the refs, then the inside air temp could have been higher.

Then, you have stuff like the evaporative cooling effect and thermal conductivity when the ball is exposed to the outside elements. Even the humidity of the air inside the ball can have a slight effect.

Lastly, when the refs said the balls were 2 psi under the limit, what gauge did they use? How precise is it? What is the full scale error? Maybe it was 1.6 psi or 2.5 in reality. We don't know that, because until now no one really cared about it to the point that even the refs don' actually measure them.

So, I guess this is why astrophysicists should be deferring to mechanical and process control engineers that have an understanding of materials. I think journalists with a 6th grade understanding of math should at least ask some experts in this stuff before they call someone a cheater and liar and harp on some schmuck who went to take a leak before he went outside to stand around for three hours.

I had problems accepting that Rose bet on baseball at first, so I understand your problem in accepting this event.

[757690]

And that is the end of the story. Well it should be at least.

The NFL isn't a court of law. They can make a decision on whatever evidence they want. The NFL has punished others with far less evidence.

Also, outside of Pat's fans, does anyone really believe that the Pat's are innocent in this?

[BuckeyeRed27]

The NFL isn't a court of law. They can make a decision on whatever evidence they want. The NFL has punished others with far less evidence.

Also, outside of Pat's fans, does anyone really believe that the Pat's are innocent in this?

I don't think they went out of their way to do it. I think they were probably close to the limit or maybe a little below because that's where they normally are for them, the ref didn't check them properly and they got even lower because it was cold outside.

[757690]

I don't think they went out of their way to do it. I think they were probably close to the limit or maybe a little below because that's where they normally are for them, the ref didn't check them properly and they got even lower because it was cold outside.

Doesn't explain the 12th football or the Colts footballs.

I was on the fence, but the video of the bell boy disappearing with them before the game was the clincher for me.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Doesn't explain the 12th football or the Colts footballs.

I was on the fence, but the video of the bell boy disappearing with them before the game was the clincher for me.

The Pats didn't check the pressure either hence one ball was fine. The Colts balls started at a higher PSI. The ball boy stopped to pee. That was easy.

[757690]

The Pats didn't check the pressure either hence one ball was fine. The Colts balls started at a higher PSI. The ball boy stopped to pee. That was easy.

I don't understand the first answer. If the atmosphere caused the footballs to lose over 2 PSI (which is highly unlikely based on what the scientists say), why didn't it have that effect on all of the Pat's footballs? If you're saying that one of them was originally set at 13.5 PSI, then it still would be illegal, if it lost 2 PSI, which is what the other 11 Pat footballs are said to have lost.

That means that even if the Colt's footballs started at the highest PSI, and lost 2 PSI, like the 11 Pat footballs, they too would have been illegal.

And there is no way I buy that the ball boy had to pee. This is his most important job, and chain of custody is essential. I am guessing the NFL has rules about his conduct once he has the footballs, and stopping to pee has to be forbidden. He has to know to go to the bathroom before, and even if he did have to go, he couldn't hold it for a few more minutes until he got the balls to the field?

[BuckeyeRed27]

I don't understand the first answer. If the atmosphere caused the footballs to lose over 2 PSI (which is highly unlikely based on what the scientists say), why didn't it have that effect on all of the Pat's footballs? If you're saying that one of them was originally set at 13.5 PSI, then it still would be illegal, if it lost 2 PSI, which is what the other 11 Pat footballs are said to have lost.

That means that even if the Colt's footballs started at the highest PSI, and lost 2 PSI, like the 11 Pat footballs, they too would have been illegal.

And there is no way I buy that the ball boy had to pee. This is his most important job, and chain of custody is essential. I am guessing the NFL has rules about his conduct once he has the footballs, and stopping to pee has to be forbidden. He has to know to go to the bathroom before, and even if he did have to go, he couldn't hold it for a few more minutes until he got the balls to the field?

My first answer is that the Pats didn't take this as seriously as you and many others are. The ball boy also didn't check the weight, the ref didn't either and they went along with their day. With the same line of thinking the ball boy stopped in the bathroom because in the words of Dr. Malcolm "when you gotta go you gotta go." I know it's fun to think of this as some conspiracy or the Pats trying to get away with something, but the simple answer is they weren't.

[SultanOfSwing]

Pack it up. It's over. We now have a confession:

http://youtu.be/feuNeJewzDo

[Dom Heffner]

Doesn't explain the 12th football or the Colts footballs.

I was on the fence, but the video of the bell boy disappearing with them before the game was the clincher for me.

How can it be the clincher when you don't even know the balls weren't properly inflated when approved?

[Dom Heffner]

I don't understand the first answer. If the atmosphere caused the footballs to lose over 2 PSI (which is highly unlikely based on what the scientists say), why didn't it have that effect on all of the Pat's footballs? If you're saying that one of them was originally set at 13.5 PSI, then it still would be illegal, if it lost 2 PSI, which is what the other 11 Pat footballs are said to have lost.

That means that even if the Colt's footballs started at the highest PSI, and lost 2 PSI, like the 11 Pat footballs, they too would have been illegal.

And there is no way I buy that the ball boy had to pee. This is his most important job, and chain of custody is essential. I am guessing the NFL has rules about his conduct once he has the footballs, and stopping to pee has to be forbidden. He has to know to go to the bathroom before, and even if he did have to go, he couldn't hold it for a few more minutes until he got the balls to the field?

This is a huge deal when the refs blow up the balls by 2 PSI and the Pats got better.

HUGE. LOL...

[757690]

How can it be the clincher when you don't even know the balls weren't properly inflated when approved?

Lol. Johnny Cochran would be proud. You make some good arguments on some individual issues, but there's too much there there.

[757690]

This is a huge deal when the refs blow up the balls by 2 PSI and the Pats got better.

HUGE. LOL...

This really isn't about this one game. This all started with the Ravens game, and likely goes back farther. The real question is how long have the Pats been doing this?

Using a deflated football gives the QB a big advantage. It's much easier to hold, throw and control. Even if it's by just a little amount, these guys are all the best at what they do. The tiniest advantage can translate into a bunch of victories.

[BuckeyeRed27]

This really isn't about this one game. This all started with the Ravens game, and likely goes back farther. The real question is how long have the Pats been doing this?

Using a deflated football gives the QB a big advantage. It's much easier to hold, throw and control. Even if it's by just a little amount, these guys are all the best at what they do. The tiniest advantage can translate into a bunch of victories.

How much do you need to deflate the football for Ryan Lindley or Blake Bortles to get a bunch of victories?

[blumj]

Because there's nothing in the rules that prevents a team from filling their footballs with 90 degree air before giving them to the refs if they want to end up with less inflated footballs, or from filling them with 40 degree air if they want to end up with more inflated ones. So, why would anyone with half a brain take the risk of messing with them after? And that shows how much the NFL, a league with a billion rules, cared about this 2 weeks ago, and who, as far as anyone has been able to find out yet, has never gauge tested anyone's footballs in the middle of a game before. And we have no idea at all how warm or cold the Colts footballs were when they gave them to the refs, they could have gone directly from the luggage compartment of their bus to the refs for all we know. We also have no idea exactly what happened at halftime yet, either. I really wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that they brought both teams' footballs inside, checked and refilled the Pats footballs first, giving the Colts footballs enough time to warm up sitting inside while they were doing that before checking them. Because that's how much anyone involved in this whole thing has demonstrated any understanding of the effect of temp on pressure.

And, to be fair to the refs, it's not their job to worry about preserving evidence for an investigation.

[Dom Heffner]

This really isn't about this one game. This all started with the Ravens game, and likely goes back farther. The real question is how long have the Pats been doing this?

Using a deflated football gives the QB a big advantage. It's much easier to hold, throw and control. Even if it's by just a little amount, these guys are all the best at what they do. The tiniest advantage can translate into a bunch of victories.

You are assuming at every step of the way.

[George Anderson]

Lol. Johnny Cochran would be proud. You make some good arguments on some individual issues, but there's too much there there.

Even if the coach is a twit, you must acquit.

[BernieCarbo]

I had problems accepting that Rose bet on baseball at first, so I understand your problem in accepting this event.

You don't even know who I was rooting for.

This can be looked at three ways: Scientifically, realistically, and emotionally.

Scientifically, if is very possible that a ball could lose 2 psi based on that day's environmental conditions. Unfortunately, the only scientific evidence that most of us see on TV is coming from science guy entertainers. But when the question is put to engineers and other guys who actually do this stuff 9-5 and who's job depends on it, it's obvious it can happen. Can they prove the balls were not pampered with? No, but science isn't in the job of proving a negative- it proves what could happen, not what did or did not happen. But I can understand why the journalists decided to contact Bill Nye instead, because Nye is used to dumbing down science to baby talk for people who think the refs were weighing footballs. There isn't much for engineers to work with.

Realistically, it would be stupid to not think that every quarterback in the NFL tells the clubhouse attendant how he wants the balls prepped. I mean, that's why each team supplies their own balls. Some quarterbacks liked them pumped up, and some like them soft. I'm sure Brady tells the clubhouse guy (assuming Brady likes them softer) to bring them to the bare minimum. Maybe Brady with his vast scientific knowledge is spinning the Ideal Gas Law in his head and knows if he tells the guy to bring them to the minimum, they will be out of spec, but that isn't his problem. If they are in spec when they are handed over to the ref, it's their problem now. Too bad no one ever cared about this before, because game balls have probably been inflated all over the spectrum for decades. As for why one ball was in spec, what is the procedure? Does the attendant pump up one, give it to the officials, and then pump up the rest that they don't even check? I'm not sure. I don't think anyone knows.

Emotionally, it comes down to the media latching on to something they don't understand. It's like Marty constantly harping on Dunn for walking too much and Votto for not getting enough RBIs. In this case, they honestly think it's more probable that the ball guy had a little secret device in the bathroom that deflated the balls than that the guy was taking a leak. Some people think that inflating and delivering these balls is some kind of important high security ritual or something, but in actually, for the last ten thousand games it was probably more like "Here are game balls, Mr Ref." "Ok kid, put 'em over there."

Personally, I am indifferent about the Pats, so I fit in the first category. I cringe when the media starts talking about science and engineering.

[blumj]

And, FWIW, at some point an announcement was made that kick-off would be delayed because of the NFCCG overtime, I have no idea if the timing of that announcement had anything to do with the attendant's decision to stop in a bathroom or not because no one's informed us when that occurred, and that's assuming it had to really be a bathroom he went into just because it's probably the only place there aren't cameras.

[757690]

You don't even know who I was rooting for.

This can be looked at three ways: Scientifically, realistically, and emotionally.

Scientifically, if is very possible that a ball could lose 2 psi based on that day's environmental conditions. Unfortunately, the only scientific evidence that most of us see on TV is coming from science guy entertainers. But when the question is put to engineers and other guys who actually do this stuff 9-5 and who's job depends on it, it's obvious it can happen. Can they prove the balls were not pampered with? No, but science isn't in the job of proving a negative- it proves what could happen, not what did or did not happen. But I can understand why the journalists decided to contact Bill Nye instead, because Nye is used to dumbing down science to baby talk for people who think the refs were weighing footballs. There isn't much for engineers to work with.

Realistically, it would be stupid to not think that every quarterback in the NFL tells the clubhouse attendant how he wants the balls prepped. I mean, that's why each team supplies their own balls. Some quarterbacks liked them pumped up, and some like them soft. I'm sure Brady tells the clubhouse guy (assuming Brady likes them softer) to bring them to the bare minimum. Maybe Brady with his vast scientific knowledge is spinning the Ideal Gas Law in his head and knows if he tells the guy to bring them to the minimum, they will be out of spec, but that isn't his problem. If they are in spec when they are handed over to the ref, it's their problem now. Too bad no one ever cared about this before, because game balls have probably been inflated all over the spectrum for decades. As for why one ball was in spec, what is the procedure? Does the attendant pump up one, give it to the officials, and then pump up the rest that they don't even check? I'm not sure. I don't think anyone knows.

Emotionally, it comes down to the media latching on to something they don't understand. It's like Marty constantly harping on Dunn for walking too much and Votto for not getting enough RBIs. In this case, they honestly think it's more probable that the ball guy had a little secret device in the bathroom that deflated the balls than that the guy was taking a leak. Some people think that inflating and delivering these balls is some kind of important high security ritual or something, but in actually, for the last ten thousand games it was probably more like "Here are game balls, Mr Ref." "Ok kid, put 'em over there."

Personally, I am indifferent about the Pats, so I fit in the first category. I cringe when the media starts talking about science and engineering.

Lol, you are hysterical. This post and all your previous ones on this topic clearly show that you, a self proclaimed Red Sox fan with the screen name of a Boston World Series hero, clearly demonstrate how indifferent and impartial you are towards the Pats. But hey, if it helps you get your through day, who am I to protest. Enjoy the game, I will be rooting for your team to win, btw.

[BernieCarbo]

Lol, you are hysterical. This post and all your previous ones on this topic clearly show that you, a self proclaimed Red Sox fan with the screen name of a Boston World Series hero, clearly demonstrate how indifferent and impartial you are towards the Pats. But hey, if it helps you get your through day, who am I to protest. Enjoy the game, I will be rooting for your team to win, btw.

I am indifferent and impartial, and am just stating the facts. I've been following the Cowboys for 40 years, and couldn't care less if the Pats win tomorrow. Yeah, I'm a Sox fan first, but I've followed the Reds closely for 20 years and got to lots of games. I chose Carbo because he was both a Sox favorite and a favorite of Sparky's. Don't read so deeply into stuff.

[757690]

You are assuming at every step of the way.

Right now, we are all assuming, we know very little facts. But we can make intelligent, rational decisions based on assumptions. We do it everyday.

You and others have done a fine job providing possible explanations for the deflation of 11 of the 12 Pat footballs 2 PSI below legal levels, and zero deflation of the Colt's footballs below legal level. There is at least one logical, rational explanation of these events that does not include the Pats intentionally cheating.

But those possible explanations, are also highly improbable. Given all the evidence, especially the supposed video of the Pat's ball boy taking the footballs into a room with no cameras before the game, the most logical, and likely explanation is that the Pat's cheated, and have been cheating for awhile by deflating their game footballs below the legal limit.

In other words, you have presented a strong case for reasonable doubt. There is a reasonable possibility they the Pats didn't cheat. In a court of law, they'd likely be found not guilty. But we are not in a court of law, we are in the court of common sense, and in that court, it's very easy and rational for me to find them guilty.

[BernieCarbo]

Given all the evidence, especially the supposed video of the Pat's ball boy taking the footballs into a room with no cameras before the game, the most logical, and likely explanation is that the Pat's cheated, and have been cheating for awhile by deflating their game footballs below the legal limit.

Why is that the most logical? That is probably the most unlikely scenario, especially since there was no need to deflate the balls since the weather and science would take care of it anyway. And even if this bizarre event took place, if the balls were so obviously deflated, why did the refs even bring them into the game? You would have thought an official would have said, "Huh? What's wrong with this football? Hey Joe, look at this! Is this ok?" Of course, then the media would only say the refs were covering for the Pats.

[757690]

Why is that the most logical? That is probably the most unlikely scenario, especially since there was no need to deflate the balls since the weather and science would take care of it anyway. And even if this bizarre event took place, if the balls were so obviously deflated, why did the refs even bring them into the game? You would have thought an official would have said, "Huh? What's wrong with this football? Hey Joe, look at this! Is this ok?" Of course, then the media would only say the refs were covering for the Pats.

Because, even if one believes that the weather and environment could have caused the footballs to become deflated by 2 PSI in such a short time, that doesn't explain why the weather only affected 11 of the 12 Pat footballs, and none of the Colt footballs, and doesn't explain why the Ravens complained to the league about the same thing after a previous game, and doesn't explain why a Pat ball boy took the footballs into a room where there were no camera's before the game.

Each one of those can possibly be explained by some rare event, like the Pat footballs being filled with heated air, but the Colts footballs being filled with room temperature air, and the refs accidentally filling one of the Pat's footballs to the wrong pressure, and the ball boy being incompetent at his job, etc.. But it would take all of those rare instances taking place at the same time to explain it all.

The far simpler answer, the most obvious one that explains all of these issues, is that the Pats cheated.

[BernieCarbo]

Because, even if one believes that the weather and environment could have caused the footballs to become deflated by 2 PSI in such a short time, that doesn't explain why the weather only affected 11 of the 12 Pat footballs

Sure it does. The original psi of all of the balls isn't logged. We don't know if there is a test football that is set back while the others are filled. Maybe the first ball was overfilled before the attendant got a feel for it. That is just the nature of process control.


, and none of the Colt footballs,
There is no log of what the original psi of the Colts balls were. But even the Colt footballs aren't immune to science, so if the psi was different at the same point during the game, then either they were stored in different areas or they started at a different psi. If two balls started out a 12.5 and 13.5 respectively, they will pretty much have a linear difference later on. That's not hard to understand.


and doesn't explain why the Ravens complained to the league about the same thing after a previous game,

They didn't complain at the time, plus kicking balls are handled differently than game balls.


and doesn't explain why a Pat ball boy took the footballs into a room where there were no camera's before the game.

He didn't just go to a room, he went to the bathroom, all of 90 seconds, which is about long enough to take a leak. This is getting into Art Bell territory to think anyone would walk in that room and take ten balls out of a bag, calibrate them to a new pressure, put them back in the bag, and walk out in that amount of time even if they had a fancy device.


Each one of those can possibly be explained by some rare event, like the Pat footballs being filled with heated air, but the Colts footballs being filled with room temperature air, and the refs accidentally filling one of the Pat's footballs to the wrong pressure, and the ball boy being incompetent at his job, etc.. But it would take all of those rare instances taking place at the same time to explain it all.

None of those "rare" instances was necessary, because probably none of them happened. The balls were probably inflated at room temp to 12.5 psi, and then they dropped to 11 or so in the cold rain. It's happened thousands of times before. And, most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference, and the refs sure couldn't.


The far simpler answer, the most obvious one that explains all of these issues, is that the Pats cheated.

Ok Marty. :)

[757690]

Sure it does. The original psi of all of the balls isn't logged. We don't know if there is a test football that is set back while the others are filled. Maybe the first ball was overfilled before the attendant got a feel for it. That is just the nature of process control.


There is no log of what the original psi of the Colts balls were. But even the Colt footballs aren't immune to science, so if the psi was different at the same point during the game, then either they were stored in different areas or they started at a different psi. If two balls started out a 12.5 and 13.5 respectively, they will pretty much have a linear difference later on. That's not hard to understand.



They didn't complain at the time, plus kicking balls are handled differently than game balls.



He didn't just go to a room, he went to the bathroom, all of 90 seconds, which is about long enough to take a leak. This is getting into Art Bell territory to think anyone would walk in that room and take ten balls out of a bag, calibrate them to a new pressure, put them back in the bag, and walk out in that amount of time even if they had a fancy device.



None of those "rare" instances was necessary, because probably none of them happened. The balls were probably inflated at room temp to 12.5 psi, and then they dropped to 11 or so in the cold rain. It's happened thousands of times before. And, most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference, and the refs sure couldn't.



Ok Marty. :)

First, you've got the science wrong on how much the atmosphere affects footballs. We know the suspect footballs lost at least 2 PSI, and the scientific link that I posted earlier clearly proves that at most, nature could result in a 1.2 drop. That makes most of your theories fall apart.

Second, if you want to believe that your complicated mess of theories that you just posted, is more likely to have happened than a ball boy deflating the footballs to Tom Brady's preference, awesome. My sensibilities tell me otherwise.

[BernieCarbo]

First, you've got the science wrong on how much the atmosphere affects footballs. We know the suspect footballs lost at least 2 PSI, and the scientific link that I posted earlier clearly proves that at most, nature could result in a 1.2 drop. That makes most of your theories fall apart.

We don't know that. We don't know what the starting pressure was and we don't know what the environmental conditions were. It isn't "my" science, it's just science. Sorry you don't comprehend it, but you aren't alone. And your link that you posted doesn't include all of the variables- it's junk science.


Second, if you want to believe that your complicated mess of theories that you just posted, is more likely to have happened than a ball boy deflating the footballs to Tom Brady's preference, awesome. My sensibilities tell me otherwise.

I understand that. But these aren't my theories. I'm just looking at the available information. No one checked the balls, the refs didn't notice the under-inflation, and there was a wide variation in temperature. And when people are checking the psi with a simple hand gauge, it's silly to even bring up differences between 1.2 and 1.5 and 2.0.

[757690]

We don't know that. We don't know what the starting pressure was and we don't know what the environmental conditions were. It isn't "my" science, it's just science. Sorry you don't comprehend it, but you aren't alone. And your link that you posted doesn't include all of the variables- it's junk science.



I understand that. But these aren't my theories. I'm just looking at the available information. No one checked the balls, the refs didn't notice the under-inflation, and there was a wide variation in temperature. And when people are checking the psi with a simple hand gauge, it's silly to even bring up differences between 1.2 and 1.5 and 2.0.


http://youtu.be/1k8craCGpgs

[BernieCarbo]

Here are a couple of cool links that describe the physical properties behind the science and why the Ideal Gas Law is just part of it.....

http://www.popsci.com/simulations-reveal-patriots-deflated-footballs-made-little-difference

http://www.hawkridgesys.com/blog/simulationdeflate-gate-2015-tom-bradys-case-solidworks-flow-simulation/

[Razor Shines]

Anyway...... Here's the Marshawn Lynch and Richard Sherman joint press conference. I love Key and Peele.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ozofiGPJo

[bigredmechanism]

No better way to say that "I am lost" than to rebut an argument with a youtube video.

76 it seems very clear that you have an emotional attachment to this situation. Science and reason are being ignored, and maybe you are listening to Mark Brunell too much on this topic. I know you like to play devils advocate but this is pretty bad, man.

[blumj]

I think I may have reached the point where, if forced to choose, I'd rather buy counterfeit gear that supports criminal enterprises than buy authentic gear that supports the NFL.

[757690]

No better way to say that "I am lost" than to rebut an argument with a youtube video.

76 it seems very clear that you have an emotional attachment to this situation. Science and reason are being ignored, and maybe you are listening to Mark Brunell too much on this topic. I know you like to play devils advocate but this is pretty bad, man.

Lol. I have an emotional attachment to this situation? I am the one ignoring science and reason? That's awesome.

I was the one that provided a link to a scientist who showed that Belicheck's "science" was off, and how implausible it was that 11 of the 12 footballs Pat's footballs were deflated as much as the NFL says it was. I was not the one who then called this "junk science" even thought the scientist showed his work in incredible detail. Here is that link again:

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=57868

Here are some key quotes from it:


The game temperature (47 F) only explains a pressure drop of about 1.2 PSI, or somewhat more than half of the observed discrepancy. What I’ve seen indicates the 11 underinflated balls were all reportedly around 2 PSI below the lower limit – or 0.8 PSI lower than can be explained by the game temperature alone.


Based on the above, I’m guessing one of two things happened.

First, and IMO most likely, possibility: someone intentionally let some air out of the game balls in question, dropping the pressure by about 1 PSI or so. In doing that they missed one, accounting for 11 of 12 balls with low pressure.

Second: one ball was inflated previously using air at 70F, then given to the referee for his inspection. The remainder were inflated in the referee’s presence using air heated to around 87 to 90 F. This would also explain the observed conditions.

Again, my argument is that there is an logical explanation for how 11 of the 24 footballs used in that game ended up losing at least 2 PSI in the first half, while the remaining 13 did not, that doesn't include cheating by the Patriots. Many have provided that explanation. But that explanation is has a low probability of being true, and takes many very rare incidents to have happened at the same time, in order to be true.

There is another logical explanation for this event, that is very plausible, in fact, given history, it's highly likely. And that is that the Pat's cheated. This explanation becomes even more plausible when we now know that there is a video of the Pat's ball boy taking the game footballs into a bathroom for 90 seconds.

I don't see how I am being the irrational one. I have provided science that backs up my case, and shown the logic behind it.

[BernieCarbo]

The game temperature (47 F) only explains a pressure drop of about 1.2 PSI, or somewhat more than half of the observed discrepancy. What I’ve seen indicates the 11 underinflated balls were all reportedly around 2 PSI below the lower limit – or 0.8 PSI lower than can be explained by the game temperature alone.

See, you don't understand science. Yes, that quote is true, but other more skilled analysts have tried to explain that there are other factors besides "game temperature alone" that affects pressure. And just because you link to a scientist doesn't mean you can tell if the scientists knows what he's talking about (i.e. Neil Tyson). The links I posted that consider the other variables are quite detailed and are probably over your head, but I can understand that based on your other analytical comments. But that's ok. I was just trying to bring some analysis to the table instead of posting a Journey song when you said something I disagreed with.

We don't know what the starting pressure of either team's footballs was, we don't know where they were inflated, we don't know the gauge error of the device used to check the pressure of if they were even calibrated the same, and many players say they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the balls anyway. So, absent of any facts, most people react emotionally. At least I take the realistic approach and assume Brady pushed the envelope to the lower end of the scale because he likes them that way (or maybe he doesn't, I don't know), but everyone does that.

[M2]

Random thoughts on this from someone who absolutely does not care about football:

1) The NFL isn't a sport, it's a courtroom drama. There's an army of refs enforcing an arcane set of rules. Every play is given forensic analyzation and commentators argue the finer points of NFL"law" during the replays. The key point in almost every play is what was or could have been a penalty. It's a procedural sports drama. Deflategate is perfect for the NFL because people can talk about it endlessly while nothing is happening ... just like during a real game.

2) They still used footballs, right?

3) The appropriate punishment would be to force the Indianapolis Colts to wear a jersey that says "We suck at football" for trying to divert attention from the fact that they got their tails kicked in every conceivable fashion.

[traderumor]

See, you don't understand science. Yes, that quote is true, but other more skilled analysts have tried to explain that there are other factors besides "game temperature alone" that affects pressure. And just because you link to a scientist doesn't mean you can tell if the scientists knows what he's talking about (i.e. Neil Tyson). The links I posted that consider the other variables are quite detailed and are probably over your head, but I can understand that based on your other analytical comments. But that's ok. I was just trying to bring some analysis to the table instead of posting a Journey song when you said something I disagreed with.

We don't know what the starting pressure of either team's footballs was, we don't know where they were inflated, we don't know the gauge error of the device used to check the pressure of if they were even calibrated the same, and many players say they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the balls anyway. So, absent of any facts, most people react emotionally. At least I take the realistic approach and assume Brady pushed the envelope to the lower end of the scale because he likes them that way (or maybe he doesn't, I don't know), but everyone does that.Just a general question on your argument. Since you are arguing from authority, and claiming that the opposing argument lacks expertise to evaluate arguments you are advancing, what are your credentials?

[Chip R]

I wish someone would have asked Goodell this question at his press conference: "Outside of the stream of revenue that has come in and increased under your tenure; do you think you have done a good job as commissioner?"

[BernieCarbo]

Just a general question on your argument. Since you are arguing from authority, and claiming that the opposing argument lacks expertise to evaluate arguments you are advancing, what are your credentials?

Well, I am an independent software and mechanical engineer and do anything from system design to very in-depth data and statistical analysis for industries all over the globe. Whether you are building a machine that makes donuts or designing a wing for a new Boeing, there is an incredible amount of minutia that can make or break a process. We're all good at something I guess, and from my perspective it was kind of funny in the beginning to hear journalists say things like "they weighed the footballs!!" and quoting Bill Nye like he was Einstein or something. But it stopped being funny when they started calling BB and Brady liars and cheaters when they didn't even understand this stuff. It's just a thing that goads me because I work in a world where accuracy is very important. Just looking at the whole process from beginning to end as to how these footballs are handled tells me that no one really knows what the psi was at any point, and even the refs who are the final arbitrators of whether the balls are acceptable didn't notice the deflation when they put the balls in the game. As I said above, I don't know what did happen, but I know what could happen, and what BB and many other engineers described is very plausible.

I can be impartial about this. I would be the first one to jump on BB if the balls had been 8 psi and he had made up some wild story, but looking at the data at hand, I'd be embarrassed to accuse him of anything. It isn't like the Sosa incident when his bat shattered and exposed cork.

[757690]

See, you don't understand science. Yes, that quote is true, but other more skilled analysts have tried to explain that there are other factors besides "game temperature alone" that affects pressure. And just because you link to a scientist doesn't mean you can tell if the scientists knows what he's talking about (i.e. Neil Tyson). The links I posted that consider the other variables are quite detailed and are probably over your head, but I can understand that based on your other analytical comments. But that's ok. I was just trying to bring some analysis to the table instead of posting a Journey song when you said something I disagreed with.

We don't know what the starting pressure of either team's footballs was, we don't know where they were inflated, we don't know the gauge error of the device used to check the pressure of if they were even calibrated the same, and many players say they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the balls anyway. So, absent of any facts, most people react emotionally. At least I take the realistic approach and assume Brady pushed the envelope to the lower end of the scale because he likes them that way (or maybe he doesn't, I don't know), but everyone does that.

If you read the article, you would know that that scientist did take many other factors into consideration, and concluded that it was possible for the footballs to lose they much pressure, with the right combination of other factors and circumstances.

What both this scientist and myself have also concluded, is that while it is possible for all these natural factors to have caused the footballs (and only these 11 out of 24 game footballs) to lose that much pressure, it had to be a perfect storm of other factors, a combination of rare events that makes it highly unlikely that these footballs naturally. It is much more likely, and thus more believable that the loss of pressure was the result of intentional human actions.

You accuse me of not taking into account all the factors, but you keep ignoring how unlikely it is that 11 of the 24 game footballs were deflated to the point of being very illegal, all by natural causes, but that the other 13, were not. Sure, there is a possible explanation for it, as the article I posted scientifically demonstrated, but that possible explanation is also highly unlikely and not very believable. At least not as likely or believable as the explanation that someone deflated 11 of the 24 footballs intentionally.

But hey, if you want to believe in something, no matter it's probability, then don't let me stop you from believing :)

[SultanOfSwing]

If you read the article, you would know that that scientist did take many other factors into consideration, and concluded that it was possible for the footballs to lose they much pressure, with the right combination of other factors and circumstances.

What both this scientist and myself have also concluded, is that while it is possible for all these natural factors to have caused the footballs (and only these 11 out of 24 game footballs) to lose that much pressure, it had to be a perfect storm of other factors, a combination of rare events that makes it highly unlikely that these footballs naturally. It is much more likely, and thus more believable that the loss of pressure was the result of intentional human actions.

You accuse me of not taking into account all the factors, but you keep ignoring how unlikely it is that 11 of the 24 game footballs were deflated to the point of being very illegal, all by natural causes, but that the other 13, were not. Sure, there is a possible explanation for it, as the article I posted scientifically demonstrated, but that possible explanation is also highly unlikely and not very believable. At least not as likely or believable as the explanation that someone deflated 11 of the 24 footballs intentionally.

But hey, if you want to believe in something, no matter it's probability, then don't let me stop you from believing :)

Well, it appears all of this back-and-forth was based on false information (shocking, I know) and is now moot:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000466783/article/more-details-on-the-investigation-of-patriots-deflated-footballs

Some highlights (as noted on this article (http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/2/1/7959597/deflategate-only-one-football-was-2-psi-below-limit)):


1) Bill Belichick and Tom Brady are saying the same things behind closed doors as they were to the public; they had no idea and weren't aware about game day processes with the football.

2) While 11 of the 12 measured footballs were underinflated, only one was two PSI below the limit. Rapoport describes the other 10 as "about a pound below," "just a few ticks under the minimum," or "right at the line."

3) The league is in possession of the football that D'Qwell Jackson intercepted and spawned this whole ordeal, and this is the sole football that is 2 PSI below the limit.

'Possibly the most interesting twist that could happen, posed by NESN's Doug Kyed, would be if the ball that Jackson intercepted happened to be the lone football 2 PSI below the limit, because that would absolutely shift suspicion away from the Patriots and onto the Colts and their sideline for tampering and manufacturing the story.' {This is now being reported, as per below}

As the intercepted football, the only one in that was in Colts possession, is the only football 2 PSI below the limit, it certainly raises suspicions about why this is the only football so far below. Additionally, this leads credence to the fact that Colts personnel would be the ones responsible for leaking the initial reports, as the ball in their possession is the only one that matches the initial reports.

Hopefully this will be the beginning of putting this whole debacle to rest and behind us.

[traderumor]

I wish someone would have asked Goodell this question at his press conference: "Outside of the stream of revenue that has come in and increased under your tenure; do you think you have done a good job as commissioner?"I'm not sure that his job evaluation includes anything else. It is merely upholding the legacy of the NFL archetype commissioner, Pete Rozelle. Lip service may be given to other, higher level aspirations of the league, but this is really all that matters to anyone that either directly or indirectly depends on the financial success of the NFL.

Concussions, short week made for TV games like Thursday and Monday night football, beer commercials, scantily clad cheerleaders, special rules to protect the most important and vulnerable position on the field, making an attention grabbing event out of air pressure science...

[757690]

Well, it appears all of this back-and-forth was based on false information (shocking, I know) and is now moot:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000466783/article/more-details-on-the-investigation-of-patriots-deflated-footballs

Some highlights (as noted on this article (http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/2/1/7959597/deflategate-only-one-football-was-2-psi-below-limit)):



Hopefully this will be the beginning of putting this whole debacle to rest and behind us.

If accurate, this report does change everything. With so many conflicting reports on this coming out, and all of it from unnamed sources, it seems the best thing to do for now is to wait for an official report.

[Stray]

Gronk is such a matchup nightmare. Uncoverable.

[Tom Servo]

What

a

Finish

[kaldaniels]

Hubris. Hubris. Hubris.

[Boston Red]

That was the worst play call in the history of play calls.

[15fan]

2nd and goal from the 1, under a minute left, Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, and you throw a pass?

Worst play call in the history of football.

[Joseph]

Such a disappointing end to the game. They were on the brink of being talked about in a different light and tried to get cute.

I don't like the Patriots or Brady or Bill B and its a real shame they won that game.

[Roy Tucker]

Worst play call in the history of all mankind but a helluva play by Butler.

Wacky ending.

[RedsBaron]

Entertaining game with a surprise ending. I don't really like either team but the game entertained.

[WMR]

I cannot believe they gave the game to the cheaters with such a stupendously idiotic playcall from the ONE FREAKING YARD LINE!

Unfathomable.

Does Pete Carroll call the plays?

Just insane.

[Stray]

Seahawks showed their true colors at the end of the game. As much as I can't stand the Patriots, I didn't want this group of Seahawks to win.

[KronoRed]

Seahawks showed their true colors at the end of the game. As much as I can't stand the Patriots, I didn't want this group of Seahawks to win.

Agreed, wasn't at all surprised that they had a tempter tantrum.

[CTA513]

2nd and goal from the 1, under a minute left, Marshawn Lynch in the backfield, and you throw a pass?

Worst play call in the history of football.

Hes been such a workhorse for for them that I just don't see why you wouldn't lean on him in that situation.

[Stray]

I'll wait to hear an explanation on that play. Could have been a called run and Wilson saw a look and thought the slant was there. If it was called from sideline, I agree it's one of the worst ever.

Nvm, Carroll just confirmed it was called from sideline since NE had their goalline defense in against Seattle's 3 WRs. Terrible play call.

[RedsBaron]

I really liked Butler's reaction during the interview after the game. Instead of a bunch of boastful look-at-me attitude, he was overcome with emotion about what had occurred and humble.

[RedsBaron]

I am not a Carroll fan but I liked his attitude as well after the game. He took the blame.

[dabvu2498]

The 2006 Rose Bowl came back to bite Carroll in the butt.

[Slyder]

Hes been such a workhorse for for them that I just don't see why you wouldn't lean on him in that situation.

Some of those runs, they were making contact 2-3 yds behind the line and he'd still end up picking up 2-3 yds. Short of an NFL bailout penalty Lynch scores with 3 tries.

[Tom Servo]

https://38.media.tumblr.com/ffee907e153a5c10165e03d314adc426/tumblr_nj4imfJI0L1qhzi2jo1_250.gifhttps://38.media.tumblr.com/5b6a93d5574b3fd7a25e3ec1a0de860c/tumblr_nj4imfJI0L1qhzi2jo2_250.gif

[Razor Shines]

Less stiff than Katy Perry dancing to Missy Elliott.

[Dom Heffner]

Some of those runs, they were making contact 2-3 yds behind the line and he'd still end up picking up 2-3 yds. Short of an NFL bailout penalty Lynch scores with 3 tries.

There were 26 seconds left, he wouldn't have gotten three tries. Maybe two, but what if he lost yards the first attempt?

Monday morning has all the answers.

For me, there are no dumb play calls, only poor execution. If the WR isn't open, don't throw it.

[M2]

So, Patriots best team ever? It's down to them vs. the '80s 49ers and '70s Steelers. I suppose you could throw in the '60s Packers and '50s Browns, though that was a different game. Doesn't really matter if you hate the Pats. They're on a 14-year run. Been in 6 Super Bowls during that time. Won 4. Won 170 regular season games (170-54) during that time, 21-8 in the playofs. All that in the salary cap era.

Side question, Brady best QB ever?

One Super Bowl win during this run probably settles both these arguments.

[George Anderson]

So, Patriots best team ever? It's down to them vs. the '80s 49ers and '70s Steelers. I suppose you could throw in the '60s Packers and '50s Browns, though that was a different game. Doesn't really matter if you hate the Pats. They're on a 14-year run. Been in 6 Super Bowls during that time. Won 4. Won 170 regular season games (170-54) during that time, 21-8 in the playofs. All that in the salary cap era.

Side question, Brady best QB ever?

One Super Bowl win during this run probably settles both these arguments.

Sorry but between Spy Gate and Deflate Gate, the Pats legacy and Mr. Tom Brady's is slightly tarnished.

[Dom Heffner]

Sorry but between Spy Gate and Deflate Gate, the Pats legacy and Mr. Tom Brady's is slightly tarnished.

Yes! And every touchdown Jeff Blake threw should be stricken because he deflated a football! Darnay Scott and Carl Pickens' TD's shouldn't count. Jeff Blake cheated.

George, you are the bomb, but the grapes are sour methinks.

[George Anderson]

Yes! And every touchdown Jeff Blake threw should be stricken because he deflated a football! Darnay Scott and Carl Pickens' TD's shouldn't count. Jeff Blake cheated.

George, you are the bomb, but the grapes are sour methinks.

If Jeff Blake deflated footballs then yes he is no better than Tom Brady.

The Pats have had a great run, but like Pete Rose, Gaylord Perry, Lance Armstrong and Roger Clemens, they will always carry the stigma of having been cheaters.

[Simon Rhymon]

How does Pete Carroll have time to coach in between his cheerleading whoops and jumps? He's probably a nice guy but a Vince Lombardi he's not ... not that that matters anyway. Belichick is a jerk, both teams have their share of thugs and cro-magnons, and both have some good guys. I rarely watch the NFL because of the overwhelming preponderance of stoppages, commercials, and chest-thumpers but this game was worth watching. I think the better team probably won thanks to the Seattle offensive coordinator's play call at the end. And I guess I'm glad that Mr Personality (Lynch) didn't get to score the winning TD and I won't have to listen to Richard Sherman for the next 2 months.

[Dom Heffner]

If Jeff Blake deflated footballs then yes he is no better than Tom Brady.

The Pats have had a great run, but like Pete Rose, Gaylord Perry, Lance Armstrong and Roger Clemens, they will always carry the stigma of having been cheaters.

Don't forget Carl Pickens, those balls were much easier to catch after the air was let out.

[Slyder]

There were 26 seconds left, he wouldn't have gotten three tries. Maybe two, but what if he lost yards the first attempt?

Monday morning has all the answers.

For me, there are no dumb play calls, only poor execution. If the WR isn't open, don't throw it.

Had you watched? I don't think Lynch had a negative run ALL NIGHT! You had 2 time outs, 26 seconds is EASILY 3 chances.

- - - Updated - - -


So, Patriots best team ever? It's down to them vs. the '80s 49ers and '70s Steelers. I suppose you could throw in the '60s Packers and '50s Browns, though that was a different game. Doesn't really matter if you hate the Pats. They're on a 14-year run. Been in 6 Super Bowls during that time. Won 4. Won 170 regular season games (170-54) during that time, 21-8 in the playofs. All that in the salary cap era.

Side question, Brady best QB ever?

One Super Bowl win during this run probably settles both these arguments.

The 80s Niners never lost in the Super Bowl and never got caught filming...

[M2]

The 80s Niners never lost in the Super Bowl and never got caught filming...

The NFC won 15 of 16 Super Bowls during those years. Beating the AFC was a freebie. Winning the NFC was a lot tougher. Montana went 4-2 in NFC championship games and 14-5 overall in the playoffs (with the 49ers). The 49ers were awesome, beating their AFC Super Bowl opponents ranks low on the list of reasons why.

Filming? Admittedly I pay scant attention to the NFL, but that strikes me as a convenient excuse for dismissing a team that's spent 14 years kicking everyone else's tails.

[Slyder]

The NFC won 15 of 16 Super Bowls during those years. Beating the AFC was a freebie. Winning the NFC was a lot tougher. Montana went 4-2 in NFC championship games and 14-5 overall in the postseason (with the 49ers). The 49ers were awesome, beating their AFC Super Bowl opponents ranks low on the list of reasons why.

Filming? Admittedly I pay scant attention to the NFL, but that strikes me as a convenient excuse for dismissing a team that's spent 14 years kicking everyone else's tails.

It is easy to say if its once, but its always something with the Patriots. First it was the NFL personally calling in and coming up with some stupid convoluted bull crap instant replay... multiple times they were accused of stealing signals... then it was Spygate... then it was number of radio frequencies they use... to outright mockery that is their injury report... to now deflate gate. Its always something with those guys. Why do they keep doing it? They know the NFL won't do crap about it.

[757690]

Kinda poetic ending for the Seahawks. They only got to the Super Bowl because of Green Bay's dumb play in the final minutes of the championship game. And they lose the Super Bowl because of their own dumb play.

[GAC]

Seahawks showed their true colors at the end of the game. As much as I can't stand the Patriots, I didn't want this group of Seahawks to win.

I'm glad the Pats won simply for the fact that I don't want to hear the arrogant punk Seattle players running their mouths afterwards. I've never liked Seattle fans, and that goes back to the "days" of the Griffey trade. And I care far less for this current Seahawks team (players) too. They're classless IMO.

After the game, at mid-field when all the players are meeting/congratulating, was that Bennett standing toe-to-toe, with his chest all puffed out, over Brady? Brady just stood there and stared back, then walked away. IMO, that's just classless.

You lost. Be a man. Not a sour grapes punk.

[RedsBaron]

So, Patriots best team ever? It's down to them vs. the '80s 49ers and '70s Steelers. I suppose you could throw in the '60s Packers and '50s Browns, though that was a different game. Doesn't really matter if you hate the Pats. They're on a 14-year run. Been in 6 Super Bowls during that time. Won 4. Won 170 regular season games (170-54) during that time, 21-8 in the playofs. All that in the salary cap era.

Side question, Brady best QB ever?

One Super Bowl win during this run probably settles both these arguments.

The game really was quite different in the 50s and 60s, but NFL football as it was played in the 70s and 80s was also different than it is now. The 1960s Packers are at the head of the class for dominance, with five NFL championships in seven years, including three straight and a 9-1 playoff record, and Bart Starr remains the only NFL QB with five titles in his resume.
I hated them but if you could somehow match all the teams in their prime I would have to bet on the 70s Steelers. As for best QB, I would still rather have Joe Montana behind center.

[RedsBaron]

NFL Quarterbacks of the Decade:
1950s-Otto Graham
1960s-Bart Starr
1970s-Roger Staubach
1980s-Joe Montana
1990s-Bret Favre
2000s-Tom Brady
2010s-Aaron Rodgers

[RedFanAlways1966]

I'm glad the Pats won simply for the fact that I don't want to hear the arrogant punk Seattle players running their mouths afterwards. I've never liked Seattle fans, and that goes back to the "days" of the Griffey trade. And I care far less for this current Seahawks team (players) too. They're classless IMO.

After the game, at mid-field when all the players are meeting/congratulating, was that Bennett standing toe-to-toe, with his chest all puffed out, over Brady? Brady just stood there and stared back, then walked away. IMO, that's just classless.

You lost. Be a man. Not a sour grapes punk.

This X100. Richard Sherman making fun of Revis for the cameras (look at me, look at me) during the game. Marshall Lynch and all his BS with the media. Their coach that fled his previous job before they were hammered with NCAA violations. The fight SEA caused at the end is indicative of the no-class way. Not all of their players, but too many of them IMO. I do not care for the Pats, but I rooted for them last night.

[blumj]

This is nuts, Madden simulation had the exact score, Brady MVP with 4 TDs, only off on his passing yards by 7, had NE down 24-14 in 3rd before comeback, had Edelman catching the winning TD, and was only off on his game by 1 catch and 3 yards.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/gaming/2015/02/01/madden-super-bowl-prediction/22723547/

[RedsBaron]

This X100. Richard Sherman making fun of Revis for the cameras (look at me, look at me) during the game. Marshall Lynch and all his BS with the media. Their coach that fled his previous job before they were hammered with NCAA violations. The fight SEA caused at the end is indicative of the no-class way. Not all of their players, but too many of them IMO. I do not care for the Pats, but I rooted for them last night.

I think Russell Wilson is a classy player, but yes, Seattle has quite a few guys I don't care for.

[cumberlandreds]

I will concur that was an awful play call. You have to run Lynch every time form one yard out. IIRC, the Seahawks still had two timeouts. So they could have ran it four times. Barring a big loss or a penalty you have to do this. But saying that I am glad they threw that pass. I didn't want to see Lynch be the hero. Great game regardless. Has to rank as one of the top three Super Bowls of the 49.

[Stray]

There were 26 seconds left, he wouldn't have gotten three tries. Maybe two, but what if he lost yards the first attempt?

Monday morning has all the answers.

For me, there are no dumb play calls, only poor execution. If the WR isn't open, don't throw it.

He was open, it was just a great play by the DB. When Wilson let go of the ball the WR looked like he'd score untouched. Doesn't excuse not handing it to Lynch tho.

[Slyder]

There were 26 seconds left, he wouldn't have gotten three tries. Maybe two, but what if he lost yards the first attempt?

Monday morning has all the answers.

For me, there are no dumb play calls, only poor execution. If the WR isn't open, don't throw it.

They also had 2 timeouts. That easily means 3 tries IMO.

[Dom Heffner]

I thought it was one timeout. My apologies.

Giving it to Lynch is not a gimme, especially if the right personnel is not on the field. Maybe they use that timeout, get the right personnel, and then hand it off, but if he gets tackled for a loss, he doesn't get three tries. You all are assuming that they hand the ball to Lynch and goes in for the touchdown or he doesn't lose yardage. I'm not willing to give you that.

Wilson did not execute the play if it ended up as an interception.

[kaldaniels]

I thought it was one timeout. My apologies.

Giving it to Lynch is not a gimme, especially if the right personnel is not on the field. Maybe they use that timeout, get the right personnel, and then hand it off, but if he gets tackled for a loss, he doesn't get three tries. You all are assuming that they hand the ball to Lynch and goes in for the touchdown or he doesn't lose yardage. I'm not willing to give you that.

Wilson did not execute the play if it ended up as an interception.

No apologies needed, they only had one timeout.

[IslandRed]

Correct, they were down to one timeout. They used their second after the miracle catch.

I don't have a problem with them throwing it on second down; that was the time to do it if you're hoping to catch them off guard and make sure you can use all four downs if you need them. But calling THAT pass was a huge mistake. Play-action to Lynch and roll out, hope someone pops wide open or Wilson can jog in himself, throw it into the stands if it doesn't fool anybody -- that's what they should have called on second down. Chucking it into traffic? No.

[M2]

It is easy to say if its once, but its always something with the Patriots. First it was the NFL personally calling in and coming up with some stupid convoluted bull crap instant replay... multiple times they were accused of stealing signals... then it was Spygate... then it was number of radio frequencies they use... to outright mockery that is their injury report... to now deflate gate. Its always something with those guys. Why do they keep doing it? They know the NFL won't do crap about it.

Man, I so don't care about any of that. All that explains is why you don't like them.

[Kingspoint]

You now have company.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--YsEMxQJ7--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/19e58yodq1dxcjpg.jpg

You had the worst drop in Super Bowl history, but this dude made the worst decision in Super Bowl history (hint: it's not the guy on the left)...

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/16/01619798-5d61-11df-ab9c-001cc4c002e0/01619798-5d61-11df-ab9c-001cc4c002e0.image.jpg?resize=620%2C512

[Kingspoint]

Correct, they were down to one timeout. They used their second after the miracle catch.

I don't have a problem with them throwing it on second down; that was the time to do it if you're hoping to catch them off guard and make sure you can use all four downs if you need them. But calling THAT pass was a huge mistake. Play-action to Lynch and roll out, hope someone pops wide open or Wilson can jog in himself, throw it into the stands if it doesn't fool anybody -- that's what they should have called on second down. Chucking it into traffic? No.

The result was just one of the bad scenario's that can happen. So often, the ball gets popped up into the air on a play like that.

The obvious reason to keep the timeout for after 3rd down is in case there's a fumbled snap on 3rd down and then you don't have one to use. But, then you do have "Beastmode", and if you don't make it on 2nd down, then call your last timeout, and then run the play you suggested on 3rd down and hope you don't fumble the snap.

Darrell Bevell is still the Bill Buckner of Super Bowl's now. He will forever go down as having made the dumbest decision in the history of the Super Bowl. It's just too bad that it's not him on the field so that there's video of him having completely lost his mind that can be played over and over and over again across the decades.

Bevell is lucky he's in Seattle because if he was in Boston, they'd run him out of town like they did Buckner.

[bigredmechanism]

Had you watched? I don't think Lynch had a negative run ALL NIGHT! You had 2 time outs, 26 seconds is EASILY 3 chances.

- - - Updated - - -



The 80s Niners never lost in the Super Bowl and never got caught filming...

Is it better to lose and not make it to the super bowl than to lose in the super bowl?

Brady is the GOAT.

[Tom Servo]

I was a Patriots fan growing up thanks to my grandparents who lived in Massachusetts (Yes I know I am instantly discredited on Ballghazi discussions). I was convinced that if the Patriots could win the Super Bowl in the 2001 season with that Tom Brady guy that they would start racking them up once my beloved Drew Bledsoe reclaimed his rightful position as starting QB.

:help:

[757690]

Correct, they were down to one timeout. They used their second after the miracle catch.

I don't have a problem with them throwing it on second down; that was the time to do it if you're hoping to catch them off guard and make sure you can use all four downs if you need them. But calling THAT pass was a huge mistake. Play-action to Lynch and roll out, hope someone pops wide open or Wilson can jog in himself, throw it into the stands if it doesn't fool anybody -- that's what they should have called on second down. Chucking it into traffic? No.

I disagree. The Seahawks aren't going to win a Super Bowl with Russell Wilson throwing the ball. And that play showed why. If they had a QB who was accustomed to the quick drop pass, that play makes sense, but Wilson isn't one I would trust with such a play in such a crucial situation.

And they only had one time out, but if planned correctly, they could have gotten three run plays out of that situation. They were on the one, so it doesn't take much time to reset after a failed run.

[Bob Sheed]

I disagree. The Seahawks aren't going to win a Super Bowl with Russell Wilson throwing the ball.

Didn't they win a Super Bowl last year with Russell Wilson throwing the ball?

By like, a lot?

[M2]

I was convinced that if the Patriots could win the Super Bowl in the 2001 season with that Tom Brady guy that they would start racking them up once my beloved Drew Bledsoe reclaimed his rightful position as starting QB.

That was the biggest argument in the history of Boston sports radio. Bledsoe was supposed to be the golden child. He was the prototype. Big guy who could throw a ball halfway to the moon. Then Brady showed up and he pretty much transformed the team. Bledsoe supporters kept arguing that it wasn't supposed to happen like this, that Bledsoe was secretly amazing even though he'd always been underwhelming. The Brady supporters kept arguing that all you had to do was admit to what your eyes were seeing. One side was about as right as you can be and the other was about as wrong as you can be.

[Kingspoint]

8541

[Slyder]

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400749027&period=4

Okay, I was wrong I thought Seattle was the one charged with the TO AFTER the INT.

1st and 10 at NE 49 (1:55) (Shotgun) R.Wilson pass incomplete deep right to J.Kearse (M.Butler).
Timeout #1 by SEA at 01:50.

I don't understand that one.

1st and 10 at NE 38 (1:14) (No Huddle, Shotgun) R.Wilson pass deep right to J.Kearse pushed ob at NE 5 for 33 yards (M.Butler).
Timeout #2 by SEA at 01:06.

If he went out of bounds wouldn't that have stopped the clock anyways?

Still you have 1 yd and 2 guys who could run circles around NE and you throw arguably one of the most dangerous passes possible in that situation (quick slant)...

[757690]

Didn't they win a Super Bowl last year with Russell Wilson throwing the ball?

By like, a lot?

They built up a 22 point lead in the first half, mostly on the run game. Wilson opened it up a bit in the second half, with a comfortable lead, but still only managed 200 passing yards. So, not really.

[Tom Servo]

That was the biggest argument in the history of Boston sports radio. Bledsoe was supposed to be the golden child. He was the prototype. Big guy who could throw a ball halfway to the moon. Then Brady showed up and he pretty much transformed the team. Bledsoe supporters kept arguing that it wasn't supposed to happen like this, that Bledsoe was secretly amazing even though he'd always been underwhelming. The Brady supporters kept arguing that all you had to do was admit to what your eyes were seeing. One side was about as right as you can be and the other was about as wrong as you can be.
Well, my excuse is that I was 12. :laugh:

[Revering4Blue]

I was a Patriots fan growing up thanks to my grandparents who lived in Massachusetts (Yes I know I am instantly discredited on Ballghazi discussions). I was convinced that if the Patriots could win the Super Bowl in the 2001 season with that Tom Brady guy that they would start racking them up once my beloved Drew Bledsoe reclaimed his rightful position as starting QB.

:help:

In your defense, Tom, Bledsoe did replace an injured Brady in the 2001 AFC championship game and promptly led the Patriots to victory. Plus, the Patriots didn't even qualify for the playoffs the next year, so your reasoning seemed logical.

From the standpoint of passing the torch, Bledsoe to Brady was much closer to Montana to Young than say, Harbaugh to Manning.

[757690]

In your defense, Tom, Bledsoe did replace an injured Brady in the 2001 AFC championship game and promptly led the Patriots to victory. Plus, the Patriots didn't even qualify for the playoffs the next year, so your reasoning seemed logical.

From the standpoint of passing the torch, Bledsoe to Brady was much closer to Montana to Young than say, Harbaugh to Manning.

I was dating a girl from Boston in 2001, and her father to this day thinks that the Pat's should have started Bledsoe in the Super Bowl that year. Will still argue with anyone who says otherwise.

[Dom Heffner]

Passing plays from the 1-yard line actually resulted in a higher touchdown percentage in the NFL this season than running plays, with Russell Wilson throwing the only interception in 109 attempts.

[Caveat Emperor]

Passing plays from the 1-yard line actually resulted in a higher touchdown percentage in the NFL this season than running plays, with Russell Wilson throwing the only interception in 109 attempts.

Yup -- and if they had run and NOT made it, it would've forced them to use a TO and set up a 3rd down where they were pretty much committed to passing the football (and where a sack or stop short of the goal-line would have effectively ended the game).

Having said that, the proper call should have probably been a back shoulder fade or a wiggle-out. Throwing the ball over the middle like that seems like it's asking for a turnover, given how cramped the field is and how many hands/arms/bodies the ball can potentially hit before it hits the ground.

[Slyder]

Yup -- and if they had run and NOT made it, it would've forced them to use a TO and set up a 3rd down where they were pretty much committed to passing the football (and where a sack or stop short of the goal-line would have effectively ended the game).

Having said that, the proper call should have probably been a back shoulder fade or a wiggle-out. Throwing the ball over the middle like that seems like it's asking for a turnover, given how cramped the field is and how many hands/arms/bodies the ball can potentially hit before it hits the ground.

Assuming they didn't make it on 2nd (and I would almost guarantee they would have). You give Wilson the run option, with a pass/run option to get it. Wilson had 3 runs for 40 yds. If its not there you throw it in to the 15th row and have 4th down.

[kaldaniels]

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400749027&period=4

Okay, I was wrong I thought Seattle was the one charged with the TO AFTER the INT.

1st and 10 at NE 49 (1:55) (Shotgun) R.Wilson pass incomplete deep right to J.Kearse (M.Butler).
Timeout #1 by SEA at 01:50.

I don't understand that one.

1st and 10 at NE 38 (1:14) (No Huddle, Shotgun) R.Wilson pass deep right to J.Kearse pushed ob at NE 5 for 33 yards (M.Butler).
Timeout #2 by SEA at 01:06.

If he went out of bounds wouldn't that have stopped the clock anyways?

Still you have 1 yd and 2 guys who could run circles around NE and you throw arguably one of the most dangerous passes possible in that situation (quick slant)...

Timeout #2 wasn't called to stop the clock, it was called because the Hawks were slow to get down the field after that crazy play. There was confusion and it prevented a delay of game.

[M2]

I was dating a girl from Boston in 2001, and her father to this day thinks that the Pat's should have started Bledsoe in the Super Bowl that year. Will still argue with anyone who says otherwise.

He was/is wrong. As the story has been told in these parts, Belichick ran an extremely conservative game plan when Bledsoe went into the AFC title game, making sure Bledsoe didn't blow it. Had no faith in the guy. Supposedly Bledsoe groused that he wanted to go deep and got told to do the do-as-you're-told. He left the Pats in a good riddance trade after the season and no doubt he was rooting hard for his hometown Seahawks last night to beat the organization that deemed him an expendable knucklehead. To be fair, Bledsoe seems like a perfectly decent guy, but Belichick didn't rate him as a football player.

[kaldaniels]

I just rewatched the ending. Gotta give Butler even more credit for staying with the play after the crazy catch. Kearse about snuck in the end zone but Butler was aware and made the tackle/knocked him out of bounds.

[Caveat Emperor]

Assuming they didn't make it on 2nd (and I would almost guarantee they would have). You give Wilson the run option, with a pass/run option to get it. Wilson had 3 runs for 40 yds. If its not there you throw it in to the 15th row and have 4th down.

There's no guarantee at all in the Super Bowl.

And you're going to give Wilson a run/pass option on 3rd down with no timeouts knowing that getting dropped in the field of play is game over? No chance in hell.

[Roy Tucker]

So, enquiring minds want to know why Doug Baldwin pretended to poop on the football.

I mean, really?

[kaldaniels]

I don't mind the call for a pass. But to call a play designed to throw a fastball into traffic is begging for disaster and they got it. Even a perfect pass to a wide open receiver could be bobbled or go off the receiver and pop up into the air.

[IslandRed]

And they only had one time out, but if planned correctly, they could have gotten three run plays out of that situation. They were on the one, so it doesn't take much time to reset after a failed run.

Assuming the second-down play started at the same time, it's cutting it awfully close -- goal-line piles can take awhile to untangle -- and people make mistakes in hurry-up situations.

They had first-and-goal with about 1:05 left. If they wanted to go Beast for all four downs if need be, they needed to go no-huddle and get that second-down play off about ten seconds sooner. But I'm thinking they wanted to score with as little time left as possible.

[Simon Rhymon]

Heard on the radio that ESPN said during the season Lynch had 5 situations from the one and he only scored on 1 out of the 5. Maybe the coordinator had that in his mind. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounded plausible to me.

[Slyder]

Heard on the radio that ESPN said during the season Lynch had 5 situations from the one and he only scored on 1 out of the 5. Maybe the coordinator had that in his mind. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounded plausible to me.

Whats the context of those 5 attempts? Were they after games were well out of reach? Playoffs? NO ONE has stopped Lynch in two years in the playoffs. You give me any player. 4 out of 24 times NE stopped Lynch for less than 2 yards... I'll give you whatever odds and take Lynch vs a NE defense that has multiple times been slashed by running backs in the playoffs.

[Simon Rhymon]

By the way, what happened to Seattle's vaunted defense? I always thought the dominant defense would overcome the high powered offense. Brady and Josh McDaniel put that theory to bed, I guess.

Two plays other than the obvious stand out in my memory. Earlier in the game, Edelman faked the DB out of his shoes by driving inside and cutting back out and was wide open in the end zone. Brady zipped a bad pass to him and no TD. The same play was called on the winning TD and that time Brady floated the pass to him for an easy catch and Brady pointed to McDaniel for the great call.

Then when the Pats took over with 20 seconds to go, Belichick called Brady over just before the play, they line up and Brady tapped the center's leg and drew Seattle offside. The camera went to Belichick and he was fist pumping. My assumption was that's what they had the conversation about.

[kaldaniels]

On one of those Edelman throws down the middle how close was Brady to crossing the LOS...he really stepped up.

[Simon Rhymon]

Whats the context of those 5 attempts? Were they after games were well out of reach? Playoffs? NO ONE has stopped Lynch in two years in the playoffs. You give me any player. 4 out of 24 times NE stopped Lynch for less than 2 yards... I'll give you whatever odds and take Lynch vs a NE defense that has multiple times been slashed by running backs in the playoffs.


Don't get your undies in a bunch. I'm just relating what I heard on the radio. I'm not making a judgement and have no knowledge whether that's right or not.

[Kingspoint]

There's no guarantee at all in the Super Bowl.

And you're going to give Wilson a run/pass option on 3rd down with no timeouts knowing that getting dropped in the field of play is game over? No chance in hell.

He is one of the coolest, headiest Quarterbacks in the NFL. He doesn't panic. So, yes. Letting him roll out and make the correct decision on when to get rid of it would be a great call in that situation, which it would have highly unlikely to have come down to that after giving Beastmode the ball with one yard to go.

- - - Updated - - -


And, like I said earlier....this is such a non-story that I can't believe anybody cares about.....

Jeff Blake says every team takes air out of the footballs

Posted by Michael David Smith on January 30, 2015, 8:58 AM EST

Former NFL quarterback Jeff Blake can’t figure out what the big deal is with Deflategate. Blake spent time with seven different teams, and he says he always instructed ball boys to take air out of footballs to improve his grip. “I’m just going to let the cat of the bag, every team does it, every game, it has been since I played,” Blake said on 104.5 The Zone in Nashville, via NJ.com. “Cause when you take the balls out of the bag, they are rock hard. And you can’t feel the ball as well. It’s too hard. Everybody puts the pin in and takes just enough air out of the ball that you can feel it a little better. But it’s not the point to where it’s flat.

So I don’t know what the big deal is. It’s not something that’s not been done for 20 years.” Blake said his pre-game ritual always included checking footballs and taking some air out if they were too hard to grip. “Well, I would say [to a ball boy], ‘Take a little bit of air out of it. It’s a little bit hard,'” Blake said. “And then he’d take a little bit out and I’d squeeze it and I’d be like, ‘OK, it’s perfect.’ That’s it.” With the Patriots now facing scrutiny for using under-inflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game, Blake is wondering why this is suddenly an issue. “I guess it wasn’t a big deal back then, but it is now,” he said. It’s a very big deal in the media. It may not be a big deal to NFL players, some of whom say deflating footballs is just part of the business.

[Kingspoint]

By the way, what happened to Seattle's vaunted defense?

Guess you didn't watch the game.

The Seahawks' Cornerback, who picked Brady off at the goalline, broke his hand on the return. After that, his replacement got abused.

[Kingspoint]

Speaking of investigations, the City with the worst fans in all of sports, Atlanta, has it's football team, the Hawks being investigated for piping in crowd noise during football games, mostly while the opponent has the football. I guess they're so used to doing it with their basketball and baseball teams that they didn't think twice about it being against the rules in the NFL.

[Joseph]

Speaking of investigations, the City with the worst fans in all of sports, Atlanta, has it's football team, the Hawks being investigated for piping in crowd noise during football games, mostly while the opponent has the football. I guess they're so used to doing it with their basketball and baseball teams that they didn't think twice about it being against the rules in the NFL.

Curious that this is up. I was just in LA for a hockey game between the Kings and Blackhawks and I guarantee to you they were pumping in noise. During early intros and early part of the game Hawks fans outnumbered the late arriving LA crowd about 3-1 yet when the Kings were announced or something happened for them in the plus column it got loud. Far louder than the crowd would have been feasible to make. When us Hawks fans got loud there was a boo in response [as any good home team would do] but it was WAY louder than reasonable.

So yeah, the Kings definitely pipe in sound and it wouldn't surprise me if lots/most/all others do as well.

[15fan]

Speaking of investigations, the City with the worst fans in all of sports, Atlanta, has it's football team, the Hawks being investigated for piping in crowd noise during football games, mostly while the opponent has the football. I guess they're so used to doing it with their basketball and baseball teams that they didn't think twice about it being against the rules in the NFL.

The football team is the Falcons. The Hawks play with the big, round, orange ball.

As an aside, their streak of 19 consecutive Ws appears to be coming to an end tonight.

But please, continue.

[Chip R]

I'm not sure that his job evaluation includes anything else. It is merely upholding the legacy of the NFL archetype commissioner, Pete Rozelle. Lip service may be given to other, higher level aspirations of the league, but this is really all that matters to anyone that either directly or indirectly depends on the financial success of the NFL.

Concussions, short week made for TV games like Thursday and Monday night football, beer commercials, scantily clad cheerleaders, special rules to protect the most important and vulnerable position on the field, making an attention grabbing event out of air pressure science...

You're right. My position is that the TV network negotiations could be done by you, me or a trained monkey. That's the easy part. These networks want to throw money at the NFL. It's the other stuff that's the tough part: Personal conduct policies, disciplinary situations, concussion protocols, etc. Goodell has managed to blow all of that other stuff.

Not that I care for the Patriots or believe they are innocent in Deflategate; but it seems that Bob Kraft and Goodell are at loggerheads right now. They used to be pretty tight and now some writers have compared their animosity to Al Davis and Pete Rozelle. If the Patriots skate on this, Goodell's days could be numbered. That wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO.

[Razor Shines]

The football team is the Falcons. The Hawks play with the big, round, orange ball.

As an aside, their streak of 19 consecutive Ws appears to be coming to an end tonight.

But please, continue.

What would you know? He already said you're the worst fan in the world. If he says the Hawks are in the NFL, they're in the NFL.

[Kingspoint]

The football team is the Falcons. The Hawks play with the big, round, orange ball.

As an aside, their streak of 19 consecutive Ws appears to be coming to an end tonight.

But please, continue.

Got the wrong "Dirty Bird". Thanks for making that correction. (The Hawks were on my mind after watching them get by the Blazers the other day.)

BTW, the "Falcons" finally got a real Head Coach in the hiring of Quinn. Mike Smith was a joke. First thing I'd do is fire Mike Tice.

[Dom Heffner]

Yup -- and if they had run and NOT made it, it would've forced them to use a TO and set up a 3rd down where they were pretty much committed to passing the football (and where a sack or stop short of the goal-line would have effectively ended the game).

Having said that, the proper call should have probably been a back shoulder fade or a wiggle-out. Throwing the ball over the middle like that seems like it's asking for a turnover, given how cramped the field is and how many hands/arms/bodies the ball can potentially hit before it hits the ground.

Nobody is pointing this out, kudos CE.- if you don't make it you burn the timeout and a sack on the next play would end it, on an obvious passing down.

They probably should have thrown it three times if they could have, they aren't making more time.

[bigredmechanism]

Got the wrong "Dirty Bird". Thanks for making that correction. (The Hawks were on my mind after watching them get by the Blazers the other day.)

BTW, the "Falcons" finally got a real Head Coach in the hiring of Quinn. Mike Smith was a joke. First thing I'd do is fire Mike Tice.

You are lost. Mike Tice left over a week ago. He went to the "Raiders." Also he did a pretty bang up job with a beat up O-Line. As abrasive as he comes off, he's a good line coach.

[Kingspoint]

You are lost. Mike Tice left over a week ago. He went to the "Raiders." Also he did a pretty bang up job with a beat up O-Line. As abrasive as he comes off, he's a good line coach.

(I've paid less attention to the NFL after the Bengals were eliminated, so I'm not abreast of every move that's been made. That can't be said of me at any point over the previous six months before the Bengals were eliminated.) I was right then, though, about Tice. He needed to go. Atlanta fans are lucky that he's gone. He's a loser with a loser mentality. Yes, the line (mostly Tackle) was beat up, but he never made them any better by his presence. If you want to give Mike Tice credit for 26-year old Ryan Schraeder's positive season at RT. OK. But, then Tice also gets credit for making #6 overall 2014 draftpick, LT Jake Matthews, the worst overall Tackle in the NFL (per profootballfocus). Yes, I know that they originally planned on Matthews playing RT the whole season, but that he had to take over at LT because of the season-ending injury to the regular starting LT, but that doesn't explain why Matthews was so terrible at both pass-blocking and run-blocking. He had a decent last third of the season as a pass-blocker, but again, he was so bad the rest of the season, that it couldn't make up enough for him to be anything but the overall worst Tackle on the year.



I'm sorry for the Raiders. Again, it's another poor move by the Raiders' G.M.

[Sea Ray]

Nobody is pointing this out, kudos CE.- if you don't make it you burn the timeout and a sack on the next play would end it, on an obvious passing down.

They probably should have thrown it three times if they could have, they aren't making more time.

I get back from Phoenix and I can't believe all the excuses for what was the worst call in Super Bowl history. First of all the Seahawks are a team who's built for power running from its RB to its O-line to its QB who is also a running threat. So the call to make is to give it to Lynch at least 3 out of 4 tries. But if you decide that you have to throw it once or twice, it's still the worst call in SB history. The call should have been a fade to Matthews, a play action off of Lynch, a run/pass option or a back shoulder call like they ran at the end of the first half. Instead they go with an over the middle fastball to a no name. After the game I had dinner with Seahawk season ticket holders and we were looking at the replay...the question that arose was who was the intended receiver? I said that I thought it was #83. No one could tell me who 83 was. You don't pin your season on Ricardo Lockette in that situation.

[Dom Heffner]

Sea Ray, with one timeout you don't have 3 plays.

Edit: 3 running plays.

[bigredmechanism]

Sea Ray, with one timeout you don't have 3 plays.

Yeah, you do. First down they ran with Lynch for 4 yards to the 1. They could have ran again on second down and used a time out, then ran again on third. Obviously you won't get 4 tries at it without an incomplete pass or a TO by the Pats.

At least I think that's what Sea Ray was saying.

Really what changed a lot of it was that BB didn't use a timeout when everyone in the world (especially Pete Carrol) expected him to. He forced the Hawks into making that decision, and as others have pointed out, if you are going to throw there, it should have been a ball that was a tough one to catch but impossible to intercept. A slant route on a pick play that the Pats had been practicing for (coupled with a poorly thrown ball) was asking for disaster. It was a gutsy call, and would have went really wrong if the Hawks let Lynch punch it in.

[RedsBaron]

With only one time out left, and with the clock running down, in order for Seattle to run three plays one of those plays had to be a pass into the end zone, so that if it wasn't a TD it was incomplete, stopping the clock. The Seahawks could have passed on third down, but I can understand why they tried a pass on second down, hoping to catch New England by surprise. The real problems were the type of pass play that was called, and, obviously the execution. Russell Wilson had for the most part been able to evade New England defenders, so some type of pass option, with Wilson understanding that if the play wasn't there he should promptly heave the ball into the stands, made sense. If you don't score on the pass play, you still have two chances to have Lynch run the ball. I agree: I think the failure of New England to call a time out may have contributed to the poor decision making by Seattle.

[bigredmechanism]

(I've paid less attention to the NFL after the Bengals were eliminated, so I'm not abreast of every move that's been made. That can't be said of me at any point over the previous six months before the Bengals were eliminated.) I was right then, though, about Tice. He needed to go. Atlanta fans are lucky that he's gone. He's a loser with a loser mentality. Yes, the line (mostly Tackle) was beat up, but he never made them any better by his presence. If you want to give Mike Tice credit for 26-year old Ryan Schraeder's positive season at RT. OK. But, then Tice also gets credit for making #6 overall 2014 draftpick, LT Jake Matthews, the worst overall Tackle in the NFL (per profootballfocus). Yes, I know that they originally planned on Matthews playing RT the whole season, but that he had to take over at LT because of the season-ending injury to the regular starting LT, but that doesn't explain why Matthews was so terrible at both pass-blocking and run-blocking. He had a decent last third of the season as a pass-blocker, but again, he was so bad the rest of the season, that it couldn't make up enough for him to be anything but the overall worst Tackle on the year.



I'm sorry for the Raiders. Again, it's another poor move by the Raiders' G.M.

Baker (Starting LT before the season)
Hawley(starting C at the beginning of the season)
Holmes(Starting RT after Baker went down and Matthews moved to LT)
Konz(Starting C after Hawley went down)

All lost for the season.

Matthews had a high ankle sprain in the season opener and played hurt for a majority of the year. Their TE played at RT one game! The line was a disaster of injuries.

After all that, they let up less sacks than the season before that. With 2 undrafted players moving into starting roles. I don't doubt that you follow the Bengals tirelessly, but saying "Mike Tice has to go" is proof that you don't know much about the Falcons.

I didn't like them bringing in Tice because I never liked his attitude or his tenure in Minnesota, but I was 100% wrong about the results he got out of his guys on the field. I wouldn't go as far to say he should get a head coaching gig again, but he proved to be a very good O Line coach and made the most out of an absolute dumpster fire in Atlanta.

[Dom Heffner]

Yeah, you do. First down they ran with Lynch for 4 yards to the 1. They could have ran again on second down and used a time out, then ran again on third. Obviously you won't get 4 tries at it without an incomplete pass or a TO by the Pats.

At least I think that's what Sea Ray was saying.

Really what changed a lot of it was that BB didn't use a timeout when everyone in the world (especially Pete Carrol) expected him to. He forced the Hawks into making that decision, and as others have pointed out, if you are going to throw there, it should have been a ball that was a tough one to catch but impossible to intercept. A slant route on a pick play that the Pats had been practicing for (coupled with a poorly thrown ball) was asking for disaster. It was a gutsy call, and would have went really wrong if the Hawks let Lynch punch it in.

You do not have a guaranteed three plays with Lynch running the ball. That is what Sea Ray said.

If Lynch does not make it- which he didn't 80% of the time in the regular season- then you really only have one running play because even if it takes 8 seconds off the clock you are under 20 seconds with no timeouts going forward and two plays left.

You can't spike the ball. Any tackle before the goal line or sack would eat up most of that :20.

The analysis from the experts is way off here- one timeout does you give you one chance with Lynch, and probably not a good idea if you do not have your goal line personnel in and New England did.

Marshawn Lynch can do a lot of things, he cannot make more time nor can he make more timeouts.

I'll grant you not the smartest play call, but calling a rollout with someone as mobile as Wilson would have been fine three times.

All this talk of running Lynch three times, is hooey. They didn't have enough time to do it, or was close enough not to risk it.

[bigredmechanism]

You do not have a guaranteed three plays with Lynch running the ball. That is what Sea Ray said.

If Lynch does not make it- which he didn't 80% of the time in the regular season- then you really only have one running play because even if it takes 8 seconds off the clock you are under 20 seconds with no timeouts going forward and two plays left.

You can't spike the ball. Any tackle before the goal line or sack would eat up most of that :20.

The analysis from the experts is way off here- one timeout does you give you one chance with Lynch, and probably not a good idea if you do not have your goal line personnel in and New England did.

Marshawn Lynch can do a lot of things, he cannot make more time nor can he make more timeouts.

I'll grant you not the smartest play call, but calling a rollout with someone as mobile as Wilson would have been fine three times.

All this talk of running Lynch three times, is hooey. They didn't have enough time to do it, or was close enough not to risk it.

He ran it on first down. I'm counting that as one of the three, if that clears things up. That happened right around 1 minute, and the clock was ran down from there on 2nd and Goal at the 1. So technically 2 runs from 2nd and 1 with a timeout between them.

[Dom Heffner]

He ran it on first down. I'm counting that as one of the three, if that clears things up. That happened right around 1 minute, and the clock was ran down from there on 2nd and Goal at the 1. So technically 2 runs from 2nd and 1 with a timeout between them.

I'm just saying with :26 left and one timeout, you don't have three running plays left. You may have one, but failure there puts you in a bad spot.

[bigredmechanism]

I'm just saying with :26 left and one timeout, you don't have three running plays left. You may have one, but failure there puts you in a bad spot.

Agreed, on 2nd and 1 there was not 3 running plays left. There were 2. I was counting the run on 1st and goal as one of the three.

I get the logic that a pass play isn't so terrible, but as others have said it really depends on the pass play. The one they chose was one that had a higher than normal chance of heartbreak and was one that the defense was prepared for. A pass to the corner or the crossbar are very unlikely to result in an interception, while a slant route to a guy like Lockette with a crowded goal line was more likely to get that result.

Really was just a bad call by the Hawks, with an even worse throw by Wilson, along with great anticipation by Butler.

[Dom Heffner]

Agreed, on 2nd and 1 there was not 3 running plays left. There were 2. I was counting the run on 1st and goal as one of the three.

I get the logic that a pass play isn't so terrible, but as others have said it really depends on the pass play. The one they chose was one that had a higher than normal chance of heartbreak and was one that the defense was prepared for. A pass to the corner or the crossbar are very unlikely to result in an interception, while a slant route to a guy like Lockette with a crowded goal line was more likely to get that result.

Really was just a bad call by the Hawks, with an even worse throw by Wilson, along with great anticipation by Butler.

I don't like 2 there because that 4th down would not be pretty and the personnel choice would put you in a tough spot.

The Patriots aren't going to help you get to the line. The problem with running plays is you have no control over how long they take to run.

[Dom Heffner]

The NFL had 109 passing plays from the 1 all year and the only pick was that one in the Super bowl.

[bigredmechanism]

I don't like 2 there because that 4th down would not be pretty and the personnel choice would put you in a tough spot.

The Patriots aren't going to help you get to the line. The problem with running plays is you have no control over how long they take to run.

They had a time out, so they had 2 more plays. Sure a run on third down that was stuffed could have ended the game, but there was the opportunity for 2 running plays if they wanted it.

[Dom Heffner]

They had a time out, so they had 2 more plays. Sure a run on third down that was stuffed could have ended the game, but there was the opportunity for 2 running plays if they wanted it.

I have :26 seconds left and one timeout.

I want that timeout for the end.

Running plays are extremely risky for clock management. If you want the clock to wind down, you run. Why would you risk running the ball when you aren't trying to wind down the clock? You can't undo it when it runs out, they are not making anymore of it, it is the outs of baseball. If you run into a pile of bodies...good lord that could be :15 seconds right there, and if you already spent your timeout....whew, that's close. For me, I call two passes, use my timeout to stop after that and I get a third play if I need it. And oh yeah, don't throw one into the middle of the field.

If I throw three times, I get my three cracks, and I don't run out of time. Any variance from that and you risk running out of time.

It's a philosophy difference, I'm not a risk taker when it comes to the clock. I do see your point.

[Sea Ray]

Sea Ray, with one timeout you don't have 3 plays.

Edit: 3 running plays.

Did you forget that he carried it on first down? That's one. With this epiphany count again and get back with me.

[Sea Ray]

You do not have a guaranteed three plays with Lynch running the ball. That is what Sea Ray said.

If Lynch does not make it- which he didn't 80% of the time in the regular season- then you really only have one running play because even if it takes 8 seconds off the clock you are under 20 seconds with no timeouts going forward and two plays left.

You can't spike the ball. Any tackle before the goal line or sack would eat up most of that :20.

The analysis from the experts is way off here- one timeout does you give you one chance with Lynch, and probably not a good idea if you do not have your goal line personnel in and New England did.

Marshawn Lynch can do a lot of things, he cannot make more time nor can he make more timeouts.

I'll grant you not the smartest play call, but calling a rollout with someone as mobile as Wilson would have been fine three times.

All this talk of running Lynch three times, is hooey. They didn't have enough time to do it, or was close enough not to risk it.

I'll go over this real slow with you one more time:

1) Lynch runs one 1st down to inside the one
2) Lynch runs it on 2nd down
3) Timeout
4) Lynch runs it on 3rd down

What aren't you getting here? Count those 3 runs and tell me where I'm off?

[Sea Ray]

I have :26 seconds left and one timeout.

I want that timeout for the end.

Running plays are extremely risky for clock management. If you want the clock to wind down, you run. Why would you risk running the ball when you aren't trying to wind down the clock? You can't undo it when it runs out, they are not making anymore of it, it is the outs of baseball. If you run into a pile of bodies...good lord that could be :15 seconds right there, and if you already spent your timeout....whew, that's close. For me, I call two passes, use my timeout to stop after that and I get a third play if I need it. And oh yeah, don't throw one into the middle of the field.

If I throw three times, I get my three cracks, and I don't run out of time. Any variance from that and you risk running out of time.

It's a philosophy difference, I'm not a risk taker when it comes to the clock. I do see your point.

That's the safest way but by doing that you're refusing to use your biggest offensive threat. The Hawks are a power running team. That's what they do. No way should they take that strength off the table. As someone who sees a lot of Hawk games, Lynch is almost never stopped for no gain. I like my chances giving it to him. I'm sure the Patriots would rather defend a pass over the middle than Lynch pounded it up there. They say thank you

[Dom Heffner]

That's the safest way but by doing that you're refusing to use your biggest offensive threat. The Hawks are a power running team. That's what they do. No way should they take that strength off the table. As someone who sees a lot of Hawk games, Lynch is almost never stopped for no gain. I like my chances giving it to him. I'm sure the Patriots would rather defend a pass over the middle than Lynch pounded it up there. They say thank you

Marshawn Lynch's strength is not running into a defensive line that is waiting for him.

Goal line runs are not the same as all runs. He only punched it in one time out of five during the regular season, an odd stat for someone who, according to the Monday morning QB's, was all but guaranteed to waltz into the end zone.

It's different at the goal line. Also you just don't know how long it takes for the pile to clear. That is moot with one timeout, I will grant you that, but if you use that timeout, that means you didn't make it and now you're at 3rd down with under :20 left and a sack or tackle before the goal line could eliminate your fourth down play if you need it.

It's game theory, we differ, nobody is going to win this.

There is no doubt they could have ran Lynch one more time. There is also no guarantee it would have worked. This hindsight stuff is silly.

Pete Johnson averaged 4 yards a carry and couldn't make it one freaking foot at the goal line. The NFL is littered with stories of goal line stands and passing there is actually pretty successful.

Wilson threw the only pick from that spot the entire year. So, their chances were under 1% of that happening.

The Pats stacked the line, the Seahawks had to react to that. With game theory, a pass there is not so stupid, just good lord they should have spread the field a bit.

But again- sometimes people make plays.

[Dom Heffner]

So here- let's put your theory to bed, shall we?


Over his career, Lynch has had 36 carries from the opponent’s 1-yard line. More often than not, he didn’t reach the end zone. He scored on 15 of those carries, or 41.7 percent of the time. On 12 of those carries, he did not gain a yard. On nine of them, he lost yardage.

How do Lynch’s numbers from the 1 stack up against other running backs in the league? Not all that great. “Among 39 running backs with at least 10 carries from the 1-yard line in the past 5 seasons (incl. playoffs), Lynch’s touchdown percentage (45 percent) ranks 30th,” reports ESPN Stats and Info.

So he ranks 30th in the league from that spot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/02/seahawks-marshawn-lynch-isnt-exactly-money-from-the-1-yard-line/

I know, you'd still do it, even though the league does better in passing from that spot. He's "the best player."

[RedsBaron]

I think Seattle should have punted. It would have taken New England by surprise. ;)

[cumberlandreds]

I think Seattle should have punted. It would have taken New England by surprise. ;)

Or kicked a field goal and then tried an onside kick. That would have been fun. It also worked the game before.

[IslandRed]

I'll go over this real slow with you one more time:

1) Lynch runs one 1st down to inside the one
2) Lynch runs it on 2nd down
3) Timeout
4) Lynch runs it on 3rd down

What aren't you getting here? Count those 3 runs and tell me where I'm off?

He was referring to three running plays starting with second down, which is when the playcalling dispute begins.

But looking at your example, that gives the Seahawks three cracks at scoring the Super Bowl-winning touchdown. Four cracks at it is better.

1) Lynch runs one 1st down to inside the one
2) Pass on 2nd down
3) Clock stops on incompletion
4) Lynch runs it on 3rd down
5) Timeout
6) Lynch runs it on 4th down, or whatever their best fourth-and-goal play is

That's what they were trying to do with the second-down pass. The actual pass they called was dumb because it put the ball at risk, but the idea of mixing in a pass wasn't bad. They just screwed up WHAT pass they called.

[757690]

So here- let's put your theory to bed, shall we?



So he ranks 30th in the league from that spot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/02/seahawks-marshawn-lynch-isnt-exactly-money-from-the-1-yard-line/

I know, you'd still do it, even though the league does better in passing from that spot. He's "the best player."

So if he runs two times, the Seahawks have a 82% chance of scoring. I'd say it's higher, because it's the end of the game, and the defensive line is tired. That article actually makes the point stronger to run twice there, than to try something fancy.

[Dom Heffner]

So if he runs two times, the Seahawks have a 82% chance of scoring. I'd say it's higher, because it's the end of the game, and the defensive line is tired. That article actually makes the point stronger to run twice there, than to try something fancy.

He has a 60% of not getting in each time he carries. The second time doesn't know the first time happened.

Am I wrong?

Using your logic seems to indicate that if he fails one time his odds go up of getting in the second time. That seems to be taking some liberties with math.

[757690]

He has a 60% of not getting in each time he carries. The second time doesn't know the first time happened.

Am I wrong?

Using your logic seems to indicate that if he fails one time his odds go up of getting in the second time. That seems to be taking some liberties with math.

Two attempts of scoring that each have a 50/50 chance of scoring is a good choice, however you work the math. What are the odds of scoring from the 1 with a slant pass? Of any pass at the 1?

[Slyder]

If Lynch does not make it- which he didn't 80% of the time in the regular season- then you really only have one running play because even if it takes 8 seconds off the clock you are under 20 seconds with no timeouts going forward and two plays left.

You can't spike the ball. Any tackle before the goal line or sack would eat up most of that :20.


And Lynch on the day was tackled for > 1 yard twice out of 24 carries... your point? If they do something and stop it burn the time out then let Wilson try and beat them with a run/pass option knowing you have 2 plays and the design of the play already has him outside of the tackle box to chuck it into the seats if needed.

[Kingspoint]

Baker (Starting LT before the season)
Hawley(starting C at the beginning of the season)
Holmes(Starting RT after Baker went down and Matthews moved to LT)
Konz(Starting C after Hawley went down)

All lost for the season.

Matthews had a high ankle sprain in the season opener and played hurt for a majority of the year. Their TE played at RT one game! The line was a disaster of injuries.

After all that, they let up less sacks than the season before that. With 2 undrafted players moving into starting roles. I don't doubt that you follow the Bengals tirelessly, but saying "Mike Tice has to go" is proof that you don't know much about the Falcons.

I didn't like them bringing in Tice because I never liked his attitude or his tenure in Minnesota, but I was 100% wrong about the results he got out of his guys on the field. I wouldn't go as far to say he should get a head coaching gig again, but he proved to be a very good O Line coach and made the most out of an absolute dumpster fire in Atlanta.

Matthews had a high ankle sprain at the beginning of the season and was healthy by the 4th week of the season. He had no excuses for his poor play at that point. Holmes was replaced by Schrader before the mid-point of the season. If you're referring to Schrader as one of the "two undrafted players", I'm not sure why, unless you're trying to infer that he was inexperienced. He was 26 years old. He'd been around for awhile. After the Starting Guards, Schrader was the team's best lineman last season. Losing Konz was a positive thing, not a negative thing, as Konz was a crappy Center at this point in his career. Hawley looked like he was going to be decent enough, pass-blocking well before he went down, but struggling badly as a run-blocker. Konz' replacement, James Stone struggled mostly, but played well in a third of his 10 games that he started. Both Atlanta Guards played well all season. Baker's loss was a positive, not a negative, as anyone could have replaced him and not done worse. He was terrible in 2013 before he went down to injury a quarter of the way into that season. Hoping his 2014 was going to be as good as his 2012 and not reflective of the beginning of his 2013 was a folly of a hope. He was destined to be a terrible player again in 2014. The only downfall was what I had mentioned. It forced Matthews into playing LT his first season when they were hoping to ease him in at RT his first season before moving him over. And, again, Matthews ankle sprain was fully healed (in football terms) by the 4th week of the season. As I mentioned, he played well the last third of the season in pass-blocking.

I watched how Tice handled Matthews on Hard-Knocks. I thought it was typical Tice...arrogant, over-confident, with no ability to recognize positives and negatives of his players. Matthews may have needed to be humbled a bit, but Tice is so old-school NFL that he reeks of stupidity. I keep a pretty close eye on the Falcons (and most teams, but moreso the Falcons for many, many reasons). You merely disagree with me that Tice contributed positively to the overall development of the Offensive Line. Very little could be done with the talent that was put together on the O-line, I agree with. I was as disappointed at how little the Falcons addressed their needs of improving the O-line (relying on Baker was a huge mistake, while retaining Konz was another...two wasted rotational spots that could have been filled by others more reliable during last year's Free Agency), as I was at the Falcons not addressing the TE position properly. I won't even go into the Secondary and the Coaches. They waited a year too long to replace Mike Smith.

All that is in the past, as they've clearly changed their attitude at the very top. They've put together a nice Management package of GM Thomas Dimitroff, Assistant GM Scott Pioli (though Pioli has failed miserably since he left New England, I believe he's still got the potential to change what problems he had personally after he left Belicek's guidance), and HC Dan Quinn. Not sure about what Kyle Shanahan will bring, as Shanahan hasn't really had a chance to put his stamp on any Offense yet as an OC (Snyder always stepping in while heavy changes were made each year in Washington). And, now they've added Richard Smith as Defensive Coordinator, giving Smith his first chance after years of NFL experience, to see what he can do with more responsibility.

Add to that....Raheem Morris assistant head coach/defensive passing game coordinator, Bobby Turner as running backs coach, and Mike LaFleur as offensive assistant. The club has also retained Special Teams Coordinator Keith Armstrong, Defensive Line coach Bryan Cox, Tight Ends Coach Wade Harman, Wide Receivers Coach Terry Robiskie, and Assistant Special Teams Coach Eric Sutulovich.

Atlanta has, to me, easily been the best at putting together a solid foundation for it's team for the future. With Ryan and Julio as it's main weapons, and a weak division to go up against, there's no reason to not believe that Atlanta will win it's Division next season and several more seasons after that. I believe Ryan is a Top-7 QB in the NFL and will hold that position for the next four to five years.

[Kingspoint]

If Lynch does not make it- which he didn't 80% of the time in the regular season

Where do you get this stat?

Aren't we talking about Lynch's success rate at needing 1 yard? Before looking it up, I'd bet a $1000 that he had a 90% success rate, not a 20% as you're saying here.

[Sea Ray]

Marshawn Lynch's strength is not running into a defensive line that is waiting for him.

Goal line runs are not the same as all runs. He only punched it in one time out of five during the regular season, an odd stat for someone who, according to the Monday morning QB's, was all but guaranteed to waltz into the end zone.

It's different at the goal line. Also you just don't know how long it takes for the pile to clear. That is moot with one timeout, I will grant you that, but if you use that timeout, that means you didn't make it and now you're at 3rd down with under :20 left and a sack or tackle before the goal line could eliminate your fourth down play if you need it.

It's game theory, we differ, nobody is going to win this.

There is no doubt they could have ran Lynch one more time. There is also no guarantee it would have worked. This hindsight stuff is silly.

Pete Johnson averaged 4 yards a carry and couldn't make it one freaking foot at the goal line. The NFL is littered with stories of goal line stands and passing there is actually pretty successful.

Wilson threw the only pick from that spot the entire year. So, their chances were under 1% of that happening.

The Pats stacked the line, the Seahawks had to react to that. With game theory, a pass there is not so stupid, just good lord they should have spread the field a bit.

But again- sometimes people make plays.

Since you have a TO, you can run two plays regardless, correct? That was my point on Lynch getting it 3x. If you decide that a passing play is indicated, fine. I have no problem with that but don't use THAT passing play. I thought I went over other options earlier in this thread

[Kingspoint]

then you really only have one running play because even if it takes 8 seconds
Running plays from the 1 don't take 8 seconds. They take 3 seconds, at the most. Then begins the unpiling, which the referees always assist at making sure nobody screws around with at that point. There was plenty of time to spike the ball. But, then none of that would have happened, as they still had a timeout, so only three seconds would be gone at that point, anyway.

[Kingspoint]

So here- let's put your theory to bed, shall we?



So he ranks 30th in the league from that spot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/02/seahawks-marshawn-lynch-isnt-exactly-money-from-the-1-yard-line/

I know, you'd still do it, even though the league does better in passing from that spot. He's "the best player."

We're only talking about the 2014 version of Lynch. What he did in his past is totally irrelevant. Those were different Offensive Lines, different Coaches, different threats from different Quarterbacks, and different versions of Lynch.

[Sea Ray]

He was referring to three running plays starting with second down, which is when the playcalling dispute begins.

But looking at your example, that gives the Seahawks three cracks at scoring the Super Bowl-winning touchdown. Four cracks at it is better.

1) Lynch runs one 1st down to inside the one
2) Pass on 2nd down
3) Clock stops on incompletion
4) Lynch runs it on 3rd down
5) Timeout
6) Lynch runs it on 4th down, or whatever their best fourth-and-goal play is

That's what they were trying to do with the second-down pass. The actual pass they called was dumb because it put the ball at risk, but the idea of mixing in a pass wasn't bad. They just screwed up WHAT pass they called.

Before I discuss what you've outlined above, let's re-visit what I wrote previously:


I get back from Phoenix and I can't believe all the excuses for what was the worst call in Super Bowl history. First of all the Seahawks are a team who's built for power running from its RB to its O-line to its QB who is also a running threat. So the call to make is to give it to Lynch at least 3 out of 4 tries. But if you decide that you have to throw it once or twice, it's still the worst call in SB history. The call should have been a fade to Matthews, a play action off of Lynch, a run/pass option or a back shoulder call like they ran at the end of the first half. Instead they go with an over the middle fastball to a no name. After the game I had dinner with Seahawk season ticket holders and we were looking at the replay...the question that arose was who was the intended receiver? I said that I thought it was #83. No one could tell me who 83 was. You don't pin your season on Ricardo Lockette in that situation.


As you can see, we agree 100%. I said run Lynch 3 out of 4 times. I also said that the choice of pass play was the worst call ever. Where did you think we disagreed?

[Kingspoint]

He has a 60% of not getting in each time he carries. The second time doesn't know the first time happened.

Am I wrong?

Using your logic seems to indicate that if he fails one time his odds go up of getting in the second time. That seems to be taking some liberties with math.

Yes. You are wrong. You are using stats from different seasons that have no connection to the Offensive Lines he'd be running behind in that game. In addition, you can't even use stats from 2014 as the Seahawks were missing a majority of their Offensive line for most of the season. On Super Bowl Sunday, they were fully healthy, one of the few times all season, and it showed with Lynch being stopped only twice in 24 chances from the distance we're talking about here. And, as has always been the case, the later the game, the stronger Beastmode gets and the harder he is to stop. He had just gotten three yards on the previous play.

[Dom Heffner]

Two attempts of scoring that each have a 50/50 chance of scoring is a good choice, however you work the math. What are the odds of scoring from the 1 with a slant pass? Of any pass at the 1?

You were saying that if I have a 50% chance of scoring that if I try twice that means I have a 100% chance of scoring.

That is simply not true.

The league did better at passing from the 1 than running it.

1 pick all year out of 109 attempts. That doesn't seem "risky" to me.

Meanwhile Lynch was 30th out of 39 backs in that situation.

[Sea Ray]

We're only talking about the 2014 version of Lynch. What he did in his past is totally irrelevant. Those were different Offensive Lines, different Coaches, different threats from different Quarterbacks, and different versions of Lynch.

KP, this is the difference between running your football team by stats or by watching the team. You and I have watched a lot of Seahawks football in recent yrs and we know how ludicrous this debate is. Again, I know a lot of Hawk fans and they're not saying today that Lynch would have been stopped. They know better. In fact what I'm hearing is that if Lynch is stuffed two more times then NE deserved to win, go home and prepare for next yr

[Dom Heffner]

Yes. You are wrong. You are using stats from different seasons that have no connection to the Offensive Lines he'd be running behind in that game. In addition, you can't even use stats from 2014 as the Seahawks were missing a majority of their Offensive line for most of the season. On Super Bowl Sunday, they were fully healthy, one of the few times all season, and it showed with Lynch being stopped only twice in 24 chances from the distance we're talking about here. And, as has always been the case, the later the game, the stronger Beastmode gets and the harder he is to stop. He had just gotten three yards on the previous play.

This season he was 1 out of 5.

The point isn't that he would or would not have made it, the point is that there's no way of saying that it is the better call when the stats really don't back that up. The league has more success passing there, and frankly, Wilson has a 107 QB rating when he rolls out. That was probably the best call available. I understand Lynch is awesome, but that doesn't mean he is awesome for the situation.

I understand the play ended up being intercepted. It was the first time all year a passing play from the 1 was picked off.

Aaron Rodgers is the best QB of all time in regards to interception rate, and that number (1/109) beats him and it ain't close.

It just wasn't that risky, the fact that it didn't work out has everyone thinking they know better, Lynch was guaranteed to score, blah blah blah...

Sometimes things don't work out, it isn't always someone's "fault."

Pete Carroll should be more embarrassed for apologizing to everyone. That was a high percentage pass, a lot higher than Lynch making it from the 1.

[Dom Heffner]

KP, this is the difference between running your football team by stats or by watching the team. You and I have watched a lot of Seahawks football in recent yrs and we know how ludicrous this debate is. Again, I know a lot of Hawk fans and they're not saying today that Lynch would have been stopped. They know better. In fact what I'm hearing is that if Lynch is stuffed two more times then NE deserved to win, go home and prepare for next yr

He had a 20% success rate this year.

Did you watch him fail 4 times? Or were you only watching him when he scored?

The numbers are over the last four years- Lynch has been good those last four years. And he is 30th out of 38 backs.

He's no Jerome Bettis down there.

[Kingspoint]

Marshawn Lynch's strength is not running into a defensive line that is waiting for him.

Lynch has had no problem all season running into a Defense that is waiting for him. He did it all season. Yet, he (by more than double the amount) led all runningbacks in yards-after-contact on the year. Two Defenders can not bring down Lynch. It takes four or five. And, the Seahawks proved all day that the Patriots' Defensive Line couldn't stop Lynch at the line-of-scrimmage, and that's with Wilson not completing a pass until mid-way through the 2nd Quarter.

1st Down: Run Lynch. (Gained three yards)
2nd Down: Run Lynch. (Take lead with 23 seconds left, or call timeout and have 21 seconds left)
3rd Down: Roll out Wilson. (Run in and take lead with 15 seconds left, throw to an "open" Receiver and take lead with 15 seconds left, or throw it away with 14 seconds left.)
4th Down: Run Lynch. (Take lead with 11 seconds left or lose game) (or play-action Lynch and bootleg Wilson)

[Dom Heffner]

Yes. You are wrong. You are using stats from different seasons that have no connection to the Offensive Lines he'd be running behind in that game. In addition, you can't even use stats from 2014 as the Seahawks were missing a majority of their Offensive line for most of the season. On Super Bowl Sunday, they were fully healthy, one of the few times all season, and it showed with Lynch being stopped only twice in 24 chances from the distance we're talking about here. And, as has always been the case, the later the game, the stronger Beastmode gets and the harder he is to stop. He had just gotten three yards on the previous play.

I was asking if I was wrong about the math problem.

Would you care to explain how if you have a 40% success rate at something that if you try it twice your chances go to 80%? No?

[Kingspoint]

He had a 20% success rate this year.

Did you watch him fail 4 times?

Meaningless. Who was blocking then? Was Max Unger playing Center then? Probably not.

[Dom Heffner]

We're only talking about the 2014 version of Lynch. What he did in his past is totally irrelevant. Those were different Offensive Lines, different Coaches, different threats from different Quarterbacks, and different versions of Lynch.

This year he was worse by half!

[Dom Heffner]

Meaningless. Who was blocking then? Was Max Unger playing Center then? Probably not.

I see. So he had great numbers these past years but Seattle didn't have personnel.

Christ. If anybody has the personnel it is Seattle.

He simply is not effective at the goal line. How can you argue he is?

[Kingspoint]

This season he was 1 out of 5.

The point isn't that he would or would not have made it, the point is that there's no way of saying that it is the better call when the stats really don't back that up. You're cherry-picking stats. If you don't know who was blocking then, it doesn't matter. I happen to know that Unger missed most of the season, while they also were without their starting O-Linemen for much of the season. It also makes a difference at what point of the game it is. Lynch is always stronger while Defenses are always weaker at the end of a game when you're a power-running team.

Also, "Beastmode" is not stoppable in that situation. There should have been no other play call. Jerome Bettis is no Marshawn Lynch.

[Kingspoint]

I was asking if I was wrong about the math problem.

Would you care to explain how if you have a 40% success rate at something that if you try it twice your chances go to 80%? No?

Of course not.

FWIW, the best player in the history of the NFL at needing one yard for a first down or a touchdown has always been Tom Brady, a 90% success rate.


BJGE had a 90% success rate a few seasons ago. Would I give it to him in that situation? No.

But, with Unger at Center and Lynch at the end of the game.....this season.....there's only one play. You hand it to Lynch (no Fullback, as Seattle hasn't had a good one for years now).

[Kingspoint]

But, then the Seahawks may have been taking into account that for this game only, Center Max Unger struggled for the first time all year at run-blocking. Unger had missed on enough run-blocks that he may have lost the confidence of the Coaches in this situation. It hadn't happened all year (he only played in six games before the playoffs and excelled at run-blocking in all of them, including the two playoff games), but it was happening against New England. So, Dom, there is also that to consider in your favor.

And, I do admit that the Seahawks' Run-blocking this season was below par, due mainly to the losses of Unger and Okung for most of the season, but also that they lacked any kind of depth on their O-Line. Their running game all year was Lynch doing the pounding all by himself behind poor Fullbacks and sub-standard O-Line run-blocking. He literally was not taken down until four or five defenders would hit him on any play.

I still hand it to him three out of four times, with the only time I don't being 3rd down. They tried to get tricky on 2nd down and it cost them the Super Bowl.

[Dom Heffner]

For 2014, passing from the 1 yielded nearly the same amount of success as rushing. Less than a tenth of one percent difference.

This is not the travesty of all calls- with clock management in mind the pass makes sense.

Marshawn Lynch has not been any sort of guarantee form the 1, and in fact he's in the bottom of the league at it over the last four years.

That isn't cherry-picking, that's just pointing out that this is not the "no brainer" everyone is making it out to be.

[IslandRed]

As you can see, we agree 100%. I said run Lynch 3 out of 4 times. I also said that the choice of pass play was the worst call ever. Where did you think we disagreed?

Apparently, we don't. I didn't catch that earlier post, I was just responding to the specific scenario I quoted.

[Sea Ray]

Looks like Warren Sapp had an issue with prostitutes in Arizona.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nfl-great-warren-sapp-arrested-on-suspicion-of-soliciting-escort/ar-AA8UOB2?ocid=ansnewsreu11

He's now gone from NFL Network. Hey Warren, it doesn't pay to buy such services. It ain't worth your career. Earn the sex the same way the rest of us do...

[IslandRed]

Lynch has had no problem all season running into a Defense that is waiting for him. He did it all season. Yet, he (by more than double the amount) led all runningbacks in yards-after-contact on the year. Two Defenders can not bring down Lynch. It takes four or five. And, the Seahawks proved all day that the Patriots' Defensive Line couldn't stop Lynch at the line-of-scrimmage, and that's with Wilson not completing a pass until mid-way through the 2nd Quarter.

1st Down: Run Lynch. (Gained three yards)
2nd Down: Run Lynch. (Take lead with 23 seconds left, or call timeout and have 21 seconds left)
3rd Down: Roll out Wilson. (Run in and take lead with 15 seconds left, throw to an "open" Receiver and take lead with 15 seconds left, or throw it away with 14 seconds left.)
4th Down: Run Lynch. (Take lead with 11 seconds left or lose game) (or play-action Lynch and bootleg Wilson)

And that's a good strategy too. Either way, it's a four-down strategy that involves a pass at some point, and it's just not a huge deal to me whether they ran second down and threw on third, or vice versa. The key was to call a minimal-risk pass like you described.

[Kingspoint]

For 2014, passing from the 1 yielded nearly the same amount of success as rushing. Less than a tenth of one percent difference.

This is not the travesty of all calls- with clock management in mind the pass makes sense.

Marshawn Lynch has not been any sort of guarantee form the 1, and in fact he's in the bottom of the league at it over the last four years.

That isn't cherry-picking, that's just pointing out that this is not the "no brainer" everyone is making it out to be.

It's the very definition of cherry-picking stats. Talk about small-sample size with little relevance to the situation that we're speaking about?! What he accomplished earlier in the year when Patrick Lewis, Lemuel Jeanpierre, or Steve Schilling were playing Center (and run-blocking poorly every one of them) has nothing to do with how Lynch would perform at this particular moment running behind Max Unger. It's equivalent to running behind Rich Braham at his best versus Eric Ghiacuic at his worst. And, what Lynch did in previous seasons behind completely different O-Lines with a differenct Marshawn Lynch also has nothing to do with how he would perform in this particular instance.

[RedsBaron]

And that's a good strategy too. Either way, it's a four-down strategy that involves a pass at some point, and it's just not a huge deal to me whether they ran second down and threw on third, or vice versa. The key was to call a minimal-risk pass like you described.

Agreed. I actually like in a way passing on second rather than on third down as a pass on third down, after two tries to run it in, is probably more expected than a second down pass. I still like Wilson on a roll out style pass play where he can also run it in himself if the opportunity is there, or, at worst, heave it into the stands.

[bigredmechanism]

Matthews had a high ankle sprain at the beginning of the season and was healthy by the 4th week of the season. He had no excuses for his poor play at that point. Holmes was replaced by Schrader before the mid-point of the season. If you're referring to Schrader as one of the "two undrafted players", I'm not sure why, unless you're trying to infer that he was inexperienced. He was 26 years old. He'd been around for awhile. After the Starting Guards, Schrader was the team's best lineman last season. Losing Konz was a positive thing, not a negative thing, as Konz was a crappy Center at this point in his career. Hawley looked like he was going to be decent enough, pass-blocking well before he went down, but struggling badly as a run-blocker. Konz' replacement, James Stone struggled mostly, but played well in a third of his 10 games that he started. Both Atlanta Guards played well all season. Baker's loss was a positive, not a negative, as anyone could have replaced him and not done worse. He was terrible in 2013 before he went down to injury a quarter of the way into that season. Hoping his 2014 was going to be as good as his 2012 and not reflective of the beginning of his 2013 was a folly of a hope. He was destined to be a terrible player again in 2014. The only downfall was what I had mentioned. It forced Matthews into playing LT his first season when they were hoping to ease him in at RT his first season before moving him over. And, again, Matthews ankle sprain was fully healed (in football terms) by the 4th week of the season. As I mentioned, he played well the last third of the season in pass-blocking.

I watched how Tice handled Matthews on Hard-Knocks. I thought it was typical Tice...arrogant, over-confident, with no ability to recognize positives and negatives of his players. Matthews may have needed to be humbled a bit, but Tice is so old-school NFL that he reeks of stupidity. I keep a pretty close eye on the Falcons (and most teams, but moreso the Falcons for many, many reasons). You merely disagree with me that Tice contributed positively to the overall development of the Offensive Line. Very little could be done with the talent that was put together on the O-line, I agree with. I was as disappointed at how little the Falcons addressed their needs of improving the O-line (relying on Baker was a huge mistake, while retaining Konz was another...two wasted rotational spots that could have been filled by others more reliable during last year's Free Agency), as I was at the Falcons not addressing the TE position properly. I won't even go into the Secondary and the Coaches. They waited a year too long to replace Mike Smith.

All that is in the past, as they've clearly changed their attitude at the very top. They've put together a nice Management package of GM Thomas Dimitroff, Assistant GM Scott Pioli (though Pioli has failed miserably since he left New England, I believe he's still got the potential to change what problems he had personally after he left Belicek's guidance), and HC Dan Quinn. Not sure about what Kyle Shanahan will bring, as Shanahan hasn't really had a chance to put his stamp on any Offense yet as an OC (Snyder always stepping in while heavy changes were made each year in Washington). And, now they've added Richard Smith as Defensive Coordinator, giving Smith his first chance after years of NFL experience, to see what he can do with more responsibility.

Add to that....Raheem Morris assistant head coach/defensive passing game coordinator, Bobby Turner as running backs coach, and Mike LaFleur as offensive assistant. The club has also retained Special Teams Coordinator Keith Armstrong, Defensive Line coach Bryan Cox, Tight Ends Coach Wade Harman, Wide Receivers Coach Terry Robiskie, and Assistant Special Teams Coach Eric Sutulovich.

Atlanta has, to me, easily been the best at putting together a solid foundation for it's team for the future. With Ryan and Julio as it's main weapons, and a weak division to go up against, there's no reason to not believe that Atlanta will win it's Division next season and several more seasons after that. I believe Ryan is a Top-7 QB in the NFL and will hold that position for the next four to five years.

We disagree on several points, but I appreciate the in depth reply.

For one, I don't see anywhere that Matthews was healthy by week 4. This article (http://atlantafalcons.blog.ajc.com/2014/11/13/jake-matthews-recovering-from-high-ankle-sprain/) right here is going into week 11 and he's talking about how he's still dealing with it, although it had made progress. High ankle sprains are notorious to take a long time to heal, and 3 weeks would be the absolute best case scenario, one which Jake Matthews wasn't afforded. I still think he will get it worked out and become a good lineman, and I expect 2015 to go a lot better for him than his rookie campaign. I don't think Baker is as bad as you depicted, nor as good as you seem to think I indicated. He's an okay tackle when healthy. But when you lose an okay tackle, and move a rookie into his spot, and temporarily move a tight end into the rookie's spot, there is really no way you could call that a positive. I don't expect him to be with the team next season. Hawley had by all accounts really improved coming into this season, and his loss was tough. The injuries they sustained should have resulted in worse on field production than we saw last year, but they didn't.

Listen, I'm a Falcons fan, and I didn't like the move to bring in Tice. I didn't buy into the reasoning for it, and I never liked Tice in the first place. But considering what hand he was dealt and the results he got, he did a superb job. I think he could very well just be one of those guys who's good at coaching a position but doesn't have the aptitude to be handed the keys for any more responsibility.

The season was shot before it started. Losing Weatherspoon, who isn't even that great, basically sealed the fate of the defense, which wasn't promising to begin with. WillyMo getting hurt just further cemented the fact that we were not stopping any decent offense in any way in 2014. We just got sort of lucky that all the other NFC South teams struggled and it left us with a chance. It's probably better that we finished so poorly because we'll give Quinn a good chance at an impact player at our draft position.

I'm not sold on Dimitroff as much as I once was. The guy has not addressed the team's most pressing need for several years, which has been getting any pressure on the opposing QB. Maybe Hageman can improve, but they really need someone to bring pass rush. I'd love for us to draft Shane Ray if he's available.

[RedsBaron]

I have read that the final Las Vegas line favored New England by 1.5 points. Seattle could have kicked a field goal to make it 28-27 and covered the spread. ;)

[Kingspoint]

bigredmechanism, as far as Matthews' "high-ankle sprain", I had put in parenthesis "football terms" when I was saying he was healthy enough in Week 4 not to have it as an excuse for his poor play. His poor play was, as you and I both have stated, his being a rookie thrust in at LT in the NFL...a guarantee for failure no matter who you are or how healthy you are. He redeemed himself the last third of the season against some good opponent's as a pass-blocker, but never could get his run-blocking down. Some of that surely was in part due to his high-ankle sprain where he couldn't get enough of a push and drive from his lower body, but most of his failure still had to do with technique and not strength. Certainly Tice's experience at blocking should have helped at teaching the younger players. I think his attitude overrode his effectiveness, though. Perhaps Tice gets a lot of credit for Schraeder's growth and positive effectiveness. More likely to me, it's like Evan Mathis....someone who spent enough seasons in the league to understand that he needed to hit the weightroom seriously if he wanted to be effective. They found a gem in Schraeder and do not have to draft for RT now. Matthews stays at LT. Guards are set, and Hawley gets another shot at Center. Going into this off-season, I would have said that Hawley needed to hit the weightroom. But, with Kyle Shanahan coming in, they're going to be committed to slide-blocking and cut-off blocking, where O-Linemen are generally lighter and quicker. Hawley fits that build right now, while Schraeder also fits that size (both of them being 300 instead of the 330 needed for a man-on-man-bocking line (what the Bengals employ). Matthews, of course, can do either, so it doesn't matter. The O-line will automatically be better just because of the change in style fits their personnel better.

They still need to draft a WR who can start right away.

[Kingspoint]

From Rotoworld w/ Rotoworld comments:

Speaking Tuesday, Falcons owner Arthur Blank appeared to admit the team pumped artificial noise into its 2013-14 home games.

''It's not really a fine line,'' Blank said. ''I think what we've done in 2013 and 2014 was wrong. Anything that affects the competitive balance and fairness on the field, we're opposed to." Blank must know the league has irrefutable evidence, and is trying to get out in front of the apology game. The Falcons are subject to both a hefty fine and loss of draft picks. Blank's contriteness could level down the punishment, however.

Source: Associated Press (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/blank-says-falcons-wrong-add-fake-crowd-noise-195550967--nfl.html)

Construction is underway for a new $1.4 billion stadium which will replace the Georgia Dome in 2017.

[bigredmechanism]

They still need to draft a WR who can start right away.

Really? I think with Jones, Douglas and Roddy they are pretty set at WR. At least, other positions are of in more dire need.


Arthur Blank appeared to admit the team pumped artificial noise into its 2013-14 home games.

Wonder what kind of penalty they will get for that. Late pick + cash fine?

[Kingspoint]

Really? I think with Jones, Douglas and Roddy they are pretty set at WR. At least, other positions are of in more dire need.


Yes. I think White's career was over before last year began. Douglas can step in as a serviceable #3WR, but he just doesn't get enough separation to act as a complement to Julio Jones. And, there's no Receiving TE, so they're left with just one legitimate WR. That's not enough weapons to take advantage of the very great skills of Ryan Leaf.

[RedsBaron]

I read that Tom Brady said he will give the Chevrolet Colorado he won for being Super Bowl MVP to Malcolm Butler. I can't see Brady being a pickup truck kind of guy but it would still give a good gesture for him to do that.

[757690]

You were saying that if I have a 50% chance of scoring that if I try twice that means I have a 100% chance of scoring.

That is simply not true.

The league did better at passing from the 1 than running it.

1 pick all year out of 109 attempts. That doesn't seem "risky" to me.

Meanwhile Lynch was 30th out of 39 backs in that situation.

The mistake you're making is treating the success rate so far of Lynch and NFL as the same as the odds of flipping a coin.

The odds of flipping a coin is set, and never changes. The success rate of NFL players on certain plays changes all the time. Also, when we flip a coin, the same thing happens every time. No two plays in the NFL are the same, have the same players, are executed in the same situation, same time of the game, same down, same score, etc.

The odds of a coin flip are always 50-50. The odds of the success of a certain play is always unknown. Using previous data helps us get a better handle on the predicting the success of a play, but it plays just one small part in helping us understand the success of a play. We also need to figure out who is playing, who is handling the ball, who is on defense, what the score is, at what point in the game is this happening, what are the matchups, etc.

To me the biggest factor is who will be the key players in the play. When the game is on the line, and I have two or three plays left to make, do I want to trust it to my dominant running back, who had been nearly unstoppable all game long, or do I want to trust a running QB, whose passing skills are he weakest link?

[M2]

I read that Tom Brady said he will give the Chevrolet Colorado he won for being Super Bowl MVP to Malcolm Butler. I can't see Brady being a pickup truck kind of guy but it would still give a good gesture for him to do that.

I know where he lives. He needs that truck like he needs a hovercraft. Come to think of it, he'd probably come up with more uses for the hovercraft.

[Dom Heffner]

The mistake you're making is treating the success rate so far of Lynch and NFL as the same as the odds of flipping a coin.

The odds of flipping a coin is set, and never changes. The success rate of NFL players on certain plays changes all the time. Also, when we flip a coin, the same thing happens every time. No two plays in the NFL are the same, have the same players, are executed in the same situation, same time of the game, same down, same score, etc.

The odds of a coin flip are always 50-50. The odds of the success of a certain play is always unknown. Using previous data helps us get a better handle on the predicting the success of a play, but it plays just one small part in helping us understand the success of a play. We also need to figure out who is playing, who is handling the ball, who is on defense, what the score is, at what point in the game is this happening, what are the matchups, etc.

To me the biggest factor is who will be the key players in the play. When the game is on the line, and I have two or three plays left to make, do I want to trust it to my dominant running back, who had been nearly unstoppable all game long, or do I want to trust a running QB, whose passing skills are he weakest link?

You took 40% success and said to get to 80% you just run the play twice.

I am not making a mistake. You are.

[Razor Shines]

I know where he lives. He needs that truck like he needs a hovercraft. Come to think of it, he'd probably come up with more uses for the hovercraft.

I imagine Brady started to get a little nauseous at the idea of sitting at his dining room table trying to choke down his dinner knowing that there was a Chevy parked somewhere in his giant garage.

[dabvu2498]

I imagine Brady started to get a little nauseous at the idea of sitting at his dining room table trying to choke down his dinner knowing that there was a Chevy parked somewhere in his giant garage.

A mid-sized Chevy, no less.

[bigredmechanism]

A mid-sized Chevy, no less.

He doesn't come across as a loud-Red mid sized Chevy kind of dude at all.

[Razor Shines]

A mid-sized Chevy, no less.

I know right? Gross. I'm sure his Butler will love it though.

[757690]

You took 40% success and said to get to 80% you just run the play twice.

I am not making a mistake. You are.

We both made mistakes.

[Kingspoint]

From Rotoworld w/ Rotoworld comments:

CBS Sports' Jason La Canfora reports impending free agent Jordan Cameron is "not interested" in re-signing with the Browns.

Who would choose to remain in that mess of an organization? We can't blame Cameron. Although he's proven to be extremely prone to concussions, Cameron is a major threat when on the field. The former college basketball player is a seam-stretching tight end who averaged 17.7 YPR this past season. He's going to be one of the more interesting free-agent cases to follow in March.

Source: CBS Sports