interesting take from a former patriots player on how he thinks this controversy will play out in the patriots' locker room.
i almost wonder if belichick did this for the sole purpose of creating the controversy as a means of bringing the team together more closely.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
No. They may turn it into this unifying thing, but that wasn't why they did it. they did it for one reason: competitive edge.
I'd wager it happens quite a bit.
Apparently doctoring/conditioning footballs is nothing new.
Eli Manning's game-day footballs each undergo several days of prepping rituals - and then they get used in practice before going to the game:
Tampa Bay Bucs Superbowl winning QB Brad Johnson paid thousands of dollars to get the Superbowl game-day footballs scuffed and broken in by "some guy".
Aaron Rodgers prefers overinflated footballs. He was quoted as saying last month "I like to push the limit to how much air we can put in the football, even go over what they allow you to do and see if the officials take air out of it"
If the NFL REALLY doesn't want balls to be doctored or modified, they should stop using team-supplied balls for the game. Duh? How hard is that? I'd bet QB completions would go down and fumbles would go up as players adjust to balls with a different surface and feel.
Here is what I don't get: If an under inflated ball (or over inflated - take your pick), allows for easier throws/completions, what's the problem with that?
How is increasing completions damaging the product?
I don't watch a lot of football, but when I do I like seeing the ball thrown really far and reeled in by the receiver. I've never felt there were too many touchdowns being scored.
They already let the kickers use their own balls. Why not the QB'?
They already let the kickers use their own balls. Why not the QB'?
The kickers balls are smoother (or maybe I should say "The balls given to the kickers are smoother" - football does have a certain homoerotic following), presumably to make them more aerodynamic. Cheating? You bet. When Jon Ryan tossed the ball from the fake field-goal for a TD, was that cheating? Undeniably.
Is it cheating if everyone playing the game is aware of these modifications and has every opportunity to make their own?
no, as it should be. or only nfl officials should be allowed to prep balls.
Here is what I don't get: If an under inflated ball (or over inflated - take your pick), allows for easier throws/completions, what's the problem with that?
How is increasing completions damaging the product?
I don't watch a lot of football, but when I do I like seeing the ball thrown really far and reeled in by the receiver. I've never felt there were too many touchdowns being scored.
The NFL has become a pass heavy league. If these two graphs dont convince you, look no further than rule changes that protect quarterbacks or how much defensive backs are paid.
The air pressure also allows a running back to have a tighter grip on the ball. So, basically youd be granting every offensive player on the field an advantage. Keep in mind that the NFL has already become a league dominated by offense. The Seahawks defense of the last couple years has been talked about as a great one, but defenses like the 76 Steelers, 85 bears, and 71 Vikings are mostly a thing of the past.
Is it cheating if everyone playing the game is aware of these modifications and has every opportunity to make their own?
So when there is a change in possession do they change to the ball supplied by the other team? Or keep using the same ball?
So when there is a change in possession do they change to the ball supplied by the other team? Or keep using the same ball?
The team on offense supplies the balls for for its own downs. From what I read, the first underinflated ball ended up with the Colts when Brady threw the interception in the first half. A Colts assistant then passed the ball on to an NFL official to be inspected.
Pretty flimsy, but interesting nonetheless.
I hope this goes away this week and the media can re-focus on what should be a banger game. From the press conference yesterday, it's clear Belichick wants it gone.
Pretty flimsy, but interesting nonetheless.
I hope this goes away this week and the media can re-focus on what should be a banger game. From the press conference yesterday, it's clear Belichick wants it gone.
Here is an article with another statistical analysis (the Pats have a ridiculously high average number of total offensive plays per fumble, 73 versus the NFL average 48 or so)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/patriots-always-keep-a-tight-grip-on-the-ball-1422054846
Someone notes (in the comments) that the measure of fumbles per offensive play is meaningless, as a many, and sometimes most, offensive plays end in an incomplete pass (ie pass plays that are dropped, overthrown, underthrown, intercepted or broken up).
A more accurate measure is the number of fumbles per sum of _ total completed passes + total running plays_ (passes that don't end up in the receiver's possession will NEVER be fumbled). Not total number of offensive plays.
So based only on completed pass plays and running plays, New England are hardly outliers - Baltimore are first, the Pats second, Falcons 3rd, Packers 4th in a fairly orderly progression. In the raw statistics - simple "Fumbles per game" - a pure measure of fumbles, New England is tied for second with 2 other teams (Jacksonville and San Diego - Minnestoa is first). Its hardly an indication of a runaway lead in not fumbling. In fact, a lower QB rating could skew the fumble stats in the above graph down with more incomplete passes (they are statistically fumble-proof).
"There are 3 types of untruth - lies, damn lies and statistics".
Forum jump:
