NFL 2014-2015 Season Discussion

[Use of Time]

I will say this. Regardless of whether there was any cheating, I'm extremely skeptical that it could have changed the result of the game.

See, the problem is the same as the Spygate thing (sorry!): I agree it didn't make a difference, BUT...if it didn't make a difference, why do it? You don't violate NFL rules on purpose (assuming that's what happened) for no reason. What other possible motive could there be? They apparently believed it would give them an advantage, and then whether it actually did or not becomes irrelevant.

If this story turns out to be true, which I didn't think it was at the beginning, then I call bullshit on that. WTF???!?!

This is bizarre. And I was willing to give NE the benefit of the doubt at first... I guess we'll find out more as it goes along.

I agree with that. An intent to gain an unfair advantage is a big deal regardless of whether it succeeds. And a team that has been implicated in the past should be above reproach. I think it's all problematic, I just think the fact that it probably didn't impact the game should be kept in mind.

This. Shit Bill, your guys are better than everyone else. Just get them ready to play and knock the nonsense off. For all the complaining it is undoubtedly self inflicted.

As for the Seahawks mugging receivers on every play, it was kind of funny to see the flags flying like crazy against Green Bay. Their strategy almost bit them last Sunday.

 

[BK613]

You know, deflategate* might end up being a systemic problem of the NFL with the ball handlers, referees and the QBs. Head coaches need not be involved.




*(difficult to type that with a straight face)

 

[Green Shirt]

And the New England Cheatriots sink further down into the steamy dungpile of infamy.

Bada ba ba ba, I'm lovin it.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Or one of the scummier franchises in the league just saw an opportunity to fire some shots at their current biggest rival and took it.

And of course the Patriots are going to play. If any punishment is meted out it will probably be a fine and a loss of a draft pick.

ETA: And I can see them possibly suspending Belichick this time. But the idea that the Patriots won't play in the Super Bowl is ludicrous.

I was giving benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jedi_Master]

All I know is that after several days of discussion about deflated balls, I am thinking that Cialis™ execs have to be contemplating offering Robert Kraft a sponsorship deal.

 

[Tom Servo]

And the New England Cheatriots sink further down into the steamy dungpile of infamy.

Bada ba ba ba, I'm lovin it.

Hows the Ravens golf game right now??

And you still haven't answered my question. Why do people in the know, football execs, coaches, and many media members thing this is no big deal? Because it's not despite what you want to think.

Oh and:

"@AdamSchefter says on @SportsCenter that from what he has been told, Bill Belichick had no knowledge of deflated footballs."


Your open bias is hilarious.

 

[Timby]

deflategate*

We can be so much more creative than that.

The Ballocaust
Ballmageddon
ChernoBall
The Hindenball
The BallBonic Plague
The Assassination of Aballham Lincoln
Lee Harvey Ballswald
The Ball of Pigs
Pearl Harball
The Uniballer
Mass Ballsteria
The War on Ballsmas
The Ballston Massacre
Ballpox
EBalla
The Eruption of Ball St. Helens
Ball so soft university
GettysBall

 

[Scout101]

Ballgazi has been my favorite to date. And probably carries about the same connotation where one side with an agenda is desperate to make this a scandal

 

[Jedi_Master]

I have to say the irritation of Patriot fans has been amusing to watch.

It's almost like they aren't going to the Super Bowl after winning yet another AFC championship.

You can't have it all folks. You can't be a fan of a winning team and not have people bitch about your team, call you cheaters, etc. It happens. Take solace in the fact that most of those folks and their favorite teams haven't seen the playoffs in a long while, much less the Super Bowl.

 

[Trekker4747]

The thing is, I don't see how under-inflating the balls provided any advantage. If I recall correctly on Mythbusters they've done at least two tests centered around stuff of this nature. One was a corked bat, and the other was a football filled with helium. And in both cases the presumed result (hitting the ball harder/further, throwing/kicking the ball harder/further) didn't pan out.

The reduced mass of the ball cannot be adequately compensated for by the presumed increase in acceleration you can get by hitting or throwing it harder because of the reduced mass. In their tests the corked bat and helium-ball both UNDER-performed when used by professionals. The physics wasn't in their favor.

So, if anything, under-inflating the balls would be a hindrance more than a help.

Talking with a friend about this yesterday he agreed, but felt that the idea was that the under-inflated ball was easier to grip or hold onto, since I guess it would give more to your grip giving you stronger purchase on the ball.

Which.... maybe. But I still can't see that being too great an advantage to make it worth the risk and I'd think if the ball was under-inflated enough to be noticeably beneficial then certainly the refs (who handle the ball a lot as well) would have noticed it, no?

I find this whole story very odd.

 

[BK613]

The Ballston Massacre

That is what we should call this AFC championship game.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The thing is, I don't see how under-inflating the balls provided any advantage. If I recall correctly on Mythbusters they've done at least two tests centered around stuff of this nature. One was a corked bat, and the other was a football filled with helium. And in both cases the presumed result (hitting the ball harder/further, throwing/kicking the ball harder/further) didn't pan out.

The reduced mass of the ball cannot be adequately compensated for by the presumed increase in acceleration you can get by hitting or throwing it harder because of the reduced mass. In their tests the corked bat and helium-ball both UNDER-performed when used by professionals. The physics wasn't in their favor.

So, if anything, under-inflating the balls would be a hindrance more than a help.

Talking with a friend about this yesterday he agreed, but felt that the idea was that the under-inflated ball was easier to grip or hold onto, since I guess it would give more to your grip giving you stronger purchase on the ball.

Which.... maybe. But I still can't see that being too great an advantage to make it worth the risk and I'd think if the ball was under-inflated enough to be noticeably beneficial then certainly the refs (who handle the ball a lot as well) would have noticed it, no?

I find this whole story very odd.

I think it's only a matter of Brady's preference. But since everyone uses the same balls, it doesn't so much give an "advantage" as you say. And I certainly wouldn't classify it as cheating. I don't even know why it's a rule.

I've seen people compare it pitchers scuffing a baseball, which is ridiculous. Doctoring the ball allows him to add movement beyond anything he could ever create naturally. Not only that, the baseballs are constantly being rotated, hit into the stands, etc., so he isn't guaranteed to have it for very long, and the other guy probably won't get to use it at all.

If it's such an issue, Colts, then next year win more games, get home-field throughout, and Luck can inflate the balls to his liking.

And they got their assed handed to them. Does anyone actually believe the weight of the football would have made that much of a difference?

This comes off a lot like sore losing.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

And they got their assed handed to them. Does anyone actually believe the weight of the football would have made that much of a difference?

I agree, and I'm a Colts fan. The final score was 45-7. The Colts should use this experience as motivation to get better--because they need to get better, as I don't believe they're as good as their record indicates; they play in a sorry division where only the Texans offer any sort of challenge. I was profoundly disappointed in their performances against New England and Pittsburgh during the regular season, and I've a feeling that if Peyton Manning had been healthy during the second's second half that the Colts would never have made it to Foxboro.

Edit: The Colts are 16-2 (4-2; 6-0; 6-0) within their division the past three seasons, and 17-13 (7-3; 5-5; 5-5) against everyone else since 2012.

--Sran

 

[gblews]

Richard Shrman recently on Tom Brady:

Like I said before, I think people sometimes get a skewed view of Tom Brady. That he's just a clean-cut, does everything right, and never says a bad word to anyone. And we know him to be otherwise. So, in that moment of him being himself, he said some things and we returned the favor. And unfortunately he apparently didn't remember what he said, etc., etc., but I'm sure in those moments of him yelling at the ref he's just saying, 'Good job, you're doing a fantastic job, keep it up.'

Sherman on Peyton Manning:

Peyton is the Classiest person/player I have ever met! I could learn so much from him! Thank you for being a great Competitor and person

— Richard Sherman (@RSherman_25) February 3, 2014​

But on the other hand, maybe this is the reason Peyton has only one Super Bowl ring, he's too nice? But some people find it easier to throw bouquets at people whose asses you have just thoroughly kicked.
​

Regardless, it's on like a m****r f****r


​

 

[Unicron]

Kind of OT, but perhaps this is best posted here.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTRmyXX6ipU[/yt]

I don't watch football that often, but they sound better this way.

 

[Borgminister]

Glad those guys are still around.... Not the smokehouse kind....

 

[Scout101]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...olis-colts-says-one-noticed-ball-was-inflated

Good news, now the guy reported to have started the whole thing after the interception says he had nothing to do with it, and how would he be able to tell anyway?

So, Colts reported it, but both the guy with the interception and the head coach have said they had nothing to do with it. So, where did this come from, again?

Yeah, this story definitely isn't a witch hunt or sour grapes...

 

[Timby]

Yeah, this story definitely isn't a witch hunt or sour grapes...

I'm not going to deny that this is the most boring "scandal" the NFL has had recently, but Brady did botch his press conference yesterday pretty badly.

"Is Tom Brady a cheater?"

Brady: "I don't believe so."

I mean, c'mon, he should absolutely have expected that question and been prepared to clearly deny it. The way he was parsing his answers yesterday was the way a non-immunized hostile witness would answer questions in a felony case.

It's also a plausibility stretcher that the guy throwing the balls didn't notice anything different but the one Colts player to touch one did. It's really hard to take Brady's "Oh, I touch them, they're my baby, no one messes with them but me, I touch them every snap all game" statement with his later "Yeah, I had no idea they were a little deflated later, never thought about it between the first and second half after they swapped them out."

I mean, we have to go pretty deeply into Heideggerian phenomenology to square that circle.

Edit: But anyway, it's still the most boring thing ever. If the NFL hasn't even talked to Brady yet (lawl, A+ investigation Goodell) then they're just going to sweep this under the rug with a token fine after the Super Bowl.

 

[BK613]

but the one Colts player to touch one did. .

Except he didn't...
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...olis-colts-says-one-noticed-ball-was-inflated
---
Given the number of QBs and others who have acknowledged this week that QBs personalize their footballs, I still think this is going to turn out to be a league-wide, systemic problem.

 

[Shaw]

Did the Patriots organization cheat? Absolutely! Did it have a major effect on the outcome of the game? No.

What does it matter?

We actually do have a historical event that we can use for a comparison... the 1972 Presidential Election (which was won by Nixon in one of the most lopsided victories in recent US history).

Did the Committee to Re-elect the President engage in "dirty tricks" during the 1972 Presidential Campaign season? Absolutely! Did it have a major effect on the outcome of the election? No.

And now almost no one in the world knows of the "Watergate scandal" because it had no measurable effect on the outcome of the 1972 election. Had Watergate not happened or had not been uncovered, Nixon would have still won in a landslide... just like the Patriots' victory over the Colts.

Nothing to see here people, lets move on.