the slight deflation of a ball made the difference 59 points, had they add the extra PSI then it would have been a FG game?
Brady suspended 4 games, Patriots lose first round pick in 2016
- Thread starter Yessir
- Start date
the slight deflation of a ball made the difference 59 points, had they add the extra PSI then it would have been a FG game?
Looking at Brady's season stats:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm
I'd say 2001-2003 are the ones that best reflect him. Everything since then is tainted.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm
I'd say 2001-2003 are the ones that best reflect him. Everything since then is tainted.
Yes, but it is a complicated concept for some to grasp. Just like playing golf with a non-conforming golfball that is 1.62 inches in diameter (instead of the minimum 1.68) will let you drive the ball 20-25 yards farther.
He won 2 SBs in those 3 years
---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------
do you know for a fact what the PSI was of the Titans balls? you are reaching w/ this nonsense. all teams try to do things to gain an edge, this particular infraction is pretty minor and had little effect on a 59 pt game.
All teams do try to gain an edge, but not all teams break the rules to gain an edge. If you don't think having a ball with better grip than your opponent has in games like that isn't going to have a drastic effect, then I don't know what to say. No point in discussing it with you anymore.
yep, the same team that was 5-11 in 2000 w/o him then 0-2 to start 2001 w/o him. Brady was THE reason why they went from bad team to dynasty. He may not have put up eye popping #s at that time but he was the key to those teams.
---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------
there's no point in discussing the topic w/ someone who thinks the difference in a FIFTY NINE point win was the slight underinflation of a football.
I can't possibly see how people think Brady is so good when we know he has cheated. Once a cheat, always a cheat. I thought this was interesting:
In good weather Peyton Manning and Brady's stats are very similar. However in cold weather, Brady's passer rating is a respectable 91.4% while Manning drops down to 68.8%. It's also interesting that Brady's receivers drop their passes 3x less than Manning's.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/79050/tom-brady-thrives-in-new-england-weather
Brady is either immune to cold weather or he cheats.
We already know one of these to be true.
In good weather Peyton Manning and Brady's stats are very similar. However in cold weather, Brady's passer rating is a respectable 91.4% while Manning drops down to 68.8%. It's also interesting that Brady's receivers drop their passes 3x less than Manning's.
http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/79050/tom-brady-thrives-in-new-england-weather
Brady is either immune to cold weather or he cheats.
We already know one of these to be true.
Last edited by a moderator:
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
You don't grasp that concept do you?
You have no idea what the score would have been if the Pats offense would have struggled as much as the Titans offense. No idea. Maybe it would have been a one score game maybe the Pats would have lost the game. If one offense has a significant advantage in those condition by being able to hold onto the ball better and do gimmick plays on top while the other team is struggling inside the rules with those weather conditions, yes, it definitely can become a blowout and maybe just a couple PSI is enough.
If that game would have been played in 70F with sunny and clear skies and no wind you may have a point. But in conditions where even teams like GB might struggle having a deflated ball where every offensive player has an advantage it will make a huge difference.
Winning the turnover battle is stat that most strongly correlates with winning the game. If you win the turnover battle you will win the game 79% of the time. In a game like the Titans game, the Titans lost the ball 5 times which the Cheats were able to capitalize on. When that happens, it is quickly going to turn into a blowout game.
Deflating the balls will have the biggest impact on games exactly like that. It becomes an even bigger advantage in game conditions like that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Junc.....Didn't you notice how much worse the Patriots played during the second half of the AFCCG? I mean they could barely hold on to the ball
because that huge advantage they had during the 1st half was gone. :sidelol:
Same with the SB....can't you see what a huge advantage those deflated balls were? :sidelol:
I don't know if you watch much football, but if you did... you would know that once you are comfortably ahead in the game, you can play the game a little differently to make it harder on the opposing team. Folks who follow football understand when teams gets behind (like the Colts were in the 3rd quarter) their offense becomes a lot more one dimensional. That means they rely on the pass more than they would like which is actually easier for opposing defenses to defend against.
Also when your ahead, the game dynamics change for your offense. For example, Blount rushed more in the 2nd half than the first half. Lots of technical reasons for why offenses do this that I won't delve into so just take my word for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not talking about the colts playing from behind. If NE had such a huge advantage you would have thought
we'd have seen lots of dropped passes and fumbles by NE and surely we could have seen the difficulty
Brady was having trying to grip the ball.
So...what's the next lame excuse for the SB? According to you experts underinflated balls was the reason NE doesn't fumble and seeing
how the balls were kept in custody of league officals then NE should have been at a huge disadvantage...well at least according to you.
I'm afraid that your evidence and reasoning hold about as much truth as the wells report.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Where was the Super Bowl played and what was the weather like? Keep in mind that bad weather makes fumbles more likely. Good weather and conditions make it less likely.
2. Fumbling isn't very common. Even the worst teams fumble around 1.9 times per game. It's actually not at all that unusual for a game to be played without a fumble. So using their lack of fumbling in the Super Bowl as proof they don't cheat is rather foolish.
Last edited by a moderator:
Its more proof than anything you've thrown out. Those are all your OPINIONs not facts.