Are you ready for some NFL Football? 2014 Edition.

[phan52]

[Gunther]

If we haven't learned anything, feel isn't real. It could possibly just be a mental thing than a real substantial advantage.

It's an obvious advantage, I've done it myself. No one measured the advantage of HGH, in fact many said it doesn't provide an advantage at all in terms of hitting a baseball for example. I agree with you that a DQ won't happen but your argument that deflating the footballs does not provide an advantage or one cannot determine scientifically exactly what that advantage was is off base.

[CarlSpackler]

More NFL dirt...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/21/brad-johnson-paid-a-bribe-to-tamper-with-footballs-at-the-super-bowl/?utm_network=facebook&utm;_post=3345749&utm;_source=FB%20-%20SNF%20on%20NBC&utm;_tags=

[saevel25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther


It's an obvious advantage, I've done it myself. No one measured the advantage of HGH, in fact many said it doesn't provide an advantage at all in terms of hitting a baseball for example.

I agree with you that a DQ won't happen but your argument that deflating the footballs does not provide an advantage or one cannot determine scientifically exactly what that advantage was is off base.

I never said it couldn't be proven. I just want to see someone actually prove how much of an advantage it really is. If the NFL wants to lay down the hammer because they cheated that is fine. I am more interest if the rule is actually that important to begin with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarlSpackler

More NFL dirt...

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/21/brad-johnson-paid-a-bribe-to-tamper-with-footballs-at-the-super-bowl/?utm_network=facebook&utm;_post=3345749&utm;_source=FB%20-%20SNF%20on%20NBC&utm;_tags=

Quote:

Johnson says he had all of the footballs tampered with, meaning that if the balls were easier for the Buccaneers to throw and catch, they were also easier for the Raiders to throw and catch.

Yea, not NFL dirt more so Brad Johnson dirt. At least he had the sense to tamper with all the footballs.

[dsc123]

The Johnson thing isn't the same. He's saying he had all the balls scuffed up. Not only his balls. And I think that is basically legal now.

[CarlSpackler]

Yea, not NFL dirt more so Brad Johnson dirt. At least he had the sense to tamper with all the footballs.

The fact that he was able to do it IS an NFL thing.

[meenman]

Bottom line, if it wasn't an advantage then why would they break the rules doing it. Even belicheat would not break rules that did not help him. Why do most of us leave the flag stick in from off the green - while legal, it is still an advantage.

[Golfingdad]

Nope. The refs test the balls them give them back to a team employee to hold for the rest of the game.

And yes, it's up to the refs to make sure it's in compliance. That's why they test it before the game. That's why they took a ball out of play during the game. That's why they tested them after the game. That's why the NFL investigated. And that's how we know this happened.

What we know happened, so far, is that the balls were under-inflated during and after the game.  What we don't know is at what point they became under-inflated or how.  It seems to me that with the quantity and quality (hello HD!) of cameras at every NFL game, and especially a playoff game, it should be too hard to go through the footage and find some suspicious looking activity with a ball boy and Brady or something like that.  (You're probably not going to see him pull a pump and needle out of his sock while looking over his shoulder suspiciously, but you might see something) Now, absent that, let me submit to you an alternate theory, and you tell me why it's not plausible:

Aaron Rodgers has admitted that he attempts to over-inflate his balls and that the refs take air out of them "all the time."  If the refs never let one slip by, why would he bother to over-inflate his balls every single time?  Doesn't it seem reasonable that he occasionally gets some through into the games?  Remember, it's the referee who is testing these - don't make me go back through the thread and quote all of the posts where everybody talks about how stupid and incompetent the referees are.  Isn't it entirely possible that they sometimes screw this up too, and Rodgers knows that and that is why we always tries to get the over-inflated balls into the games?

So, isn't it also possible that is exactly what the Patriots did here - and it just so happened to work?  I mean, 11 of the 12 balls?  Not one or two or 6, but 11?

The Johnson thing isn't the same. He's saying he had all the balls scuffed up. Not only his balls. And I think that is basically legal now.

Now wait a second.  We've already got Aaron Rodgers on record as saying he likes them over-inflated but nobody else probably does.  If we believe him, then that means that if he did something like this in the Super Bowl he would be creating an advantage for himself and a disadvantage for everybody else, no?  So how do we know that this wasn't something that Johnson specifically preferred and nobody else did?  This is blatant cheating.  Until we get an answer on the Patriots situation, this is actually far worse.  And you suggesting otherwise really takes away from the quality of some of your other posts here.  You made a good point about Rodgers being different, and I stipulated and even came up with an example as to why you were right, but this is ridiculous.  And the fact that it's now legal has no relevance at all.

---

Speaking of Aaron Rodgers (from this story posted about him):

"I have a major problem with the way it goes down, to be honest with you," Rodgers said Tuesday on his ESPN Milwaukee radio show. "The majority of the time, they take air out of the football. I think that, for me, is a disadvantage."

Rodgers said he likes the ball to be inflated because of his strong grip pressure and large hand size but doesn't believe that's the norm.

"The majority of quarterbacks, I would say more than half, are maybe on the other end of the spectrum and like it on the flatter side," he said on his show. "My belief is that there should be a minimum air-pressure requirement but not a maximum. There's no advantage, in my opinion -- we're not kicking the football -- there's no advantage in having a pumped-up football.

Ummm ... what?

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

What we know happened, so far, is that the balls were under-inflated during and after the game.  What we don't know is at what point they became under-inflated or how.  It seems to me that with the quantity and quality (hello HD!) of cameras at every NFL game, and especially a playoff game, it should be too hard to go through the footage and find some suspicious looking activity with a ball boy and Brady or something like that.  (You're probably not going to see him pull a pump and needle out of his sock while looking over his shoulder suspiciously, but you might see something)

Why do you think the balls remain in view of cameras?  Are they tested on the sidelines?  Do they stay there throughout the game?  Are the cameras on them continuously for 135 minutes prior to the game?

But if you're right, that should come out in the investigation.  The Patriots should say "hey, just check the tape."  So absent that, I think the likelihood is that there are opportunities to change the ball pressure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Now, absent that, let me submit to you an alternate theory, and you tell me why it's not plausible:

Aaron Rodgers has admitted that he attempts to over-inflate his balls and that the refs take air out of them "all the time."  If the refs never let one slip by, why would he bother to over-inflate his balls every single time?  Doesn't it seem reasonable that he occasionally gets some through into the games?  Remember, it's the referee who is testing these - don't make me go back through the thread and quote all of the posts where everybody talks about how stupid and incompetent the referees are.  Isn't it entirely possible that they sometimes screw this up too, and Rodgers knows that and that is why we always tries to get the over-inflated balls into the games?

So, isn't it also possible that is exactly what the Patriots did here - and it just so happened to work?  I mean, 11 of the 12 balls?  Not one or two or 6, but 11?

asdf

Anything is possible.  But what is more likely?  That the Patriots presented deflated balls to the refs and they failed to notice that 11 of them were 16% under the minimum PSI, or that the patriots deflated the balls after the refs checked?  I think the later because 1) the patriots have displayed a propensity to cheat; 2) it involves fewer assumptions; 3) this alternative story would be in the team's benefit, but they deny deflating balls completely; 4) there's no evidence that Rodgers ever successfully got a fat ball through the refs; 5) what about that 12th ball?  Why wasn't that deflated?  The incomplete job suggests haste.

I don't think refs are stupid and incompetent.  I think they have really hard jobs and do it reasonably well.  But we're not talking about a split second call that when slowed down and put on the HD Jumbotron look wrong, we're talking about testing balls two hours before the game starts.  As easy as telling time.   If the NFL comes out and says they were tested and conforming prior to the game, you're going to assume that they're incompetent before you believe that the patriots did something untoward?

Remember,

Quote:

"I didn't see it. I mean, he spikes it every time he scores, so I don't know if that's flagrant or what," Brady told WEEI-AM on Nov. 14, 2011, via ESPN.com . "When Gronk scores -- it was like his eighth touchdown of the year -- he spikes the ball and he deflates the ball. I love that, because I like the deflated ball. But I feel bad for that football, because he puts everything he can into those spikes."

clearly, he's joking about Gronk deflating the balls, but this shows that he likes deflated balls.  Its possible he could have been joking about that.  But we know its an advantage, we know he's said he likes it that way, and we know 11 of the 12 balls he used violated the rules in that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Now wait a second.  We've already got Aaron Rodgers on record as saying he likes them over-inflated but nobody else probably does.  If we believe him, then that means that if he did something like this in the Super Bowl he would be creating an advantage for himself and a disadvantage for everybody else, no?  So how do we know that this wasn't something that Johnson specifically preferred and nobody else did?  This is blatant cheating.  Until we get an answer on the Patriots situation, this is actually far worse.  And you suggesting otherwise really takes away from the quality of some of your other posts here.  You made a good point about Rodgers being different, and I stipulated and even came up with an example as to why you were right, but this is ridiculous.  And the fact that it's now legal has no relevance at all.

Three things.  First, the fact that Brad Johnson admits to having broken a rule 15 years ago doesn't mean we can't punish someone for doing the exact same thing today.  That can really be the end of it.  The fact that Mark McGwire juiced didn't make it okay for Barry Bonds to juice.  As soon as you start justifying your actions by pointing to another cheater, you lose.

Second, has three subparts.  A - what was actually done by Brad Johnson is acceptable now.  Tom Brady got the NFL to change the rule to allow them to scuff up the balls.  So Brad Johnson did something that was illegal, but is now legal, so Tom Brady should not be punished for doing something else that is still illegal?  (maybe this is the same as above) B - If similar procedures were applied, the balls were inspected after he scuffed them up and deemed fit for play--not altered after the inspection.  In other words, its more similar to what Rodgers did.  C - Both teams played that super bowl with the same ball.  Sure, its possible that the other team didn't like it.  And yes, it was wrong.  But here the other team only had an opportunity to catch them because they intercepted the ball.  Its like the difference between throwing a spit ball and using steroids--you reach a different level when you're doing something that can't be detected by the opponent.

Third, the patriots were caught!  If Brad Johnson was caught, he presumably would have been penalized.  That's how cheating works.  You might get away, or you might get punished.

Why are you so ready to assume that the other team didn't benefit equally from what BJ did?  Why will you call that "blatant cheating" but not when a proven cheater does something that gives his team an advantage over the other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

---

Speaking of Aaron Rodgers (from this story posted about him):

Ummm ... what?

Yeah, he doesn't make any sense trying to characterize his preference as something other than an advantage.

[GolfLug]

I don't get it. Just heard on the radio on a talk show that at half time the balls (possibly all 12 now) were found to be deflated (inspection done by all game officials). They inflated them to correct pressure and put them back in play. What am I missing here? So all the referees, game officials including the linesmen knew this at half time and nobody blows a whistle?????

I am admittedly a novice at anything football so I am genuinely perplexed at the whole situation.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GolfLug

I don't get it. Just heard on the radio on a talk show that at half time the balls (possibly all 12 now) were found to be deflated (inspection done by all game officials). They inflated them to correct pressure and put them back in play. What am I missing here? So all the referees, game officials including the linesmen knew this at half time and nobody blows a whistle?????

I am admittedly a novice at anything football so I am genuinely perplexed at the whole situation.

I thought they took out one ball when the half started.  That's what deadspin said, and they had a video.

But if the version you heard is correct, I just think there isn't anything the refs can do at that point.  The penalty isn't yardage, its fines and such.

---

And lets just forget the notion that the Patriots just got lucky when the atmosphere improved the condition of their balls but not the colts

Quote:

The chair of Boston College’s physics department is shooting down claims that cold weather could be the reason some of the footballs used on the field Sunday evening during the New England Patriots’ 45-7 drubbing of the Indianapolis Colts may have been deflated.

“The pressure loss due to the temperature alone cannot be the issue in my mind,” said BC physics professor Michael J. Naughton, after plugging temperature data into a formula that calculates pressure loss. “If the footballs were notably lower pressure, then the only way it could have happened was if someone went in and stuck a needle in the ball and let two-thirds of the gas out, which means it is now up to the NFL to follow the chain of command — but no logical physics can explain the kind of pressure loss they’re talking about.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/01/physicist_cold_weather_couldn_t_have_deflated_patriots_footballs

[Golfingdad]

Why do you think the balls remain in view of cameras?  Are they tested on the sidelines?  Do they stay there throughout the game?  Are the cameras on them continuously for 135 minutes prior to the game?

I don't think or know any of this.  I just assume that there are always some cameras on all of the time.  As far as the 2 hours before the game - who knows?  You got me there, I have no idea.

Anything is possible.  But what is more likely?  That the Patriots presented deflated balls to the refs and they failed to notice that 11 of them were 16% under the minimum PSI, or that the patriots deflated the balls after the refs checked?  I think the later because 1) the patriots have displayed a propensity to cheat; 2) it involves fewer assumptions; 3) this alternative story would be in the team's benefit, but they deny deflating balls completely; 4) there's no evidence that Rodgers ever successfully got a fat ball through the refs; 5) what about that 12th ball?  Why wasn't that deflated?  The incomplete job suggests haste.

I don't know that either is more likely, they both are perfectly plausible.  I suppose if you put a gun to my head - considering that AR says that they deflate his balls (hehe) "all the time" - I'd have to put my money on the latter as well.  However, I have a one to pick with your "1)" comment here.  The only person we've known who has a propensity to cheat is Belicheck, and you've already stated (and I agree) that something like this would be per Brady's preference - he would have to be involved somehow.  He has not displayed a propensity to cheat unless you consider that he didn't demand a trade when the taping scandal came out as complicity.

Regarding 3) ... good point.  Although, is it accurate?  I haven't read any denials anywhere, only "no comment" type stuff.

4)  Stipulated.  I'm assuming again here because why would he keep trying and trying if it never worked?  That's the definition of insanity, right? ;)

5)  I don't know

I don't think refs are stupid and incompetent.  I think they have really hard jobs and do it reasonably well.

This is nice to hear.  You and I are in the minority on this one.

Three things.  First, the fact that Brad Johnson admits to having broken a rule 15 years ago doesn't mean we can't punish someone for doing the exact same thing today.  That can really be the end of it.  The fact that Mark McGwire juiced didn't make it okay for Barry Bonds to juice.  As soon as you start justifying your actions by pointing to another cheater, you lose.

Second, has three subparts.  A - what was actually done by Brad Johnson is acceptable now.  Tom Brady got the NFL to change the rule to allow them to scuff up the balls.  So Brad Johnson did something that was illegal, but is now legal, so Tom Brady should not be punished for doing something else that is still illegal?  (maybe this is the same as above) B - If similar procedures were applied, the balls were inspected after he scuffed them up and deemed fit for play--not altered after the inspection.  In other words, its more similar to what Rodgers did.  C - Both teams played that super bowl with the same ball.  Sure, its possible that the other team didn't like it.  And yes, it was wrong.  But here the other team only had an opportunity to catch them because they intercepted the ball.  Its like the difference between throwing a spit ball and using steroids--you reach a different level when you're doing something that can't be detected by the opponent.

Third, the patriots were caught!  If Brad Johnson was caught, he presumably would have been penalized.  That's how cheating works.  You might get away, or you might get punished.

Why are you so ready to assume that the other team didn't benefit equally from what BJ did?  Why will you call that "blatant cheating" but not when a proven cheater does something that gives his team an advantage over the other?

Make no mistake, I'm not using the Brad Johnson thing as justification for the Patriots.  I'm just asking why you are saying "it's different?"  You think the Patriots thing is cheating and deplorable (even though not proven yet) and I'm asking you why you don't also think Brad Johnson isn't considered cheating and deplorable?  I actually think the BJ think isn't that big of a deal, but I also feel that way about the Patriots thing too at this point.

And your "It's acceptable now" argument makes no sense.  If they made taping other teams' sidelines legal next year, or in five or ten, would that make it OK for the Patriots to have done it 15 years ago?  Of course not.

---

Now, when do we get to start talking about the awesome new rule they're testing out at the Pro Bowl - making the goal posts 54" narrower and making extra points 33/34 yards long?  Assuming that if you announce you want to go for two that they'll still let you start at the 2 yard line, I feel like this is an awesome change that will do nothing but add excitement.  Harder field goals and extra points can only lead to more attempts at going for it on fourth down and going for a two point conversion, right?  I'm excited about this (if it sticks).

[GolfLug]

I thought they took out one ball when the half started.  That's what deadspin said, and they had a video.

But if the version you heard is correct, I just think there isn't anything the refs can do at that point.  The penalty isn't yardage, its fines and such.

So, the refs find out that the balls were under inflated at half time but they had signed off the balls to be correct pressure before the game started. They just 'fix' it and it's to game back on???

If this violation (we can only assume it was willful at this point) is so serious where there are talks about a possibly DQ even from the SB then how is that there is nothing in the stipulations to stop proceedings or a more serious reaction of some kind AT THE TIME OF DISCOVERY??

I mean the game was done, trophy handed out,.. yeah balls were 'deflated' but oh well, what you gonna do ??

[saevel25]

I don't know that either is more likely, they both are perfectly plausible.  I suppose if you put a gun to my head - considering that AR says that they deflate his balls (hehe) "all the time" - I'd have to put my money on the latter as well.  However, I have a one to pick with your "1)" comment here.  The only person we've known who has a propensity to cheat is Belicheck, and you've already stated (and I agree) that something like this would be per Brady's preference - he would have to be involved somehow.  He has not displayed a propensity to cheat unless you consider that he didn't demand a trade when the taping scandal came out as complicity.

Would you count Mike Tomlin trying to trip a return guy having the propensity to cheat

Now, when do we get to start talking about the awesome new rule they're testing out at the Pro Bowl - making the goal posts 54" narrower and making extra points 33/34 yards long?  Assuming that if you announce you want to go for two that they'll still let you start at the 2 yard line, I feel like this is an awesome change that will do nothing but add excitement.  Harder field goals and extra points can only lead to more attempts at going for it on fourth down and going for a two point conversion, right?  I'm excited about this (if it sticks).

I don't mind making the goal post narrower. Making the extra point 33/34 points long is just stupid. They should just get rid of the extra point. You get 7 points on a TD, then just go straight to the kick off,  unless you go for the extra point to make it 8 points. That would require the same as going for 2 points in the current rules.

[Golfingdad]

Would you count Mike Tomlin trying to trip a return guy having the propensity to cheat

Or Gregg Wiliams bounty schemes, or the two or three different guys just this season suspended for intentionally trying to injure players, or the Jets assistant who tripped the player a could years back, or the 37 players that were suspended just in 2014 for drug use (some are rec drugs, and I wouldn't count them but couldn't sort them all out)?

Obviously, I completely agree with you (and was going to rebut @meenman 's article that said "why is it always the Patriots?" with this type of post - Answer:  it's not, not even close, you just want it to be) but I was just speaking in regards to the Patriots.

By the way, in the last 4 years the Seahawks have had players suspended 9 different times for violating the drug policy (one was only 1 game so I imagine that's a rec drug, but the rest were all 4 games) and the Patriots have 2.

So even if we stipulate that the Patriots cheated here then they're still behind in the "employees with a propensity to cheat" by a considerable margin.

I don't mind making the goal post narrower. Making the extra point 33/34 points long is just stupid. They should just get rid of the extra point. You get 7 points on a TD, then just go straight to the kick off,  unless you go for the extra point to make it 8 points. That would require the same as going for 2 points in the current rules.

Oh, that would be fine too.  I'm just thinking that any change to extra points is good, especially involving goal posts, which will also affect cowardly coaches kicking 50 yard field goals on fourth and 1 foot.

Oh wait, never mind, the coaches are still cowards, now it means they'll probably punt from the opposing teams 33 yard line instead.

[phan52]

Aaron Rodgers:

"The majority of quarterbacks, I would say more than half, are maybe on the other end of the spectrum and like it on the flatter side," he said on his show. "My belief is that there should be a minimum air-pressure requirement but not a maximum. There's no advantage, in my opinion -- we're not kicking the football -- there's no advantage in having a pumped-up football.

"There is, if you don't have strong grip pressure or smaller hands, an advantage to having a flat football, though, because that is easier to throw. So I think that is something they need to look at. There should be a minimum on the air pressure but not a maximum. Every game they're taking air out of the footballs I'm throwing, and I think that's a disadvantage for the way that I like them prepped."

So, Aaron Rodgers thinks it should be OK to over-inflate footballs because that is the way he likes it, but they shouldn't be allowed to take air out because the majority likes that.

What a self-serving bitch.

[dsc123]

The only person we've known who has a propensity to cheat is Belicheck, and you've already stated (and I agree) that something like this would be per Brady's preference - he would have to be involved somehow.  He has not displayed a propensity to cheat unless you consider that he didn't demand a trade when the taping scandal came out as complicity.

Totally fair.

Fine Brady, suspend Belicheck, I say.

Regarding 3) ... good point.  Although, is it accurate?  I haven't read any denials anywhere, only "no comment" type stuff.

I think BB said he has no idea why the balls were deflated.  If not, then even better, the pats don't even deny it!

Make no mistake, I'm not using the Brad Johnson thing as justification for the Patriots.  I'm just asking why you are saying "it's different?"  You think the Patriots thing is cheating and deplorable (even though not proven yet) and I'm asking you why you don't also think Brad Johnson isn't considered cheating and deplorable?  I actually think the BJ think isn't that big of a deal, but I also feel that way about the Patriots thing too at this point.

And your "It's acceptable now" argument makes no sense.  If they made taping other teams' sidelines legal next year, or in five or ten, would that make it OK for the Patriots to have done it 15 years ago?  Of course not.

Good point.  You're right that 1 and 3 didn't address why it was different.

Its a bit of an assumption, but a reasonable one I think, that the refs inspected the balls after BJ messed with them.  To me, that makes it different.  More like Rodgers.  And that the other team had an opportunity to notice.  As for the change in rules, I guess its the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum (fancy for wrong in itself vs wrong because its against the rules).  Both are equally against the rules.  But if we're saying now that there's nothing wrong with scuffing the ball and taking the shine off, we're acknowledging that the act isn't wrong in itself.  Maybe the unilateral nature makes it malum in se, but its still used by both sides.  I don't know, maybe you're right there, too.

Now, when do we get to start talking about the awesome new rule they're testing out at the Pro Bowl - making the goal posts 54" narrower and making extra points 33/34 yards long?  Assuming that if you announce you want to go for two that they'll still let you start at the 2 yard line, I feel like this is an awesome change that will do nothing but add excitement.  Harder field goals and extra points can only lead to more attempts at going for it on fourth down and going for a two point conversion, right?  I'm excited about this (if it sticks).

I'd rather them ditch the extra points and just let you go for a 2 point conversion or take the free 1.

By the way, in the last 4 years the Seahawks have had players suspended 9 different times for violating the drug policy (one was only 1 game so I imagine that's a rec drug, but the rest were all 4 games) and the Patriots have 2.

So even if we stipulate that the Patriots cheated here then they're still behind in the "employees with a propensity to cheat" by a considerable margin.

And don't forgot Smiling Pete's record at USC.  His record of breaking rules is longer than BB's.  What I hate the most about the patriots is that they're going to make me root for Pete Carroll.

[Golfingdad]

And don't forgot Smiling Pete's record at USC.  His record of breaking rules is longer than BB's.  What I hate the most about the patriots is that they're going to make me root for Pete Carroll.

On Bill Simmons podcast Monday they were laughing about how these might be two of the least liked teams in the league and were wondering how all of the non-affiliated people were going to root?

(A Patriots-Cowboys Super Bowl might involve more hate, but that's probably the only one. ;))

I'm not rooting for or against anybody in this one.  Hoping that they both play great and give us a memorable game. :)