Are YOU ready for some FOOTBALL!


Off-Topic Discussions

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,621 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

houstonderek wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:

I think it is hard to put Peyton manning in the GOAT conversation due to his lack ability to win the big one, he only won one. Elway won 2 and Brett Favre ... Well his Int to TD ratio is not the best.

Comparing Brady to Montana is hard because they played in completely different eras and Montana certainly had more weapons than Brady did. The time they played in there was not really a salary cap and the Niners could hold onto their good players without much trouble. As for the "Tuck Rule" and other things about Brady's play you could go into a whole bunch of circumstances which could have go another way for other quarterbacks that helped them at the time. In Super Bowl XXIII the Cincinnati Bengals lost their best blocking back and short yardage back the night before because he did cocaine. Might have been a different game and Montana might have lost that game. But he did not. they played the game and he won. The world is full of what ifs. The "Tuck Rule" was a rule and it helped the Patriots have another chance to go to beat the Raiders ... but they still needed to make the plays to win the game and the rest of the games in the playoffs to get them to the Super bowl.

As for GOAT: Brady and Montana are neck and neck. then Bradshaw, Elway, Marino and Manning. Favre I would put after them in my own humble opinion.

I won't get into the deflate ball controversy. I am not biased at all and we don't know what is going on yet.

Sorry, but I'm not taking "I'm not biased at all" from a resident of the Boston 'burbs. ;-)

Okay so Elway is like Jim Kelley I am not sure I buy but I will let that go. You think Peyton Manning (or worse) Brett Favre is better than Elway?

Still not getting involved in deflate gate not worth the aggravation I know there are a lot of Patriots haters here who will be happy to jump on board what I consider a non issue. Aaron Rodgers already admitted on live television during a pregame interview that he has his balls over inflated. if it had been any other team no one would care and it would be considered sour grapes. More is coming out that may teams seem to do this stuff. All one has to do is look at the rules around this as being a non issue. The fine is 25K if you do it. Seems pretty obvious this has been going on for a while and the league did not care about it. Now that a light is shown into this dark corner we have pundits clamoring for firings and the like. Crazy I say. It is a possible advantage that I would gather a lot of teams take for granted to help their quarterbacks. If the League really cared about this then the officials would have control of the balls not the teams themselves during the game.
I think the league wants more scoring so they don't really want to change this as being able to deflate the balls allows more precise passes and less incompletions. Peyton Manning was the one who helped get this started and scoring has increased which people like. Scoring is the name of the game as it makes the game more exciting for the audience. I don't see the balls being inflated more or deflated more as a big issue. Just as I believe the League did not see it as a big issue until one reporter made it an issue and when he was questioned about it and asked if Aaron Rodgers and Green bay should be punished for their own indiscretions he backed off. (on 98.5 the sports hub interview this morning sorry no link.)
Oh and damn you HD for drawing me into this debate. But you called me out so I responded. ;)

Scarab Sages

houstonderek wrote:


They'll get a fine and lose some draft picks.

Underinflated balls didn't cause Indy to not show up, after all.

Yeah, that's kind of the way I see it.

I'm still interested in some of the details, though. Just from a math/engineering point of view. Would cold temps be enough to drop the pressure in the balls to make a difference? Without running numbers, my gut would say "no". But, we'll see.

Scarab Sages

NobodysHome wrote:
I'm a firm believer in maintaining the "illusion of integrity".

This, to me, is another aspect of it. Whether or not this is a real controversy, it reflects badly on the game as a whole. Part of that is the media's fault, methinks. They blow stuff out of proportion way to often.

Scarab Sages

As for a greatest QB listing: I'd definitely include Brady in the top 5. Despite my consideration that he's a complete ass as a person, he's still a damn good quarterback.

But I don't necessarily put up Superbowl wins as the end-all/be-all of QB greatness measurements. Which is why I would also include Peyton Manning and Farve on the lists as well.

Dark Archive

Aberzombie wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
I'm a firm believer in maintaining the "illusion of integrity".
This, to me, is another aspect of it. Whether or not this is a real controversy, it reflects badly on the game as a whole. Part of that is the media's fault, methinks. They blow stuff out of proportion way to often.

So how come the Illusion of Integrity of the game was not called into question when Aaron Rodgers admitted to over inflating the his balls? Seems a bit of a double standard as well as a mountain being created from a mole hill in this case because of the animosity the media has against Bill and the patriots because he does not like to talk to the media. Again my own humble opinion. I did not want to get into this but they keep pulling me back in :)

So if the Patriots lose draft picks shouldn't Green Bay also lose them by that argument? A fine I get but draft picks seems over board and how many other teams have been doing this? Because if you tell me Green bay and New England are the only ones I think you are lying to yourself or are naïve.

Scarab Sages

Gruumash . wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
I'm a firm believer in maintaining the "illusion of integrity".
This, to me, is another aspect of it. Whether or not this is a real controversy, it reflects badly on the game as a whole. Part of that is the media's fault, methinks. They blow stuff out of proportion way to often.

So how come the Illusion of Integrity of the game was not called into question when Aaron Rodgers admitted to over inflating the his balls? Seems a bit of a double standard as well as a mountain being created from a mole hill in this case because of the animosity the media has against Bill and the patriots because he does not like to talk to the media. Again my own humble opinion. I did not want to get into this but they keep pulling me back in :)

So if the Patriots lose draft picks shouldn't Green Bay also lose them by that argument? A fine I get but draft picks seems over board and how many other teams have been doing this? Because if you tell me Green bay and New England are the only ones I think you are lying to yourself or are naïve.

Well, like I stated earlier, I haven't much paid attention to football this year, and wasn't even aware of anything Aaron Rodgers had done. But would it be part of that "integrity" issue - if it violated a rule, then yes. And again, if it violated a rule, maybe Green Bay should be punished. But I never said anyone should lose draft picks. That was someone else. Maybe you should read more carefully before hurtling accusations.

And yes, it probably is a mountain out of a molehill situation. That's why I lamented how the media tends to blow things out of proportion. This is just the latest episode.

Dark Archive

Aberzombie wrote:

As for a greatest QB listing: I'd definitely include Brady in the top 5. Despite my consideration that he's a complete ass as a person, he's still a damn good quarterback.

But I don't necessarily put up Superbowl wins as the end-all/be-all of QB greatness measurements. Which is why I would also include Peyton Manning and Farve on the lists as well.

I see Peyton Manning being there. The reason why I mention the Super Bowl argument is more for the Marino argument. I think Marino should be on the list before Favre.

My list:

Montana Brady 1A and 1B
Manning
Marino
Johnny Unitas

Scarab Sages

Gruumash . wrote:

I think Marino should be on the list before Favre.

I can totally see this. And everyone always forgets about Johnny U. He was pretty bad ass.

Liberty's Edge

Aberzombie wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
I'm a firm believer in maintaining the "illusion of integrity".
This, to me, is another aspect of it. Whether or not this is a real controversy, it reflects badly on the game as a whole. Part of that is the media's fault, methinks. They blow stuff out of proportion way to often.

So how come the Illusion of Integrity of the game was not called into question when Aaron Rodgers admitted to over inflating the his balls? Seems a bit of a double standard as well as a mountain being created from a mole hill in this case because of the animosity the media has against Bill and the patriots because he does not like to talk to the media. Again my own humble opinion. I did not want to get into this but they keep pulling me back in :)

So if the Patriots lose draft picks shouldn't Green Bay also lose them by that argument? A fine I get but draft picks seems over board and how many other teams have been doing this? Because if you tell me Green bay and New England are the only ones I think you are lying to yourself or are naïve.

I haven't much paid attention to football this year

Funny how that happens when your team sucks. ;-)

*ducks*

Shadow Lodge

I think it's just being blown way out of proportion. It's just what the other 30 NFL markets are interested in before we see who wins the Super Bowl in two weeks and can start analyzing what our teams will do in the draft.

Otherwise we just have the standard Patriots soundbites and Marshawn Lynch silence for two weeks.

Dark Archive

Aberzombie wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
I'm a firm believer in maintaining the "illusion of integrity".
This, to me, is another aspect of it. Whether or not this is a real controversy, it reflects badly on the game as a whole. Part of that is the media's fault, methinks. They blow stuff out of proportion way to often.

So how come the Illusion of Integrity of the game was not called into question when Aaron Rodgers admitted to over inflating the his balls? Seems a bit of a double standard as well as a mountain being created from a mole hill in this case because of the animosity the media has against Bill and the patriots because he does not like to talk to the media. Again my own humble opinion. I did not want to get into this but they keep pulling me back in :)

So if the Patriots lose draft picks shouldn't Green Bay also lose them by that argument? A fine I get but draft picks seems over board and how many other teams have been doing this? Because if you tell me Green bay and New England are the only ones I think you are lying to yourself or are naïve.

Well, like I stated earlier, I haven't much paid attention to football this year, and wasn't even aware of anything Aaron Rodgers had done. But would it be part of that "integrity" issue - if it violated a rule, then yes. And again, if it violated a rule, maybe Green Bay should be punished. But I never said anyone should lose draft picks. That was someone else. Maybe you should read more carefully before hurtling accusations.

And yes, it probably is a mountain out of a molehill situation. That's why I lamented how the media tends to blow things out of proportion. This is just the latest episode.

I know you did not say they should but you did agree that the League more than likely would do that.

I am sorry it came out a lot harsher than I expected. I was not trying directing that you or anyone in particular and I am sorry when I reread it came out more accusatory then I wanted. My point was only that I think this issue is over inflated and seems like you agree with me on that point.

I would say if it the letter of the law then fines should be handed out but not draft picks. Again my own opinion. Also then if they are investigating they should investigate the whole league. Honestly I don't think fines or investigation is needed or wanted. I think because of the recent black eye the NFL got because of their lack of action on domestic violence may cause a knee jerk reaction towards these minor infractions which really I don't think hurt the integrity of the game nearly the way those issues continue to.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:

I think Marino should be on the list before Favre.

I can totally see this. And everyone always forgets about Johnny U. He was pretty bad ass.

I don't count anyone from the pre-merge. I pretty much stick to the SB era, and, by the time Unitas made it to a SB, he was the back up. Too few teams, barely any black athletes for much of the pre-merge era, etc. Plus, that dude that went from the Rams to the Eagles, Van Brocklin, was a better QB, frankly. He just played for the Eagles most of his career, unfortunately.

As to Marino, he's an honorable mention, but his lack of playoff success after his second season, in a relatively weak AFC back then, doesn't excite me. Elway actually made it a few times without much of a team around him before Davis showed up and took him to the Promised Land, so I put him ahead of Marino.

Favre broke all of Marino's records playing mostly in really, really cold games after November, and never really had a wide receiver pair as good as Duper and Clayton. Plus, he had those scrubs Bennett and Green, who was just as unimpressive as Sammy Winder (Denver) and whatever flavor of the day Marino had behind him (he only had one RB go for 1,000 yards in his career).

Dark Archive

Aberzombie wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:

I think Marino should be on the list before Favre.

I can totally see this. And everyone always forgets about Johnny U. He was pretty bad ass.

I think perhaps because he played most of his games before the Super Bowl? Whether we like it or not many of the standards of being the best is judged on winning the big game.

Dark Archive

houstonderek wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:

I think Marino should be on the list before Favre.

I can totally see this. And everyone always forgets about Johnny U. He was pretty bad ass.

I don't count anyone from the pre-merge. I pretty much stick to the SB era, and, by the time Unitas made it to a SB, he was the back up. Too few teams, barely any black athletes for much of the pre-merge era, etc. Plus, that dude that went from the Rams to the Eagles, Van Brocklin, was a better QB, frankly. He just played for the Eagles most of his career, unfortunately.

As to Marino, he's an honorable mention, but his lack of playoff success after his second season, in a relatively weak AFC back then, doesn't excite me. Elway actually made it a few times without much of a team around him before Davis showed up and took him to the Promised Land, so I put him ahead of Marino.

Favre broke all of Marino's records playing mostly in really, really cold games after November, and never really had a wide receiver pair as good as Duper and Clayton. Plus, he had those scrubs Bennett and Green, who was just as unimpressive as Sammy Winder (Denver) and whatever flavor of the day Marino had behind him (he only had one RB go for 1,000 yards in his career).

Duper and Clayton were hardly a Sterling Sharpe, Antonio Freeman, Andre Rison, Keith Jackson or Mark Chimura.

Brett Favre had much better teams around him then Marino. One could argue and I will that Favre had much better weapons than Marino. Elway went to a lot of Super Bowls before he won again with teams that were not as strong.

Favre made his one super bowl win where it was his defense and special teams which won the game not him yes he throw three TDs but his special teams Desmond Howard won the MVP for that game. Also Parcells did not really want to win that game as he was pissed off at the Krafts and hardly wanted to give them a win., Why else would he have kept Curtis Martin from running more in the second half and kept kicking the ball to Desmond Howard. The west Coast offense that Green bay was running at the time they did not need or want fantastic running backs. No Favre was a good quarterback but does not deserve the title of great. He was a gunslinger and was in the league a long time which was why he reached the records he had. I don't see him as making the players he had around him better like Marino did.

Liberty's Edge

Duper and Clayton were the first pair of WRs to both collect 1,000 yards in the same season on the same team in a much run happier league. And they did it on a team everyone played permanent nickel against, since the running game was a joke easily contained by a four man front. Say what?

;-)

Dark Archive

Neither is in the Hall of Fame. I would argue that their seasons were because of Marino not the greatness of themselves.

I think you are helping my argument for Marino ;)

Liberty's Edge

There are plenty of good players not in the HoF, and plenty that didn't deserve to be there inducted. HoF in any sport means nothing to me as long as Pete Rose isn't in Cooperstown ;-)


Conman the Bardbarian wrote:


Otherwise we just have the standard Patriots soundbites andMarshawn Lynch silence for two weeks.

Surely you mean the comedic greatness of him saying "I'm thankful" over and over for 5 minutes....I actually love it that he doesn't like to talk to the media. I think Baldwin and Sherman have that angle covered for Seattle.

Dark Archive

Ah but I still think Marino was the reason they are considered good receivers. I would say Brett Favre needed better weapons around him to make him great.

I would agree Pete does deserve to be in the HoF. But you can't separate baseball from football on that level? I mean the whole voting is different. I am not sure how many players who are in the HoF don't deserve to be there. While I agree there maybe some who are not in there who should be.


Jessica Price wrote:

Nope, they weren't...

...until it mattered.

I think if you picked the brain of most professional sports players and forced them be brutally honest most of them would tell you that until you have a game so far out of reach by blowing out the opposition to the point it's literally impossible for them to come back every moment always matters, and most of them are trying their best at all times so it's not like they can just turn it on any more than they already do at any other moment.

A team playing maybe the worst game they have played in years and getting outplayed for all but a few minutes coming back in the final moments by a very large collection of rare inexplicable blunders and extremely poor game management by the other team just isn't a good recipe for success.

Green Bay lost that game more than Seattle won it, and while they might not admit it I have feeling the players for Seattle know they got extremely lucky. There is no way they can play the next game like they did this one and win.


I think championships as the lone or just the key measure of success in sports is just plain stupid. Especially when judging individual players. And especially in football. Not only is the single game playoff format a near coin flip in the case of most top tier teams, but maybe football more then any other sport requires all the pieces to be in place, and a single great player can only account for so much. Yes the qb is the most important player on a team, but if he doesnt have anyone to throw to, to block for him, to run the ball, or someone to stop the other team and get him the ball back, he could be the god of football and it wouldn't matter.

In basketball, hockey or baseball, a great player can take over a game almost on their own. In football, if you gave peyton manning a jv highschool team and put them against a top tier highschool team, peyton would eat alot of dirt.

In addition, other sports have a multi game playoff format. You cant win on the strength of a single game, or even on 4 games, its closer to two dozen. In some ways its more exciting. Underdogs have a much larger chance in the nfl then other pro sports. Crazy things like a tight end bouncing an onside kick off his head, a backup reciever catching a miracle heave on his helmet, or a bs ruling on a nonsense call about 'tucking' the ball, arent what makes or breaks a team in a 7 game series. Or at least not just one of them. You get a lot more indication of who the 'better' team is then in a one and done game.

Both Peyton and Marino deserve to be in the conversation of the greatest ever, regardless of how many rings they wear. Hell, both of them for much of their career barely had a team around them, gaining the success they did with what amounts to smoke and mirrors. If anything that kind of performance is worth MORE someone who say had the luxary of throwing to likes of jerry rice, or having the 1970s steelers to back them up.

You need to look at the player, what they were able to do and what tools they had to work with and who they were working against. Super bowl rings should barely register in a coherent discussion about the all time great players in the nfl.

Heck by that measure, eli manning is a dramatically better quarter back then tom brady. He beat him in 2 superbowls after all, and thats all that matters right? 2 for 2 in the only game that matters...so end of discussion? Eli manning should get brady's seat in the hall of fame? Mind you I love eli, I am a die hard giants fan, but he isnt a better QB then brady, or his big brother. But by the superbowl measuring stick, he is. And that doesn't make any sense.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

houstonderek wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:

I know some QBs have strong feelings on the ball inflation, but I doubt that it had much impact in a 45-7 blowout.

As a Seahawks fan, I look forward to the game; it should be a good one. Some commentators say the Seahawks won't be able to match up with the Pats because they don't know what's coming, whether NE will pass, run, or come out in some crazy formation. That's okay by us. What has made the Seahawks successful lately has been playing their own game as well as they can and betting that the opponent can't make enough successful plays against a relatively simple system executed with speed, strength, and precision, and without making mistakes that allow the Seahawks to pounce with an explosive play.

Will it work in the Superbowl? We'll see...

Let's see, four INTs from Wilson. I'd say the only reason you won is because McCarthy was too much of a wimp to go for it, twice, on fourth and goal from the one, and some idiot mishandled an on-side kick. Basically, Seattle just waited for Green Bay to implode and make their multitude of mistakes irrelevant. Green Bay kicked Seattle all over the field for 57 minutes, then got lazy. Seattle's "speed, strength, and precision" were not a factor.

I should preface my response with the statement that I was referring to Seattle's defense, in counterpoint to the Pats' versatile offense and game-planning. The Seahawks defense played a fantastic game on Sunday by every statistical measure. The Seahawks rarely blitz or show unbalanced fronts. They play a vanilla Cover 3 on the majority of downs and trust that their execution of the basic principles of the defense will prevent big plays, slow down opposing offenses to a crawl, and make them slog up the field only with great effort and execution of their own, with the implied wager that their defense will stop or take away the ball before the opponent's offense - whatever offense they try to run - is able to score. That's led to the lowest points-against average in the NFL three straight seasons, the first time that's happened since the Purple People Eaters in 1969-71. It doesn't ALWAYS work against every team, but it's been a pretty successful formula.

That's just if we're talking defense, though.

As to the broader concept about Seattle as a team, consider that in terms of imploding, the Packers had the benefit of the Seahawks imploding for 57 minutes and were unable to capitalize on that opportunity. When a QB who has thrown only 7 INTs all season and 1 playoff INT in his career suddenly throws four in one game (two on tipped passes), that's a statistical outlier that Green Bay certainly should have been able to turn to their advantage.

But a team is not just one player, and despite Wilson and his receivers making repeated (and, statistically speaking, uncharacteristic) errors, the other 40-something guys on the team continued playing with strength, speed, and precision and kept the game within reach preventing Green Bay from taking full advantage of the opportunities handed to them by Seahawks mistakes.

If the Seahawks were lucky that Green Bay made mistakes in tactics and execution in the last 5 minutes of the game, the Packers were lucky that Seattle did the same in the first 55 minutes of the game. The difference is that one team did more with their opportunities than the other one did.

Here is a much more thorough comparative analysis of the relative performance of the two teams in the game.

Liberty's Edge

Gruumash . wrote:

Ah but I still think Marino was the reason they are considered good receivers. I would say Brett Favre needed better weapons around him to make him great.

I would agree Pete does deserve to be in the HoF. But you can't separate baseball from football on that level? I mean the whole voting is different. I am not sure how many players who are in the HoF don't deserve to be there. While I agree there maybe some who are not in there who should be.

Seeing as he put up sick numbers with the Jets and Minnesota, I'm not so sure about that.


houstonderek wrote:
Gruumash . wrote:

Ah but I still think Marino was the reason they are considered good receivers. I would say Brett Favre needed better weapons around him to make him great.

I would agree Pete does deserve to be in the HoF. But you can't separate baseball from football on that level? I mean the whole voting is different. I am not sure how many players who are in the HoF don't deserve to be there. While I agree there maybe some who are not in there who should be.

Seeing as he put up sick numbers with the Jets and Minnesota, I'm not so sure about that.

I agree he had one good year with Minnesota, his numbers with the Jets and his second in Minnesota were not very good at all, he was a great quarterback don't get me wrong but his Jets and Minnesota years were not his best years at all! and for the record i much prefer Aaron Rodgers to Favre, that guy was an a*+!**~

of course Russell Wilson is better then both of them:-p
and as the rare Badger and Seahawks fan (thats short-ish) i'm totally biased there:-)

Scarab Sages

houstonderek wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:


I haven't much paid attention to football this year

Funny how that happens when your team sucks. ;-)

*ducks*

Which team?

New Orleans? Yep, they blew goats.

Houston (since I live here now)? Yep, the blew other goats.

LSU (college, but still)? You guessed it...more goat blowing.

Seriously, truth be told, this last year and a half has been one long series of adjustments for us. Regular football watching was one of those things that fell victim to "I've got more important s!!+ to do".

Scarab Sages

Gruumash . wrote:
....but you did agree that the League more than likely would do that.

Ah, yes. That was more directed at HDs "underinflated balls" vs "Indy not showing up" comment.

Scarab Sages

And now it's becoming the next great EARTH SHATTERING CONTROVERSY!

Super Bowl Winning QB Says He Altered Balls, Too

Scarab Sages

I'm gonna start a rumor that some QB dipped his balls in Cyanide and made sure all his team wore gloves.

Scarab Sages

Of course, this is the other, fun aspect of the story - we get to see how many variations on the theme of 'football players doing something to their balls' the media can come up with.


There is an often-repeated parable that goes something like this:

"Yes, of course we cheat! We cheat, they cheat, everybody cheats, and everyone knows we all cheat. But if someone is caught cheating, it means they are cheating poorly, and thus they must be made an example of. For there is nothing so offensive as someone who attempts to do something under-handed, and does it poorly, because it makes all of us look bad."

As for the whole "Best quarterback ever" debate, I'd just say:
(1) Post-season quarterback rating.
(2) Post-season winning percentage.
(3) Career quarterback rating.
(4) Career winning percentage.
(5) Number of championships.

There are intangibles that can never be measured, and those intangibles are what make such debates great. I believe it was Roger Craig who said of Joe Montana, "It would be late in the game, and he would just get this light in his eyes, and you knew right then you were going to win. And it didn't matter what the score was, nor how much time was left, because Joe had the lights on, and we were going to win."

That's the kind of thing that can never be measured by stats: How much better did the quarterback make the players around him? People love to say, "Montana had Rice and Taylor!", but that doesn't explain 1981 or 1984...


Joe Montana may be the S!+!
but Dick Trickle is an American Hero:-p
i've never liked Brady


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, it's getting more interesting...

- A Yahoo! sports hack, er, "writer" tested ball deflation and claims it made a measurable difference in his performance.

- I was wrong in my previous statement that "each team uses the same balls". Turns out only the New England offense used those balls.

So I'll repeat: I fundamentally do not believe that the ball-underinflation had an impact on the game result. But it's too prevalent (11 of 12 balls), too consistent (-2 PSI each), and too consistent with Belichick's history of pushing the boundaries of the rules to claim it's unintentional.

So yet again the Pats have been caught intentionally tampering. Yet again it's the appearance of impropriety that's important.

I find that I am now fascinated in watching how this plays out...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

........ with Richard Sherman grinding Tom Brady's face and legacy into the Arizona turf (hopefully that is, its the Seahawks so they could easily choke, in fact last year we didn't let ourselves believe they would actually win until the final whistle blew:p)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
........ with Richard Sherman grinding Tom Brady's face and legacy into the Arizona turf (hopefully that is, its the Seahawks so they could easily choke, in fact last year we didn't let ourselves believe they would actually win until the final whistle blew:p)

I can only imagine how seahawks fans felt last weekend with that rediculous ending. Probably even more astounded and overjoyed then i felt in the Giants last two superbowls. That onside recovery feels like it will rival the helmet catch in the wtf omg moments of recent nfl history. Here's hoping you join that 'beat that pats in the superbowl club'. If you do, see if you can get a hold of the losing team hats they throw away. My literal favorite possession is a 19-0 Patriots superbowl hat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
........ with Richard Sherman grinding Tom Brady's face and legacy into the Arizona turf (hopefully that is, its the Seahawks so they could easily choke, in fact last year we didn't let ourselves believe they would actually win until the final whistle blew:p)
I can only imagine how seahawks fans felt last weekend with that rediculous ending. Probably even more astounded and overjoyed then i felt in the Giants last two superbowls. That onside recovery feels like it will rival the helmet catch in the wtf omg moments of recent nfl history. Here's hoping you join that 'beat that pats in the superbowl club'. If you do, see if you can get a hold of the losing team hats they throw away. My literal favorite possession is a 19-0 Patriots superbowl hat.

My brother went to Africa and searched far and wide for a "Broncos defeat Seahawks jersey" for his girlfriend (she's a Broncs fan, he's a Seahawks fan). His impression is that the NFL donates all the "wrong" gear to poor countries in Africa. But he didn't find any, so instead he climbed Mount Kilimanjaro...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
........ with Richard Sherman grinding Tom Brady's face and legacy into the Arizona turf (hopefully that is, its the Seahawks so they could easily choke, in fact last year we didn't let ourselves believe they would actually win until the final whistle blew:p)
I can only imagine how seahawks fans felt last weekend with that rediculous ending. Probably even more astounded and overjoyed then i felt in the Giants last two superbowls. That onside recovery feels like it will rival the helmet catch in the wtf omg moments of recent nfl history. Here's hoping you join that 'beat that pats in the superbowl club'. If you do, see if you can get a hold of the losing team hats they throw away. My literal favorite possession is a 19-0 Patriots superbowl hat.

My brother went to Africa and searched far and wide for a "Broncos defeat Seahawks jersey" for his girlfriend (she's a Broncs fan, he's a Seahawks fan). His impression is that the NFL donates all the "wrong" gear to poor countries in Africa. But he didn't find any, so instead he climbed Mount Kilimanjaro...

Is it weird that I got my hat from a friend who did the exact same thing successfully and then also climbed mount kilimanjaro?

Liberty's Edge

NobodysHome wrote:

Well, it's getting more interesting...

- A Yahoo! sports hack, er, "writer" tested ball deflation and claims it made a measurable difference in his performance.

- I was wrong in my previous statement that "each team uses the same balls". Turns out only the New England offense used those balls.

So I'll repeat: I fundamentally do not believe that the ball-underinflation had an impact on the game result. But it's too prevalent (11 of 12 balls), too consistent (-2 PSI each), and too consistent with Belichick's history of pushing the boundaries of the rules to claim it's unintentional.

So yet again the Pats have been caught intentionally tampering. Yet again it's the appearance of impropriety that's important.

I find that I am now fascinated in watching how this plays out...

Inflate a ball to 14.5 PSI (the minimum) in a room at 72 degrees, have them inspected inside, then take them outside into freezing weather. Let ideal gas law do its thing. "Cheating" without cheating. Voila.


Kolokotroni wrote:
I can only imagine how seahawks fans felt last weekend with that rediculous ending. Probably even more astounded and overjoyed then i felt in the Giants last two superbowls. That onside recovery feels like it will rival the helmet catch in the wtf omg moments of recent nfl history. Here's hoping you join that 'beat that pats in the superbowl club'.

It felt like my puppy had died and then suddenly and inexplicably jumped up wagging it's tail. I went from complete sadness to manic exuberance in a matter of a few seconds.

If the Pats win it will always have an asterisk to go with it.

I do thinks this is a tough position for position match up for the Hawks but they always seem to find ways to win.


houstonderek wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

Well, it's getting more interesting...

- A Yahoo! sports hack, er, "writer" tested ball deflation and claims it made a measurable difference in his performance.

- I was wrong in my previous statement that "each team uses the same balls". Turns out only the New England offense used those balls.

So I'll repeat: I fundamentally do not believe that the ball-underinflation had an impact on the game result. But it's too prevalent (11 of 12 balls), too consistent (-2 PSI each), and too consistent with Belichick's history of pushing the boundaries of the rules to claim it's unintentional.

So yet again the Pats have been caught intentionally tampering. Yet again it's the appearance of impropriety that's important.

I find that I am now fascinated in watching how this plays out...

Inflate a ball to 14.5 PSI (the minimum) in a room at 72 degrees, have them inspected inside, then take them outside into freezing weather. Let ideal gas law do its thing. "Cheating" without cheating. Voila.

This was pretty much my feeling towards this controversy. If the balls get inspected by officials before the game (and they should be), then they have no one to complain with but the offical's staff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Captain America Vs Star Lord superbowl bet.


houstonderek wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:

Well, it's getting more interesting...

- A Yahoo! sports hack, er, "writer" tested ball deflation and claims it made a measurable difference in his performance.

- I was wrong in my previous statement that "each team uses the same balls". Turns out only the New England offense used those balls.

So I'll repeat: I fundamentally do not believe that the ball-underinflation had an impact on the game result. But it's too prevalent (11 of 12 balls), too consistent (-2 PSI each), and too consistent with Belichick's history of pushing the boundaries of the rules to claim it's unintentional.

So yet again the Pats have been caught intentionally tampering. Yet again it's the appearance of impropriety that's important.

I find that I am now fascinated in watching how this plays out...

Inflate a ball to 14.5 PSI (the minimum) in a room at 72 degrees, have them inspected inside, then take them outside into freezing weather. Let ideal gas law do its thing. "Cheating" without cheating. Voila.

This has already been addressed.

Next excuse?

EDIT: I'd say I'm not trying to be snarky, but really, I am. I see a multitude of excuses from, "They would have won anyway", to, "Who cares?", to "Ideal gas law, stupid."
I'm on the "lawful" side of "lawful good". I really don't care who wins the Super Bowl at this point. I'm just tired of hearing, "Oh, the Pats did this, which sounds like it was cheating, but it wasn't really cheating because xxx..."
If you're accused of cheating THAT often, and some of the allegations have already proven true, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove you didn't.

The Steelers were accused of cheating in the 70's. They addressed every allegation, and no proof was found. The Niners were accused of cheating in the 80's. Ditto. Every successful team is accused of cheating.

The trouble with the Pats is that every time they get accused of something, they keep finding physical evidence that they DID it.

There's nothing worse than a bad cheater.


A final tirade and I'll let it go for the evening, or at least until anything new comes out.

I was talking with my friend, who happens to be in Boston at the moment, and again we ended up in an argument over how the deflation could have happened, and I realized I'm coming across way too strong.

So, here goes:


  • I have yet to see a single non-human explanation as to how the balls became underinflated. Temperature change alone can't explain the change. If the referees used a faulty pressure gauge before the game, that would have come to light already. If no one checked at all, then the NFL absolutely deserves this black eye. I mean, c'mon! Not checking the equipment at all for a playoff game!?!?
  • Given either human intent or error, my *opinion* is that Belichick's history of pushing the rules and seeking any edge, no matter how minor, speaks against him.
  • However, I cannot possibly see a situation in which they have concrete proof that someone let air out of the footballs between the pre-game check and halftime. And you don't levy million-dollar fines or take away draft picks on supposition and innuendo. No proof = no punishment.

So *if* they can prove human interaction and intent, the punishment should be at least double Spygate. I just don't see that happening in any reasonable manner.

The point at which I get "all het up" is when people say, "So what if they did do it? It didn't change the game! Everyone else does it!"

As I mentioned to my friend, how would Bostonians feel if they lost a playoff game to the Yanks 14-0 and learned after the game that the Yankee pitcher had been using a slightly softer ball? Would they quietly sit back and say, "Well, OUR pitchers gave up 14 runs, so it really didn't matter."

I somehow doubt it...

EDIT: Yeah, yeah, my two posts seem like they're contradicting each other. It's been a couple of hours. With age comes wisdom and all that...

Scarab Sages

houstonderek wrote:


Inflate a ball to 14.5 PSI (the minimum) in a room at 72 degrees, have them inspected inside, then take them outside into freezing weather. Let ideal gas law do its thing. "Cheating" without cheating. Voila.

This was my original thinking, but then I saw the article saying they reported as much as 2 psi below minimum. Temp changes probably wouldn't account for that much difference.

And I saw something today that Belichek is claiming no knowledge of what went down, saying it was a Brady thing.


Caineach wrote:
Captain America Vs Star Lord superbowl bet.

So we'll be seeing Captain America visiting a hospital soon (if I read that right)?

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had originally dismissed the issue of the Patriots deflating footballs as being insignificant, and in the outcome of the AFC championship game with the Colts I doubt it made a big difference; 45-7 is 45-7. The bigger question is the suspicion that it's been a pattern.

I had been mostly thinking in terms of passing. A softer ball is easier to throw and catch, sure, but that seemed to be a bit of a personal preference thing. The larger issue I hadn't thought of until I heard a retired NFL running back talking about it was not about passing at all. It was about fumbles. The football is easier to hold and prevent defenders from dislodging it when it's underinflated.

Guess who leads the league over the last 5 years in fewest fumbles per play? The Patriots.

That's nothing surprising on its own; ball security involves some luck, but it's also a skill and a mindset that you can emphasize in practice, and some teams are better at it than others. A well-coached team like the Pats you'd expect to fare well at keeping the ball.

The surprising thing was that they weren't just first; they were first by a country mile. The gap between the Pats and the #2 team was the same as the gap between the #2 team and the #27 team in terms of plays per fumble. That's a statistical outlier, and one that correlates with the effect of an underinflated football.

Is that evidence of cheating? No, but it is an interesting data point in the fact pattern when people ask, "Who cares? What difference does it make anyway?"


Deflategate has given me so much material for my Tom Brady fan fiction.

Spoiler:
"I don't want anyone touching the balls after that. I don't want anyone rubbing them. To me, those balls are perfect," -Tom Brady

And before I get banned for that quote Tom is talking about footballs so get your mind out of the gutter!

Liberty's Edge

Aberzombie wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:


I haven't much paid attention to football this year

Funny how that happens when your team sucks. ;-)

*ducks*

Houston (since I live here now)? Yep, the blew other goats.

Hey, we were Cleveland playing eight more minutes of football away from the playoffs after going through all three roster QBs and a reject from last year. After a 2-14 season, we'll take that all day long!

One thing you'll learn about living in Houston is that we have low expectations for our teams and just enjoy that they're here. ;-)

Dark Archive

I for one am looking forward to what I expect to be a fantastic Super Bowl. of course I hope my team wins but I expect it to be well played and a tough contest.


Is your team the compulsive cheaters or the Adderall addicts:D

Dark Archive

My team is the Patriots.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,621 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Are YOU ready for some FOOTBALL! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.