Posted on 02/25/2015 10:52:34 AM PST by Colofornian
(Yeah, what is it with these Patriots? They bump up vs. these same pushovers year in, year out for six of their games...then whoever they are "in cozy" with ... schedule-wise...ensures they get a bunch of THE worst extra-division teams on top of that...)
Prime examples: 2013...when they played the 2-14 Texans & the 4-12 Bucs, 4-12 Falcons, 4-12 Browns...and NONE of the teams in their own division even had winning records that year...
2008...2-14 Chiefs, 2-14 Rams, 4-12 Seahawks, 5-11 Raiders & even 3 Western teams they played that year didn't have winning records (over half of their sched didn't)
2012...10 teams on their sched had losing records, including the 2-14 Jaquars...the Pats couldn't even beat 5-11 Cards that year...
In their 2011 Super Bowl appearance year, the Pats didn't even face a team that wound up with a winning record til November...didn't face a second team that wound up with a winning record til December...so wins over 5 teams with winning records that year -- including the playoffs...qualifies them for the SB? (No wonder they lost it!)
2007 and 2014 were about the only seasons they faced stiff schedules & even then more extra-division pushovers (3-13 Bucs in 09; 4-12 Bengals in '10)
So...I take it from the above is that your argument is the Pats essentially play in the "JV division" of the NFL...so no wonder they don't fumble as often?
...your mom I bet she misses you...
These 7 words were the only part of your post making any sense.
So thank you for the reminder...I'll call her.
Actually, the Patriots have been equal-opportunity cheaters. It doesn't even take "a winning streak" for them to rely on cheating:
LA Times, 4 weeks ago: Patriots' rule-bending goes back decades, to 'snow plow' game in 1982
(The Pats were 2-14 in 1982)!
Self-correction: Didn't face a team with a winning record til Oct. 30...a 2nd team with a winning record til November...& a 3rd team with a winning record til December...
(a) Brady's been playing vs. all those inner-division pushovers for 15 years! When you have it that easy, ya better have some stats to show for it!
(You yourself said in post #35: "...they play in the saddest, worst division in football. During this time period the Bills are the 4th worst team, the Dolphins have a losing record: 107-117, and the Jets have barely escaped break even going 113-111. They’ve won the AFC East outright 12 out of the past 14 seasons."
(b) It could be that the Pats have had a new physician "operating" along the sidelines since 2007.
(We hear he's quite good at his specialty of doctoring footballs! : ) )
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3259112/posts?page=31#31
Sadly though your whole deflategate ballghazi fumble fallacy is all based on the premise that 12 footballs were deflated which they were not. the only ball two pounds under was the ball that was in the unsupervised possession of the Indy colts. But you’ve ignored this fact In all your grandiose self absorbed spreadsheet of wasted time.
Well, hey, Edzo...you've earned a personal spreadsheet! (Congrats!)
And ya know, God loves you so much that you're never a "waste of time"...You personally are just that important! (No /s on this!)
| Edzo4's claims 'realified' | ||
| Edzo4's dubious claims... | My response... | Yet even Edzo4's cited source says... |
| "Sadly though your whole deflategate ballghazi fumble fallacy is all based on the premise that 12 footballs were deflated which they were not." | (Sorry, I never -- nor have I seen anybody -- claim that "12 footballs were deflated"; the claim has been out there for over a month now -- that 11 of the dozen balls were underinflated (not deflated)...and guess what? (These claims didn't originate with me) | "The NFL is investigating the Patriots after 11 of 12 game balls they used in their 45-7 win over the Indianapolis Colts were found to be underinflated." Per Report: Only one Pats football was badly underinflated |
| "...the only ball two pounds under was the ball that was in the unsupervised possession of the Indy colts. But you’ve ignored this fact" | (Well, so what if there was only a single ball that was a full "two pounds under"? And that the other 10 underinflated balls were less than that...what difference does that make?) | "Also, MANY [My note: not ALL] of the footballs bore the initials of AFC title game referee Walt Anderson. However, he was in charge of two other Patriots games this season, and the footballs from those games were kept in circulation, meaning it is possible footballs approved for other games wound up in the AFC Championship Game." Per Report: Only one Pats football was badly underinflated [My note: IoW, since Anderson initialed balls from two previous Pat games earlier in the season, it's possible that some balls from those earlier games were possibly re-introduced into the playoff game without having gone thru Anderson's specific pre-game inspection] |
| "...the only ball two pounds under was the ball that was in the unsupervised possession of the Indy colts. But you’ve ignored this fact." | Well, now that you've confused the entire scenario, it's difficult to say for sure what you're referencing that I've supposedly "ignored" -- but if I was reading this post of yours & went to your links...I'd come away with that you're somehow attempting to imply that only a single ball was underinflated...when even your own cited source says... (see -->) | Per Report: Only one Pats football was badly underinflated [What? Was there really some need to "deflate" that word "badly"?]...the article itself said: "Rapoport reported that the league found MANY of the footballS [My note: plural] were "just a few ticks UNDER THE MINIMUM of 12.5 PSI. |
What?
Do I really have to define "many footballs" for you per the very article you cited?
Do I really have to mention footballS is plural for you per the very article you cited?
Do I really have to tell you that ..."many footballs...under the minimum of 12.5 psi" is against the standards & rules of the NFL???
What? You gonna start getting on refs' cases for calling offsides? ('C'mon, Zebra! He was 'only' a few steps over the line of scrimmage!')
The NFL has already provided leeway: The rule says there's a full POUND of leeway [12.5 to 13.5].
And now you want to somehow...
...retroactively...
...arbitrarily...
...with full-blown arrogancy that the Pats can just well do as they damn well please with their own superimposed self-authority...
...remove these NFL standards and replace them with own self-designations? (And ONLY for the Patriots?)
Really?
Hey...just tell those Patriots, then, to "redraw" the line of scrimmage a few inches or a few feet wherever they want!
Tell those Pats to expand the seconds ("a few ticks") it takes to get off a play 83% of the time! (That'll reduce those delay of game penalties!)
Tell those Pats who are being substituted for that they actually now have a "few ticks" longer to get off the field...and that they won't be called for as many "illegal substitution" penalties...
All because Patriot fans seem to indicate that their team is so mighty they can now retroactively, arbitrarily, and arrogantly dictate to the league what the exact "ticks" should be on not only this rule, but ALL of the NFL rules!!!
I’m flattered but you really need to get a life, seriously. Seek profeessional help. Fact remains the only ball two pounds under was the one the colts had all other balls were checked by the refs. Other balls were a tick under and as has been proven over and over and over again on the multiple threads you have posted about ballghazi that a 1 lb change is psi would occur in a difference of 40 degrees if the NFL wants the balls at a certain psi at a certain temp they should change the rule. It does not as you would wish and so desperately try to “prove” with your hours of wasted effort and spreadsheets they cheated. And by your own admission a game in bad weather caused a thousand percent increase in the fumble rate. So GFYS I’m gonna go watch the replay greatest quaterback ever win his fourth superbowl cause of the worst call ever by a Superbowl coach. Also Pete Carroll coached for new england how about a whole new conspiracy theory with spreadsheets facts and diograms of how new england hired Carroll got him to Seattle just so he could make the bad call. That ought to jeep you busy for days.
Well, that sucks.
You should have searched harder for somebody to say it would occur in a difference of something higher than that...
'Twas 51 degrees at gametime...and the balls were discovered well before enough time on the clock to have gone by for that kind of temp drop [these games are 90 minutes per half ya know]
Other balls were a tick under...
(Oh, so last post you tried convincing us only ONE ball was under...no mention of these other 10 balls...and now on this post -- when your own sources are tossed in your face -- you finally concede this fact, eh?)
Ya know, illegal contact by a defender is only a "tick" longer than what is legal...
Many holds only become actual restraint because either the blocker or defender holds on to the opponent a few ticks longer...and it moves from just a bad blocking technique or bad defensive posture to an actual hold because once restraint kicks in, it's an actual hold...
But, hey, your extended defense is that those Patriot holds were...
...only a few ticks over...
...those delay of game calls on the Patriots?
...(Just a few ticks over before Brady got the play off)
...Illegal contact?
...Just a tick longer on the receiver as he was going out for the pass...
...Illegal substitution flag?
...Naw, the guy in the game being replaced hung around "a few ticks" longer -- but it was only a "few ticks"
(Hey, and while you're at it, the next time your fave Pat is called for either offensive or defensive pass interference, just turn to whoever you're watching the game with and say, "It was only a 'few ticks' early...that ref should have left that flag in his pocket.")
Same with your Pat punt coverage...Hey, if they happen to hit the punt returner a tick or two before he actually touches the ball...so what? (Was only a tick or two)
You’ve obviously never played sports. In wrestling and boxing you weigh in before the fight what you weigh during the fight is not measured. So as long as the boxer was a middle weight on the scale the day before the fight and a heavy weight during the fight it doesn’t matter its not against the rules and not cheating. The patriots followed the rules end of story. I mean its not like they were the Mormons they didn’t like the fact that if you have more than one wife you are cheating so they made up their own rules so they could pretend they weren’t cheating on their wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.