What's that suppose to mean? (That the Pats weren't "good" pre 2007, when they went to the SuperBowl three times in about five years to kick off the new century???)
You know...sometimes...authors just don't think about what they write...in overall context I mean...
When you look at the odds of winning a game the team with the fewest turnovers int or fumbles has the best chance of winning.
Hence the emphasis on not turning the ball over Brady in 2nd to A Rogers in lowest INT % all time.
THe stats are the stats, but being a hater I understand your need to deflect.
BTW do you think the Nobel prizewinner in Chemistry is less credible than Wells hired guns who went from 2nd hand smoke being fine to try ing to twist data towards a preordained conclusion that got blown apart?
Where does that leave YOUR argument, balls weren’t tampered with deal with it. Your team isn’t close to the Pats.